Bankers pay - The law of small(er) numbers

Pay at investment banks is starting to fall, but not because politicians have

capped it

Jan 4th 2014

NAUGHTY or nice is not a discussion investment bankers have with Santa before

Christmas but one they have with their bosses early in the new year. The

haggling usually opens with the boss saying what a tough year it has been and

the bankers, often experienced traders and dealmakers, talking about how

valuable they are. This year s negotiations will be unusually tense. At stake

will not simply be pay, an issue complicated by the introduction on January 1st

of a bonus cap in Europe, but also jobs.

After peaking at the end of 2010, employment in the investment-banking industry

has been declining steadily. Deutsche Bank reckons that the number of bankers

employed by the ten largest firms will fall by about 3,000 in 2014, leaving the

total 20% below its peak. Add in job losses at smaller firms and declines in

support staff, and total worldwide employment in the industry may fall by

20,000 this year.

Pay is dropping too. At Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase average pay slipped by

about 5% in the first nine months of last year, a figure that is probably

representative of the wider industry. Over the longer run, average pay at the

world s biggest investment banks has barely changed (see chart), which means it

has fallen slightly after inflation. The pace of pay cuts is likely to

accelerate, senior bankers say.

The biggest reason for the cutbacks is that after decades of growth in revenues

(punctuated by brief declines), the investment-banking industry is facing a

structural downturn. Regulators in America have banned banks from trading

securities for their own profit. Higher capital standards everywhere are

forcing investment banks to shrink their balance-sheets and regulations are

making banks move much of their derivatives trading from opaque and profitable

over-the-counter transactions onto exchanges and into central

clearing-houses, where fees are likely to fall.

Although final figures are not available, the investment-banking revenues of

the industry s biggest firms probably fell by about 5% in 2013, according to

Coalition, a data-provider. That leaves them about a quarter lower than their

peak in 2009.

In fact, the industry s revenues and profitability have fallen far more sharply

than pay and employment. McKinsey, a consultant, reckons that for the 13

biggest investment banks revenues have fallen by 10% a year since 2009, while

costs have dropped by just 1% a year. The main reason for this mismatch is the

relentless optimism of those who work in the industry. Most big banks hired

energetically after the financial crisis, hoping to gain a greater share of the

market as rivals cut back.

Another reason is the difficulty in making incremental cuts at investment banks

without shutting down whole departments. Trading businesses often have large

fixed costs such as computer systems and compliance departments that are

difficult to shrink. Simply thinning the numbers of traders and bankers often

results in revenues falling faster than costs.

A failure to cut costs fast enough means that the industry s profitability has

been ruined. Average returns on equity for the biggest investment banks slumped

to about 8% last year, according to McKinsey. Without deep cost cuts it reckons

this figure will fall to 4% by 2019. That sobering prospect is now prompting

deeper cutbacks, particularly at European banks such as UBS, Credit Suisse and

Royal Bank of Scotland which are getting out of whole lines of business. UBS,

for instance, has decided to get out of most debt trading and is trimming about

10,000 jobs.

Against this backdrop there is one part of bankers pay that is likely to rise.

New rules that came into force at the start of the year in Europe will prevent

banks from paying thousands of key employees bonuses that are bigger than their

annual salaries. The result will not be the cut in total pay that European

lawmakers expected. Instead banks have already figured out wheezes to work

around the rules.

The first is to bump up basic salaries while reducing the portion of pay

allocated to a bonus. This cuts against much of the work done by regulators to

tie bankers pay to performance and to defer large chunks of it so it can be

withdrawn if the bank subsequently does badly. In Britain, for instance, the

country s highest-paid bankers received bonuses in 2012 that were 3.8 times

their salaries.

Across the industry most big banks have signed up to international principles

under which 60% of bankers total pay should be deferred (and thus not part of

basic pay), according to Oliver Wyman, another consulting firm. That trend is

likely to reverse in Europe, bankers say. The more I pay in fixed, the less I

have to claw back, complains the boss of the European arm of a large

international bank. This doesn t do what the legislation wanted it to do.

A second wheeze being tried by international banks is to exploit a loophole

that allows them to pay bonuses that are twice as large as normally allowed if

shareholders approve this in a vote. Since many are structured as subsidiaries

whose only shareholder is their parent bank, getting shareholder consent is a

doddle.

Other ploys include paying monthly cash allowances or granting forgivable

loans that only have to be repaid if the banker leaves within a certain period

of time. The impact of these ruses will, however, be limited, mainly because of

relentless pressure on banks to cut pay to improve returns for shareholders.

After years of watching their employees naughtily pocket large cheques while

passing losses on to shareholders and taxpayers, the owners of banks are in no

mood to be nice.

From the print edition: Finance and economics