Bankers Getting Toxic Assets For Bonuses

from the two-birds,-one-stone dept

Fri, Dec 19th 2008 5:41am — Mike Masnick

The various banks on Wall Street have a bunch of problems that they're dealing with right now, including getting rid of toxic assets on their balance sheet, properly compensating staff who are expecting big bonuses even in such a down year and figuring out ways to motivate staff to invest in good assets, even in such tough times. It appears that Credit Suisse Group may have come up with a creative solution to all of those things. Instead of cash bonuses this year, it's going to give employees some of those toxic assets it holds. This is incredibly creative for a variety of reasons. It starts to get some of those assets off the balance sheet. It gives them to employees who want bonuses, and it gives those employees quite the incentive to make sure those assets are actually worth something. Of course, since many of those employees recognize that the assets aren't worth much at all, many of them are pissed off, but it's pretty difficult to come up with any reason at all that they deserve any sort of bonus, so they're probably a lot better off accepting what they're given and seeing if they can actually make it worth something.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bonuses, toxic assets, wall street
Companies: credit suisse

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TMan, 19 Dec 2008 @ 7:09am

Makes some sense for the financial types, but for all employees? Not for the folks down in the computer room or the facilities peeps.

Also, what is Joe Blow going to do with these? If 'he' owns the security, then he doesn't have much facility to help somebody refinance their crappy loan - he doesn't have access to hundreds of thousands (minimum) in capital, so if the thing is going bad, what can he do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Markian, 19 Dec 2008 @ 7:15am
  
  Re:
  That's the wonderful thing about this. It forces Joe Blow to hold onto the assets until they either gain value through hard work by all employees, or go to zero. In either case, it was strictly a bonus, and was not part of a salary package, much like company matched 401K contributions. You did not earn that money, it was given to you, based on earnings of your company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow. Why don't you just swap out Markian for Moron?
    It does not matter how hard Joe Blow works. I repeat, IT DOES NOT MATTER.
    This is all about leaving your dirty filthy stinking laundry with the people who had the least to do with soiling it.
    
    Fucking disgusting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch, 19 Dec 2008 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The alternative, I assume, is no bonus. Employees would be angry either way (despite the meaning of the word "bonus"), but this way they get something that might be valuable someday, and the company benefits. It's better for everyone than no bonus would be.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You need to understand that what is better for someone is not always the same as what they want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mischab1, 19 Dec 2008 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  According to the linked article, this bonus isn't for all employees, just for senior staff.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Markian, 19 Dec 2008 @ 7:11am

Fantastic Idea
It's about time that someone came up with an idea that makes sense, and builds on the greed of Wall St. I wonder what the tax ramifications of this move would be, as it would be considered "compensation". Who determines the value of these assets and do they follow current market value, or an estimated value such as stock options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shane C, 19 Dec 2008 @ 7:54am

Re: Not for the folks down in the computer room or the facilities peeps
>Not for the folks down in the computer room or the facilities peeps

When do you think the last time people in the IT, or facilities were actually able to "demand" bonuses? I've worked "in the computer room" for many years. The only times that we saw bonuses was when management wanted to bait the hook in some way. Almost never were bonuses back-to-back years, and never did they reflect what management saw.

One year that there "wasn't enough margin for bonuses" I actually dug up the company propaganda that showed six months earlier the upper management all cheering because they had just closed the "best year ever," and were all looking to receive huge bonuses. Kinda puts things in perspective.

Generally speaking, people that work in "revenue spending departments" will never be able to "demand bonuses." The people that do "demand bonuses" actually have a lot more control over, and flexibility to use, and make profitable toxic assets. Thus reiterated by the article that mentions only "managing directors and directors" will be receiving the "toxic bonuses" (and probably the only ones receiving bonuses in general).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 8:17am
  
  Re: Re: Not for the folks down in the computer room or the facilities peeps
  Somewhat Troll-ish here, but I read your post and I see why John Stewart refers to the quotation gesture in spoken word as "dick-fingers". Just a comment on composition style, but you can have the intended effect without "gratuitous quote usage".
  
  Yes, I'm a troll, but I'm an anonymous troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 10:20am
    
    Re: Re: Re: Not for the folks down in the computer room or the facilities peeps
    Just a comment on composition style, but you can have the intended effect without "gratuitous quote usage".
    
    Poor Anon Cow, they are being a hipster.
    But you wouldn't understand if you:
    1. Teach Sunday School.
    2. Are a big fan of the suburbs and vinyl siding.
    3. Have a special "spill shirt" that you wear when you eat dinner at night.
    4. Read novels with raised lettering on their covers.
    5. Eat at Popeye's on a regular basis.
    6. You work in an office building that has a man-made pond or fountain in its front lot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phil McCraken, 19 Dec 2008 @ 10:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Re: Not for the folks down in the computer room or the facilities peeps
      what the hell are you talking about? And don't disrespect the suburbs, I am sure you were raised and educated in the suburbs and when you grow up and have kids you to will abandon your elitist urbanite attitude toward the suburbs, punk kid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2008 @ 11:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Re: Not for the folks down in the computer room or the facilities peeps
      Drat, I've got #1 and 6.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 8:14am

Terrible Idea
As nice as would be to think that would make the problem better, my fear is the opposite would be true. What do we think they are going to do with these Toxic Assets? "Seeing if they can actually make it worth something" Bankers don't have any way to add real value to them. The only "value" they can add is to repackage, re-sell (no value added, basically con someone else into buying them). The problem with giving the unscrupulous garbage is that they will turn around and re-sell. Granted that is a bit harder with the current economy, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lee, 19 Dec 2008 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: Terrible Idea
  Actually, no.
  
  Say they get given a property in a decent neighborhood. It doesn't cost them anything to acquire it.
  
  They can then undervalue the property and sell it to someone who can't currently afford a home based on current home values.
  
  They get cash,someone gets a home mortgage free.
  
  I don't see this as a bad thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 10:10am
    
    Re: Re: Terrible Idea
    You don't see that as a bad thing because that is not the reality of what is being given.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No bonus for me, 19 Dec 2008 @ 9:02am

Bone Us
Hopefully the toxins were (will be) administered to those who were most involved in their creation.
to wit - You made your bed, now sleep in it.

btw, Did that Merril Lynch dude get his 10 mil bonus he was whining about ? Haven't seen followup in the news about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 9:19am

I don't want to hear any BS about people bitching about bonuses. I work in the semiconductor industry and have not been paid by my company in over a month now. A paycheck would be a bonus for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 10:05am
  
  Re:
  Here is the deed for 10,000 shares of toxin assets. Now go away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gary, 19 Dec 2008 @ 10:17am

I like that idea. Wonder how they will value them for tax purposes as they (the employees) will have to pay values on the fair market value of those assets as ordianry income( compensation) Also those assets are not tied to any one asset they seem to be a basket of traied almost fund like. So as far as going and taking over a house good look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'bout time, 19 Dec 2008 @ 10:27am

The financial types created the mess with credit default swaps, loans that people were not capable of paying back, and the "editing" of paper work to ensure the loan went through. The executives singed off on it, and underwriting went along with it. Now they should all bear the burden of the mess the created, and instead of crying about bonuses be happy they have jobs. Additionally it was there lack of ethics, poor judgment, and greed that caused this. They should bear penalties too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2008 @ 11:13am

Simply awesome! I hope that each of these are given to the people who signed off on the ass-hat, er... asset.

"So Johnny, I see you approved this steaming pile of crap. Well, here you go, pehaps you can get it going in a nice bio-digester. Merry Cruxmas! Ho ho ha ha!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
World Cup Merchandise, 17 Jun 2010 @ 4:16am

your wesbite good, I enjoyed visiting here .... Soccer Shoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]