Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email


8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day


Powered by Squarespace


Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos




Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"

Get Our Videos By Email


Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
« Ratigan: Building A Case Against Geithner | Main | William K. Black: Attention Congress! Here's How to Solve the Wall Street Bonus Problem »

Simon Johnson: Tax The Bastard Bankers Until They Bleed And Cry For Mercy

Video:  Simon Johnson on Tech Ticker -- January 12, 2010

Bashing big banks is all the rage this week, with White House officials and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo scolding Wall Street fat cats ahead of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which gets underway Wednesday.

At issue is what level of bonuses are appropriate for publicly traded firms that posted record profits in 2009 thanks to the government's largess and after being rescued in 2008.

Simon Johnson, professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and former chief economist of the IMF, says there's a simple solution to this seemingly complex problem:

  • "People working at our largest banks - say over $100 billion in total assets - should get zero bonus for 2009."

Looking back, all the big firms were saved by the various government programs, including  Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were allowed to convert to bank holding company status in 2008, Johnson says.

  • "There were unconditional bailouts for all our big banks - it was a decision made on the fly in the crisis. Let's not second-guess," he says. "But no way that strategy implies, requires, or is consistent with the banks then paying all that money out to their employees."

By contrast, when the government instituted a similar "recapitalization" strategy for banks after the Latin America debt crisis of the early 1980s, the banks retained the money to help rebuild their balance sheets, he recalls. "In this case they're going to pay out 40% [of profits] - that's not good economic policy."

But, let's put our selves in the (expensive) shoes of the bankers for a moment.  Henry points out in the accompanying clip, on Wall Street it's a 'bonus' in name only.  Most bonuses are part of a guaranteed pay package negotiated when employee contracts are signed.  The Wall Street Journal notes limiting bonuses after the fact will create some high class problems.  "Since many people plan their household budgets around bonus expectations, they may need the cash to cover mortgages, school tuition and other expenses." Of course, firms that limit pay always risk the threat of a brain drain.

Johnson discounts these arguments wondering, if Goldman Sachs paid no bonuses this year, would employees really leave?  Where would they go?

If the "too big to fail" banks insist on paying bonuses for "retention" purposes or other reasons he deems fallacious, Johnson says they should be subject to a "steeply progressive windfall income tax" -- paid by the employees and not the firms, as is the case with the U.K.'s recently announced 50% bonus tax.



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.