BIO
MOST SHARED
- Kuoni CEO Sees Recovery in Travel Sector
- Dubai Struggles to Ease Debt Fears; Investors Rattled
- Gold Retreats from Record High as Dollar Rebounds
- China Unveils Carbon Target Ahead of Copenhagen
- Euro Shares Record Biggest Drop in 7 Months
- No Thanksgiving Rest for Retailers in Sales Race
- Hyundai-Kia Targets Rapid China Growth in 2010
- Great Britain, No Longer That Great: Investor
- Fannie Mae to Tighten Lending Standards: Report
- US Markets Bracing for Selloff On Worries About Dubai's Debt
- 4 Enemies of Bull Markets
- Experiencing Technical Difficulty?
- The Importance of Good Breadth
- Your First Move For Friday November 27th
- How Big Money Rules the Markets
- Web Extra: Private Equity, Conviction Buy?
- Follow the Leader
- Pops & Drops: Abercrombie & Fitch, Nucor...
- Giving Thanks: Seymour
- Your Questions About... Alcoa & The Dollar
RSS FEED
![]() |
iStockphoto |
The fury over the fact that Wall Street paid out $18.4 billion in bonuses in 2008, the "sixth largest" amount in history, is about words and nothing else.
This isn't a compensation issue, it's a diction issue.
Outside of lower Manhattan, a "bonus" is a special, one-off reward for performance above and beyond what's expected of an employee. And if investment bankers had gotten $18.4 billion worth of bonuses in that traditional sense of the word, then of course it would be truly outrageous.
But on Wall Street, and at many law firms as well, a bonus is simply part, often the greater part, of your regular compensation. It may vary from year to year, but when you take one of these jobs, the understanding is that you'll be paid a base-salary and once a year you'll also get a "bonus."
The bonus varies in size from year to year, but it's not actually a "bonus" in the way most people think of the word. It's an expected part of your salary, delivered in a lump- sum near Christmastime. Historically, for many people on Wall Street, the base salary is much less than they could be earning elsewhere, but because they know they're getting a sizable "bonus," it makes sense for them to stay at their jobs.
So a bonus isn't a bonus.
But since the vast majority of people don't know that, the public gets angry. And when the public gets angry, Democratic politicians who probably know better have to demagogue the issue. That's how you get the President saying, "there will be a time for profits and bonuses. Now is not that time."
I don't think this is class-warfare, although I wouldn't mind some of that, it's a simple misunderstanding. Obama wouldn't say, "now is not the time for paychecks." But that's essentially what a bonus is on Wall Street, just an expected part of your compensation. This is not crooked, greedy CEOs lining their wallets, although I won't deny that plenty of that happens.
The screwed up thing is that it's clear Obama wants to help these bankers, or at least keep their companies alive. But, as I see it, they're making it as hard on him as they possibly can from a PR standpoint, which is all that matters in politics.
We can't create a "bad bank" to relieve troubled financial institutions of their depressed assets if they're paying out $18.4 billion in "bonuses." It just looks terrible. So here's my advice to Wall Street: help us help you.
Stop paying bonuses.
Call them something else.
Think of something boring like "annual performance-adjusted block compensation."
I know "bonus" sounds sexy, but that's precisely what's wrong with the term.
A little verbal magic and this whole problem goes away.
Questions? Comments? Send them to
- What you need to know.
- Ever wished your cab driver would stop nattering and just get to where you're going? Well that moment is near(er).
- Eric Schmidt pledges to create a virtual copy of the Iraq National Museum at Google’s expense.
- Bill Griffeth is taking a leave of absence from CNBC and Power Lunch for a year. Here's a message from Bill.
- More shoppers than ever plan to comparison-shop this season. Who will benefit?
- It may be the most unusual guide to business you'll read.










