Slashdot Mirror


End Bonuses For Bankers

theodp writes "NYU risk engineering prof Nassim Nicholas Taleb has a suggestion that won't sit too well with the banksters. In his NY Times op-ed, Taleb writes: 'I have a solution for the problem of bankers who take risks that threaten the general public: Eliminate bonuses.' The problem with the bonus system, Taleb explains, is that it provides an incentive to take risks: 'The asymmetric nature of the bonus (an incentive for success without a corresponding disincentive for failure) causes hidden risks to accumulate in the financial system and become a catalyst for disaster. This violates the fundamental rules of capitalism; Adam Smith himself was wary of the effect of limiting liability, a bedrock principle of the modern corporation.'"

11 of 548 comments (clear)

  1. Except that.... by MrNthDegree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    bankers will still upset the market on purpose for bribes, much like how politicians lie to (and upset) voters because of what amounts to bribery....

    1. Re:Except that.... by Medievalist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...it's horrible job with brutal hours and inconceivable stress...

      Bullshit. Their stress is nothing compared to what we routinely ask soldiers, detectives, judges, and other people to do for a fraction of the pay. They hardly ever even get shot at, although that might change if the poor keep getting pushed up against the wall.

      This bs pisses me off. Over privileged drones who voluntarily chose a career of gambling other people's money and got rewarded all out of proportion to their success want sympathy for their ulcers- fuck them. Go tell some single mother fry cook in a ghetto how hard their job is and see how hard she laughs.

    2. Re:Except that.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You also had a law passed in the Carter years to make it easier for people who couldn't (and as we can now see, shouldn't) have been granted a mortgage provided one. This law got itself teeth during the Clinton years to aggressively push these high risk mortgages out there, or the banks would suffer fines. All of this backed up by federally created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who then started bundling these high risk loans with AAA credit loans. All the while, anything that had once been considered wise lending practices were thrown out the window.

      This is horseshit. This is the "blame the poor minorities and the liberals who thought they should be subject to the same standards as everyone else" canard that was trotted out after the collapse to try to divert blame away from the deregulation that is the real obvious cause -- point of fact, even if this bull excrement explanation held any water, had the old rules about the types of securities banks could invest in and the limits to their ability to leverage were in place, the collapse wouldn't have happened.

      The law never required banks to make risky loans. It only required them to not refuse loans based solely on where someone lived, or to use a higher standard to secure the loan than they would for someone who lived somewhere else.

      My bank was subject to the same law, and while so much of the financial sector was collapsing it was fine, because it didn't make risky loans, and it didn't invest in CDOs because the board was smart enough to realize what a crock of shit their ratings were.

      The people who got mortgages but shouldn't weren't just the poor, but the middle class getting mortgages far beyond what they could afford. Not every middle class family should buy a McMansion, but that's not what the loan officers were saying. They knew the loan was risky (or didn't know but didn't care), but they also knew they could turn right around and sell the loan to someone who would package it up with a bunch of others, slap a completely fanciful risk rating on it, and then sell it again to some sap, aka Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Citibank, and all the others who had to be bailed out.

      The only policies that were pushed that caused this disaster are the deregulation The-Free-Market-Knows-Best policies that the banks themselves were pushing for.

      Oh and as far as taking -- the government may be the only one authorized to take in the form of taxes, but the government is only taking a percentage of earnings. When the bankers, in their irresponsible greed, trashed the economy and cost millions their jobs, so they had no earnings. Despite not having the authority, the banks took more than the government did.

      The protesters know who is to blame. The bankers are not middlemen in this mess.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  2. Corporations are people. Death penalty to corps? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If corporations are people how can one impose death penalty and incarceration to them?

    How about if a corporation is awarded death penalty, all its assets would be sold,the proceeds will be distributed to the shareholders, the corporations name, ticker symbols and other trade marks will be sequestered for ever?

    It is far too easy to create corporations, compared to real human beings. Corporations do not require visa/green card/work permit/citizenship to work and profit inside the USA. So we can apply the lower standard of "preponderance evidence" to award death penalty to them, not the stricter "beyond reasonable doubt".

    Any corporation that is too big to fail, is too dangerous to exist. They should be executed. We bailed out the financial institutions. They technically are living due to our mercy.

    Let us break up any bank that has more than 10% market share in retail banking. Any investment bank that has more than 10% market share. And reinstate Glass-Stegall act. Let us do it peacefully when we still can do it in an orderly manner. Else someday roving mobs will be pulling out chairman of Goldman Sachs hiding in sewer pipes.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  3. Re:True to every corporation by xMrFishx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a fundamental property of capitalism: when a corporation gets lucky it can dominate the market so strongly that when it gets unlucky it gets bailed out by the tax payers.

  4. Re:It's not a complete solution yet... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you see who holds and manages those shares and who has voting rights, you'll understand just what a predicament we're in. You're asking the people who are sitting on the money to stop writing themselves checks. They won't.

  5. Re:True to every corporation by aintnostranger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no, that's a property of a failing political system/class. Bail outs are not an automatic thing. They require the complicity of politicians and the complacency of voters.

  6. s/capitalism/cronyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a property of capitalism. It's a property of cronyism. I'm so sick of anti-capitalists and their Che Guevera T-shirts. What do you think the guy you bought that shirt from is?

  7. Re:True to every corporation by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government bailing out corporations? That's definitely not a free-market principle, and we'd all benefit if such ridiculous falsehoods weren't spouted off by every junior blogger. Whether you like capitalism or not, in a pure system a failed company fails and whatever assets it has go to its creditors.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  8. Re:Exactly by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem of "too big to fail" is simple to solve by following this principle: any bank that is too big to fail is also to big to exist. Thus any bank that receives government money must be either closed down or broken up and sold in pieces.

    This is the solution proposed by Paul Volcker, and for my money it is the correct one.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  9. Re:Exactly by humphrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how historic problems repeat themselves, and we let it. East India Company was so big and its reach so massive that it had it's own flag, its own military, and its administrative section was larger than most governments. Eventually even government officials, who were quite comfortable with someone else managing their nasty colonial duties, began to realize that they had outgrown their own britches and started systematically taking them apart.

    --
    -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo