David Rosenberg Turns Bullish, Earns $3.1 Million

Tyler Durden's picture

In early 2013, many were mystified when one of the most vocal deflationists, and hence stock market bears, David Rosenberg, turned furiously bullish. Just what was the motive behind this transformation many wondered? Thanks to a just filed Gluskin Sheff compensation table, we can put all such lingering questions to rest: the reason, or rather reasons: 3,082,441... all-cash.

Some more on why the formerly rather bearish ex-Merrill strategist will make the most in 2013, or $3.1 million, almost as much as the CEO of his employer, and has the highest, $1.8 million, annual incentive plan of any Gluskin Sheff:

Mr. Rosenberg’s employment agreement provides a mechanism by which Mr. Rosenberg shares in any net revenues generated from Gluskin Sheff’s efforts to monetize economic research authored by Mr. Rosenberg and published by Gluskin Sheff. Mr. Rosenberg’s employment agreement further provides that he will receive guaranteed additional compensation of $1,800,000 per annum in addition to his base salary until June 30, 2014.... In the case of Mr. Rosenberg, his employment agreement stipulates that he will receive guaranteed additional compensation of $1,800,000 per annum until June 30, 2014, in addition to his base salary. For the 2013 fiscal year, $0.5 million of the guaranteed additional compensation paid to Mr. Rosenberg was allocated from the Bonus Pool, and for fiscal 2012 the guaranteed additional compensation was not allocated from the bonus pool.

And the full explanation, from Globe and Mail

It's hard to imagine a a top-five executive with a public company in Canada with a sweeter deal than David Rosenberg, as evidenced by his employer Gluskin + Sheff Associates Inc.'s newly filed management information circular.


Mr. Rosenberg, the all-star chief economist and strategist with the money management firm earned an impressive $3.1-million in the company's most recent fiscal year, ended June 30, making the former chief North American economist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch the company's second-highest paid executive behind CEO Jeremy Freedman.


What is unusual about his compensation is how little of it is tied to the success of his employer, either in its financial performance or stock price. Actually, none of it is. As long as Gluskin has enough money to keep on the lights, stay in business and pay employees, Mr. Rosenberg is guaranteed a payment of $2-million a year. That's split into two parts: his $200,000 salary, and a $1.8-million amount identified in the proxy circular as "guaranteed annual compensation." The guaranteed payment agreement has been in place for the last two fiscal years and continues through the end of this fiscal year next June. It is paid in cash, not share units.


The third element of his compensation is variable, but it has nothing to do with the performance of his firm or the accuracy of his forecasting, but rather the popularity of his research, which reaches far beyond Canada: Mr. Rosenberg pocketed $1.08-million in gross pay last year from his share of net revenues generated by the company's sale of economic research he pens. That's up from $877,645 the year before, making Mr. Rosenberg one of the few Canadian authors to earn a $1-million a year for his work.


Not a bad haul when you consider Mr. Rosenberg made a much publicized shift in his thinking earlier this year, shedding part of his bearish stance to adopt a more bullish view on Canada.

Source: Gluskin Sheff circular

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Honey Badger's picture

Same whorehouse, different whores.

King_of_simpletons's picture

Welcome to the club, Rosie.

Now we need Schiff, Taleb and Faber to join the gang. I am sure these guys will flip too. They are human and can't bear the Fed arsehole ripping experiment.


ZerOhead's picture

When you think about it $3 million a year is less than what most Canadian hockey players earn...

Bay of Pigs's picture

Not only is Rosie a joke, so are all the dee-flay-shun-ists.

Used to be dozens of posters here pushing that dogshit.

fonzannoon's picture

It seems that for Rosie to make the switch here proves that he is completely worthless.

BOP you know the fed considering lowering the interest on reserves seems to show that they are actually seriously afraid of deflation right now. The first move was pumping up the markets. But that does not seem to be cutting it. Now they are actually going to try to pump the velocity of money a bit. 

maskone909's picture

lowering the interest on reserves or lowering reserve limits? if rates go negative and they lower reserve limits, say goodnight, and say hello to hyperinflation

fonzannoon's picture

Lowering the interest rate on reserves won't result in Nirp. we are not there yet.

disabledvet's picture

Japan gets the hyperinflation, Europe the Depression...Wall Street "sails off into the sunset." http://www.buffalospree.com/buffalospreemagazine/archives/1999_summer/su... Just like Reagan scripted it.

nope-1004's picture

No, it does not show that they are afraid of deflation.  It shows that the evil empire is wallowing in ever increasing debt that is becoming difficult to service.  Hyper liquidity preceeds hyperinflation, always has, always will.

Any other reason why PM's should be capped?  If deflation is real, why the need to cap other currencies - as well as your own?


fonzannoon's picture

where is there hyper liquidity? On the banks balance sheets. They are using that money to bid up markets. that liquidity is not being filtered through to anyone else. The banks are the dam that allow that liquidity through. The fed knows it, and they know it. The fed may tell them to open the crack just a bit more to fight off deflation (the middle class going broke).Until the deficits start blowing out again this is how the fed is dealing with it.

Renfield's picture

<<where is there hyper liquidity? On the banks balance sheets>>

And in the world of appreciating assets:

- art

- high-end real estate

- gems

- collectibles of all kinds, including valuable cars

- the exception so far is PMs...hmmmm

<<They are using that money to bid up markets. that liquidity is not being filtered through to anyone else.>>

I believe the parabolic pricing symptom of hyperinflation is now beginning to show in the upper-tier markets, and will 'trickle down' to us lower classes thru the next two years. In my own reading I've noticed that hyperinflationary pricing tends to hit the low-end, cheap-chinese-teevee markets last, so the peasants who buy in low-tier markets are the last to know what's happening. (In what I've read, by the time it gets to the cheap-teevee stage, you're pretty much at the barter level of trade, too, the currency being close to irrelevant by then.) I mean, that pricing for low-end assets and expenses will probably show real inflation last, since it looks like that's the last stage of hyperinflation, just before the currency becomes 100% irrelevant.

<<The banks are the dam that allow that liquidity through. The fed knows it, and they know it. The fed may tell them to open the crack just a bit more to fight off deflation (the middle class going broke).Until the deficits start blowing out again this is how the fed is dealing with it.>>

I expect that even if the rest of the world waits patiently for the Fed, the rise of bitcoin along with many other alternative currencies, will shortly take the power to "deal with it" out of the Fed's hands.

Central banking is dying, and commerce finds alternatives. That's my own personal, uneducated opinion and along with $5.00 will get you a nice warm cuppa. :-)

Thisson's picture

Both the deflationist and inflationist camp have it partly correct.  The deflationists have it partly correct since debt is defaulting (albeit in slow-motion).  The inflationists have it partly correct also, in that the Fed is printing to paper over the mess.

This is like watching the irresistable force meeting the immovable object, and it's not clear which will win out in the end.  Can the economy withstand either a full-on default of sovereign debt OR full-on printing?

Bay of Pigs's picture

"either a full-on default of sovereign debt OR full-on printing?"

You get both. They are printing. ENDLESSLY. How do people miss this? Printing is not a zero sum game. It is clear what side wins out in the end (if history is our guide).

It ends in a hyper inflationary depression.

Rafferty's picture

You are of course correct.  There is no other possible outcome.

maskone909's picture

is this artical insinuating that the forementioned author has been given Hush Money, bribed essentially, to over emphisize a bullish narative?

hedgeless_horseman's picture



"Everyone gets long, nobody gets hurt."


-Jim Cramer, moments before his SEC problems mysteriously vanished


Running On Bingo Fuel's picture

I think it insinuates that Tyler is still pissed that Davie went to a pay-2-play model.

But don't they all.

Back a few years ago we got weekly reports from Mr. Rosenberg, then he went to upper management at Gluskin Sheff and said, "if you pay me I can make a fortune with my Gloom, the kind that would make Reggie Milton at BustedBlogGoesBoom cream his pink panties".

Apparently they adopted his model.


Obchelli's picture

FReaking amazing... Where can I get job that pays 3 million just for talking and making wrong calls? This idiot (parasite) was wrong for the first 4 years of "recovery" now he is bearish...

Person who creates no product adds nothing to society pockets 3 million - what some other hard working individuals won't make in lifetime....



And if only his calls were ever right....

MunX's picture

He's always wrong that's even better.

Obchelli's picture

I know thanks,


for some reason there is no edit button available. 


Againstthelie's picture

Without defending this disgusting contract of this parasiting industry, his timing was perfect when he said he doesn't like treasuries anymore.

TruthInSunshine's picture

@Obchelli - No, now he is "bullish."

Pay attention to details.

TheGardener's picture

What is Rosi`s take on Goldman suggesting shorting CAD/USD ?

Some commodity dollar being thrown under the bus was the only real action in decades I watched and predicted in FX.

Would hate to be stolpered out if there were a trade,
but Soros busted the Bank of England on a fixed exchange band and I got burned badly despite having all the off-the-shelf hedges in place.

Pig Circus's picture

Well he was right to change. Not because of the econ but because of the Fed's printing. Whatever I missed it all and won't chase it now. Never bum out about the moves I missed just the bad investments I had made. So fuck it they can have this rally I won't comply.

Glass Seagull's picture



Pay off the bears!

ChaosEquilibrium's picture

WHORE....Gluskin Sheff is using Rosenberg as set-up for its trading/clients....Rosenberg is using Gluskin Sheff!!!!  It is a "Tribal thing'!!!  FUCK THEM




A rational 'bear' would become more bearish as the MACRO imblances are becoming larger, obvious, and more generalized.......regardless of CB printing.....the Natural Laws of the MACRO system always revert to a general equilibium scale!

Blano's picture

Hold on a second.....why is this article coming out NOW??  He made pretty decent coin in '11 and '12 too it looks like. 

Rosenberg makes 200k more this year than last, about 8%-ish and suddenly he's a sellout?

Maybe he was just an early bear, beating Hugh Hendry & Co. to the punch.

A Kardashian story would be more relevant unless I'm missing something.

disabledvet's picture

"i say, i say...hold on there boy! hold on there!" one of the best cartoon characters ever.

cocoanut's picture

i believe it essentially means that Rosenberg will write whatever he think will sell the most subscriptions as opposed to actual investing advice grounded in analysis or sticking to his guns

Babaloo's picture

That's exactly right. The entire premise of this article is wrong.

To say nothing of the fact that he's been correct with his call.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What would you do ?"

JM Keynes

petolo's picture

Watch out for the Bergs and the Rosens!

waterwitch's picture

Could he be keeping that cash on the sidelines, waiting for the impending crash? That would be an implicit bearish call.

ElvisDog's picture

Shit, I would sell my professional integrity for $3.1 million.

lasvegaspersona's picture


It is not degrading if the price is right....motto of the age...

lasvegaspersona's picture

Anyone who thinks inflation won't yeild higher (NOMINAL) stock prices is nuts.

Anyone who thinks the Fed won't continue to help with this is even nuttier.

Remember, when Ben whispered the word 'taper' the 10 year crashed. Now we are told he may the same move again (in December, if not then March...). It is all nonsense. We now know it can never end until the currency is sacrificed at the altar of public demand for increasing NOMINAL results....and debts that are easier to pay.

falak pema's picture

Reason ? 

ROsenberg has stopped reading ZH and started concentrating on ST survival. 

MarcusAurelius's picture

I am saying this out of envy more than anything else. This guy is nothing more than an economist? The salary is not even tied to how well his employer does which translates into how well the employers clients do. Every day I put my mouth where my own money is. I trade the markets and do it relatively successfully. When he stops giving soothsayer predictions and starts saying things like, 'From my research I have determined that Google is overvalued at it's present value and is likely to close the gap over the next six months. I have a put option on GOOG at (fill in your own price) which is due to expire at ______________( fill in gap). My hedge in case I am incorrect is a buy in _______________ at market value to offset the possibility that I am incorrect and to minimize losses while maximizing gains.

      Has Faber, Schiff or any other of these GUru's shown you a trade that you can see for yourself or is it just conjecture for which any economist with half a brain can do if he/she knows how to study the numbers. I believe Rogers has gone on record saying that he is long commodities and short the stock markets. In his scenario is comes down to how well he builds on his winners and cuts his losers. Like his partner said, "it is not whether you are right or wrong but how much you make when you are right and how much you lose when you are wrong"

Conax's picture

Rosenberg? Well he is Arkellian Royalty after all.

ToNYC's picture

Good for Rosie, he's learned by now that only fools pay attention to others in the long run, when it comes to the game of strangers putting money in your pocket.

pitz's picture

Why do real producers bother toiling in the fields, producing, when non-producers, such as the individuals on that chart, are paid a lifetime of income in a mere year?  For merely not producing?

Catflappo's picture

Not sure how David Morris gets by?   Must be a real pain earning so little when surrounded by those earning so much.    Cough.  Splutter.

Notarocketscientist's picture

Opinions for sale--- opinions for sale... get em while they're hot... opinions for sale

gwb72tii's picture

nice, a cheap shot at Rosie from someone that won't post his true name

what a nozzle