Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve believes that the partying on Wall Street and in the financial institutions may “lead to trouble”. The world knows that the trouble that they start because they are too drunk celebrating the higher-than-high highs that they have created will lead the banksters and the tradesters to pass the baby onto the likes of Joe Blow and John Doe out there. That will be inevitable. The partying is now entering the early morning hours. You know, that time just when you’ve drunk too much and you think you are invincible and there’s really no point stopping downing another one, is there. One for the road?
But, why have the financial markets got to this stage of gorging on the stocks and eating up everything in sight to a position where a new high no longer makes the headlines just because it’s mundane and oh so boringly everyday’ish? They are in this position because the killings that can be made in the final few hours before a new crash happens are usually the greatest ones. But, the ones that will last the least. They are in this position because they have been lead to believe that they are priceless, unimaginable worth their weight in gold and that they are irreplaceable. The tradesters and the banksters have become the new child prodigies, the child king, the big baby syndrome where the party always has to be on.
These are the guys that push you out the way as you hail a taxi and jump in ahead of you. These are the guys that pull up and double park so they can pick up what they need from that little boutique. Who cares about the traffic and the police will recognize his bravado and brashness, a telling sign of the trading floor and the bank vaults. These are the guys that are paid the most. So, which bank should you be working for if you want to throw a two-year-old tantrum when the stock market crashes and you get your toys throw out of the pram? But, the saving grace is that in all societies in the world there are taboos were babies are concerned. They always have to be protected from danger. The banksters will be protected because they are earning the top salaries.
Top 10 Banks:
- Goldman Sachs
· Average base salary for Vice-Presidents stands at $169,896.
· Financial Analysts get $69,461.
- Capital One
· Vice-President’s average base salary is $165, 514.
· Financial Analysts earn $73, 462.
- American Express
· This bank pays an average of $163, 908 for a Vice-President.
· A Financial Analysts earns $66, 459.
· Average base salary of a Vice-President stands at $145, 583.
· A Financial Analyst gets $57, 115.
- Morgan Stanley
· A Vice-President earns $143, 489.
· A Financial Analyst’s salary is $63, 100.
· A Vice-President has a salary of $129, 686.
· A Financial Analyst gets $76, 413.
- Wells Fargo
· A Vice-President earns $128, 805.
· A Financial Analyst’s salary is $62, 195.
· A Vice-President salary here stands at $119, 240.
· Financial Analysts get $66, 280.
- JPMorgan Chase
· This bank pays its Vice-Presidents $117, 058.
· A Financial Analysts earns $63, 229.
- Bank of America
· A Vice-President’s salary stands at $112, 501.
· A Financial Analyst earns $71, 435.
Bonuses ‘n all that?
There really is very little point in taking into account the ridiculously laughably low salaries that the poor bankers are earning, is there?
Of course, the vice-presidents and the presidents are earning a lot more in bonuses. This is just the shop window. It’s in the stock room and the back office that the real sound of fluttering greenbacks can be heard and the wads of Benjamins are doled out. Who said they never liked ‘cabbage’?
The average US salary for a president of a bank stands officially at $100, 566. But, this is the figure for the entire country in 2015. It doesn’t take into account the top banks only, which will push that figure much higher and it certainly doesn’t take into account the bonuses.
· The Bank of England has just announced to all banks in the UK that thy must re-write contracts of staff receiving bonuses to comply with EU legislation on bonus capping.
· EU legislation stipulates that bonuses cannot exceed 100% of the basic salary or 200% if shareholders give their approval.
· Banks got around the quandary by paying ‘allowances’ instead of bonuses. But, that has been deemed to tantamount to the same thing by the EU.
· The head of Barclays, Anthony Jenkins received £1m in allowances, as did Lloyd’s boss António Horta-Osório.
· Lloyds Banking Group saw its shareholders approve an £11.5m pay packet for the Chief Executive António Horta-Osório.
· The UK government share held in Lloyds Banking Group stood at 43% in 2008 after the financial crisis.
· Today it stands at 20% (May 2015).
· Only 3% of shareholders actually voted against the salary increase given.
· UK Financial Investments (responsible for managing the UK government stake in the bank) voted in favor of the increase and stated: “Following a process of thorough engagement with the Lloyds remuneration committee, UKFI believes the committee has exercised reasonable judgement in relation to their approach to directors’ remuneration, particularly in the context of performance over the year.”
· The head of HSBC, Stuart Gulliver had £1.7m in allowances.
· There are currently 39 banks in 6 countries in the EU that are using the allowance system to get around the bonus caps.
· It is supposed to be changed in 2015 and affect bonuses paid out in April 2016.
· Andrew Bailey, the deputy governor at the Bank of England, has stated categorically that outlawing bonuses will only push the salaries into a fixed area which will be possible to claw back if (or when) the banks suffer losses.
Steve Hilton, the former strategy adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron announced today that bankers should be paid no more than civil servants, since they were relying implicitly on the backing of the taxpayer.
In 2012, the top bank salaries already soared by 35% in the UK and they showed that nothing had been learnt. The pay-rises worked out in UK banks between 2011 and 2012 to 11% on average.
In the City of London there were more nearly 3, 000 bankers on more than a million dollars a year. There was a small lull, a reprieve for the rest of society as banks froze (is that possible?) their salaries. But, the meltdown didn’t last very long. In the UK more than 80% of the top salaries are in investment banking today.
Goldman Sachs announced in October 2013 that junior bankers would be ‘expected’ to take off time from work between Friday 9pm and Sunday 9pm. Although, they would be expected to consult their messages during that time. Does that mean the only thing the bank was doing was to save on electricity, getting the banker to work from home? JPMorgan Chase thought it was great and set up the ‘protected weekend’, whereby every banker would have to take off a weekend per month. Then, all banks followed suit. Apparently, today junior bankers only get bonuses in the region of $70, 000, whereas they were on six-figure sums before. The base salary stands at roughly $85, 000. Although there is a plan to have that increased by 20% this year. Haven’t the banks just redistributed the wealth, giving even more to the jobs at the very top? You know, those people that will deny they were aware of what you were doing when you were losing the money that the bank never had. Jérôme Kerviel is exactly that guy right now. Now the official investigator has finally admitted that the Société Générale must have known of the rogue antics and has accused the prosecutor of swallowing the bank’s story. Justice at last?
Instead of investing in the stock that is already high, the financial markets would be better off investing in the companies around the world that are growing quietly and secretly in their own little corner; the ones that attract the least amount of attention and the ones that will ride out the crash when Yellen starts a- yelling.
What stocks would you invest in that you think would survive that bubble bursting again?
Or, maybe we should just invest in the banks? They will never suffer, will they?