7
   

The Flaw in the Financial System

 
 
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 09:38 pm
Quote:
The Flaw in the System: The Bankers Don't Care About the Banks

by Cenk Uygur [Subscribe]
Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 08:59:24 AM PST

Alan Greenspan says he is in a "state of shocked disbelief" that the concept of self-interest did not protect the banks from taking excessive risks and destroying themselves. But he, along with Tim Geithner and Larry Summers and many others, are missing the fundamental flaw in the system. The bankers don't care about the banks; they care about the bankers.

The enlightened self-interest of the bank executives has been separated from the interests of the banks they work for. In the 1970's, the banks were still privately owned. So, the guy up at the top wanted to protect his company, his interest and his money. If his executives took unwarranted risks with the boss's money, they were goners. But these days the people at the top of these companies don't own the companies. It's not their money.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal explains it (a useful nugget in an otherwise horrible piece):

"The Wall Street compensation system has evolved from the 1970s, when most of the firms were private partnerships, owned by partners who paid out a designated share of the firm's profits to nonpartner employees while dividing up the rest for themselves. The nonpartners had to earn their keep every year, but the partners' percentage ownerships in the firms were also reset every year or two. On the whole, everyone's performance was continuously evaluated and rewarded or penalized. The system provided great incentives to create profits, but also, because the partners' own money was involved, to avoid great risk."

These days, the way executives make money instead is in the form of bonuses for years where they bring in a lot of return (and often times for years they don't), but the threat of being fired for too much risk taking is minimal. The more risk you take, the more money everyone makes. And it's not the partner's money you're playing with anymore. You're playing with house money. No one is minding the store anymore.

Now think about it this way: if you were going to make ten million dollars in bonuses for taking high risks with other people's money, would you do it? The answer invariably is - hell yes!

If it's your own money on the line, you might be extraordinarily careful with the risk you take. But if you are going to get a multi-million dollar reward for taking risks, but you expose your company to a little bit more risk, what percentage of people would take that extra risk on behalf of their company? I would venture to guess 98%.

And the other 2% are suckers. There is no downside for you. The higher the risk, the higher the return in the short-run (which actually lasted a long time) and the higher your take home salary is. Are you going to be the only guy on Wall Street saying, "Well, golly gee willikers, everyone else is making millions but I really care about my shareholders. I don't want that huge bonus. I want safe investments for my company."? That's not how human nature works.

So, now we have Tim Geithner and the rest of Treasury working so hard to prop up not just these failed banks - but these failed bank executives - because we don't want government running these large companies. The self-interest of the market will do a better job of managing these companies. But it hasn't - because of this fundamental flaw.

These executives did not actually fail. They succeeded wildly. It's just that they had a different goal - to take home as much money as they possibly could for themselves. Mission accomplished!

I don't blame them. The system is set up wrong. Almost anyone in their position would have done the same - and will continue to do the same as long as we are foolish enough to keep pouring money into these companies. They are going to try to move every nickel they can from our pockets into theirs.

The Treasury plan is all wrong. We have to first acknowledge that the boards of these companies are not truly representing the shareholders. They are largely friends with most of the CEOs and they do not have an incentive to reign in out of control compensation for the top executives. Then those CEOs pass on the wrong incentives to the executives below them. The more risk they all take, the more money they take home. And if their company goes broke one day - who cares?

Most of these guys took home millions upon millions of dollars already for profits that never really existed. If the company goes under, okay the gravy train came to an end but they still have all the money they made from all those years. It's in their personal bank accounts. That's enlightened self-interest!

Do you know that last year, as Merrill Lynch was in its death throes, 696 executives got bonuses over a million dollars? 696! As the company lost tens of billions of dollars, the executives took home a combined $3.6 billion that year. Billions in bonuses in the worst year in the company's history. They're not stupid; they're smart. They're looting the store before the cops show up.

This is the financial equivalent of the federal government not showing up to rescue people after Hurricane Katrina. Last year the five biggest Wall Street securities firms lost $25.3 billion. The executives at those companies still took home $26 billion in bonuses. In other words, they wouldn't have lost a nickel if they hadn't taken any bonuses.

Do you think if the guys up at the top still owned the companies they would allow their employees to take home $26 billion in bonuses when they lost $25 billion that year? Self-interest would never allow that. But now no one is looking over their shoulder.

So who cares what the company loses? Take the money while you still can. The Treasury Department still hasn't shown up to take over these looted stores. In fact, they keep pouring taxpayer money into these same shops, as the money continues to move out the back door. Tim Geithner is the worst sheriff in the world.

But we already knew that. Because the main guy who was overseeing all of these banks in New York, as they took these giants risks, was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - Tim Geithner.

He is under the misimpression that his job is to protect the sanctity of the banks. Not only is that not his job, but that is working against his actual goal. His real job is to stabilize the financial system, with or without these particular banks or bank executives. The longer he keeps these guys in charge, the longer the looting continues.

Somebody send in the cavalry already. Geithner and Summers make it appear as if we are all dense and don't get the urgency of shoring up the financial system. We all get it. But there are several different ways to skin that cat. And their way is not working - and because of the fundamental flaw in the system - cannot ever work.

Even if they stop the bleeding in the short term, if they don't fix the flaw, the executives will be back to the same routine very shortly. Why? For the same exact reason that Greenspan thought the system couldn't fail - self-interest.


Unless we change the compensation system for our Corporations, these problems will not end. Greed is at the heart of our current crisis and the unending support of higher and higher executive paychecks does nothing but ensure that Greed will remain the driving force behind our business compensation.

This exposes our country to unacceptable levels of risk. We rely upon these companies, many of whom carry the retirement of millions of Americans, to act in responsible ways. But our current compensation structure does not reward responsibility; it rewards risk.

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 1,981 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 12:45 am
I agree. We have to get rid of those looters and keep them out of the store. Congress needs to get to work on overhauling the world of corporate governance. According to the following article, "boards of directors are seeking increased guidance regarding the proper discharge of their responsibilities to supervise and monitor the corporation’s management and affairs."

Corporate Responsibility: The Board of Directors' Duty of Oversight Part I - Defining the Duty

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 09:43 am
@Debra Law,
Foxy et al's "Garden of Eden" marketplace, you know, the only one that works. Now those are real conservative values bundled up in a pretty little package for all to see.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 10:30 am
Time to nationalize the banks.

Of course, conservatives will be complaining that leftist radicals will expropriate the rightful owners and ruin perfectly good private companies. But many of those private companies, like Citibank and Bank of America, wouldn't exist any more without state intervention. The fact that these companies are purportedly too big to fail has put the CEOs in a position where the state has implicitly given them the guarantee to hand them billions of dollars if they mismanage their enterprises, while the fear of everything that smells like 'socialism' is a virtual guarantee that, in spite of those multi-billion dollar investments, the state will not demand a share in the company for its investment.

If these companies were in the position they are in - in a reasonably well functioning free market, on the brink of failing, but with an investor coming along willing to save them by investing billions of dollars - it's rather unlikely that he would leave the CEOs who've driven the company into the ground in place, without cutting their bonuses, and without demanding a share in the company.

Yet, when the multi-billion dollar investor is the taxpayer, people seem to believe that demanding ownership in return for the money invested is completely unreasonable.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 12:06 pm
@old europe,
Gol 'dern commie bastard!
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 01:02 pm
@JTT,
I know...
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 01:24 pm
CNBC knows the market: NOT!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 01:36 pm
The interests of humans was not served by the economic system...by that I mean that the best interests of the few corporate leaders trumped the best interests of the workers and the nation. The created financial incentive to short companies trumped the moral imperative of outsiders to alert others about bad corporate management. The management compensation system did the same thing re managers being honest about their firms problems. The financial incentives to play ball with managers and stake holders who were out to harvest value from firms (rob) discouraged boards of directors from looking out for the best long term interests of the firm. Government officials were corrupted by lobbyists, election contributions, and other graft into looking the other way as evidence of corporate malfeasance piled up.

The flaw in the system is that it assumes that people will still do the right thing even after the economic system throws in financial incentives to do the wrong thing, even after greed is championed and encouraged, even after the concept of the individual is glorified, even after individuals are fed a lifetime of propaganda telling them that they should go get what they want come hell or high water. The economic system misunderstands human nature, and what humans will do. That is the problem, and it does not get fixed without making an economic system that better fits humans.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2009 11:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Mr. Cenk Uygur does not have a full understanding of the various types of businesses. He is lamenting the old but honest Wall Street partnerships with the now corporate structure of irresponsible managers. A partnership is a corporate structure where the equity capital comes from the partners and their money is at stake. However, the deals that they can undertake are limited to their capital i.e. probably in the millions. Loans requested by corporations are probably in the billions as corporations have huge capital with thousands if not millions of shareholders. IBM, Microsoft, General Electric annual sales figures are in the $50-100 billion range. Millions of dollars is small potato compared to tens of billions of dollars.

Wall Street needed to enter the corporate structure to capture billions from unwitting shareholders. Therein lies the rub. With a corporate structure the capital is not from the founder but the public who bought those shares. The founder(s) are merely managers but behave like owners. They are using other people's money for risky projects. They get in their cronies as Board (Board of Directors) members and write in golden parachutes for the CEOs and themselves. The Business School professor who suggested giving CEOs stock options did it in good faith assuming the best scenario with people who hold honor among their charater traits. The good professor never envisaged dishorable CEOs or Board members. Here is a case in point: The CEO or Chairman of Nortel Networks cooked the books and quit Nortel exercising his stock options and got $100 millions for his efforts. A few months later Nortel Networks was near bankruptcy. There should have been a claw back clause to his stock options if a short time after his departure the company's stcoks take a nose dive. The good professor never had a proposal to cover dishonesty with a claw back clause or that the CEO to hold onto his shares for at least 5 years after his departure.

The whole point was that corporate type of business structure was proposed assuming everything would work out perfectly. There was a lack of controls by that I mean oversight and proper action taken to remedy problems that develop either operationally or thru deceit. Murphy's Law states that if anything that can go wrong it will go wrong. Thoughts should have have been given to all possible eventualities i.e. they should should have done a 'what if' analysis and remedial action planned.

The Republicans by controlling Congress and the White House removed all corporate controls i.e. regulations and hobbled the SEC that oversees Wall Street dealings so that their Wall Street Republican cronies who financed the Republican Party could rake in the profits leaving the shareholders holding the empty bags.
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 04:49 am
@talk72000,
Get rid of them?

you will be rid of BY them.

Or you ARE them.

the people in power and the people who have leverage in its various forms, cash, money, property, connections...

they will not give that up.

Like a bot fly they will squirm and fight and retreat back into the host, spines entrenched into its flesh.

TO get rid of them is a far larger task than anyone will admit to.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 10:36 am
Quote:
Goldman Sachs revealed yesterday in a regulatory filing that its board had rejected shareholder demands on reining in executive compensation and reforming pay practices. The firm “reported a record profit in 2009 and was on pace to pay more than $20 billion in compensation heading into the fourth quarter. But facing public ire, it capped compensation expenses at $16.2 billion for the year.”


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62028M20100301

It is perfectly clear that shareholders do not have the power to demand/enforce greater restrictions on executive pay under our current system; only Federal regulations will be effective in this area.

Cycloptichorn
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:12 pm
Money is the driveing force in our economy. If in order to make a profit a large company would have to murder 100,000 people they would do it in a heartbeat because a company has no consience.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 04:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You know Cyclo--when I read the first post on this thread just now I was struck by how absolutely bloody silly and infantile it is. Especially after the publicity surrounding the Nick Leeson affair which liquidated Barings Bank.

As I know our authorities are not quite as stupid as that, Think Tanks being what they are, and all these high powered brains doing forward planning for 50 years and all, it always has seemed to me, and the utter naivety of the report in the starter post simply reminded me of it, that I can't but help suspect, quite strongly, that it's all a put up job.

I'm one of those nut-jobs who actually think that all the money belongs to the government, like the blood in our veins, and the cells in our brains, and it knows where it all is give or take the coins that have slipped down the back of the sofa. It has chips in the notes and can follow them round from satellites. It is careful about these things. It probably knows what we are thinking.

So I have cruddled my cranium and pondered this matter ever since it started. I ponder things like that whilst I perform my 30 minute soak in hot water every night which I use to refine the edge of my thirst preparatory to going to the pub to slake it. Like joggers do to get closer to exhaustion so they can sleep at night instead of tossing and turning wrestling with a guilty conscience. In the bath is where I ponder best but I ponder at other times as well. And, as a man of your discernment will know, and it is quite discerning to have seen what you must have seen and still see in your signature line, pondering feeds on itself. I think people take showers to avoid pondering.

One ponders on the productions of the previous ponderings. Which were, when it happened, that there's something odd about the event. As I think that events can be classified as conspiracies or accidents. An NFL player getting injured is never an accident.

And it couldn't have been an accident because Leeson had put all the signals to danger.

So I was watching the event unfold, mainly on TV, and it really has gone like clockwork. Still is doing. We cannot be led to safety unless we are nervous so getting us nervous is a good way to get credit for bringing us back on an even keel. And watching it with all with that in mind led to my pondering branching out. It was useless to the pondering for it to be an accident. There's nothing to ponder a posteriori, as Kant said, with accidents. They are chance events. We couldn't have all these fine people working in the financial and political system having an accident surely? That is a terrifying thought.

Naturally, I sought an explanation of it. The reason, and how it was being all choreographed. Guidance to media, for instance, of how to present it to the public "for" whose benefit it was taking place, (for as in "for the people") .

Aside from the general danger, made explicit in the Barings case, of having a delicate system of exchanges linked wordldwide round the clock in the hands of thousands of specially selected and highly trained people, who lived and played in a sub-culture of their own, and were expert in the art of entreprenuerial dash, we were also in danger of going over the top and showing the other 7 billion inhabitants of the earth the way.

I know women who have 20 handbags. And they are not that posh round here. I've been in bathrooms with every shelf loaded with bottles and jars containing scented shampoos and wrinkle gel and other stuff I'm too embarrassed to mention. Some of them get a car on the deferred payment plan and next news there are dolls swinging in the back windows and a sign reading BABY ON BOARD. Then off they go to Tenerife with the friends they meet every week in the restaurant for what they call a meal. A secret high calorie injection morelike. These are nurses and cooks and whatnot. One runs a One Armed Bandit emporium on the main drag. Lord only knows what the lawyers and architects and psychologist's wives are up to. 20 yard wide wardrobes at least I should think and the pedigree poodle having it's teeth polished. And we are a poor country.

There are two excellent reasons for having it. There are others. Filling up the spaces in media which are in between the ads. Careers in media using stylish explanations. Scapegoats galore on whom to vent our rage.

And they say I'm cynical.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 03:13 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=axH24KWxjVDE&pos=10

Stunning accusations of bid-rigging and direct theft on the part of our major banks in new conspiracy charges being brought forth by the DoJ.

Cycloptichorn
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 05:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I wonder how many others will get immunity?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 05:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The flaw in the financial system Cyclo is human nature. Human nature is not very amenable to systems.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 02:01 am
@old europe,
Quote:
Time to nationalize the banks.


More like time to eliminate fractional reserve banking along with the power of banks to create money. The creation of money has to be a function of government at some level, and not a function of banks or any sort of a banking system.

http://www.webofdebt.com
http://able2know.org/topic/144983-1
http://able2know.org/topic/145141-1
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Where is the US economy headed? - Discussion by au1929
Shopping Around For Loans - Question by Brandon9000
What is greed? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
bonds series h - Question by allen russell
Naked Short Selling - Question by optimus cubed
HOW TO GET WEALTHY - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Flaw in the Financial System
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:49:39