Unstructured Finance

Wall Street pay: Headed up or down?

It was a good third quarter for Wall Street profits and an even better one for employees: Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley set aside another $7.6 billion in compensation during the period, with year-to-date pay for the average employee up 15 percent at Goldman and 3 percent at Morgan Stanley.

Total comp accruals for both firms so far this year are up to $23 billion, 2 percent higher than the amount set aside a year ago. That equates to or 47 percent of adjusted net revenue, down from 50 percent for the first nine months of 2011, but still much higher than the pay levels some shareholders are demanding.

The data are a little befuddling, since New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli recently said he expects Wall Street to lose jobs this year, and for pay to drop. Recruiters and Wall Street pay consultants have also said they expect pay to either decline or remain relatively flat for many kinds of traders and bankers this year. And JPMorgan’s investment bank has already started chopping down banker pay.

It is also be a sign that the disconnect between shareholders and management has not been resolved at some Wall Street banks. As Unstructured Finance and Reuters have reported, investors are looking for Goldman and Morgan Stanley to bring their comp levels down – way down –to perhaps as little as 30 percent of revenue. (A demand that one Wall Street source told Unstructured Finance would cause profits to evaporate entirely, because all the bankers and traders would quit.)

So is Wall Street pay on the way up or on the way down? Frankly, it’s hard to tell.

S&P calls baloney on Wall Street’s “cyclical” profit view

By Lauren Tara LaCapra

Ask a Wall Street CEO whether his bank will be able to make as much money as it used to make, once customers start trading and doing deals again. He will inevitably respond with some form of “Yes!”

Ask just about anyone else with a shred of common sense and the answer is more along the lines of “hahaha…you’re kidding, right?”

This conversation is known on Wall Street as the “Structural vs. Cyclical” debate. On the structural side, you’ve got those who are convinced that new regulations, higher capital requirements and clients’ mistrust of big, conflicted i-banks will keep  a lid on profits for firms like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley. On the cyclical side, you’ve got people like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who keep insisting that everything will be just fine once various “headwinds” subside.

  •