The best known of all the Wall Street firms did not attempt to show the restraint of last year when it reduced the amount being paid into its bonus pool in the fourth quarter of 2009 to make a $500 million public donation to a charitable foundation, Goldman Sachs Gives.
This year? Screw them!
The $15.3 billion set aside for bonuses and salaries was down 5% on the $16 billion for the previous year but did not fall as fast as revenues, which dropped 13% to $39.1 billion in 2010.
The bank set aside $2.2 billion in the fourth quarter alone even though revenue halved to $2.4 billion during this period. Goldman has used 40% of its revenue to pay staff, some 5,500 of whom work in the City, and will begin to learn in the coming days about the size of their 2010 bonuses.
In 2009 the bank cut this so-called compensation ratio to 35.8, the lowest since it went public in 1999 in an attempt to demonstrate restraint.
David Viniar, finance director of Goldman Sachs, defended the pay arrangements. "We don't target a ratio. We pay our people fairly, based on their performance," he said.
Where can I get an application?
But the Goldman figures came just hours after data in the UK showed that youth unemployment had hit a record high of close to 1 million, sparking fury from unions.
Hey! It's their fault for being young and unemployed!
The general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, said "Goldman Sachs has stuck two fingers (which two??) up to austerity Britain by shelling out mega bonuses again. These earnings would make Gordon the Gekko blush.
"Bankers are toasting their telephone-digit bonuses while the rest of the country reels from more than a fifth of young people being out of work. This government is overseeing a fast return to the worst excesses of the 1980s. The chancellor must use the upcoming G20 meeting and budget to make good the coalition agreement to tackle unacceptable bonuses."
Goldman confirmed that its total bill for former chancellor Alistair Darling's one-off bonus tax last year was $465 million. His successor, George Osborne, has decided not to implement another bonus tax.
Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and chief executive of Goldman, said "Market and economic conditions for much of 2010 were difficult, but the firm's performance benefited from the strength of our global client franchise and the focus and commitment of our people."
"Looking ahead, we are seeing signs of growth and more economic activity, and we are well-positioned to help our clients expand their businesses, manage their risks and invest in the future."
The bank now employs 3,200 more staff that it did a year ago, an increase of 10%, which might explain why the compensation pool has not fallen by as much as revenue. Per head, the average payout has fallen from $498,000.
The firm said that $320 million of its charitable contributions for 2010 were to Goldman Sachs Gives and that compensation had been reduced to fund this charitable contribution.
This year has not started well for Goldman, earlier this month it was forced to pull out of a private placement deal to enable its wealthy US clients to invest in Facebook.
In 2010, the firm was fined $550 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US, and 17.5 million pounds by UK's Financial Services Authority over the Abacus sub-prime mortgage product and the activities of Fabrice Tourre, a London-based employee.
Last April, Blankfein was subjected to a grilling by the US Senate over its activities in the mortgage market before the credit crunch in 2007.
The sharp fall in Goldman's revenues in the fourth quarter was the result of a 10% fall in the investment banking area where fees from advising on mergers and acquisitions were down and a 31% fall in revenue from fixed income, currency and commodities, where anxiety about a sovereign debt crisis in Europe may have held back activity.
Viniar said "In the month of December, things were just dead in the fixed income division. There was little activity."
OMG! Quick! Time for a pity party! How are these folks gonna survive? Can you say superfluity (freaken excessive)?
<< Home