Christmas has passed, marking the mid way point of another winter vacation and the conclusion of two great nights of debate with the extended family. Christmas eve was devoted to the virtues and problems of wikileaks, religion, foreign policy, Canada's involvement in Afganistan, and the motivations behind joining the army. Christmas day however centered largely on one topic, the financial crash and the gross immorality of investment bankers.
Before I resign myself to the idea that my years ahead will be spent reporting to Lord Vader on how I managed to squeeze $30M out of 5 deals that were not in the underlying firms interest, I think my trade needs me to give it the chance to be moral and just.
My fathers side of the family is composed of many families that have made their living in C level careers in the oil in gas industry. They are in essence a good composition of my future clients, and it's a bit startling to learn how much my future customers might secretly hate me.
Their main gripes center around two issues: the money, and the incentive. On the macro level they feel that the high pay draws away bright minds from engineering, medical, and policy careers that the country needs more. On the micro level they feel that salaries give i-bankers a false sense of superiority and invincibility. Make millions when times are good, get government bailouts when times are bad.
I argue that the money is good because few are up to the task of doing the work. There is no oligopoly in the investment banking world, it is highly competitive on all levels and in all areas. With so much competition, and so much interest in becoming an i-banker, if the workers didn't hold some element of a scarce resource their salaries would be squeezed away to keep the firms margins high. But it is the people who drive the business, and when one person manages to bring in $10M of revenue their salary becomes justified.
What I have more trouble explaining is why the business itself is so profitable. How has the ~3% spread stayed so high if there really is so much competition. The obvious answer is risk, but my uncles seem convinced that the i-banks of today have almost completely eliminated their exposure. I'm sure the next 12 months will shed some light on the issue. If in fact the industry has been able to collude and keep these historical premiums while managing to eliminate the risk (and the costs that come with it) then maybe the industry isn't so "fair". But it's a industry wide phenomena, and one that is admirable to any capitalist as long as there is not some anti-capitalist framework keeping it in place (government relationships, or true collusion). Over time the markets should correct for these non-normal profits and my future paycheck should get a bit slimmer.
The incentives are another issue because they really are a product of the individual i-bankers business conduct. My firm will make money when a deal is done. It will make more money if the deal is big, and it will make more money on more deals. Thus the big incentive is to have i-bankers drive as many big deals as possible. Deals are IPO's, bond issuance's, mergers, acquisitions, consolidations, spin offs, carve outs, and LBO's. It is my uncles contention that i-bankers advise companies to do deals when they shouldn't, and that when the deal is going through the i-banker isn't thinking about the firm, but instead how to maximize their cut.
I think the biggest point of issue is that business men know how to run their business, and if they are good, they know how to run it well. Unfortunately finding oil reserves and getting to them efficiently, doesn't have a lot to do with a bond deal or a takeover. Very smart individuals get caught in a world they don't understand and it's their baby at stake if things go sour. When you don't have a good grasp of the playing field it's natural to feel like its slanted against you. And sadly it is natural for it to be slanted against you. Businesses need capital, and so they need i-bankers, and i-bankers need businesses to need capital. This symbiotic relationship should ensure that neither side screws the other on the macro level because each side can permanently avoid the other on an individual level. If an i-banking team gets a rap for being sleazy and underhanded they won't get business. If a business gets a rap for providing faulty information and trying to screw their bankers, they won't get capital. These 'jungle rules' keep both parties from the extremes, but I would agree that the balance of power is in the i-bankers court. Tough.
Neither of these business realities are immoral. I truly believe that an i-banker that screws his clients, is not long for his job, and definitely not destined for riches in the long term. Like any service industry the client is king, and the i-banker that does right by his clients, will win their trust and lead them through the really bid deals when the time comes.
No comments:
Post a Comment