nobody said money managers should not be paid for performance. "let the bonus reflect a five year period of performance which is a reasonable cycle in the market. you will see how quickly the bonus will shrink or disappear. let the bonus be paid only if it exceeds a certain index adjusted for risk
Most are vastly overpaid. I would love to see how "great" some of them would be without being spoon fed inside information from all the big houses.
It makes sense, but in reality how many people are gonna take the job when you say, "we'll give you a salary, and talk about a bonus in five years" Would you do it? I dont think I would. jim
i understand your objections. the terms can be worked out. it is not we will talk about a bonus in 5 years. the terms are set beforehand.
In my last regular job, the largest portion of executive bonuses was based upon three-year performance.
If everybody would follow this principle, you would have to choose between 5 years or another job. But you would not find better offers from competitors as they all would use the same 5 years bonus system.
Bonuses are made on how much money is gatherd during the year. Stating that, it is important to note that there is mony other markets that are traded aside from the stock market. Derivatives, options, fforex, fixed income, etc, etc. Money can bbe made and lost. So, some will get bigger bonuses then other.
Let me get this straight if I develop a new strategy that makes my employer reek in record profits and bring new business into the firm for that year I'm not entitled for any performance incentive?? And to top it off I'm now locked in for 5 years before I can see any bonus compensation... Seriously are you fucking nuts???
"Entitled" is an interesting choice of words. Regardless, the issue is not whether performance bonuses should be paid (they should be). The debate is about their magnitude and the basis for payout.