Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Banks Paying a Price for Their Epic Greed

By Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality. Posted July 23, 2008.


Is banking merely a grubby game where the few enrich themselves at the expense of the many?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sam Pizzigati

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Doctors. Lawyers. Architects. A decent society certainly needs them all. But what about bankers? Is banking also a necessary profession? Or is banking merely a grubby game where the few enrich themselves at the expense of the many?

These days, the answer seems fairly obvious. We've simply seen too much enriching at our expense -- bank mergers that have transformed local banks into faceless fronts for faraway corporate empires, escalating "fees" that bleed our checking and savings accounts, subprime mortgage shell games that devastate entire neighborhoods.

Now banks appear to be paying the price for this great greed grab. One giant Wall Street investment bank, Bear Stearns, has already tanked. Citigroup, America's largest bank, last week posted a $2.5 billion quarterly loss. Share prices in the banking industry have tumbled down 50, even 60 percent and more.

Bank boards of directors, amid this turbulence, are scrambling to find shining knights who'll rescue them -- and they're offering fabulous rewards to give these power-suited knights an incentive to succeed.

Earlier this month, for instance, Wachovia, the nation's fourth-largest bank, brought on a new chief executive, former Goldman Sachs alum Robert Steel, with an pay package that could be worth over $38 million. Citigroup's new chief exec, Vikram Pandit, joined the banking giant last year after Citigroup shelled out $800 million to buy the hedge fund he had started the year before. That transaction netted Pandit $165 million. Then this past January, a month after elevating the India-born Pandit to CEO, Citigroup awarded him a stock incentive package worth another $30 million, a sum, the Economic Times of India has noted, that equals nearly six times what all India's banks taken together last year paid their top executives.

To American "expert" eyes, incentives this lush make perfect sense. "That's nothing," as University of North Carolina-Charlotte finance prof Tony Plath told a reporter when asked about the $38 million for Wachovia's new CEO. "You pay him whatever you have to in order to save the bank at this point."

Give new superstars enough incentive to succeed, in other words, and banking's woes will all work out. This analysis has just one inconvenient flaw: Windfall incentives for bank CEOs created those woes in the first place.

Bankers, of course, have always endeavored to make money. But in generations past, long before subprimes, many bankers considered banking more than a money chase. These bankers saw themselves, explained the New Yorker earlier this year, as professionals engaged in a "sacred trust, an enterprise that embodied values superior to the merely material."

Novelist Louis Auchincloss, a most perceptive observer of America's most privileged, captured this perspective years ago in a book he set in the 1930s.

"Banking isn't just money-making," Auchincloss had one banker telling another. "Banking is starting new businesses and saving old ones. Banking is helping the right-man over a bad time. Banking is keeping the heart of the economy pumping. If you don't feel that way about it, you ought to quit and become a stockbroker."

Auchincloss's banker hero was fighting a noble but losing battle. The money-makers had overrun banking in the 1920s, a go-go financial era much like our own. Their excesses would eventually help usher in the Great Depression.

The New Deal, in response, would ultimately curb the "just money-making" spirit by rigorously regulating how bankers do business -- and raising taxes substantially on income in the highest tax brackets, a move that tended to dampen incentives to push the regulatory envelope. After all, why take risks to earn extra millions if Uncle Sam was just going to tax the bulk of those extra millions away?


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: banking, fees, wachovia

Sam Pizzigati is the editor of the online weekly Too Much, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great Article ... Wrong Title ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jul 23, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shareholders and customers, and now tax payers are paying but the bankers themselves are absconding with trillions.

We saw this in the last quarter of 2007 where losses at the banks were deferred so that billions in bonuses could be handed out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Commondreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jul 23, 2008 8:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go, Mr. Pizzigati! - Keep on exposing these scams for what they are - upward streams of income that never trickle down to the masses...bringing us gross inequality, stress, and trouncing family values and morals. And it is all so pointless, the hoarding, the greed, the insanity of it all. That, and the starvation of government...after all, why does government exist? In its best form it attempts to protect the little guy...well, no wonder they want to kill it off - that just doesn't fit on the agenda. The agenda is self enrichment, everything for self and nothing for society at large...no stewardship, no morals, no leadership - just an appalling lack of conscience and lack of spirituality...and these are our leaders? I am curious - what does this kind of leadership have to do with "values"?

Mr. Pizzigati, you're a champion - keep shooting holes in the Ponzi scheme that they (overpaid financiers) call the "new economy" (code for bankrupting the lower and middle classes with debt and depressed wages..and worse, inflaming them with consumer envy). Keep up the good work and maybe voters will be angry enough this time to throw out the regime for good. How this administration hijacked "family values" is beyond me....as nearly every policy they implement is designed to tear families apart and rip to shreds the societal fabric as we have known it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LEAVE THE BANKERS ALONE!!
Posted by: rickiey on Jul 23, 2008 9:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I"m not against bankers making a buck. In fact, I think bankers should make money, and plenty of it, because banking can be done honestly.

However, banking is a business of RISK. You make money in banking by loaning it, and profiting on the loan. The loan is a RISK, and by being a banker, you assume that RISK.

So why are we bailing them out? When you bail out a banker, you encourage that banker to take on higher RISKS because the risk to THEM goes away when they get bailed out!

So leave the bankers alone, and let them live with the risks (otherwise known as loans) that they took. Mortgage crisis? Screw it, let the bankers figure it out.

Ya know what? I highly suspect that when faced with the economic reality of going bankrupt because forclosing on peoples mortgages doesn't pay THEIR rent, the bankers will find a way to help people make their mortgage payments......for THEIR OWN sake.

Or they go bankrupt. I'm ok with it either way, really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LEAVE THE BANKERS ALONE!! Posted by: ranchero42
Raven Waldenpond
Posted by: raven9 on Jul 25, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree, and who really can't? They are bloodsuckers. A somewhat necessary evil. It is a small thing, but consider what you as an individual can do. I am one of the working poor and do need a checking account. As soon as I get my paycheck deposited, I online pay the necessary bills. Then the $100 left over for indcidentals and cash gets withdrawn immediately the next day and I set it aside. I used my debit card for purchases as little as possible. I don't like a paper trail of my purchases, nor do I appreciate banks using my money in a way that can profit them. This may seem like a gnat trying to take down a giant. Yet, anything we can do as individuals to take back our power and NOT support banks, big pharma, and the mega food industry, we absolutely must do. Buy used, barter, use the underground economy as much as you can. Keep your business to yourself. Little things, but as a nation of engaged people and not sheep, we must begin quietly practicing passive resistance. If you need extra money, don't take another real job. See if you can get one for cash. Reduce the amount of tax money you give to the govt this way. It starts with me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Torches and Pitchforks!! for bank executives.
Posted by: pangolin on Jul 26, 2008 11:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bank executives and board members decided they would buy a neat little loophole from Congress where they sold the wild risks that they took on to pension funds while they, personally, collected the profits.

The top brass at the banks in charge of all this pulled down millions of dollars per year to power dive the US into a plowed field. They, of course, get to keep all the money they 'earned' running these ponzi schemes.

If you have any doubt what was supposed to happen to privatized Social Security accounts now you know.

The really nasty criminals wear suits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]