Nassim Nicholas Taleb of Black Swan fame has a provocative column this morning in the Financial Times—a little too provocative.
He’s excellent at explaining Wall Street’s skewed pay incentives that led to this crisis:
As you do not disgorge previous compensation, the incentive is to engage in trades that explode rarely, after a period of steady gains.Here you can see that this mismatch between the bonus payment frequency (typically, one year) and the time to blow up (about five to 20 years) is the cause of the accumulation of positions that hide risk by betting massively against small odds. As traders say, they have the “free option” on their performance: they get the profits, not the losses. I hold that this vicious asymmetry is the driving factor behind investment banking.
If capitalism is about incentives, it should be about true incentives, those resistant to blow-ups. And there should be disincentives to remove the asymmetry of the free option.
Taleb nails it here, presenting the problem in traders’ terms—the “free option.” That’s otherwise known as “head I win, tails taxpayers lose.”
…when it comes to banks and other “too big to fail” entities, the problem is severe: we taxpayers in our respective countries are funding these global monsters and are coughing up money for mistakes made by bankers who retain their bonuses and are hijacking us because, as we are discovering (a little late), banking is a utility and we need them to clean up their mess. We, in fact, are the seller of that free option. We should claim it back.
And he expands that to private-equity, as well, though he leaves out hedge funds:
…leveraged buy-out companies used the free option by borrowing heavily from the banks and taking monstrous risks: they get the upside, banks (hence we taxpayers) get the downside. These partnerships made fortunes in the past on deals that society will have to bail out. They too should have their past profits clawed back.
But Taleb wanders off into fantasy land in his recommendation for how to rectify this problem:
Finally, I was involved in trading for 21 years and I can testify that traders consciously play the free option game. On the other hand, I worked (in my other job as risk adviser) with various military organisations and people watching over our safety. We trust military and homeland security people with our lives, yet they do not get a bonus. They get promotions, the honour of a job well done and the disincentive of shame if they fail. Roman soldiers signed a sacramentum accepting punishment in the event of failure. This is prompting me to call for the nationalisation of the utility part of banking as the only solution in which society does not grant individuals free options to look after its risks.
Good luck with that. I think we ought to nationalize insolvent banks temporarily and then sell them back to the private sector, but nationalize them permanently? That’s idiotic, and it will never happen here.
There’s a much better, much easier fix. Put a strict limit on the amount of debt that any bank or institution (including hedge funds) can have. No more thirty-five-times assets stuff. Raise capital requirements. That alone will put a big damper on excess (phantom) profits caused by excess risk-taking and thus put a big damper on pay.
Then require bonus pay to be deferred for several years, or require investment banks to be privately held partnerships like they used to be, something that worked much better than the current system, as Yves Smith of Nake Capitalism says here.
Ryan,
I have to say that refuting Taleb's argument by making the ad hominem "idiotic" charge, with no additional analysis, does no service to any point you are trying to make.
Taleb (especially in his book) make some strong argument for why permanent nationalization of banks MIGHT be valuable. I'm open to hearing REASONS that he's wrong, but you didn't give us any of those. Please try harder next time.
-Aaron Street
#1 Posted by Aaron Street, CJR on Wed 25 Feb 2009 at 04:16 PM
Point taken, Aaron.
I should have said idiotic "politically." That's what I meant to refer to—the zero chance it has of ever happening.
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 25 Feb 2009 at 08:54 PM
I'd agree that calling it 'idiotic' put too much bile in an otherwise fine article and add that he said "the nationalisation of the utility part of banking".
He's forgotten more about economics than I'll ever learn, but I'd guess what he was getting at was that when something has the possibility of becoming "too big to fail" it may be a good idea to keep it at least partially in the hands of some democratically culpable entity. As even the most ardent cheerleader of "free" markets has to admit, the financial sector is hardly accountable in the public political arena.
#3 Posted by mike black, CJR on Wed 25 Feb 2009 at 11:37 PM
Hi, Mike,
But there's a very simple solution for the "too big to fail" problem, which is one of my hobbyhorses: Don't let banks get too big to fail and split up the ones that currently are.
We need more diversity and competition in the banking system and we're not going to get that when the top three banks control one in every three deposit dollars in the United States. It's especially bad when one of those three top banks is Bank of America (Citigroup is No. 4).
I'd also argue that gigantism has been allowed to go unchecked in other parts of the economy in an unhealthy way, and that needs to be looked at. See Wal-Mart, industrial farming, etc.
#4 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 09:11 AM
Great stuff today all over. I agree more with your too-big-to-fail comment than Talib's open option comments. This is a known problem that bank management deals with. Their option is not at all free since many CEOs have 90% of their wealth in the company's stock (Bear's James Cayne is an example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7317878.stm ). The other group that without a free option is shareholders. Perhaps the cost of this option that banks give to their employees was undervalued, but Citi's $2 share price suggests that it's not anymore.
The tax payer, though, shouldn't give the banks an option, which is why your argument to split those "too-big-to-fail" is spot on.
#5 Posted by Chris Corliss, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 11:22 AM
The government should be able, by fiat, to limit the size of ANY corporate entity.
NO corp should EVER be allowed to get "too big to fail." To do otherwise is to INVITE fascism, hand it the keys to the city, as it were, and stand by applauding its progress....
#6 Posted by woody, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 11:24 AM