As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Goldman Sachs Will Tie Bonuses to Long-Term Performance

This article was written by in Career and Work. 5 comments.

A big criticism of Wall Street bonuses throughout and after the collapse of the financial industry has been the idea that executives were awarded over-sized bonuses while their companies fell apart. Wall Street fought back against this criticism, usually with the explanation that bonuses were paid in accordance to contracts that were signed before the economic collapse.

A guaranteed bonus seems to defy the concept of itself; it’s really just another form of compensation that an employee can rely on. On the other hand, a true bonus should be tied to some sort of measurement of success, and the tighter the bonus is tied to an individual’s effect on the success of the company, the better. For a sales representative or broker who brings in $5 billion in new business, it’s hard to deny a $1 million bonus would be appropriate (0.02%), and feel free to go higher. Rationalization gets murkier when the broker brings in $5 billion in new business but the company loses a net $50 billion over the previous year.

Goldman Sachs, a company that took bailout money from taxpayers and then proceeded to pay its executives massive bonuses with its cash, recently announced that it will tie some executives’ bonuses to long-term financial performance.

One of the keys to a good system of rewards is to provide an incentive timed closely to the action that merits the reward; otherwise, the cause and effect are muddied. One year in the company which until recently was my employer, a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, executives announced a company-wide bonus immediately following our annual financial performance was released to the public.

A year’s results may not be long-term enough, however. Companies were making billions of dollars year after year on credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities until these derivatives were shown to be of little value and expedited financial collapse. Even with a reward system that looks at the annual “long-term” results for its definition would have allowed those who created short-term profits for these companies to lock in billions in bonuses.

If companies want to tie bonuses to long-term results, they should be waiting ten to twenty years to determine what has truly been good for the company. Of course, no executive wants to wait more than a decade to find out what their compensation will be. As it is, many companies offer these bonuses in deferred compensation, so although executives know what they’ll be receiving, it may be some time before money changes hands.

As the best executives for the most part gravitate towards the most favorable compensation packages, bonuses based on real long-term results would be a hard policy to adopt throughout an industry. There are no good solutions to this problem. I have no problem with companies making massive profits compensating those who helped create those profits, but when those profits are found to be based on shady operations, misleading deals, or outright lies that don’t come to the surface for years, there should be a way for those who profited to be held financially responsible.

Updated December 22, 2011 and originally published December 27, 2010.

Email Email Print Print
About the author

Luke Landes is the founder of Consumerism Commentary. He has been blogging and writing for the internet since 1995 and has been building online communities since 1991. Find out more about Luke Landes and follow him on Twitter. View all articles by .

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar 1 Anonymous

There’s a lot wrong with some bonus systems but 10 to 20 years would be unworkable. I fear a return of the 1980-90 vintage “Shareholder Value” bonuses – When bonuses were tied entirely to the price of the company’s stock. That ushered in Enron and Worldcom accounting practices and drew executives attention away from running the company and focused it on manipulating (or conspiring with) stock analyst just to keep “value” up. Shareholders should have visibility into bonus programs – not just the amounts but also the criteria used. Oh and one more idea: When an executive receives a bonus based on performance of a business component, a portion of that bonus should be allocated to the folks within that business component that DID THE DAMN WORK!! Sorry didn’t mean to shout….

Reply to this comment

avatar 2 Anonymous

Executive pay is just out of control IMO. They are the one benefiting most from the corporation concept. The shareholders and employees are just suckers proping up the exec’s inflated salary and bonuses. That’s why I need to get the heck out of the corporation ASAP.

Reply to this comment

avatar 3 Anonymous

As a former CFO, I have no problem paying a bonus for performance! Wall Street’s bonuses appear to be over the top! Perhaps stock options vested over time is a better long term compensation scheme? This could be a real change for Wall Street.

Reply to this comment

avatar 4 eric

I don’t really have any suggestions, but I do echo the outrage on the ridiculous bonus system currently employed at most corporations. It’s almost maddening to see bonuses awarded to companies going bankrupt!

Reply to this comment

avatar 5 Anonymous

The guys on Wall Street want to run their businesses as if they are still partnerships, where they can split up the spoils among the top dogs, and not publicly traded companies. Whether this represents any kind of real compensation reform or is just another head fake only time will tell. The devil is always in the details.

Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment

Note: Use your name or a unique handle, not the name of a website or business. No deep links or business URLs are allowed. Spam, including promotional linking to a company website, will be deleted. By submitting your comment you are agreeing to these terms and conditions.