Shoot those I-Bankers!!!

The "vulgarest" of them all are the bankers! Most of them work for unlisted companies, so we don't even know how many digits are there in their salaries. And that, btw, is in US $.

So should we shoot them or easier still, take away their Mercs and sea-facing apartments?

Why are we grudging them their earnings in the first place? Nobody seems to be complaining that Dhoni makes Rs 50 crores for his skills and good looks or Akshay Kumar makes Rs 100 crore for neither.

And if that's what their customers paid them, then why would they look a gift horse in the mouth? Corporates are willing to pay bankers 0.5% to 2% of the deal value for any fund-raising activity or M&A deals... a bit like what real-estate agents earn from rental or buy/sell deals. The cost of doing the deal is quite limited - they just have to pay for plush offices and assistants to make wonderful slide packs. It's skills and good looks all the way.

Except when a deal goes sour after months of work (like the Bharti-MTN one), most bankers end up closing a few deals every year. Most large banks do not touch a deal if they cannot earn a minimum $1mn fees. If it is a large deal (by Indian standards), they ought to earn at least $3-5mn. Of course, that won't get split evenly... like everywhere, the big fish make much more than the junior analysts. An entry level banker (in India) should be making at least $50K (25L INR); successful senior folks wouldn't settle for anything less than $1mn. The CEOs obviously make several of those millions.

Do you need these guys to make deals happen? Many corporate executives will tell you, We don't really need these suits to come in; anyways we end up doing all the intelligent work. The bankers just look pretty at all the meetings. But, face it, can you do an M&A deal on magicbricks.com? Or launch your public offer at giveindia.com?

Corporates ought to re-look at the way I-banking fees are determined. Most companies don't want to pay for a failed transaction, and therefore, settle for a 1% success fee: if I am spending 100, what is 1 more? The i-bankers take all the risk of the deal, and end up getting a huge upside when a transaction is consummated. Perhaps, a fixed retainer that compensates the bankers for their work (like consultants get paid), even if a deal breaks, could reduce the super-normal upside of a successful transaction.

Till then, die you bankers!
4 responses
Nice posts.... even if you want to shoot old friends.... btw, be careful who you want to shoot... bankers are ok.... but carry it too far and you may end up like Buddhi -:)
Do I sense a tint of jealousy here? Every day you wake up, you have a choice to make. You can either go to work or quit and join an i-Banker.
@Ajit: Jealousy?? Perhaps you misunderstood my post... this was in continuation of the "vulgar" salaries discussion. Bankers' salaries have been typically used, particularly in the last 12 mos, as an example of corporate greed. I am just pointing out here that as long as somebody is willing to pay them, why should anybody crib? As if they were stealing money from investors or elsewhere.

And since I could not just point out an issue, without providing a "solution", I have suggested an approach that might be fair to all.

If I really started shooting all I-bankers, I wouldn't have too many friends left!

well..in a market driven economy people get paid what the market is willing to bear and we should not grudge anybody that..instead of turning their guns on corporates - where high income also results in higher taxes collected by government - the target should be the unimaginably large sums of money that politicians "earn" under the table...I am sure the "cost of corruption" to our economy must atleast be a percent or atleast half a percent of GDP growth..unlike executive salaries - which will max have a negligible impact on inflation while actually benefitting government income generation.