How else can you possibly explain away this ridiculous commentary? It's nothing more than the normal, tired excuses that Wall Street makes. As everyone fully understands, the Wall Street numbers were bloated during the bubble years and they were supposed to start coming down. Pay on Wall Street is often twice what the same person would make in any other industry and sometimes even more.
The results have been abysmal and the only area that has shown positive results on Wall Street has been the areas that traded the US taxpayer money. They stockpiled cheap deals and then made a killing as the market stabilized. At CNBC, that means "Mission Accomplished" on Wall Street so pay them early and often.
Yet the actual metrics in the Journal story raise a key question: What’s all the screaming about? Wall Street’s total compensation simply isn’t out of control. And the pay critics, in their pious, get-tough crackdown, are only ensuring a new round of outrage when some of these banks recover.
First, some key numbers (rounded up) from The Journal’s study:
* Wall Street revenue grew 47 percent, to $450 billion, in 2009 vs 2008.
* Total compensation will rise only 18 percent in ’09 vs ’08.
* In 2008, 40 percent of revenue went to comp. In 2009: only 32 percent.
* Average total comp in 2009: $150,000, up less than $3,000 in two years.
