Minimum Wage for Bankers
The news of Goldman Sachs bowing to public pressure (even though Kenneth Feinberg takes credit for the move) and announcing no cash bonuses for senior executives came as a bit of a shock to me, I must admit. Receiving all your bonus in heavily restricted stock defeats the purpose of a bonus if you ask me, but I'm a notoriously short-term thinker in matters of compensation.
Now a lot of financial journalists are saying that Goldman's decision is the death knell of the cash bonus, period. That banks will increase salaries across the board and that year-end bonuses will no longer represent 60% of the average banker's all-in comp. This article from Business Week takes it a step further and puts forward the idea of reduced salaries and eliminated cash bonuses for bankers, essentially turning a Wall Street banker into just another clock-punching shmoe.
Instead of 60 percent of investment firm pay coming from year-end handouts, more will be in salary. And there may be less of that too, because of the pressure on banks from the government and myriad critics to become sounder institutions by raising capital and taking fewer risks. That will reduce profit and the ability to pay.
So this got me thinking. As miserable as the job is most of the time, what is the minimum all-in annual comp you would accept to do this job? Obviously, I realize different career paths will have different answers. For example, I'd sooner do gay porn than ever go back to work for a bank. But for the right money, I could probably be talked into trading again. Probably.
Here's where the prestige factor comes in. Would you take $36,000 a year all-in to be able to tell people you work for GS/MS/PJ? Be honest, now, because I know there's a few of you out there who would.
Let's make this a serious discussion, because I'm curious. Let's assume a 51-week year at an average of 85 hours per week. That's a total of 4,335 hours. Now if we look at the current average all-in pay for first and second year bankers, it probably falls somewhere around $85,000 (across the board, on average remember). That works out to $19.60 per hour.
I know we don't like to think of things in those terms and admit to ourselves that journeymen plumbers make more than bankers on an hourly basis, but for this exercise it is the easiest way to compare apples to apples and arrive at a baseline we can agree on.
So if today's average first and second year bankers make $20 an hour, give or take, what is the least amount (hourly) that you'd be willing to accept and still work in banking? At what point does that barista job at Starbucks start looking good? And, in all seriousness, would you be willing to work for all salary and no bonus and, if so, what would that salary number have to be?







Comments
Go to a privately held
Go to a privately held bank...
"I don't think that there is any other quality so essential to success of any kind as the quality of perseverance. It overcomes almost everything, even nature."
-John D. Rockefeller
There's a certain lifestyle I
There's a certain lifestyle I want to be able to live that I wouldn't do the job for less than, say, $100k as an analyst (pretax) and if I didn't think I'd be making ~$400-600k within 6-7 years. If you're telling me I'm going to make $80k as an analyst and work for 6-7 years to become a VP and get paid $200k, I don't think I'd do it. Fuck that, I'd either go to law school or do something else completely, like go into politics or screenwriting.
Financial Modeling Training
Guide to Finance Interviews
First of all, I think your
First of all, I think your estimates are slightly off. If BB's pay 70k + 10k signing, + bonus, I would say average all in pay should be about $120k - which makes it $27/hr.
Anyway, I don't think of it as an hourly salary job. Also the analyst job is just a stepping stone to the better jobs in finance with fewer hours and more money, so I think this is kind of a narrow-minded question. That being said, I would not do it for less than 70k all in first year. People at Bloomberg or Google earn around that much and get to do more creative work in laid back environments. But at those jobs, the chances of becoming a millionaire are slim, so in the end it's really about the advancement opportunities.
Interesting
First of all, I think your estimates are slightly off. If BB's pay 70k + 10k signing, + bonus, I would say average all in pay should be about $120k - which makes it $27/hr.
Anyway, I don't think of it as an hourly salary job. Also the analyst job is just a stepping stone to the better jobs in finance with fewer hours and more money, so I think this is kind of a narrow-minded question. That being said, I would not do it for less than 70k all in first year. People at Bloomberg or Google earn around that much and get to do more creative work in laid back environments. But at those jobs, the chances of becoming a millionaire are slim, so in the end it's really about the advancement opportunities.
The chances of becoming a millionaire in IBD aren't exactly enourmous. The hurdles to reach that are not easily surmounted and most are weeded out / leave the industry. Not to mention, there is a good chance that those who work at a place like Google have far more useful skills to put to use in creating something. That combined with a better lifestyle is something to keep in mind.
I'm a 3rd year and if I make less than $120K all in this year (which is possible, people have been warning us that bonuses will be awful), then I will lose my shit. Ideally, bonus would be at least 80% of salary, but I doubt it. If I were a first year, I'd do it for $80K all in, since it's the experience that matters most at that point. Any time thereafter, motherfuckers had better pay up.
Check out my WSO Blog
Banking profit is relatively
Banking profit is relatively low risk (can't lose money like prop trading); so if BBs don't pay a reasonable % to bankers, they can start their own bank or go to a boutique.
I don't think reduced leverage will hurt bankers as much as sales traders (esp m&a advisory; only loss will be inability to use the balance sheet as much for equity/debt offerings).
*
Dealflow has been pretty good, I think (and certainly hope) that bonuses for analysts will be at least decent. Public pressure shouldn't be too big of a factor for us either, since we're relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things.
I have to agree with macro,
I have to agree with macro, analyst are certainly some of the "cheapest" assets at the firm, but over generalization is a killer here. When the public is outraged over bonuses, these attacks are focused on senior executives, so the big question is whether the entire payment model will trickle down to the junior level. Without any feeder individuals to come up, deals with top talent on board would certainly dwindle, there is no question...
Salary per hour for analysts
Salary per hour for analysts is definitely not great, but going back to what brisbane and Banker88 said, its all just part of career progression to bigger and better things with more pay, more human interaction, and slightly more life.