Why are the hours so bad in this group?

i had friends who worked in UBS HC as SAs and worked 100+ hrs a week pretty much every wk all summer. lots of pitching.

isn

isn't that typical for most coverage groups anyway: 100+hrs/wk?

nah i think most people work around 80/wk on an ave week

--

I would think that the regulations and laws involving Healthcare would also increase the amount worked on each deal. Just my initial thought, not sure if it does though.

That the pay for SAs and FTs in healthcare won't go down severely? If the work and deals are still there, I would think that the pay will not go down drastically. Or am I simply deluding myself?

Healthcare is a very broad space with a ton of small players. The fewer players in an industry, the easier it is to cover (less pitching by virtue of number of people to pitch to). The larger the industry players are, the better coverage, financials, etc there tends to be.

So, when you have a large, fragmented space full of VC sized companies you are gonna have to work a ton. Combine this with a few large players that are always looking at huge time consuming deals (in a different part of healthcare) and the hours suck. Plus throw in the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect, that is people who go into healthcare know its long hours and their seniors oblige them.

This is the same reason why Tech groups often kill you.

double post

What percentage of analysts' time is spent on pitching/execution in health care?

If hours are consistently so bad, why don't they just hire more analysts?

Quality of work might even improve if the analysts work 80hrs/wk instead of 100hrs+.

I'm also curious about that as well.

Do analysts/associates in Healthcare Group receive generally bigger bonus than the ones in other groups?

bump

Analyst and associate comp is based on a range set by the street. Last year for first year analysts, it was 70k-90k (a few shops paid as low as 60k for real douchebags). A top performing analyst got 90k, someone who they would fire this year got 70k, most people got low to mid 80s. This is range is firm wide (that is not group dependent) and with good reason. The firm doesn't seek to punish cogs in the machine because the MD they got assigned to wasn't able to close deals, they punish the MD for that. Rather you get comped based on working your hardest and being value-added, your future career prospects are impacted by group choice, deal flow, etc, but not your initial comp.

This being said, the firm may cap the number of top analyst pay-outs for a group that sucks. However, just because you are in a high revenue group doesn't mean it trickles down to analysts by giving more top bonus. Bonuses at the analyst level are designed to give the best analysts comp (and the best analyst doesn't even necessarily end up on the high paying deals). This is true across the BBs and doesn't necessarily hold true in the boutique or MM space.

This is true for associates as well, however associate bonuses usually have a larger potential ban giving groups more leeway to reward based on group performance. Only at VP and above does group revenue really start to come into play.

Here is a good breakdown of what comp is based on Analyst: Group independent, based on analyst "tier" Associate: Largely group independent, based on "tier" and promotability VP: Fairly group dependent, depends on deals and starting to source deals SVP/Director: 50/50 group and personal fee revenue MD: Small salary, small sharing, largely based on individual fee streams. Many firms give you a baseline that will earn you a predetermined bonus, with sharing levels on fees above that (ie you are supposed to bring in $10mm in fees and you get 10% of fees from $10-$30 and 25% of the fees after that)

Thanks PowerMonkey, that makes a lot of sense.

Since analyst comp doesn't depend on a group they are in, by what standard are analyst evaluated? Their modeling skill? How well they put together marketing materials?

Why did Soviet conscripts perenially beat their younger counterparts within an inch of their lives, and sometimes beyond (the fatality rate for conscripts in training was mind boggling, in a phenemenon known as dedovschina)?

Because it was inbred into the very fabric of the culture. Why is that way at UBS healthcare? Ben has a lot to do with that. It's a group built in his image, based upon his values and formed by his priorities.

So why is the healthcare so similar across Wall Street? If you asked me my opinion, it's Ben once again. Remember when he and Geoff Harris were Smith Barney healthcare, for all practical purposes. They dominated the sector. Today, much of Wall Street's healthcare groups are seeded by his former proteges and colleagues. Or by bankers who grew up competing with Ben, and as a result sometimes became more demanding, ruthless and indifferent to suffering in order to match him.

Just an opinion, of course.

Ben?