“I found my mentoring session with André very helpful, particularly because I came into it with very little understanding of commercial banking. My background is in life sciences and healthcare, and most of my career exploration so far has focused on consulting. Although I had become interested in commercial banking, I had not previously explored the area in any depth. I therefore needed a clear starting point and an honest conversation about what I should understand before deciding whether to pursue it.
André helped me establish that starting point. The session gave me a clearer way to think about commercial banking, how it differs from consulting, and what I still need to learn. Before the conversation, I was looking at opportunities and wondering whether I should begin applying alongside consulting applications. Afterwards, I understood that I needed to take a step back and make a more informed decision about whether the work genuinely interests me.
One of the most valuable aspects of the session was how it helped me recognise the gaps in my current understanding. I knew that I was new to banking, but I did not necessarily know which questions I needed to answer for myself. André’s guidance helped me think more clearly about where I am now, what I am missing, and what I should begin doing next. Having that direction was useful because it made the process feel more manageable. Rather than treating banking as a broad and unfamiliar industry, I now have a clearer starting point for learning about it.
A particularly helpful message was that I should first develop a better understanding of commercial banking and assess whether I actually like the work. I took away a sensible sequence: understand the area, decide whether it appeals to me, and then, if it does, commit to learning and preparing for applications. If I discover that the work does not suit my interests, I should be willing to recognise that and focus my efforts elsewhere. That advice sounds straightforward, but it was an important perspective for me at this stage.
The conversation made me realise that I should not rush into applying for commercial banking roles simply because I have found programmes that look interesting. Before the session, I was at risk of moving too quickly from curiosity to applications without having a strong enough understanding of the career itself. André helped me see the value of being more deliberate. I would rather make a considered application based on a genuine interest in the work than spend time applying to positions I cannot yet explain my motivation for pursuing.
Another important takeaway was recognising how substantial the differences between banking and consulting can be. Because consulting has been my main focus, it had become my reference point when thinking about other careers. The session helped me realise that I cannot assume banking will involve similar work, suit the same preferences, or require exactly the same preparation. I need to understand banking on its own terms rather than view it mainly as another option alongside consulting.
I also appreciated that the session was useful even though I did not finish it with a final career decision. At this exploratory stage, greater clarity about what I do not yet know is meaningful progress. I now feel better equipped to evaluate my interest, identify what I need to learn, and decide whether commercial banking deserves a more focused place in my career plans.
Overall, André was very helpful, and the session met an important need for me as someone starting with limited knowledge of the field. Its greatest value was giving me direction and encouraging a more thoughtful approach to my next steps. I left with a clearer understanding of my knowledge gaps, a more realistic perspective on the difference between banking and consulting, and a better sense of how to move forward before committing to applications.”
Before things hit the fan, I'd heard numbers ranging from 1m-2m depending on how much you bring in. There's probably outliers making more.
But generally speaking, unless you're a lateral hire, that seems like way too little cake for the hours you put in to get there (compared to a GS MD or a Wachtell partner that is).
It's not surprising that consultants make less than GS - that has always been the case. With respect to Wachtell you have to remember that Wachtell is a relatively small (very elite) boutique, while McKinsey is the world's largest strategy consultancy. Since they have so many more partners than Wachtell there is no way their average comp could compare with Wachtell - which pays 30-50% more on average than its competitors. If you take the top 200 McK partners they will bank the same as an average Wachtell partner...
Previously in the ~2.5-4.5 range depending on seniority and office responsibilities (e.g. Director in charge of an entire region). 1-3 may be realistic this year.
For a variety of reasons, Partners/Directors aren't paid out by "how much they bring in".
Large Western Europe offices may be a bit higher or neutral. Everywhere else (e.g. EE/Asia/Latin America) numbers are lower to a lot lower.
A Principle is a Partner, Associate Principle is a Junior Partner. Partners are 600k-1.5, APs are 300K-700K
what are the reasons for not paying based on how much business you bring in?
Officially the reason is that McKinsey wants its partners and directors to focus on their 'impact' on their clientsand so incentivise based on this.
The feeling in the firm is that linking remuneration too closely to the amount of work generated could result in clients paying for unnecessary projects and harm long-term relationships
I was more referring to how hellish going from being a consultant to partner is supposed to be. Apparently, the face-time, travel and butt-kissing are second to none. I doubt the average partner at Mckinsey is too far off the average one at Skadden too.
I sometimes wonder why Mck vs PE. In both you'd see a variety of industries or specialize where you want. Get to guide a portfolio co's strategy, generate post-close value etc
But a Senior MD at a Mega Fund would bring in $15M vs 3M at McK... Do SMDs they really work 5x as hard? Add 5x as much value? Is the 80% paycut to work at McK worth it (assuming you could choose either one)?
Currently it might be more 3M vs 1.5M but still...
Difference is very simple. Most of a PE SMD's upside is in portfolio performance through carried interest. Therefore you are compensated based on how the fund does which equals risk.
McK guys, and bankers for that matter, are just consultants, they make recommendations and just that. There's no follow through risk, implementation risk, not to mention none of your capital is at risk.
Principal side vs. advisory side is always more lucrative, but also has more downside.
is there anywhere with hard data on this?
im curious about bcg/bain as well
Any private services company (consulting, boutique M&A, law, accounting) has a big interest in keeping compensation as quiet as possible. Even buyside shops don't regularly publish details. No one knew what MDs at banks made until they went public and were forced to disclose.
My friend's dad is a Director at McKinsey. If I were to guess I'd say he is pulling in at least 5MM/year. He's an incredibly nice guy and easy to chat with but he has a thing against helping out his son;s friends. Too bad, you can make it rain after leaving McK.
I'd guess ~750 at most
Fact 1: Mr. Kumar is a senior partner McK that founded the Silicon Valley and India office
Fact 2: Mr. Kumar testified Monday that he gave "super confidential" information about McKinsey client AMD and other companies, to Mr. Rajaratnam in exchange for payments totaling $2 million that were made through offshore accounts to an account in his housekeeper's name.
His reaction to getting paid $1MM to pass illegal M&A tips to Galleon: "At the end of 2006, Mr. Kumar testified, Mr. Rajaratnam said he was so pleased with Mr. Kumar's work that he would pay him $1 million for the year.
When he heard that, Mr. Kumar said: "I almost fell off my chair." "
Conclusion: You are only impressed with $1M a year then your comp is not super high - won't get into risk/reward either.
Impossible. Average partners at my firm clear 750 after 5-6 years of making partner. Whether or not you're making 3MM$ a year, if you get a 2MM$ check for doing 5 minutes of work, when you were only expecting $1MM, I think you would fall off your chair too.
Well I wasn't saying Kumar earned 750, just saying based on what he seemed to have earned (it didn't seem like 25 million a year), the average partner makes 750. Which seems to line up with your numbers, do you work at a MBB?
In contrast, a 2nd year VP (EM equivalent) probably earns that much at a large PE shop. 1st year associates earn 300+
That would be $1M for less than 1m(inute) of effort though. Plus the risk of consequences of breaking the law.
Yeah it's definitely over 750. Manbearpig got it right, Kumar was astounded because a million bucks is a lot of money, even for someone that brings in 3mil a year. Think about it: if you're a junior person making 100K and someone handed you a check for 33K, that would seem like a lot, no? Just because you make a couple mil a year doesn't mean that a million dollars becomes chump change.
Exactly.... I think the comment MBP responded to was someone who doesn't quite understand the value of money.... someone handing you a check for a million dollars unless you were making a many million dollars a year is a lot of money
range is 1mm to 8-10mm (might not happen every year)
80% range would be 2-4mm
Issued from time to time even if the buyer shops for more information. No one knows what the Bank of MDS, and until they are forced to disclose to the public.
I can confirm 7S's comment: "range is 1mm to 8-10mm; 80% range would be 2-4mm" and also that gupta+kumar were at the higher end of the range (7-10mm).
I'm very curious on what are the reasons for not paying based on how much business each partner bring in? Why can't a partner be paid more if he brings me much more revenue to the firm than other partners?
xmasboy this is a question bigger than just consulting. It's a general incentive question that many, many organizations face. This topic is addressed in business schools, and the recent popular well reviewed business book 'The Org' also addresses it
Basically, there is no perfect incentive system.
Problems with incentives based only on revenue include: * You motivate partners to steal work from other partners * You don't motivate partners to provide knowledge or "expertise" to projects that aren't their own * You under motivate partners to do thought leadership that helps the firm e.g. publishing in Harvard Business Review or similar. Anything with a "positive externality" (google it) is under motivated. * You may make partners risk averse. It's hard to get a partner away from their tried-and-true client, but you may need their expertise to try to get that new, golden-egg client. Or, you may want someone to go help jump-start another region in a developing economy. This is good for the firm, but if they are rewarded only on revenue, and they know the first year or two in the new region would be low revenue, why would they go?
On the plus side, basing incentives purely on personal revenue is very high powered and motivating to increase your personal revenue.
Anything you do that addresses the bullets above (did they format as bullets?) weakens the power of the personal incentives, but, of course, it helps fix the issues described in the bullets. It's always a trade-off.
Quas dolores omnis et exercitationem qui qui. Minima aut provident et. Alias consequuntur sed facere quo fugiat aut est. Assumenda aliquam asperiores accusamus deleniti.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Asperiores maxime assumenda molestiae pariatur est magni. Eos dignissimos quis sunt esse. Perferendis asperiores autem omnis dolore tempore sint.
Repellendus cupiditate quo quisquam velit quos atque. Amet enim quos voluptatem minima enim et. Mollitia suscipit ullam deleniti. Minima impedit inventore fuga. Rem voluptatum nesciunt mollitia est quas dolorum sapiente. Suscipit amet magni voluptas quos. Modi eos omnis dolorum eos. Voluptas dolorem rerum placeat.
Aliquid illo quia commodi temporibus et soluta. Eos quasi quaerat eaque sit vitae hic numquam reiciendis. Velit qui non nisi itaque odio. In est corporis minima fugit saepe fugit. Doloribus quod quibusdam quia fugit debitis. Repellat nemo cumque quia ullam non temporibus quas.