Whether or not anyone agrees with this sentiment I don't know, but while we were sitting around the other day eating dinner a couple of associates and analysts I was with were talking about bonus levels for the upcoming year and everyone seemed to feel like 2009 bonuses are going to feel alot more like 2002-2003 from what they were hearing from senior people who were complaining about the lack of deal flow.
First off what are your guy's thoughts on this? Too generous or completely off base?
Also does anyone have any idea what the ranges were for analysts/associates by year during those two years?
~$30k was top bucket for a first year analyst in 2002-2003...I expect to see those same levels this year.
30 or less seems to be thrown around a lot these days...
Won't the bonuses be decided by US treasury or the Fed?
30k? Sounds like a mediocre day for a good prop trader. Nothing to write home about certainly.
30k a day is hardly mediocre. It is exceptional. Especially when considering likely var.
You'll learn to not take trade4size's posts too seriously.
15-30k?
So after taxes...the take home...jesus christ...
Really makes you want to put in more of those 100+ hour weeks, doesn't it???
why hasn't anyone addressed the switch of analyst payout to stub bonus this year-
this really reduces any incentive for long hours.
Let's do the math...
$75,000 base + $20,000 bonus = $95,000 total comp 100 hours per week for 50 weeks = 5,000 hours labor
$95,000/5,000 hours = $19 an hour, or a little less than an apprentice plumber
But you get to say you work on Wall Street!
75,000 base? Where are they paying 75k?
HA..."incentive" for long hours. you don't put in the long hours because you're working for the incentive bonus (that helps govern the quality of your work). you do it because if you're not in the office pulling the long hours, your ass will get shit canned. good luck leaving the office at 9 now that the incentives aren't in your favor...
30k is top bucket for Asset Management at a BB
$100k all in first year is still a pretty great pay for someone right out of college. The hours suck but anyone complaining about that never should've gotten into the gig in the first place.
I don't know anyone who's working 100 hr weeks. I work 80, max, but tend towards 60.
What were bonuses like for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005?
Somewhere around 60K + 5K signing bonus + year end.
Nobody works 100 hour weeks consistently. If you want to apply some figure consistently across 50 weeks then try 80-85. It's true that you can't leave the office as you'll get screwed but in general I think people stop giving as much of a shit about everything when they know payout will be low, it's just human nature.
100% true. There will be very brutal stretches for sure, but it isn't like you do it every single week. My worst stretch was probably 8 weeks without a single day off with 5 or 6 of those weeks being 100 hour beat downs. It was pretty brutal, to be honest, but you can will yourself through.
You little 3rd bucket analyst. You work 80h because you just pitch.
I started in 07 and was on 3-4 live deals at any given time. Hours were peaking at 130+ hours (that's the equivalent of sleeping every two to three days). We were not pitching because there was no capacity. So you could suddenly get a 60h work week once in a while when deals would quiet down. That averages at 100+h a week.
So sh"t up and don't take your miserable banking experience as a reference.
Strange..
I recall a thread a few weeks ago that said the BB raised the base salary for his contract (Summer '09) from 60k to 70k.
Can anyone confirm base raises across the Street?
On first thought, it does not make sense to me why you would raise bases in this economy, but perhaps it is as a means of softening the blow when bonuses are complete shit.
I know for a fact of two non-bb banks(think top boutique and international bank) who both pay 60 base.
You mean 60k currently for 1st Years or it will still be 60k for the new analysts that are coming in summer 2009?
People who got offers after their summer internships at the bank where I interned got $70k base in their offers. For my offer, since my salary is not quoted in USD, it is actually closer to $80k. This is for S&T btw.
FT '09 offers at my BB were 60k base +10k signing. Haven't heard anything about them being bumped up not am I holding my breath.
i have heard 70 base at the two bank holding companies from people who worked there over the summer
60+10 for my BB bank.
60 + 10 for my BB bank as well
I think the salary bump was only for sales and trading. At least that's what I picked up from the thread that was posted.
Could the variances be due to locations as well?
My friend at Goldman S&T who just started this summer got his base bumped to $70K. I got an offer from two BBs and they were both 60K base, and the boutique I got an offer from is 70K.
I'm assuming the 2 BBs you got offers for were for IBD?
Yeah all the offers are for IBD.
Does anyone have an idea why they would bump up S&T and not IBD?
ideating dont be bitter because I made more trading my PA senior year of HS than you do at your current job.
No but in all seriousness good prop guys can easily do 3k-10k a day consistently.
The only problem is every good prop trader has will go down at some point in time. But even when you go down, you don't lose what you've made, you just get fired.
So from what i gather no one was around in 02-03 to know the range on 2nd and 3rd yrs?
S&T guys get more BASE than IBD guys in the States? That's fucking ridiculous. They work around a tenth as hard.
GS IBD 1st years all got bumped up to 70k
what's the rationale for this? lower bonuses in the future? will the pay in banking be like the pay in consulting in the near future?
Has anyone outside of GS had this happen?
Damn are you serious? That's such a fucking scam. They don't even try to retain that many people for a third year in the first place.
Where is this December bonus rumor coming from for analysts?
My friend who will be working at one of the Euro BBs next year said that his contract states the bonus will be paid in 1st quarter.
Does that sound right?
I think it's a stupid move by Goldman. The prestige of the Goldman name isn't THAT vital. I think they'll see more people going elsewhere so they can get paid.
Especially given other shops might not only pay more but have less of a hire and fire culture too.
Better rentention and more money - umm in this climate, what's the downside?
Quia et doloribus laborum assumenda veniam nihil. Possimus qui nam quam sunt voluptas optio. Rerum optio dolorem quo doloribus autem consequatur at.
Quia architecto nemo voluptatem. Sunt porro enim magnam quae molestiae quia. Quasi cupiditate et ea eligendi sint vitae.
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...
Consequatur et velit sed eveniet quasi aliquid. Quis odit neque similique aut libero. Voluptatem incidunt blanditiis assumenda nostrum voluptatem eos ad quas. Nulla minus possimus voluptates cumque dolorem amet. Officiis incidunt enim quidem consectetur alias quos.
Iste et deserunt natus aut. Voluptatem suscipit quo ullam harum repudiandae. Iure autem laudantium temporibus odio facere. Harum possimus qui culpa.
Aspernatur non voluptates sint quam excepturi iusto voluptatem tempore. Earum et cumque dolorem aut ratione nobis quia.
Odit nobis impedit quisquam laudantium nam. Reiciendis commodi aut repellendus sint. Magnam ipsum ut iste voluptatibus.
Itaque sed molestiae aut modi. Dolorem cumque vel modi nihil facere ut. Sunt illum illo recusandae expedita laboriosam.
Sed enim iste molestias nulla sunt accusantium qui tempora. Non debitis at nulla. Expedita cumque reprehenderit nihil autem est magnam. Nisi quia expedita non odio. Neque illum reiciendis repellat ducimus.
Tenetur ea et ut dolor possimus magnam provident. Maiores qui id minus ex rerum ipsum praesentium. Harum minus eveniet maxime fugiat inventore. Suscipit ea a harum totam. Et enim et consequuntur cum et dolores deserunt totam.