What is the single greatest challenge that real estate professionals of our generation will face in the future? How can this problem be solved?

I can think of a dozen issues real estate professionals of our generation (i.e., 30 and under) will face in the future, but I'm curious if there's a clear front runner leading the pack. In no particular order, here's a couple that come to mind: rising construction/labor costs and downward impact that has on development yields and total returns, ESG requirements & sustainable development best practices becoming a necessity, migration patterns out of coastal, urban, gateway cities into tertiary markets, rising inflation and the downward impact that has on ability to afford shiny Class-A product, capital formation & partner selection is becoming increasingly difficult as pref's seem to lower each day and LP equity become cheaper with the amount of dry powder on the sidelines, implied forward curve of both 10-year and Term SOFR and the impact this has on present and residual valuations.

 

I don't know about single greatest, but if you're in multifamily then rent regulation is a looming challenge. Zoning issues, construction cost increases, and rising interest rates are already hindering apartment development which will only make the housing shortage worse. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more cities implement some form of rent control over the next five or so years. 

 

I would say construction / labor costs. So many builders & contractors etc. exited the market after 2008, which is one of the reasons we're in the spot we're at now. Throw in a looming recession that will probably cause more construction firms to exit the market, sky-high inflation, a COVID-wrecked supply chain and it feels like costs will never calm down.

 

For me it's as follows, coming from an investor perspective and wanting to build my own portfolio

1) Inflation - asset values have gone up so significantly relative to employment income. How can I buy assets when my income is so fucking low, whereas individuals in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s were able to just be able to buy more with their own income, instead of having to syndicate. As of now, I can't even touch any CRE asset without having to syndicate.

2)  Stricter debt underwriting - gone are the days where you can put in 5% equity across the whole capital stack

3) Competition - with the rise of the internet, you're no longer just a handful of potential buyers for a deal. The marketing process has gotten so broad with large email blasts to the entire population. Previously without the internet, the brokers would rely on relationships and only shop a deal to a handful of potential buyers (legit 3 to 5). Not to mention the rise of Real Estate as an institutional investment. Many more market entrants.

With all of that being said, I constantly question if this industry is going to be as lucrative going forward as it was in the past. My fear is that the glory years are gone and returns are going to be thinner 

 
nessy

For me it's as follows, coming from an investor perspective and wanting to build my own portfolio

1) Inflation - asset values have gone up so significantly relative to employment income. How can I buy assets when my income is so fucking low, whereas individuals in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s were able to just be able to buy more with their own income, instead of having to syndicate. As of now, I can't even touch any CRE asset without having to syndicate.

2)  Stricter debt underwriting - gone are the days where you can put in 5% equity across the whole capital stack

3) Competition - with the rise of the internet, you're no longer just a handful of potential buyers for a deal. The marketing process has gotten so broad with large email blasts to the entire population. Previously without the internet, the brokers would rely on relationships and only shop a deal to a handful of potential buyers (legit 3 to 5). Not to mention the rise of Real Estate as an institutional investment. Many more market entrants.

With all of that being said, I constantly question if this industry is going to be as lucrative going forward as it was in the past. My fear is that the glory years are gone and returns are going to be thinner

No doubt the glory days of rags to riches stories like Sam Zell starting with zero are gone. 

The space is just too institutionalized to build wealth at scale. The cost of entry now is too high with the likes of Blackstone holding hundreds of billions of dollars in AUM along with every other shop. 

Nobody is buying yachts starting at zero in CRE anymore. 

Maybe you can be a local developer and rake in a few million or grind your way up at a top shop and make a few million in your 40s. 

But nobody starting with zero today will be a Sam Zell.  

 
Most Helpful
KirklandAlways69

No doubt the glory days of rags to riches stories like Sam Zell starting with zero are gone. 

I really doubt that.  What you mean is that you personally cannot replicate what Sam Zell did.  That is probably true.  It's very difficult to build generational wealth by doing what everyone else is doing.  Once Sam Zell figures it out, people pour into doing the same thing, hoping for a similar result, and the competition means no one rises that high anymore.

It does not mean you can't become exceptionally wealthy - you just have to find a niche.  People on this site generally don't understand the concept of risk, not really, and don't like taking it.  There is no "path" to becoming Sam Zell, and most of what people here are interested is talking about how to get from Point A to Z and the best way to position themselves for each success step.  If you want to become filthy rich, you need to innovate and get lucky.  That's always been true and always will be.

The space is just too institutionalized to build wealth at scale. The cost of entry now is too high with the likes of Blackstone holding hundreds of billions of dollars in AUM along with every other shop. 

So you start small.  The subtext of what you're saying here is that you cannot buy at scale because institutional shops with cheap cost of capital make it impossible for you to compete.  That is true.  That's always been true to some extent.  Of course you can't compete with Blackstone when it comes to buying the obvious Core+ assets.  Go bet on a new neighborhood or town.  Go bet on a product that isn't "fashionable".  I know some folks in their late 30s and 40s who have made an absolute fuck ton of money because they started buying self-storage assets a decade ago before those got hot.  If you had the brains to anticipate the need for last mile warehouses, you could have made a mint if you bought logistics facilities in 2010.

Again... take a risk.  If your complaint is that you can't borrow 100% LTV to go buy 1,000 units on the Upper West Side because lending standards have tightened and you can't compete on capital with the big boys, well, no shit.

Nobody is buying yachts starting at zero in CRE anymore. 

They are and will

Maybe you can be a local developer and rake in a few million or grind your way up at a top shop and make a few million in your 40s. 

You really have no idea how much developers make, do you?

But nobody starting with zero today will be a Sam Zell.  

Is someone starting right now going to be worth 6 billion?  Maybe not... that is a huge number.  Is someone in their 20s today going to become a billionaire through CRE investing in the next 40-50 years?  I guarantee it.  And guess what?  In 40 years, someone is going to write this exact same comment, complaining about how it's impossible to be the next KirklandAlways69 and young guys are so screwed.

 

Think the point is the inflation/price appreciation has been crazy. Ross or Zell (et al) literally bought POS buildings with 10k in the 1970/80s and ended up with Related and Equity (clearly dumbing it down/not discrediting them, but different world). Thats gone obviously lol. Cleary guys will get rich in RE, buy yachts.. whatever. But now with the prices, competition, institutionalization, regulation, debt structure... only way to replicate them is likely the fund structure and moving up the ladder/getting in early with some luck (a la gray/bruce flat etc). Talking extremes, but this is a fact. People ~25-35 are struggling to buy a home today let alone compile a monster RE portfolio.. the points nessy made are very well stated. 

id also note the same can be said for many/most industries..

 

lmao are you stupid or something? 

the late 20s early 30s crowd today can barely buy a house without the bank of mom and dad. 

you expect these guys to go out and buy commercial real estate? 

lmao. 

u a joke.

the only people in their 20s and 30s today that will be billionaires in CRE are people with inherited fortunes or people who made their fortunes in an industry with REAL zero to billion potential like tech.

A kid starting with nothing today working at eastdil on an investment sales team is not going to be a billionaire owner of CRE in their lifetime. 

 
KirklandAlways69

lmao are you stupid or something? 

the late 20s early 30s crowd today can barely buy a house without the bank of mom and dad. 

Again, it's entirely unrelated.  And instead of buying the house, buy an investment property.  Is that smart, or safe, or advisable?  Probably not, but you don't become a billionaire by playing it safe every time.

And what the average 30 year old can do isn't the question.  If I have literally zero dollars in my bank account, then no, I'm not about to embark on a meteoric rise to UHNW status.  But that isn't who we're talking about, and that wasn't the case in 1972 either.

you expect these guys to go out and buy commercial real estate? 

lmao. 

No, but maybe you could.  Obviously someone working at the Gap isn't about to become the next Sam Zell.  Sam Zell came from a prosperous middle class family and wasn't working at the Gap either.  This idea that because literally every person in the country can't do it, means that no one can, is preposterous.  It takes a ton of luck either way!  There were a thousand other Sam Zell's who didn't get his breaks and didn't become a billionaire like him, and it's not because they weren't as smart or hard working.  That kind of wealth is, in large part, dumb luck.

u a joke.

the only people in their 20s and 30s today that will be billionaires in CRE are people with inherited fortunes or people who made their fortunes in an industry with REAL zero to billion potential like tech.

Duly noted.  Wrong, but noted.

A kid starting with nothing today working at eastdil on an investment sales team is not going to be a billionaire owner of CRE in their lifetime. 

I mean, obviously almost certainly not, just by a law of averages.  But there is no reason that someone doing well at Eastdil couldn't save a couple hundred thousand dollars over the course of seven or eight years; there's your seed equity.  Most will go buy a house, and that's clearly the right decision.  Some of them will invest it in an asset - most of them won't end up as a billionaire, but that's how you get started.

This idea that today is uniquely challenging and everyone had it easier in past years is absurd (in this context).  Every generation says that.  And every generation is wrong.  The challenges may be unique, but the opportunities are as well.  And in another generation you'll have young people making the same complaint.  

 

lmao duly noted? 

take down some notes because it's a fact that the next billionaire who is starting with zero isn't coming out of real estate, oil, railroads, or textiles. 

this isn't 1832, 1875, 1935, or 1961 ya clown. 

this is 2022. 

the next zero to billion is coming out of a NEWish industry like TECH/CRYPTO. an industry with near zero cost of capital to play.

once the cost of capital to scale is too high, it's fucking done.

look at anyone who went from NEAR ZERO to BILLIONS in the past 30 years. it's not fucking real estate ya moron. it's tech.

 
KirklandAlways69

lmao duly noted? 

take down some notes because it's a fact that the next billionaire who is starting with zero isn't coming out of real estate, oil, railroads, or textiles. 

this isn't 1832, 1875, 1935, or 1961 ya clown. 

this is 2022. 

the next zero to billion is coming out of a NEWish industry like TECH/CRYPTO. an industry with near zero cost of capital to play.

I mean, I agree that is far more likely.  But that isn't what you started with.  What you said originally was it is impossible to become a billionaire in real estate if you are starting with nothing anymore.  And that just isn't true.  

Again, the subtext of this post is that you're thinking in very short timeframes.  Yes, the next 30 year old billionaire isn't coming from real estate.  It takes decades to build to that kind of wealth in this industry.  But it will happen; if you can't think beyond a couple years then of course you're going to fail.  Why do you think so many developers go bust?  They keep doubling down, keep overleveraging to do more, faster, and they get burned when the markets turn.  No one wants to think that this shit takes time; fuck, half the reason to be a billionaire is gone if it happens when you're 70 - I want to be young enough to ball out and enjoy it!

So yeah, tech will generate more billionaires more quickly.  That doesn't mean it can't be done in CRE, which was your initial argument.

 

im fucking possible. guaranteed. 

who was the last billionaire to start with zero to make it big in real estate, oil, railroads, or any old time saturated industry? 

that's right fucking dinosaur years ago. 

the barriers to entry and cost of capital are too high in CRE for someone to amass a fortune slinging 6 unit rehab projects in fucking brooklyn. 

lmao.

sam zell wouldn't be a real estate developer in 2022. he would be developing the next crypto exchange. lmao.

 
KirklandAlways69

who was the last billionaire to start with zero to make it big in real estate, oil, railroads, or any old time saturated industry? 

that's right fucking dinosaur years ago. 

Jonathan Gray.  You know... the guy who was a billionaire by 43?  It's amazing that you can have this little knowledge and still feel in a position to even try to be insulting.

Jeff Greene, though you could argue that was more from investing, but he was a billionaire in his 50s.

Jeff Sutton, also a billionaire by his 50s.

I don't know if Gary Barnett is a billionaire, but he's certainly on his way.

All of these guys started their careers in the last 30ish years.  Obviously you won't see a 25 year old billionaire in real estate, because it takes time.  But all of those guys started with no more in their pocket than you have right now.

Should I keep going?

the barriers to entry and cost of capital are too high in CRE for someone to amass a fortune slinging 6 unit rehab projects in fucking brooklyn. 

lmao.

That's where you start; a 6 unit building in Brooklyn is an asset that a large number of people could easily afford.  Obviously that isn't all you do, ever.  If being deliberately obtuse is the only way you can have this discussion then maybe you should just stop.

sam zell wouldn't be a real estate developer in 2022. he would be developing the next crypto exchange. lmao.

Again, you keep going back to this argument, as if I'm sitting here telling you it's easier to be a billionaire in real estate than in crypto.  Obviously I'm not saying that.  I'm just pushing back on this enormously self-centered argument that I hear a lot, that someone things today are worse than they were in the past.  They're not, they're just different, and you just want someone to tell you to work at these three jobs and then take another 2 easy steps and presto, billionaire!  That isn't how it works and it wasn't how it worked.  If you don't have an idea, a niche, an investment thesis, no shit you won't become filthy rich.  That applies in tech, too.  The fact that you don't have that creativity or appetite for risk doesn't mean no one does.

 

you know who was also a billionaire by his 50s? 

sam zell, LMAO. 

BY HIS 50s.......... IN 1881.

BY HIS 50s...........IN 1967. 

BY HIS 50s...........IN 1987.

LOLOL.

AND JON GRAY? A REAL ESTATE GUY? LOLOL. THIS GUY IS A PRIVATE EQUITY GUY WHO BUYS OUT COMPANIES AND FLIPS PORTFOLIOS. 

DUDE LIKELY NEVER EVEN UNDERWROTE A PROPERTY BEFORE LMAO.

 
KirklandAlways69

you know who was also a billionaire by his 50s? 

sam zell, LMAO. 

BY HIS 50s.......... IN 1881.

BY HIS 50s...........IN 1967. 

BY HIS 50s...........IN 1987.

LOLOL.

AND JON GRAY? A REAL ESTATE GUY? LOLOL. THIS GUY IS A PRIVATE EQUITY GUY WHO BUYS OUT COMPANIES AND FLIPS PORTFOLIOS. 

DUDE LIKELY NEVER EVEN UNDERWROTE A PROPERTY BEFORE LMAO.

"Tell me you're an idiot without telling me you're an idiot"

Lol.  Jonathan Gray isn't a real estate guy.

 

I think Ozymandia pretty well covered the bases here in the thread below - but one thing Ozy did not point out was that recessions are where real wealth can be made in real estate - if you have the capital ready to deploy at times when everyone else isn't buying (i.e the big institutions you mentioned) you can make a killing in this industry. 

If I had to guess by this post alone, you haven't been in the workforce long enough to have worked through a recession to understand this.

 

I think we are generally undervaluing the political risk in the US at the moment. I'm an optimist and can point to times in our past where we were in a much more precarious spot, but the risk that something happens in the US that makes it significantly less attractive to invest here is not zero (feels like it is valued at zero, however). Other ones are long-term population stagnation and less inefficiency in the market. None of these risks are inherent to just real estate however. 

One that is inherent to just real estate is what becomes of office as an asset class. Hard to understate how much wealth was stored in office buildings and if there's a 15-20% drop in the long-term value of office that has a bunch of really ugly knock-on effects. 

On the plus side, I really think that addressing the lack of housing production is becoming a bipartisan issue, which should benefit real estate development. 

 
CRESF

I think we are generally undervaluing the political risk in the US at the moment. I'm an optimist and can point to times in our past where we were in a much more precarious spot, but the risk that something happens in the US that makes it significantly less attractive to invest here is not zero (feels like it is valued at zero, however).

I mean, it's valued at zero because it is effectively zero compared to other markets.  Point me to a market which is as business-friendly and has the same long term prospects as the US.  Europe?  Asia?  It is easy to point to corruption and inefficiency and regulation and taxation in the US, but it pales in comparison to pretty much everywhere else.

One that is inherent to just real estate is what becomes of office as an asset class. Hard to understate how much wealth was stored in office buildings and if there's a 15-20% drop in the long-term value of office that has a bunch of really ugly knock-on effects. 

Yes, but temporary.  Take NYC as an example.  Think about how many times over the last several decades a fundamental part of NY "dies".  Industrial in the middle of the 20th century.  Residential a few decades later. Going back 5-10 years, retail.  The urban landscape is always changing, and it still adapts.  If a bunch of older vintage "Class A" office space loses its value (like the high rise buildings in midtown on 6th ave) then sure, some landlords will suffer, and maybe it has knock on effects on the market - but the only systemic danger is if you think urban living as a general concept is losing it's appeal.

 
Ozymandia
CRESF

I think we are generally undervaluing the political risk in the US at the moment. I'm an optimist and can point to times in our past where we were in a much more precarious spot, but the risk that something happens in the US that makes it significantly less attractive to invest here is not zero (feels like it is valued at zero, however).

I mean, it's valued at zero because it is effectively zero compared to other markets.  Point me to a market which is as business-friendly and has the same long term prospects as the US.  Europe?  Asia?  It is easy to point to corruption and inefficiency and regulation and taxation in the US, but it pales in comparison to pretty much everywhere else.

There are a few countries that I would point to as being more stable bets long-term, but I understand your point and you're right. At the same time, risk is still risk and should be priced as such. I am not nearly smart enough to know how to accurately price in the political risk of the US at the moment, but our country just feels materially riskier than it did 25 years ago. I could be way off, but it's something I think about as someone whose net worth is 97% long the US. 

One that is inherent to just real estate is what becomes of office as an asset class. Hard to understate how much wealth was stored in office buildings and if there's a 15-20% drop in the long-term value of office that has a bunch of really ugly knock-on effects. 

Yes, but temporary.  Take NYC as an example.  Think about how many times over the last several decades a fundamental part of NY "dies".  Industrial in the middle of the 20th century.  Residential a few decades later. Going back 5-10 years, retail.  The urban landscape is always changing, and it still adapts.  If a bunch of older vintage "Class A" office space loses its value (like the high rise buildings in midtown on 6th ave) then sure, some landlords will suffer, and maybe it has knock on effects on the market - but the only systemic danger is if you think urban living as a general concept is losing it's appeal.

In New York, sure. I'm more worried about the wealth destruction of the people left holding the bag, companies who own their own real estate, and most importantly the tax base of a lot of cities. The NYC's/LA's of the world will be fine and truthfully I think many cities will be better off because residential is a far more dynamic land use than office. But there are a ton of municipalities that have a significant portion of their tax base comprised of office, and what happens to them. Sure, asset classes fall in and out of favor, but to my knowledge we have never had this rapid of a drop in value of an asset class in real estate. And I don't think the pain has really even started. Long-term, things will settle out....water always finds its level....but could be ugly for awhile. 

One man's opinion...

 

Definitely depends on the investor. A mom and pop I spoke with is completely and singularly focused on the local governments prohibitive regulations and impact on his ability to refresh several properties duirng his lifetime that will absolutely need to be renovated. Reason being is there are several companies with massively deep pockets who can put up (afford) the local governments shenanigans and red tape which effectively could threaten his own sites for a couple decades.  
 

Micro/market specific (us) paying attention to climate events and infrastructure

macro level (us) population and innovation. If it doesn’t grow, that’s not good. 

macro (global), the geopolitical arena. 

 

Just found the article, that's wild.  I always wonder which would be worse, for AI to become self aware in the US or in a country like China.  Like, would it destroy it's creator or protect it?  Eventually we're all screwed, but who would it go after first?  how quickly would it spread?          

 

There's a concept out there that once the intelligence of AI equals that of humans, the concept of "spread" is meaningless. It will become exponentially smarter than humans so quickly that you won't even be able to comprehend it. 

 

The idea of it being a "new physics" is a bit misleading. It's not saying that any of our physical understanding of the world is wrong, it's just saying that our existing systems might not take into account all the fundamental variables and the AI found different ways of explaining physical phenomena. 

For example, you can determine a lot of simple physics using one of various frameworks, it doesn't mean any given framework is right or wrong, and introducing a new one doesn't mean there is a "new physics", it's just a different way of looking at it. 

Newton's laws of mechanics, Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism and Einstein's theory of relativity were truly "new physics" because they provided theoretical and predictive frameworks that had previously been undiscovered. The frameworks they created were actually novel and newly descriptive, not just rehashing the same underlying phenomenon in a different set of variables. 

 

URL for anyone else that wants to read: https://scitechdaily.com/artificial-intelligence-discovers-alternative-physics/

Appreciate the comment and just from reading that you definitely know more about physics than I. However, wouldn't it mean that if the AI had discovered 'new variables' that created a framework, that this would technically be considered 'new physics' since that set of variables hadn't been discovered before? That's kinda all I was saying...

 

It is nice to see that the Godless communist agenda is finally making some of you nervous but you are missing the forest for the trees.

There is an agenda to make this country a demented shell of its former glorious self. It's happening before our eyes. Remember the Hunter Biden Laptop Hoax? It wasn't a hoax, it wasn't a "Russian Conspiracy," the democrat's and their regime media just told us it was a hoax so that the citizens of this country would not get wise to the Biden Crime Family's demented ways on the eve of their stolen election.

When MSBNB labels something a conspiracy theory, that's the best indicator it's actually true. Yes, Fauci funded the Wuhan Lab and lied about it before the American public. Yes, he did, in spite of your eye-rolling sophistry.

Yes, Biden sold 950,000 barrels of United States oil reserves to a Chinese Communist Corporation owned by his son Hunter Biden. 10% for the Big Guy.

Yes, Biden has dementia and is a puppet-president of pathetic proportions.

Yes, over 2 million illegal immigrants have walked across our open border this year - yes, the drugs, the sex trafficking, the crime, the disease - come on in, here's a cell phone and a driver's license, have a great life here in Post-America.

And here we are worrying about cap rates!

Sure, sure, back to the economy... It is "rent control" or "inflation" or "higher taxes" or "bureaucratic malaise" or "higher interest rates" or "supply chain constraints" or "construction costs" or "pandemic" or "global warming" or "open borders" or "whatever." It is all these things, of course, but the underlying cause is the same: we've lost our way as a society.

"Who is this jerk, we don't need a lecture on morals, we know what to think! We watch Colbert!"

Oh I know, I know, we're all woke af and can recite the 37 gender identities in order of most victim-y victim-face.

Face this fact: our kids are officially mental midgets who get offended by everything, have no idea what history is, and fit every single bland activity of their boring prescribed lives into the victim-perpetrator mindset of the paranoid schizophrenic. If that offends you, you are the mole.

We live in a society so blanketed in mental disorders that when someone actually says, "Hey, this is insane," the crowd jumps on him and beats him into submission.

You've been canceled simply for not being a sheep.

So PLEASE don't be surprised when the short-sightedness, price, and greed of prior generations makes it difficult for you to pull yourself up into the shrinking middle class.

Because that's the point: there will be no middle class. You see it day by day but try seeing it decade by decade, generation by generation. It took fifty years but the cowards are in charge now and they have been bought and sold by the communist agenda.

I am serious: do you really think taxes in America will EVER go down again? Do you really think the quality of life of future generations will EVER improve again? Do you think the decaying quality of food and water will SUDDENLY turn around? Think about it. Be realistic. Gulp.

TLDR: We're a bunch of greedy little monkeys shitting all over each other and this only ever ends in pain.

 

Voluptatem ut blanditiis veniam non temporibus sed. Magnam et veritatis qui optio et. Voluptatem qui molestiae et adipisci tempora iusto ut et. Deleniti vel nostrum dolorem beatae dicta repellat qui. Error animi omnis ut praesentium. Et sed iure quaerat illo hic eum. Maiores quo velit impedit necessitatibus laudantium laborum.

Sapiente nisi voluptatem sapiente consectetur ab dolorum aliquid. Praesentium voluptatem qui rem ex.

 

Autem quos voluptas cumque quo voluptatem repellendus quisquam. Consectetur dolores quae sit soluta doloribus totam. Sit et ut aut enim reiciendis harum omnis amet. Enim aliquam facere reiciendis qui magnam quia est sint.

Et dignissimos molestiae id dolore voluptas non placeat. Et quos minima ut voluptatum in. Nesciunt omnis culpa dolorum vitae laborum aliquid qui dolorum.

 

Consequatur voluptatum quasi quos quidem corporis. Esse delectus esse mollitia assumenda architecto sint eligendi. Ullam dolor asperiores exercitationem atque repudiandae consequuntur maxime.

Molestiae iste commodi error error dolore id. Culpa maxime dolores et autem. Ipsa necessitatibus consequatur facere placeat.

Dignissimos aliquid ut necessitatibus placeat eos minima saepe. Placeat porro et laborum. Sunt laudantium nesciunt dolorem rerum esse ea. Ipsa neque mollitia voluptatem corporis error et mollitia dolor. Rerum id velit excepturi perspiciatis minima rerum dolorem.

Accusamus pariatur a est cupiditate perspiciatis sequi quam. Laudantium omnis recusandae cum in excepturi nobis fugiat. Recusandae incidunt cumque recusandae facilis mollitia voluptatem sed. Tempore quisquam neque aspernatur voluptatem. Vero consequuntur alias harum est rem aperiam aliquam.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”