What's the catch in CRE?

Have been reading through a lot of the threads on here and learning more about CRE. I came from a target school and went straight into investment banking thinking that had the best risk-adjusted return over the long term compared to other fields where you can make high 6 / low 7 figures. It seems like you start really low in CRE compared to other finance roles, but it ramps up quickly into the 200's and 300's a few years in, and much more if you earn carry or invest in deals. Some might disagree, but I consider that to be a ton of money for someone with less than 10 years of professional experience.

So my question is what is the catch here? High attrition, boring / repetitive work, or just high barriers to entry? Does the job and skillset change over time (like in banking)? Is the best paying work cyclical and carry a higher risk of losing your job if you under perform?

 

Modernization in CRE has progressed at an absolutely glacial pace, yes there are new technologies and concepts like modular housing, drone/VR/AR technology on construction sites, etc. but the level of adoption is nothing compared to the speed at which things change in other industries touched by finance. On a personal level, whereas many people in finance nowadays are learning Python, R, Tableau as basic requisites of their job function, in CRE you are completely fine only knowing excel and Argus unless you work in research or some specialized function.

 

It makes sense if you think about it, a basic real estate investment is relatively simple in concept compared to other investment classes. You can do all the modeling in a simple excel file.

Another big thing is there is not a huge set of data in real estate markets. Most good sets of data don’t go back very far, and are quarterly. There isn’t a lot of need for more powerful tools.

That being said, you absolutely can use those things. I work on a in-house research team at a big developer/investment manager, and all of our research team uses R, Python, and tableau.

 

I agree with Director above, but to answer your question, unless your plan is to move into one of these data-centric roles like research or portfolio management I would say it is a nice to have but not at all needed. I have worked at both a boutique PE firm and a BB in CRE and never have I seen a situation where I thought “Damn, if only I could code.” When you think about the amount of data generated on a daily, hourly, and even minute by minute basis by other areas of finance it becomes completely clear the utility of being able to parse and clean data to make analyses. As Director said, this is not the case in CRE where hardly any of the data you see will get more granular than monthly or quarterly.

 

There is definitely a lack of modernization in CRE. I work at a debt shop in South Florida and have received, at most, one or two deals that were completely ready to go out the door after receiving them. Some of the financial statements that I receive looked like a 5-year old created them. You quickly realize that half the leases are expired, they account for reimbursements on the P&L, but not the rent roll, they sent you a trailing-9, instead of a T-12 and can't tell you how much money they put into the property, since purchase. In due-diligence, such a litany of issues arise, that I doubt technology could ever replace CRE professionals.

 
Most Helpful
The Beltsander:
So my question is what is the catch here? High attrition, boring / repetitive work, or just high barriers to entry? Does the job and skillset change over time (like in banking)? Is the best paying work cyclical and carry a higher risk of losing your job if you under perform?

I mean, to some extent, there is some 'truth' in all of these points. Real estate is competitive, meaning more people and dollars chasing a limited number of deals/opportunities, thus there will be winners and losers from time to time. Is this different from the I-banking/finance world? Not as much as some people think.

Real estate is really specialized, that is the 'catch'. You specialize in markets, asset type, deal type, and function type (in your own career). Property doesn't have a 'ticker' symbol you can key into a bloomberg terminal and get all the details and then trade with a click. Even a simple plain vanilla real estate transaction is like a complicated M&A deal by comparison to a stock trade or even basic business lending.

I know real estate people that literally specialize in one asset class in one small sub-market of a city, and make a whole career out of it. I have a really good friend who ran a large development for a major corp that spanned three decades (it has a theme park on it everyone would know and has maybe been to once). He started young, did all the entitlements, ran it through a few mergers and sales of his parent company. Then retired with a pension, and got rehired as a consultant who still makes six figures in fees (plus bonus commissions because he is a broker when some of the remaining parcels sell). Why? Because he knows the details of the properties, the deals made decades ago with the county on entitlements, etc.

That is the real benefit of real estate, its micro-specific and that allows for specialization and information asymmetry. Really difficult in finance, and even illegal if called 'insider trading', but that is everyday in real estate.

The final point is that few b-schools have professors who know anything about real estate. The finance faculty actually 'look down' on real estate as an asset class and career. Some literally think studying real estate just means 'selling houses', yet it's the biggest asset class by far when you include value of mortgages and derivatives on mortgages.

So many graduate knowing nothing about a field that requires specialized knowledge to work within. In my opinion, this is the definition of a 'market inefficiency' and one that has given me and many of those on here and else where a very rewarding career to date.

Is there risk of 'blow out'? Of course, but I don't if that different from corp fin/IB/PE/HF, etc. If you use a lot of leverage (and RE can let you do that), you take more risk. But that is really just the case of leverage, not really real estate.

 

Got it. So it sounds like it's highly specialized, with niche sub-specializations across the board, and generally not as well studied or explored in higher ed (top undergrads + business schools). Would you say there's still a lot of opportunity over the next 20-30 years (i.e. would you tell a family member graduating this year to explore a career in CRE)?

 

Absolutely, the fractured/niche nature of the asset class makes it relatively more immune to automation and commodification than general banking and finance (like, who wants to bet how long wealth advisory will be around as a major career field?).

There is always turnover and retirement, in fact, the industry is kinda overweighted to older people right now. Markets shift, that is nothing new, so long as the country keeps growing (something you can't just take for granted these days), there will be demand. Housing is massively under supplied right now and will be for years. A lot of office and retail properties are getting old and functionally obsolescent (property does deteriorate with time after all) and will need to be redeveloped, rehabbed, or re-positioned.

Plus, from an investment standpoint, real assets are likely to be more valuable in the recovery, so likely more investment allocations.

 
The Beltsander:
Got it. So it sounds like it's highly specialized, with niche sub-specializations across the board, and generally not as well studied or explored in higher ed (top undergrads + business schools). Would you say there's still a lot of opportunity over the next 20-30 years (i.e. would you tell a family member graduating this year to explore a career in CRE)?

This is an interesting question. This COVID situation made me think of a possible career path in biotech research I could have taken and now work on a product that could save the world. Except I shut that down early because I’m sadden by killing animals, and I’ll have to kill a lot of them in biotech. But in general, I think biotech has a lot of potential to helps us do what most of us all want: to live forever healthy.

I see the low hanging fruit in CRE dependent on continued population growth. Do people from around the world, especially people with options, want to come here for the American life, the rule of law and opportunities to improve ones socio-economic status? Without sustained long term population growth, I would pump the breaks on a real estate career. So you have to assume that.

Biotech, we all want to stay alive.

Ok that’s the external factors. Then it comes down to what are you good at and what you enjoy (generally it’s the same).

Anecdotally, I used to attend UC Berkeley Haas’ (an amazing school) real estate night as a first year analyst as a “professional.” In 2007 there were many MBA students interested in CRE. In fact, there was a 20+ page resume book. Fast forward and the number of students interested in CRE is a lot smaller. The opportunity costs of going into real estate is high. If you can get possibly $1mm in stock options for working for a mid-stage venture backed company that if they have a successful exit, you’ll get that, then the opportunity costs are high. You’re in Florence in the Renaissance (say if you live in SF). You won’t even stiff ownership of a real estate company unless you are really that important. You might have to start the company but that is very risky (see my comment about someone giving you $100).

So, unless I have a real estate company I want my kids to continue on, I’m totally open to whatever they want to do. In fact I purchased Sim City (Something I played) for my 5 year old daughter last night and I’ve been showing her my floor plans, and she seems to have a lot of interest. So she might be a chip of the old block like dad. We’ll see.

If your family friend has a good combo of visual-spatial intelligence, good grasp of cause and effect, is good at numbers (not complicated math but comfortable), and has original thinking (something I look for), then they could find a promising career in several fields, including CRE.

Have compassion as well as ambition and you’ll go far in life. Check out my blog at MemoryVideo.com
 

This right here. This is it.

You gonna take pride in that random merger you worked on between two companies you have likely never heard of before nor will ever hear of again, or would you rather help buy/develop/etc. that piece of property that has a direct impact on the surrounding community?

 

Thanks for sharing, very nice description of the real estate industry. Out of curiosity, how did you end up pursuing RE? And by extension, how would one break into RE (standard route of finding banking/related internships + networking, or any other path)?

 

How I got to RE....

I originally went to college to major in industrial engineering, got an internship in that field really early and realized being an engineer seemed mega boring (no offence to the profession!). I had some family members in real estate (residential), and I liked stocks and money. So, I switched to finance major when I realized they had a ton of real estate classes. Never looked back!

My 'path' and really career is very non-standard, but that is true of a lot of people in real estate. It is just far more varied in what you do and where you do it (banking/finance is far more linear, and they care where people go to school in some instances, that's far less true in CRE). I find that once someone 'discovers' real estate they never leave (this is not counting brokers who fail out).

 

In my career there were big opportunity costs of going into and sticking with real estate. I live in SF, and over the past 15 years of working, we’ve seen the rise of FANG and other tech start ups. It seems the easiest money over this stretch of time is working at the mid-stage of a solidly venture backed company and getting shares. That was and is the highest risk adjusted ROI as a non-principal - as a normal worker. This does not even take into account the free beer, ping pong tables, 24 hr Vegas trip after a milestone perks of working for a successful start up or mid-stage start up. Early stage seems more lucrative but also risky as countless companies go belly up, with their backers saying unicorn or bust. 2008 there was the Zynga shirts, for example.

Real estate generally stayed the same. While a beneficiary of the broader economic recovery, and a shitty industry to be in during the Great Recession, it is a great place to be for someone with a “builder” mentality. When I say “builder” I mean someone who can bust ass and also be sort of patient. Because real estate is tangible, on the buyside, 2-5 deals a year x 5 years can add up to big $$$ for you and/or your employer.

In that sense we are part venture capitalist and also entrepreneur, as we might be categorized as a finance sector, we are creating value through our operations. I look at each project or acquisition as a company (ranging from something small like $5mm to larger tens to hundreds of millions).

Ever heard the adage “you give a real estate guy $100 and you get $5 a year (5% cap)” and “you give a tech company $1 and you “could” get $100”?

Anyway slow and steady. Build it up. The reason why it normally requires you to pay your dues in your career in real estate is who’s going to give you that $100 to make $5 if you don’t have any experience? You can give a crazy techie $1 and see what happens.

Although I did not get the sense of this in the really mega REPE/development shops I worked at, for the certain someone, real estate represents the opportunity to impact your past/present/future. I mentioned it here before, you can literally impact your 2nd grade teacher with your project in your hometown. To me, going full circle is a big part of job satisfaction. Knowing that your past gave you great insight on finding a solution today, that one day your grandchildren will see your work, is awesome.

I’m too much of a Luddite with an adoration for history to really love the constant “we disrupt everything” mantra of tech. There are rules / laws that one must follow in real estate and creativity is generally between the laws of the law (building codes, zoning, physics, etc) and the parameters of what is financeable.

Lastly, I would like to return to my home state (Hawaii) and frankly there is more of a real estate/brick n mortar based economy there than tech at the moment (we’re trying to diversify).

Actually one more thing: I for some stroke of luck, always worked in the top group in whatever company. The group that got the most attention and had the most at stake for the company. Within tech, being a CPA with a liberal arts education, I’m maybe close to being important but really probably I’m not. Closest thing I could do to sniff importance is being in a growth role (head of growth) while the engineers make the product. Maybe fin tech. Anyways I’m talking about stuff I hardly know about but the point is given my skill set, I’m a finance guy working in a sector of finance so I at least have a chance to work in the most important group of the company. That helps your job satisfaction.

Therefore the “catch” is how real estate fits you. If it fits you more than make the sacrifice and pay your dues and stick with it.

Have compassion as well as ambition and you’ll go far in life. Check out my blog at MemoryVideo.com
 

There are in fact huge opportunity costs in RE going forward, and not just compared to tech.

No one seems to talk about how no one retires from RE. There's effectively no turnover in the carry stack, to call it something. These principals retire when they die or when their kids take over. So it's extremely difficult to go from mid-tier in a firm to the top, and since there's little room for innovation, it's almost impossible to distinguish yourself. (Ok, you can find a deal and bring it to your principals -- that's a meme at this point.)

So the entire game is starting something yourself unless you just want to chill making $300k/year somewhere. Yes, there are outliers that we all hear about, but those are called outliers for a reason. Real estate pays principals very well, and everyone else lags behind finance and tech peers. Even coming out of a top b-school with experience in the field, you're highly underpaid compared to consulting and finance roles, and only comparable with some quasi-tech PM roles.

 
Non-PC Broker:
So the entire game is starting something yourself unless you just want to chill making $300k/year somewhere.

In the right city, maybe a Charlotte or Dallas, not such a bad gig if you have a lower cost of living than NYC or SF. I've actually been aiming for something like that since I was in investment banking, but the work I did was covering a different niche space that really only exists in NYC or London.

 

Most deals and funds turnover every 5 to 10 years for liquidity purposes and the perpetual life funds change management over time. I guess I'm not sure why you think there is "no turnover in the carry stack", I mean the promotes get funded and then reset all the time. I think it is way easier (on a strict relative basis) to get in on the 'action' in the real estate world than in hedge funds or PE. Getting from mid-tier to top is difficult everywhere, by the nature of the fact that there is typically a 10 to 1 ration of mid-tiers to top spots. But, RE is easier to 'break away' and start a new venture/do a deal, the fact that assets are so fractured by nature makes it much easier than other fields. This fact is really a major positive.

Consider tech, it really concentrates into 'winner take all' buckets as there is only so much 'shelf' space for new tech in the consumer and business world. There are literally 100s of 'one-off' firms and real estate 'deal doers' in every town nobody has heard of.

People do get promoted beyond $300k (I am assuming you are meaning base + bonus + equity) all the time, but it does take time. Not sure what you are bench marking to, but I think RE is relatively better in this probability than most of general finance and corp fin. Sure, the BB I-banks and large PE shops are different, but those opportunities are really difficult to get, even with a top tier MBA. RE by comparison is far more open to people willing to work hard.

 
Non-PC Broker:
There are in fact huge opportunity costs in RE going forward, and not just compared to tech.

No one seems to talk about how no one retires from RE. There's effectively no turnover in the carry stack, to call it something. These principals retire when they die or when their kids take over. So it's extremely difficult to go from mid-tier in a firm to the top, and since there's little room for innovation, it's almost impossible to distinguish yourself. (Ok, you can find a deal and bring it to your principals -- that's a meme at this point.)

So the entire game is starting something yourself unless you just want to chill making $300k/year somewhere. Yes, there are outliers that we all hear about, but those are called outliers for a reason. Real estate pays principals very well, and everyone else lags behind finance and tech peers. Even coming out of a top b-school with experience in the field, you're highly underpaid compared to consulting and finance roles, and only comparable with some quasi-tech PM roles.

I don't think this is fully accurate.

No, you're never going to be handed 50% of the carry of a fund. I'm not sure in what industry that is true in, anyway. Finance? Sure, you could make partner at Goldman, but that's just guaranteeing you a couple million a year. Tech? Definitely not. All of these places require a founder's position to achieve true high net worth.

The difference is in what experience gets you. In real estate, being with a developer for 10 years means that when you finally do that first development deal on your own, you have a network of lenders, brokers, contractors, etc who you've worked with for years. Even if you're not particularly financeable, once you find that deal that pencils, you know who to turn to and they'll be there. And if you succeed in one deal, well... congrats. You own 100% of your own company, and it gets a LOT easier from there. It's basically the only industry in which that kind of organic growth into your own shop is even remotely possible. Senior bankers don't, with extremely rare exceptions, start their own banks. Sure, tech guys can do their own thing, but it's generally an entirely new idea, which isn't quite the same thing.

Moreover, in my experience, real estate professionals are fairly supportive of one another. It's such a big field that no one can dominate. I know plenty of folks who have split off, and given their former boss 20% of the new venture (or whatever) in return for access to back office staff, equity, and guarantees. Everyone wins that way.

And as far as the basic premise of "retirement" goes... how many senior bankers at JPM do you see voluntarily giving up their huge bonuses and cushy jobs? Not many; they have to be forced out one way or another. Especially since 2008, when so many folks saw massive value wiped out, "retirement" isn't a thing. And that's across all fields, which is one of the many complaints Millenials have against the Boomer generation, who aren't respecting the implicit social contract and stepping aside. To say this is particularly bad in CRE is disingenuous, except maybe in the sense that because many companies are privately held, all the upside is held by the same few people/families for many years at a time.

But as I'm always harping on, that means all the risk is too. Three years ago employees would have killed for a piece of Stanley Chera's carry (RIP). Nowadays? My guess is if I told the average mid or senior exec at Crown that they could buy into that carry at it's market value, they'd run screaming. High upside means high downside.

 

I think there's a huge variance depending what sort of place you work at. There's small / mid-sized developers that pay peanuts for effectively much of the same work that bigger PE shops do, but the PE shops pay much better.

For example, I started my career as a financial analyst for a pretty big developer, but only got paid $30k/year. Then I moved to a mid-sized property owner, where they owned mid-sized shopping centers anchored by movie theatres and grocery stores. $36k/year. I went to b-school and went to work for a real estate PE fund attached to an investment bank for $120k + typical bank bonuses. Later worked for a big financial conglomerate, and got paid $250k base + nice bonuses.

So it all depends. The work didn't change all that much. As an analyst it was 100% spreadsheet jockeying, and at later career stages it was more about deal management and deal sourcing. But the variance in salaries was huge depending on the type of company and seniority.

The developer and the shopping center owner basically seemed to think financial analysis was not so needed. It was their capital that they felt added all the value, and we employees were part of the expenses that they needed to trim and squeeze to maximize profit. The PE shop saw employees as team members that were driving value, because the capital was OPM.

But of course if you REALLY want to make $ you need to go independent and either put together and syndicate your own deals or launch a real estate business (eg. be a developer, start a PE shop or holding company, or start your own brokerage agency). It's really hard to make a lot of money in real estate working for someone else, unless it's a mega PE shop.

 

That seems really low for a big developers analyst pay. I was an analyst at one of the biggest developers and starting pay for new grad analysts was 60-70 thousand with a 30% bonus.

 

Thoughts on MRED (e.g. USC) vs MBA (e.g. M7 School) if you have 5+ Years of quality RE experience but a limited business background? I'm wondering if MRED is duplicates what I already know versus the additive skill set of the MBA.

I'm thinking of it through the lens of "talent stack" as described by this article by Scott Adams (Talent Stack) and has been referenced by Marc Andreessen. It's the idea that being in the 90% percentile of a variety of skill sets is debately more valuable (and easier to achieve) than being in the 99% of a single skill.

 

If you already have solid job experience in CRE (5+ years absolutely meets that time boundary), then an MBA from a top school could be more valuable, but in all reality, it probably won't mean that much as your experience is most likely to propel you with the grad degree just 'checking a box'.

If you are trying to shift roles or career paths, that a different question. But yes, I'd say most MSRE/D programs assume someone has little to no real commercial real estate experience (most in the program will have very little at most places).

The rub on the MBA program is may have low concentration of CRE people and alumni, and the professors will likley be clueless about CRE. If you think of the network that comes with an MSRE from a place like MIT, NYU, USC, etc., I could argue that outpaces many MBA networks even in the top ranks.

Apply to both and see where you get accepted, can't really go wrong when you have experience.

 

Some of the other threads on here suggest programs like the MRE(D) from, for example, NYU are not that valuable for people with zero experience. Seems like online opinions are pretty split on this one. On the one hand, the MRE(D) seems to just be a better option given the cost - you could do it part time and even if you went full time it seems cheaper than going to a top 10 MBA program where you'll likely walk out with a great network + $150K in loans. I've also heard zero experience + MRE(D) usually results in a job and comp that's roughly equal to what you could get with an undergrad and good networking (i.e., there's no premium in comp, just better access to opportunities).

If you're not getting a similar premium in compensation for the advanced degree, then it seems like the right path without any CRE experience is to try to network your way into a decent role (associate?) and if that fails then contemplate some type of masters to pivot.

 
VolatilitySmile:
The Beltsander:
but it ramps up quickly into the 200's and 300's a few years in, and much more if you earn carry or invest in deals.

You're being too optimistic on salary here. Unless you're working mega hours at a megafund it will take you a while to crack $200k.

If you work at a development shop with deal flow, and you're good at your job and are driving shit forward, it's not hard at all to crack 200k. There are at least 3 non-principals making 200k a year all in, and none of them have more than 5 years of experience in development. Though they all had about 5 years of experience in a different field (asset management, etc).

Granted at a bigger shop there may be more of a "climb the ladder" mentality, but even so the other places I've worked have also had significant numbers of mid-level project managers (e.g. people managing small verticals of 2-3 people doing several jobs at once) who were making an easy mid-6 figures if not more, with maybe 10 years of experience. That tracks with most other high-paying jobs. Not a ton of junior VPs at Citi making 600 grand a year either, I'd guess.

 

Thanks. I thought this was a reasonable range given some of the salaries I've seen posted in other threads and what's available on Adventures in CRE. Am I underestimating the time it takes to progress from one role to the next? In investment banking, Analyst to Associate to VP is achievable in 6-7 years, after that I think there's a lot of variance in how quickly people make it to more senior roles. Is this not the case in CRE? How long would you expect to be an analyst or associate before being promoted in a development role?

 

Another couple data points from REPE:

My VP made about $350k last year. He’s been on the industry since 2011.

The associate I work with made about $200K last year. He’s been in the industry since 2015

I’m an analyst, and I made $125K last year (which was my first year). That was definitely above market though. Outside of megafunds, market for a first year analyst I’d say is about $95K total comp.

Keep in mind, the hours are very cushy. I have once worked more than 55 hours in a week.

 

This is not accurate at least for NYC easily hitting 200k plus within 2-3 years, over 300k-400k+ as VP, etc.... in more CMBS/Structured fin, debt shops/mreits or REPE. Also obviously the top debt broker teams too.... but you gotta slay. If youer on the deal side and origination... its really wide open in terms of comp. I know shops first hand with 2-3rd year analyst/associates hitting $200k to 350k/400k and VP at $450k/500... these are guys with 2-4 and 6-7 years of exp, respectively.... also ~30 year old vp/directors at $500 to $750+and obviously top dealmakers in millions (many of which are mid 30s)

CMBS shops are in line with IB (I can argue higher in some cases for juniors.. if they can get their own deals moving).. some none bank lenders pay monster bonuses too.

 

To address the prompt:

  1. Whats the catch? Takes a long time to get any level of expertise. This means a few things: tons of old guys still in the business, and tons of specialization.

  2. Job/skillset change over time? I doubt it. I have less than 5 years experience but the founder still works his way through the proforma / valuation / development plan the same way that my boss does, which is the same way the broker does. Only difference is that we use pen's/excel, and he uses a pencil

  3. Best paying work? The best money in CRE is to have your own company typically. In that sense, you need to have balls/experience to break out on your own. Obviously to do that successfully takes some time given how slow it can be to develop your foundation of knowledge, not to mention the stress involved w/ running a business.

IMO, there are 3 types of CRE jobs: (I) folks who build things (construction & architects) (II) folks who manage projects/teams (sheep herders/managers) (III) dealmakers / network providers (brokers/old white guys)

 

This question gets asked a lot in different ways on these forums. My take on why CRE is not as desirable for undergrads as other jobs:

A) There is no structured recruiting process and there is no textbook guide (ie, Vault, Mergers & Inquisitions, etc.) to break in. The barrier to entry isn't extremely high, but recruiting is very random and ad-hoc. It's a harder career path to plan on.

B) There is precisely one job that most people are interested in within CRE and it's working on the deal team of a fund or developer. IB stints by comparison are almost like a 3-year post-grad finance crash course program. After that you can do nearly anything in corporate finance, strategy or business. The day I stop working for a REPE fund I don't know what the fuck I'll be doing as I know quite little about corporate accounting or strategy.

C) IB sounds more prestigious than CRE. People who don't even know what IB is, want to work in IB.

The takeaway: If you love CRE and want to work in CRE for the longhaul, it's one of if not the most cush job in finance. If you're on the fence and are more interested in general finance than real estate finance, or more interested in the prestige factor than the nature of any individual role, stick with IB/FP&A/Consulting and leave more doors open for the future.

 

No catch, CRE is amazing and once you understand the deals and the market it’s easy to see where you can make money and returns and development deals are huge. I am in industrial real estate and there is so much money being made right it’s unbelievable.

 

Quasi eligendi placeat consequuntur officiis. Numquam sint molestiae debitis rerum ut ut. Exercitationem nisi consectetur veniam.

Ea quisquam sit quos quia. Aut perspiciatis itaque omnis.

Hic nulla assumenda et. Velit necessitatibus autem blanditiis pariatur impedit est. Qui fugit enim delectus sunt aut hic qui necessitatibus.

 

Porro error consequuntur laborum provident nisi aspernatur. Qui dolores velit et temporibus exercitationem aut. Iusto nisi animi odit. Et quia quis est. Et ea ut aperiam quaerat et aspernatur. Qui blanditiis rem debitis cupiditate sed laboriosam autem. Beatae quod unde quod at.

Voluptatibus quisquam possimus modi maxime. Est dolorem asperiores porro nulla voluptatem.

 

Culpa quo ab laboriosam molestias nam ut quia eligendi. Fugit temporibus dicta deleniti. Earum et omnis tempore vitae dignissimos est. Voluptatem quis dignissimos placeat commodi laudantium fugiat rerum vitae. Et vero doloribus quas delectus velit.

Distinctio iusto aut rerum ratione est dolores distinctio maxime. Quibusdam aliquam aut quia quisquam quia vero optio iste. Quia perspiciatis perspiciatis incidunt delectus similique est. Cum unde voluptatem accusamus error consectetur facere rerum fugit. Molestiae dolorem eos et labore quas voluptas id libero.

Laboriosam dolor modi consequatur qui. Nam aspernatur iste minus enim error aperiam rerum. Voluptatem quia ut tempora rem facilis.

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
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
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...”