Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Not for junior analysts, and not in this economy. Average base + bonus seems to be just over $100k for junior IB analysts at GS/MS/JPM this year, pushing to just over $200k after a few years. After that, the banker starts to pull away rapidly, and can earn the 100%+ bonuses. But on the flip side, you can probably still expect to have a job at Google in a few years, but the standard for investment banks is a 2 year contract after which only the best analysts are retained.

View on HN

Nope. 120-130K all in for top bucket in 2013, with some firms paying 140-160K (see BAML and Moelis).

Also not true is the 2 year contract, as GS is moving towards a career model and away from a 2 year analyst model.

http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/2013-investment-bankin...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-13/goldman-sachs-st...

How is "120-130K all in for top bucket in 2013" different from what I said (average just over $100k)? I'm thinking average at GS/MS/JPM for first years was ~$110k, no? As for Goldman, I'm aware they're getting rid of the contract, but it's still standard practice in the industry as a whole. Also, just because the contract is going away doesn't mean "up or out" is going away. At the end of the day you have to weight those high salaries for more senior bankers against the fact that the recruiting model of investment banks involves only a fraction of new hires making it even past a few years.

Just over 100k and 130k or $160k (Moelis) makes all the difference for what the parent comment said, which is that bonus is is 100-125% of base (65k)

No, parent comment said: "Bonus is probably 100-250% of base, and a lot of times the 100% part is guaranteed."

The plain meaning of that is that $130k all-in (100% bonus) is typical, and often guaranteed, with the top bucket being over $225k (250% bonus).

With first-year salaries at Google, etc, pushing $120k+, that's a very relevant difference. It's not accurate to imply that a first-year analyst at a bank could make up to $100k more than that.

You're right, I misread the top end of that range. Top trading firms get close to that, (e.g. Jane Street), but $225k is probably pushing unlikely until your 3rd year.

There is no way an analyst only gets a bonus of $30K. This economy is great for IBers.

It's long been observed that once earning reaches a certain absolute number, quality of life and other intangibles quickly overtake monetary compensation as the primary driving force. Basically its saying if my options were 60k/year and great quality of life vs. 120k/year and shitty quality of life, I'm much more likely to take the 120k than if the situation was 120k/year vs. 240k/year.

The problem is very real, banks wouldn't be responding to it otherwise.

Also helps that tech companies are "winning" the PR war against traditional banks. Being a banker used to be fucking cool, now its lame.

Edit: okay, that last line was confusing, so let me try to explain what I mean: Most bankers aren't married to finance, it's not like they have this amazing passion for excel financial models. They are attracted to being at the very top of the talent ladder, in a position that offers the most challenge and potential reward. Nowdays technology is seen as an equivalent option for a lot of kids entering school

Reply on news.ycombinator.com