The CFA wannabe crowd is so young, so diverse and, in fact, diluted from the original intent of the program that only a tiny minority are even in the “analysis” businesses. FYI. I’m in the low 6 figures, but I work in the public sector in a low cost city.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bottom line, if you’re 3 years out of school, MBA > or not, CFA or not, you are not making $100,000. I > don’t care if you or your cousin’s best friend’s > sister’s boyfriend’s illegitimate uncle is a front > office, 23 hour-a-day banker living in New York, > Kansas City, Fidelity, or any other “high paying” > city, you are not making $100,000. Period, end of > story. Well, if you’re three years out of MBA (assuming it was a legit school and you have some experience) you’re probably near 100k base. Three years out of undergrad, not likely.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bottom line, if you’re 3 years out of school, MBA > or not, CFA or not, you are not making $100,000. I > don’t care if you or your cousin’s best friend’s > sister’s boyfriend’s illegitimate uncle is a front > office, 23 hour-a-day banker living in New York, > Kansas City, Fidelity, or any other “high paying” > city, you are not making $100,000. Period, end of > story. I would think if you’re 3 years out of an MBA program, you should be making north of six figures. I’m just using this as an example, but the MBA Class of 2008 for Cal shows an average starting salary of $108k. If you meant just undergrad and sell-side ER, then I can see your point. Although some of us undergrads ended up at HF’s straight out of school, which goes against what you said.
SanFranCFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although some of us > undergrads ended up at HF’s straight out of > school, which goes against what you said. No, it doesn’t. The only reason a hedge fund would hire an undergrad with no applicable experience is for cheap labor. Cheap labor means much, much less than 100K.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is also because a majority of people here, > being CFA candidates, are in the early stages of > their careers. I would not be taking this test if > I was a 30-year-old. Also not all of us are in US. Candidates in China, India etc don’t even make 1/4 of what we make in US (may be living 10 times better lives than us but that is not a point here) so I agree that with HMW that young age and diversity (location wise), 90% of the AF members are not making in 6 figures.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bottom line, if you’re 3 years out of school, MBA > or not, CFA or not, you are not making $100,000. I > don’t care if you or your cousin’s best friend’s > sister’s boyfriend’s illegitimate uncle is a front > office, 23 hour-a-day banker living in New York, > Kansas City, Fidelity, or any other “high paying” > city, you are not making $100,000. Period, end of > story. is it 3 years out of undergrad or business school. If it’s business school then making north of 100K is quite possible.
If you bust your ass off, take initiative, and add value- you will get paid (even if you are 23/24)
You are talking about the exception, not the rule. You can also say that if you are LeBron James you’re making $20 million at the age of 19, but most 19 year old basketball players don’t have their own Nike shoe line. I am sure there are some 25 year old hedge fund analysts pulling down bank, but they are very, very few and far between. Everyone on this forum is talking like it’s the rule and not the exception that a 25 year old should be making 6 figures. That is pure unadulterated horsesh!t any way you sniff it.
^ I agree with you on this (25 year old making 6 figure is an exception) but the earlier statement was after MBA. After 3 years of finishing MBA from top 10 school, one is making in 6 figure (90% sure in Finance, Consulting etc).
It seems like the problem here is that no one has defined the universe of recent graduates that we are talking about. If we are talking about all undergraduates who want to get jobs in “finance”, then they will not be getting paid a lot until later in their careers. If we are talking about undergraduates from competitive colleges who stand a chance at getting jobs in bulge bracket IBs, then I would set the bar higher.
100k+ all-in comp 3 years out of undergrad in Finance is pretty common… 100k+ BASE (all-in, 250k+) right out of MBA (top 20) in Finance is the norm. IHIHM, I don’t know where you are getting your figures from
rustyrudder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 100k+ all-in comp 3 years out of undergrad in > Finance is pretty common… > > 100k+ BASE (all-in, 250k+) right out of MBA (top > 20) in Finance is the norm. > > IHIHM, I don’t know where you are getting your > figures from this is why im confused with the bickering.
I_Passed_Level_1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rustyrudder Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 100k+ all-in comp 3 years out of undergrad in > > Finance is pretty common… > > > > 100k+ BASE (all-in, 250k+) right out of MBA > (top > > 20) in Finance is the norm. > > > > IHIHM, I don’t know where you are getting your > > figures from > > > this is why im confused with the bickering. Maybe I should clarify by saying “Front Office Finance” (IB, ECM/DCM, S&T, PWM, etc…) and not corp fin or back office finance… but either way, ridiculous.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SanFranCFA Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Although some of us > > undergrads ended up at HF’s straight out of > > school, which goes against what you said. > > No, it doesn’t. The only reason a hedge fund would > hire an undergrad with no applicable experience is > for cheap labor. Cheap labor means much, much less > than 100K. Not true.
So instead of bickering and bitching over what one could be making or should be making, why don’t you guys post the info that I asked for and let the numbers speak for themselves. Unless , as someone pointed out everyone here is an ER aspirer and not too many people currentlt working in ER.
Disclaimer: I neither work in equity research, nor am an equity research aspirant. I think this thread illustrates why people in finance generally don’t discuss compensation unless there is a business need to do so. If you make less than someone else, you will feel bad and the other person will look down on you. If you make more than someone else, they will feel envious and hate you. It’s the consequence of us being in an industry which measures success almost purely by how much money you make. It also doesn’t help that we’re doing this almost entirely for the (potentially generous) compensation.
rustyrudder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 100k+ all-in comp 3 years out of undergrad in > Finance is pretty common… > > 100k+ BASE (all-in, 250k+) right out of MBA (top > 20) in Finance is the norm. > > IHIHM, I don’t know where you are getting your > figures from From what I have heard at BB’s Associated making 220K all-in was pretty darn good. I’ve heard higher (250 range like you mention) but those kids were prodogies.
nuppal, Were those ER numbers or IB numbers ?
IB
rustyrudder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 100k+ all-in comp 3 years out of undergrad in > Finance is pretty common… > > 100k+ BASE (all-in, 250k+) right out of MBA (top > 20) in Finance is the norm. > > IHIHM, I don’t know where you are getting your > figures from This is a prime example of the typical ignorant AF forum member who claims that everyone makes Fidelity money while he himself doesn’t make sh!t. Again, raise your hand if you’re 25 and making 6-figures. No hands go up. I rest my case.