Interview - Salary question

So I got called back for the next round for an equity research position and the HR recruiter asked for my current salary… and I told him. I’m pretty sure that was a huge mistake.

Why? I just let them know my salary expecting that they will offer higher.

I wouldn’t say it was a huge mistake. Some people would have declined to disclose that information and others would have rounded up their current salary somewhat. Both of those decisions could also negative affect your chances of landing the job. Which choice was right for you in this situation depends on a lot of factors that we don’t know such as is your current salary considerably higher or lower than the expected pay for this job.

well there is really no way to not answer this question given that it’s HR asking it. They weren’t asking for your expected salary, in which case I never answer directly, as you WILL lose answering first. He asked a direct question that you must answer truthfully, as they will confirm this in the background check. There’s nothing you could have done differently. If you feel that your salary is too high for this job and could possibly knock you out of the running (I’ve been there) just say, “I make $x, and salary is just part of what’s important to me.” If too low, you can cover it by saying “and expected bonus is usually y%, however I haven’t gotten one recently due to market conditions…”

You have to answer when they ask what your salary expectations are. I always try to skate around the question by saying the market rate, but they push you until they get their answer. They need that info because they have a budget and if your asking price is too high, then it would be better to end it there and not waste their time and your time.

The firm will find out- its one of the few things your current HR can disclose and if you fudge the results can be surprising. At my last firm (top AUM institutional mm) a new hire was walked out the door in his first week when HR was fact checking his app and found out he upped his base at previous base by a couple grand.

akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The firm will find out- its one of the few things > your current HR can disclose and if you fudge the > results can be surprising. At my last firm (top > AUM institutional mm) a new hire was walked out > the door in his first week when HR was fact > checking his app and found out he upped his base > at previous base by a couple grand. Wow, liying about anything that someone besides you is going to be looking at is just so retarded, especially these days when you can find anything out about anyone in less than 5 minutes.

Yes, my wife is an in-house recruiter and she has asked for pay stubs if what you are making seems too high.

You should’ve responded by saying… “I’m currently making a killing” I wonder how that conversation would go, haha. In all seriousness though, I don’t think lying about your current salary would be a good idea.

Why should that be a sackable offence though? I don’t see it as an offence as all. Ok, you could say it’s dishonest, but those negotiations are essentially a game. Lets say you are currently on 50k and the hiring firm does not know that. They are prepared to pay you 80k for this position. If you tell them you are currently earning 65k then they will likely offer you the full 80k. If you tell them 50k, they will probably offer you 65k and see if you’ll take it. Of course when you tell them you’re on 65k you don’t know if that is higher than that firm is willing to pay, hence you could price yourself out of the deal. For me, rounding up your earnings is a way to effectively reduce the employers ‘producer surplus’. By that I mean the amount over the salary you agree on that they would have been prepared to pay. If a firm hires you today based on your qualifications, experience and interview skills and offers you 80k then they must clearly be of the opinion that your value to the firm is >80k. So why should it matter to them that you were actually earning 50k rather than 65k? Once the offer has been made and accepted, the game is over and that ceases to be any of the hiring firms business in my opinion. On a seperate point, when answering this question always include the value of your non-monetary benefits too - medical insurance, pension contributions etc. Many people leave these out and they can be a considerable portion of your total earnings.

If you round $97k to $100, that’s fine - the point is to give them an accurate idea of your past compensation. However, if you lie and give them a false number with the intention of misleading them, like $65k from $50k, you deserve to be fired. Even if you think they will never find out, only an incredible douche bag would do something like this.

Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why should that be a sackable offence though? I > don’t see it as an offence as all. Ok, you could > say it’s dishonest, but those negotiations are > essentially a game. …ummm… ok so negotiation based on LIES is an acceptable now?? Wow- we are talking the finance industry here… and numbers and honesty are somewhat important when you are taking on a fiduciary duty of possibly millions of ppl. I oversaw 40 b of others money- including retired grandmas so yeah- I think its a ‘sackable offence’ [sic]. how is it any better than a pm putting up bogus return #'s? Beyond the morality issues- there is also the simple fact that the stated amount WILL be fact checked anyhow… so whats the point unless your goal is to look foolish and paint oneself a liar. There is nothing against providing reasoning as I have done fow why one deserves more than a 10% inc for the switch- retirement vesting schedules/ education/ experience being just a few of them.

Allow me to be clear here. Tell the recruiter your complete cash/non-cash comp. Say you are flexible and, if the company believes you are a fit for the job you would welcome receiving their offer, because the company is so…[insert nice things here].

By the way, Mr. Walrus is entirely wrong. If it’s 97K, say 97K.

akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > …ummm… ok so negotiation based on LIES is an > acceptable now?? Wow- we are talking the finance > industry here… and numbers and honesty are > somewhat important when you are taking on a > fiduciary duty of possibly millions of ppl. I > oversaw 40 b of others money- including retired > grandmas so yeah- I think its a ‘sackable offence’ > . > > how is it any better than a pm putting up bogus > return #'s? Beyond the morality issues- there is > also the simple fact that the stated amount WILL > be fact checked anyhow… so whats the point > unless your goal is to look foolish and paint > oneself a liar. There is nothing against > providing reasoning as I have done fow why one > deserves more than a 10% inc for the switch- > retirement vesting schedules/ education/ > experience being just a few of them. I agree with akanska, although I do find it funny that she of all people would use [sic] on other people’s spelling errors.

akanska is the female version of numi

I think carson is trying to say that negotiation is just a game. Although I wouldn’t play that kinda game with HR. HR has the upper hand in this case… Would it b better to just give them a vague answer or a range?

sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > akanska is the female version of numi Nah, I think she’s more like the female version of TheAliMan – obnoxious but in a funny way.

iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > akanska Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > …ummm… ok so negotiation based on LIES is > an > > acceptable now?? Wow- we are talking the > finance > > industry here… and numbers and honesty are > > somewhat important when you are taking on a > > fiduciary duty of possibly millions of ppl. I > > oversaw 40 b of others money- including retired > > grandmas so yeah- I think its a ‘sackable > offence’ > > . > > > > how is it any better than a pm putting up bogus > > return #'s? Beyond the morality issues- there > is > > also the simple fact that the stated amount > WILL > > be fact checked anyhow… so whats the point > > unless your goal is to look foolish and paint > > oneself a liar. There is nothing against > > providing reasoning as I have done fow why one > > deserves more than a 10% inc for the switch- > > retirement vesting schedules/ education/ > > experience being just a few of them. > > I agree with akanska, although I do find it funny > that she of all people would use on other > people’s spelling errors. What spelling error by the way? ‘Sackable’ and ‘Offence’ were both spelt (spelled?) correctly. I do admit though, had I inadvertently made a typo it would have totally crushed the substance of my argument - which I stand over by the way. And you say they WILL check what you previous salary was. But I’ve seen it happen plenty of times that employers don’t check that. Bottom line, every interview situation is different. It is up to you to hone your negotiation skills as best you can. Only you can judge the person sitting opposite you and whether or not they would see it as a reasonable negotiating tactic or a ‘fireable offense’ [sic] to round up your current earnings.