<p>I don't see how my figures are really low. The site had an average 2nd yr analyst bonus of $66K (which is going to be distorted upwards) vs my implied average of $58K. I certainly agree this year will be lower; maybe even less than my original ranges. </p>
<p>While you could make VP in IB by age 29 (you would really have to be an unbelievable superstar to do it before then, which most on here seem to assume they are), people on CC lose sight of the fact that less than 5% of those who become analysts at age 22 will do so.</p>
<p>I was given an FT offer at a top 5 BB. Base salary is 60K with bonus around the same. But bonuses fluctuate with the market. This summer I'd expect 1st years to have around 50K, so a total of 110-120K all in (100-110K for lower end, 120-130K for higher end). Still not bad.</p>
<p>At top tier MC, for comparison, 1st years get the same base (60K) with pretty much guaranteed bonus of 10K or 15K.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While you could make VP in IB by age 29 (you would really have to be an unbelievable superstar to do it before then, which most on here seem to assume they are), people on CC lose sight of the fact that less than 5% of those who become analysts at age 22 will do so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>gellino, while some people on this board may appreciate your fabrication and random fact generation (aka pulling data out of thin air), the majority are looking for the truth - not skewed interpretations - about the banking sector. Less than 5% of analysts (you got that number from?) become senior bankers because only a few people decide to become "career bankers." Most pursue other opportunities a la PE/VC, HFs, BizDev, industry, or leave banking altogether. The reality is that few people choose to grind it out until senior positions because many get burned out and wish to consider other jobs, either in finance or not. That is not to say that the path from analyst to MD is an easy one by any stretch of the imagination because it's not. Gellino's "less than 5%" statistic, however, needed some clarification.</p>
<p>aworldapart, while some on this board may appreciate your arrogance as an all-knowing college junior, I have actually been through the whole process from beginning to end with YEARS of experience (as opposed to your ZERO) and have observed how it turns out and am, thus speaking the truth and not skewed interpretations about the banking sector. The 5% becoming VPs was for my analyst class and my point about not becoming a VP before age 29 was based on a typical three years as an analyst and four years as an associate path to directly become a VP; so there would have some extenuating circumstance to achieve it before then as a poster on here alluded to saying people become a VP from ages 27-30. I am referencing things I have seen from my experience, which I find it interesting that you question when you have NONE. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think our point is actually the same - that even those who end up in IB need not be concerned at what age or what compensation is attained by VPs in IB because it is going to be irrelevant for the vast majority because they are either not going to be selected or choose to do something else. I know when I was interviewing that I wasn't remotely concerned about how soon one could make VP or what the compensation would be. A lot was certainly going to change in seven years and if it became apparent that I was going to need to make such considerations, I would worry about it at the appropriate time. Good luck in your Summer job.</p>
<p>I've got a buddy who worked all of July except for the 4th... (as an intern) so 30 day months. I'm working about 55 hrs a week as an intern atm, which is extremely good. The worst I've heard is 140 hrs a week, but that fat cat is pulling down 6M a year, so not so bad.</p>
<p>FYI, the youngest SMD at Bear Stearns, the most meritocratic of the MM/BB banks, is only 26 - but thats definitely an exception. I'm told most BB banks are extremely rigid/ linear and that age is a good proxy for position.</p>