<p>What careers are available in business other than ibanking and consulting that still pay well? </p>
<p>I'm interested in business with a maybe slight slant towards law, but I'm not looking forward to having 80 hour work weeks. (No point in making 200,000 if I have no time to use it)</p>
<p>My strongest courses are in math and english, if that makes a difference.</p>
<p>Thanks guys =)</p>
<p>Well, what do you mean by "business"? The management and finance of medium-to-large companies is an art form best learned either from working with people doing the management (i.e. consulting) or making the financial deals that determine the fate of companies (i.e. finance).</p>
<p>The thing you might want to consider is corporate sales. Sales in particular, if you're good at it, pays extraordinarily well and does not necessarily make you kill yourself with hours - in particular they can be more flexible than many other types of jobs at a company. The top salesman at a large corporation typically makes more than the CEO, and companies are always looking for salespeople - it's a highly transferable skill, and fundamental to the business of any company.</p>
<p>A hedge fund, if you're sufficiently quant-y, may also be an interesting field to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The top salesman at a large corporation typically makes more than the CEO
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol that's quite a BS.</p>
<p>in which case you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not talking about door-to-door vacuum salesmen here.</p>
<p>Yeah, actually, I have to agree with Denzera on this one. The top few salesmen often times do make more than the CEO, in a particular year.</p>
<p>Note, it should be said that this may not be true consistently. For example, the top salesman for one particular year may not be the top one in the next year. You can be a top salesman for one particular year by just blowing open one super-big account that crushes your sales numbers and hence activates all of your sales threshold bonuses for that particular year ...but then never be able to make another sale to that account ever again. So I suspect that, averaged over many years, the CEO makes more than any sales guy will. However, it is still often times true that the top sales reps for a particular year does make more than the CEO for that particular year. It's just that the top sales rep keeps changing every year.</p>
<p>I'm not saying it's impossible for top salesman to make more than CEO. But what I disagree is the fact that they ** typically ** make more than the CEO because that is not true AT ALL.</p>
<p>Sure there will always exist some exceptional salesman who ever able to do that, but as I said in the earlier statement those are EXCEPTIONAL, not typical.</p>
<p>And as you said, sakky, that only happens during some EXCEPTIONAL YEARS. If it takes an EXCEPTIONAL person to do it in some EXCEPTIONAL year, then that is by no means "typical".</p>
<p>One exceptional year means nothing for some sales positions, for example insurance. Once you build a base and do what is necessary to keep that base, you are set with a fairly consistant income.</p>
<p>if i'm the CEO of a small-to-midsized company, and I have a salesman who is, on his own, substantially growing the company and driving its top line forward, and i'm not paying him more than i'm paying myself, then i'm stupid and deserve to have him quit and join somewhere where he's more respected.</p>
<p>regardless, i think we're off-topic here. I suggested corporate sales as a possible career path for a highly motivated extravert with a need for some scheduling flexibility. i suggested hedge funds. anyone got anything else?</p>
<p>On top of the hedge funds, venture capital and asset management is also well regarded. Theres even less of those positions than Banking/ Consulting so it can be tricky.</p>
<p>assett management? Think your mistaken, you cant pair asset management with hedge funds or vernture cap in terms of difficulty in regards to employment.</p>
<p>Are you thinking about the same thing? Investment management as in asset management on the buy side? The term really varies. You can do asset management at an Ibank or even at a hedge fund. It depends on where you are doing it at.</p>
<p>and you can do asset management at a plethora of other places. It is no where near as selective as hf or vc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying it's impossible for top salesman to make more than CEO. But what I disagree is the fact that they typically make more than the CEO because that is not true AT ALL.</p>
<p>Sure there will always exist some exceptional salesman who ever able to do that, but as I said in the earlier statement those are EXCEPTIONAL, not typical.</p>
<p>And as you said, sakky, that only happens during some EXCEPTIONAL YEARS. If it takes an EXCEPTIONAL person to do it in some EXCEPTIONAL year, then that is by no means "typical".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I think you are reading too much into denzera's post and my post. I don't consider it tremendously 'exceptional' that whoever happens to be the top salesmen in a particular year will get paid more than the CEO in that year. For example, it is widely understood that, in investment banking, whoever happens to be the top trader that year will get paid more than the CEO. For example, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman, made about $50 million last year. But the top traders in Goldman last year made more than that.</p>
<p>Nor is it a matter of it being an 'exceptional year'. Keep in mind that much of the CEO's pay is also variable. If the economy is bad, or the company does poorly, then the CEO's pay gets docked too (because he makes less bonus, etc.) Nevertheless, even in such a bad year, the top sales guy will still probably make more than the CEO. They both obviously get paid less than they would in good years. But the top sales guy probably still gets paid more. So that's typical.</p>
<p>However, what I am saying is that whoever happens to be the top guy changes every year. Just because you are the top sales guy in one year doesn't mean that you can expect to be the top guy every year. These things fluctuate. So it is true that the top sales guy typically makes more than the CEO (so what denzera said is true), but what is not typical is when the top sales guy is the same person year after year. That, I agree, is not typical. </p>
<p>
[quote]
One exceptional year means nothing for some sales positions, for example insurance. Once you build a base and do what is necessary to keep that base, you are set with a fairly consistant income.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not what I mean. Obviously once you've built a strong pipeline, you will have a steady income. But there will be years in which a bunch of your top customers buys a whole bunch of stuff, and then they won't buy anything after that for years. So, if your company happens to pay you all up-front (as opposed to spreading your commissions over the lifetime of the contract), then you will get a very big paycheck for that one year, but then your pay will drop in subsequent years.</p>
<p>CEO pay is not always variable, why do you think Bob Nardelli was forced to resign, he had a signed contract for his pay and would not budge the slightest for a decrease in his bonus package which was already predetermined five years ago</p>
<p>SP,</p>
<p>I'm sure there are some CEOs whose pay is perfectly set, but the majority of them are not.</p>
<p>Nardelli was a poor example for you to choose. The majority of his compensation was stock options, meaning that if HD's stock did better, his compensation goes up. If the stock had done poorly, his compensation would have gone down.</p>
<p>He also was compensated five million in cash.</p>
<p>Regardless, since we're going part to this point - "typically" is a harsh word to use, but it depends on the company. The reason as to why HD's CEO was compensated so well was because he was pulled from GE to work over at HD. There, he was forced to give up his retirement options, etc. at GE, so as a way to lure him over to HD he was given a rather generous pay and options that would eventually be able to exercise. Nevertheless, Nardelli still has quite a bit in his pocket after leaving. His severance package is generous not because they want to, because they have to under the signing of his contract.</p>
<p>At other companies, ones that do not dominate the entire playing field, CEO pay is not nearly as high as you may expect. Former Goldman Sachs CEO - Paulson was gathering about 33 million a year - quite a feat I would say. However, Managing Directors, those who come up with the ridiculous ideas on how to best approach a company to begin the stages of a merger, acquisition, IPO, etc, hence modern day salesman, have been known to make 50+ million a year.</p>
<p>So, salesman have been known quite frequently to make more than the CEO of a company. Afterall, sometimes, they frankly are just more important.</p>
<p>bluedevilmike, he was a perfect example as it proved its point, CEO pay is not always variable. Did it prove its point or not?</p>
<p>Rather your example of total compensation being based off stock price is a poor example in regards to Bob Nardelli. There was a reason he had guaranteed bonus packages. DUH. The heated battle that was about to culminate in a proxy fight was that BOB would not except a bonus package that reflected shareholder gains. He cared little about the stock price, he was one that actually looked past wall street and actively voiced his opinion that share price was only one measure, and a sometimes misleading one at that, of a companies overall performace. Considering wall streets view between HD and Lowes, his reasoning was understandable</p>
<p>He was not compensate so because he was loosing his retirement package. He was compensated because he was one of the greatest corporate America had ever seen. His price at the time seemed worth the future possibilities he could bring. They did not have to lure him either, he was passed up for CEO at GE, where else did he have to go.</p>
<p>To get back to the OP, there are many business career paths as you probably know. The trick is to find one that excites you and that matches your talents. You should expect to put in many hours and travel for high pay, but some career paths have more hours/travel than others. Generally, these are the ones that pay best.</p>
<p>A career in ibanking or the law is not the only way to accumulate wealth. The trick is to live below your means and invest if you want to eventually reach the point of not having to work that hard. It's something to consider if you want a life beyond your career. Your MBA training and connections will help you sniff out good investments.</p>
<p>If one's compensation is based in part on stock prices, which change, then one's compensation also changes depending on how well the company is doing. His pay was therefore variable.</p>
<p>his pay was not based on stock price, that was the entire problem between shareholders and Nardelli. Do you not understand?</p>