Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#2A link to the 11-slide deck: https://imgur.com/a/v0ckTUm
Some very serious survey results in there. It's apparently a very small sample size (13 first years), but life sounds like absolute hell for those 13.
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#3A link to the 11-slide deck: https://imgur.com/a/v0ckTUm Some very serious survey results in there. It's apparently a very small sample size (13 first years), but life sounds like absolute hell for those 13.
They are also earning 300k for first year analyst (it goes up more every year). 100 hours is pretty normal for what they are getting paid. Sustainable? Not for many but still a lot more of money for a 21 year old at the end of the day.
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#4A link to the 11-slide deck: https://imgur.com/a/v0ckTUm Some very serious survey results in there. It's apparently a very small sample size (13 first years), but life sounds like absolute hell for those 13.
They are also earning 300k for first year analyst (it goes up more every year). 100 hours is pretty normal for what they are getting paid. Sustainable? Not for many but still a lot more of money for a 21 year old at the end of the day.
First year analysts at a bank like GS make more like $100-150k, including bonuses. That's a lot for a fresh grad, but is a far cry from $300k.
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#5I hear, anecdotally(n100 spike bad weeks.
What I hear is that revenue is at record levels, deal flow is so high they can't keep things staffed and are pulling in junior bankers from lower tier shops. Bonuses were reportedly bad(in spite of record revenue) because of the 'optics of bankers getting big bonuses during covid' which sort of breaks the bargain of working 90-100 hours a week.
I'm shocked at the attrition I've heard of. For being such a high barrier to entry club(MBA, lots of 'networking', a hazing summer analyst/associateism, etc) people are bailing in crazy numbers. I am aware of a group(an incredibly high performing group, tons of deals, tons of S-1s that hit HN this year) where 80% of 2nd year associates have already left(since the cohort started).
Everyone knows that "bankers work a lot" but even among a friend group of MBB consultants, medical residents, buy side folks, etc -- the bankers have it the worst, and the comp is not really better unless you stick it out a long time.
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#6A link to the 11-slide deck: https://imgur.com/a/v0ckTUm Some very serious survey results in there. It's apparently a very small sample size (13 first years), but life sounds like absolute hell for those 13.
They are also earning 300k for first year analyst (it goes up more every year). 100 hours is pretty normal for what they are getting paid. Sustainable? Not for many but still a lot more of money for a 21 year old at the end of the day.
this is false. First year associate all in is slightly sub 300, but compare to similarly type A hoop jumping prestige chasing programmers in NYC(or SF) it's a bad deal - plus taxes, CoL, etc. Analyst is low 100 as someone said below.
At least analysts can bail to the buy side and have a +EV path out.
London folks have it way worse too, I hear. Same jobs, 60% of comp, London isn't cheaper than NY.
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#7Not that I would ever want to do it, but I alway wonder how the outcomes would be if engineering teams worked as hard as IB/HF folks. I've produced some of my best code on the weeks where I manage to code 70+ hours, but its very unsustainable.
The obvious answer is that it wouldn't work, but some of these organizations with long hours are some of the best performing organizations, so there is definitely more to the story.
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#8I hear, anecdotally(n 100 spike bad weeks. What I hear is that revenue is at record levels, deal flow is so high they can't keep things staffed and are pulling in junior bankers from lower tier shops. Bonuses were reportedly bad(in spite of record revenue) because of the 'optics of bankers getting big bonuses during covid' which sort of breaks the bargain of working 90-100 hours a week. I'm shocked at the attrition I…
Are they actually doing quality work in that time? What would happen if they just plain stopped after, say, 60 hours? Would the banks actually lose money?
I suppose they'll always find a new batch of people willing to imagine that they're getting a taste of billion-dollar deals and retire early. People undergo hazing because there are lots of people who want to be in the club. You may not be able to profit off the numbers, but you can at least have a perverse fun, if that's your thing.
But somehow, I'd have thought that a bank with "Come work 45 hour weeks with us for the same amount of money" would attract smart people and use their brain power to make more money.
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#9A link to the 11-slide deck: https://imgur.com/a/v0ckTUm Some very serious survey results in there. It's apparently a very small sample size (13 first years), but life sounds like absolute hell for those 13.
They are also earning 300k for first year analyst (it goes up more every year). 100 hours is pretty normal for what they are getting paid. Sustainable? Not for many but still a lot more of money for a 21 year old at the end of the day.
software engineering grads who are in the same prestige level as entry level goldman bankers make more money. banking really only pays off for the top few percent that make it
Re: Goldman’s First-Year Bankers Beg to Work Only 80-Hour Weeks in Stinging Deck
#10I hear, anecdotally(n 100 spike bad weeks. What I hear is that revenue is at record levels, deal flow is so high they can't keep things staffed and are pulling in junior bankers from lower tier shops. Bonuses were reportedly bad(in spite of record revenue) because of the 'optics of bankers getting big bonuses during covid' which sort of breaks the bargain of working 90-100 hours a week. I'm shocked at the attrition I…
Are they actually doing quality work in that time? What would happen if they just plain stopped after, say, 60 hours? Would the banks actually lose money? I suppose they'll always find a new batch of people willing to imagine that they're getting a taste of billion-dollar deals and retire early. People undergo hazing because there are lots of people who want to be in the club. You may not be able to profit off the nu…
[deleted]