| Topic Name: |
Thank God I'm in Banking |
| Message Name: |
Question re: CFA |
| Date Posted: |
06/06/2000 |
| In Reply To: |
I would be interested in hearing just what kind of hours/pay you are talking about. As a lawyer, I have to admit it does pretty much suck (which is why I am starting on the CFA exam next summer and why I have started lurking on the vault.com boards) but I have heard that in terms of hours, I-banking can suck even more.
Conventional wisdom in the law is that I-Bankers make about twice as much as lawyers but are also working about one and a half times as much. True? For comparison purposes, the typical lawyer makes $125,000 in base compensation as a first year, which increases to around $210,000 by their seventh year. (after that they either make partner, become some of-counsel or other B.S. position, or get canned). Bonus potential starts at $30,000 for first years and increases to $70,000 by seventh year, although realistically no one comes anywhere near the max bonus during their first few years of practice (you're too inefficient and the firm gives you to much non-billable crap work).
As for hours, most firms have a 1900-2000 minimum billable requirement and they pay out the max bonus at 2400 hours. Depending on the work you are doing and how efficient you are, it can take anywhere from 10-12 hours of working to bill 8.
So let's hear it, how do the careers stack up? |
| Message: |
I am a first year attorney with a science undergrad (no formal finance type education). Although my firm brought me in as a tech licensing type, the practice is fairly flexible, so I plan to pick up as much M&A and securities work as they will allow. My question is this: Is there any value for me to take the CFA if I plan to move into I-Banking as an M&A type?
My thinking is that, although the CFA won't have as much practical benefit for someone in my position, it might help show potential employers that I really want to do I-Banking and that, unlike most lawyers, I don't suck at the quantitative work.
|
|
