5 ms·

When I was interviewing for roles at tech companies while working on Wall St., I remember having conversations with recruiters where I would tell them my salary

When I was interviewing for roles at tech companies while working on Wall St., I remember having conversations with recruiters where I would tell them my salary and my bonus (which was usually 30-40% of my overall comp), and they would say something like, "We don't give out 30% bonuses here. Is that okay?" And I would say, "If you can match the overall comp, then yes, that's terrific." The point being, bonuses are just a way for finance companies to flex your salary down when the firm has a bad quarter, or you're unvalued or working on an unvalued project. From that standpoint, I don't see bonuses going away any time soon, but if they do then all the better for the employees.

tboyd47 7y ago
In this situation, do you think getting "flexed down" by your company is overall better or worse than companies just eliminating your position entirely? Edit: Did someone read some snark in my question? It was an honest question.
- Psyladine 7y ago
  It's the difference between a screw that can be tuned to performance, or a nail that is hammered in place permanently. bonuses differ from raises in that their isn't an element of entitlement or a long term commitment from the organization. It's not about being squeamish about eliminating a position, companies have no concerns with that.
  - jagged-chisel 7y ago
    > It's not about being squeamish about eliminating a position... If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense to offer a 'stable' higher salary to an employee, and then sack them when it's financially beneficial to the company? I think the company does indeed have a concern with that - it becomes known that a particular company just thins the ranks every 18mos, and they'll have fewer folks lining up to take jobs. On the other hand, even if the salary is lower, an employee can be more confident in keeping at least a modicum of income in lean times, and can also 'compete with colleagues' when bonuses are available. The perception (of the employer to the employee) is valuable to some extent.
    - rusk 7y ago
      > sack them when it's financially beneficial to the company? Depends on how onerous a task it is to rehire when things pick up again ... I presume that’s part of the reason foe generous separation packages when a company actually must let people go ... at least you won’t have a bad reputation militating against you!
    - SubuSS 7y ago
      > it becomes known that a particular company just thins the ranks every 18mos, and they'll have fewer folks lining up to take jobs. I don't think this is a thing at the high levels sadly. Both the employer and employees have moved away from the job security concept long time ago.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  Of course it's better. If you prefer to leave your position you can always just resign.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- bjourne 7y ago
  It's a false dilemma in most situations. If someone isn't needed, reduced salary won't let them keep their job.
- jayd16 7y ago
  I'd rather have been paid my full comp and then laid off to look elsewhere than have half my comp pulled out from under me.
- Bubbadoo 7y ago
  Wall St. is equally adept at eliminating positions as well as cutting bonuses. I've seen numerous lay-offs during my time working at bulge brackets, some of which enter and leave business-lines on a whim (ie., FX, fixed-income sales, etc.). On Wall St., if you're older than say 45 yo and make a good salary for your years of experience, you have a target on your back. This is somewhat the same for tech, but stand outside any bank's office in Manhattan and you'll notice the youth of the employees.
  - dan-robertson 7y ago
    I think there are probably a few forces leading to there being a lot of young people at big banks. One is that they will hire a lot of junior analysts and many of them do not last while others will move to smaller firms that require more experienced staff because they can’t train people straight out of college. When I was at university, the people I knew who wanted to work in finance seemed to be planning to work stupidly hard for some number of years and make a load of money and then retire. So maybe an alternative reason is that many people choose to retire at a relatively young age. But those people didn’t exactly have much actual experience in investment banks and so maybe they were just wrong or maybe those ideas are more predominantly held by people who are keen on investment banking while in university than in investment bankers at large. Or maybe the old people all turn up at a different time or spend all their time meeting with clients outside their office (or half the time with clients so they arrive at the office at weird times), so you just don’t see them if you watch. To be clear I don’t want to suggest that I disagree with what you say, just that there may be other forces at play than a bank’s desire to fire senior staff.
9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
FWIW, in the more senior ranks at Google, 30-40% bonuses are entirely achievable. L7 bonuses start at 25% and go up for good performance.
- laurencerowe 7y ago
  That 25% bonus is only on base salary which makes up perhaps 40% of total compensation at those levels. Most of the money is as RSUs which makes up about half the total comp.
  - qwhelan 7y ago
    At hedge funds, the majority of your "cash bonus" can take the form of deferred comp that's locked up in a shitty fund that doesn't perform anything like the famous ones (both Citadel and RenTec do this). Some don't let you pull it out unless you never work again. RSU comp can be quite competitive when you take those factors into account.
    - notfromhere 7y ago
      Why dont the employee funds just mirror the trades of the main fund?
      - throwawaymath 7y ago
        Usually because the strategies which have genuine alpha and consistently outperform are capacity constrained, and so cannot be scaled to handle both. Of course, at RenTech in particular the employee-only fund is the good fund. But that's not always the case, so the parent commenter has a point. Deferred/locked up compensation can really suck.
        qwhelan 7y ago
        >Of course, at RenTech in particular the employee-only fund is the good fund Yeah, but only the long tenured/high performing employees get access to the good fund (there's a merely average fund that most employee deferred comp goes into, if I understand correctly). Former colleague of mine was a M&A trader at Lehman during the crash. 95% of his net worth was in his fund, which was up 50%+ for the year when the bankruptcy trustee seized everything. IIRC, he was starting to get his money back in ~2014-15.
JackFr 7y ago
> bonuses are just a way for finance companies to flex your salary down when the firm has a bad quarter, or you're unvalued or working on an unvalued project. This. At the height of "bonus culture" the smart folks realized that it was a means of trimming comp costs without reducing headcount.
walshemj 7y ago
That's the point that a lot of HN readers don't see no Wall street or City firm is going to want to commit to paying more fixed pay over non contractual bonus.

tboyd47 7y ago

In this situation, do you think getting "flexed down" by your company is overall better or worse than companies just eliminating your position entirely? Edit: Did someone read some snark in my question? It was an honest question.

Psyladine 7y ago
It's the difference between a screw that can be tuned to performance, or a nail that is hammered in place permanently. bonuses differ from raises in that their isn't an element of entitlement or a long term commitment from the organization. It's not about being squeamish about eliminating a position, companies have no concerns with that.
- jagged-chisel 7y ago
  > It's not about being squeamish about eliminating a position... If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense to offer a 'stable' higher salary to an employee, and then sack them when it's financially beneficial to the company? I think the company does indeed have a concern with that - it becomes known that a particular company just thins the ranks every 18mos, and they'll have fewer folks lining up to take jobs. On the other hand, even if the salary is lower, an employee can be more confident in keeping at least a modicum of income in lean times, and can also 'compete with colleagues' when bonuses are available. The perception (of the employer to the employee) is valuable to some extent.
  - rusk 7y ago
    > sack them when it's financially beneficial to the company? Depends on how onerous a task it is to rehire when things pick up again ... I presume that’s part of the reason foe generous separation packages when a company actually must let people go ... at least you won’t have a bad reputation militating against you!
  - SubuSS 7y ago
    > it becomes known that a particular company just thins the ranks every 18mos, and they'll have fewer folks lining up to take jobs. I don't think this is a thing at the high levels sadly. Both the employer and employees have moved away from the job security concept long time ago.
boring_twenties 7y ago
Of course it's better. If you prefer to leave your position you can always just resign.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bjourne 7y ago
It's a false dilemma in most situations. If someone isn't needed, reduced salary won't let them keep their job.
jayd16 7y ago
I'd rather have been paid my full comp and then laid off to look elsewhere than have half my comp pulled out from under me.
Bubbadoo 7y ago
Wall St. is equally adept at eliminating positions as well as cutting bonuses. I've seen numerous lay-offs during my time working at bulge brackets, some of which enter and leave business-lines on a whim (ie., FX, fixed-income sales, etc.). On Wall St., if you're older than say 45 yo and make a good salary for your years of experience, you have a target on your back. This is somewhat the same for tech, but stand outside any bank's office in Manhattan and you'll notice the youth of the employees.
- dan-robertson 7y ago
  I think there are probably a few forces leading to there being a lot of young people at big banks. One is that they will hire a lot of junior analysts and many of them do not last while others will move to smaller firms that require more experienced staff because they can’t train people straight out of college. When I was at university, the people I knew who wanted to work in finance seemed to be planning to work stupidly hard for some number of years and make a load of money and then retire. So maybe an alternative reason is that many people choose to retire at a relatively young age. But those people didn’t exactly have much actual experience in investment banks and so maybe they were just wrong or maybe those ideas are more predominantly held by people who are keen on investment banking while in university than in investment bankers at large. Or maybe the old people all turn up at a different time or spend all their time meeting with clients outside their office (or half the time with clients so they arrive at the office at weird times), so you just don’t see them if you watch. To be clear I don’t want to suggest that I disagree with what you say, just that there may be other forces at play than a bank’s desire to fire senior staff.

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago

FWIW, in the more senior ranks at Google, 30-40% bonuses are entirely achievable. L7 bonuses start at 25% and go up for good performance.

laurencerowe 7y ago
That 25% bonus is only on base salary which makes up perhaps 40% of total compensation at those levels. Most of the money is as RSUs which makes up about half the total comp.
- qwhelan 7y ago
  At hedge funds, the majority of your "cash bonus" can take the form of deferred comp that's locked up in a shitty fund that doesn't perform anything like the famous ones (both Citadel and RenTec do this). Some don't let you pull it out unless you never work again. RSU comp can be quite competitive when you take those factors into account.
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    Why dont the employee funds just mirror the trades of the main fund?
    - throwawaymath 7y ago
      Usually because the strategies which have genuine alpha and consistently outperform are capacity constrained, and so cannot be scaled to handle both. Of course, at RenTech in particular the employee-only fund is the good fund. But that's not always the case, so the parent commenter has a point. Deferred/locked up compensation can really suck.
      - qwhelan 7y ago
        >Of course, at RenTech in particular the employee-only fund is the good fund Yeah, but only the long tenured/high performing employees get access to the good fund (there's a merely average fund that most employee deferred comp goes into, if I understand correctly). Former colleague of mine was a M&A trader at Lehman during the crash. 95% of his net worth was in his fund, which was up 50%+ for the year when the bankruptcy trustee seized everything. IIRC, he was starting to get his money back in ~2014-15.

JackFr 7y ago

> bonuses are just a way for finance companies to flex your salary down when the firm has a bad quarter, or you're unvalued or working on an unvalued project. This. At the height of "bonus culture" the smart folks realized that it was a means of trimming comp costs without reducing headcount.

walshemj 7y ago

That's the point that a lot of HN readers don't see no Wall street or City firm is going to want to commit to paying more fixed pay over non contractual bonus.