vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"As others have stated, CEO's often make more than 200K, and when they do, they're compensated with stock options and other lucrative bonuses and deals that allow them to build wealth above and beyond the face value of their salary. However, remember that having wealth makes it easier to build further wealth. As Victor pointed out, having wealth allows you to increase your wealth in different kinds of investments. Also, it gives you access to more human capital, e.g. wealth management services at firms like Northern Trust, a greater ability to diversify into investments like hedge funds, more abilities to invest abroad through foreign trusts, etc. Also, you have to realize that wealthier people often pay a lower percentage in taxes than people who earn a salary. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than income, so wealthy individuals who earn much of their money from long-term investments won't pay nearly as high a rate. In my case, my current salary places me at the top of the 25% tax bracket (in the US), but if I earned all of my income through long-term capital gains instead of salary, I would only pay around 15-20% in taxes. Plus, I could afford numerous tax accounting firms to help me find ways to pay fewer taxes. It's not altruism that causes CEOs like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg to take a $1 salary.  This isn't directly related to CEOs, and I'm not leveling accusations of corruption against high net worth individuals, but I remember spending a few months in a small town in a country known for its corruption. The mayor had recently purchased a home worth the equivalent of several million dollars, on his annual civil servant salary of approximately $20K. One of the students asked him how he managed to afford such a sizable property, and he replied ""I live very frugally."" This is probably a relatively rare case (I'm sure it depends on the country), but nevertheless, it illustrates another way that some people build wealth."
So you're saying a company has no responsibility whatsoever to ensure its employees make fair wages?  That the market will determine a person's salary based on their valuability?  What if market forces align to reduce wages in order to increase profitability?  That's exactly what's happened in the last 30 years and people like you protecting corporate greed is the reason why living wages has stagnated barely matching inflation while [executive salaries have skyrocteted.](https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_1920w/Boston/2011-2020/2014/10/26/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/ceopay2graf.jpg)  You're either ignorant of the big picture, or a shill for a system that exploits the masses.
This or you can know someone. Without a 4.0 from a business school you're going to have a tough time getting an interview.   Also, get your MBA from a top 25 school. The analysts at these companies make $50,000-$65,000 and work 80-100 hours a week. Not worth it. MBA grads will start around $100,000 with the same hours.
I don't know what you mean by ad spend, but have you checked out glassdoor or indeed.com? They both give you a salary range for common positions in your area. Don't offer the maximum number you see, be reasonable based on your experience and such.
It pretty much comes down to where you interview and what you are trying to do.  Finance is something that you learn.  While yes, you can major in it (I did), it is really about how clever you are.  You need to be creative in the way you perceive the problems that come at you.  Since you seem to be quantitative in nature, you should be fine.  When a hiring manager reads your resume he/she will see that.  They are probably tired of hearing interviewees drone on about how they would buy this vanilla stock because of a PE ratio or a solid balance sheet.  Everyone is the same.  If you can stand out, you can probably get a job wherever you want to within the realm of finance (with some minor exceptions).  Odds are if you work at  BB I-bank you will be trained in any sort of finance they deem necessary for you to be aware of.  Know some basic stuff.  If you major in mathematics or stats or what-have you, you must be intelligent.  Buy a few novels.  The Quants, FIASCO, The Big Short, Liars Poker, Black Swan, Boomerang, A Random Walk Down Wall Street.  These will expose you to the ethos of a typical wall streeter.  You will also learn a few things about major events of the past and what is going on in the present.  Over all: Math is key.  Know some programming (R, python, maybe perl).  VBA is whack.  Know your Excel (no mouse!) Programming is a huge skill set that will set you apart from kids who were involved in random clubs.  If you have a skill you are more valuable to a company compared to someone with a supposed knowledge of a subject matter.  When I came out of school I knew my academics, but never had applied any of it to a real world problem.  Your resume is not about what you have learned in the past, it is all about demonstrating what you are capable of learning.  If you can show that you are intelligent and a go-getter from your resume, you will do fine no matter what you studied.  Best of luck!
Interesting stuff, but I'd want to know how it occurred to them to check for a Citigroup Bear Run.  It sounds like they simply datamined for one case which fit their hypothesis.  I'd also like to see (1) how other finance companies fared in the same period and (2) how many upticks were available to sell on.
"In the U.S., virtually all salaries are expressed as ""gross salaries"", which are before the taxes that the individual must pay on their income. The numbers shown in the links are almost certainly gross salary figures. However, the ""gross salary"" is not the entire ""total compensation"" number, which is the total value of all compensation and benefits that the employee receives for his work. Total compensation includes not only salary and bonuses, but the cost or value of any employer-paid healthcare, retirement, company car, expense account, stock options, and other valuable goods or services. That's still not the total amount of money the company has to pay to have you; there are employer-paid payroll taxes totaling 6.2% of your gross salary, plus practical costs like the cost of your computer, cubicle or office furniture, and the portion of utility costs that keep you well-lit, clean and comfortable. This complete number is called ""total employee cost"", and the general rule of thumb is that it's double your gross cash compensation (salary + bonuses). Lastly, $100k in California isn't worth as much, in real terms, as $100k in other parts of the U.S. The cost of living in California, especially in Silicon Valley where the majority of the people who make six figures by being C++ programmers are located, is ridiculously expensive. There are other tech hubs in the U.S., like DFW, Austin TX, Atlanta GA, St Louis MO, Raleigh NC, etc where people earn less, but also spend less to live and so can use more of their salary in a ""discretionary"" manner."
Hey, I'm  sure its been asked before and I've read around a bit online, but wondering your guys opinion...   You could say I was sort of a late bloomer in terms of maturity/awareness. Well, regardless, I've found myself extremely interested in stocks and options and would love to get a CFA some day (like most other people on this sub). Only problem is, I'm not nearly qualified on paper for a career in finance at this point.   I work in a back office support center of one of the largest insurance companies in the world. I began interning there a little over a year ago, made myself familiar with all their products, taught myself tons of concepts etc. I got Bloomberg Certified (not that thats an accomplishment or anything). So I think I have a decent understanding of concepts/valuation. But I don't have any formal modeling experience, though I have played around in Excel a bit. I studied abroad spring semester of last year and interned at a strategic communications firm that worked closely with private companies, which I thoroughly researched along with legislation, policy, etc.   I'm wondering what, if any, options I have to transition to a career in finance. I'd assume MBA so far based on my reading, but I'm wondering if anyone thinks I could make a half decent case for say, an entry-level equity research role. I'm based out of the greater New York area though, which probably doesn't help my odds.   I know I have a lot left to learn still, but I think I am actually interested for the right reasons - I love the markets. I think I know how to research/analyze decently and could do the job. But I know I'm not a compelling candidate on paper.   Any ideas for breaking in? Or should I just sit tight for a few years, get my MBA and try to transition then?
"I received my offer to join one of GS/MS/JPM the fall of my senior year through On-Campus Recruiting. I submitted my resume for the Investment Banking Analyst position, passed the first round on-campus interview, was sent to a ""superday"" at NYC headquarters about a week later, and walked out with an offer at the end of the superday.   I should probably note that I was an engineering major, so most of my interviews were focused on ""why finance."" You *really* need to be sharp on explaining your story (by walking someone through your resume clearly and concisely)."
[Macabus](http://macabacus.com/learn) is one of my favorite resources. It walks you through the model, top to bottom - and best of all it's free.   When you get closer to understanding what you want to do long term, your firm will probably recommend/pay for a more comprehensive program like Training the Street or Wall Street Prep.   It's really hard to master this without working in the field, but if you can demonstrate that you have a strong grasp of the finance, accounting, and modeling (mainly excel) concepts, you will be a rockstar in your interviews.
If you take 5% pay cut this year you better be getting a 5-20% increase in the following 5 years based on performance, but how do you sell yourself as a facet of the team that achieves these longterm goals, how do you fit? Therefore if you don't gain anthign this round, make sure you have verible or written affirmation of compensation in the future to follow up with when due. On top of this 'dynamic' look at similar positons advertised recently on various other websites to anchor your asking price, aim 10%-15% higher and you'll hopefully land on the moon if not the stars. Normally I would go to linkedin to check out the excecs history and glassdoor but not sure thats needed in this case since you know them already and its a newer company. With that in mind, ask yourself, ""Is this a job I would and could see myself eager to be challenged by the next 3 years."""
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what a PhD in Finance gets you in the next 5-10 years. Most banks and hedge funds are going to be hiring computer scientists with backgrounds in machine learning. Anything quantitative you learn in a Finance PhD program will be too weak compared to those skillsets.  I think the only bright spot might be behavioral economics, which has a qualitative social science research component to it.  I would be less worried about getting into one of those programs and more worried about if it will actually be useful. If I were you, I'd get into a PhD program that exploits your statistics background, so you can at least go towards approaches in statistical machine learning.
"https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/corporate-strategy-vs-corporate-development https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-finance-jobs/ https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/day-in-life-corporate-finance-analyst/ https://www.quora.com/Strategic-Management-What-is-the-typical-day-in-the-life-of-a-corporate-strategy-consultant https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-development-on-the-job/ Legit after 5 minutes of googling...and using the search bar in reddit for these jobs... Actually, since you edited your response, here's why I found it kinda naive. You have a pretty good gig as a petroleum engineer in a F500 company. The only thing in your description that you're interested in a job is a corporate job. Which is for the most part all professional jobs. Its ok to be curious, but saying ""I don't like engineering but I like corporate jobs so tell me about corporate sounding jobs even though google has tons of articles on it"" sounds entitled and naive. Corporate finance (Controllers, FP&amp;A, Treasury) is a catch-all for jobs that quantify and manage a company's money. This includes figuring out how much money the business is making, budgeting, and gaining access to money for future plans. They spend most of their day on excel, browsing reddit, and complaining that other departments don't take them seriously. There is work-life balance, unless your company is at risk of bankruptcy, but pay will likely be the least of this group. Corporate strategy/development is about finding ways to achieve the vision/goals of the C-suite. Corporate development usually are ex-IB people and focused on finding companies to acquire, integrate, and achieve the goals of the acquisition (synergies, returns on investment, technology/product acquisition). Corporate strategy is usually broader and could be focused on improving the brand, figuring out new uses for a product, finding new partners, or generally looking for good ideas to improve the company.
"Bob Chapman writes: ""The banks blatantly control governments and agencies presenting us with an oligarchy, which controls most of the nations on the planet. In America politicians are bought and paid for. In Europe there is a different mind set, a shared worldview of bureaucrats, technocrats, politicians and the elite bankers of world government and domination. What has happened in this process is that Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and other mega-banking has retained power for decades. They control all the players in the field, so the outcome is always in their favor. The bankers and others in turn are paid via billions of dollars in bonuses."""
As long as we're just making up formulas, I may as well just throw some numbers at it.  The position at the forensic accounting firm would be paying 50-60K likely starting salary with maybe 5K bonus if he is super busy and busts his ass.  Whereas a position in Banking would be paying about 75K base, with around 40-60K in bonus (let's assume this is a boutique or mid level bank).  So after year one, he makes about $60K more on the banking route after year 1 post graduation, whereas he forfeited 10K in summer salary plus the 5K loan with interest (which ohbytheway is tax deductible).  Pretty sure that it works out in his favor that way, and that's just after 1 year.  Yes I understand this simplifies things and assumes that he gets a job in banking solely due to the internship, and couldn't have gotten it otherwise.  However, if the internship significantly increases the likelihood (P as you put it) from .3 to .7 it's still wildly in his favor to do it, given that the wage gap will only grow over time consider his base will be 85k+bonus in yr 2, and 95K+bonus in yr 3, whereas he's looking at maybe 10% raises in the forensic accounting.    Look, you can make up formulas all you want, all I was saying is that in certain industries, it's absolutely legitimate to have unpaid internships.  In this case, $PAYOFF is a fairly high value, and P is increased a significant amount.
Of course there is. Plenty of people in finance with average degrees. Front office may be difficult but there are plenty of middle office and back office roles that don't care as much about pedigree. On top of that finance is becoming one of the more reliable industries that are always hiring (at least until the next market crash)
Yes, but the fact is they probably don't have the cash to pay them right now. I know they just did a cash raise by offering existing shareholders rights to purchase more shares and then additionally issuing new shares. this is always a sign of a weak cash positions, although I'm not quite sure where their cash position is post-rights offering. One of the other issues was the US DOJ fined DB wayyyy more than they should have relative to what they fined US banks for the MBS crisis. Basically US Banks were fined fairly, but DB wasn't because they are foreign and the DOJ likes using foreign companies as piggy-banks...obviously this comes back to hurt the US as now Europeans are more than happy to fine US tech companies up the yin-yang. An eye for an eye...
Work-life balance is kind of a bad joke if you actually are in a career with high growth potentials imo. It isn't even confined to just finance. Anyone I know with high growth potential jobs, especially during junior years at the firm, will require quite a bit of OT. I'd say most 9-5 jobs do not provide rapid growth in salary / positions.
I work in finance and have had a couple friends make the switch from engineering (or some other more technical field) to banking. People in finance like to glorify that what they do is special and takes a certain background/skill set, the truth is you learn things you need to on the job. Give yourself time and ask shitloads of questions. Your natural curiousity for markets and finance news is going to carry you forward - I've seen non finance people come into the sector and flail because they lack that.
1.   It is difficult.  There is no formal process outside of undergrad and MBA programs to easily gain access to interviews.  At your level, its mostly about connections.  If willing to start near bottom, go to your business school and start applying to bank associate programs.  Sounds like you would like sales and trading more than M&amp;A, so focus there. 2.   If you got in at associate level, you would do 1-3 months of training and then get assigned a desk.  Finance going through a tough time right now, so trajectory isn't what it used to be.  Expect to be a VP after 2-4 years, then its all dependent on luck and skill. 3.   If you land a job at a top 15 bank, you should be making total comp of 150k or more after the first year.  Salaries not quite at 150k, but most VPS make over 150k salary, not to mention bigger bonus's.  4.   If you did M&amp;A you would be working very serious hours.  If you go into Sales and Trading your hours will be anywhere from 40 to 60 hours a week depending on the desk.  Trading hours tend to be the shortest. 5.  Boston isn't a hot bed for i-banking finance.  NYC, London, Sing, Hong Kong tend to be the places to be.  I know nobody in Boston that could help.
Yes, that is a problem. When you have ex-Goldman Sach's CEO's become Treasury Secretaries or Governors of NJ, they are bound to have influence that favors their older company.   Hence we need agencies like Elizabeth Warren's CPFB that audits and checks the govt.   However, my main point is that you cannot expect exchanges to self regulate so the min. HFT hold time of 5 secs imposed by exchange will likely not happen by the exchange on its own volition. You will need govt. law to impose it.
To start with the easier one: I went to a large state school that's got a well-ranked business school for undergrad and majored in finance. No masters. The ranking isn't necessary, but the degree (or one similar) probably is just to get into the finance field. You could do treasury work with an accounting degree, and you really could do it with any degree, but a lot of companies might not want to take a chance on you if you don't have at least some applicable knowledge.  Typical day: I usually get in around 7:30 and crank out a couple of daily tasks: I gather bank statements and do some minor data entry to come up with a prediction of what our cash is going to look like for the day. Depending on the day, I get into our Bloomberg terminal and send out money for overnight investment or sell commercial paper to raise money on a short term basis. I do some minor housekeeping/accounting work that's mostly system generated, we just check it. I spend the middle portion of my day approving payments, meeting with business groups to help develop our forecast better for the next 30-60-90 days, maybe meet with bankers if they're in the office, maybe do ad hoc work, maybe do debt analysis, etc. Basically this is my free work time. End of the day I gather more bank reports, send out results for the day to leadership and an updated projection of cash flow for the rest of the month.   If things get really exciting, I might get to take part in an acquisition, do stuff with bonds, etc. It rarely gets that exciting though.
"In all honesty, the path she described is just preference and relative to what ""get money"" means.  She made the comment she was a state school grad.  So lets look at her ""Fuck prestige, get money."" mentality.  * The big money in asset management and research is at the top hedgefunds (Two Sigma, Medallion/Renny, Fortress, Blackrock, Paulson, Soros Quantum, etc).    * These firms hire will only hire from tier 1 school grads or from those grads who have networked and proven experience background from a major player.    * Working for an unknown (relative to firms on the street) asset management or mutual fund firm will go completely ignored when they take applicants into consideration.  They hire based on background experience that is in proximity to the street and market making.  Bottom line is that to make the big money (aka analyst/asset mgr/trader @ top hedge fund) for non-tier 1 grads... it requires putting in your time making less starting out to prove your performance at a household name on the street."
No, they certainly are not compensated the same way.  Some are paid by commission that they earn from the products they sell (ie, certain mutual funds, insurance, etc.)  Others are paid for their advice based on an hourly fee, or a percentage of the portfolio you have to invest. This is a great question, because too many of us just assume that if someone is in the business, they will give trustworthy advice.  This may certainly be the case, but think about it, the financial planner at your bank (who also is a mutual fund specialist - just flip that handy business card over) is employed by Bank X.  Bank X sells mutual funds, GIC's, insurance, all kinds of great products.  That Bank X employee is not likely to tell you about products from Bank Z down the street that might be a better fit for you. Find a fee based planner, someone you can pay by the hour for advice, and let them help you review products across the industry.  It's like asking your bank for mortgage advice...they will discuss the options THEY offer, but may not tell you about a deal down the street.  Using a mortgage broker helps you find the best deal across the board. I believe the current issue of Moneysense magazine has an insert discussing planners.  Their magazine and website (www.moneysense.ca) are good sources of reliable, Canadian financial advice.
Do you have any skills/qualifications that would facilitate an easy change to finance? E.g. economics/finance studies or relevant experience.   Also I'd be slow to add further debt unless it increases expected earnings on the other side.
That’s simple not true. What you pay your employees is directly associated to what it costs for said employees to live. You can pay a professional employee $80k in Milwaukee and they will be happy, and you won’t be able to find the same anywhere near the same professional employee in NYC for $80k.