March 22nd, 2015, 9:14 pm
QuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsQuoteOriginally posted by: overkill112358Are there some typical values for the expectation/stdev of the transition time Associate->VP->D->MD? Clearly, the titles are not unique within banks, but you know what I mean. Would it be fair to say that one could expect to spend 2-3 years for the first transition, and 3-6 years for the second.....both MV and FO?As far as I know: Associate->VD is like 2-3 years and pretty automatic. VP->D is more difficult and can depend on actually gaining new responsibilities, like managing a small team. D->MD is even a bigger jump and more on a case by case basis. Might actually never happen, really.QuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsQuoteOriginally posted by: overkill112358Are there some typical values for the expectation/stdev of the transition time Associate->VP->D->MD? Clearly, the titles are not unique within banks, but you know what I mean. Would it be fair to say that one could expect to spend 2-3 years for the first transition, and 3-6 years for the second.....both MV and FO?As far as I know: Associate->VD is like 2-3 years and pretty automatic. VP->D is more difficult and can depend on actually gaining new responsibilities, like managing a small team. D->MD is even a bigger jump and more on a case by case basis. Might actually never happen, really.From my experience this is about correct - first promotion took me 3 years and was bound to happen based on discussions with managers, didn't get a VD of any kind though, although by coincidence did have a scare that year...Variances come in from then on on a case by case basis and would typically relate to being suited to the role etc and in some cases people just don't make it and leave "to pursue other opportunities" (a polite way of saying fired). Other reasons can happen - one of the best people I ever worked with once related to me how most people she worked with were MDs and she hadn't quite gotten past EVP/managing teams - the reason that employers and recruiters gave was as she'd made a lateral move at one point in the 90s, so banks didn't see her being as focused as those doing the same asset class over and over. It's one of the most messed up things I've ever heard and I always use it as an example of explaing to people unfamiliar with banking of what's wrong with the industry when they start rabbiting about it being some sort of goldmine.