Hi--I really need information about usual 1st year (un-guaranteed) bonuses for front office quants (as % of base salary). Any general guidelines or anecdotal evidence would be greatly appreciated, either posted here or by pm. Many thanks in advance.

I would say 50% of base salary for a first year if you have done a good job.

No way! Really? 50% is a lot for a first year... i thot a more probable range wld be around 10 - 20% ?I dont think even if ur name was like emanuel derman taleb vasicek you would get 50%... unless ur base was like 100dollars.. and then they might be nice and let you go home with 150 plus taxi fare.. ?but.. of cos.. it would be great if it was true... since.. i could buy so much more....

It depends of your bank, the best thing is probably to ask around you. In some banks you will have 50% or even more if they are happy with your work, in some others you are more likely to have 10-20%.

I wouldn't get too hung up about percentage bonuses. One of the things that takes some adjusting to in the finance industry is the fact that total compensation (aka 'total comp') is what really matters. Total compensation is the amount of money you receive in a year and is base salary (aka 'base') plus bonus. Depending on the type of organisation you are in, your role, and how much you get paid, the amount of total comp you get as base can vary quite a bit. Traders will get a relatively small portion of their total comp as base, and a large % as bonus dependent on performance of themselves and the organisation.If an organisation really wants you, you can get a guaranteed first year total comp and base figure agreed up front when you join. The next level down is to at least get an assurance that your first year total comp will be around a particular number. In my limited experience (in two cases) the verbal assurance was held to, but other people may not have been so lucky.

bonus at GS

Good for the GS guys

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperbonus at GSThose guys are awesome.

QuoteWhen I worked in Goldman Sachs’s investment-banking division in the early nineties, I knew of a group of more-senior employees who would sit together at the division’s annual party each year and throw their compensation numbers into a hat. A designated person would calculate the average and tell it to the table, just so all knew where they stood. But that was the extent of it—the actual numbers were not sharedYou dont need a "designated" person. People sit in a ring. First person add a random number to its salary and passes it to the next. Then each person adds its salary and passes it to the next one, ... When it comes to first first again, he substracts the random amount he added at the beginning. Then bingo: you have the sum of salary without no one knowing each others salaryI guess GS people are not that smart to device this mechanism

QuoteOriginally posted by: ckarakusQuoteWhen I worked in Goldman Sachs’s investment-banking division in the early nineties, I knew of a group of more-senior employees who would sit together at the division’s annual party each year and throw their compensation numbers into a hat. A designated person would calculate the average and tell it to the table, just so all knew where they stood. But that was the extent of it—the actual numbers were not sharedYou dont need a "designated" person. People sit in a ring. First person add a random number to its salary and passes it to the next. Then each person adds its salary and passes it to the next one, ... When it comes to first first again, he substracts the random amount he added at the beginning. Then bingo: you have the sum of salary without no one knowing each others salaryI guess GS people are not that smart to device this mechanism Did you come up with this idea by yourself? And who's that in the armchair?

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: ckarakusQuoteWhen I worked in Goldman Sachs?s investment-banking division in the early nineties, I knew of a group of more-senior employees who would sit together at the division?s annual party each year and throw their compensation numbers into a hat. A designated person would calculate the average and tell it to the table, just so all knew where they stood. But that was the extent of it?the actual numbers were not sharedYou dont need a "designated" person. People sit in a ring. First person add a random number to its salary and passes it to the next. Then each person adds its salary and passes it to the next one, ... When it comes to first first again, he substracts the random amount he added at the beginning. Then bingo: you have the sum of salary without no one knowing each others salaryI guess GS people are not that smart to device this mechanism Did you come up with this idea by yourself? And who's that in the armchair?why do u want to learn? will u make an offer

QuoteOriginally posted by: ckarakusQuoteWhen I worked in Goldman Sachs?s investment-banking division in the early nineties, I knew of a group of more-senior employees who would sit together at the division?s annual party each year and throw their compensation numbers into a hat. A designated person would calculate the average and tell it to the table, just so all knew where they stood. But that was the extent of it?the actual numbers were not sharedYou dont need a "designated" person. People sit in a ring. First person add a random number to its salary and passes it to the next. Then each person adds its salary and passes it to the next one, ... When it comes to first first again, he substracts the random amount he added at the beginning. Then bingo: you have the sum of salary without no one knowing each others salaryI guess GS people are not that smart to device this mechanism Question of Trust ?The 2nd and the 4th person collude to find out the salary of the 3rd person... though, what I'd look to know is this:How exactly could the 2nd and 4th person profit from the knowledge of the 3rd person's salary (in real world)?

the problem with the average is that it is sensitive to extreme numbers. Someone might well add a zero or a high figure for manipulation purposes (to make colleagues feel unduly good or bad.) A better method would be to have a computer calculate the median...e.

QuoteOriginally posted by: bhutesQuoteOriginally posted by: ckarakusQuoteWhen I worked in Goldman Sachs?s investment-banking division in the early nineties, I knew of a group of more-senior employees who would sit together at the division?s annual party each year and throw their compensation numbers into a hat. A designated person would calculate the average and tell it to the table, just so all knew where they stood. But that was the extent of it?the actual numbers were not sharedYou dont need a "designated" person. People sit in a ring. First person add a random number to its salary and passes it to the next. Then each person adds its salary and passes it to the next one, ... When it comes to first first again, he substracts the random amount he added at the beginning. Then bingo: you have the sum of salary without no one knowing each others salaryI guess GS people are not that smart to device this mechanism Question of Trust ?The 2nd and the 4th person collude to find out the salary of the 3rd person... though, what I'd look to know is this:How exactly could the 2nd and 4th person profit from the knowledge of the 3rd person's salary (in real world)? what do u mean? first person adds a RANDOM value. Of course we assume total number of people are not 2 otherwise it would be meaningless

QuoteOriginally posted by: eiriamjhthe problem with the average is that it is sensitive to extreme numbers. Someone might well add a zero or a high figure for manipulation purposes (to make colleagues feel unduly good or bad.) A better method would be to have a computer calculate the median...e.Well guys we assume people conduct good action. The random value chosen by first person is of course important: he must ensure that that value will mask possible values of his and other people's salaries