just think, being 1 of 100 in that club... this is the farm team for higher offices in the land... this is the farm team for higher offices in their respective states... this is the farm team for higher corporate and influence positions, just about anywheres in the US... to some constitutional extent, these senators are co-presidents with the actual president and wield substantial regional influence... yeah, that's power alright....
if you can get the job ever get past Donald Trump's Apprentice and wonder whether you too could snag one of those jobs? I will tell you from experience, they are fun, stress filled and fraught with decision making that really makes its impact felt.... Chelsea has name recognition... I remember a newly minted MBA once commenting about JFK Jr. and saying that any firm would hire him, because if you received an appointment request from his secretary it would be hard believing that it would not be honored, hence he had name recognition and that pretty much was what was being hired... same applies to Chelsea
Uh, I think you missed the point of the consultants and what their final work product was... if for a while, you can divorse yourself from the pain of the experience, you can see what role they played... they were most likely hired by someone from the Chair's office to assess whether to continue or fold operations and the outcome lends some credence to that conclusion... in short, that division or firm was sold out from within and perhaps it was from the realization that globalization, outsourcing and/or competitive buy/build analysis no longer supported the notion that that firm had "economic viability".... its clear that someone made the decision to no longer fund ongoing operations and the consultant were used to get the birds eye view of the true work product and they took it with them when they left... so from the perspective of whomever payed their $300 hourly rates it was probably a bargain, although it disenfranchised so many American workers from their incomes.
Wow! Its posts like these that makes paying attention to these (high quality) threads worth the time spent. Man, you put me right back in the mode ...I drafted plans to bring a company public and vault over the hurdles that they would have to clear from their regulatory oversight commission only to have the project cherry picked and handed to the cronies of the idiot managers of the consulting division. Man, that's the stuff that usually vaults you into the partner's chair. A friend of mine worked at a consulting firm for a Hasidic lady who's last name was Furher. That friend never missed the opportunity to point out the ironies of that and wondered why she didn't go by another name, just to hide the obvious or downplay the contridictions.
thanks Rufus, that was an honest post, and I will say that I appreciated it.... I too found that most consultancy firms of the higher caliber had talent in depths not found outside of the wading pools of similar firms. I missed that aspect after I stepped off their track too. What you were describing as a career void was what was quantified at Coopers, in their analysis of why consistently these consulting firms can "quantify" through the latest B-School analysis methods, but were horrid in applying or making substantive changes in their clients' processes or environments. It all came down to "people-i-za-tion skills " that are not taught at these consulting firms and subsequently don't make it into their analysis or recommendations and these same skills are nurtured at these ordinary companies, however, when they are "analysized" they are found to be waisting resources (time, money, processes, skills, etc.). Simply put (using the example of Diversity) hiring based on social contributions to the community never produces the most efficient, most productive or most rational results in contrast to hiring the (supposedly) "most qualified" person (presuming that said person would want to work at that company or job or city). However, hiring based on secondary goals, such as hiring handicap(s) or hiring high-shcool educated parents instead of college grads has more of an affect upon the corporate culture and combined work product than on the highest (measurable) efficiency process. This process brings more to the table than just raw talent and skills to simply accomplish (almost robotically) the job at hand. These intangibles almost always escapes measurement by the recognized B-School analysis techniques and leads these consultants to the false conclusions that what work product being produced by Company B could be done more efficiently and at less cost, hence they need improvement. (wow, if you could read through that gook, I have to give you credit) hope that point helps transition from the Consultant's model of cold analysis to the corporate realities of why one company differs from another and why two companies brewing coffee could have such vastly different customer loyalties to their products.... Care for a Starbucks?
Let's go through hedge funds, and away from consulting. A fund co-manager I know is paid $150k base, and 30% of the incentive fees on his sub-fund. This was thought to be very good (as some of the discussions was around 20-25% of the incentive fee range). Then again I only have 3-5 data points available to me. For analysts and the like in a hedge fund, the packages are much more like in an ibank, with a bonus (sometimes a guaranteed minimum). When everyone talks about hedge funds, they talk about the top-10 or 20. Problem is that the majority of hedge funds that are just so-so, generating 7-10-12% returns a year, and people in those funds don't make that much more than ibanks, with an associate taking home 200-350 or so, and a managing partner (or member) take home about $1MM-2MM, not that different from an ibank.
I suspect that most staff at hedge funds earn less than their banking counterparts of equal length of experience. It's a superstar and partner business - if you are neither, you don't really get the big paychecks. I'd wager that most analysts at established hedge funds don't clear $200,000. The ones at fledgling hedge funds would be lucky to clear $100,000.
I don't know about general, but I know about < 10 analysts and associates. The person who made the least made about 180 last year, he is about 2 years out of masters (not MBA), and the fund did about a 10-11% return. From my experience, due the close working relationship between partners and associates, the partners tend to be a little more generous than ibanks in giving associates / analysts bonuses. The partners know that the most an associate would make is aroud 400 (although in the rare cases I have heard of associates making $1MM), with partners keeping all the rest, so getting the associate motivated is key. Of course, then there is Citadel and the like, which is a bit like a roller coast.
Rufus, your datapoints are causing me to have to revise my estimates up! Last year and this year would be interesting ones to see how much associates get paid, this year moreso.