Does age matter ?

[moretodo]

Does age matter when one's profile is being considered for a promotion at a BB ?

 

[Ken Abbott]

What do you mean?

There is a concept of "time-in-grade" whereby people are expected to be in a position for a certain amount of time before they are promoted. The idea here is that promotion should be the result of sustained performance. That said, these rules aren't usually written down.

In my experience, it takes two years to go from Analyst to Associate and three to four to to from Associate to Vice President. Some people with advanced degrees can come in as Associates and I've seen experienced academics come in as VPs. You very, very rarely see VPs with less than five years of experience.

From there, it's less well-defined, but most people spent at least three to five years as VPs before getting to Director/Principal level.

What often is written down is the performance expectations at each level. We frequently say that someone is "already performing at the VP level." What that means may vary from firm to firm.

 

[moretodo]

Thanks Ken. Well, my friends tell me it takes 3, sometimes 4, years to reach Associate level without an MBA straight out of UG. They're either in IBD or S&T in FO and not Risk unfortunately. Some even work for 3-4 years and join as an Associate after their MBA. Some start at 20 after a 3 year bachelor's degree.

This brings about a reasonable discrepancy in the ages of one's colleagues at any level. So, what do I intend to ask is that, say if two are performing well, and if only 1 can be promoted, do they tend to promote the elderly person ?

 

[Ken Abbott]

So, what do I intend to ask is that, say if two are performing well, and if only 1 can be promoted, do they tend to promote the elderly person ?

That will vary from firm to firm. As I said sustained performance is the key to promotion, so ceteris paribus, many firms would promote the person with more experience.

I'm not sure "elderly" is the term I'd use...

 

[C.Y.]

Hi moretodo,
You're question is a bit loaded. But in short, in every field age is a factor, not just in finance. Some firms might consider age a barrier, but in some situations, age is considered a liability (i.e. think Facebook, in fact, think when head of a trading desk is a smart 30-year old who has some smart 26-year olds under him, imagine his point of view when he's interviewing older candidates; do you think this desk head would feel comfortable ordering around someone older to do menial tasks). So there's not good answer, but hope I can try to give you a different angle on the problem.
1. People tend promote people whom they like and trust; so it's important to have a good relationship with your superiors, don't hesitate when they invite you for an afterwork drink.
2. It sounds you've worked hard and want to get promoted. Many successful people have told me that sometimes promotions can come externally. So it's important for to meet your peers at other banks or firms and for you to get your name out to the market. You will very likely get promotion and raise if you switch firms.
Best thing you can do is start talking to your close friends about this; they can give more specific helpful advice.

 

[GoIllini]

What do you mean?

There is a concept of "time-in-grade" whereby people are expected to be in a position for a certain amount of time before they are promoted. The idea here is that promotion should be the result of sustained performance. That said, these rules aren't usually written down.

In my experience, it takes two years to go from Analyst to Associate and three to four to to from Associate to Vice President. Some people with advanced degrees can come in as Associates and I've seen experienced academics come in as VPs. You very, very rarely see VPs with less than five years of experience.

From there, it's less well-defined, but most people spent at least three to five years as VPs before getting to Director/Principal level.

What often is written down is the performance expectations at each level. We frequently say that someone is "already performing at the VP level." What that means may vary from firm to firm.

Yeah Ken. It took me 3 years to reach associate. Before the crash, in S&T or Research the rule was two years. After the panic of '08, at least at the bank I worked for, the promotion schedule lengthened to 3-5 years. A truly excellent person might still be able to do it in 2, and in some groups it might still be done in two, but the rule of "2 years to associate or out" no longer holds like it did in '07. Apparently the experience guideline for a VP hire where I worked was minimum 6 years when I left. So the old rule of 2 to analyst, 2-3 to VP has been violated by the new rules.

Risk may be different. They may take better care of you guys on titles; banks must do a lot of Basel III work these days, so there is more demand for experienced risk managers, but there is less money to pay all bank employees with. The supply of experienced workers in risk (or anywhere) is very inelastic, at least in the short to medium term. The balancing act may be that risk managers get more respect within the firm and faster promotions while the bank tries to hold the line on everyone's comp.