Decent IFSC jobs paying 100k + 20% bonus

Pelicannon

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

One persons pay is not an average. I'm not in Ireland anymore, but my salary where I am is currently an outlier on the higher end, but since I have at least a basic grasp of maths and how averages work it would be silly to state that what I earn is average.

Average pay vs average engineer / professional in given field.
My responses relate specifically to the area that the OP asked - IFSC.

More power to you though being the outlier. Its just a shame that you had to leave Ireland for it.
Anyway, lets agree to disagree in that case. I don't doubt for a second that you have a good grasp on math.

callaway92

somesoldiers wrote: »

oh are we only talking about AM?

That was the impression I got from the description

Tiddlypeeps

Pelicannon wrote: »

Average pay vs average engineer / professional in given field.
My responses relate specifically to the area that the OP asked - IFSC.

Yet the only data you state you have to back that up is your own pay. Which it would be ridiculous to use in isolation to determine the market rate.

If you have actual data to back up what you say then it would be pretty trivial to put the whole discussion to rest.

Pelicannon

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Yet the only data you state you have to back that up is your own pay. Which it would be ridiculous to use in isolation to determine the market rate.

If you have actual data to back up what you say then it would be pretty trivial to put the whole discussion to rest.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. In your last post you seemed to imply that I said that it was an average of sorts. I've read back through my posts and cannot find where I've said that.

However, it seems like we are both talking about different things here. I've been speaking about what people ARE getting paid in the physical location that the OP mentioned (I apologize if I didn't make this clear, I thought it was implied by the title of the thread, on the other hand it could be my mastery of the English language and grammar - perhaps I failed to communicate it well enough for you). I think, and correct me if I'm wrong - you are talking about the average income of a group (and there are many variables there).

As I said, happy to agree to disagree

Tiddlypeeps

Pelicannon wrote: »

I think we have a misunderstanding here. In your last post you seemed to imply that I said that it was an average of sorts. I've read back through my posts and cannot find where I've said that.

However, it seems like we are both talking about different things here. I've been speaking about what people ARE getting paid in the physical location that the OP mentioned (I apologize if I didn't make this clear, I thought it was implied by the title of the thread, on the other hand it could be my mastery of the English language and grammar - perhaps I failed to communicate it well enough for you). I think, and correct me if I'm wrong - you are talking about the average income of a group (and there are many variables there).

As I said, happy to agree to disagree

You literally said 65k was below market rate for a developer at any level. The only qualifier that could be applied with the context of your posts prior to that is that you are referring specifically to developers in the financial sector. You have since decide to move the goal post to refer to only developers in the financial sector physically located in the IFSC but that doesn't make much of a difference because over 65k for an entry level developer is still an unbelievable number even within those confines. Hence me asking for you to back it up with data.

Pelicannon

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

You literally said 65k was below market rate for a developer at any level. The only qualifier that could be applied with the context of your posts prior to that is that you are referring specifically to developers in the financial sector. You have since decide to move the goal post to refer to only developers in the financial sector physically located in the IFSC but that doesn't make much of a difference because over 65k for an entry level developer is still an unbelievable number even within those confines. Hence me asking for you to back it up with data.

Okay, let's agree to disagree

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

davo10

To earn €100k+ at your job, you either have to be one of two things, very good at your job and be able to do something that has a premium attached to it, or have done the hard graft and worked your way up to that level of remuneration over a number of years, which category do you thing you fall into op?

traveller0101

Pelicannon wrote: »

You can easily make this in IT straight from college with the right company, if you are good.

I am in IT and I am good. Are you hiring? :pac:

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

traveller0101

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't get paid to write open source stuff so I only have one project from college which was from 5 years ago

Pelicannon

traveller0101 wrote: »

I am in IT and I am good. Are you hiring? :pac:

Always, you just need to pass a few interviews.
All joking aside, this is an interesting thread - would like to hear more regarding OP original question.

Dr.Winston O'Boogie

I work in the funds industry and would know some relationship managers. A lot of their job is travelling meeting clients, and they would be under pressure to smooth over any issues taking on a new client or any issues after a new client is onboarded. They'd usually need to be very very smooth in terms of charm etc, and be able to handle high pressure situations.

IMO you'd need a lot more than 10 years experience, for instance its more or less a highly critical role in a company so I'd be imagining 15-20 years to have the requsite knowledged and experience. You'd need to know every type of client/fund you'd be dealing with as well.

I can imagine a salary of 100k plus definitely for the role, but by the time you get that type of role as I said you'd have put in the hard work to get there.

Pelicannon

Dr.Winston O'Boogie wrote: »

IMO you'd need a lot more than 10 years experience, for instance its more or less a highly critical role in a company so I'd be imagining 15-20 years to have the requsite knowledged and experience. You'd need to know every type of client/fund you'd be dealing with as well.

That's interesting. Why is the experience required? Would a financial company look at an outstanding applicant on the basis of emotional intelligence and ability to deliver and hire into the role with little experience?

I'm guessing the answer is no and this is something that has always confused me. My understanding is that in roles like this people seem to believe that past performance is the best indicator of what future performance will be.... which is actually a lottery game in the bigger picture.

traveller0101

Does anyone have any stats on how many people are working in the funds industry and is there a split by job type in that industry?

ongarboy

Jobs OXO wrote: »

You sound like you work in the area?

I'm quite familiar with it!;) 17 years and counting minus a couple of career breaks....

ongarboy

traveller0101 wrote: »

Does anyone have any stats on how many people are working in the funds industry and is there a split by job type in that industry?

This gives a high level overview. About 32000 work in the wider industry and the average salary is about €60K.


http://www.fsi.ie/Sectors/FSI/FSI.nsf/vPages/Media_and_Publications~Publications~fsi-accenture-ifsc-report/$file/FSI-Accenture+IFSC+Report.pdf

ongarboy

Pelicannon wrote: »

That's interesting. Why is the experience required? Would a financial company look at an outstanding applicant on the basis of emotional intelligence and ability to deliver and hire into the role with little experience?

I'm guessing the answer is no and this is something that has always confused me. My understanding is that in roles like this people seem to believe that past performance is the best indicator of what future performance will be.... which is actually a lottery game in the bigger picture.

Why are you confused though? If you've a proven track record of being a highly competent and successful employee in the line of work that you are seeking a new position in and already have ascended the learning curve with a wealth of knowledge under your belt and can hit the ground running because you have years of experience in performing similar tasks and successfully delivering, then of course you will be a far more attractive candidate. Why would you suddenly not operate that way in the future? Why or how would all that expertise suddenly get erased from your brain unless you acquired early onset Alzheimers?

Taking a gamble on someone who has no industry experience and will have to learn from scratch and take years to acquire the necessary skills and expertise to successfully perform what is required of them will not be considered by any company wishing to employ a client relationship manager. It is not a role with a finite list of procedural tasks that one is trained in on in a number of weeks and are fully up to speed. That is what an entry level job paying less than 30K would be. It's a far bigger lottery gamble going with your choice. Experience will always win over just about every other attribute (obviously you will need to have personable skills to go with that). Would you apply your logic to someone with no experience to perform heart surgery on you just because the have good emotional intelligence and are eager to learn? I wouldn't think so.

Slutmonkey57b

Exactly that. When the previous poster talked about experience, charm, and the ability to smooth things over with clients, they are referring in a large extent to first impressions. Someone who has the air of calm authority, who doesn't have to explain their background because it's written in the cut of their suit jacket. In many cases in these sorts of rooms, everyone is a spoofer, because asset management is historically an arena where trickery, guesswork, and guile are as important as facts, provided the quarterly results can be massaged or explained to match the original spoofing. However it isn't the done thing to be a spoofer who gets easily found out.

A young college grad with all the theoretical tools and intelligence to do the job won't present the air of gravitas and natural authority that someone who's been at it for 20 years will do. In a lot of cases, it's not what is done or said, but who does or says it that counts.

Jobs OXO

ongarboy wrote: »

I'm quite familiar with it!;) 17 years and counting minus a couple of career breaks....

Are you in this client relationships area?

Pelicannon

ongarboy wrote: »

Why are you confused though? If you've a proven track record of being a highly competent and successful employee in the line of work that you are seeking a new position in and already have ascended the learning curve with a wealth of knowledge under your belt and can hit the ground running because you have years of experience in performing similar tasks and successfully delivering, then of course you will be a far more attractive candidate. Why would you suddenly not operate that way in the future? Why or how would all that expertise suddenly get erased from your brain unless you acquired early onset Alzheimers?

Taking a gamble on someone who has no industry experience and will have to learn from scratch and take years to acquire the necessary skills and expertise to successfully perform what is required of them will not be considered by any company wishing to employ a client relationship manager. It is not a role with a finite list of procedural tasks that one is trained in on in a number of weeks and are fully up to speed. That is what an entry level job paying less than 30K would be. It's a far bigger lottery gamble going with your choice. Experience will always win over just about every other attribute (obviously you will need to have personable skills to go with that). Would you apply your logic to someone with no experience to perform heart surgery on you just because the have good emotional intelligence and are eager to learn? I wouldn't think so.

Well, I suppose it was more out of curiosity.
For example, what about where you have fund managers dealing with funds that are heavily invested in companies where the average (or median) age is quite young and with younger leadership... they are willing to gamble in that sense.

So, from your above comment my takeaway is that this is a standardized process. Something that doesn't change very much (hence years of experience), with clear goals and performance objectives - hence the more experienced individual is a better fit and that is really interesting.

I feel if it was dynamic... i.e something that nobody had ever done before, perhaps the candidate that I asked about in my question would get further consideration.

On the other hand, this means that this role could be completely automated and as a result, the end-to-end process (which I would assume would include some level of relationship management) would be obsolete.

Would you apply your logic to someone with no experience to perform heart surgery on you just because the have good emotional intelligence and are eager to learn? I wouldn't think so.

This is an interesting question but it doesn't really hold any weight because we are not talking about heart surgery here. We are talking about a job and repeatable process that is quite common with lower entry requirements, in the IFSC for 100K or so (as per the OP's original post) or less (as some of the comments from people with the experience of salaries in that field would suggest).

Pelicannon

What would the typical career progression be for someone in this field that would decide to leave an individual contributor role at a financial company such as the ones discussed here?

Pelicannon

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Exactly that. When the previous poster talked about experience, charm, and the ability to smooth things over with clients, they are referring in a large extent to first impressions. Someone who has the air of calm authority, who doesn't have to explain their background because it's written in the cut of their suit jacket. In many cases in these sorts of rooms, everyone is a spoofer, because asset management is historically an arena where trickery, guesswork, and guile are as important as facts, provided the quarterly results can be massaged or explained to match the original spoofing. However it isn't the done thing to be a spoofer who gets easily found out.

A young college grad with all the theoretical tools and intelligence to do the job won't present the air of gravitas and natural authority that someone who's been at it for 20 years will do. In a lot of cases, it's not what is done or said, but who does or says it that counts.

That is an eye opener alright. A bit of a shame though.
I'm often curious if this way of operating would be the death of an industry, or at least a way of working.

Seems very hierarchical and aged.

ongarboy

Pelicannon wrote: »

Would you apply your logic to someone with no experience to perform heart surgery on you just because the have good emotional intelligence and are eager to learn? I wouldn't think so.

This is an interesting question but it doesn't really hold any weight because we are not talking about heart surgery here. We are talking about a job and repeatable process that is quite common with lower entry requirements, in the IFSC for 100K or so (as per the OP's original post) or less (as some of the comments from people with the experience of salaries in that field would suggest).

OK, that was an extreme example of the surgeon but I think you may be misinformed if you think many roles in the IFSC paying 100K or more involve repeatable process that simply involve being "trained in" over a certain period of time and off you go.  Yes there are consistent methodologies you apply in areas of leadership, project management and more importantly timely and successful project delivery as well as ample evidence of consistently performing such, as well of course as various other skills you can only really acquire while you immerse yourself into such environments as a junior lesser paid role for which you ascend/graduate to the more demanding and qualified roles(eg crisis management, negotiation, diffusing emotional situations etc.

I see your point about newer industries (Facebook, Google) taking a bet on people who haven't previously worked in such industries as they are very much about fresh, new, innovative talent, (fresh pair of eyes etc) and that works for some many new start ups or 21st century conceived companies but I'm not sure as of yet, whether it's applicable to more legacy type institutional companies where they are willing to take in unproven, untested candidates in very senior roles.

beauf

Pelicannon wrote: »

That is an eye opener alright. A bit of a shame though.
I'm often curious if this way of operating would be the death of an industry, or at least a way of working.

Seems very hierarchical and aged.

Look at it from the flip side. If experience wasn't a factor, there would be no long term prospects in it. As you got past 30 you'd just get replaced by a younger person who will work for less.

ongarboy

Jobs OXO wrote: »

ongarboy wrote: »

I'm quite familiar with it!;)  17 years and counting minus a couple of career breaks....

Are you in this client relationships area?

I was but it did not suit me (despite management saying I excelled at the role) and no amount of financial compensation can offset unhappiness in a role. I still work in the same industry but in an area where my skill set is far more suited for me personally and I'm a lot less stressed out now!

beauf

ongarboy wrote: »

...I see your point about newer industries (Facebook, Google) taking a bet on people who haven't previously worked in such industries as they are very much about fresh, new, innovative talent, (fresh pair of eyes etc) a...

I think the rate of change in IT technologies is a factor in that. Also these are new business sectors which are driven by the technology.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

beauf

I think its common that as new tech companies become larger they transition the management to bring in more experience.

ongarboy

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You fundamentally misunderstand how Facebook, Google, etc are managed.

Eric Schmidt famously provided grown up supervision until Page took over the role of CEO.

Sheryl Sandberg has a similar role at Facebook.

And both had very experienced VC leadership from even before they IPOed.[/quote]
I wasn't referring to the absolute CEOs running these companies, rather the many 100s or 1000s of relatively senior 100K+ salaried roles in these industries where they may or may not take on "outside the box" candidates. I can't say for certain that they do but from articles I read about them, it sounds like they can and do.