Curious which other fumbles you have in mind.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:40 pm
It was DPW who fucked up the L Brands situations (and arguably their f-uppers were the litigators who made a money damages claim that may’ve voided the equity commitment letter). Guess that goes to show people really don’t even track which lawyers make mistakes. DPW had a few other public fumbles last year and I’ve seen no sign that it’s affecting their M&A practice.
Meaninglessness of m&a work Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Didn’t they advise Exxon in the proxy battle with Engine No 1? Major LAnonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 pmCurious which other fumbles you have in mind.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:40 pm
It was DPW who fucked up the L Brands situations (and arguably their f-uppers were the litigators who made a money damages claim that may’ve voided the equity commitment letter). Guess that goes to show people really don’t even track which lawyers make mistakes. DPW had a few other public fumbles last year and I’ve seen no sign that it’s affecting their M&A practice.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Yes and advised Williams in adopting a poison pill which the chancery court struck down.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:06 pmDidn’t they advise Exxon in the proxy battle with Engine No 1? Major LAnonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 pmCurious which other fumbles you have in mind.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:40 pm
It was DPW who fucked up the L Brands situations (and arguably their f-uppers were the litigators who made a money damages claim that may’ve voided the equity commitment letter). Guess that goes to show people really don’t even track which lawyers make mistakes. DPW had a few other public fumbles last year and I’ve seen no sign that it’s affecting their M&A practice.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:32 amYes and advised Williams in adopting a poison pill which the chancery court struck down.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:06 pmDidn’t they advise Exxon in the proxy battle with Engine No 1? Major LAnonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 pmCurious which other fumbles you have in mind.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:40 pm
It was DPW who fucked up the L Brands situations (and arguably their f-uppers were the litigators who made a money damages claim that may’ve voided the equity commitment letter). Guess that goes to show people really don’t even track which lawyers make mistakes. DPW had a few other public fumbles last year and I’ve seen no sign that it’s affecting their M&A practice.
I’m generally pretty skeptical of clients abilities to judge technical legal work or punish firms accordingly. STB almost cost JPM 1 billion in the debt financing world and doesn’t appear to have slowed them down.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
M&A lawyers can be very valuable on a transaction and depending on relationships, they can be the most trusted partner of a buyer/seller during the entire process. The partners I worked for had the ear of the CEOs they worked for and had known them for decades. Also, bankers just want the deal to get done so there is an inherent financial conflict between them and their client, especially if the company isn't that big in the M&A space and there isn't going to be a pipeline of business coming their way. Lawyers are the ones that actually make sure the deal works and actually gets done and isn't going to be opened up to shareholder litigation, regulatory scrutiny, indemnity risks, etc. and not only are they doing that, but they are managing the entire process of the deal, from negotiating main documents, discussing economics with bankers and clients, managing the diligence process across all practice areas, managing the regulatory/real estate/tax processes to make sure anything that may be necessary makes it into the agreement.
Sure, M&A lawyers are paper pushers, but honestly, I've worked with all sorts of folks and corporate/transaction lawyers are far better and comprehending and executing on complex processes and transactions than pretty much anyone I've ever worked with. It's not easy wrangling 50-100 professionals across industries, practices and job description to get a transaction completed under time stress and the skills you learn I found to be way more valuable than my time working in the Banking and Finance group.
Also, everything is existentially meaningless. It just depends on (i) if you can handle the work and like it enough to do it for a while and (ii) how much money you get paid. If you want to be involved in business or move in-house, it's definitely the best practice area. if you want to do something more meaningful, maybe specialize in renewables/project finance, regulatory or government-facing practice, but even there it'll be a ton of meaningless work and paper pushing for people that don't care about you.
Sure, M&A lawyers are paper pushers, but honestly, I've worked with all sorts of folks and corporate/transaction lawyers are far better and comprehending and executing on complex processes and transactions than pretty much anyone I've ever worked with. It's not easy wrangling 50-100 professionals across industries, practices and job description to get a transaction completed under time stress and the skills you learn I found to be way more valuable than my time working in the Banking and Finance group.
Also, everything is existentially meaningless. It just depends on (i) if you can handle the work and like it enough to do it for a while and (ii) how much money you get paid. If you want to be involved in business or move in-house, it's definitely the best practice area. if you want to do something more meaningful, maybe specialize in renewables/project finance, regulatory or government-facing practice, but even there it'll be a ton of meaningless work and paper pushing for people that don't care about you.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Not OP, but thanks for this. Can you elaborate how project finance is something more meaningful than M&A?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:24 pmM&A lawyers can be very valuable on a transaction and depending on relationships, they can be the most trusted partner of a buyer/seller during the entire process. The partners I worked for had the ear of the CEOs they worked for and had known them for decades. Also, bankers just want the deal to get done so there is an inherent financial conflict between them and their client, especially if the company isn't that big in the M&A space and there isn't going to be a pipeline of business coming their way. Lawyers are the ones that actually make sure the deal works and actually gets done and isn't going to be opened up to shareholder litigation, regulatory scrutiny, indemnity risks, etc. and not only are they doing that, but they are managing the entire process of the deal, from negotiating main documents, discussing economics with bankers and clients, managing the diligence process across all practice areas, managing the regulatory/real estate/tax processes to make sure anything that may be necessary makes it into the agreement.
Sure, M&A lawyers are paper pushers, but honestly, I've worked with all sorts of folks and corporate/transaction lawyers are far better and comprehending and executing on complex processes and transactions than pretty much anyone I've ever worked with. It's not easy wrangling 50-100 professionals across industries, practices and job description to get a transaction completed under time stress and the skills you learn I found to be way more valuable than my time working in the Banking and Finance group.
Also, everything is existentially meaningless. It just depends on (i) if you can handle the work and like it enough to do it for a while and (ii) how much money you get paid. If you want to be involved in business or move in-house, it's definitely the best practice area. if you want to do something more meaningful, maybe specialize in renewables/project finance, regulatory or government-facing practice, but even there it'll be a ton of meaningless work and paper pushing for people that don't care about you.
-
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Maybe it didn't hurt the firm that much, but I'm pretty sure it destroyed the career of the (now ex) STB partner who was responsibleAnonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 11:27 amAnonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:32 amYes and advised Williams in adopting a poison pill which the chancery court struck down.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:06 pmDidn’t they advise Exxon in the proxy battle with Engine No 1? Major LAnonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 pmCurious which other fumbles you have in mind.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:40 pm
It was DPW who fucked up the L Brands situations (and arguably their f-uppers were the litigators who made a money damages claim that may’ve voided the equity commitment letter). Guess that goes to show people really don’t even track which lawyers make mistakes. DPW had a few other public fumbles last year and I’ve seen no sign that it’s affecting their M&A practice.
I’m generally pretty skeptical of clients abilities to judge technical legal work or punish firms accordingly. STB almost cost JPM 1 billion in the debt financing world and doesn’t appear to have slowed them down.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
They put it on a counsel who wasn’t even a UCC collateral person - general institutional failure for him to be doing that sort of work at all. Kept him around till the court cases were settled and then he was gone.ExpOriental wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:51 pmMaybe it didn't hurt the firm that much, but I'm pretty sure it destroyed the career of the (now ex) STB partner who was responsibleAnonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 11:27 amAnonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:32 amYes and advised Williams in adopting a poison pill which the chancery court struck down.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:06 pmDidn’t they advise Exxon in the proxy battle with Engine No 1? Major LAnonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 pmCurious which other fumbles you have in mind.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:40 pm
It was DPW who fucked up the L Brands situations (and arguably their f-uppers were the litigators who made a money damages claim that may’ve voided the equity commitment letter). Guess that goes to show people really don’t even track which lawyers make mistakes. DPW had a few other public fumbles last year and I’ve seen no sign that it’s affecting their M&A practice.
I’m generally pretty skeptical of clients abilities to judge technical legal work or punish firms accordingly. STB almost cost JPM 1 billion in the debt financing world and doesn’t appear to have slowed them down.
As for the firm, insurance probably covered a ton of it (meaning premiums would have gone up). I also expect that JPM elicited some serious concessions from STB - only use/recommend JPM for escrow agent and similar services, partners’ personal banking, even more discounted rates for routine work, presumptive priority in conflict situations.
Sure, it hasn’t hurt the bottom line, but it’s not without consequences. Would have been worse if one of the “regular” JPM lev fin partners had been responsible, I think.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
I don't know, if you care about the energy transition its probably the best practice area to work in renewables, but it can be extremely boring and technical and I've seen many PF groups do a lot of O&G work so it depends on where you are and what types of clients the firm has. None of this is that meaningful, it's what you make of it ultimately.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:42 pmNot OP, but thanks for this. Can you elaborate how project finance is something more meaningful than M&A?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:24 pmM&A lawyers can be very valuable on a transaction and depending on relationships, they can be the most trusted partner of a buyer/seller during the entire process. The partners I worked for had the ear of the CEOs they worked for and had known them for decades. Also, bankers just want the deal to get done so there is an inherent financial conflict between them and their client, especially if the company isn't that big in the M&A space and there isn't going to be a pipeline of business coming their way. Lawyers are the ones that actually make sure the deal works and actually gets done and isn't going to be opened up to shareholder litigation, regulatory scrutiny, indemnity risks, etc. and not only are they doing that, but they are managing the entire process of the deal, from negotiating main documents, discussing economics with bankers and clients, managing the diligence process across all practice areas, managing the regulatory/real estate/tax processes to make sure anything that may be necessary makes it into the agreement.
Sure, M&A lawyers are paper pushers, but honestly, I've worked with all sorts of folks and corporate/transaction lawyers are far better and comprehending and executing on complex processes and transactions than pretty much anyone I've ever worked with. It's not easy wrangling 50-100 professionals across industries, practices and job description to get a transaction completed under time stress and the skills you learn I found to be way more valuable than my time working in the Banking and Finance group.
Also, everything is existentially meaningless. It just depends on (i) if you can handle the work and like it enough to do it for a while and (ii) how much money you get paid. If you want to be involved in business or move in-house, it's definitely the best practice area. if you want to do something more meaningful, maybe specialize in renewables/project finance, regulatory or government-facing practice, but even there it'll be a ton of meaningless work and paper pushing for people that don't care about you.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Seems right to me. Biglaw M&A adds value. Value commensurate, approximately, with what they’re paid relative to deal participants. Value commensurate with being a very downstream consultant of the deal fundamentals. Way less than the business folks. I roll my eyes at this whole practice generally, but I don’t think it’s a sham. It is fundamentally papering deals, though, and 1 in 100 lawyers will ever have to worry that some decision they made in the course of their careers at any point will be the subject of a meaningful dispute.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:46 pmWe also....do stuff. Stuff that needs to be done that other people either don't want to or aren't qualified to do. It doesn't all need to be fancy to add value. The spreadsheet monkeys at the IBs aren't doing anything groundbreaking either.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
I don't 100% follow. The M&A lawyers in these deals are earning about as much as anybody else involved, if you look on a per year basis and account for how stable the pay is. The number of bankers consistently doing better than a v10 equity partner isn't actually that large. Certainly they're all in the same ballpark.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:16 amSeems right to me. Biglaw M&A adds value. Value commensurate, approximately, with what they’re paid relative to deal participants. Value commensurate with being a very downstream consultant of the deal fundamentals. Way less than the business folks. I roll my eyes at this whole practice generally, but I don’t think it’s a sham. It is fundamentally papering deals, though, and 1 in 100 lawyers will ever have to worry that some decision they made in the course of their careers at any point will be the subject of a meaningful dispute.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:46 pmWe also....do stuff. Stuff that needs to be done that other people either don't want to or aren't qualified to do. It doesn't all need to be fancy to add value. The spreadsheet monkeys at the IBs aren't doing anything groundbreaking either.
- unlicensedpotato
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:16 pm
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Not the above anon, but I think their point was that the principals of the business have the potential to earn way more than the lawyers or bankers.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:13 amI don't 100% follow. The M&A lawyers in these deals are earning about as much as anybody else involved, if you look on a per year basis and account for how stable the pay is. The number of bankers consistently doing better than a v10 equity partner isn't actually that large. Certainly they're all in the same ballpark.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:16 amSeems right to me. Biglaw M&A adds value. Value commensurate, approximately, with what they’re paid relative to deal participants. Value commensurate with being a very downstream consultant of the deal fundamentals. Way less than the business folks. I roll my eyes at this whole practice generally, but I don’t think it’s a sham. It is fundamentally papering deals, though, and 1 in 100 lawyers will ever have to worry that some decision they made in the course of their careers at any point will be the subject of a meaningful dispute.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:46 pmWe also....do stuff. Stuff that needs to be done that other people either don't want to or aren't qualified to do. It doesn't all need to be fancy to add value. The spreadsheet monkeys at the IBs aren't doing anything groundbreaking either.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Is that right, though? I totally get that if you own a huge private business, there's a lot of money in it for you. But even most CEOs aren't making materially more than v10 equity partners. Here are some examples:unlicensedpotato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:39 amNot the above anon, but I think their point was that the principals of the business have the potential to earn way more than the lawyers or bankers.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:13 amI don't 100% follow. The M&A lawyers in these deals are earning about as much as anybody else involved, if you look on a per year basis and account for how stable the pay is. The number of bankers consistently doing better than a v10 equity partner isn't actually that large. Certainly they're all in the same ballpark.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:16 amSeems right to me. Biglaw M&A adds value. Value commensurate, approximately, with what they’re paid relative to deal participants. Value commensurate with being a very downstream consultant of the deal fundamentals. Way less than the business folks. I roll my eyes at this whole practice generally, but I don’t think it’s a sham. It is fundamentally papering deals, though, and 1 in 100 lawyers will ever have to worry that some decision they made in the course of their careers at any point will be the subject of a meaningful dispute.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:46 pmWe also....do stuff. Stuff that needs to be done that other people either don't want to or aren't qualified to do. It doesn't all need to be fancy to add value. The spreadsheet monkeys at the IBs aren't doing anything groundbreaking either.
Alaska airlines -- #497 in the S&P 500, $5MM annual comp
Under armour -- #501, $7MM
People's united financial -- #488, $6MM
Pinnacle west -- #486, $10MM
These are all roughly $10B companies, so pretty massive. And the compensation drops off extremely quickly below CEO.
I totally get that a lot of people involved in private businesses do very well, but CEOs in general aren't making like $20MM (and, BTW, some v10 partners make that much, also), and their income is also much riskier.
ETA: I intentionally looked at the bottom of the S&P 500 because I want big companies, but not utterly massive exceptions. There's not much point in comparing a corporate lawyer to elon musk, or tim cook, for that matter (though one might look at really successful plaintiff's lawyers -- I suspect Mark Lanier is pretty comfortable these days).
Last edited by Anonymous User on Thu Dec 30, 2021 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1801
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:34 pm
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Uh, shouldn't they? They're the ones with massive concentrated risk in the deal, downside which the biglawyers never have to touch. Now we're complaining that 4th-year associates aren't making as much as unicorn startup founders?unlicensedpotato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:39 amNot the above anon, but I think their point was that the principals of the business have the potential to earn way more than the lawyers or bankers.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
https://www.nycclc.org/news/2021-07/ave ... ises-299-1Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 11:02 amIs that right, though? I totally get that if you own a huge private business, there's a lot of money in it for you. But even most CEOs aren't making materially more than v10 equity partners. Here are some examples:unlicensedpotato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:39 amNot the above anon, but I think their point was that the principals of the business have the potential to earn way more than the lawyers or bankers.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:13 amI don't 100% follow. The M&A lawyers in these deals are earning about as much as anybody else involved, if you look on a per year basis and account for how stable the pay is. The number of bankers consistently doing better than a v10 equity partner isn't actually that large. Certainly they're all in the same ballpark.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:16 amSeems right to me. Biglaw M&A adds value. Value commensurate, approximately, with what they’re paid relative to deal participants. Value commensurate with being a very downstream consultant of the deal fundamentals. Way less than the business folks. I roll my eyes at this whole practice generally, but I don’t think it’s a sham. It is fundamentally papering deals, though, and 1 in 100 lawyers will ever have to worry that some decision they made in the course of their careers at any point will be the subject of a meaningful dispute.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:46 pmWe also....do stuff. Stuff that needs to be done that other people either don't want to or aren't qualified to do. It doesn't all need to be fancy to add value. The spreadsheet monkeys at the IBs aren't doing anything groundbreaking either.
Alaska airlines -- #497 in the S&P 500, $5MM annual comp
Under armour -- #501, $7MM
People's united financial -- #488, $6MM
Pinnacle west -- #486, $10MM
These are all roughly $10B companies, so pretty massive. And the compensation drops off extremely quickly below CEO.
I totally get that a lot of people involved in private businesses do very well, but CEOs in general aren't making like $20MM (and, BTW, some v10 partners make that much, also), and their income is also much riskier.
ETA: I intentionally looked at the bottom of the S&P 500 because I want big companies, but not utterly massive exceptions. There's not much point in comparing a corporate lawyer to elon musk, or tim cook, for that matter (though one might look at really successful plaintiff's lawyers -- I suspect Mark Lanier is pretty comfortable these days).
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
lol how did this get to comparing the compensation of freaking CEOs to biglaw partners? These are... not the same level of accomplishment--or risk--guys, come on.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
My point is entirely consistent with your link. The top 500 firms are not remotely representative of what it is to be a CEO, let along for a private company. For example, in the Execucomp database, across the 1600 largest firms, median total compensation is $5.7MM and mean is $8.0MM (for companies ranked 501-1600, the mean is $4.1MM). Again, this is for huge companies.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:44 pmhttps://www.nycclc.org/news/2021-07/ave ... ises-299-1Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 11:02 amIs that right, though? I totally get that if you own a huge private business, there's a lot of money in it for you. But even most CEOs aren't making materially more than v10 equity partners. Here are some examples:unlicensedpotato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:39 amNot the above anon, but I think their point was that the principals of the business have the potential to earn way more than the lawyers or bankers.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:13 amI don't 100% follow. The M&A lawyers in these deals are earning about as much as anybody else involved, if you look on a per year basis and account for how stable the pay is. The number of bankers consistently doing better than a v10 equity partner isn't actually that large. Certainly they're all in the same ballpark.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:16 amSeems right to me. Biglaw M&A adds value. Value commensurate, approximately, with what they’re paid relative to deal participants. Value commensurate with being a very downstream consultant of the deal fundamentals. Way less than the business folks. I roll my eyes at this whole practice generally, but I don’t think it’s a sham. It is fundamentally papering deals, though, and 1 in 100 lawyers will ever have to worry that some decision they made in the course of their careers at any point will be the subject of a meaningful dispute.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:46 pmWe also....do stuff. Stuff that needs to be done that other people either don't want to or aren't qualified to do. It doesn't all need to be fancy to add value. The spreadsheet monkeys at the IBs aren't doing anything groundbreaking either.
Alaska airlines -- #497 in the S&P 500, $5MM annual comp
Under armour -- #501, $7MM
People's united financial -- #488, $6MM
Pinnacle west -- #486, $10MM
These are all roughly $10B companies, so pretty massive. And the compensation drops off extremely quickly below CEO.
I totally get that a lot of people involved in private businesses do very well, but CEOs in general aren't making like $20MM (and, BTW, some v10 partners make that much, also), and their income is also much riskier.
ETA: I intentionally looked at the bottom of the S&P 500 because I want big companies, but not utterly massive exceptions. There's not much point in comparing a corporate lawyer to elon musk, or tim cook, for that matter (though one might look at really successful plaintiff's lawyers -- I suspect Mark Lanier is pretty comfortable these days).
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Sorry I meant the link as support but the rest of my comment didn't post for some reason, but I agree with youAnonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:39 pmMy point is entirely consistent with your link. The top 500 firms are not remotely representative of what it is to be a CEO, let along for a private company. For example, in the Execucomp database, across the 1600 largest firms, median total compensation is $5.7MM and mean is $8.0MM (for companies ranked 501-1600, the mean is $4.1MM). Again, this is for huge companies.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:44 pmhttps://www.nycclc.org/news/2021-07/ave ... ises-299-1Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 11:02 amIs that right, though? I totally get that if you own a huge private business, there's a lot of money in it for you. But even most CEOs aren't making materially more than v10 equity partners. Here are some examples:unlicensedpotato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:39 amNot the above anon, but I think their point was that the principals of the business have the potential to earn way more than the lawyers or bankers.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:13 amI don't 100% follow. The M&A lawyers in these deals are earning about as much as anybody else involved, if you look on a per year basis and account for how stable the pay is. The number of bankers consistently doing better than a v10 equity partner isn't actually that large. Certainly they're all in the same ballpark.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:16 amSeems right to me. Biglaw M&A adds value. Value commensurate, approximately, with what they’re paid relative to deal participants. Value commensurate with being a very downstream consultant of the deal fundamentals. Way less than the business folks. I roll my eyes at this whole practice generally, but I don’t think it’s a sham. It is fundamentally papering deals, though, and 1 in 100 lawyers will ever have to worry that some decision they made in the course of their careers at any point will be the subject of a meaningful dispute.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:46 pmWe also....do stuff. Stuff that needs to be done that other people either don't want to or aren't qualified to do. It doesn't all need to be fancy to add value. The spreadsheet monkeys at the IBs aren't doing anything groundbreaking either.
Alaska airlines -- #497 in the S&P 500, $5MM annual comp
Under armour -- #501, $7MM
People's united financial -- #488, $6MM
Pinnacle west -- #486, $10MM
These are all roughly $10B companies, so pretty massive. And the compensation drops off extremely quickly below CEO.
I totally get that a lot of people involved in private businesses do very well, but CEOs in general aren't making like $20MM (and, BTW, some v10 partners make that much, also), and their income is also much riskier.
ETA: I intentionally looked at the bottom of the S&P 500 because I want big companies, but not utterly massive exceptions. There's not much point in comparing a corporate lawyer to elon musk, or tim cook, for that matter (though one might look at really successful plaintiff's lawyers -- I suspect Mark Lanier is pretty comfortable these days).
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
That makes it even more amazing that the compensation is similar. Take the top 10 firms by PPP. That's 1647 equity partners (more than a quarter of them at K&E), averaging $5.57M for each. Pretty surprising to me how similar that is to the CEOs of the 1600 largest firms. Not at all what I would have expected since I agree with you -- the level of accomplishment and risk aren't even close. And it's not like being a CEO is easy -- they're probably working similar amounts to those partners, with at least as much stress.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:51 pmlol how did this get to comparing the compensation of freaking CEOs to biglaw partners? These are... not the same level of accomplishment--or risk--guys, come on.
-
- Posts: 432466
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Meaninglessness of m&a work
Deleted
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login