EOY Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

Isn’t the most telling leading indicator on 2022 EOY bonuses the fact that BL firms paid out a ton in special bonuses during 2021 vs. paid out $0 in special bonuses during 2022? With that simple empirical reality as backdrop, I’m not sure how you can argue EOY bonuses will go up this year.

[Wanderingdrock]

Isn’t the most telling leading indicator on 2022 EOY bonuses the fact that BL firms paid out a ton in special bonuses during 2021 vs. paid out $0 in special bonuses during 2022? With that simple empirical reality as backdrop, I’m not sure how you can argue EOY bonuses will go up this year.

The argument is that special bonuses didn't go out because firms feared a recession and a huge dropoff in business as a result. We might now be going through a recession, but most firms in the top few echelons seem to still be seeing similar or modestly higher revenues compared to when the special bonuses were going out. So - the hopium tells us - the partners will see their numbers at the end of the year and decide we're worth truing up at least a little bit, in appreciation of all the work we put into keeping their profits up.

....Yeah, I'm not holding my breath, but that's the argument.

[Anonymous User]

STB Made 36 Partners. No way we get special bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

STB Made 36 Partners. No way we get special bonuses.

Doesn't STB do non-equity partners now though so that may be it?

[Anonymous User]

Baker McKenzie just announced same scale as last year, but minus any explicit bump for 2300+ as stated in last years memo.

[Anonymous User]

Baker McKenzie just announced same scale as last year, but minus any explicit bump for 2300+ as stated in last years memo.

Including last year's "One-Time Bonus"?

[Anonymous User]

No, just the base bonus scale. No extras, no one-times, no high biller add on, etc—so ultimately *less* than last year. Same old 2021 @20k — 2015+ at 115k.

[Anonymous User]

How much was the stub year bonus on the DPW (or whatever firm set it) scale last year?

[Anonymous User]

Good. With that toilet reporting first, actual market makers (DPWMilbank) will almost surely come out on top. Come on Daddy!

[Anonymous User]

Good. With that toilet reporting first, actual market makers (DPWMilbank) will almost surely come out on top. Come on Daddy!

The two firms whose revenues are highly reliant on levfin and cap markets?

[Anonymous User]

Baker McKenzie just announced same scale as last year, but minus any explicit bump for 2300+ as stated in last years memo.

Did they not learn their lesson in 2020? Their PR folks must be oblivious. The only reason to announce something like this first is to try to set the market low, which is a terrible look.

[Anonymous User]

Well, at least that guarantees the bonuses this year will be no less than the 2021 scale (excluding the DPW special bonus).

[Anonymous User]

Well, at least that guarantees the bonuses this year will be no less than the 2021 scale (excluding the DPW special bonus).

Agree, this seems bullish to me as hard to imagine Baker has the first and last word on the bonus scale.

[Anonymous User]

So it begins. I think this is (mildly) directionally positive in two ways:

1) It sets the floor at last year's scale (sans DPW kicker), so it prevents one of the market-setters from trying to slide back which I wouldn't have put past any firm's partnership;

2) Mildly incentivizes the usual suspects to come out ahead of this so that they're differentiating from Baker versus appearing to take their lead from a "non-peer" firm.

All eyes on Cravath, Milbank, STB now.

[Lesion of Doom]

Whatever its motives, I credit Baker for going first. At least firm leadership is willing to lay down a guidepost.

[Anonymous User]

Whatever its motives, I credit Baker for going first. At least firm leadership is willing to lay down a guidepost.

I don't. The no/lower bonuses talk was flame, so this is really just their attempt to set the market low.

[Anonymous User]

Baker played its part. Now time for DPW, Milbank, and/or Cravath to play theirs.

[Anonymous User]

Whatever its motives, I credit Baker for going first. At least firm leadership is willing to lay down a guidepost.

I don't. The no/lower bonuses talk was flame, so this is really just their attempt to set the market low.

As a poster noted above, if that is the case it seems counterproductive. They’ve set the floor, plus they have also put the market leaders in a position where they’ll arguably lose face if they follow the lead of the Bakers partnership.

[Wanderingdrock]

Whatever its motives, I credit Baker for going first. At least firm leadership is willing to lay down a guidepost.

I don't. The no/lower bonuses talk was flame, so this is really just their attempt to set the market low.

As a poster noted above, if that is the case it seems counterproductive. They’ve set the floor, plus they have also put the market leaders in a position where they’ll arguably lose face if they follow the lead of the Bakers partnership.

Yeah, Baker's move doesn't make any sense. They already tried this and they already embarrassed themselves. We're all going to see this as what it was last time - an attempt to stop a raise. But that only works if the market-setters see you as a peer, which they don't see Baker as. Maybe Baker thinks it's playing some kind of 5D chess, where the top firms all somehow decide to match, and as a result people start to see Baker as a market-setter, but... I just don't see how that happens now, and even if the other firms did match Baker, it would just be seen as a fluke until it happens again.

[Anonymous User]

Whatever its motives, I credit Baker for going first. At least firm leadership is willing to lay down a guidepost.

I don't. The no/lower bonuses talk was flame, so this is really just their attempt to set the market low.

As a poster noted above, if that is the case it seems counterproductive. They’ve set the floor, plus they have also put the market leaders in a position where they’ll arguably lose face if they follow the lead of the Bakers partnership.

They didn't "set" the floor. The floor was already set. Anybody coming under that would have been even more foolish than Baker.

But that is an interesting point re: setting the leaders up for failure. They don't want to look the part of a follower, so I guess it does sort of put pressure on them to raise. I doubt that was Baker's intention, though.

[Anonymous User]

Whether or not these firms care about being considered a peer of BM seems like a stretch to me. Would assume nothing BM did will impact their decision making.

[Anonymous User]

Whether or not these firms care about being considered a peer of BM seems like a stretch to me. Would assume nothing BM did will impact their decision making.

(guy who doesn't understand the psychology of lawyers at all)

[Anonymous User]

Does the Baker memo say when bonuses will be paid?

[Anonymous User]

Has this news even been verified? Agree it’s very good news.

I’ve been crazy (but countercyclical practice so…)

[Anonymous User]

Whatever its motives, I credit Baker for going first. At least firm leadership is willing to lay down a guidepost.

I don't. The no/lower bonuses talk was flame, so this is really just their attempt to set the market low.

As a poster noted above, if that is the case it seems counterproductive. They’ve set the floor, plus they have also put the market leaders in a position where they’ll arguably lose face if they follow the lead of the Bakers partnership.

I’m already hearing a face-saving line being trotted out: “Bakers are following the scale set last year, not setting a new bonus scale this year” . It may soon be the Baker McKenzie bonus scale.