Debt finance/LevFi/Banking Outlook Forum

[Anonymous User]

What’s the outlook for finance as a practice group?
- Exits (have heard their limited if you want a general corporate exit but honestly wouldn’t be interested in exiting if it wasn’t similar comp)
- Hours (seen ppl say it’s a lifestyle group vs. others chastise it especially re commitment paper nightmares)
- Partnership (how conducive is it becoming a heavy hitter and generating business, compared to something like M&A)

I know this can also be firm/market dependent but assume a top tier finance group.

[Anonymous User]

Midlevel lev fin associate at a NY V5 here. I have seen several peers go in-house at banks. I have seen a lot more people go to other firms, sometimes to more general lev fin / cap markets roles than solely lev fin. I don't think I've ever seen anyone in my group go in-house at a company, a private equity shop or to a general corporate position.

Lifestyle might depend on which side you're on (borrower side folks, please weigh in) but I'm mostly lender side and the "life" part is basically non-existent. My hours were 2000-2300 pre-COVID as a junior and 2600-2800 during COVID as a midlevel (hoping to get back to pre-COVID hours at some point in the next year or two when the market slows down).

If you manage to stick around long enough (which most people don't), you're basically guaranteed partnership at my firm although they'll make you hang out as a counsel for a few years first.

[Anonymous User]

Midlevel lev fin associate at a NY V5 here. I have seen several peers go in-house at banks. I have seen a lot more people go to other firms, sometimes to more general lev fin / cap markets roles than solely lev fin. I don't think I've ever seen anyone in my group go in-house at a company, a private equity shop or to a general corporate position.

Lifestyle might depend on which side you're on (borrower side folks, please weigh in) but I'm mostly lender side and the "life" part is basically non-existent. My hours were 2000-2300 pre-COVID as a junior and 2600-2800 during COVID as a midlevel (hoping to get back to pre-COVID hours at some point in the next year or two when the market slows down).

If you manage to stick around long enough (which most people don't), you're basically guaranteed partnership at my firm although they'll make you hang out as a counsel for a few years first.

Appreciate the input. Would you pick lev fin again if you were to do it all over? I think it’s the group I’m most interested in but don’t want to pigeon hole myself early on due to the limits it presents outside the law firm world.

[Anonymous User]

DF is good and bad. Bad because going in house can be tough, but good because in a down-turn you still are needed to revise every single debt document or help out in restructuring. That said, I know people who were recruited out of law and into PE funds to work the business side. Not common, but happened a few times.

[Lesion of Doom]

I'm a lender-side junior/mid in this practice and no, I would not say it's a lifestyle group. If you billed under 2200 this year, you were living on easy street. I and others I know are on track for 2400+, up to 2700 or so at my shop.

In my limited experience, exits as a junior are poor unless you are willing to take a 100k salary cut to work for smaller legal team in-house as a generalist (possibly on a road to nowhere), and dropping that far down as a junior is too much for most people to stomach. Most juniors lateral to buy downtime and collect a signing bonus while shedding themselves of accumulative work, which is an underrated reason to lateral.

Mids (think 5th year, not 3rd year) can make it to banks with 175k-225k salaries, as I understand it. Topping out at 250k or so in many cases. And as mentioned above, you are adjacent to bankruptcy and might survive even a fairly deep recession, depending.

[Anonymous User]

I find people to be too down on exit opps for debt finance. I’m a 7th year debt finance associate at a V25 and multiple of my colleagues have gone on to be corporate or product counsel at startups through public companies.

In my group, we do the credit and collateral docs, but also subsidiary maintenance and org docs and work directly with treasury departments. Based on my colleagues real-life examples, it hasn’t been hard for them to land at solid in-house jobs.

[Lesion of Doom]

^ How senior are they when they go?

[Anonymous User]

^ How senior are they when they go?

I’ve seen 2nd through 8th year. 2nd year went to a very high profile NGO.

[Anonymous User]

^^General comp ranges?

[existentialcrisis]

What’s the outlook for finance as a practice group?
- Exits (have heard their limited if you want a general corporate exit but honestly wouldn’t be interested in exiting if it wasn’t similar comp)
- Hours (seen ppl say it’s a lifestyle group vs. others chastise it especially re commitment paper nightmares)
- Partnership (how conducive is it becoming a heavy hitter and generating business, compared to something like M&A)

I know this can also be firm/market dependent but assume a top tier finance group.

I find it so hilarious when people who haven’t started at a firm yet say they don’t care about the exits.

Let us know if you’re in it for the long haul after you’ve had your 5th weekend in a row ruined.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t know why it’s hilarious that some ppl want and expect to prioritize their career. The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice. But, I guess macro point taken, that practice is a diff beast

[existentialcrisis]

Don’t know why it’s hilarious that some ppl want and expect to prioritize their career. The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice. But, I guess macro point taken, that practice is a diff beast

Look, I’ ll try to be less condescending because I truly want you to think about this.

Do you have any idea what the average attrition is like at big law firms? I’d say the overwhelming majority is voluntary.

Maybe you think almost all big law associates made the wrong choice… I might even agree with you.

But knowing what law firm life is like, it seems incredibly foolhardy not to think about what your practice group choice will set you up for after should you decide that the grind ends up being too much, like nearly everyone else does.

[Anonymous User]

The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice.

Good Lord. Are you just trying to troll those of us who are actually years into this?

[Anonymous User]

If you manage to stick around long enough (which most people don't), you're basically guaranteed partnership at my firm although they'll make you hang out as a counsel for a few years first.

Follow up on this - people who don't manage to stick around, is it bc they get sick of the hours or they get eases out? What's good advice for how to stick around?

[Anonymous User]

Don’t know why it’s hilarious that some ppl want and expect to prioritize their career. The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice. But, I guess macro point taken, that practice is a diff beast

Look, I’ ll try to be less condescending because I truly want you to think about this.

Do you have any idea what the average attrition is like at big law firms? I’d say the overwhelming majority is voluntary.

Maybe you think almost all big law associates made the wrong choice… I might even agree with you.

But knowing what law firm life is like, it seems incredibly foolhardy not to think about what your practice group choice will set you up for after should you decide that the grind ends up being too much, like nearly everyone else does.

I mean I feel like it a combination. I’m amazed at the number of associates who went into big law blind to what it is or rather unaware of how groups fit into exits. Hard to tell how much of attrition is truly those who wanted to grind it out.

The second thing is though, even if you decide law firm life is too much but are unwilling to give up that level of comp, doesnt a banking/finance group lend to those exits. Like you’re not getting the cushy gc role but are getting a little more intense role at a bank/fund (hopefully) that also pays more. I knows it’s less than big law but on the higher end of exits

[existentialcrisis]

Don’t know why it’s hilarious that some ppl want and expect to prioritize their career. The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice. But, I guess macro point taken, that practice is a diff beast

Look, I’ ll try to be less condescending because I truly want you to think about this.

Do you have any idea what the average attrition is like at big law firms? I’d say the overwhelming majority is voluntary.

Maybe you think almost all big law associates made the wrong choice… I might even agree with you.

But knowing what law firm life is like, it seems incredibly foolhardy not to think about what your practice group choice will set you up for after should you decide that the grind ends up being too much, like nearly everyone else does.

I mean I feel like it a combination. I’m amazed at the number of associates who went into big law blind to what it is or rather unaware of how groups fit into exits. Hard to tell how much of attrition is truly those who wanted to grind it out.

The second thing is though, even if you decide law firm life is too much but are unwilling to give up that level of comp, doesnt a banking/finance group lend to those exits. Like you’re not getting the cushy gc role but are getting a little more intense role at a bank/fund (hopefully) that also pays more. I knows it’s less than big law but on the higher end of exits

I can’t tell if you’re OP?

If you are: Attrition I believe is roughly 15-20 percent each year. I’m not sure why you’d assume that most of them didn’t know what they were signing up for? If you want an in house job, putting in your time/learning skills at a firm first is pretty much the only way to get one.

On your second question, I don’t think credit is one of the better options for high paying exits. You’d be better off doing M&A or securities (or even tech transactions).

A lot of in house bank roles aren’t particularly high paying but seem ok lifestyle wise. Going in house at a fund is not a super common exit from a finance practice.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t know why it’s hilarious that some ppl want and expect to prioritize their career. The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice. But, I guess macro point taken, that practice is a diff beast

Look, I’ ll try to be less condescending because I truly want you to think about this.

Do you have any idea what the average attrition is like at big law firms? I’d say the overwhelming majority is voluntary.

Maybe you think almost all big law associates made the wrong choice… I might even agree with you.

But knowing what law firm life is like, it seems incredibly foolhardy not to think about what your practice group choice will set you up for after should you decide that the grind ends up being too much, like nearly everyone else does.

I mean I feel like it a combination. I’m amazed at the number of associates who went into big law blind to what it is or rather unaware of how groups fit into exits. Hard to tell how much of attrition is truly those who wanted to grind it out.

The second thing is though, even if you decide law firm life is too much but are unwilling to give up that level of comp, doesnt a banking/finance group lend to those exits. Like you’re not getting the cushy gc role but are getting a little more intense role at a bank/fund (hopefully) that also pays more. I knows it’s less than big law but on the higher end of exits

I can’t tell if you’re OP?

If you are: Attrition I believe is roughly 15-20 percent each year. I’m not sure why you’d assume that most of them didn’t know what they were signing up for? If you want an in house job, putting in your time/learning skills at a firm first is pretty much the only way to get one.

On your second question, I don’t think credit is one of the better options for high paying exits. You’d be better off doing M&A or securities (or even tech transactions).

A lot of in house bank roles aren’t particularly high paying but seem ok lifestyle wise. Going in house at a fund is not a super common exit from a finance practice.

Is this accurate? My impression of finance was exits were narrow, but somewhat more lucrative in return for worse hours.

Also how is finance wrt deal flow, notwithstanding everyone being high hours wise rn? Have heard it’s pretty steady and not as many fire drills as compared to M&A.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t know why it’s hilarious that some ppl want and expect to prioritize their career. The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice. But, I guess macro point taken, that practice is a diff beast

Look, I’ ll try to be less condescending because I truly want you to think about this.

Do you have any idea what the average attrition is like at big law firms? I’d say the overwhelming majority is voluntary.

Maybe you think almost all big law associates made the wrong choice… I might even agree with you.

But knowing what law firm life is like, it seems incredibly foolhardy not to think about what your practice group choice will set you up for after should you decide that the grind ends up being too much, like nearly everyone else does.

I mean I feel like it a combination. I’m amazed at the number of associates who went into big law blind to what it is or rather unaware of how groups fit into exits. Hard to tell how much of attrition is truly those who wanted to grind it out.

The second thing is though, even if you decide law firm life is too much but are unwilling to give up that level of comp, doesnt a banking/finance group lend to those exits. Like you’re not getting the cushy gc role but are getting a little more intense role at a bank/fund (hopefully) that also pays more. I knows it’s less than big law but on the higher end of exits

I can’t tell if you’re OP?

If you are: Attrition I believe is roughly 15-20 percent each year. I’m not sure why you’d assume that most of them didn’t know what they were signing up for? If you want an in house job, putting in your time/learning skills at a firm first is pretty much the only way to get one.

On your second question, I don’t think credit is one of the better options for high paying exits. You’d be better off doing M&A or securities (or even tech transactions).

A lot of in house bank roles aren’t particularly high paying but seem ok lifestyle wise. Going in house at a fund is not a super common exit from a finance practice.

Is this accurate? My impression of finance was exits were narrow, but somewhat more lucrative in return for worse hours.

Also how is finance wrt deal flow, notwithstanding everyone being high hours wise rn? Have heard it’s pretty steady and not as many fire drills as compared to M&A.

Mid-level finance associate at V5 here, but have also done M&A. Kind of hard to compare workloads honestly.

M&A has significantly more fire-drills/unpredictability. You're more likely to get unexpected/surprise weekend work, but the work is "easier", especially at the junior levels. Doing diligence for 10 hours straight or sitting on a diligence call for 3 hours straight isn't fun, but it's not taxing.

Spending 6 hours drafting term sheets, commitment papers, financing docs, etc. is draining. Doing that on Saturday mornings and getting on with clients to go over issues lists is very tiring. Finance gets easier the more senior you get tho because you become very well aware of all the issues and what's going on quickly. Corp work gets harder the more senior you get and you still get to have all those suprise, firedrills. Although, you get a huge team as M&A is better staffed than finance which is always thinly staffed.

Finance is a volume business - it's about liquidity (turning deals quickly, getting in/out and paid quickly so you can keep the lights on for other groups). Speeds the name of the game. M&A is a big-ticket business - it's about getting as many billables on a matter as humanly possible for big payout at the end. Accuracy and perfection is the name of the game. Think about what that means for lifestyle, timelines and your pref working environment.

For exit opps, ideal exit range for finance is years 5-7. For M&A years 3-5. Comp is too variable to compare, but I disagree that general roles pay better than big banks. They can have equity components which may end up netting you more money. You won't get equity from bank unless it's in form of bonus paid in bank stock (which would suck).

[Anonymous User]

Don’t know why it’s hilarious that some ppl want and expect to prioritize their career. The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice. But, I guess macro point taken, that practice is a diff beast

Look, I’ ll try to be less condescending because I truly want you to think about this.

Do you have any idea what the average attrition is like at big law firms? I’d say the overwhelming majority is voluntary.

Maybe you think almost all big law associates made the wrong choice… I might even agree with you.

But knowing what law firm life is like, it seems incredibly foolhardy not to think about what your practice group choice will set you up for after should you decide that the grind ends up being too much, like nearly everyone else does.

I mean I feel like it a combination. I’m amazed at the number of associates who went into big law blind to what it is or rather unaware of how groups fit into exits. Hard to tell how much of attrition is truly those who wanted to grind it out.

The second thing is though, even if you decide law firm life is too much but are unwilling to give up that level of comp, doesnt a banking/finance group lend to those exits. Like you’re not getting the cushy gc role but are getting a little more intense role at a bank/fund (hopefully) that also pays more. I knows it’s less than big law but on the higher end of exits

I can’t tell if you’re OP?

If you are: Attrition I believe is roughly 15-20 percent each year. I’m not sure why you’d assume that most of them didn’t know what they were signing up for? If you want an in house job, putting in your time/learning skills at a firm first is pretty much the only way to get one.

On your second question, I don’t think credit is one of the better options for high paying exits. You’d be better off doing M&A or securities (or even tech transactions).

A lot of in house bank roles aren’t particularly high paying but seem ok lifestyle wise. Going in house at a fund is not a super common exit from a finance practice.

Is this accurate? My impression of finance was exits were narrow, but somewhat more lucrative in return for worse hours.

Also how is finance wrt deal flow, notwithstanding everyone being high hours wise rn? Have heard it’s pretty steady and not as many fire drills as compared to M&A.

Mid-level finance associate at V5 here, but have also done M&A. Kind of hard to compare workloads honestly.

M&A has significantly more fire-drills/unpredictability. You're more likely to get unexpected/surprise weekend work, but the work is "easier", especially at the junior levels. Doing diligence for 10 hours straight or sitting on a diligence call for 3 hours straight isn't fun, but it's not taxing.

Spending 6 hours drafting term sheets, commitment papers, financing docs, etc. is draining. Doing that on Saturday mornings and getting on with clients to go over issues lists is very tiring. Finance gets easier the more senior you get tho because you become very well aware of all the issues and what's going on quickly. Corp work gets harder the more senior you get and you still get to have all those suprise, firedrills. Although, you get a huge team as M&A is better staffed than finance which is always thinly staffed.

Finance is a volume business - it's about liquidity (turning deals quickly, getting in/out and paid quickly so you can keep the lights on for other groups). Speeds the name of the game. M&A is a big-ticket business - it's about getting as many billables on a matter as humanly possible for big payout at the end. Accuracy and perfection is the name of the game. Think about what that means for lifestyle, timelines and your pref working environment.

For exit opps, ideal exit range for finance is years 5-7. For M&A years 3-5. Comp is too variable to compare, but I disagree that general roles pay better than big banks. They can have equity components which may end up netting you more money. You won't get equity from bank unless it's in form of bonus paid in bank stock (which would suck).

People who say that finance gets easier when you get older either aren't older or they aren't doing sophisticated work.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t know why it’s hilarious that some ppl want and expect to prioritize their career. The way I see it, if you’re angling for an exit sooner than a failure to attain partnership then big law was the wrong choice. But, I guess macro point taken, that practice is a diff beast

Look, I’ ll try to be less condescending because I truly want you to think about this.

Do you have any idea what the average attrition is like at big law firms? I’d say the overwhelming majority is voluntary.

Maybe you think almost all big law associates made the wrong choice… I might even agree with you.

But knowing what law firm life is like, it seems incredibly foolhardy not to think about what your practice group choice will set you up for after should you decide that the grind ends up being too much, like nearly everyone else does.

I mean I feel like it a combination. I’m amazed at the number of associates who went into big law blind to what it is or rather unaware of how groups fit into exits. Hard to tell how much of attrition is truly those who wanted to grind it out.

The second thing is though, even if you decide law firm life is too much but are unwilling to give up that level of comp, doesnt a banking/finance group lend to those exits. Like you’re not getting the cushy gc role but are getting a little more intense role at a bank/fund (hopefully) that also pays more. I knows it’s less than big law but on the higher end of exits

I can’t tell if you’re OP?

If you are: Attrition I believe is roughly 15-20 percent each year. I’m not sure why you’d assume that most of them didn’t know what they were signing up for? If you want an in house job, putting in your time/learning skills at a firm first is pretty much the only way to get one.

On your second question, I don’t think credit is one of the better options for high paying exits. You’d be better off doing M&A or securities (or even tech transactions).

A lot of in house bank roles aren’t particularly high paying but seem ok lifestyle wise. Going in house at a fund is not a super common exit from a finance practice.

Is this accurate? My impression of finance was exits were narrow, but somewhat more lucrative in return for worse hours.

Also how is finance wrt deal flow, notwithstanding everyone being high hours wise rn? Have heard it’s pretty steady and not as many fire drills as compared to M&A.

Mid-level finance associate at V5 here, but have also done M&A. Kind of hard to compare workloads honestly.

M&A has significantly more fire-drills/unpredictability. You're more likely to get unexpected/surprise weekend work, but the work is "easier", especially at the junior levels. Doing diligence for 10 hours straight or sitting on a diligence call for 3 hours straight isn't fun, but it's not taxing.

Spending 6 hours drafting term sheets, commitment papers, financing docs, etc. is draining. Doing that on Saturday mornings and getting on with clients to go over issues lists is very tiring. Finance gets easier the more senior you get tho because you become very well aware of all the issues and what's going on quickly. Corp work gets harder the more senior you get and you still get to have all those suprise, firedrills. Although, you get a huge team as M&A is better staffed than finance which is always thinly staffed.

Finance is a volume business - it's about liquidity (turning deals quickly, getting in/out and paid quickly so you can keep the lights on for other groups). Speeds the name of the game. M&A is a big-ticket business - it's about getting as many billables on a matter as humanly possible for big payout at the end. Accuracy and perfection is the name of the game. Think about what that means for lifestyle, timelines and your pref working environment.

For exit opps, ideal exit range for finance is years 5-7. For M&A years 3-5. Comp is too variable to compare, but I disagree that general roles pay better than big banks. They can have equity components which may end up netting you more money. You won't get equity from bank unless it's in form of bonus paid in bank stock (which would suck).

People who say that finance gets easier when you get older either aren't older or they aren't doing sophisticated work.

IME (v10 junior), have definitely heard it gets "easier." Though I don't think it's easy, just more that you have a way better idea of what's going on.

[Anonymous User]

Look, I’ ll try to be less condescending because I truly want you to think about this.

Do you have any idea what the average attrition is like at big law firms? I’d say the overwhelming majority is voluntary.

Maybe you think almost all big law associates made the wrong choice… I might even agree with you.

But knowing what law firm life is like, it seems incredibly foolhardy not to think about what your practice group choice will set you up for after should you decide that the grind ends up being too much, like nearly everyone else does.

I mean I feel like it a combination. I’m amazed at the number of associates who went into big law blind to what it is or rather unaware of how groups fit into exits. Hard to tell how much of attrition is truly those who wanted to grind it out.

The second thing is though, even if you decide law firm life is too much but are unwilling to give up that level of comp, doesnt a banking/finance group lend to those exits. Like you’re not getting the cushy gc role but are getting a little more intense role at a bank/fund (hopefully) that also pays more. I knows it’s less than big law but on the higher end of exits

I can’t tell if you’re OP?

If you are: Attrition I believe is roughly 15-20 percent each year. I’m not sure why you’d assume that most of them didn’t know what they were signing up for? If you want an in house job, putting in your time/learning skills at a firm first is pretty much the only way to get one.

On your second question, I don’t think credit is one of the better options for high paying exits. You’d be better off doing M&A or securities (or even tech transactions).

A lot of in house bank roles aren’t particularly high paying but seem ok lifestyle wise. Going in house at a fund is not a super common exit from a finance practice.

Is this accurate? My impression of finance was exits were narrow, but somewhat more lucrative in return for worse hours.

Also how is finance wrt deal flow, notwithstanding everyone being high hours wise rn? Have heard it’s pretty steady and not as many fire drills as compared to M&A.

Mid-level finance associate at V5 here, but have also done M&A. Kind of hard to compare workloads honestly.

M&A has significantly more fire-drills/unpredictability. You're more likely to get unexpected/surprise weekend work, but the work is "easier", especially at the junior levels. Doing diligence for 10 hours straight or sitting on a diligence call for 3 hours straight isn't fun, but it's not taxing.

Spending 6 hours drafting term sheets, commitment papers, financing docs, etc. is draining. Doing that on Saturday mornings and getting on with clients to go over issues lists is very tiring. Finance gets easier the more senior you get tho because you become very well aware of all the issues and what's going on quickly. Corp work gets harder the more senior you get and you still get to have all those suprise, firedrills. Although, you get a huge team as M&A is better staffed than finance which is always thinly staffed.

Finance is a volume business - it's about liquidity (turning deals quickly, getting in/out and paid quickly so you can keep the lights on for other groups). Speeds the name of the game. M&A is a big-ticket business - it's about getting as many billables on a matter as humanly possible for big payout at the end. Accuracy and perfection is the name of the game. Think about what that means for lifestyle, timelines and your pref working environment.

For exit opps, ideal exit range for finance is years 5-7. For M&A years 3-5. Comp is too variable to compare, but I disagree that general roles pay better than big banks. They can have equity components which may end up netting you more money. You won't get equity from bank unless it's in form of bonus paid in bank stock (which would suck).

People who say that finance gets easier when you get older either aren't older or they aren't doing sophisticated work.

IME (v10 junior), have definitely heard it gets "easier." Though I don't think it's easy, just more that you have a way better idea of what's going on.

This is the OP who said it gets easier - it does get easier from a substantive legal standpoint. It gets harder in that you end up getting stretched on too many matters and it's hard to keep track of all the deals you'll be on. I'm on 6-8 different matters at any given time, and keeping all that shit organized in my head/inbox is the real battle. Also, there's no separation between me and the partners now and I'm the primary contact for clients. That's a huge pain in the ass because you lose your safety blanket.

But, the actual the substance of the work gets easier because you've done this 100s of times and have a wealth of precedent in your head. 75% of the time, you know exactly where to go to find something.

As a junior, everything is new and you don't even really know what any of the terms mean/understand the structure of a credit agreement. After awhile, you'll know exactly where to go in the document, and if you drafted the document, you'll know it like the back of your palm even months later. You'll be surprised when you get on a call and the client asks something and you know exactly which section the controlling provision is in - but it'll happen cuz you've done this a lot. You'll have prior emails on similar issues that you can copy, paste and tweak as necessary. Nothing ends, it just repeats itself in slight variations.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Is this accurate? My impression of finance was exits were narrow, but somewhat more lucrative in return for worse hours.

Also how is finance wrt deal flow, notwithstanding everyone being high hours wise rn? Have heard it’s pretty steady and not as many fire drills as compared to M&A.

Bolded is a red flag for poor reasoning. This stuff is driven by the invisible hand of the market, not by what's fair or intuitively reasonable. Any given person has nowhere nearly enough information to make perfect decisions, most biglaw tenures are short enough that random noise drowns out how things "should" be, etc.

Some people work longer hours and have worse exits and don't really enjoy any benefits in return. Might be you; it's a risk you take when joining a firm.

[Anonymous User]

Is this accurate? My impression of finance was exits were narrow, but somewhat more lucrative in return for worse hours.

Also how is finance wrt deal flow, notwithstanding everyone being high hours wise rn? Have heard it’s pretty steady and not as many fire drills as compared to M&A.

Bolded is a red flag for poor reasoning. This stuff is driven by the invisible hand of the market, not by what's fair or intuitively reasonable. Any given person has nowhere nearly enough information to make perfect decisions, most biglaw tenures are short enough that random noise drowns out how things "should" be, etc.

Some people work longer hours and have worse exits and don't really enjoy any benefits in return. Might be you; it's a risk you take when joining a firm.

Worse hours at the exit, not at the firm

[Anonymous User]

If you manage to stick around long enough (which most people don't), you're basically guaranteed partnership at my firm although they'll make you hang out as a counsel for a few years first.

Follow up on this - people who don't manage to stick around, is it bc they get sick of the hours or they get eases out? What's good advice for how to stick around?

One point to remember is that attrition is endogenous to quality. That is, low-quality (or bad-fit) associates are given worse work and treated generally worse, and they often end up leaving on their own. It's just a bad match, and the firm very often doesn't need to actually tell them it's time to go. If you're a good fit and things are going well, the job will seem better -- people are nicer to you, give you better projects, etc.

[The Lsat Airbender]

If you manage to stick around long enough (which most people don't), you're basically guaranteed partnership at my firm although they'll make you hang out as a counsel for a few years first.

Follow up on this - people who don't manage to stick around, is it bc they get sick of the hours or they get eases out? What's good advice for how to stick around?

One point to remember is that attrition is endogenous to quality. That is, low-quality (or bad-fit) associates are given worse work and treated generally worse, and they often end up leaving on their own. It's just a bad match, and the firm very often doesn't need to actually tell them it's time to go. If you're a good fit and things are going well, the job will seem better -- people are nicer to you, give you better projects, etc.

Disagree on the high-quality side of this. Seen plenty of great associates burn out quickly because their reputation for reliability means they get the most work, staffed with the most demanding clients (if not partners), etc. If they're gunning for partner, they don't say "no" to those things as often as they ought to. Furthermore, a lot of excellent juniors leave early because they can (the same traits/credentials that correlate with thriving in biglaw tend to enable more attractive exits) so there's a flavor of attrition which is unique to great lawyers. Would not be surprised if the trendline made a "U" shape.

In other words, being a decent associate is necessary but not sufficient to make it to 5th year and beyond.