bonuses still there on Wall Street

We all know there are still bonuses. There is no correlation to the local real estate expenditures. For the vast majority of people that bonus money will be banked (or wired out of the US) b/c we're all afraid of either losing our jobs, leaving for greener pastures or having limited cash flow aspects in the coming years as regulation sets in. NYC real estate is over for the time being. If you don't see that by know you are simply ignoring reality.

And you have a "survivor's bias" in a poll like that. The people who got bonuses are those who are still employed, or the most value-added employees. The problem is that that number has shrunk, and continues to shrink. A year from now, a lot more people may be laid off, and for the smaller still number of people who ARE still working, they will have decent bonuses, too. But, again, the problem is that total employment on Wall Street may be down by a third by then compared to the peak.

Does this bonus give a breakdown on cash vs. stock vs. options vs. vesting schedules? Although the so-called "value" of a bonus package may seem comparable, I suspect that the makeup of the package has veered drastically away from cash.

The other bias is comparing to last year. Ostensibly, you are a year further in your career, and your bonus SHOULD be higher than last year. For instance, ordinarily, a mid-level ibanker's bonus grows by about $100K/year for a few years. So if the "median" person made about the same as last year (as the 46% seems to suggest), it actually means the average bonus was down about $100K compared to last year's equivalent for the same position.

That is twisted logic newbuyer. For you no inflation is equivalent to deflation. not true.

Yes, bonuses are still there. They just got cut in half (city just announced cash is down 44%).

Can't buy too much of 15 CPW with that.

And much of that was earned in the BEGINNING of 2008. Apartment buyers just lost half their money, and its not getting any better...

not twisted logic at all. A first-year VP last year is a second-year VP this year. His comp this year should be compared to last year's second-year VP comp, not to his last year's comp.

The logic is bad. You are assuming the pool of employees is the same and everyone went up 1 year. But that is not the case. Analysts were added, and folks left the middle and top.

The makeup might be exactly the same this year. Hell, it might actually be slanted younger now (they still hire analysts, and they aren't really hiring up top too much these days).

In the end, WHO CARES.... if this is about RE the cumulative matters.

And it just got decimated.