gwbas1c parent
I once declined a job offer because the non-compete made no sense. (It was many pages, claimed that I would be paid during the non-compete period, and impossible to read.) I basically concluded that they (the company) had a lawyer that was basically wanking off.
In finance, it is common to be paid your base wage during your non-compete. Or at least that is how mine worked.
Since a huge chunk of comp in finance is bonus, especially if you're a rainmaker, I don't see how this is a win.
I don't where HN gets its information about investment banks, but it is wrong much more than 50% of the time. (Dart throwing monkeys could do better, I fear.) This is no longer true for non-FO (front office) head count after 2008. In markets (not investment banking/M&A/IPOs), front office is sales, trading, structuring, and a miniscule number of quants. In 2025, The vast majority of working stiffs at the world's top 15 investment banks are being paid an annual bonus that is max 25% of base salary, but 10-15% is more likely. Also, for most FO, when laid-off or leaving, they start gardening leave on the same day. Also, anyone worth anything (as FO) will negotiate with their next employer to have a guaranteed first year bonus that meets or exceeds their last bonus. For non-FO, they are required to work for their entire notice period.
That seems like something ripe for being gamed. How do they protect from someone just quitting and continuing to get paid?
They're not obligated to enforce the non-compete. If you don't have any sensitive information to take to a competitor, they might not give you any garden leave.
OTOH, I've seen non-competes as long as 2.5 years from places like Citadel.
What's worse is actually those non-competes with a variable period. The company doesn't have to tell you in advance how long it will be; only when you hand in your resignation letter will they tell you. It entirely serves to make your job hunt more difficult.
> I've seen non-competes as long as 2.5 years from places like Citadel.