Maybe you should work for the CFA Institute? Executive pay there is pretty huge
The next time you're looking for a gig that's in finance, but not so much in finance that it comes with finance-style working hours and stresses, you might want to look across to the CFA Institute. The not for profit organization which runs the finance industry's preferred exams is a pretty big payer when it comes to its own staff, and the hours they work seem to be very modest indeed.
The chart below, pulled from the Institute's proxy statement for 2017 details the generosity that's going down. Basically, if you make it to the top levels of the CFA Institute you're going to be earning upwards of $400k - unless you work in compliance, risk and ethics, in which case you'll be earning a bit less.
Although the sums in the chart aren't exactly comparable to a senior sales and trading job in an investment bank, they're not exactly miserly either. The CFA Institute is particularly generous with its base salaries, which average out at $324k. Nor does anyone appear to be busting a gut to earn this amount: the Institute's 2017 tax return clearly states that most individuals on the list below worked an average of 40 hours a week last year. (Of course, this may be a contractual minimum - it's possible that the CFA's execs put in more hours than the tax statement suggests.)
Aside from the comparative paucity of compensation in the ethics department, the CFA Institute is notable for paying its APAC MD, Nick Pollard, 23% more than its MDs for EMEA and the U.S.. APAC is, after all, where the growth is for the CFA Institute, and Pollard appears to be being paid accordingly.
Needless to say, the pay figures below are just the CFA's executives. - And as an organization with operating revenues of $313m in 2017, the Institute undoubtedly feels perfectly justified in paying its top people well.
That generosity may extend further down the hierarchy: according to the most recent tax return, the CFA Institute employed 229 people earning more than $100k last year and spent $92m on wages and salaries. This was equivalent to 32% of its revenues and 34% of its costs.