12 ms·

At World’s Largest Hedge Fund, Sex, Fear and Video Surveillance

167 points by kafkaesq 10y ago

bpolverini 10y ago
That video of the crying manager is what made me quit Bridgewater. The craziest part was that the manager who ended up crying became the one who would teach lessons to new hires on how to "diagnose" other employees. Totally psychologically broken. Ray Dalio won't quit and he won't relinquish power. What you have instead now is this psychotic power grab at the top with three or more people competing for the crown. Any time someone gets close to knocking him out, they get demoted or fired. Principle #41: By and large, you will get what you deserve over time. The basis for any oppressive religion is #41. Those at the top deserved it, and, if you are at the bottom, it's because you haven't.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  Principle #41 has a name in academia: the just-world hypothesis [1] (occasionally the just-world fallacy, largely from atheist and feminist sources). It has surprisingly widespread consequences and implications. Conservative politicians and pundits play on it when they tout "personal responsibility" in the face of systemic bias. Abusers use it to convince their victims that they "deserve" the abuse. Religiously devout people use it to minimize tragedies (not to mention crimes) as "part of God's plan", and so on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I often see people discussing the just world hypothesis and the awfulness of the people who believe it. But I very rarely see those same people even considering the possibility that it might be true. In the world of work, while exceptions exist, I've always seen a strong correlation between position and competence. (I haven't worked at bridgewater so I don't know if it's true there.) In the political/economic world, I see poor people refusing to engage in personal responsibility (i.e. having children out of wedlock, doing drugs, smoking, eating badly and not exercising, refusing to work) while the rich do the exact opposite. So I'll ask the question that I guess makes me an awful person too: why do we think the just world hypothesis is actually false?
    - hx87 10y ago
      Because there are far, far too many counterexamples for the hypothesis to be true in any useful sense.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Dalio's "by and large" indicates that he feels it's generally true, not universally true. I.e. a statistical trend, not a hard and fast rule. How do your uncited counterexamples show that a statistical trend is not true in any useful sense? Moreover, why isn't it reasonable to treat it as a hypothesis that is true in many specific contexts? Should we also discuss the personal awfulness of people who believe in normal distributions as a useful principle since not all data is normally distributed? "Racists and child molesters sometimes use normal distributions to model the world!"
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - GVIrish 10y ago
      > In the political/economic world, I see poor people refusing to engage in personal responsibility (i.e. having children out of wedlock, doing drugs, smoking, eating badly and not exercising, refusing to work) while the rich do the exact opposite. Yet there are plenty of poor people working two jobs and clipping coupons but never see their economic situation meaningfully improve. On the other side, someone born into wealth can be lazy, use drugs, and be a general screw up and still die wealthy. Plenty of rich people do drugs too but the chances of them going to jail for doing drugs are negligible compared to the chances of jail time for a poor person. Law enforcement targets poor neighborhoods far more heavily, wealthy people don't buy drugs off street corners, and wealthy people can pay for far better legal representation. Crime? White collar crime is rarely punished with jail time. Someone selling drugs on the street might get several years in jail, whereas someone who helps launder billions for drug cartels gets no jail time and their company only pays a fine. Unethical sociopathic behavior in politics and many parts of the business world is how some people get to the top. It's not that the most qualified or deserving person got what they deserved, it was that the most ruthless, self-promoting, and deceitful person took the spoils. The just world hypothesis is often what callous people use to justify why they have the riches and people lower on the totem pole don't. It's easy to point at poor people and say they're poor because they're lazy or irresponsible, but it's much harder to admit that someone succeeded because of either advantages they were born into, or outright immoral behavior.
- toxik 10y ago
  Jesus christ - this is a sect, not a business. I will forever cherish counterculture and dissent as the only way to make sure I don't wind up in sects. Jesus man I just want to give that poor woman a hug.
  - johnny4000 10y ago
    Having willfully worked there in the past (I was not abducted Boko Haram style) I can tell you first hand they value evidence and reason (which includes both saying 'I agree' and dissenting), not sect like religiosity. The people in our prevalent culture today can't handle the truth, because their egos are in their way. Bridgewater in that specific way is much more counter culter.
- jpatokal 10y ago
  Whoah. I thought you were joking there, but that's actually Principle #41. Here's the whole tract: http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew... Which reads like a particularly ego-centric self-help book, down to creepy formulae. "Pain + Reflection = Progress" or "1+1=3", anyone?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    By comparing it to "1+1=3", you seem to be hinting that "pain + reflection = progress" is false. Is that actually your belief? Or do you believe it to be true but merely creepy? (Personally I consider it to be completely true. Most of my personal progress has come directly from pain, reflection, and then deliberate effort. Where does your personal progress come from?)
    - jpatokal 10y ago
      I'm OK with choosing to take on pain to grow. I do, however, find it creepy when a company's publicly stated values glorify pain.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      Some pain is just pain, it's meaningless and even reflecting on it does you no good. So it's obviously not "true" but at best "sometimes true."
      - arethuza 10y ago
        For some reason this discussion reminds me of Yossarian's rant about pain and god in Catch 22.
    - dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 10y ago
      If it is completely true, then surely "pain = progress - reflection" must also be completely true.
mdorazio 10y ago
So it seems then that ultra-transparency and a culture of candor bordering on hostility doesn't prevent people from being assholes, and takes away avenues for raising concerns with management. I wonder if this is more a result of the company being an old boys club (like just about every hedge fund), or if it's just a commentary on human nature.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  > ultra-transparency and a culture of candor I interviewed there and got the strong impression that their 'total transparency' spiel was just a cover for bosses to be assholes.
  - eropple 10y ago
    I've never encountered an environment where this wasn't the case. When I was younger and, in many ways, more of an asshole, I found myself playing along in such a culture--candor and "straight talk" were ways for me to step right up to the line and try to put me over somebody else. Breaking free of it was difficult.
cscurmudgeon 10y ago
I had the most unprofessional interview experience of my life with Bridgewater. They contacted me out of the blue and had me go through one phone interview, their culture introduction and quiz on their website, a HR round with a recruiter, and a coding project. After I passed all these, I was put in another phone interview. (Note: I am in the West coast.) Remember, these clowns were trying to recruit me. I was at that time working as a Research Scientist in X in one of the big firms over in the West coast. A good part of the interview was spent by them disparaging X. Then they ended the interview with "We have all the information we need, we won't be calling you." I felt like I had been hazed by a couple of dimwits who were not even that good at it. This article assuages my worry that I was being unreasonable.
- xitrium 10y ago
  You probably weren't a culture fit :P I actually prefer getting feedback about why someone chooses not to go forward with me as it helps me improve. For that reason I think interviewing at Bridgewater can be valuable as you can explicitly ask them what you did right and wrong and they'll tell you without sugar coating it. And don't forget, the reason most companies don't give this kind of feedback is to prevent any allegations of discrimination, so they're not exactly heroes either.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    It wasn't just that they didn't give him feedback -- it was the overt snarkiness of the interviewers' closing remarks that seems very telling about the Bridgewater culture.
- sambe 10y ago
  Many companies interview for competitor intelligence. Did you consider that they wanted to get some idea about how one of the big firms was doing (in) X?
  - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
    Yes, that is a possibility that I considered going into the interview. But coming out, I was fully convinced it was not the case. Why? They had asked me no more than textbook questions about X. It is commonly known my firm uses X. It was really quite comical (from a third person perspective, not from mine though, :D). I believe a lot of very good people do get hired over there (I know one extremely good person there), but the culture of "radical transparency" turns them into asshats quickly. As they subconsciously think if they are not being an asshat they are not being transparent. Shame though as Ray Dalio seems like a nice guy from his interviews and talks.
siliconc0w 10y ago
Such 'cultural principles' are typically platitudes wielded and bent like biblical verses to support arbitrary positions. I think I'd prefer something honest like "1) we're a business. 2) we like to make money. 3) We will do whatever the executive leadership thinks might eventually do that".
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  Typically, yes. But not always. https://youtu.be/sf5r4yLTc9k https://youtu.be/sf5r4yLTc9k (Disclaimer - I work there :) )
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
l33tbro 10y ago
Not that I condone this culture in any workplace, but it's a damn hedge fund. You can't really expect "bring your cat to work day" or yoga break-out spaces. Looking at the sole-focus of companies like this and the effect they have on our society, it's hardly surprising that their workplaces are toxic.
- product50 10y ago
  You can expect an environment where sexual harassment is not a common occurrence though?
  - l33tbro 10y ago
    I never said I expect it - I'm saying it does not surprise me. Have friends in hedge-funds and I don't know how some of them manage to go in each day. Then again the pay's not half-bad.
- spot 10y ago
  i work at a hedge fund where people are nice, there are yoga break-out spaces (literally), and the prevalent culture is laid-back, like a typical west-coast tech company, or academia.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    One person winning the lottery does not invalidate the statement "You can't really expect to win the lottery".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- artmageddon 10y ago
  > You can't really expect "bring your cat to work day" Suddenly I want to find a place where I can actually bring my cat to work..
  - 10y ago
Caligula 10y ago
I interviewed onsite at bridgewater and it was a very strange but interesting experience. They take radical transparency very seriously. They record everything, but do ask your permission first(well... can I say no?) The people were nice. They are brutally honest and let me know what I was lacking. Watching videos including the crying manager were too much for me. It doesn't surprise me that fucked up HR situations occur. The one fun event was watching the receptionist applying radical transparency(assholeism) to a delivery guy. They take it seriously!
- zaroth 10y ago
  It sounds like you didn't take the job (or maybe you weren't offered) but certainly you can say no!
0xmohit 10y ago
Is nytimes.com down? HNed?
- mintplant 10y ago
  It's up for me (and I doubt HN could single-highhandedly bright down nytimes.com).
  - mintplant 10y ago
    Yikes, looks like autocorrect did a number on this one. That should be "single-handedly" and "bring down".
Rachhery 10y ago
I had the most unprofessional interview experience of my life with Bridgewater. They contacted me out of the blue and had me go through one phone interview, their culture introduction and quiz on their website, a HR round with a recruiter, and a coding project. After I passed all these, I was put in another phone interview. (Note: I am in the West coast.) Remember, these clowns were trying to recruit me. I was at that time working as a Research Scientist in X in one of the big firms over in the West coast. A good part of the interview was spent by them disparaging X. Then they ended the interview with "We have all the information we need, we won't be calling you." I felt like I had been hazed by a couple of dimwits who were not even that good at it. This article assuages my worry that I was being unreasonable.
Nokinside 10y ago
I know one company where semi-formal ultra competitive asshole culture worked. It worked because it was only applied at senior level (80% marketing and sales) and there was extremely strict policy for not behaving like that for outsiders or underlings. Boss giving temper tantrum or bullying his workers resulted creative and humiliating punishments. Employees who were not part of luscious bonus program knew they were safe. My theory is that forcing people to change behavior in different context was easy way to differentiate between people who enjoy aggression and job insecurity from people who are assholes 24/7. Obvious downside was very self selective almost exclusively male club that had to exclude talent that could not adjust. But those who liked it had incredible job satisfaction and earned lots of money.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Not sure why do you classify "preserving a corporate culture that works fine" as downside. It surely looks like a great place to work.
- tomp 10y ago
  > Obvious downside was very self selective almost exclusively male club that had to exclude talent that could not adjust Why is that a downside? I mean, you say that they were very successful... Maybe the people they excluded wouldn't be as successful?
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    For that particular circular definition of "successful." If you follow the naive but socially sanctioned view that making money = success, or "getting what you want from life" = success, then hedge funds can look like very successful places. If you have a more independent view - the kind of view that someone like Dalio, for all his alleged openness, is likely incapable of understanding - then hedge funds aren't going to be the right place for you.
bootload 10y ago
"The firm is governed by “Principles” — more than 200 of them — set out in a little white book of Mr. Dalio’s musings on life and business that some on Wall Street have likened to a religious text." Is there a copy of this online?
- sebthomas 10y ago
  http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew... Sounds like a lot of Trumpisms. And lots of obvious things only a dim egotist would consider to be revelations worth collecting into a manifesto. "... if a billionaire loses $200 million he will probably be unhappy, while if someone who is worth $10,000 unexpectedly gets another $2,000, he will probably be happy". woah, fark, really?
lighttower 10y ago
I also interviewed there. They had me fill out a feedback form following the interview to tell them how to improve
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

167 points by kafkaesq 10y ago

That video of the crying manager is what made me quit Bridgewater. The craziest part was that the manager who ended up crying became the one who would teach lessons to new hires on how to "diagnose" other employees. Totally psychologically broken. Ray Dalio won't quit and he won't relinquish power. What you have instead now is this psychotic power grab at the top with three or more people competing for the crown. Any time someone gets close to knocking him out, they get demoted or fired. Principle #41: By and large, you will get what you deserve over time. The basis for any oppressive religion is #41. Those at the top deserved it, and, if you are at the bottom, it's because you haven't.

0xcde4c3db 10y ago
Principle #41 has a name in academia: the just-world hypothesis [1] (occasionally the just-world fallacy, largely from atheist and feminist sources). It has surprisingly widespread consequences and implications. Conservative politicians and pundits play on it when they tout "personal responsibility" in the face of systemic bias. Abusers use it to convince their victims that they "deserve" the abuse. Religiously devout people use it to minimize tragedies (not to mention crimes) as "part of God's plan", and so on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I often see people discussing the just world hypothesis and the awfulness of the people who believe it. But I very rarely see those same people even considering the possibility that it might be true. In the world of work, while exceptions exist, I've always seen a strong correlation between position and competence. (I haven't worked at bridgewater so I don't know if it's true there.) In the political/economic world, I see poor people refusing to engage in personal responsibility (i.e. having children out of wedlock, doing drugs, smoking, eating badly and not exercising, refusing to work) while the rich do the exact opposite. So I'll ask the question that I guess makes me an awful person too: why do we think the just world hypothesis is actually false?
  - hx87 10y ago
    Because there are far, far too many counterexamples for the hypothesis to be true in any useful sense.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Dalio's "by and large" indicates that he feels it's generally true, not universally true. I.e. a statistical trend, not a hard and fast rule. How do your uncited counterexamples show that a statistical trend is not true in any useful sense? Moreover, why isn't it reasonable to treat it as a hypothesis that is true in many specific contexts? Should we also discuss the personal awfulness of people who believe in normal distributions as a useful principle since not all data is normally distributed? "Racists and child molesters sometimes use normal distributions to model the world!"
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    > In the political/economic world, I see poor people refusing to engage in personal responsibility (i.e. having children out of wedlock, doing drugs, smoking, eating badly and not exercising, refusing to work) while the rich do the exact opposite. Yet there are plenty of poor people working two jobs and clipping coupons but never see their economic situation meaningfully improve. On the other side, someone born into wealth can be lazy, use drugs, and be a general screw up and still die wealthy. Plenty of rich people do drugs too but the chances of them going to jail for doing drugs are negligible compared to the chances of jail time for a poor person. Law enforcement targets poor neighborhoods far more heavily, wealthy people don't buy drugs off street corners, and wealthy people can pay for far better legal representation. Crime? White collar crime is rarely punished with jail time. Someone selling drugs on the street might get several years in jail, whereas someone who helps launder billions for drug cartels gets no jail time and their company only pays a fine. Unethical sociopathic behavior in politics and many parts of the business world is how some people get to the top. It's not that the most qualified or deserving person got what they deserved, it was that the most ruthless, self-promoting, and deceitful person took the spoils. The just world hypothesis is often what callous people use to justify why they have the riches and people lower on the totem pole don't. It's easy to point at poor people and say they're poor because they're lazy or irresponsible, but it's much harder to admit that someone succeeded because of either advantages they were born into, or outright immoral behavior.
toxik 10y ago
Jesus christ - this is a sect, not a business. I will forever cherish counterculture and dissent as the only way to make sure I don't wind up in sects. Jesus man I just want to give that poor woman a hug.
- johnny4000 10y ago
  Having willfully worked there in the past (I was not abducted Boko Haram style) I can tell you first hand they value evidence and reason (which includes both saying 'I agree' and dissenting), not sect like religiosity. The people in our prevalent culture today can't handle the truth, because their egos are in their way. Bridgewater in that specific way is much more counter culter.
jpatokal 10y ago
Whoah. I thought you were joking there, but that's actually Principle #41. Here's the whole tract: http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew... Which reads like a particularly ego-centric self-help book, down to creepy formulae. "Pain + Reflection = Progress" or "1+1=3", anyone?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  By comparing it to "1+1=3", you seem to be hinting that "pain + reflection = progress" is false. Is that actually your belief? Or do you believe it to be true but merely creepy? (Personally I consider it to be completely true. Most of my personal progress has come directly from pain, reflection, and then deliberate effort. Where does your personal progress come from?)
  - jpatokal 10y ago
    I'm OK with choosing to take on pain to grow. I do, however, find it creepy when a company's publicly stated values glorify pain.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    Some pain is just pain, it's meaningless and even reflecting on it does you no good. So it's obviously not "true" but at best "sometimes true."
    - arethuza 10y ago
      For some reason this discussion reminds me of Yossarian's rant about pain and god in Catch 22.
  - dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 10y ago
    If it is completely true, then surely "pain = progress - reflection" must also be completely true.

mdorazio 10y ago

So it seems then that ultra-transparency and a culture of candor bordering on hostility doesn't prevent people from being assholes, and takes away avenues for raising concerns with management. I wonder if this is more a result of the company being an old boys club (like just about every hedge fund), or if it's just a commentary on human nature.

smallnamespace 10y ago
> ultra-transparency and a culture of candor I interviewed there and got the strong impression that their 'total transparency' spiel was just a cover for bosses to be assholes.
- eropple 10y ago
  I've never encountered an environment where this wasn't the case. When I was younger and, in many ways, more of an asshole, I found myself playing along in such a culture--candor and "straight talk" were ways for me to step right up to the line and try to put me over somebody else. Breaking free of it was difficult.

cscurmudgeon 10y ago

I had the most unprofessional interview experience of my life with Bridgewater. They contacted me out of the blue and had me go through one phone interview, their culture introduction and quiz on their website, a HR round with a recruiter, and a coding project. After I passed all these, I was put in another phone interview. (Note: I am in the West coast.) Remember, these clowns were trying to recruit me. I was at that time working as a Research Scientist in X in one of the big firms over in the West coast. A good part of the interview was spent by them disparaging X. Then they ended the interview with "We have all the information we need, we won't be calling you." I felt like I had been hazed by a couple of dimwits who were not even that good at it. This article assuages my worry that I was being unreasonable.

xitrium 10y ago
You probably weren't a culture fit :P I actually prefer getting feedback about why someone chooses not to go forward with me as it helps me improve. For that reason I think interviewing at Bridgewater can be valuable as you can explicitly ask them what you did right and wrong and they'll tell you without sugar coating it. And don't forget, the reason most companies don't give this kind of feedback is to prevent any allegations of discrimination, so they're not exactly heroes either.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  It wasn't just that they didn't give him feedback -- it was the overt snarkiness of the interviewers' closing remarks that seems very telling about the Bridgewater culture.
sambe 10y ago
Many companies interview for competitor intelligence. Did you consider that they wanted to get some idea about how one of the big firms was doing (in) X?
- cscurmudgeon 10y ago
  Yes, that is a possibility that I considered going into the interview. But coming out, I was fully convinced it was not the case. Why? They had asked me no more than textbook questions about X. It is commonly known my firm uses X. It was really quite comical (from a third person perspective, not from mine though, :D). I believe a lot of very good people do get hired over there (I know one extremely good person there), but the culture of "radical transparency" turns them into asshats quickly. As they subconsciously think if they are not being an asshat they are not being transparent. Shame though as Ray Dalio seems like a nice guy from his interviews and talks.

siliconc0w 10y ago

Such 'cultural principles' are typically platitudes wielded and bent like biblical verses to support arbitrary positions. I think I'd prefer something honest like "1) we're a business. 2) we like to make money. 3) We will do whatever the executive leadership thinks might eventually do that".

duncan_bayne 10y ago
Typically, yes. But not always. https://youtu.be/sf5r4yLTc9k https://youtu.be/sf5r4yLTc9k (Disclaimer - I work there :) )

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

l33tbro 10y ago

Not that I condone this culture in any workplace, but it's a damn hedge fund. You can't really expect "bring your cat to work day" or yoga break-out spaces. Looking at the sole-focus of companies like this and the effect they have on our society, it's hardly surprising that their workplaces are toxic.

product50 10y ago
You can expect an environment where sexual harassment is not a common occurrence though?
- l33tbro 10y ago
  I never said I expect it - I'm saying it does not surprise me. Have friends in hedge-funds and I don't know how some of them manage to go in each day. Then again the pay's not half-bad.
spot 10y ago
i work at a hedge fund where people are nice, there are yoga break-out spaces (literally), and the prevalent culture is laid-back, like a typical west-coast tech company, or academia.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  One person winning the lottery does not invalidate the statement "You can't really expect to win the lottery".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
artmageddon 10y ago
> You can't really expect "bring your cat to work day" Suddenly I want to find a place where I can actually bring my cat to work..
- 10y ago

Caligula 10y ago

I interviewed onsite at bridgewater and it was a very strange but interesting experience. They take radical transparency very seriously. They record everything, but do ask your permission first(well... can I say no?) The people were nice. They are brutally honest and let me know what I was lacking. Watching videos including the crying manager were too much for me. It doesn't surprise me that fucked up HR situations occur. The one fun event was watching the receptionist applying radical transparency(assholeism) to a delivery guy. They take it seriously!

zaroth 10y ago
It sounds like you didn't take the job (or maybe you weren't offered) but certainly you can say no!

0xmohit 10y ago

Is nytimes.com down? HNed?

mintplant 10y ago
It's up for me (and I doubt HN could single-highhandedly bright down nytimes.com).
- mintplant 10y ago
  Yikes, looks like autocorrect did a number on this one. That should be "single-handedly" and "bring down".

Rachhery 10y ago

Nokinside 10y ago

I know one company where semi-formal ultra competitive asshole culture worked. It worked because it was only applied at senior level (80% marketing and sales) and there was extremely strict policy for not behaving like that for outsiders or underlings. Boss giving temper tantrum or bullying his workers resulted creative and humiliating punishments. Employees who were not part of luscious bonus program knew they were safe. My theory is that forcing people to change behavior in different context was easy way to differentiate between people who enjoy aggression and job insecurity from people who are assholes 24/7. Obvious downside was very self selective almost exclusively male club that had to exclude talent that could not adjust. But those who liked it had incredible job satisfaction and earned lots of money.

venomsnake 10y ago
Not sure why do you classify "preserving a corporate culture that works fine" as downside. It surely looks like a great place to work.
tomp 10y ago
> Obvious downside was very self selective almost exclusively male club that had to exclude talent that could not adjust Why is that a downside? I mean, you say that they were very successful... Maybe the people they excluded wouldn't be as successful?
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  For that particular circular definition of "successful." If you follow the naive but socially sanctioned view that making money = success, or "getting what you want from life" = success, then hedge funds can look like very successful places. If you have a more independent view - the kind of view that someone like Dalio, for all his alleged openness, is likely incapable of understanding - then hedge funds aren't going to be the right place for you.

bootload 10y ago

"The firm is governed by “Principles” — more than 200 of them — set out in a little white book of Mr. Dalio’s musings on life and business that some on Wall Street have likened to a religious text." Is there a copy of this online?

sebthomas 10y ago
http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew... Sounds like a lot of Trumpisms. And lots of obvious things only a dim egotist would consider to be revelations worth collecting into a manifesto. "... if a billionaire loses $200 million he will probably be unhappy, while if someone who is worth $10,000 unexpectedly gets another $2,000, he will probably be happy". woah, fark, really?

lighttower 10y ago

I also interviewed there. They had me fill out a feedback form following the interview to tell them how to improve

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]