3 ms·

That's why I believe you are claiming "womanness" would increase corporate profits - because you completely discounted everything besides that. Ah I see. My ap

That's why I believe you are claiming "womanness" would increase corporate profits - because you completely discounted everything besides that. Ah I see. My apologies for my lack of clarity then. In the original comment, I was assuming women traders with some level of skill and experience since I can not fathom a world where Wall St hires people with absolutely no knowledge of finance to run trading desks. Also, your result for retail investors at a discount brokerage is irrelevant. Average trader at financial firms >> average eTrade user. It seems quite relevant. Does it prove beyond any doubt that Wall St should have 100% female traders? Of course not. But it does suggest that Wall St firms could reduce risk exposure and improve profits by hiring more women and/or altering their culture. what do you believe is the typical background/skillset of a non-quant trader, and what fraction of people with that background/skillset are women? Wait a minute...you're a quant and you're asking me about traders? Don't you already know?

yummyfajitas 16y ago
In the original comment, I was assuming women traders with some level of skill and experience... I'm confused; after I described women as being less likely to get a PhD (one common qualification for finance jobs), you said: Um, why does any of that matter when women would increase corporate profits? If hiring lots of women traders would increase corporate profits while at the same time decreasing the number of PhDs at a firm, why on Earth would that be a problem? It seems you were originally describing hiring women with less of the qualifications often expected in finance (a PhD in particular), on the grounds that their presence would increase profits. You seem to be changing your argument quite a bit. As for trader backgrounds, I told you the background of the traders I know. You appeared to disagree with my characterization of traders as mostly quant types. Since you disagree, I'm curious why - perhaps you know something I don't, for instance fields of finance different from mine. Or perhaps you don't.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

In the original comment, I was assuming women traders with some level of skill and experience... I'm confused; after I described women as being less likely to get a PhD (one common qualification for finance jobs), you said: Um, why does any of that matter when women would increase corporate profits? If hiring lots of women traders would increase corporate profits while at the same time decreasing the number of PhDs at a firm, why on Earth would that be a problem? It seems you were originally describing hiring women with less of the qualifications often expected in finance (a PhD in particular), on the grounds that their presence would increase profits. You seem to be changing your argument quite a bit. As for trader backgrounds, I told you the background of the traders I know. You appeared to disagree with my characterization of traders as mostly quant types. Since you disagree, I'm curious why - perhaps you know something I don't, for instance fields of finance different from mine. Or perhaps you don't.