4 ms·
When I was working at a quant hedge fund which was adding very little to actual efficient allocation of capital in the world I came across many an accomplished
by ArchBang 8y ago
When I was working at a quant hedge fund which was adding very little to actual efficient allocation of capital in the world I came across many an accomplished researcher who wanted switch from academia largely because it was just that much more lucrative. One person for example was coding the creation of better medical lenses at a top university and had been subsidised by state prizes to the tune of hundreds of thousands. Certainly felt like a waste of talent as they switched tack to add the a tiniest fraction of liquidity.
- tcbawo 8y agoLots of people found charities or start businesses once they've created a wealth base. If this person makes millions in finance, he/she just might found a lab or create a medical lense startup in the future. It might eventually be more effective than begging for government grants.
- ArchBang 8y agoPerhaps, though that starts a long line of big ifs, and the wealth to solve a great deal of the world's problems already exists - a vast chunk of it just spins in various shadowy games. I tend to think there are better ways for bettering society than philanthropy though, and these vary wildly in effectiveness. In this case the millionaires in this fund focused primarily on some cancer charities. I understand that these tend to resonate emotionally since everyone is at risk, but really they are quite suboptimal ways of channeling funding relative to the needs of the world or maximising ethical return on investment.
- dnadler 8y agoEfficiency and liquidity are not the same thing. Liquidity is important, but efficiency is more important. When we identify fraudulent companies, for example. The sooner the better, right? Or, when we identify the next Google, and give them the resources (money) they need to build a new world-changing product. The sooner the better, right?