7 ms·
Join Wall Street. Save the world
- ekm2 13y agoHow can you get into HFT without a degree from an elite school?
- zmitri 13y agoBeing young, having very strong referrals from someone who works there and demonstrating building things outside of work or above and beyond what you are supposed to be doing.
- effbott 13y agoYou have to know the right people. I have a non-CS degree from a pretty average state school but I somehow fell into the world of HFT algo development. I suppose luck played a large role in my case since I wasn't actively seeking that type of job. One of my clients (who had founded a small "prop" shop) liked my work and wanted to give me a shot at developing algorithms, even though I had no prior experience and scant knowledge of financial markets. Fortunately it turned out to be a great fit and I ended up automating nearly every aspect of his operation. Wall Street banks aren't the only ones doing HFT. The technology to develop and deploy algorithms has become much more accessible in recent years. It's still not cheap - collocated servers, real time data streams, and Bloomberg terminals can rack up tens thousands per month - but you don't need a Wall St. budget to get started. There are lots of small proprietary trading shops (prop shops) scattered throughout the major financial hubs (NYC, London, Chicago, etc.). These shops typically have 20 employees or less. In my case we had two traders, one programmer (me), and one IT guy. These shops are more likely to care about your skills as a programmer than where you went to school.
- michaelbwang 13y agoMIT is an elite school. Is this comment meant to be facetious?
- gyardley 13y agoI suspect he's asking a question, probably for his own benefit, instead of commenting on the education of the person in the article.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ig1 13y agoIt depends what aspect of HFT you want to get into, but experience can generally trump accreditation. That is you won't get hired out of uni, but you can get hired somewhere working on similar tech where you get to prove your worth before transitioning into HFT. That said if you want to make 100k there's plenty of tech roles outside of HFT where you can make that amount.
- anonymoushn 13y agoI did it by applying to an HFT shop. I had a non-CS STEM degree from a state university and 1.5 years of experience as a developer.
- taurath 13y ago$100k is a high finance salary? Maybe for a really low trader...
- andyjsong 13y agoHis bonus will make up for that.
- enraged_camel 13y agoAren't bonuses performance-based? From what I hear, that is what provides an incentive for finance-types to fuck over everyone, including their own clients.
- ig1 13y agoYou could say that about all incentivized pay, i.e. salespeople, developers rewarded for hitting milestones, etc.
- enraged_camel 13y agoHow many developers do you know who can truly and massively fuck up the world economy while pursuing their bonuses?
- greesil 13y agoI thought the recruitment pitch was, "Join Wall Street, fuck the world."
- UVB-76 13y agoA lot of the activities that take place on Wall Street are fairly harmless. Some might even be considered socially productive.
- greesil 13y agoYeah it's just the other activities like the occasional overleveraging that destabilizes the global financial markets and causes depressions. Or, leveraged buy-outs that fuck the rank and file of a company out of their contractually agreed upon pensions.
- jacquesm 13y ago> A lot of the activities that take place on Wall Street are fairly harmless. Most of those harmless activities do not include trading stocks, bonds, derivatives and commodities. Wall-Street is like a very powerful diesel engine, it generates enormous amounts of power and it generates enormous amounts of pollution. Hard to get the one without the other.
- mathattack 13y agoI am very suspicious of people who say they enter Wall Street to save the world. That said, I also believe most charity events are very economically inefficient. Rather than get a dozen musicians together for a discounted concert at a small concert hall, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them all to donate one days worth of sales from performing at arenas? Rather than get a hundred bankers together for a $250/head dinner, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them to donate what they'd make in 2 hours? (Although the dinner does have social purposes) You can like Warren Buffett or hate him, but the best thing he can do for society is earn money and then efficiently give it away to solve big problems. That would be much better than him working full time for the peace corps, or a non-profit.
- scott_s 13y agoI believe that what you are suggesting is what the first subject of the article is doing.
- mathattack 13y agoExactly. But I'm still leery of when people join Wall Street for altruistic reasons. :-)
- dragontamer 13y agoOn the other hand, only Bill Gates has had the vision to lead his charity into wiping out polio from the planet. (only 3 countries left, and only because terrorists keep shooting at volunteers before they can administer cures IIRC). Sure, money helps charities. But a brilliant leader, like what Gates has been to the Gates Foundation, is a force multiplier to that money.
- mathattack 13y agoI'm on the fence with him. Here's why... Answer 2 questions: 1) Could somebody else have figured out how to apply that level of thinking on these topics, and been able to convince other to donate? 2) Could he have made another ten or twenty billion by staying at Microsoft? If the answers are "Yes" and "Yes" then he should have stayed at Microsoft. The answers might be "No" and "No" in which case you are spot on. My dogma says the former, but I think you're right. I'll accept him as the exception that proves the rule. :-)
- michaelkeenan 13y agoIf you're interested in effective altruism, you might be interested in the Effective Altruism Summit, which will be held from June 30 to July 6 in San Francisco. All four of the effective altruism organizations mentioned in the article (GiveWell, Giving What We Can, The Life You Can Save, and 80,000 Hours) are participating, along with some not mentioned. Peter Singer, Peter Thiel, and Jaan Tallinn (co-creator of Kazaa and Skype) will give talks. http://www.effectivealtruismsummit.com/ http://www.effectivealtruismsummit.com/
- clarkm 13y agoAt a similar event on Efficient Charity at the Berkeley Faculty Club, Robin Hanson made some interesting (and unsettling) points about how most charities operate. [1] For example, he claims that most charitable contributions are actually about status signalling and not about maximizing impact. Because if someone truly wanted to do the Most Helpful Thing, they would save all their money and donate a single lump sum to a single charity right before they die. This strategy leverages compound interest while avoiding certain tax pitfalls, but has the downside of making you look selfish for most of your life. Scott Alexander has a pretty good summary [2] of the event if you don't want to listen to the audio. [1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/04/more-now-means-less-later.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/04/more-now-means-less-la... [2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/05/investment-and-inefficient-charity/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/05/investment-and-ineffici...
- FD3SA 13y agoIn addition to a status signal, charities are also massive tax shelters. All around it is just a way to funnel money out of the government's hands, as most charitable donations would otherwise have been taxed by the government as excess capital or income. The USA has so many structural problems that sometimes I find it ironic that people are so obsessed with solving third world problems. In a way, due to the massive global influence of the US, solving a big problem here (e.g. militant foreign policy) can lead to incredible improvements in the lives of hundreds of millions across the world. Conversely, if US foreign policy is dictated by warmongers, hundreds of millions suffer war and famine for decades. As Aaron did [1], please read Noam Chomsky then decide in which order to address first and third world problems. 1. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/epiphany http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/epiphany
- nickpinkston 13y agoJoin Wall Street. Attempt to save the world through donations. End up unable to recognize what to solve. This is a pattern that all these guys do. Even Warren Buffet just gave his money to Gates. You'd think a guy who spends his life picking out successful businesses would be able to recognize this in non-profit / social ventures, but he's so removed from real problems he can't. If you want to save the world, save the world first. Stop. Fucking. Waiting.
- swampthing 13y agoThe question is whether the world is better off if Buffet had taken your advice. Not clear that it would be?
- nickpinkston 13y agoI think it's good that he gave money to something more innovative than the Salvation Army or some such, but generally if you're taking the conservative approach to "world-saving" (working and donating), your donations don't have great leverage or relevance. It's why GM couldn't make Tesla... How many times do they go into it thinking this and just end up with a bunch of cars and naming rights to a building at Harvard at best... We see it the vast majority of the time.
- swampthing 13y agoWell, I think a lot of people end up like that - but then I'd argue they're not really taking any approach (much less a conservative one) to "world-saving". They've switched their goals at that point!
- nickpinkston 13y agoSure, but that's my argument. They go into it thinking this, but the system changes their goals. I'm sure politicians think this too going in, and then the ones left are the ones who can play the donations game. Startup orgs (for- or non-profit) allow you to actually start serving people now, not later, and that gives you better insight into solving problems and picking them.
- fatman 13y agoIs it really that simple? If your main concern is net "good" to the world, don't you have to balance that against any "bad" generated by your job? Wall Street certainly is capable of damaging people's lives, and HFT does get some of the blame. Also, is net gain the only concern - if an assassin donates his profits to charity and in the process saves more lives than he takes, is does his net "good" make him moral?
- rdl 13y agoHFT seems fairly neutral; it makes trades more efficient, but is an "arms race" for all the traders.
- tannerc 13y agoOne engineer donating $50k is great. One teacher-focused engineer doing a decent job at influencing and educating others to do more with their money is... priceless? It's good that Mr. Trigg is doing what he can, but discounting the ability of an education role to impact even more people is slightly silly.
- davorak 13y agoAt least in my life time and durring my education, mid USA, there seemed to be a considerable amount of emphasis placed on doing good with your own hands, even going to the extent of suggesting that getting a high paying job was morally negative or at least undesirable as an intention. The article and the sentiment behind it is more about this negative stereotype changing and hopeful disappearing rather then devaluing what is already valuable.
- LowKarmaAccount 13y agoLocal governments are also involved in the stock market. High frequency traders make money by acting as an intermediary between buyers and sellers, and thus not creating actual wealth. Instead their supposed value is the "liquidity" they add. That means that the price of "adding liquidity" is a lower return on a stock or bond invested by a local government. Which in turn means that the local government might have to cut funding services for the poor. Even if you give away the money you earn, you are still robbing the poor so you can give to the poor people that you like.
- ig1 13y agoIf you're a long term investor like a government who invested in an index tracker, HFT and the like have a relatively small impact on prices compared to trades by other large institutional investors.
- Fishkins 13y agoThis is basically what I was going to say, but more specific. I can't believe they could write such a long article without even mentioning the direct negative impact your job could have on the world. It's still possible working your high-paying job is net improvement over the alternatives, but I don't think this went into enough depth to provide a good argument.
- tome 13y agoWait, do you think intermediaries never create actual wealth?
- LowKarmaAccount 13y agoNo, I don't think that. I also don't think that HFT is necessary for an intermediary to create wealth.
- edw519 13y agoHis logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do. It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either. I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time. If you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good. You do good by the way you treat other people and in the hard work and good deeds that you do. And it can be just about anything. You don't have to do charity work or walkathons or open source or make giant donations for all to see in order to do good. If your work provides value to someone else, then you're doing good. It's up to you to decide how good your doing good is. And the best time to start doing good is now. Every little bit matters.
- codegeek 13y agoAgreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using the word "more" and talking purely in terms of financial ability. In order to do good, money comes second because you have to be *willing" first. But once money comes in the picture, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for someone who makes $100K compared to someone who makes $50K.
- grimtrigger 13y agoThe article could have been titled "Get Rich, Save the World" since it really has nothing to do with Wall Street. Which, when you look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, is pretty hard to disagree with. Unfortunately, I think most people in this thread are unwilling to pass up an opportunity to bash Wall Street. Which is a shame, because they are rallying against a viable form of altruism.
- ca98am79 13y agoI disagree. For example, Gandhi and Mother Teresa had no money and did orders of magnitude of more good than many others with money. They did more than many others who had money and good intentions.
- m52go 13y agoJoin Wall Street, make some money, and then start a company that actually does something useful (i.e., not make photo-sharing more beautiful or social marketing .01% more effective). Giving money away is an effective way of actually accomplishing very little, unless you're doing it like Bill Gates and can have very tight control over what your money is actually doing.
- cbr 13y ago"unless you're doing it like Bill Gates and can have very tight control over what your money is actually doing" This kind of impact is actually accessible even to people who are giving smaller amounts: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sailfast 13y agoI fail to see how earning 100K and donating half of it as effective as working to save a life for $500 instead of $2500 over time. Like all things in life, a balance is required and no one way is going to be a cure-all. I applaud people that live frugally and donate what they have to worthy causes, but maybe a bit more introspection is also required to figure out why the career path has really been chosen.
- cbr 13y agoSaving lives 5x more efficiently would be awesome. But how many people over how many years does that take? It may be that someone like Trigg who is earning to give would actually do better to go into malaria research, but it's a hard question. It's one I'm very interested in, though, if you know something about this. (What is clear is that he's doing a lot of good, and if more people followed his example that would be great.)
- scotty79 13y agoMeanwhile his employers will drain the third world by speculating on food based derivatives.
- davorak 13y agoThe effective method of fighting that though seems to be organized political action. The needed skills to organize and drive such groups does not seem very common so it understandable and advantageous for everyone that their efforts are put else where. Though it is dangerous to ignore this arena completely.
- barry-cotter 13y agoCorn based ethanol subsidies do a hell of a lot more damage to the third world in any one year than futures contracts do. Futures contracts reduce price volatility in agricultural markets. Compare onions (futures are illegal) with other agricultural commodities.
- piokoch 13y agoHigh frequency trade and similar "financial instruments" are mostly created to enable banks to create even more empty, debt driven money. So although it is nice that this guy gives some money to charity, his everyday job leads in the long run to financial crises and to poverty that cannot be equalized by all wallstreet workers giving money to charities. Besides, the article sounds like some expensive Public Relation action from wallstreet companies. I guess they have hard time to find decent employees...
- rayiner 13y agoInteresting note: Goldman Sachs donated $377m in cash last year. At $2,500 per life saved, that's 150,000 live saved per year.
- davorak 13y agoIt would be rather awesome if all or most of that money was going to one of the top three charities at give well. Enough so that would significantly change my understanding of Goldman Sachs and make me revaluate similar companies.
- dev1n 13y agoIt should also be noted that by donating a smallish amount of money (377M is a relatively small amount of money for a bank like Goldman) banks can get tax breaks, which could amount to more than they donated.
- lix2333 13y agoThis is actually a common misconception. No matter how much you donate (or a corporation donates), you'll still end up net negative.
- lukeprog 13y agoGoldman Sachs did not donate to the charity that plausibly saves lives at a price of $2500 (Against Malaria Foundation). If I had to guess, they gave it to groups who don't even try to save lives, or to groups who save lives at a cost 100 times or more greater than $2.5k/life.
- genofon 13y agoThis is so stupid.. so instead of working to make the world a better place let's speculate on everything, trying to rip of as much as we can so then we can give our money away. It's like working as a lumberjack and then use your wages to plant other trees, you will never be able to replant what you destroyed previously
- masonhensley 13y agoJohn Arnold, Houston billionaire & hedge funder, closed up shop last year to focus on his foundation with his wife: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-new-science-of-giving-212647170.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-new-science-of-giving-2126...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- briancaw2 13y agoIt's cool to do what you think is righteous. Nobody knows the right answer.
- ivan_ah 13y agoI am completely appalled by this article. How could working for the system (in this case, the finance sector) ever be considered as a positive gain? The state of the world affairs is f'd precisely because currently all aspects of life are viewed through a mechanistic view focused on short term financial gain. Wall street, by supporting and feeding the mega-corps, is indirectly part of the economic exploitation of the world. Furthermore, as pointed out by @mathattack, some charities are very inefficient operations--sometimes bordering on unethically so. My friend worked as a webmaster for a charity whose operations overhead was ~70% (mostly due to the annual general meeting held at a 5* resort in Banff, attended by all the volunteers working in the charity (most of them spouses of the donors)). OK, I am going to calm down now. It is just words. Just propaganda. Perhaps this article was commissioned by Wall Street as an attempt to influence perceptions and to assuage the existential threat to their existence. If the analytically-minded youth of the next generation makes the really moral choice and STOPS going to work for wall street (and big corp in general), then the system stands no chance.
- BrentRitterbeck 13y agoWhat about those that go into risk management at a big Wall Street firm because they view this as the best use of their background? Would you rather have someone who didn't understand the mathematical intricacies of fixed income managing the risk of an entity capable of bringing an economy to a halt, or would you prefer that job to be taken by someone who knew what they were doing?
- ivan_ah 13y ago> managing the risk of an entity capable of bringing an economy to a halt I am more worried about talented quants building/inventing new financial products which lead to further instability and //cause// risk. From what I hear from friends who work in the field, they don't have much control over company policy and direction. At the risk of sounding provocative, I will say that quants are glorified code monkeys. The fact that they are really smart will not allow them to influence decisions. If it is not clearly illegal and it makes profits, it will be done halt or no halt. The way I see it, the less "advances" in the financial sector there are, the better.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- blueprint 13y ago"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve." Henry David Thoreau
- thewarrior 13y agoBy this logic you could justify becoming a drug lord provided that you donate some of your earnings to charity.