3 ms·

I may be biased (being a Google engineer in the New York office) but if you actually want to contribute something--anything--to the world, if you want to enjoy

by cletus 13y ago

I may be biased (being a Google engineer in the New York office) but if you actually want to contribute something--anything--to the world, if you want to enjoy your job, then Google wins hands down. I have a finance background and previously worked for UBS and in retail and wholesale stockbroking. I fully understand the role of, say, market makers in the financial system (ie providing liquidity). I hear those same arguments being used for HFT but honestly they don't really stack up (IMHO). I don't really see HFT doing anything harmful however so ultimately I don't really care. I can see the appeal from a technical background of being a quant. It must be a challenge and I'm sure you can make a lot of money, which is fine, but it doesn't really contribute anything to the financial system. The real problem I have with Goldman (and their ilk) is the serious crises they've instigated all the while banging the drum of contributing to the financial system. This includes the subprime crisis [1] [2]. Goldman wasn't as guilty as some but its hands weren't clean either. You'll often see the "don't hate the player, hate the game" defense here. Sorry, no sale. You're accountable for your actions regardless of the incentives. More disturbing is that Goldman (and their ilk) is killing people in the name of profit [3] [4]. Sorry, but that's morally reprehensible no matter how you look at it. Now US regulators have made at least five mistakes (IMHO) when it comes to financial regulation: 1. 30+ years ago allowing investment banks, once partnerships with unlimited liability, to incorporate and have limited liability for their actions; 2. Not allowing investment banks to fail ("too big to fail" like Merrill Lynch). Bailouts of investment banks could reasonably be described as welfare for investment bankers; 3. Allowing banks to take positions as well as operate as market makers. There really should be strict separation here; 4. The carried interest tax treatment of hedge funds that mean executives pay less tax (as a percentage) than most of the population. Congress really has been bought and paid for here, most notably Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who has steadfastly broken with party ranks to resist carried interest reform [5]; and 5. Strict regulation on commodities market to separate speculators from hedgers. Driving up food prices causing untold misery even death should result in criminal liability for the organization and key personnel. So work for Google. Don't work for Google. Whatever floats your boat. Ultimately (IMHO) I think Google has a net positive effect on the world. Whatever you do, as an engineer, I strongly believe you should stay away from investment banks and hedge funds as you're actively contributing to misery in the world at this point. [1]: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/in-one-bundle-of-mortgages-the-subprime-crisis-reverberates/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/in-one-bundle-of-mort... [2]: http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/24/news/companies/Goldman_Senate_documents/ http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/24/news/companies/Goldman_Senat... [3]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/goldman-sachs-agm-drive-food-prices-up http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/goldman... [4]: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/23/how-big-banks-are-driving-up-the-prices-of-practic.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/23/how-big-ban... [5]: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html?...

vasilipupkin 13y ago
"the crises they instigated" - this is just silly. Periodic crises is a feature of a capitalist economy. Look at the 2001 dot com crash. Yes, it happened not to dramatically affect the rest of the economy this time. But would you say Pets.com instigated the crash?
BadCookie 13y ago
If HFT isn't doing any good, and is extracting money from the system, then isn't it necessarily doing harm? It seems to me that if you are making money and not doing anything useful, then you must be basically stealing from somebody somehow.
dev_jim 13y ago
> I have a finance background and previously worked for UBS and in retail and wholesale stockbroking. I fully understand the role of, say, market makers in the financial system (ie providing liquidity). > I hear those same arguments being used for HFT but honestly they don't really stack up (IMHO). <snip> It must be a challenge and I'm sure you can make a lot of money, which is fine, but it doesn't really contribute anything to the financial system. These two statements stand in direct contrast. If you understand the role of market makers then you should understand that the most popular HFT strategy is to be an electronic market maker. It's about competition for liquidity provision which tightens spreads which reduce the cost of trading for everyone. > 2. Not allowing investment banks to fail ("too big to fail" like Merrill Lynch). Bailouts of investment banks could reasonably be described as welfare for investment bankers; This would have caused the collapse of the global economy. Google would have suffered mightily from the following depression. Companies like ML might "deserve" to be punished and that process is now working it's way through the courts, but that bailout cost a lot less than 25% unemployment. > 3. Allowing banks to take positions as well as operate as market makers. There really should be strict separation here; By it's very definition, a market maker must take proprietary positions. > 5. Strict regulation on commodities market to separate speculators from hedgers. Driving up food prices causing untold misery even death should result in criminal liability for the organization and key personnel. Hyperbole. There's never been any evidence that speculation on commodities is "driving up food prices" let alone causing "misery event death".

by cletus 13y ago

vasilipupkin 13y ago

"the crises they instigated" - this is just silly. Periodic crises is a feature of a capitalist economy. Look at the 2001 dot com crash. Yes, it happened not to dramatically affect the rest of the economy this time. But would you say Pets.com instigated the crash?

BadCookie 13y ago

If HFT isn't doing any good, and is extracting money from the system, then isn't it necessarily doing harm? It seems to me that if you are making money and not doing anything useful, then you must be basically stealing from somebody somehow.

dev_jim 13y ago

> I have a finance background and previously worked for UBS and in retail and wholesale stockbroking. I fully understand the role of, say, market makers in the financial system (ie providing liquidity). > I hear those same arguments being used for HFT but honestly they don't really stack up (IMHO). <snip> It must be a challenge and I'm sure you can make a lot of money, which is fine, but it doesn't really contribute anything to the financial system. These two statements stand in direct contrast. If you understand the role of market makers then you should understand that the most popular HFT strategy is to be an electronic market maker. It's about competition for liquidity provision which tightens spreads which reduce the cost of trading for everyone. > 2. Not allowing investment banks to fail ("too big to fail" like Merrill Lynch). Bailouts of investment banks could reasonably be described as welfare for investment bankers; This would have caused the collapse of the global economy. Google would have suffered mightily from the following depression. Companies like ML might "deserve" to be punished and that process is now working it's way through the courts, but that bailout cost a lot less than 25% unemployment. > 3. Allowing banks to take positions as well as operate as market makers. There really should be strict separation here; By it's very definition, a market maker must take proprietary positions. > 5. Strict regulation on commodities market to separate speculators from hedgers. Driving up food prices causing untold misery even death should result in criminal liability for the organization and key personnel. Hyperbole. There's never been any evidence that speculation on commodities is "driving up food prices" let alone causing "misery event death".