Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mystique of Goldman Sachs

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#11

Post by zzleeper »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #9
jbob2000 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disgusting to me that that much brainpower was/is dedicated to stock trading. All that programming and the only thing we get for it is that we can correctly value a company.

Its insane that you think this is the case. The markets are an incredibly important part of the economy and this technology does not only simply value a company.

I thought it was satire. Although you might make an argument for why reducing time-to-trade from 50ms to 100ms would not be the end of the world

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#14

Post by Bartweiss »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #7
StClaire wrote: post #4

One thing HN might care about: 3 years ago, 25% of Goldman employees worked in the IT division. They probably had more developers than Facebook and LinkedIn combined. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-has-more-engine...

During my onsite they said they had an even bigger percentage.

The algorithmic crew is in a separate building over in Jersey City even. Essentially all tech and management.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#15

Post by witty_username »

zzleeper wrote: post #11
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its insane that you think this is the case. The markets are an incredibly important part of the economy and this technology does not only simply value a company.

I thought it was satire. Although you might make an argument for why reducing time-to-trade from 50ms to 100ms would not be the end of the world

That would make markets less efficient and thus allocate capital in a worse manner.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#16

Post by melling »

jbob2000 wrote: post #6
StClaire wrote: post #4

One thing HN might care about: 3 years ago, 25% of Goldman employees worked in the IT division. They probably had more developers than Facebook and LinkedIn combined. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-has-more-engine...

It's disgusting to me that that much brainpower was/is dedicated to stock trading. All that programming and the only thing we get for it is that we can correctly value a company.

Why do people always say this? It's such an thoughtless thing to say.

You know what's a real waste of brainpower? 3.5 million truck drivers. People driving cabs. Fast food workers. We can, and should, train more software developers. It's the one job that might be useful in 30 years. At the very least, people will hopefully have enough education to move to another field.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#17

Post by wtvanhest »

jbob2000 wrote: post #6
StClaire wrote: post #4

One thing HN might care about: 3 years ago, 25% of Goldman employees worked in the IT division. They probably had more developers than Facebook and LinkedIn combined. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-has-more-engine...

It's disgusting to me that that much brainpower was/is dedicated to stock trading. All that programming and the only thing we get for it is that we can correctly value a company.

The same could be said for 95% of active companies, especially the large ones.

FB - It's disgusting to me that that much brainpower was/is dedicated to sharing photos.

Twitter - It's disgusting to me that that much brainpower was/is dedicated to sharing single comments.

etc. etc. etc.

The reality is that we live in an world with inefficiencies. If there are large enough inefficiencies in the value of assets that people can get computers to find them and eliminate them, that is likely a good thing. Just like we live in a world where sharing information used to be really hard, but many 'pointless' companies have made communication incredibly easy.

It is better to not judge what you don't fully understand.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#18

Post by jbob2000 »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #9
jbob2000 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disgusting to me that that much brainpower was/is dedicated to stock trading. All that programming and the only thing we get for it is that we can correctly value a company.

Its insane that you think this is the case. The markets are an incredibly important part of the economy and this technology does not only simply value a company.

GS is an investment firm, their job is to find things that are under valued and cash in on the value left on the table. What else would they do with this technology? They aren't an agri-business, looking for a drought resistant strain of wheat. They're not a biotech company, folding proteins to cure cancer. They aren't an engineering firm, looking for a device to clean and desalinate water. They program computers to eek out another 0.1% on their portfolios.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#19

Post by branchless »

If the market is so efficient why are so many people working in it? The answer is it's parasitic. They don't allocate capital efficiently, progress has slowed dramatically in the west and a culture of rent seeking has taken over.

It's a huge misallocation of resources but of course people simply point to the fact that they are "making money" as a sign of success.

And yes, they are indeed "making money". That is the problem.

A total disaster for the west, if they don't reign this in it's over.

EDIT: fascist hacker news doesn't like it when you talk about usurers

To clarify:

if it's so efficient why is it such a large part of GDP?

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#20

Post by eej71 »

zzleeper wrote: post #11
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its insane that you think this is the case. The markets are an incredibly important part of the economy and this technology does not only simply value a company.

I thought it was satire. Although you might make an argument for why reducing time-to-trade from 50ms to 100ms would not be the end of the world

I didn't think it was satire as I believe it to be a popular viewpoint both in the larger world as well as among many folks here on HN.
Post reply on HN