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

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#21

Post by minipci1321 »

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.

Then you might get a food for thought from reading the recent thread of comments of Google employees (about what they dislike about Google).

This is not to cast a shade on Google, but more to get some insight about how the brainpower may actually be spent.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#22

Post by branchless »

melling wrote: post #16
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.

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.

Innovation occurs at the edges. Far be it from me to suggest all truckers are dumb, I'm sure many are not, but the fact is that finance is sucking in many of our brightest and best who might carry the west forward. Instead they are not even doing something pointless, it's appropriating wealth away from other productive endeavor.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#23

Post by pc86 »

minipci1321 wrote: post #21
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.

Then you might get a food for thought from reading the recent thread of comments of Google employees (about what they dislike about Google). This is not to cast a shade on Google, but more to get some insight about how the brainpower may actually be spent.

Link?

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#24

Post by exstudent2 »

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.

There's nothing "disgusting" about people exercising their free will to take a job they enjoy and/or pays the bills. Is programming to serve ads better? Is being a dishwasher or delivery person?

It's become quite popular to whine about the career choices others make ("we need to _make_ more X become programmers). I think our industry as a whole would benefit from a heaping helping of "mind your own business".

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#25

Post by dexterdog »

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.

I know. They could be using all of that intelligence to get people to click on ads instead.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#26

Post by ranman »

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.

FWIW I don't think most of it goes towards trading. They do a lot of other analysis and tool building... as well as operational stuff. I imagine there are a very large number of poorly payed staff classified as "IT"... and a very small number of highly compensated staff classified as "engineering".

I'm not privy to the internals though so I'm just guessing. Would be interested if anyone has actual data.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#27

Post by rayiner »

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.

> It's disgusting to me that that much brainpower was/is dedicated to stock trading.

s/stock trading/advertising.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#28

Post by aleeds »

witty_username wrote: post #15
zzleeper wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Less efficient for literally 50 ms. Then it all balances out.

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#29

Post by minipci1321 »

jbob2000 wrote: post #18
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.

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…

> What else would they do with this technology?

Why, the same as all other hi-tech companies -- remove the human from the chain, replace them by the computers, automate processes.

Will we still be able to speak about "greedy bankers" once it is all computers everywhere trading?

Re: The mystique of Goldman Sachs

#30

Post by justin66 »

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.

> It's disgusting to me that that much brainpower was/is dedicated to stock trading.

Is it more or less disgusting to you to spend brainpower on banner ads, or social media exchange of cat memes, or something? I'm honestly curious.

Post reply on HN