Live data from Hacker News

Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

news.ycombinator.com

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#91
post #21

Can we explain this by saying many hedge funds are negatively correlated, along with survivor bias? This is a huge simplification, but consider for every four hedge fund managers, one goes long the market, another short the market, another long volatility and another short volatility. No matter what it's very likely one or two out of those four perform very well over one year. Start with enough hedge funds and throw…

Startups are usually short "establishment beta," i.e. if there is a profitable cash-cow company serving a particular set of customers, the typical startup wants those customers to be paying less money--to somebody else. Human needs are limited, and meeting almost all of them can be facilitated through a financial transaction.

The "beta" of finding funding or an acquirer is a funny kind of beta--it's highly unlikely that a great company will not get their first $1mm in funding because the VC world has just been deprived of $1b in assets allocated.

The cheapest way to short a startup is to bet on whatever establishment they're taking on. You could have shorted MSFT before they were public by buying IBM; if Big Iron kept on winning, you'd keep on getting your dividend checks. But startups are more akin to, e.g., long-shot CDS trades: the people betting against them get a predictable, incremental profit, or a massive, sudden loss.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#92
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make around S$200k/yr within 4 years if you're in banking IT in Singapore. This is not even counting the bonuses they usually get. OTOH if you work work for a startup here, you get around S$80-90k/yr max. And if you're a non-IT person at a bank, the figures are just astronomical. Almost half of the people I met in university are now working for banks, and you'll find them either preparing for CFA exams over the w…

S $200k/yr == USD 144k/yr.

By the way: tax rates are way lower in Singapore.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#93
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have far fewer moral qualms about crack dealing than investment banking.

I know you're joking, but I don't see the moral concern about investment banking. You may not be making the world a better place (although that is very debatable), but you're not making it worse, either.

Agreed. At worst it seems to be another form of parasitism. But the parasitic drain per host is fairly small. Taxes are arguably a larger drain.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#94

I made that original comment. Thanks for doing the analysis I was too lazy to do! Your analysis jives with the broader point I was trying to make - in the past 15 years, finance has been the surest path to riches in America. It is not just at the level of the Forbes 400. During the real estate bubble, newly minted mortgage brokers (often coming from other fields such as car sales, they found selling debt far more luc…

The thing is, once you have $15M I'm sure that financial manipulations are enormously popular.

I don't think about getting into fortune 400. I think about going from 5 figures in the bank to 8, for which I feel entrepreneurship is the best choice.

of course I've been an obsessive programmer since I was 13 (16 years now, eek) so it is a more natural path

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#95
post #57

It may be stating the obvious, but if you are founding a (tech) startup for the money, you are doing it for the wrong reason.

While this is true to a certain extent, one must consider the opportunity cost of a startup. In this case: how much I am giving up, assuming I could have gone and worked in finance?

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#96

I used to work for CSFB (now Credit Suisse) in London's Canary Wharf. It's the most I've earned in my entire career. Unless you've worked for an investment bank you have no idea how much money they have. It's like a giant gulf-of-mexico-style money gusher that doesn't quit. How do they make it? CSFB flies on the bleeding edge of what's legal and always have. I was there when Frank Quattrone was involved in the IPO of…

It's worth pointing out that this is really only a viable career option if you are a straight, white, anglo-saxon male ready to work long hours, drink hard, and put up with a machismo-dominated culture. The financial sector and investment banking in particular, even in their tech departments, have the kind of corporate culture that sends me running.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#97
post #46

I used to work for CSFB (now Credit Suisse) in London's Canary Wharf. It's the most I've earned in my entire career. Unless you've worked for an investment bank you have no idea how much money they have. It's like a giant gulf-of-mexico-style money gusher that doesn't quit. How do they make it? CSFB flies on the bleeding edge of what's legal and always have. I was there when Frank Quattrone was involved in the IPO of…

I've contracted exclusively for investment banks in London for the past 6 years (with the exception of a brief stint at the FSA). The reason I stick with it is the exact reason you specify: the money, or more accurately for me, what the money allows me to do. The majority of the developers I work with have painted themselves into a corner with the money they've made working at banks such that they have no other optio…

So you could work for an investment bank, make a lot of money, use as little of it as possible and save the rest, then after a few years, quit and use the savings to fund a start-up? Sounds like a plan to me...

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#98
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have far fewer moral qualms about crack dealing than investment banking.

I know you're joking, but I don't see the moral concern about investment banking. You may not be making the world a better place (although that is very debatable), but you're not making it worse, either.

Are you kidding? It's been what, 2 years since the market crash they caused?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/27/business/la-fi-goldm...

Investment bankers created and sold the toxic assets (which they knew to be toxic) that caused the financial meltdown.

The top commenter explained a few more terribly evil things they do as well. For more examples, read any book ever written about Wall Street.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#99
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're joking, but I don't see the moral concern about investment banking. You may not be making the world a better place (although that is very debatable), but you're not making it worse, either.

Agreed. At worst it seems to be another form of parasitism. But the parasitic drain per host is fairly small. Taxes are arguably a larger drain.

I don't think that's true anymore. The amount of money controlled by the gamblers, and the amount of leverage they use, has gotten to the point where it threatens the fundamentals of our economy. It melted it 2 years ago and nothing substantial has changed since.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#100
post #59
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting salary for typical IT roles (dev, etc) are about £35-45k p.a. in London depending on how well you negotiate. That's straight out of uni. It goes up rapidly as you go up the ladder. Within a couple of years, if you do well, you should be up to £65k or so, and probably start getting a bonus on top of it too (probably about £10-20k or so in IT). It's not that unusual for the salary to go up by about £10k per ye…

Given that, why would you even enter the IT side?

because you have the skills necessary?
Post reply on HN