Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

Interest is the key word there.

So he thinks Goldman was honorable back when he was young and had no idea what was going on. Bullshit. I happen to know of some shady Goldman credit swaps from the 90s that my municipality has been trying to get out of. I'm sure there is plenty of other garbage that went on back then too. You don't hire a bunch of mostly young male type-A personalities and wave million dollar bonuses in their faces and not expect questionable deals.

I was an esoteric derivatives trader at an investment bank making money off clueless clients. We actualy prided ourselves, as a prop desk, on not being client facing. I went in expecting to parse global markets for inefficiency while pioneering the frontiers of 21st century finance. As time went on I found that the firm was content with mediocrity (as it could survive by simply existing in its role) and had no time for risky business like thinking.

You delude yourself into thinking you're inherently superior, a "Master of the Universe", even as you have never been able to explain to your mother what you do. Sooner or later you realise your colleagues are smart but terrifically insecure human beings, valuing their roles for who association with the firm's name makes them rather than what they actually do. Thus hierarchy is strictly enforced and innovation rages furiously in quaint, safe areas, e.g. introducing "new" leveraged/inverse hedged swaps, while ignoring fundamental assumptions, e.g. the trading floor should be siloed by product.

The bureaucracy and technical debt, combined with constant turnover in the under-paid operations and IT staff, mean that gaining understanding of the firm's as a whole as of no less than a quarter ago is a Herculean undertaking. And it's worse when you talk about the sales traders - none of them understand their product (they don't need to - the client's the one taking the risk), it's a miracle if they know a few shortcuts in Excel, and every one of them has an opinion on how xyz company (or country) should re-structure without having read a single term sheet or prospectus.

Luckily, there are start-ups that are raging equally furiously but with un-paralleled agility towards the financial sector. Alas, we'll have to find a new slot-in role a la consulting, investment banking, and sales & trading for insecure college graduates without hard skill sets to plump.

Note on recruiting

I've seen some comments tacitly saying Messr Smith should have known what he was getting into when he signed up for the job.

I was recruited by a very charismatic and values-driven MD when I was 19. Our desk merged with the rest of the firm's shitty culture when he was fired for being too ambitious. I didn't join for the six-figure salary - I turned down other offers that paid more at the time. There are lots of other people I know, brighter than I am, who were similarly drawn to the thought of a dynamic work-day filled with brilliant, ambitious people all working to solve difficult problems (that could be a tech company's recruiting ad...). Maybe I should have been more clairvoyant, but in the end what drives people to finance and what drives people to tech isn't all that dissimilar - the unique cultures change like to unlike from there.

It's probably all true, but the piece reads like an extended resume. If only I could get NY Times to let me rant about how ethical I am and what trillion-dollar clients I advised.

Currently work at Google, obviously speaking for myself and not my employer.

In my experience - yes, this moral decay is a necessary part of the current corporate world. Or any corporate world. Or really, any world without the possibility of failure baked into it.

I've seen a lot of idiotic decisions made at Google, many of which have been complained about on Hacker News, many more of which are hidden causes of things that are complained about on Hacker News. In every case, when I looked at the chain of decisions that led to things being the way they are, every single decision was rational, given the information that all participants had at the time. There's no vast conspiracy dedicated to turning Google evil, no influx of incompetent new PMs & designers. Some of the most questionable decisions have come straight from old timers like Marissa, or even from Larry Page.

Instead, it's an information problem. Running any enterprise the size of Google or Goldman Sachs requires trading off many competing factors. To make the tradeoff, someone has to keep all that information in their head at once. There's no other way to balance competing demands; if you keep only part of the information in your head, your decision will be biased towards the part that you've loaded into your brain. If you try to spread decision making across multiple people, the decisions will be biased towards the part that the person who screams the loudest can hold in his head (which is usually a smaller subset than optimal; it takes mental effort to scream loudly).

I often see mystified posters on HN wondering why Google did something or other, and a good amount of the time, I know (but can't say) exactly why we did it. The userbase does not have all the information. Unfortunately, they don't care that they don't have all the information; they want Google to work as expected, and the fact that there may be internal systems that don't quite behave according to their mental model is irrelevant. And so the fact that decision makers make decisions based on information that users can't have becomes a liability in this case, biasing them away from what's "good" for the user.

I remember Paul Buchheit writing here, several years ago, "A system's participants don't have to be rational for the system itself to be rational", referring to market economies. I'd posit that the inverse also holds: a system with completely rational participants can still be irrational, if information flow between participants is not organized in a rational way.