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

It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 264 posts

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#171

Post by baldeagle »

shreyanshd wrote: post #98
organsnyder wrote: post #9

I work for a large healthcare system, and the "we're not a tech company" line is often heard. At many levels, I agree—we're in the business of delivering healthy outcomes to our communities, so we need to make sure that efforts across the enterprise support that—but it is often applied in ways that stifle us from delivering what we feel would be the most impactful and cost-effective solutions. I like to respond that…

I work in technology for an investment bank and i hear “we are not a technology company” every quarter. Ironically, the tech we develop is a major factor, if not the only factor, for revenue. My motivation is instantly shattered when i hear that.

I work for a bank... and I hear that, 'we will be a tech company or not a company.' All the time...

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#172

Post by icebraining »

chillee wrote: post #93
guyzero wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOGL/financials?p=GOOGL $110B total revenue for 2017

That's all revenue, including non-advertising revenue.

True, the ad revenue was $95B.

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#173

Post by samstave »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #165
samstave wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I like to respond that Netflix isn't a tech company, either—they're in the business of delivering entertainment." knowing multiple people from netflix; this is literally a very-uninformed comment... Much of what you even KNOW about cloud-computing, spot markets, streaming, CDNs, etc was pioneered by netflix. They are secretive, but innovative as heck. So, your comment is a big NOPE.

Right, but the purpose behind all of that was delivering entertainment. Hence, entertainment company.

Fine. Ill concede that point.

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#174

Post by s73v3r_ »

cs702 wrote: post #17

If by "tech companies" the OP means established technology companies like IBM, Cisco, and Oracle, as opposed to Silicon Valley upstarts, then I agree. Otherwise, I disagree. Most banks are large, slow-moving, bureaucratic organizations saddled with decades-old technology.

Using the latest hyped thing does not make one a tech company.

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#175

Post by bboreham »

dopamean wrote: post #150
yourapostasy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If tech really is the differentiator, then hearing that means tech staff won’t get commensurately compensated for delivering that decisive factor to the revenue mix. The rules of old business still applies in most organizations: the closer you are to the transactional point where money changes hands, the more you make. This many times means sales, then management, then finance, then marketing, then engineering, then…

Yeah I get all that. I guess what I mean is that I just don't believe that the technology at an investment bank is responsible for all of the revenue at the bank. There's no way that's true. There are people who actually go out and do advisory deals and such which are actual people making things happen. Sure, they are enabled by technology, but those kinds of deals have been done for decades.

Investment banks also do huge volumes of transactional business - dealing in shares, bonds, fx and derivatives of those. And all of those need hundreds of risk reports either for management or regulators.

The deal-makers can get by with a spreadsheet and a BlackBerry, but the rest needs serious amounts of technology.

Ideally advisory business is balanced with dealing and financing, but different houses will be slanted one way or another.

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#176

Post by user5994461 »

123212321 wrote: post #31
xaybey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make significantly more at GS than I did at google. The difference is that the majority of my compensation comes from the yearly bonus - a quirk in finance.

As a regular engineer? Or is there a math heavy component? My understanding is that I could get about 200k base at goldman and maybe a 20% bonus, this is for working in a high in demand field. Google/FB/Other job I can get 300k+ while working less hours, paid for lunch, better treatment, more respect.

Google / Facebook / Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have equivalent grades and conditions. Employees regularly goes back and forth between them.

More important than the company name, you should make sure to join the right role for you in the right group.

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#178

Post by bboreham »

tryitnow wrote: post #44

This sounds like marketing baloney. I would bet most of that "engineering" headcount is actually just analytical headcount. not a bad thing, but it's not what we used to call engineering. This is part of an ongoing trend to describe everything as some form of "engineering." Honestly, if I'm going to Goldman for M&A - I want a human relationship. That relationship may be buttressed by research and analysis using "big…

Investment banking is not just advice. They also finance deals (i.e. come up with a few billion to make it happen) and execute - buy all the outstanding shares, or sell new ones in your IPO.

And since those kinds of deals don’t come along every day, they maintain the capability by executing as broker and dealer all the rest of the time.

(I know, I’m simplifying a lot. Hope it helps get the idea across)

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#179

Post by debt »

freehunter wrote: post #50
debt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say the same about largest media company in the world. It's shocking that people don't know it's Facebook. And in their case not just in the world, but the largest media company in history by a very wide margin. People don't see any connection between William Randolph Hearst and Mark Zuckerberg; Facebook really has the best PR team.

Well the difference is that Facebook is an aggregator and doesn't actually publish or write any of their own content. They're a media company, sure, but they're not directly comparable to newspapers or cable news outlets.

Facebook is an editor(like at a newspaper), except in this case editorial control is determine by billions of users and a completely opaque "News Feed" algorithm.

Remember, people don't just share articles, they share articles with their commentary.

Re: It's Getting Harder to Tell Banks from Tech Companies

#180

Post by organsnyder »

samstave wrote: post #173
s73v3r_ wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the purpose behind all of that was delivering entertainment. Hence, entertainment company.

Fine. Ill concede that point.

That was my entire point. Netflix has introduced numerous innovations—many of which they've shared publicly—all while not making a dime (to my knowledge) from selling the software itself. Contrast that with a company like Microsoft, where software (either shrink-wrap, or as-a-service) is their core product.
Post reply on HN