Live data from Hacker News

My Time at Lehman

nickchirls.com

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: My Time at Lehman

#191
post #8

I worked at Lehman from 2004-2008 in investment banking and on the bond trading floor and I think I have a little more balanced view. Yes, there are people on wall street that hate their jobs. Yes, there are people obsessed with money. That's easy to point out. But there are also some people that are there because they like working with their friends and making big bets, and getting proven wrong or right. It's actual…

But did you, unlike the author, understand how your firm was making money? And were you okay with that?

Re: My Time at Lehman

#192
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could swear I'd read somewhere a couple years ago that a lot of the TARP money - especially from smaller banks - was repaid by them refinancing into SBA loans. So, yes, technically TARP funds were repaid, but often by borrowing from some other govt program at a lower rate. I might refinance my house to a lower rate, but I would be lying if I said I "paid off" my house. I paid back one lender by borrowing from anoth…

That's obnoxious, but it is less than 1% of TARP funds, right?

That 4 billion was just for one year, AFAIK. I don't think this particular sleight of hand was used on a large portion of TARP money, but I also have a hunch there were other ways that TARP money was 'paid back' while still leaving tax payers holding some of the bag still.

Re: My Time at Lehman

#193
post #90

I cringed when I read this headline on HN because I too worked for Lehman between 2006 and 2008. I felt the same way Nick did even around the same time (wanting to go back to making "real things"). However, lately I feel like I have come back somewhat full-circle. Many of the issues he complains about is rampant in almost of every industry. For example, Groupon was basically taking advantage of unsophisticated small…

I actually agree about the group-on example, but i strongly disagree with your broader point. First of all, getting someone to click on an ad or pay for a video game is not even in the same dimension as destroying the pensions of millions of hard working people or crashing the economy only to get bailed out by taxpayers, and so on. Second of all, SV and developers in general actually produce something of value, as op…

It is true that the stakes are higher when you are dealing with money management, so people who call for more regulation and scrutiny of WS do make a lot of sense. But, I still stand by my opinion that the practice is pretty prevalent in all industries and merely a symptom of a competitive capitalist society. At some level, your product or service is not 100% in the best interest of your customer, whether it is about the best fit for the customer, price or a potential alternative. I am not making a moral judgment call on it, it just what I have noticed.

I totally disagree with your second point, however. Banks are providing many services that are valuable to their clients. For example, they help companies and institutions raise cheap funding (usually tailored to the wants of the company and the investors), allow liquidity for investors to offload unwanted investments, provide advice on takeover, acquisition and restructurings, help with the price discovery process, invest directly in companies through VC and PE firms etc. If they provide nothing of value, why does the economy suffer so much when the banks are unhealthy?

The "gambling" aspect is really a byproduct of the fact that no one can predict the future in markets - just like a project manager usually needs to guess on which project to invest the company's resources in. Business is always about intelligent gambling and hustling no matter where you are. I feel like many engineers don't understand this because they often believe that success is only directly dependent on "building something of value" whereas in reality it is often due to good marketing and a fair amount of luck.

I agree with your third point (and is why I am a software guy) although I was making point about WS providing a valuable service too and not doing comparisons between raw innovation in the industries. Although to be fair the financial space is much more limited and regulated than the software and hardware space is, so it is not surprising that SV is more innovative. Moreover, WS has a been a big player in terms pushing the envelope of high performance and concurrent systems, artificial intelligence/pattern matching/forecasting algorithms and other cool technology; whereas, many SV "innovations" recently have been yet another photo sharing app and look at this old program that has been ported to the browser. That being said, the open-source developer community is definitely something that is amazing and unique to SV.

Re: My Time at Lehman

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always curious when I hear things like "Lehman for 4+ years" because, based on the numbers thrown around on HN and blogs like this, it seems likely you could have a net worth over a million dollars. While not the "F You" money many here dream of, it still seems like a few years on wall street would give you a nest egg that would make it easy to live comfortably on any other salary (whether that's tech or teaching…

You're probably not saving a million in four years. First year analyst is like $120k or $130k all in. First year associate (fourth year in, -ish) is like $250-300k?

Something like that. Plus there are partial years involved - new classes arrive halfway through the year, so you only get 1/2 the bonus that year.

Also, only a very small percentage of people last that long. Figure maybe 20-25% of first year analysts survive three years to become associates, and maybe 20-25% of new post-MBA associates survive three years to become VPs. (Some leave for better jobs, of course.)

I used to keep a spreadsheet listing every member of my associate class, and the date they quit. I handed it off when I left; I'd guess that 9 years later no more than 5 out of something like 80 are left at the same bank, but they're probably Managing Directors.

Re: My Time at Lehman

#195
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that you need to regulate compensation. You just need to not bail them out when they blow up, and it will self-correct. And you shouldn't let them gamble with federally insured (FDIC) money - either be a investment bank or a commercial bank, but not both, so that regular consumers don't get caught in the middle.

But isn’t this scenario impractical for reasons shown by the current problems in Europe? On Cyprus, the banks were considered “too big to fail”, meaning that they would take the whole economy with them if they went down.

Cyprus is not a good case study - the banks there actually are the whole economy, to some degree. Aside from tourism, they were supporting themselves by banking a lot the money coming of Russia, etc. The assets of Cypriot banks were ~9X their GDP, and the size of the estimated bailout was about 1X GDP.

If you don't let big banks fail, then nobody ever has to worry about counterparty risk, and they won't keep an eye on each other to see if one bank is taking too much risk or backing too many bets.

Re: My Time at Lehman

#196
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should retirement accounts get invested in anything but government bonds and index funds? Here (somewhere near the end) Mr. Blank says that this is what got the silicon valley rolling. When pension funds were allowed to invest, control of the valley switched from the military to the VC funds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo Probably another reason is that bonds and index funds do not yield enough to ke…

And the Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) has lowered yields on fixed income to next to nothing. No longer are there less-risky investments that yield anything near the rate of inflation.

They just can't pay anything on government bonds, given the deficit that has been accumulated so far.

Re: My Time at Lehman

#197
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should retirement accounts get invested in anything but government bonds and index funds? Step 1: Pension return rates get "set" during boom time highs. Step 2: Boom times end, the pension fund is grossly under funded, and the manager needs to find ways to get excess return beyond what the typical fixed income and equity products can offer. Step 3: Pension Managers reach for "alternative investments", hoping for…

Step 4: shut down (by force of law) all pensions that claim to offer returns in excess of the Treasury bill rate. Employees shouldn't be forced to but their compensation in a lottery managed by someone else with fraudulent promises of returns.

I think index funds are reasonably safe enough. "I bet that the whole market will make money over 40 years" tends to work out decently.

Re: My Time at Lehman

#198
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) has lowered yields on fixed income to next to nothing. No longer are there less-risky investments that yield anything near the rate of inflation.

They just can't pay anything on government bonds, given the deficit that has been accumulated so far.

That's what they say here http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-federal-bank-near-zero-143...
Post reply on HN