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

Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

adgrok.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 147 posts

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#51

Post by antongm »

etm117 wrote: post #7
d_c wrote: post #3

That's quite interesting: " At the risk of getting sued, let me throw you geeks a bone and part the Goldman veil a bit. The Goldman Sachs risk system is called SecDB (securities database), and everything at Goldman that matters is run out of it. The GUI itself looks like a settings screen from DOS 3.0, but no one cares about UI cosmetics on the Street. The language itself was called SLANG (securities language) and wa…

I think that is one of the more thorough accounts of that system I have seen published. All in one paragraph no less.

Thanks. I haven't seen many published accounts by SecDB. When I joined, there was literally zero. I now note there are some descriptions on Wilmott and the like. Seems like word is seeping out. All of my description is on the Web in bits and pieces.

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#52

Post by nightlifelover »

ams6110 wrote: post #49
nightlifelover wrote: post #43

"There were other characters in this drama. The sales guys were complete tools, with a total IQ, summing over all of them, still safely in the double digits. The traders were crafty and quick-witted, but technically unsophisticated and with the attention span of an ADHD kid hopped up on meth and Jolly Ranchers." Ok it seems perfectly possible to make a lot of money while being a complete idiot. I'm getting an MS in e…

Don't take that description too literally. I really doubt you get to be a trader at GS without having a good brain in your head. Sales is more about working and building relationships than sheer intelligence, but to do it well still requires a lot of work and talent in that direction.

Heh it was written by somebody with a PHD in Physics or so.. but my point was that a lot of highly intelligent people are loosely paid (for example think about a lot of post-doc positions in academia) while some other less educated people get a lot of money it seems..

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#53

Post by eru »

VolatileVoid wrote: post #39
jamesseda wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is GS is company that wants to "beat the market" meaning someone else in the market is loosing. And Google's goal is to make the worlds information available to everyone and show them ads. Google seems more like a everyone wins company.

Everyone wants to "beat the market." For every dollar McDonalds gets, Burger King is not. For every dollar Microsoft gets, Apple is not. There are no group hugs unless you work for a non-profit (and even then, for every dollar your non-profit gets, some other, equally deserving non-profit is not).

This sounds like a very zero-sum model. Do you know, that dollars don't get destroyed by spending them? (And that this doesn't even matter, because it's wealth creation that matters (supply) and not demand?)

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#54

Post by eru »

mcyger wrote: post #28

Just to provide a balanced viewpoint: I've worked in corporate America (Fortune 5 company), dealt with banality and bureaucracy, banged my head against the wall over and over again, left, started my own company, grew it to millions, sold it, semi-retired. I love startups and the details of this blog, however, when you want to see your kids, sleep in the same bed as your wife, and have a paycheck deposited in your ban…

Off-topic: Is it common to get paid every fortnight in America?

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#55

Post by etal »

nightlifelover wrote: post #43

"There were other characters in this drama. The sales guys were complete tools, with a total IQ, summing over all of them, still safely in the double digits. The traders were crafty and quick-witted, but technically unsophisticated and with the attention span of an ADHD kid hopped up on meth and Jolly Ranchers." Ok it seems perfectly possible to make a lot of money while being a complete idiot. I'm getting an MS in e…

Don't despair. Engineering is a nice lifestyle -- you can work at any size company, you can travel if you want, and you can switch to independent consulting or join a consultancy if you want. You can do a startup at any time, too; engineers create things people want. I don't know of any other background that will give you as much flexibility with your career.

Sudden jumps in income tend to stress people out; the key to happiness is a gradual lifelong rise in income, so you're always comfortable. Engineering will accomplish that for you. Personally, I felt like I'd solved the "money problem" with my first two engineering jobs -- there was nothing I wanted that I couldn't easily afford, and I liked the ratio of business trips to staying at home.

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#56

Post by rdouble »

eru wrote: post #54
mcyger wrote: post #28

Just to provide a balanced viewpoint: I've worked in corporate America (Fortune 5 company), dealt with banality and bureaucracy, banged my head against the wall over and over again, left, started my own company, grew it to millions, sold it, semi-retired. I love startups and the details of this blog, however, when you want to see your kids, sleep in the same bed as your wife, and have a paycheck deposited in your ban…

Off-topic: Is it common to get paid every fortnight in America?

Yes.

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#57

Post by antongm »

mdda wrote: post #18
brown9-2 wrote: post #11

I'm curious about the author's opinion of Liar's Poker, especially the line I got on a plane to New York within the week. I packed my copy of Liar’s Poker for reference. I'm surprised that anyone would read Liar's Poker and think of it as a reference to Wall Street on an inspiration to work there. The "gorilla" culture described by Michael Lewis at Salomon Brothers in the 80s sounds very close to what the author expe…

Everyone on Wall St (approximately) has read Liars Poker - and, while there's some artistic license being take, the observations are basically dead-on. And people are proud that they work in an industry that has such a compelling book. And they see the characters (or their company's versions) every day. To pick other examples : 'Wall Street' is a must-see movie for everyone on the Street (though it's completely overb…

Mdda is right. What was perhaps intended as a cautionary tale instead became a recruiting anthem. After reading Liar's Poker, I wanted to be right there with the Human Piranha hearing him say 'the fing frogs are going to fing get f*cked!' The swaggering cowboy-ness of the whole thing was so tempting, as was the untrammeled greed. Who wouldn't want to be a Big Swinging Dick?

It seemed like such a different, more exciting world than the petty, effete, and monastic world of academia.

Incidentally, Lewis' column on Bloomberg is the best read on the terminal, in my opinion. His writing is among the best reading anywhere, in my opinion. My piece is obviously a riff on Liar's Poker. I'm only poking along on his well-trodden ground.

Now...you know what would be a unique? A Liar's Poker for startups. That hasn't really been written yet (that I know of). Hmm...there's an idea...;)

Actually, on second thought, Kaplan's 'Startup' might be that. I re-read it again recently, and it's starting to sound a bit dated though.

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#58

Post by jone11 »

I love this article and after working nearly five years in big brand advertising, I have to agree that the startup way is the better way. Ad agencies may not be identical to Goldman, they have their own fallacies mind you, but the big lumbering giant feeding money does sound quite familiar.

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#59

Post by ams6110 »

nightlifelover wrote: post #52
ams6110 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't take that description too literally. I really doubt you get to be a trader at GS without having a good brain in your head. Sales is more about working and building relationships than sheer intelligence, but to do it well still requires a lot of work and talent in that direction.

Heh it was written by somebody with a PHD in Physics or so.. but my point was that a lot of highly intelligent people are loosely paid (for example think about a lot of post-doc positions in academia) while some other less educated people get a lot of money it seems..

Oh absolutely. My father had a PhD in chemistry, was very intelligent, but never made more than a modest middle-class income. He worked in academia. If a high income means a lot to you, academia is a hard place to find it unless you are one of the few superstars that bring in a lot of grant money. At if you are, you are mostly a salesman anyway.

Re: Founding a startup with zero revenue is better than working for Goldman Sachs

#60

Post by cynicalkane »

eru wrote: post #53
VolatileVoid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone wants to "beat the market." For every dollar McDonalds gets, Burger King is not. For every dollar Microsoft gets, Apple is not. There are no group hugs unless you work for a non-profit (and even then, for every dollar your non-profit gets, some other, equally deserving non-profit is not).

This sounds like a very zero-sum model. Do you know, that dollars don't get destroyed by spending them? (And that this doesn't even matter, because it's wealth creation that matters (supply) and not demand?)

I think the point of his comment is to see that viewing trade as zero-sum leads to absurdity.
Post reply on HN