They used to be a once a decade "save the company during a recession" move. Now they seem to be a quarterly "manage earnings per share" move.
I remember many years ago telling a senior executive that I had concerns that some of the steps we were taking to boost current quarter financials would negatively impact business performance in the long term. He just chuckled and said, "there's no such thing as the long term, only a never ending series of current quarters".
Maybe by "HFT" you only mean "those evil hedge funds that are pushing companies to chase next quarters' earnings", but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with high frequency trading. Market making[1] is high frequency trading, and basically involves offering to both buy and sell and given stock, and pocketing the spread. That increases liquidity, making it easier for other traders to buy/sell stock without taking a huge loss. It's unclear why you'd want to ban this, or how you'd distinguish this from whatever evil HFT you actually want to ban.
Liquidity is "real world value". Being able to buy/sell a stock instantly without a massive premium/discount makes stock ownership for the average person possible. Contrast this to an liquid market, like buying houses, where you need to spend months house hunting, and pay a 6% commission on top.
Conclusions and policy implications
To return to our initial question: does stock market liquidity deteriorate when HFTs compete? The results suggest that competition among HFTs increases speculative high-frequency trades, which could lead to a deterioration in market liquidity.
Honest question, why do so many companies strive to go public?
High-frequency traders (HFTs) are market participants that are characterised by the high speed with which they react to incoming news, the low inventory on their books, and the large number of trades they execute. All this is possible for HFTs because they use automated, algorithmic trading, which enables them to analyse markets and execute trades in under a millisecond. The high-frequency trading industry grew rapidly after it took off in the mid-2000s. Today, high-frequency trading represents about 50% of trading volume in US equity markets. In European equity markets, its share is estimated to be between 24% and 43% of trading volume, and about 58% to 76% of orders.
I don’t disagree with what you said though, simply sharing thoughts - I think it leads to markets being more sensitive to macro strategies rather than actual fundamentals
Such investments are typically market cap weighted, which means their effect on stock prices are neutral. Moreover there's still room for hedge funds (and other sophisticated) investors to engage in price discovery.
Wouldn't that be insider trading? You can't short your own company before announcing bad things to make money from it.
It’s not the devs who are bloating development costs. It’s the layers of management making hour long meetings to discuss button placement.
It’s the hours of retros, design meetings, and skip-levels designed to remove any personal investment or sense of ownership from everything.
Since so few individuals are trusted with real decision making power, you need a lot more people to achieve some kind of consensus/buy-in so that you can ship anything.
The devs are at the extreme bottom of this totem poll.
It’s like blaming construction workers for houses being expensive.
And, ofc, that goes without mentioning the multimillion yearly bonuses for C-suite, but we can just forget about that and blame the lowest ranking corporate employees (devs)
Source: I worked at a large tech firm for many years and saw this over and over again.
I've worked at shops with agile coaches, consultants, product teams, multiple management layers, etc all attending agile planning/retro/blab sessions. They always had really strong opinions on the minutae of each footstep (tickets/sprint), but couldn't speak to where the path was to take us. Essentially zero quarterly let alone annual planning.
A lot of management these days is the equivalent of driving and saying "I'll decide where I'm going when I get to the next stop light", repeated every 2 weeks.
Surprisingly, this type of iteration can actually work; but the caveat is that the people behind the wheel, and reading the maps, need to be very good, and also, experienced enough to make sound decisions. If mediocre (or inexperienced) people try it, it’s a disaster.
From what I can see, the entire tech industry has been institutionalizing mediocrity, so this type of approach is not really available.
If your leadership is good and competent, they can drive the company any way they feel and have it work.
The most productive I’ve been in my career was when my PO put all tasks that needed to be done in a Google sheet and the whole dev team spent a week just picking tasks off the list. It ended with us shipping our app on time.
No planning, no grooming, no nothing. It was a high trust, high ownership team.
I miss those days.
Sort of worst of both worlds. Everyone develops learned helplessness, checks out or leaves.
If you’re copying this approach from someone who copied it, after hiring an agile coach and reading the phoenix project, you are likely definitionally mediocre.
Also it’s not a one size fits all solution even for the competent. Requires a more direct interface and two way dialogue with users than most devs actually face.
Lots of that, going 'round, these days. Companies are firing (or driving off) all the people that can do it right.
Blaming developers in such scenarios is silly.
They've just removed a huge amount of manager discretion and initiative through multiple top-down dictates that are pretty much killing any low level desire to really innovate and try risky initiatives.
IBM, but with same level product market fit as IBM had for its mainframes, but in this case for markets 100x more important for the global economy.
It's just sad.
Ofc decisions can have consequences, but that’s what the high pay should be for.
It’s not a black and white issue and I don’t think you need to present it like one.
I don't want to present the problem as black and white but merely express a simple idea : developers DO want to be managed to simplify their lives and focus their time on more important things for them
Yea, duh.
The more your decisions affect the company, the more you’re compensated.
It’s why C-suite commands the biggest salaries.
It’s another reason why orgs are so low trust.
People are not equations.
Let’s define risk in this discussion.
Risk is the relative impact your decisions have on the org at large. If you make the wrong choice as the CEO, you can tank the company.
If someone’s job involves risk, and you pay them peanuts, they’ll either go to a job that doesn’t involve that much risk or make decisions that are always maximally safe, regardless of potential upside, usually at the cost of company growth.
You want your staff to feel comfortable taking risks so that the company can grow, because a stagnant company will die. So you pay your positions more when they have more risk.
It’s like you stopped reading the comment halfway through.
You also have to consider that developers are not sales people. They are a cost center.
… devs don’t hire the teams… management does…
Most devs I worked with prefer smaller teams.
Us former chumby developers were working primarily on the front-end across a variety of embedded-system-like devices (writing code for early versions of 'Smart' TVs from the likes of Vizio, etc) while another team was creating the backend and whenever they would show us the infrastructure diagrams of what they were working on they would just place a "HADOOP Server" wherever they had no idea how they were going to solve some large difficult problem, it was effectively a stand-in for "magic happens here".
Got to the point where there were a hilarious number of layers upon layers of little cylinder icons in the system design titled "HADOOP Server" all interlinked in non-decipherable directed graphs.
I'm pretty sure every single one of us left the new company within 6 months, I lasted about a month and a half.
Layoffs today seem more like execs following management fads for easy visible actions and this data would suggest that the actions are actually detrimental to company profits. Juice the numbers for a quarter but add another long term drag to the company
Sudden drastic moves if the business is delivering profits seems like the out-of-control action to take. If the business salary structure is off, or if you need to a different skill mix there are ways to shift that in a profitable business without sudden layoffs damaging the very organization that delivers your current profits.
Don't blame managers, they just follow money, why else would they work those crappy jobs. Blame idiots who think short term bonuses should be massive instead of some long term performance and investment of oneself in company's success.
There's many many companies and leadership who want their big empires of people. I'm not too sure they want to fire 80% or be more efficient.
Edit: removed supposition
People were aghast at the brutality of the layoffs, and ideological direction. However, my impression was that there was in fact a tremendous amount of bloat.
From a tech perspective, the company was indeed massively bloated with tons of people clearly not contributing anything.
And what's that about Grok AI being better than the competition? I think I misheard.
They mostly haven't added new features either, just turned on some flags for features in testing.