Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fede_V | Hacker News Reader

Even with the high pay and the intellectually challenging work, I've never found finance the slightest bit appealing.

Somehow, in finance, the impression I always got was that the engineers/algorithm guys were always second fiddle to the traders, and the traders were an incredibly aggressive group of people with a mean competitive streak (part of it I'm sure was the subset of people I met).

It's hard to explain, but I very much enjoy being a nerd among nerds. Being a nerd among finance people always made me feel highly alienated.

View on HN

On top of what Michael O'Church is saying, which I agree with entirely, there's a huge different in the types of traders and types of trading firms there are.

At small, purely algo shops (ala Jane Street), the traders are your nerds. They're programmers, engineers, mathmeticians, physicists, but they just happen to trade.

The incredibly aggressive people that you're talking about is mostly floor traders, brokers, etc, because they need to be that way, and they're generally on their way out, as algos will be smarter and faster.

I've worked in a variety of industries (in software development), and am currently at an HFT shop, and I've found this to be the first place I feel actually values my abilities.

Would you say that, as a HFT shop, you are only competing with other HFT shops? I've heard that HFTs use nearly identical algorithms, so now its basically a competition for real estate near the exchanges.

HFT shops compete for real estate and hiring (especially this and fiercely - non-complete clauses and lawsuits are standard) with each other but in terms of their trading competition it varies widely based on what algos they use.

An algo is basically just a trading strategy (sure, there's a basic set of these) but speed of data collection/processing and execution gives you more options. You can design an algo to hunt other HFTs or not. You can also trade against HFTs if you're not.

Real estate near exchanges has essentially been standardized and is no longer a significant strategic advantage.

> The incredibly aggressive people that you're talking about is mostly floor traders, brokers, etc, because they need to be that way, and they're generally on their way out, as algos will be smarter and faster.

This is definitely true but they're not always aggressive. Generally quants are the nicest people I've had to work with in the industry. I've had a floor trader kick me hard under his desk because I wasn't replacing his Bloomberg keyboard fast enough (<2 minutes). That's said, I've have a quant or two be a passive-aggressive dickwad too...but in general, way nicer than floor traders.

Basically, if you work for a desk, you will be ok - you are working on interesting short term and long term deliverables that have very visible effect on PnL, and your bonus will come from the desk pot. Now, if you work for IT, then you are way down in the pecking order. You work for a cost centre. With brain dead management that will introduce paperwork process and shit to make life he'll. Deliveries to the business will be slow and painful. They will hate you. You will get tiny bonuses. If you work at JP or Boa or GS you will most likely work on their proprietary platform like Athena, Quartz or SecDB. They suck and blow at the same time. Offshore colleagues will deliver the worst code that fails all testing and you will be stuck fixing (rewriting) you colleagues work. Salaries will sound good, until you consider the long hours and do the math and realise your hourly rate is approaching that of working in Pizza Express.

"the impression I always got was that the engineers/algorithm guys were always second fiddle to the traders"

This is mostly a stereotype of working at a large iBank. Proprietary trading shops and hedge funds have very rarely worked that way, especially after the rise of electronic trading. In fact, most often now, if someone is coming from one of those environments with the title "trader" they were most likely a clerk that was doing a lower paying job that just wasn't worth automating.

My time in finance generally and algo trading specifically was much more "nerd amongst nerds" than any other development job I've ever had.

There's a spectrum of personality types among traders. Those working with the more esoteric products that require heavier mathematical analysis are nerdier. Though of course it's all relative. Almost everyone you'll meet at a big bank is there because they got stellar grades at an Ivy-league or near-Ivy school...

Almost everyone you'll meet at a big bank is there because they got stellar grades at an Ivy-league or near-Ivy school...

Good at coloring within the lines, and grabbing the brass ring, we might say. Nerds they generally are not.

You don't get into an Ivy and get stellar grades without being a nerd. Not tech nerds, but still nerds.

I guess it depends on how you define nerd. I would describe a large percentage of students at top schools to be incredibly goal oriented, but not really nerdy. They'll outwork everyone to score their desired internship or spot in medical school, but learning a new programming language for the fun of it? Not likely to happen.

That's true, but the VC-funded world is no different. There, engineers are third-class citizens, as shown in their equity slices. (Founders and executives are second-class; investors are first-class.)

If you're comparing working at a hedge fund to working in Google's R&D division, then you're right that the hedge-fund engineers are worse off in terms of status and, quite probably, job satisfaction. If you're comparing the hedge fund to 99% of software jobs, the former wins. Hedge funds are selective enough that they don't need "story points" and "backlog retrospective meetings" and all that "Agile" micromanagement that exists when you're not selective and the managers have no faith in the ability of the engineers to direct their own work.

Some traders are assholes; most are pretty nice people. It's no different from the spectrum you'd see among product managers, tech executives, or VCs. Some are dicks, some are nice, some are idiots and some are competent. It depends on which firm you pick.

Founders are not second class. They generally hold way more of the company than their investors unless the company has had a down round, raised a series B/C, or went public - and in either case the founders have a disproportionate amount of control and ownership compared to the opportunity cost.

Does that still mean rest of the folks (after founders and investors) are third class?

They're second-class, except for celebrity founders who call themselves "serial entrepreneurs" and can regard fundraising as an afterthought.

Having 60% of one startup, and having to do all the work, is inferior to having 20% of ten startups, and having power but no responsibility to any single one of them. Founders have more power within their specific companies (if things are going well) but investors have the power that matters, because they're diversified and involved in a large number of things.

A partner at a VC will generally only vouch for one or two startups a year. They are responsible for allocating capital, not directing employees. Furthermore, the partner at a VC will generally not have anywhere close to 20% of ten startups (usually it's 15% to the fund). They have a draw off of the fund (which they have to raise) and they have a certain amount profit if the fund is successful.

I do agree with you that engineers (especially the first 4 hires) generally get the worst deal of all.

nah, not really true for my experiences. For general IT geeky introvertish people, traders are exactly on opposite side of personality spectrum. 99% jobs are worse than hedge fund jobs? again, simply not true

Reply on news.ycombinator.com