75 karma · joined May 1, 2020
Is there any effort at follow-up training? Seems like this interview strategy HAS to be paired with a long-term training strategy for taking less-qualified hires and turning them into very productive employees.
If not, do you end up hiring more people in total? Do these lackluster employees just eat up time and budget, or do they also actively occupy a desk that you need to reclaim to hire more talented replacements?
I'm a white guy. I've sat through many a DEI session. I've never, ever felt this. How could I? 85% of the people in the room are white or Asian men.
I'm not trying to sound disingenuous here, but I really want to know, how does "virulently anti-" empirically manifest itself in the communities you speak of? Hiring? Pay? Promotion decisions? Possibly freedom of speech? Even then it seems like I'm free to say whatever I want as long as I stay on topic.
The DEI sessions I've sat through have focused heavily on the I--inclusion. Sure, they were corny, and there was plenty of virtue-signalling. But making a conscious effort to make sure everyone at the company feels socially welcome and fairly treated is a worthwhile effort.
If the bar is sufficiently high, the median applicant, over- or under-represented, won't get the job anyway. I've heard from people who work at companies (specifically big tech) that have diversity interview quotas (but not hiring quotas). In practice, you just end up interviewing more people: the candidates you would have interviewed anyway, plus some diverse candidates with closer-to-the-median resumes. And then you end up hiring the people you would have anyway, because interviews are much harder to pass than resume screens. It's a fairly pointless exercise that mostly disadvantages the interviewers, who have to spend more time interviewing, and the "lucky" candidates, who almost never outperform expectations in the interview.
Front-running is super illegal. You're referring to payment for order flow (PFOF), in which a sell-side party like Citadel pays Robinhood for the right to route your order to the exchange. But there's a catch: Citadel is allowed to take the other side of your trade without routing it to an exchange, but it legally has to match the exchange price or cut you a discount. If Citadel can't do either, your order MUST be routed to an exchange.
PFOF makes up a somewhat negligible source of revenue for no-fee/discount brokerages. The bulk of revenue comes from a much more mundane source: interest rate spreads. Earn X% interest on customer cash deposits while providing customers less than X% interest on their deposits.
If your order isn't making its way to an exchange, PFOF isn't your problem, and you shouldn't be day trading. Your real problem is that the professionals think you over-bid/under-asked to such an extent that they're willing to cut you a deal just to take the other side of your trade. Unless you're a professional options trader, betting against professional market makers will cost you a lot more money than the imaginary transaction costs would have.
(This is just a summary of an old HN favorite: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2019/6/26/how-brokerages-make-mone...)