Michael Lewis Article on Goldman and Serge Aleynikov

[sle]

Quote from CalVolibrator:
By the way, hardly anyone who specializes in equities or equity derivatives would ever touch fx, commodities or OISs, for example and vice versa. What I mentioned about Citi is a very rare exception. Only shows it is you guys who do not have the slightest inkling. This site is so full of dropouts, wannabees, and bullshitters, I would not use it for anything but a good laugh and the occasional rant.

I obviously don't have a clue, as you said. However, in my experience most senior people at sell-side shops would have a broad understanding of the business. It is especially true about the quantitative types. It might not be a detailed knowledge but they know enough to keep up a conversation and understand the key issues.

Take me, a senior equity vol trader, as an example. I have never traded CDOs, but I can have a meaninful conversation about the risks in these products. I can have a reasonable conversation about the recent spark spread action and the merits of paying the belly vs the front. It should come naturally - you are swiming with these people, read research, hear of the good and (especially) the bad trades and learn that stuff if by osmosis alone.

PS. As for drop-outs, aren't you a prime example? So far I see a guy who failed at a few places (oh my God, some of 'em were Tier 1, all hail the great Citi Bank), got fired and could not get back in.

 

[CalVolibrator]

My friend, you know nothing about me and it will stay that way, I could not care less what you think of me. However, so far, you were dead wrong about all your hunches.

Your logic flow sounds like the one of a day trader at some Mid-West prop shop who traded couple stock options in stained t-shirts and flip flops, which most likely perfectly sums up your trading career in options. If you ever get your passport and make it to Hong Kong or Tokyo let me know and we can iron out the waves over a beer.

Quote from sle:

I obviously don't have a clue, as you said. However, in my experience most senior people at sell-side shops would have a broad understanding of the business. It is especially true about the quantitative types. It might not be a detailed knowledge but they know enough to keep up a conversation and understand the key issues.

Take me, a senior equity vol trader, as an example. I have never traded CDOs, but I can have a meaninful conversation about the risks in these products. I can have a reasonable conversation about the recent spark spread action and the merits of paying the belly vs the front. It should come naturally - you are swiming with these people, read research, hear of the good and (especially) the bad trades and learn that stuff if by osmosis alone.

PS. As for drop-outs, aren't you a prime example? So far I see a guy who failed at a few places (oh my God, some of 'em were Tier 1, all hail the great Citi Bank), got fired and could not get back in.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from CalVolibrator:


There is a deterrent element in there when a dumb fatty burns her lips on a hot coffee and is awarded a million dollars for her incredible suffering. That you take no issue with. Why? Because a big corporation paid for which it does not make much of a difference? But you root for the guy who got couple more years for his crime than would have been just without any element of deterrence. Is that the application of justice you are talking about? That is how you define your sense of justifiability?

According to your logic we should show forgiveness to all criminal offenders and potentially let them go on the lose.

I think you are twisting my words quite a bit ...

You twist his words to absurdity, and then accuse <b><i>him</i></b> of doing that?

And frivolous lawsuits against big corporations wasn't even being discussed here until you were first to bring up the topic, and then proceed to inform GOC that he must be indifferent to the problem.
Not logical.

 

[CalVolibrator]

the topic was whether the deterrent element justified the excessive judgement.

I asked: Why is it unjust that 8 years was given to someone committing corporate espionage but its not unjust when a corporation is asked to pay millions to a dummy who burnt her lips on a hot coffee. There is a direct link here: Both rulings incorporate a large element of deterrence. In one case everyone cries foul, in the other case people use it as role model to sue everything and everyone in the hopes to score big. If that does not sound curious to you then I must have missed the mark.

Quote from Rearden Metal:

You twist his words to absurdity, and then accuse <b><i>him</i></b> of doing that?

And frivolous lawsuits against big corporations wasn't even being discussed here until you were first to bring up the topic, and then proceed to inform GOC that he must be indifferent to the problem.
Not logical.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from CalVolibrator:

the topic was whether the deterrent element justified the excessive judgement.

I asked: Why is it unjust that 8 years was given to someone committing corporate espionage but its not unjust when a corporation is asked to pay millions to a dummy who burnt her lips on a hot coffee. There is a direct link here: Both rulings incorporate a large element of deterrence. In one case everyone cries foul, in the other case people use it as role model to sue everything and everyone in the hopes to score big. If that does not sound curious to you then I must have missed the mark.

I can't speak for GOC, but he's based in the U.K. and likely hasn't seen first hand how bad the ambulance chasers have heaped layers of inefficiency and absurdity on U.S. society. I have a 4-step ladder right here with big screaming warnings never to stand on the top two steps. I don't think the situation has gotten nearly as bad with that stuff in the U.K.

But it looked like no one was talking about that problem until you brought it up, and then proceeded to tell GOC exactly what he thinks of it.

 

[justrading]

Quote from CalVolibrator:

the topic was whether the deterrent element justified the excessive judgement.

I asked: Why is it unjust that 8 years was given to someone committing corporate espionage but its not unjust when a corporation is asked to pay millions to a dummy who burnt her lips on a hot coffee. There is a direct link here: Both rulings incorporate a large element of deterrence. In one case everyone cries foul, in the other case people use it as role model to sue everything and everyone in the hopes to score big. If that does not sound curious to you then I must have missed the mark.

Two things come to mind; one is a criminal case, the other civil.

Secondly, the American system of remunerating lawyers on a contingency basis doubtless has a large part to play in oversized compensation and damages. In countries where lawyers are paid a fixed fee plus additionals to cover costs and court appearances, there is no direct personal benefit in seeking ridiculous amounts in damages. Lawyers see themselves as officers of the court, servants of justice.

I can think of more than a few countries where an outsized claim would be thrown out in the first instance, with the lawyer being rebuked for wasting the court's time.

 

[CalVolibrator]

I thought the point where I wanted to get to was clear which is that to large part society in the U.S. has made a choice about their legal system. Some individuals will vehemently disagree but that does not change much that over a longer period of time judicial systems, the executive, and most all other aspects of society are shaped by its own people.

One cannot suddenly walk along and scream that in this case 8 years is excessive but allow himself or his neighbor to sue for millions just because one slipped on an ice cream. You can only have it one way or the other. People had years if not decades to voice their public opinion whether they are in favor or not of punitive damages (which may be called deterrence here). Public opinion more or less gets most of the time woven into the legal and executive carpets.

That was my point.

Quote from Rearden Metal:

I can't speak for GOC, but he's based in the U.K. and likely hasn't seen first hand how bad the ambulance chasers have heaped layers of inefficiency and absurdity on U.S. society. I have a 4-step ladder right here with big screaming warnings never to stand on the top two steps. I don't think the situation has gotten nearly as bad with that stuff in the U.K.

But it looked like no one was talking about that problem until you brought it up, and then proceeded to tell GOC exactly what he thinks of it.

 

[sle]

Quote from CalVolibrator:

My friend, you know nothing about me and it will stay that way, I could not care less what you think of me.

Well, the inputs were: you've had 4 sell-side jobs as a quant-trader (whatever that means in your thought process), left/fired in 2009 and now "run your own fund". The outputs are obvious: you moved around a lot and good/succesfull people rarely jump from place to place; your last place did not feel you represented enough value to try to keep you; you gave up on trying to get back into the industry and instead are running stuff PA. Since you have gotten all bothered over my simple conjectures you apparently do care what people think of you

Quote from CalVolibrator:
Your logic flow sounds like the one of a day trader at some Mid-West prop shop who traded couple stock options in stained t-shirts and flip flops, which most likely perfectly sums up your trading career in options.

Exactly, that's me all right, flip-flops and all. Maybe the only exception is that I've traded a couple of index options, I don't have the mental capacity for single stocks.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from CalVolibrator:

I thought the point where I wanted to get to was clear which is that to large part society in the U.S. has made a choice about their legal system. Some individuals will vehemently disagree but that does not change much that over a longer period of time judicial systems, the executive, and most all other aspects of society are shaped by its own people.

One cannot suddenly walk along and scream that in this case 8 years is excessive but allow himself or his neighbor to sue for millions just because one slipped on an ice cream. You can only have it one way or the other. People had years if not decades to voice their public opinion whether they are in favor or not for punitive damages (which may be called deterrence here). Public opinion more or less gets most of the time woven into the legal and executive carpets.

That was my point.

Ok, that makes sense.

 

[CalVolibrator]

but in case I brought a box of tissues, cry me a river. Let's donate something for the poor chap.

Quote from Rearden Metal:

Ok, that makes sense.