Alright, well there's at least one that uses KDB. Agreed on C++ over C, but given that we're talking to someone that's calling themselves a 'technologist' thought I would recommend the best book to get started.
I've had a lot of people on Hacker News very confidently tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about on this topic. For a long time I thought I was just dumb, but still employed years later and have realized that most of the people that 'correct' me have exactly 0 experience.
This thread is why y'all need to focus on engineering and leave finance to professionals. Banks have assets (mostly bonds) and liabilities (mostly deposits).
Both of these items have a duration. They have to match the duration between their assets and their liabilities or they end up insolvent. If enough of the depositors try to pull their money out of the bank, then that reduces the duration of the banks liabilities, and the bank won't be able to move quickly enough to sell their assets to stay solvent.
The tech companies that are complaining about FDIC intervention caused their own problems because they are panicked morons.
Even more ridiculous is any one of these mega tech firms could probably step in and solve this situation with a cash infusion. They would almost certainly come out ahead because they would be buying a claim on the bank's assets for less than they are worth. But they won't. Because they don't know what they're doing.
What happened here is no different than what has happened in every banking crisis pre-08. The economy will be fine, someone like Berkshire Hathaway will make a stupid amount of money and customers will blame a bank for a problem that they created by being stupid.
The efficient markets hypothesis does not, and has not, stood up to empirical research since it was first invented. The reason that it's a hypothesis, and not a theory, is that it's impossible to disprove because all of evidence that disagrees with it is dismissed as spurious.
Society was told for thousands of years that astrology could predict the future and we believed it. But turns out, it couldn't.
Society was told for decades that "technical analysis" couldn't work because any advantage would be arbitraged away. Turns out, that was a bunch of BS and we now have very strong evidence for the basis of "technical analysis", momentum, going all the way back to the advent of financial markets.
This is a great way to end up in a situation where you have to re-write entire modules whenever you need to update old code... which is kinda where our teams tend to end up anyway so I guess it's not _that_ awful?
Google has gotten to the point where it creeps me out. I've switched away from Chrome. I don't use their search engine unless I can't find the results on Bing or DuckDuckGo.
I don't know if it's going to get to the point where it hurts their business (I'm just one person), but I'm to the point that targeted advertising is a really good way to make me not want to buy a product.
The equivalent would be an architect naming their new building project 'the world trade center'. A lot of people just aren't going to touch it because of the image it evokes.
LTCM nearly broke the world's financial system and I don't think that's an exaggeration.
Naming a firm LTSE is a good way to make sure a lot of people won't want to work with you.
I remember when a bunch of nobel prize winning economists founded "Long-term Capital Management" on the theory that, because they only traded relative value arbitrage, they couldn't lose money.
Then they levered the strategy without realizing that these value arbitrages could shift against them and result in additional margin requirements.
Those were the smartest people in finance at that time, and they nearly took down the world's financial system.
The only real similarity here is the "long-term" name, but I don't think that anyone with a true understanding of capital markets would name their firm "long-term" after that fiasco.
There are a few very important caveats that they miss though. Revenue determinants are heavily based on conversations with healthcare payers to determine market size which dramatically effects revenue projections.
Most firms that do deep development plan to sell successful drugs and exit as early as possible so transaction costs need to be included in the terminal value, which isn't calculated terribly well in this model.
This is a pretty solid breakdown.
IRR isn't mathematically valid though.
I might take a run at cleaning up this spreadsheet tonight to make it look a little more professional.
Need to include things like tax and exit valuations to get to the correct decision.
Well, okay, so I should stop donating to the scholarship fund then? If alumni stopped donating then quality of education or number of students would have to go down.
If my kids aren't going to get preferential status then there is no reason to be a sponsor of that institution over any other.
Given that your top comment is, "I don't understand why people donate to Universities," I'm not sure that you're in a great position to say that others shouldn't receive priority admission. If everyone did what you did then our University system would collapse.
Correct.
Despite this, I choose to donate to my universities because a) when its my children's turn, I want the organization to remember my name, and b) I honestly believe that education is a truly worthwhile pursuit and I want to expand access to, and quality of, education and discovery.
PhDs and grad students may be a bunch of blowhards but they drive a lot of innovation.
Front running has not always been illegal, front-running if you have a fiduciary duty to clients has always been illegal, and many forms of front running are still legal today.
Nowhere did I imply that arbitrage is illegal and latency arbitrage is a big driver of revenue for several hedge funds, especially those which track baskets against their components.
There isn't anything shady about dark pools, except that there is little public information about the trades which take place within them, they are sparsely regulated, and you have even less insight into your counter parties than you do on open exchanges. And my response referencing dark pools was a response to your comment about execution services.