I am ashamed to have been part of it(murtza.org)
murtza.org
I am ashamed to have been part of it
http://murtza.org/2011/12/31/i-am-ashamed-to-have-been-part-of-it/
19 comments
I don't have enough karma to give you, sir / madam.
[deleted]
> After recently being laid off ...
This is the story of the fox and the grapes. The fox was trying to get to the grapes. But they were too high for her, she couldn't reach them. So she said "oh well they are not ripe enough anyway" and walked away.
This is the story of the fox and the grapes. The fox was trying to get to the grapes. But they were too high for her, she couldn't reach them. So she said "oh well they are not ripe enough anyway" and walked away.
I guess that's 1 way to look at it.. sort of like deluding oneself that the girl you can't have has bad breath or something shrugs
This post was about me evaluating my life during this past year. I got laid off and that would suck for anybody, but I am sure given enough time I could have found another job in the industry. But I do not want that. This is my chance to go a different direction with my life, instead of continuing in the industry.
Also, I wanted to write this blog post while working, but that probably would have gotten me fired at the time.
Also, I wanted to write this blog post while working, but that probably would have gotten me fired at the time.
that's very rude and patronising. You have no idea whether that is/is not the case. Don't assume and act snobby + elitist.
Murtza this is not a shot at you - congrats on your change of heart I applaud it. I do hope though that the small wave of ex-Wall St. moving towards startups as they have become trendy will stick things out when the music stops and not go back to the street when money calls. (The music will stop or at least slow down at some unknown time.) Never worked in finance but I'd imagine it must be 'good money' but 'bad everything else'.
His story is a bit hyperbolic. Not sure which bank he worked at, but any business sector can have bad/incompetent companies where consumer / investor ignorance and asymmetric information allows them to add minimal value for high fees.
He also recommends passive investing, but a lot of indexes like the SPY and DIA are managed and correctly priced thanks to a lot of firms (probably including some big banks!) at Wall Street.
He also recommends passive investing, but a lot of indexes like the SPY and DIA are managed and correctly priced thanks to a lot of firms (probably including some big banks!) at Wall Street.
It's true that the banks aren't really as concerned with maximizing an investor's return in their wealth management divisions, but it's also worth noting that they maybe shouldn't be engaged in that sort of activity. The likelihood that the random fellow you happen to meet at Morgan Stanley actually has an edge on beating the market is small enough to be irrelevant.
However, there's still some value in having a human who's somewhat familiar with you and your personality pick up the phone when you call to execute a trade. Most of the value that advisers offer is getting you to stay in the market over time by keeping you from making stupid decisions. They're certainly incentivized to do so, but a lot of investors lose out by making thoughtless, fear-driven decisions to buy and sell. The actual amount that they lose out varies, but I've seen a range of around 2-8% in a number of studies. This [1] says average investors lag the index by 5% a year, which I'm inclined to believe.
Part of the issue that Murtza is likely experiencing is that this psychological function of a financial adviser--getting people to keep their investments in place over the long term--does not feel good. In fact, it feels like lying and it is.
The question for most investors isn't whether they can get a better return by switching to a passively managed fund, but rather whether they have the discipline to manage their own investments when they get scared/exuberant. This is not to say that advisers aren't prone to the same behavioral defects, but it's probably better to have someone on the other end of the phone who will try to get you to explain why you're selling out or buying in.
The problem for a lot of employees--particularly in the private wealth space--is that they think they're getting involved in some mythical "Wall Street," which doesn't really exist. Good advisers are 90% Mom (calms you down when you're excited) 10% psychiatrist (gives you tools to help yourself). They are not investors. They are in the business of preventing harm.
Of course, scummy advisers exist and are the standard. I'm just suggesting they are not the only kind in existence.
Full disclosure: I work in finance in an advisory capacity.
[1] http://moneyover55.about.com/od/howtoinvest/a/averageinvesto...
However, there's still some value in having a human who's somewhat familiar with you and your personality pick up the phone when you call to execute a trade. Most of the value that advisers offer is getting you to stay in the market over time by keeping you from making stupid decisions. They're certainly incentivized to do so, but a lot of investors lose out by making thoughtless, fear-driven decisions to buy and sell. The actual amount that they lose out varies, but I've seen a range of around 2-8% in a number of studies. This [1] says average investors lag the index by 5% a year, which I'm inclined to believe.
Part of the issue that Murtza is likely experiencing is that this psychological function of a financial adviser--getting people to keep their investments in place over the long term--does not feel good. In fact, it feels like lying and it is.
The question for most investors isn't whether they can get a better return by switching to a passively managed fund, but rather whether they have the discipline to manage their own investments when they get scared/exuberant. This is not to say that advisers aren't prone to the same behavioral defects, but it's probably better to have someone on the other end of the phone who will try to get you to explain why you're selling out or buying in.
The problem for a lot of employees--particularly in the private wealth space--is that they think they're getting involved in some mythical "Wall Street," which doesn't really exist. Good advisers are 90% Mom (calms you down when you're excited) 10% psychiatrist (gives you tools to help yourself). They are not investors. They are in the business of preventing harm.
Of course, scummy advisers exist and are the standard. I'm just suggesting they are not the only kind in existence.
Full disclosure: I work in finance in an advisory capacity.
[1] http://moneyover55.about.com/od/howtoinvest/a/averageinvesto...
Just to clarify I was not a financial adviser. I worked in the corporate strategy group that oversaw all the financial advisers and how the division ran.
The question is: Would he still be working at one of those 'big banks' if he was never laid off?
That and would he be able to do what he's in now if he didn't make all that money first.
I would rather do what this guy did then spend 40 years of my life trying to get people to click ads.
It sounds like he didn't enjoy his job on wall street. I wouldn't enjoy a job as a facebook developer. We all have our opinions.
It sounds like he didn't enjoy his job on wall street. I wouldn't enjoy a job as a facebook developer. We all have our opinions.
> I would rather do what this guy did then spend 40 years of my life trying to get people to click ads.
I agree with the sentiment, but that's like saying that anyone who works in TV is spending 40 years trying to get people to buy shit they probably don't need. Although I wouldn't desire to build a business which monetizes primarily on selling ads it does a disservice to folk at FB and google suggesting that this is what they do or what motivates their behavior.
I agree with the sentiment, but that's like saying that anyone who works in TV is spending 40 years trying to get people to buy shit they probably don't need. Although I wouldn't desire to build a business which monetizes primarily on selling ads it does a disservice to folk at FB and google suggesting that this is what they do or what motivates their behavior.
It's popular to beat up on Wall Street right now but I don't see any reason to feel bad about working for a financial firm. They provide many essential services and in the case of wealth management they provide a service that a lot of customers want and will pay for. What's the problem?
"I'm just giving people what they want" is decent for establishing legal justification, but it's pretty lousy for personal morals. The OP wants to make a real, positive difference in the world, and instead he felt like he was hurting people. Fine, maybe they asked for it, but you don't have to help them.
It's "popular" to beat up on Wall Street in the same way it's popular to frown at a guy who steals the coffee shop tip jar.
Without getting into the issue of privatizing gains while socializing losses, or any of the other crooked shit that's just another day in that industry, the OP makes a perfectly reasonable case for feeling bad about working for his financial firm.
"It was a farce. We were actually not very good at producing returns that beat the market (the standard for measuring performance). What we were good at was applying lipstick, the bank’s marketing materials, to the pig, the bank’s investment returns. Clients paid us a lot of money in fees when there were better ways out there to investment one’s money that are cheaper and generate higher returns (1). None of it made much sense."
Without getting into the issue of privatizing gains while socializing losses, or any of the other crooked shit that's just another day in that industry, the OP makes a perfectly reasonable case for feeling bad about working for his financial firm.
"It was a farce. We were actually not very good at producing returns that beat the market (the standard for measuring performance). What we were good at was applying lipstick, the bank’s marketing materials, to the pig, the bank’s investment returns. Clients paid us a lot of money in fees when there were better ways out there to investment one’s money that are cheaper and generate higher returns (1). None of it made much sense."
Cigarette companies also provide a service a lot of ppl want and will pay for.
The problem is that he feels like he was making the bank rich and the customers didn't get much out of the deal. You're right that they provide services people want and need and generally speaking there isn't a problem. But in this case he was observing that the bank was able to enrich itself while providing nothing in return for the customer. That could make anyone feel bad.
I hate when people beat up on something because it's popular at the moment. I honestly see both sides of this. I'm not a fan of certain banking and investment practices and some of that culture, not all of Wall Street. At the same time I feel for the author. The bit where he mentions being fired really distracted people from his main point too which I don't like seeing.
I hate when people beat up on something because it's popular at the moment. I honestly see both sides of this. I'm not a fan of certain banking and investment practices and some of that culture, not all of Wall Street. At the same time I feel for the author. The bit where he mentions being fired really distracted people from his main point too which I don't like seeing.
I own a Bank/Credit card company. Murtza is right when it comes to the returns. But his vision of the whole process is naive.
The "clients" know exactly where the money is going, they do know about the returns, there are many reasons that make a client choose a investment, sometimes is about the taxation, compensation, or something more obscure. Sometimes that very same client had to put money there because it owes an awful lot of money to that same bank.
No victims there.
The "clients" know exactly where the money is going, they do know about the returns, there are many reasons that make a client choose a investment, sometimes is about the taxation, compensation, or something more obscure. Sometimes that very same client had to put money there because it owes an awful lot of money to that same bank.
No victims there.
It's awfully arrogant and myopic for anyone in a position of power in the finance industry to utter a phrase like "no victims there."
And I'm serious about that statement.
The only reason someone would use such bank products is because they actually owe something to that bank. It's not like you, or me, are investing. Those investments are part of a larger deal, pretty much like "Hey, I give you 500k but you need to open X account with us with XYZ fees, ok?" or "Look, if you don't pay us the 10m you got from us, you need to put at least 2m in that specific investment"
This is not like you or me are investing our savings. This is some obscure, barely legal, deals.
The only reason someone would use such bank products is because they actually owe something to that bank. It's not like you, or me, are investing. Those investments are part of a larger deal, pretty much like "Hey, I give you 500k but you need to open X account with us with XYZ fees, ok?" or "Look, if you don't pay us the 10m you got from us, you need to put at least 2m in that specific investment"
This is not like you or me are investing our savings. This is some obscure, barely legal, deals.
I don't know, the guy has a point. Maybe you can explain why it's myopic and arrogant for us because I thought his explanation was perfectly reasonable. In the situation he describes it makes sense to say "no victims there". I don't see a reason he'd lie about being in the industry and I also think his job gives him enough credibility to comment like that.
I know we all hate banks lately and rightly so but I feel like a lot of us are blinded by our bias and can't accept a valid point when it comes from them.
That said, I could be wrong but I don't know enough to be sure. I saw a comment from someone in the banking industry that seemed perfectly valid. If its not I'd really like to know what is wrong with it.
I know we all hate banks lately and rightly so but I feel like a lot of us are blinded by our bias and can't accept a valid point when it comes from them.
That said, I could be wrong but I don't know enough to be sure. I saw a comment from someone in the banking industry that seemed perfectly valid. If its not I'd really like to know what is wrong with it.
[deleted](1)
Until you donate all of the money you made to some charity or OWS, STFU. (If you did this already, good for you, and the rest of this comment is not directed at you).
You can't have the cash and the moral righteousness. I know you don't it owe it to anybody, but if you want your post to have any weight, you should. (Alternatively, get off your moral high-horse).
I've known a bunch of people who did the Wall Street thing. They complained about it during and after they were employed. Some left willingly. Not one "returned" the money to society. The effect? More people think "oh, I'll just make some money for now" and spend their youth doing that.
Personally, I have no qualms about Wall Street. Is it moral? Who knows. I'm no one to judge. The people who protest and the people who run it both make good points. But the people who bitch about it after taking the money are just plain hypocrites.
You can't have the cash and the moral righteousness. I know you don't it owe it to anybody, but if you want your post to have any weight, you should. (Alternatively, get off your moral high-horse).
I've known a bunch of people who did the Wall Street thing. They complained about it during and after they were employed. Some left willingly. Not one "returned" the money to society. The effect? More people think "oh, I'll just make some money for now" and spend their youth doing that.
Personally, I have no qualms about Wall Street. Is it moral? Who knows. I'm no one to judge. The people who protest and the people who run it both make good points. But the people who bitch about it after taking the money are just plain hypocrites.
I think a lot of the problem with this kind of thing is that the things where the evil is obvious and wrong, i.e. finance (in which I work by the way!) are easy to pick on, especially when the industry has so wrecked the world economy, but those things which are less obvious are left alone.
How about the person working for an apparel firm which keeps people in the 21st century version of slavery? Or the people working for governments who either directly or by proxy commit terrible crimes around the world?
I'm not trying to excuse anything, rather I just think it's more complicated than it seems.
How about the person working for an apparel firm which keeps people in the 21st century version of slavery? Or the people working for governments who either directly or by proxy commit terrible crimes around the world?
I'm not trying to excuse anything, rather I just think it's more complicated than it seems.
Or what about the person who pays taxes to such a country or buys those cheap clothes? We all have some level of culpability, whether we choose to admit it or not. I think that the realization of this makes people very uncomfortable and one way people deal with this is the desire to find all of the bad things and then perform a stack ordering of badness.
A couple of examples:
For the sub-prime mess, people will argue for hours whether it's the fault of the borrowers for taking on more than they could handle, or of the banks for pushing the loans or of the government for encouraging the sub-prime market. Fact is, it's probably a mix of all of these things and we should address all of them.
Secondly, a common argument against veganism is that no matter how much you try to avoid animal products, it's impossible to do so in today's society as animal products are in a lot of innocuous seeming things like film or tires. But this fact doesn't invalidate the vegan's goal of trying to reduce (what they see as) evil as much as possible.
In short, the attempt to find every bad thing or trying to pick out the most bad thing is an impediment to ever making anything better.
A couple of examples:
For the sub-prime mess, people will argue for hours whether it's the fault of the borrowers for taking on more than they could handle, or of the banks for pushing the loans or of the government for encouraging the sub-prime market. Fact is, it's probably a mix of all of these things and we should address all of them.
Secondly, a common argument against veganism is that no matter how much you try to avoid animal products, it's impossible to do so in today's society as animal products are in a lot of innocuous seeming things like film or tires. But this fact doesn't invalidate the vegan's goal of trying to reduce (what they see as) evil as much as possible.
In short, the attempt to find every bad thing or trying to pick out the most bad thing is an impediment to ever making anything better.
I see it a matter of degrees. Every last person is complicit in some way in awful things, but the garbage man that works for the government that kills people in Iraq isn't quite as culpable as the hedge fund trader that directly harms the world economy.
Absolutely, but things get complicated when you compare the little guys in any situation. It's not so easy to compare.
I am a low-level functionary on the death star :)
I am a low-level functionary on the death star :)
Everything is more complicated than it seems but we live in a world where bumper sticker politics reigns. If you can't say it in 140 characters or 6 seconds then it goes over everyone's head. These days it's now about what makes sense but how you can market a bad idea to look like a good one.
It's hard to argue anything these days because once you show that you understand the shades of gray people think you're wishy-washy or a hypocrite. It's so hard to have real meaningful discussions these days and I've found the best you can do is pick one point, base your argument on that alone, and let the complexity be damned.
It's hard to argue anything these days because once you show that you understand the shades of gray people think you're wishy-washy or a hypocrite. It's so hard to have real meaningful discussions these days and I've found the best you can do is pick one point, base your argument on that alone, and let the complexity be damned.
I would love to know where/when/how you gave all that misbegotten money away?
The bit on wealth management is worth reading, since certain banks' wealth management divisions do contact startup founders to try and drum up future business.
If alternatives to wealth management firms are interesting to you, you might like Burton Malkiel's "A Random Walk Down Wall Street".
http://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-Down-Wall-Street/dp/039332...
http://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-Down-Wall-Street/dp/039332...
revised edition: http://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-Down-Wall-Street/dp/039333...
Sorry if you received a 500 Internal Server error when trying to load my site. I just installed a Wordpress caching plugin to handle the increased load on the server. The site should be working now.
I like the sentiment but don't feel like some of this is realistic. I get how you can feel awful after being paid a lot of money and give litte in return.
But here's the thing - when you don't have money to begin with its hard to quit a job or refuse a job even if you know deep down its wrong. Most people don't have the luxury of being able to listen to their conscience without ending up in the poor house. It's only after you've made enough money to have attained stability (or the oh so rare real savings) that you can afford to do what's right and follow your heart.
All of us want to make the world better but most of us can't afford that luxury. Money in and of itself can't buy happiness but it can buy you time and tools to do the right thing. I'm glad the author got out of there and is doing what makes him happy but I wonder if he'd be doing those things if he hadn't worked for the bank.
But here's the thing - when you don't have money to begin with its hard to quit a job or refuse a job even if you know deep down its wrong. Most people don't have the luxury of being able to listen to their conscience without ending up in the poor house. It's only after you've made enough money to have attained stability (or the oh so rare real savings) that you can afford to do what's right and follow your heart.
All of us want to make the world better but most of us can't afford that luxury. Money in and of itself can't buy happiness but it can buy you time and tools to do the right thing. I'm glad the author got out of there and is doing what makes him happy but I wonder if he'd be doing those things if he hadn't worked for the bank.
> But here's the thing - when you don't have money to begin with its hard to quit a job or refuse a job even if you know deep down its wrong. Most people don't have the luxury of being able to listen to their conscience without ending up in the poor house.
But I thought these financial people are "some of the smartest people in America" (OP's quote and a sentiment I hear often)? Surely they could apply their immense talent to other fields. I've been reading all year that there aren't enough capable people to move technology forward and that companies will pay a high price for such a person.
But I thought these financial people are "some of the smartest people in America" (OP's quote and a sentiment I hear often)? Surely they could apply their immense talent to other fields. I've been reading all year that there aren't enough capable people to move technology forward and that companies will pay a high price for such a person.
There are certainly smart people in every field.
The problem is Wall Street can afford to pay way above market salaries to pull the top grads from the best colleges away from fields they would have normally gone into.
The problem is Wall Street can afford to pay way above market salaries to pull the top grads from the best colleges away from fields they would have normally gone into.
Okay well on the surface what you're saying makes sense. You make a good point. They could apply their talents elsewhere but some people really do just like the money. Furthermore moving technology further is a little narrow. What I'm talking about is helping humanity in the larger sense. Sure, some smart people can find jobs doing good and get paid well but on the whole most good causes don't pay like the banks. You're either working for charity or bootstrapping some business of your own that will be beneficial to people but getting it off the ground takes time and money; two things that you cannot get without selling your souls every once in a while to continue pursuing your grand goal.
tl;dr: worked on wall street, feels better about not working there any more. read up on passive investing.
A four paragraph blog post hardly needs summarization.
Plus, the summary missed a key point -- waited till laid off to do something about the feeling bad about it part.
You also contradict yourself, saying how you feel implying that you feel bad that you helped rich people get richer, then at the same time say that you didn't really help anyone do better than the market (which in 2011 closed at near 0 growth)
I work in finance for a much larger bank than you do, and I take that paycheck (which isn't any higher than what an well paid engineer gets in the valley) and invest it every night in a home, food, and debt. Then I take the spare time I have left over and design software to help mentally and emotionally disabled children.
You can sit around and blog about how sorry you feel about the money you have in the bank, or you can do do something responsible with it and turn it into a real contribution.