• Sharebar

I came across a post today on the Daily Beast that talked about how entry options into careers in finance have narrowed over the years and its implications. From a time when banks and hedge funds hired candidates from diverse non-finance fields to now, when being either a finance major or atleast a minor, having relevant internships and coming from a 'target' school have all become important points to check off from the must-haves list for new hires in the industry.

This is obvious from following the posts on WSO as well. The question that I would like to pose here is this and I hope you would share your ideas without bias on this one.

Do you think that following the route of Finance/Business Major in College(B.S./MBA) followed by Internships and then a traditional career in Finance/Management Consulting, has led to an erosion of talent that can exhibit broad-based thinking in the industry? How does the current system of education and hiring in financial services affect the future of the industry?

Read the the following exchange brought forth in this article. This is an excerpt from 'Diary of a very Bad Year'(which features interviews with an anonymous Hedge Fund Manager) :

HFM: I'm sure today I would never get hired.
n+1: Really?
HFM: Yeah, it would be impossible because I had no background, or I had a very exiguous background in finance. The guy who hired me always talked about hiring good intellectual athletes, people who were sort of mentally agile in an all-around way, and that the specifics of finance you could learn, which I think is true. But at the time, I mean, no hedge fund was really flooded with applicants, and that allowed him to let his mind range a little bit and consider different kinds of candidates. Today we have a recruiting group, and what do they do? They throw resumes at you, and it's, like, one business school guy, one finance major after another, kids who, from the time they were twelve years old, were watching Jim Cramer and dreaming of working in a hedge fund. And I think in reality that probably they're less likely to make good investors than people with sort of more interesting backgrounds.
n+1: Why?
HFM: Because I think that in the end the way that you make a ton of money is calling paradigm shifts, and people who are real finance types, maybe they can work really well within the paradigm of a particular kind of market or a particular set of rules of the game--and you can make money doing that--but the people who make huge money, the George Soroses and Julian Robertsons of the world, they're the people who can step back and see when the paradigm is going to shift, and I think that comes from having a broader experience, a little bit of a different approach to how you think about things.

I do not agree with the above two statements completely. However, there are two points to address here.

1. The assumption that all finance/business majors are formed out of the same mold and hence do not bring any new way of thinking to the table which in turn would not make them 'as good investors as someone with a different or more interesting background would'.

I do not think the current system of education is so regimented that it churns out graduates year after year without inspiring them. Sure, there is a structured system of learning and taking exams and there is a great deal of emphasis on GPAs/the pedigree of acquiring a degree from a 'target' school in the industry. But the pool of candidates vying for any position in finance/consulting has become so high and has made the hiring process so competitive that these accomplishments would not mean anything without a greater alignment of purpose and relevant experience through internships to go with it.

Does this system result in a narrow, risk averse frame of mind, therefore restricting one's thinking to a set paradigm? Again, I do not believe going through a systematized way of education to enter into the financial services industry is in any way debilitating the ability to think out-of-the-box. In contrast, the opportunity to go through the system helps a good thinker hone his abilities through exposure to existing and new ideas, provides a platform to grow into who he/she can be. Is this not true in any field, whether Engineering, Science or Art? Learning what came before, always preceded the ability to think about what will be. However the advances in the industry from one day to the next(by this I mean the complex financial products and positions that even the banks that built them have trouble reconciling) are so great today and the pool of candidates competing for any position so high that even the present-day/future Soroses and Icahns of the world would benefit from going to school with 'the kids that grew up watching Jim Cramer and dreaming of working in a hedge fund'.

2. On the other hand, I concur that broader experiences would shape a person's ideas to think in more practical ways and with the author's lament that present day graduates shun work at not-so-glamorous manufacturing jobs for high paying Strategy/Consulting/ Banking roles.

Do you remember the last time you talked to someone with an MBA going into a traditional management rotation program? May-be as a sub-tertiary option! But management programs have certainly become elitist with an elitist view about which roles are appropriate and which are not for an MBA graduate.
But I believe that this is a self-correcting system and the glut in the fields of finance and consulting will push future graduates to seek out other industries. The next generation of graduates will certainly learn from their debt-carrying predecessors and decide to get into more vocational/engineering areas. This phenomenon will only grow in the future, leaving only the talented and the most persistent to follow their dreams in finance. We already see the results through lower enrollment rates in Law schools and the glut of PhDs resulting in many struggling to find relevant jobs post graduation. It is only a matter of time before the phenomenon translates to the financial services industry as well and we are already on way to the beginning of this end.

And then I think the anonymous Hedge Fund Manager's idea of a future George Soros coming from an 'interesting' background may be realized.

What do you think? Do you agree that the present day education and hiring policies do not produce great Investors/thinkers? How do you see the future of the industry shifting in this respect?

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (31)

  • 7xEBITDA's picture

    While experienced recruiting may be a different story, I believe that undergraduate recruiting (at least for ultracompetitive positions) has remained relatively open to people from a variety of backgrounds. Just as an example, if you look at D.E. Shaw - they want extraordinary talent, and just because you have 3 BB IBD internships doesn't mean you're going to be hired. In addition, the interviews at those funds are absolutely ridiculous (I've seen some of those math problems, and despite having come from a competitive math background I have no idea what on Earth they're talking about). Jane Street, Citadel, AQR, etc. all have similar hiring practices. In fact, speaking with recruiters, it appears that they want to see only people who are literally good at everything - and they do exist. Being well-rounded demonstrates intellectual, problem solving, and intuitive aptitude - things that make a good investor.

    As for experienced recruiting, if we take a look from the headhunter's perspective, it is extraordinarily uneconomical to run around trying to recruit from a 'variety of backgrounds.' Imagine screening resumes from a music program for placement into a hedge fund. Not that it doesn't happen - but it is a waste of resources. People who are going to be great investors are passionate about markets and about companies, and will most likely end up finance.

  • jktecon's picture

    This is spot on to me. Sure it is safe to take a bunch of target applicants with high gpa's who can put their faces down and work but I think it's quite easy to argue that this type of personality is clearly a trend follower.

    The simple fact that you take a bunch of candidates from similar backgrounds itself creates a predictable atmosphere. When this happens, because of a lack of human ability to look intrinsically at behavior patterns, the outsider has an edge.

  • Macro Arbitrage's picture

    After graduation George Soros sold purses in the streets of London and Bruce Kovner worked as a cab driver. There is no 'path' in this industry.

  • DCDepository's picture

    We actually need stupider people on Wall Street. The geniuses from Harvard and Wharton ("the smartest guys in the room") collapsed the world financial market, and they destroy the market every quarter century or so. By looking at history, how in the world could anyone argue that we need more "diverse pinheads" on Wall Street? We need people of above average intelligence with passion for logic, numbers and business who are hard workers. We don't need anymore pinheads on Wall Street. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this hedge fund manager played an integral role in destroying someone else's wealth 6-8 years ago while he still walked away with something good.

  • In reply to DCDepository
    Macro Arbitrage's picture

    DCDepository:
    We actually need stupider people on Wall Street. The geniuses from Harvard and Wharton ("the smartest guys in the room") collapsed the world financial market, and they destroy the market every quarter century or so. By looking at history, how in the world could anyone argue that we need more "diverse pinheads" on Wall Street? We need people of above average intelligence with passion for logic, numbers and business who are hard workers. We don't need anymore pinheads on Wall Street. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this hedge fund manager played an integral role in destroying someone else's wealth 6-8 years ago while he still walked away with something good.

    It wasn't intelligence that put the financial system at risk, it was the incentives at play across a multitude of levels.

  • In reply to Macro Arbitrage
    kyleyboy's picture

    Macro Arbitrage:
    DCDepository:
    We actually need stupider people on Wall Street. The geniuses from Harvard and Wharton ("the smartest guys in the room") collapsed the world financial market, and they destroy the market every quarter century or so. By looking at history, how in the world could anyone argue that we need more "diverse pinheads" on Wall Street? We need people of above average intelligence with passion for logic, numbers and business who are hard workers. We don't need anymore pinheads on Wall Street. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this hedge fund manager played an integral role in destroying someone else's wealth 6-8 years ago while he still walked away with something good.

    It wasn't intelligence that put the financial system at risk, it was the incentives at play across a multitude of levels.


    I'd argue we need smarter people. But markets crash, and always will.
  • In reply to kyleyboy
    Macro Arbitrage's picture

    kyleyboy:
    Macro Arbitrage:
    DCDepository:
    We actually need stupider people on Wall Street. The geniuses from Harvard and Wharton ("the smartest guys in the room") collapsed the world financial market, and they destroy the market every quarter century or so. By looking at history, how in the world could anyone argue that we need more "diverse pinheads" on Wall Street? We need people of above average intelligence with passion for logic, numbers and business who are hard workers. We don't need anymore pinheads on Wall Street. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this hedge fund manager played an integral role in destroying someone else's wealth 6-8 years ago while he still walked away with something good.

    It wasn't intelligence that put the financial system at risk, it was the incentives at play across a multitude of levels.


    I'd argue we need smarter people. But markets crash, and always will.

    It goes without saying that the dude who conceived the Gaussian Copula model was absolutely brilliant. It had very little to do with intelligence.

  • Finance_Eh's picture

    I preface this all by saying I'm a college student - ergo I know nothing.

    I think one of the hardest questions to ask oneself is "Why?" and "How do I know what I know is true?". Soros speaks highly of Karl Popper, who bases a lot of his philosophy on the fact that we can't know anything!

    For better or worse, ibanking and consulting produces a lot of confident professionals and know their stuff. But by the nature of their job, it's in their best interests to never have doubts - either agree with the CEO/management team or justify some sort of absurd valuation in the name of an acquisition.

    One of the hardest things in the world I think to teach is that "I don't care what the crowd thinks - I'm okay with being wrong." And I think most Ivy-league WASP-like individuals have always been on the sweet-side of the crowd rather than alone fighting for their views. Huge sweeping statement, so feel free to call me out on that one.

    Some of the best investors these days are from odd backgrounds that don't mind being out in the cold and odd. Burry was considered weird. Lu Li was a protestor in Tian An Men when shit hit the fan. Hendry (although his performance is meh) comes off to me as constantly being a alone in his own mental walls. Hell, even though he's so coiffed and proper, everyone thought Ackman was an idiot when he finished HBS and started Gotham with Berkowitz. Dalio was fired from his job and is clearly an individual who could care less about what others think if it's illogical.

  • In reply to Macro Arbitrage
    dolph's picture

    Macro Arbitrage:
    After graduation George Soros sold purses in the streets of London and Bruce Kovner worked as a cab driver. There is no 'path' in this industry.

    I think times have changed since then

  • In reply to Macro Arbitrage
    DCDepository's picture

    Macro Arbitrage:
    DCDepository:
    We actually need stupider people on Wall Street. The geniuses from Harvard and Wharton ("the smartest guys in the room") collapsed the world financial market, and they destroy the market every quarter century or so. By looking at history, how in the world could anyone argue that we need more "diverse pinheads" on Wall Street? We need people of above average intelligence with passion for logic, numbers and business who are hard workers. We don't need anymore pinheads on Wall Street. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this hedge fund manager played an integral role in destroying someone else's wealth 6-8 years ago while he still walked away with something good.

    It wasn't intelligence that put the financial system at risk, it was the incentives at play across a multitude of levels.

    I'm not arguing it was "intelligence" that put the financial system at risk. It was braniacs whose level of confidence in their own theories and the confidence that their resumes instilled in their clients that put the system at risk. Every single day of the year (I work virtually every day) I deal with the consequences of 20 years of bad public policy from Ivy League lawyers (Congressmen) and 20 years of arrogance of math and finance PhDs from elite institutions ("financial engineers").

    The problem with "Wall Street" (in this context, a generic term for all of finance) is that there is a toxic combination of crony capitalism, greed, power lust, and hyper intelligence that always, always, always has led to catastrophic failure. The system will always have greedy and power hungry people; therefore, what we need is stupider people behind the wheel. The last thing we need is another Harvard prick who thinks he's God's gift to humanity running another financial institution. But alas, we are awash in brilliant politicians, bureaucrats, and Wall Street warriors who weren't content enough to collapse the world financial system--they've now moved on to completely f*cking up the entire American economy, the federal budget, state budgets, pension funds, and entitlement programs. We have a bunch of crony capitalists (not free market capitalists--crony capitalists) who are utterly brilliant and are experts at making themselves money at the expense of everyone else. There is basically no distinction between Wall Street and Washingon, D.C. Well, ya know what? the chickens are about to come home to roost thanks to our leaders who have envious intellectual horsepower. I just find it laughable that some hedge fund manager who is probably guilty of countless frauds thinks that what we need is more intellctual diversity (and what he means is more people like him--Yale poli sci grads).

    To give you some context--every single justice of the Supreme Court is an Ivy League graduate. The President is an Ivy League graduate. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Secretary are Ivy League grads. And what a wonderful f*cking job they've all done. So glad we have smart people running the show.

    Edit: full disclosure--I went to an "elite" institution. I know what a useless bunch of jerks our kinds of institutions produce. Frankly, it's an embarrassment.

  • In reply to DCDepository
    aicccia's picture

    DCDepository:

    To give you some context--every single justice of the Supreme Court is an Ivy League graduate. The President is an Ivy League graduate. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Secretary are Ivy League grads. And what a wonderful f*cking job they've all done. So glad we have smart people running the show.
    .

    Would you prefer our government's top positions be staffed by University of Alabama graduates?

    It's easy to point out problems. What's your solution?

    "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein

  • In reply to aicccia
    rabbit's picture

    aicccia:
    DCDepository:

    To give you some context--every single justice of the Supreme Court is an Ivy League graduate. The President is an Ivy League graduate. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Secretary are Ivy League grads. And what a wonderful f*cking job they've all done. So glad we have smart people running the show.
    .

    Would you prefer our government's top positions be staffed by University of Alabama graduates?

    Why not? In all fairness, I don't agree with DCDepository either. Ivy, non ivy, what does it matter. Where someone went to school doesn't solely dictate intelligence, work ethic or innovation.

  • In reply to rabbit
    aicccia's picture

    rabbit:

    Why not? In all fairness, I don't agree with DCDepository either. Ivy, non ivy, what does it matter. Where someone went to school doesn't solely dictate intelligence, work ethic or innovation.

    Haha, you've never met a bama graduate.

    "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein

  • In reply to aicccia
    aicccia's picture

    aicccia:
    rabbit:

    Why not? In all fairness, I don't agree with DCDepository either. Ivy, non ivy, what does it matter. Where someone went to school doesn't solely dictate intelligence, work ethic or innovation.

    Haha, you've never met a bama graduate. Any school where the main draw is the football, you can't take those people seriously.

    "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein

  • In reply to aicccia
    aicccia's picture

    aicccia][quote=aicccia][quote=rabbit:

    Why not? In all fairness, I don't agree with DCDepository either. Ivy, non ivy, what does it matter. Where someone went to school doesn't solely dictate intelligence, work ethic or innovation.

    Haha, you've never met a bama graduate. Any school where the main draw is the football, you can't take those people seriously.

    Example: I have a female friend, who wanted to go to bama. I ask why. She says "because they have a good football team."

    People who go to Ivy's, may not be a genius, but at least you can bet that they value a good education.

    "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein

  • In reply to aicccia
    aicccia's picture

    aicccia][quote=aicccia][quote=aicccia:
    rabbit:

    Why not? In all fairness, I don't agree with DCDepository either. Ivy, non ivy, what does it matter. Where someone went to school doesn't solely dictate intelligence, work ethic or innovation.

    Any school where the main draw is the football, you can't take those people seriously.

    Example: I have a female friend, who wanted to go to bama. I ask why. She says "because they have a good football team."

    People who go to Ivy's, may not be a genius, but at least you can bet that they value a good education.

    "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein

  • In reply to aicccia
    rabbit's picture

    aicccia][quote=aicccia][quote=aicccia:
    rabbit:

    Why not? In all fairness, I don't agree with DCDepository either. Ivy, non ivy, what does it matter. Where someone went to school doesn't solely dictate intelligence, work ethic or innovation.

    Haha, you've never met a bama graduate. Any school where the main draw is the football, you can't take those people seriously.

    Example: I have a female friend, who wanted to go to bama. I ask why. She says "because they have a good football team."

    People who go to Ivy's, may not be a genius, but at least you can bet that they value a good education.

    A bit of a generalization don't you think? I'm pretty sure Alabama, just like any other school, has its share of intelligent people and overachievers.

    To draw it down to valuing education is a bit of a simplification. A lot of people simply can't afford an Ivy league school, whether they value education or not. Like I said in my previous post, I don't think where you went to school has much to do with building up a work ethic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the industry folks on this forum, especially the older heads, will tell you that they would prefer to have workers with a strong work ethic over just an Ivy degree.

    I value education in itself, not where it comes from. Who are we to say an HYP alum is better than a self taught self made average Joe. Brilliant minds can come from anywhere. Shifting back towards the old boys club mentality, in this industry or any other, shuts out potential avenues of innovation and new perspectives by ignoring those who didn't or couldn't go to an Ivy.

    I didn't go to an Ivy, but I don't hate on those who did. But, I would much rather have someone who worked and continues to work to earn their place and station instead of being entitled to it by virtue of schooling, family whatever.

  • 7xEBITDA's picture

    rabbit:
    A bit of a generalization don't you think? I'm pretty sure Alabama, just like any other school, has its share of intelligent people and overachievers.

    To draw it down to valuing education is a bit of a simplification. A lot of people simply can't afford an Ivy league school, whether they value education or not. Like I said in my previous post, I don't think where you went to school has much to do with building up a work ethic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the industry folks on this forum, especially the older heads, will tell you that they would prefer to have workers with a strong work ethic over just an Ivy degree.

    I value education in itself, not where it comes from. Who are we to say an HYP alum is better than a self taught self made average Joe. Brilliant minds can come from anywhere. Shifting back towards the old boys club mentality, in this industry or any other, shuts out potential avenues of innovation and new perspectives by ignoring those who didn't or couldn't go to an Ivy.

    I didn't go to an Ivy, but I don't hate on those who did. But, I would much rather have someone who worked and continues to work to earn their place and station instead of being entitled to it by virtue of schooling, family whatever.

    It's a misconception that most kids at Ivy League schools got in through family connections, personal wealth, etc. Top schools have a fair share of students who are non-legacy and get in through merit. Also, financial aid programs at these schools are extraordinarily good, so (most of the time) not going to an Ivy League school is either a personal choice (figure it's not worth the pricetag anyway) or not a choice (you didn't get in).

    I went to a decent state school prior to transferring to a target, and I'm very happy that I made the switch. I will also say that watching people from my old school running this country would scare the shit out of me.

  • In reply to 7xEBITDA
    rabbit's picture

    7xEBITDA:
    rabbit:
    A bit of a generalization don't you think? I'm pretty sure Alabama, just like any other school, has its share of intelligent people and overachievers.

    To draw it down to valuing education is a bit of a simplification. A lot of people simply can't afford an Ivy league school, whether they value education or not. Like I said in my previous post, I don't think where you went to school has much to do with building up a work ethic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the industry folks on this forum, especially the older heads, will tell you that they would prefer to have workers with a strong work ethic over just an Ivy degree.

    I value education in itself, not where it comes from. Who are we to say an HYP alum is better than a self taught self made average Joe. Brilliant minds can come from anywhere. Shifting back towards the old boys club mentality, in this industry or any other, shuts out potential avenues of innovation and new perspectives by ignoring those who didn't or couldn't go to an Ivy.

    I didn't go to an Ivy, but I don't hate on those who did. But, I would much rather have someone who worked and continues to work to earn their place and station instead of being entitled to it by virtue of schooling, family whatever.

    It's a misconception that most kids at Ivy League schools got in through family connections, personal wealth, etc. Top schools have a fair share of students who are non-legacy and get in through merit. Also, financial aid programs at these schools are extraordinarily good, so (most of the time) not going to an Ivy League school is either a personal choice (figure it's not worth the pricetag anyway) or not a choice (you didn't get in).

    I went to a decent state school prior to transferring to a target, and I'm very happy that I made the switch. I will also say that watching people from my old school running this country would scare the shit out of me.

    Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for Ivy kids. It takes a lotta work to get your foot in. I just honestly couldn't afford the Ivy I was set on, even with the aid package and a lot of my friends were in the same boat so I would disagree on the accessibility.

  • In reply to dolph
    GoodBread's picture

    dolph:
    Macro Arbitrage:
    After graduation George Soros sold purses in the streets of London and Bruce Kovner worked as a cab driver. There is no 'path' in this industry.

    I think times have changed since then


    Which is kind of the point of the article. It will be interesting to see how the competitiveness pendulum swings away from Wall Street, if indeed it does. While the financial crisis should have marked the beginning of a lessened interest for Wall Street and finance, it actually put finance on a great many people's radars. The first time I heard about investment banking and hedge funds was Spring 2007. In July 2007 I saw a few protesters against "predatory subprime lending" outside the office I was interning at and in early August I was reading about the subprime meltdown and Bondarb posted his famous Bear/Lehman are going down post on this forum. I knew something big was happening right then and I was hooked.

    The pendulum has swung to more competition as the number of spots has lessened but interest in them increased. Frustration will eventually slim the field down but it could be quite a while. Same thing is happening with Ivy League schools. Competition is far crazier to get in now than it was ten years ago.

  • BlackHat's picture

    Interview had to be with Icahn! You hear how many times he said "paradigm shift" in one sentence?!

    I hate victims who respect their executioners

  • In reply to jktecon
    UFOinsider's picture

    jktecon:
    a bunch of target applicants with high gpa's who can put their faces down and work but I think it's quite easy to argue that this type of personality is clearly a trend follower. The simple fact that you take a bunch of candidates from similar backgrounds itself creates a predictable atmosphere. When this happens, because of a lack of human ability to look intrinsically at behavior patterns, the outsider has an edge.

    Macro Arbitrage:
    After graduation George Soros sold purses in the streets of London and Bruce Kovner worked as a cab driver. There is no 'path' in this industry.

    Plenty of smart, hardworking kids come out of ivies thinking outside the box, but truth be told that most of them have too much at stake and have spent too much time treading down trodden paths to really see the big picture and take a real risk. For every Warren Buffet or Bill Gross Ivy grad, there's a thousand no name mid levels at 'respectable' institutions. But I'll say this much: they have a hell of an easier time getting their foot in the door!!!!!!!!

    ...and they earned that, no doubt. Even if some kid is a complete tool and made it through Harvard to a megafund, it still takes a shit ton of effort! But most are very very smart and motivated, just don't get out and see much of life outside of their specialty, that's all.

    Get busy living

  • Tupac's picture

    I think the problem here is that there's a lot more to the equation than simply intelligence. Having "stupider" people at the wheel isn't the solution. I would say having more mature, developed people at the wheel is. People who understand themselves, value others, and place a much higher value on what they do than what they make. Kind of like the people that you hope are running the military. You don't want them to be stupider by any means, but you sure as hell want them to have their priorities straight and head screwed on the right way.

    I also think there's a lot of ignorance and assumptions being made in this thread. I go to a school where the main draw is frequently football, and I also know from speaking to other candidates that I have more BB offers (since that's what all the Ivy kids seem to want) and those interviewing me said I have far outperformed other applicants (which have sometimes been >50% Wharton). I understand this comes off as extremely arrogant, but this is an anonymous account so it doesn't really matter, just being honest.

    On the flip side, I think it's important we compare how the US is right now and keep it in relative perspective to the rest of the world. From what I've seen, many of the things you hear about aren't really the case when you gain a deeper understanding of it. For example, when I first started learning about finance, it seemed that the general consensus was that the financial industry was essentially an elaborate scam to suck away as many dollars from "Main Street" as possible. Once you fully understand what's going on, you see that's really not the case. Same with much of the (geo)political positioning of the US. It seems random, fueled by a thirst for power, and so on. And then you read up on a bunch of analysis from STRATFOR and the like, and you start to see a real method to the madness, and it makes a lot more sense. Which is basically my example for the things mentioned above concerning those running our country. I'm not saying it couldn't or shouldn't be much better or that we shouldn't improve, but I think it's important to keep things in perspective.

  • In reply to Macro Arbitrage
    ArsenalFC's picture

    Macro Arbitrage:
    DCDepository:
    We actually need stupider people on Wall Street. The geniuses from Harvard and Wharton ("the smartest guys in the room") collapsed the world financial market, and they destroy the market every quarter century or so. By looking at history, how in the world could anyone argue that we need more "diverse pinheads" on Wall Street? We need people of above average intelligence with passion for logic, numbers and business who are hard workers. We don't need anymore pinheads on Wall Street. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this hedge fund manager played an integral role in destroying someone else's wealth 6-8 years ago while he still walked away with something good.

    It wasn't intelligence that put the financial system at risk, it was the incentives at play across a multitude of levels.

    Yeah I'd have to agree with Macro Arbitrage. Look at Blythe Masters and that whole crew that created CDS's ... their intention wasn't to ruin the world. They, for a short while, had benefitted the economy. Exploitation and economically negative incentives created the bubble, not JP Morgans CDS creators.

    Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go - T.S. Eliot

    See my WSO Blog

  • EURCHF parity's picture

    To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

    Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Google

    Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
  • In reply to EURCHF parity
    UFOinsider's picture

    Get busy living

  • In reply to EURCHF parity
    BlackHat's picture

    I hate victims who respect their executioners

  • In reply to Thurnis Haley
    UFOinsider's picture

    Get busy living