Slashdot Mirror


Goldman Sachs Automated Trading Replaces 600 Traders With 200 Engineers (technologyreview.com)

Goldman Sach's New York headquarters has replaced 600 of its traders with 200 computer engineers over the last two decades or so, thanks to automated trading programs. (Though, the effort to do so has accelerated over the past five years.) "Marty Chavez, the company's deputy chief financial officer and former chief information officer, explained all this to attendees at a symposium on computer's impact on economic activity held by Harvard's Institute for Applied Computational Science last month," reports MIT Technology Review. From their report: The experience of its New York traders is just one early example of a transformation of Goldman Sachs, and increasingly other Wall Street firms, that began with the rise in computerized trading, but has accelerated over the past five years, moving into more fields of finance that humans once dominated. Chavez, who will become chief financial officer in April, says areas of trading like currencies and even parts of business lines like investment banking are moving in the same automated direction that equities have already traveled. Today, nearly 45 percent of trading is done electronically, according to Coalition, a U.K. firm that tracks the industry. In addition to back-office clerical workers, on Wall Street machines are replacing a lot of highly paid people, too. Complex trading algorithms, some with machine-learning capabilities, first replaced trades where the price of what's being sold was easy to determine on the market, including the stocks traded by Goldman's old 600. Now areas of trading like currencies and futures, which are not traded on a stock exchange like the New York Stock Exchange but rather have prices that fluctuate, are coming in for more automation as well. To execute these trades, algorithms are being designed to emulate as closely as possible what a human trader would do, explains Coalition's Shahani. Goldman Sachs has already begun to automate currency trading, and has found consistently that four traders can be replaced by one computer engineer, Chavez said at the Harvard conference. Some 9,000 people, about one-third of Goldman's staff, are computer engineers.

95 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Managers and engineers by fortfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Vonnegut called it in what, 1955?

    1. Re:Managers and engineers by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea. Fuck them. If they want to maintain the illusion that markets (short term) are any different than Las Vegas, require all trades to be hands-on (by humans). No millisecond trades, require holding at least 5 minutes (as a start, a day or week should be the goal).. None of this automated bullshit, which just sucks profits away from investment for speculation. And, make the rules the same for all, no more fast trading for the patricians when the proles have to deal with settlement measured in days.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Managers and engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What? No!!! Please learn about what is actually happening.

      High frequency trading is extremely beneficial to "mom & pop" retail traders due to the increased liquidity it generates.

      HFT doesn't "suck profits away" from the "buy and hold" traders. The HFTs are making profits off of one or two ticks of movement, while the "buy & holders" are sitting-out movement of tens/hundreds of handles. When your mom/pop buys/shorts a stock, a microscopic HFT blip has absolutely no discernible effect on such a long term, buy & hold strategy.

      Please! I am a small retail trader. I benefit substantially from the HFTs by enjoying tighter spreads, quicker fills and better closing prices. Don't poo-poo something that is actually positive, just because you don't understand it!

    3. Re:Managers and engineers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please! I am a small retail trader. I benefit substantially from the HFTs by enjoying tighter spreads, quicker fills and better closing prices.

      Why don't you get a job and become one of the makers instead of one of the takers?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Managers and engineers by Pascoea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      HFT doesn't "suck profits away" from the "buy and hold" traders. The HFTs are making profits off of one or two ticks of movement, while the "buy & holders" are sitting-out movement of tens/hundreds of handles.

      Did you intend to copy the script from Office Space while describing this process, or was that an accident? Because you did

    5. Re:Managers and engineers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By the way, what makes you think that I don't have a job? Lots of retail traders have jobs, apart from trading.

      What does your trading produce for the world? If you're day-trading stocks, which I doubt, you are producing some infinitesimal amount of liquidity for the market. In other words, you're producing nothing. If you're trading derivatives, (more likely), you're just a parasite. Doing harm. A tumor on the economy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Managers and engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you intend to copy the script from Office Space while describing this process, or was that an accident? Because you did

      No, I have never seen that movie/scene, and no, it is nothing like my explanation of HFTs.

      Evidently, your understanding of trading is about as extensive of that of Jennifer Aniston.

      Look, stock prices go up and stock prices go down and sometimes they don't move. There are all kind of things that influence stock prices, but most HFT trading (arbitrage) doesn't really move a stock price, and if it does, it only affects the price by one or two ticks.

      In addition, those one or two HFT ticks can be down or the move can be up (benefiting most of the mom-&-pop, buy-&-hold traders). They do not favor up or down trades (especially with arbitrage), so there is no predominant, cumulative direction of moves with HFT trading.

      What really makes big fortune-influencing moves the markets is fear from institutional and retail traders -- not the HFT operators.

      However (and this is a huge "however"), HFT trading phenomenally enhances liquidity, which means that your mom-&-pop, buy-&-hold traders can actually enjoy a significantly higher profit if a stock moves in their direction. With enough HFT-induced liquidity, "mom & pop" get practically the same deal as that of institutional investors.

      I hope that my explanation has left you more knowledgeable about trading than Ms. Aniston.

    7. Re:Managers and engineers by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, blind traders are a burden on society. What i mean by blind traders is that people who are simply running gambling algorithms and living by the "buy low sell high" rule are a curse on society. It's also what makes it so that people lose tens of thousands of jobs due to "restructuring" because algorithmic traders won't generate trade volume unless someone publishes something in the newspaper. I actually have been sickened by the disgusting concept of a trading floor for decades. It's a group of ass hats running around from buzz to buzz and buying and selling things they don't understand and ruining lives.

      Laws should be passed requiring traders to have to apply for permission to make each trade. What I mean is that all traders even the small ones should have the same requirements that major share holders have. So, you should be able to buy in, but you would have to release a statement of intent to trade and wait 7 days before the transaction takes place.

      There is a disgusting belief, almost like a religion that suggests that gambling on shares with absolutely no regard for how it impacts society as a whole is "Free Market" and "Democracy". Bullshit. Gambling on stocks IS NOT the same as investing in companies. What is worse is that when you gamble on stocks, you believe you have the right to demand a company behaves in any way it takes to increase the value of those stocks to make you a profit. That's filth. It causes shitbacks at major companies to lay off 20% of their workforce and outsource to India because it will generate the buzz which will cause trading volumes to skyrocket. And if the direction is up, people will rake it in, if it's down, they'll short the hell out of it. And yet, you just killed a city and can't even tell me what the company actually does.

      I will shit all over HFT and algorithmic trading because it legitimizes shitting all over millions of peoples lives without even having the first idea what company you're actually effecting. The stock market isn't like a casino. If you win or lose in a casino, only the casino and a small number of people may be impacted. When you treat wall street as a casino where you are allowed to count cards, you and your peers can actually destroy the financial health of entire cities. A program with a bug could collapse an entire company within a few seconds destroying lives.

      Yes, I know there are upsides to trading as well. It gives legitimate investors a way to abandon sinking ships for example. This gives legitimate investors a better reason to make the investment when it's needed. But the downsides far outweigh the upsides.

      Trading is a predatory business/career that focuses entirely on profit with absolutely no regard for the peoples lives it impacts.

      Maybe trading should be restricted to only company stocks that are related to dumping trash in oceans, distributing child labor, sex trafficking and so forth. Trading requires about the same moral compass.

    8. Re:Managers and engineers by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Trades should be taxed on a decay function of how long they're held.

      Hold it for 10 milliseconds? 99.9% tax.

      Hold it for 10 days? 25% tax.

      Hold it for 10 years? Nearly no tax.

    9. Re:Managers and engineers by publiclurker · · Score: 2

      you mean let you try to sell us a bunch of bull because you happen to make a quick buck off of it, don't you?

    10. Re:Managers and engineers by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      then maybe you should spend more time at your real job instead of trying to justify your desire to screw people over.

    11. Re:Managers and engineers by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you pull back a bit you'll see that the tighter spreads and faster trades happen at the cost of losing some of the profit. Kill all the HST and the same fundamentals will apply, when buy >=ask, the stock trades. The difference is that you won't have someone elbowing you out of the way with your buy in order to snatch it up and immediately sell it to you for a bit more than you should have needed to spend.

    12. Re:Managers and engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What does your trading produce for the world?

      Among other less tangible things, my trading provides something very substantial and immediate to "the world" -- a stock, option or payment for the person on the other side of the trade.

      You can think of it sort of like coin collecting or stamp collecting -- I'm buying and selling items and trying to do so for a profit.

      If you're day-trading stocks, which I doubt, you are producing some infinitesimal amount of liquidity for the market. In other words, you're producing nothing. If you're trading derivatives, (more likely), you're just a parasite. Doing harm. A tumor on the economy.

      No doubt you are a great contributor to society, but you seem to have some butthurt.

      I wonder if you say the same thing to those who trade coins and stamps?

    13. Re:Managers and engineers by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It could be argued that if abandoning ship is harder, investors will become more interested in the long term well being of the ship and less interested in short term stock value plays that will crash the company in the long term.

    14. Re:Managers and engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, I don't know what you have up your rear, but it certainly sounds like you know nothing about trading in the stock market.

      Trading stocks, options, futures, etc. is actually not very different from trading coins or stamps. Sometimes we trade to keep something, sometimes we trade to make a profit.

      There's nothing evil about any of it, and each deal always has two parties -- a buyer and a seller. Nobody is forcing the buyer to buy and nobody is forcing the seller to sell. Every trader is a willing participant who sets his or her own guidelines and limits.

    15. Re:Managers and engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This kind of emotionally-charged angry rhetoric isn't constructive. Moreover it's disconnected from reality. It's someone thumping their fists on the table, demanding strongly that something is "wrong" in their eyes and trying to elevate that to some kind of moral imperative. Chest-thumping and loudly proclaiming you'll "shit all over" doesn't sound to me like a strong intellectual argument grounded in fact. Quite how it got rated "insightful" is beyond me.

      I'm sorry but life is more complex than your one-sided view of things presented here.

      Companies collude with markets because those in charge gain financially from doing so. But then so do employees who take stock options. Banks have a vested interest to make more money to be able to loan more in order to make yet more money. This may come as a shock to you but that money also then creates jobs and improves lives and living standards as well. It is not a universally negative activity. Unlike the clear view from on top of your moral highground, it becomes difficult in reality to separate "investment" from "gambling" - there is efficiency to be had in execution through algorithms. Which, oddly, all investors want because nobody wants to pay over the odds. How do you provide liquidity in a market or move positions efficiently if we cannot trade without x days notice? Oh and who gets to give that permission, you? Surely that'd be a much less corruption prone system (haha)? Your solution to most of this seems to be to ban everything. What, Capitalism as well, presumably?

      I find your rationalization and minimization of Las Vegas-style casinos truly bizarre. It seems some forms of gambling that destroy lives is fine by you - because it only affects a small number of people but this larger "gambling" as you perceive it, is not. So the moral outrage of an activity is proportional to what the impact of it is in your eyes? So it's morally acceptable for someone to drive recklessly on the freeway because they're only affecting a few people?

      Another irony you might find amusing - there are "ethical" funds out that don't invest in "dumping trash in oceans, distributing child labor, sex trafficking" (I'm not sure which S&P500 companies do that last one on your list though) - but guess what? They make much poorer returns than funds who have no such restrictions. So are we therefore morally bankrupt as a society to not invest in those companies? What about tobacco? Defence companies (there's an interesting one) - who gets to decide? You and your friends up in ivory towers? An "expert" who's dedicated their life to understanding one company? How does that work? I'll give you a hint to the answer: it doesn't, which is why the system exists as it does today - chaos, inconsistencies, injustices and all - alongside growth and prosperity.

    16. Re:Managers and engineers by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    17. Re:Managers and engineers by MFriis · · Score: 1

      I think this point is that once you and the other willing party is done trading tulips ad infinitum someone figures out it's not worth what they thought. The whole pyramid falls down and left behind is those that trusted the business.

      Those with a house with a mortgage based on stocks/bonds/currency.
      Those with pensions savings invested in otherwise "non risky" stocks.

      You are not trading coins or stamps. You are pumping and draining in a complex ecosystem whose success or fall has huge ramifications for billions of people.

      I am not saying what you are doing is wrong or right, i don't know you. But day/minute/second trading is not just a hobby between willing participants.

    18. Re:Managers and engineers by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder if you say the same thing to those who trade coins and stamps?

      What about tulips?

      There is a fuzzy line between trading that is useful, and that which becomes speculation. If it were so clear as to where that line was, we would never have an asset bubble again. I would suggest that when the financial industry is apparently producing record levels of 'value', while most western economies are no longer able to produce enough housing and infrastructure to sustain the middle class, that the real 'value' to humanity of much of that financial activity is rather overstated.

    19. Re:Managers and engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would even top that: tax trading earnings. Just a tad. Every engineer knows that some damping makes the system more stable.

      Use the proceeds of this tax to head off the most horrible collaterals due to unrestricted trade.

      "What, tax *me*? No!"

      Pfft. Greedy twat. Contribut or go away.

    20. Re:Managers and engineers by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      it only affects the price by one or two ticks.

      You're right, I don't know the intricacies of how it works, and I had to google what a tick was. But that comment right there proves my point. That comment basically means "It only affects the price by a little bit", considering the value of a tick is some fraction of dollar. According to a 30 second reading of this anyway: "For example, the E-mini S&P 500 futures contract has a designated tick size of $0.25 while gold futures have a tick size of $0.10." So you are agreeing that involving a HFT between an actual buyer and an actual seller has an effect on the price, it may not be much, but it has an effect.

      In addition, those one or two HFT ticks can be down or the move can be up

      I'm sure they can go up or down, but the HFTs wouldn't be operating if that tick movement wasn't in their favor the majority of the time. I'm no economics major, but I'm smart enough to figure out they wouldn't be doing it if they weren't making money.

      HFT trading phenomenally enhances liquidity,

      This is where I get fuzzy, it doesn't make sense to me. If I'm placing an order to buy, in order for the transaction to go through there has to be someone willing to sell within the range I'm wiling to buy. Adding an HFT to the mix can't magically create that person willing to sell for what I'm willing to pay. They aren't acting as a necessary middleman, they are just buying what I want to buy before I am able to do so, and selling it to me for "one or two ticks" more than I could have bought it from the seller to begin with.

      So what I'm gathering from your comments, is that Peter Gibbons is pretty accurate in his description. "Well those are whole pennies, right? I'm just talking about fractions of a penny here. But we do it from a much bigger tray and we do it a couple a million times."

    21. Re:Managers and engineers by pscottdv · · Score: 5, Informative

      HFTers always harp on the liquidity thing. News flash, while liquidity is important, it's not the purpose of the market. Equal access is much more important.

      And HFTers absolutely grab profits from everyone else making trades. On the average, HFT makes money. It doesn't make it by finding a customer or building a product, therefore it must come from other traders, Q.E.D.

      It's like I'm in the supermarket reaching for an orange and some guy swoops in and buys all the oranges in the store and all the neighboring stores as well and then offers to sell me my orange for a penny more than the prices on shelf. "But," he cries helpfully, "I did you a favor because you can choose from three times as many oranges now!" I just wanted my damn orange for the listed price.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    22. Re:Managers and engineers by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      To put it simply, everyone should have equal access to the market.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    23. Re:Managers and engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a huge disconnect what HFT is if you think that it adds liquidity to the market, it doesn't. To be honest, I don't understand why it is legal. If you get rid of HFT today, there would be zero impact on the liquidity of the market.

      What HFT does is takes an unfair advantage of buying something before you do and selling it to you. HFT all it does is to take a small portion of the sale/buy transaction without adding any value at all. It should be illegal, if I were to have knowledge of the price of a stock before anyone else, and take advantage of it, I would go to jail. HFT those the same thing at the micro-level and they are able to get away with it simply because the information is available in milliseconds.

    24. Re:Managers and engineers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, why do you ask? To a coin collector, the coin has value in itself, and if I were one, I'd go to a coin shop to buy something I personally value.

      On the other hand, my stocks have no physical components. I don't even have pretty stock certificates. I own them to profit, and to insulate against certain market conditions that could cost me money.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Managers and engineers by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1
      Holyeee Shiiittt, you're goint to admit to being a trader? I feel bad for your inbox, the haterade is going to be swift and strong.

      Having said that, HFT may provide you with the 'liquidity' to move trades personally, but the automation has the arbitrary consequence of grossly magnifying fuckups, and unless everyone cooperates and plays by the same rules, it creates the opportunity for Dark markets to flourish. As an Engineer, I the premise of HFT is great. But the sociologist in me is obliged to point out it creates an incredibly destructive opportunity within a Prisoner's dilemma.

      --
      Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
    26. Re:Managers and engineers by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yea, can we just choke the life out of the shill? Oh, I forgot, it's an AC...

    27. Re:Managers and engineers by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      They make much poorer returns than funds who have no such restrictions. So are we therefore morally bankrupt as a society to not invest in those companies?

      Damn right.

      What about tobacco?

      As evil as evil gets.

      Defence companies (there's an interesting one) - who gets to decide?

      Decent people. In other words, not you.

  2. Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by mmell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Clear back in the twentieth century (the early nineties, IIRC), Goldman-Sachs could see that electronic trading by automated systems, especially wholly automatic trading based on rules and AI systems were more effective and more profitable and so bought Hull Trading. Hull's contribution to the art was the recognition that if his computers could recognize and act on a change in stock prices faster than the other guys', his computers could trade with a guaranteed profit on every transaction (by buying below and selling above the current market price). No need to know which stocks were going to take off or tank - just a system built to respond faster to those events. The occasional market "crash" attributed to automated electronic trading such as this were largely moderated by the market's built-in control mechanisms, which include shutting down such trading if certain criteria occur.

    In short, no need to know what the market is going to do, just a need to know what it is doing right now. Profit not based on picking the right stock but by the fact that stock prices are not constant. As I used to think of it, not making money off the stocks but off of the changes in stock prices. A guaranteed winner. Genius!

    1. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      The occasional market "crash" attributed to automated electronic trading ...

      Some crashes have been attributed to automated trading, but later analysis has found that (so far) no crashes were caused primarily by automatic trading. In fact, the "flash crash" of 2010 was exacerbated by loss of liquidity as automatic traders pulled out because volatility exceeded parameters.

      Humans panic. Computers don't.

    2. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As I used to think of it, not making money off the stocks but off of the changes in stock prices. A guaranteed winner. Genius!

      That's the dream of every hedge fund, right? It works for a while, but if everyone tries it, then the market tanks while the world cheers.
      For example, a lot of people were betting on inflation in 2008 by buying gold. Imagine politicians were doing the same thing. Suddenly it is against their own personal economic interest to stop inflation. That's the sort of thing that can ruin an economy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You can't beat the market consistantly, and by removing emotion and focusing on small arbitrage opportunities and quickly making trades you can profit. Automation will also make it harder for humans to do just that sine the computer does it in real time instead of waiting to see what happens and trying to take advantage of that. Investers will buy into funds that auto trade to make money ; the question ia how long will the arbitrage opportunities remain as more computers try to take advantage of them.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No. That's not what happened.

      Hey genius, you missed the word "imagine"

      Politicians didn't try to profit off of inflation, and they couldn't do so, even if they tried.

      Give me control of the printing press, and I'll print off as much inflation as you want. That is a well-understood economic phenomenon.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      These are bankers and investors

      In other words, "people who don't produce a goddamn thing".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      No. It's just arbitrage, which has been happening for centuries. It has nothing to do with any markets "tanking."

      Just because something has been happening for centuries doesn't mean it's a good thing.

      Arbitrage is the very definition of making money off the productivity of other people. In an age of margin investing, it's poison for society.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Give me control of the printing press, and I'll print off as much inflation as you want. That is a well-understood economic phenomenon.

      And then watch the shitstorm as the rest of the world brands you a currency manipulator.

      [Sorry phantomfive. I have read many of your posts over time, and respect your opinion. Just had to be contrary here, though. Peace out.]

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And then watch the shitstorm as the rest of the world brands you a currency manipulator.

      Well yeah, you are right haha, either that, or the rest of the world would laugh and cry as the country killed itself of avoidable, self-inflicted wounds!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Would you ask Steve Jobs to dig a ditch?

      Steve Jobs ran a company that produced something.

      What does Goldman Sachs produce?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah... that'll work!

      Yes, yes it will. Otherwise we could just print as much money as we want and get free stuff.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would you ask Steve Jobs to dig a ditch?

      Steve Jobs ran a company that produced something.

      What does Goldman Sachs produce?

      Poor people.

    12. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      What does Goldman Sachs produce?

      People in western countries produce far more than people in poor countries. Why? It is not because they work harder. People in poor countries work much harder, but they work on the wrong things, because capital is misallocated, and resources are squandered. In western countries, investors seek out even tiny increases in return on capital, meaning that resources are used very efficiently. It is easy to denigrate investors and capitalists as "producing nothing", but they are the reason you don't live in another 3rd world shantytown. God bless Goldman Sachs.

    13. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      I believe you got something wrong about panic. Doing nothing when volatility exceed limits is not panic. Volatility exceeding limits means no course of action can be extracted or determined. If you believe someone should be forced to actually act on such condition, the action is absolutely useless. No one knows the outcome. So, this is actually panic. Acting irrationally.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    14. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd be more impressed if they were putting their AIs to work on macro economics and equity fundamentals analysis and coming up with 3-5 year buy and hold strategies that aligned a company's fundamentals with macro economics to figure out growth patterns.

      It seems like a racing team that's given all the money to the guys that get the car down the first straightaway .01 seconds faster than anyone else and forgotten about racing the rest of the track.

    15. Re: Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by humptheElephant · · Score: 2

      Yes, and now the US is not fixing our infrastructure. It will eventually pay the price. But the billionaires who now run the country will not care. They can sit in the guarded estates, use their aircraft, boats and other do-dads and ignore the rest of society that they raped. They take their money and stash it overseas so they don't pay taxes. They have made their profits on the backs of the middle class and lower paid workers. Most of them are parasites on society and society can't afford them anymore.

    16. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      Right. I've seen talks of a firm using AI and ML to trade on Forex and they definitely have a kill-switch for big events. The AI and ML works well on every-day trading but not one-in-four year events like elections.

    17. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      So, your argument is that without investment bankers, esp. Goldman Sachs, the US would not be a first-world country? Interesting, as the historical record paints a different picture.

    18. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      the "flash crash" of 2010 was exacerbated by loss of liquidity as automatic traders pulled out because volatility exceeded parameters.

      Humans panic. Computers don't.

      Boy. That sure looks like what happens when humans panic. If the result is the same, what's the difference?

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    19. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      automatic traders pulled out

      Boy. That sure looks like what happens when humans panic. If the result is the same, what's the difference?

      Sorry, I worded that poorly. By "pull out", I meant that they stopped trading. I didn't mean that they sold off their holdings, as panicking human investors tend to do.

    20. Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by soc_cost_priv_gains · · Score: 1

      Now, now, Goldman Sachs makes their clients money such as advising them to buy mortgage backed securities, oh wait, never mind.

    21. Re: Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      There was also a tendency for huge enclosed landed estates before the Roman Empire fell. The thing is, if the collapse is large enough, it doesn't matter where they run to, because the shit will hit them there as well.

  3. Hookers and blow? by easyTree · · Score: 2

    According to https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/18/goldman-sachs-blankfein-sorry,

    "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money,"

    .

    Who knows what sophisticated and perfectly-executed levels of depravity might be perpetrated by Golden Sox' robot traders? Hookers and blow may well be involved but not in a fun Benderesque sense.

  4. Engineers, eh? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    Sooooo.... Russians or Indians?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Engineers, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Americans and some Russians at first, then as documentation practices improved, 90% of them were replaced with Indians.

    2. Re:Engineers, eh? by Nonesuch · · Score: 1
      In my experience, Russians.

      Sergey Aleynikov wasn't the first, nor the last.

  5. Unsurprising... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    I bet those engineers don't get performance bonuses or commissions.

    1. Re:Unsurprising... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I bet those engineers don't get performance bonuses or commissions.

      Commissions, no. Bonuses, yes. I know some techies that work in finance, and the compensation is VERY good. I am not sure it equals the value of a human soul, but still very good.

  6. So tell me again by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    why we tolerate these people? I just realized I can't afford a house because of how the mathematics of mortgages work. I never bothered to do the math since I never thought I could buy one. After 10 years of paying down debt and saving I thought I was ready. Not so much. The way mortgage math works out you're paying almost all interest for the first 15 years of a 30 year loan ( stretched to 30 years since these bastards took 20% from me). Then I need extra insurance since the 2008 crash & a couple family illnesses (thanks private medical system) wiped out my savings. And I need home owners. And I have to pay HOA fees because we cut so much funding outside of rich neighborhoods there's no money to cut weeds and fix roads. It all kept adding up until I realized it'd be more than I could afford what with a kid in college and the real reason it costs $100k to go to college.

    Not just all the cost, but all the _risk_ is on the home owner. The banks make sure they get their interest up front. And they take my tax dollars to guarantee the loans and hold the entire f'n country hostage if we don't pay.

    Every last one of us except 1% is getting screwed by this. Why the hell do we tolerate it? Why don't we force the banks profits _down_ and our standard of living _up_? Why is the free market so much more God Damned important that we'd throw our lives away chasing Any Rand's ghost? Fuck.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: So tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so the math says you cant get a house but you never did the math...enjoy paying rent to landlord/parents or living with parents? 20% down payment will clear that pmi problem. also, living in your means will get you a house you can afford unless parents can kick in. ive known a few dinks with 6 figures each tbat bitch about not getting "decent" houses in high income townships with "enough acres"

    2. Re:So tell me again by Kjella · · Score: 1

      why we tolerate these people? I just realized I can't afford a house because of how the mathematics of mortgages work. I never bothered to do the math since I never thought I could buy one. After 10 years of paying down debt and saving I thought I was ready. Not so much. The way mortgage math works out you're paying almost all interest for the first 15 years of a 30 year loan (...) Not just all the cost, but all the _risk_ is on the home owner. The banks make sure they get their interest up front.

      Not sure why you think this is some special mortgage math or evil in any way. Think of it as the big brother of credit card debt, the rest of the loan that you don't repay this month you push to next month and pay interest. The interest is at all times proportional to the amount of debt you push in front of you. Changing that is like asking to change the rocket equation, you get a lot more delta-v from the last galleon of fuel when the rocket is empty than the first galleon when the rocket is full and that's just how it is.

      The rest is just distributing what funds you have left over to make down payments on the principal, if you want the monthly payments to be flat then the down payment must be small when the interest is big and the down payment big when the interest is small. But they don't really care how you structure that, if you want to pay in extra or pay in less most have options for that. What is immutable is that you'll always pay interest on the debt you push in front of you.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:So tell me again by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      I can't afford a house because of how the mathematics of mortgages work

      That's like saying I can't fill a bathtub by pissing it once because of the mathematics of how volume works.

    4. Re:So tell me again by ranton · · Score: 1

      Those holding all the capital are sharing a little bit with you in exchange for your services. How much money have your made your clients/employer? Are you really enjoying the scraps from the table?

      His employers are giving the portion of their income that he has earned from commanding a certain wage in the marketplace. He may complete a project for $100k, and his company may have increased profits of $1 million, but his contributions were not the sole cause of the income. Their existing client base, IP, salesmen, marketing, business processes, capital expenditures, and so on were also involved. This is often lost on individual contributors who only see their contribution and ignore the other costs of doing business.

      it's not true wealth and doesn't bring you all that much in the long run. Sure, you may have $1-5 million in the bank when you die, but you will have lived your life at the whims of others. Start your own business. Own your own IP. Work for yourself and be free. It's the only way...

      You have probably never owned your own business if you think business owners are not at the whims of others. You just trade a few bosses for thousands of bosses (customers). Being an employee instead of an employer is simply a low risk and usually lower return option for having a quality life. As long as you keep a decent cash reserve (which is much less than a business owner would need) and manage your career well enough to ensure your skills don't become obsolete, you can enjoy a quite low risk path towards $3-$5 million (2017 dollars) of retirement funds.

      Anyone capable of being a successful business owner is also capable of being a successful employee. It's mostly just a question of risk tolerance and different priorities in life.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    5. Re:So tell me again by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      you're paying almost all interest for the first 15 years of a 30 year loan

      That's the way any long loan works. It's almost all interest up front, and turns to almost all principal at the end. The good thing is that, by paying extra principal early on, you can reduce the effective term of the mortgage. In any case, this is not of interest if the idea is to buy a house and keep it, rather than buy and sell it.

      Then I need extra insurance since the 2008 crash & a couple family illnesses (thanks private medical system) wiped out my savings.

      Extra insurance? I don't understand where that's coming from. You're going to have to keep the house insured in any case, so that the institution who holds your mortgage doesn't lose all collateral and hope of recovery if the house gets destroyed. Could you explain?

      Not just all the cost, but all the _risk_ is on the home owner.

      Your risk is that, if you are unable to make mortgage payments, you forfeit the house. The bank really doesn't want the house, and will try to work something out with you. Other than that, the house is yours. If you've got a fixed-rate mortgage, you know how much your principal and interest payments are going to be for decades, and they're not going up on you. Other than that, you've got the house and you're going to keep it. I don't understand what you mean by home owners' risk. The banks collect interest, true, but early in the loan they lose the whole principal if you don't make your payments, and they really don't want the title to your house.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:So tell me again by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You've also got a lot more luck than most people. It's comforting to think that you did well because you made the right decisions, but a larger part of it than you think is just luck.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:So tell me again by idji · · Score: 1

      And that is why we have him who sits in the White House - people did something about it.

    8. Re:So tell me again by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Thanks. In other words, people the lender has less confidence in pay more, just like every other lending decision I know of.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. "Engineers" my ass by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's not really a role for an "engineer". A coder skilled in mathematics or mathematician skilled in coding is a better fit. They are just calling them "engineers" because it sounds impressive and not because the IEEE or any other professional body would recognize them as engineers.
    Yes, yes, I'm perfectly aware that there are programmers who fit the description of engineer in every way, but I doubt these ones are.

    1. Re: "Engineers" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Next, replace the 200 engineers with 10 physicists.

  8. H1B, the Future of the "American" Workforce by 14erCleaner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Goldman Sachs has also filed over 2900 applications for H1B visas in the past three years. I suspect this isn't for traders.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  9. Computers do so panic. by mmell · · Score: 2
    Kernel panic - task held.

    Hit F1 to continue . . .

  10. Goldman Sachs 600 Traders by jaminJay · · Score: 4, Funny

    Alternative title: "Goldman Sachs 600 Traders"

    --
    Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
  11. The UBS war room by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2

    https://contrarian.live/2016/0...

    Pictures tell a thousand words.

    But who are we kidding about financial markets anyway. Like in a casino, the house always wins.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:The UBS war room by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Thats due to the Dodd-Frank rules. Prior to them UBS was able to gamble on the markets with their clients money for their own benefit. Thats what that trading floor was for. They are not allowed to do it any more.

      That is what is terrifying about the roll back of those laws by Trump. It brings the gambling by the banks back into the system.

  12. Remember traders by Gabest · · Score: 1

    It's You vs Goldman. Always.

  13. Re:Couldn't [profit] if they tried. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    The pieces you are failing to put together is that as you said, politicians aren't very smart. Therefore they will try to profit even if they cannot. And the funny thing about inflation is that it can look to you as if you are profiting when you are not.

  14. Ok, now tell me where I get that money by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    after a) a large scale economic crash caused by deregulation b) several medical problems outside my control (other family members).

    The places without HOAs are slums thanks to white flight. We abandon the inner cities and let them all go to shit. The HOAs don't just do that. They maintain a ton of crap that used to be maintained with tax dollars. Again, if I want things that everybody used to take for granted I need to live in ridiculously expensive places. Anything affordable is a hell hole by design.

    And read my f'n post you damned troll. I'm bitching _because_ I understand the terms of the mortgage. I understand that I'm paying the interest up front so that the bank gets all of the profit and none of the risk. I pay interest up front because the longer I'm in the house the better the odds my life'll go to shit again when somebody gets sick or my job gets offshored or whatever disaster strikes next. Interest is suppose to be the profit a bank makes for risk. Why the hell are they getting so much damned profit for zero fucking risk?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Ok, now tell me where I get that money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      after a) a large scale economic crash caused by deregulation b) several medical problems outside my control (other family members).

      The places without HOAs are slums thanks to white flight. We abandon the inner cities and let them all go to shit. The HOAs don't just do that. They maintain a ton of crap that used to be maintained with tax dollars. Again, if I want things that everybody used to take for granted I need to live in ridiculously expensive places. Anything affordable is a hell hole by design.

      And read my f'n post you damned troll. I'm bitching _because_ I understand the terms of the mortgage. I understand that I'm paying the interest up front so that the bank gets all of the profit and none of the risk. I pay interest up front because the longer I'm in the house the better the odds my life'll go to shit again when somebody gets sick or my job gets offshored or whatever disaster strikes next. Interest is suppose to be the profit a bank makes for risk. Why the hell are they getting so much damned profit for zero fucking risk?

      You say you understand loan amortization but you really do not. It has nothing to do with "up front profit for risk".

      I have a $457,000 30 year mortgage at 3.375% fixed. It was a zero point loan with low closing costs.
      The monthly payment includes $752 principal and $1287 interest. The interest is tax deductible to me.

      This loan has multiple forms of risk:
      Repayment risk - I may not repay
      Interest rate risk - interest rates could climb (and probably will), but my rate is fixed for 30 years
      Capital risk - the money I borrowed today will be worth a lot less in 30 years

      Given the above risks would you have lent me $457,000 with a promise to repay you over the next 30 years at about $2000 a month? Would you really see that big $1287 interest as covering all your risks?

      Personally I'm happy to have received this loan and I don't see why you think it is such a bad deal. I could have taken a 15 year loan but the monthly principal would have been about $1000 higher and it made more sense for me to put that money to work in the stock market.

      Most mortgage lenders make their money on the loan closing, not the loan servicing. Conforming loans are offloaded to Fanny Mae as quickly as they can be. The bank does not want to tie up capital any longer than they have to.

      As for the HOA/non HOA "hellhole", my real estate taxes are $1400/month. I bet that's way over whatever you are paying your HOA. The bill has to get paid somehow.

    2. Re:Ok, now tell me where I get that money by ranton · · Score: 1

      I'm bitching _because_ I understand the terms of the mortgage. I understand that I'm paying the interest up front so that the bank gets all of the profit and none of the risk. I pay interest up front because the longer I'm in the house the better the odds my life'll go to shit again when somebody gets sick or my job gets offshored or whatever disaster strikes next. Interest is suppose to be the profit a bank makes for risk. Why the hell are they getting so much damned profit for zero fucking risk?

      Based on your comments you don't seem to understand much. You are paying interest up front because you don't have enough money to pay for a house in full, and no one outside of maybe your immediate family is likely to loan you money without any compensation. Current mortgage rates are at around 4.25%, which becomes more like 3.2% to someone in the 25% tax bracket. That is hardly highway robbery. Most people wouldn't be happy if their retirement accounts were returning them 4.25% per year over 30 years, but yet you think this is an absurdly high interest rate for some reason.

      At such a low interest rate, your damn right the bank is not willing to take much risk at all. I sure wouldn't for those low rates.

      The only reason 70%+ of your mortgage is going towards interest is because you are taking out a loan for such a long period of time (30 years). If you take out a 15 year mortgage with today's rates only 40% of your mortgage would go towards interest. You are intentionally trying to pay back the bank as slowly as they will allow but are then blaming them that your principal payments are so low. They are low because you choose for them to be low.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  15. Re:But can they teach them to insider trade by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter, the Goldman Sachs is too busy acting as an intermediary for selling the treasury bonds to the Fed in order to implement the quantitative easing. Who needs the insider trading when you're running the Grand Central on that gravy train?

  16. Things are bad right now by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why we tolerate these people? I just realized I can't afford a house because of how the mathematics of mortgages work.

    Such it up you clueless millennial whiner. You understand nothing, nothing at all.
    Want to pay more principal early on in your loan? Just [...]

    Many people will say your problems are due to your own personal choices.

    They are not.

    Certainly there's a certain group of people who make bad choices and ruin their lives, or who can't seem to get ahead.

    But there's another group of people, who we used to call the "middle class", who make intelligent choices but who are on the brink of poverty, or falling into poverty, or generally having a tough time getting ahead.

    We see articles here about the rising cost of education, and the answer is always "some people don't need higher education". We see articles about how few jobs there are, and the answer is always "move to where the jobs are". We see articles about outsourcing, and the opinions are "you lose your job, but the population benefits overall due to lowered costs".

    We are gutting the middle class in this country, have been for about 20 years, and the overall sentiment is "expect less out of life". Don't expect to own a house, don't expect to send your kids to college, don't expect to live as long, don't expect to get paid more, don't expect to be able to pay your medical bills...

    ...and on and on.

    You're ahead of the curve by actually doing the calculations and trying to predict your finances - a lot of people up to 2009 didn't do that, and thought that they could have the same opportunities as people had in the 1980's.

    There's lots of people who think everything's fine and will try to pin this back on you, but it's most likely not anything you did.

    Don't listen to them.

    Things are bad right now, and whether they will get better remains to be seen.

    1. Re:Things are bad right now by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      All the things that give people stability in life and thus access to cheaper loans are getting more expensive. Healthcare, for example, because if a lender knows that the state will offer you free/cheap healthcare you are less of a risk. Education, because higher levels of education usually tally with high levels of income and better careers prospects, lower chance of being laid off etc.

      Combine that with older people who already have houses continually voting for policies that make their assets rise in value, and housing is now unaffordable for first time buyers. For a lot of people their best bet is to wait for a relative to die and leave them an inheritance, preferably property.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Things are bad right now by ranton · · Score: 1

      But there's another group of people, who we used to call the "middle class", who aren't necessarily lazy but still usually choose easy options in life who are on the brink of poverty, or falling into poverty, or generally having a tough time getting ahead.

      FTFY. People making intelligent choices are quickly moving into the upper middle class (2/3 of people leaving the middle class are getting wealthier not poorer) because of those intelligent choices. What is being lost is the ability to keep your head down and coast through life but still make a comfortable living.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  17. Re:But can they teach them to insider trade by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

    And when that business dries up they will just go back to selling securities it knows are toxic to its customers and then selling those securities short so they profit when their customer loses. Now with the new fiduciary rule (which would require financial advisors for your retirement accounts to put your interests ahead of their profit) being "reviewed" before it can even go into effect and many former Goldman Sachs employees in senior cabinet positions expect more of the same, investment banks fleecing their customers, other investors and taxpayers for every cent they can.

    --

    Enigma

  18. s/effect/affect by mmell · · Score: 1

    Damned Android auto correct!

  19. Re:But can they teach them to insider trade by ls671 · · Score: 2

    Of course, there is a mini-USB port for that.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  20. 200 engineers by Infestedkudzu · · Score: 1

    Engineers are the easiest job to automate. The job itself is a function of automation. Like a snake eating its tail.

    1. Re:200 engineers by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      It's not as easy as you think. Somebody has to supervise the robots so that when they inevitably fall off the track, they are shutdown and repaired rather continue running and destroy everything.

  21. Very frustrating. Maybe I can help by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It sure can be a frustrating thing. You know financially you're much better off owning (landlords make money because renting costs more than buying), but getting the down payment together and everything can be pretty difficult. I studied mortgages and such extensively when I bought my houses (without a huge down payment) - maybe I can help, if you'd like to discuss it.

    > Then I need extra insurance since the 2008 crash & a couple family illnesses (thanks private medical system) wiped out my savings.

    PMI sucks donkey dick. It sucks even more if you have less than 10% down. Which includes 9.9% down. 10% has significantly lower PMI than 9.9%. There are three ways to get 10% down. On the finance side, the first trick I use is my buyer's agent refunds me 1.5%. He gets paid 3% commission, and splits it with me. Obviously he's NOT a full-service broker who is going to spend days driving me around. I drive myself around looking at houses. When I find what I want, he handles the contract and pays me $4,500 for the privilege of doing so.

    If you're having trouble hitting 10% (or striving for 20% down), don't pay loan origination fees or anything to the mortgage broker or bank, at least not much. A good loan officer can trade you back and forth on fees versus interest rate, so you can always get a no-fee loan or very low fees. Your interest rate will appear to be slightly higher in exchange BUT hitting that 10% down mark will *reduce* your interest rate. By getting over that 10% (or 20%) mark, you reduce the rate + PMI by about as much as the no-fee option "increased" it - and you'll pay PMI for a shorter time.

    You can consider a slightly longer commute, or a slightly smaller house, or one that needs a little TLC to get the cost of your first house down, in order to be able to hit 10% down.

    On the side of saving up a bit more down payment, I'll just refer you to Dave Ramsey. He has a radio show, and a podcast you can listen to in the car for free. His books and CDs are available cheap on ebay.

    Certain government programs have *permanent* PMI. Fuck that. You want the normal PMI that goes away after you have 20% equity. (Not that you *want* PMI, but with less than 20% down you're going to have it.)

    > The way mortgage math works out you're paying almost all interest for the first 15 years of a 30 year loan

    You can greatly improve that ratio of interest to principal after two to three years. More on that later, after some long-winded explanation.

    You actually get to decide what percentage of your payment goes to interest and which percentage goes to principal. You made a couple comments on this, one indicating you understand it, but another indicating maybe you don't fully. Let's see if we can get clear on this. Suppose you borrow 200K at 3% for one year. What's the interest? 3% of 200K is 6K, that's the amount of interest you pay in the first year. You don't pay the interest "up front", you pay interest as you incur it. If someome paid their loan off in ten years, the first year they'd pay ~$6K in interest and ~$20K in principal. Does that make sense? (Obviously few people pay off a mortgage in ten years, but a short term makes the math more transparent.) Suppose someone said "I'm a masochist, so I want to make sure I'm paying on this damn loan for as long as possible - make me pay for 30 years." How can a mathematician help this masochist pay for as long as possible? Well just pay interest every year, pay very little principal, and it'll take 30 years to pay it off. :) In a very real way, the interest is such a huge chunk of the payment only if you insist on paying for 30 damn years. You may know that you *can*, after you get your next raise, decide to pay a lot less interest by paying a bit more principal each month, which causes your loan to be paid off much sooner.

    In your particular case, you can also decrease the interest and pay it off sooner WITHOUT increasing your payment. That damn PMI? We're going to try to get rid of that

  22. Ps Have the seller chip in $3,000 to make 10% down by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I forgot to include another good tip that will get you $3,000 closer to 10% down. In your offer on the house, make the top line offer $3,000 more, with the seller kicking you back $3,000 to cover the cost of appraisal and such.

    Technically, the seller isn't supposed to pay any of your down payment, but they can hand you money to cover expenses like appraisal.

    Depending in the mortgage company, the 1.5% refund from your agent may or may not be allowed to go *directly* toward the down payment. If it's not allowed, you just apply it to the down payment *indirectly*. You just have to find a way to "borrow" the money for 30 days without technically borrowing it. A 401K "loan" may not count as a loan because you're borrowing your own money. Putting off paying a bill that isn't due until the end of the month isn't technically a loan. An IRA rollover puts the money in your pocket for 30 days if you do it right, etc.

      So you use $4K of your "not borrowed" money to make the down payment, then use the agent's refund to replace the money.

    One other thing - you didn't say where you live. If you're in the bay area, will shit yeah housing is outrageous. I just bought in the hottest Dallas suburb, a 3,5000 square foot house with a pool for $245,000.

    I didn't touch on FICO score either. A good FICO score will reduce your interest rate, of course. You need your FICO credit scores to be above 700, preferably above 740. That's FICO brand score, Vantage Score, freecreditreport.com, etc aren't what matters. The number one easiest, most effective way to quickly increase your score is to make sure your credit card balance is 6%-8% of the limit. Higher or lower reduces your score. (Though 3% or so is good too, don't go to zero balance). Your balance should all be on one card. Just like the down payment has cutoffs at 10% and 20%, so does the FICO score. 701 will get a better rate than 699. If you're close to the next bracket, adding a few points to move up a bracket will make a difference.

  23. "trading" isn't "economic activity" by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Unless you count sucking the lifeblood out of the real economy and depriving small traders of the margins to which they would be entitled in a fair stock market.

    Think about it. What does Goldman Sachs or any other big investment bank provide to economy in terms of actual goods and services? Are their multi-billion dollar annual profits really commensurate with the actual value of the services that they provide? Why does everyone out in the real economy, producing the real value struggle under perpetual debt while the people who shuffle money around accumulate(not "earn") massive profits?
    These people are nothing but parasites who are endowed by the federal government with special legal privileges to rip off everyone else. This isn't "economic activity" or "industry" or "capitalism" it's leeching. "The Vampire Squid" is a perfectly appropriate label for GS.

  24. 3,500 not 35000. Big, but not THAT big by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I just saw that I typed "3,5000" square feet. Obviously that should be 3,500. It's a pretty big house, five bedrooms, but it's not 35,000 square feet. 35,000 is a neighborhood, not a house. :)

  25. Re:But can they teach them to insider trade by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for the crash when they all get hacked

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  26. Re:Trump will fix it by Bratch · · Score: 1

    Maybe Trump will bring back those 400 lost jobs by reverting to doing it all manually.

    --
    Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
  27. ye olde salami slicing trick by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Richard Pryor did it first in "Superman 3".
    I know what you're going to say, there was no "Superman 3", but in the universe I come from, unfortunately there was.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  28. Where do I get started? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    1. Your repayment risk is low because you have a large down payment. Or you have PMI that shifts the risk to you via insurance

    2. Banks don't pay interest like you and me. Especially large banks.

    3. Outside of an economic crash even the 3.75% you're paying will beat inflation.

    4. You're in the top 10% of earners judging by the price of your home. That means you get to deduct interest because you have enough to itemize. Folks like me don't make enough to itemize unless we're paying crazy high interest rates. And all the gov't programs to help first time home buyers like me got shut down when the economy tanked in 2008.

    5. Property taxes are inherently regressive. As a member of the upper (middle?) class regressive taxes benefit you. I'm in the lower class (higher end of the working poor). They hurt me and at least 60% of Americans (probably a lot more, but given that 60% of Americans don't have $1000 in the bank I'll use that number). 6. Fanny Mae is plenty profitable.

    Your perspective is completely different than mine because you're doing a lot better than I am. Go back and have your finances wrecked by a few illnesses and a couple jobs lost to outsourcing/H1-Bs and you're opinion will change drastically...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  29. It's like that Mitt Rhomey meme/joke by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    "Why don't poor people just buy more money?". If I could afford to pay more so that housing was affordable I wouldn't care that housing wasn't affordable because housing would be affordable. It's a ridiculous catch 22.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/