Optiver, I presume? I was almost lured into working for them too, being blinded by the high tech playground that it seemed to be. Regarding the adding value, they defend their right to exist as "because of us, instruments are priced properly everywhere and that's good for everyone", isn't it?
One of my ex was a commodity trader in another big player, Cargill. She was not the most moral being to start with (you simply can't be a successful moral trader, period), but even for her trading with edible commodities was the worst moral shithole - your success would easily help cause hundreds/thousands of deaths in some famine/disaster stricken place, usually in Africa.
She was in energy and oil instead - her success would mean that down the line, we all would pay up a bit for her success (selling expensively when demand was high). And also with oil, she would be trying to create as cheap gas/diesel from oil as possible (meaning passing regulations in some 3rd world country), it took her easily 10 fails to get just slightly above the (very low) bar. The result - engines destroyed over time with crappy fuel, environment polluted with less-than-ideal material burned. But nobody gave a nano-fraction of a fck, it was Africa.
Yeah, traders, they think super high about themselves, most are properly broken human beings, a pure net loss for humanity
I'm sure they do, and that's an axiomatic statement that can be horribly, catastrophically wrong but makes them feel better about their lives.
Never underestimate the very human emotional motivation of coming up with a pleasing rationalization. Just because someone earnestly says 'we are helping, so much!' doesn't mean they're correct.
To me this argument always came across as fabricated and empty.
I have seen too many examples internally at that place, where the (to me) obvious moral choice was neglected or even laughed at.
The "because of us, instruments are priced properly everywhere and that's good for everyone" is interesting.
Does that result solely exist because of us making a market? What is 'properly priced' exactly and why would it be a Bad Thing if it were less 'properly priced'? And why is this even a goal that should be pursued? And should that goal be pursued at all (and I do mean ALL) cost?
Those questions were never answered to my satisfaction.
Exactly, that was my experience too. People who were very capable of analytical rigor around cost/benefit tradeoffs suddenly became very handwavey when it came time to analyze whether the company generated enough social benefit to justify level of profit.
