Skip to main content

Wall Street's Inevitable Move Towards Automation

Informative article from Bloomberg about Wall Street's inevitable move towards automation.

It's widely accepted that "low-skill" jobs will be the easiest to automate, such as many fast food jobs. But what about fancy Wall Street traders with their Harvard MBA's and all? It appears they aren't safe, either.

This isn't exactly news. The majority of stock trading today is done by computer algorithms. And it has long seemed to me that, if any job were ripe to be replaced by robots, it would be stock traders, money managers, and similar jobs.

Some quotes from the article:

Yet in interviews, about a dozen Wall Street executives and consultants responsible for deploying technologies -- and steeped in their capabilities -- were more bearish on humans. Machines will take over task after task, they said, and banks simply won’t need nearly as many people.
...
It’s time for senior managers to stop sugarcoating, said Simon Moss, who has been advising banks and investing firms as head of Grant Thornton LLP’s fintech and innovation practice for the industry.

“Are there positions in financial services that are actually untouchable from technology? The simple answer is ‘No,’” Moss said. “It’s just a case of when.”
...
Floor traders who once shouted orders in raucous marble-columned exchanges have seen their numbers dwindle since the 1990s, forcing many to seek new work.
...
Can jobs held by office-dwelling millionaires disappear like those on factory floors?

The answer to this last question is yes. The banks can boost earnings by eliminating those "office-dwelling millionaire" jobs, and the banks' shareholders will want them to.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more