At hedge funds, the majority of your "cash bonus" can take the form of deferred comp that's locked up in a shitty fund that doesn't perform anything like the famous ones (both Citadel and RenTec do this). Some don't let you pull it out unless you never work again.
RSU comp can be quite competitive when you take those factors into account.
Usually because the strategies which have genuine alpha and consistently outperform are capacity constrained, and so cannot be scaled to handle both.
Of course, at RenTech in particular the employee-only fund is the good fund. But that's not always the case, so the parent commenter has a point. Deferred/locked up compensation can really suck.
>Of course, at RenTech in particular the employee-only fund is the good fund
Yeah, but only the long tenured/high performing employees get access to the good fund (there's a merely average fund that most employee deferred comp goes into, if I understand correctly).
Former colleague of mine was a M&A trader at Lehman during the crash. 95% of his net worth was in his fund, which was up 50%+ for the year when the bankruptcy trustee seized everything. IIRC, he was starting to get his money back in ~2014-15.
FWIW it looks like pandas is slow/OOM-ing because the benchmarks solely use Categoricals, which aren't as heavily used by pandas users compared to R.
In particular, I suspect the benchmark sizing is forcing falling back from numpy's int64 to Python ints as categorical labels, which easily could explain a 10x or more differential.
>SIPC insurance up to 500K USD on all (non-crypto) investment accounts? This is on-par with the same kind of protections you get with any FDIC-insured checking or savings account.
While similar, SIPC is not "on-par" with FDIC.
With FDIC, the bank is taken over Friday afternoon and your cash is available Monday morning.
With SIPC, it could very easily be five years before you have access to your assets again.
The difference in the value of the insurance also means the regulatory scrutiny behind SIPC is far lower.
The crosswalk is not part of the intersection, so it's the latter definition. For example, blocking a crosswalk and blocking an intersection are separate offenses.
The single LAX-SFO pair is about 10% of LAX's daily takeoffs, completely ignoring SJC and OAK. Throw in BUR and HSR effectively amounts to a significant capacity increase for non-short haul flights.
Except that the HSR wouldn't get close to LAX or SFO. It at best would replace SJC to BUR, and even then not really since it will only go to Bakersfield.
So most of those flights would probably stay, because why take the HSR if you still have to drive an hour on each end?
Nope, the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. They'll be kept for expensive international connections, but the frequency will be dramatically cut.
Also, who cares about actually going to an airport? It's only a means to getting where you need to go, which is probably downtown SF or LA
I was just using the airport as a proxy. But sure let's look at where people actually want to go. If you arrive in San Jose on HSR, and want to go to downtown, you still have to drive an hour or take a train for 90 minutes. And if you arrive in Bakersfield and want to go downtown, you're looking at two hours in the car or three on a bus.
> the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets.
So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars so they can remove those flights? Sounds like we already have a system that works and is subsidizing other flights as well.
You are more cautious than the SF city government - basically all of the recent (and future) construction is in the most seismically unsound parts of the city!
I was born around the time prop 13 passed and it wasn’t until I was in my twenties that I realized _why_ everything had been obviously built like an affluent society but crumbling due to lack of maintenance for as long as I’d been aware of it.
One memory in particular was when the San Diego Union Tribune ran a picture of new computers from one of those supermarket programs, sitting under a hole in the roof because the district had been underfunded on maintenance for three decades.
Building maintenace is the most readily glaring, but by far the worst aspect of prop 13 passing is how much school districts were and still are defunded. Untold damage to 40 years of students.
I’m also curious how it’ll work for hiring new teachers: they’re usually offered worse wages than the retiring boomers saw at the same point in their careers and the housing market is much worse.
All the school districts near me have chronic teacher shortages, and there’s tremendous teacher turnover. Occasionally a teacher will go homeless before leaving for a district with lower cost of living.
A prominent neighborhood activist has switched from NIMBY to YIMBY because his wife was recruited on an emergency basis to teach high school English without a teaching certificate, and has been teaching for the past several years.
All the teachers I know of my age are living either with parents or with their parents’ financial assistance.
The one mitigating factor is that young parents are having difficulty affording this region, so schools are starting to close and not need any teachers anymore.
Goldman Sachs hasn't been a partnership since they IPO'd. They just use "partner" as a title for legacy reasons.
In general, a partnership is a collection of equity owners ("the partners"). To become a partner you have to buy equity, usually sold by a retiring partner.
Sometimes "new partners" are created by diluting the stock; this is generally avoided unless the person is expected to grow the business by at least that much.
RSU comp can be quite competitive when you take those factors into account.