

Building the next generation of financial infrastructure - nqureshi
http://blog.zactownsend.com/building-the-next-generation-of-financial-infrastructure

======
thebear
Wow. Extremely impressive all around. I can see how Standard Treasury's
priorities are well-chosen, in every respect. Personally, however, I find it a
bit regrettable that interacting with personal investors' brokerage accounts
does not seem to be on that list of priorities. I'd just like to weigh in by
saying that for me, for the project that I'm working on, and ultimately for
every personal investor, it would be awesome to be able to interact
programmatically with brokerage accounts, in a way that is not indirect,
kludgy, and costly. The first and most important step would be to get daily
balances and cash flows. Next would be getting information about trades.
Ultimately, of course, one would be able to make trades. Again, like
everything else, this is possible now. It just needs to become easy and not
cost an arm and a leg.

------
deciplex
Reposting my comment in this repost of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8240626](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8240626)

Conway's Law:

>Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which
are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.

In my experience this is very true at banks. Perhaps it is truer at banks than
anywhere else - although I suspect as much, I can't be sure. Bank software is
basically about implementing in code, processes that were developed to be
applied solely by humans 100 years ago or more. It's all the same stuff. There
is nothing new. It's so bad that, after an organizational change, even if
there is no logical reason that this change should affect the software running
the bank at all, it will anyway, because some existing piece of technology was
the old guy's pet project, and so the new guy needs his own pet project. And
all projects are pet projects. And so on.

And that's just on the tech side. Of course, on the business side, technology
is a cost to be grudgingly paid out and worked on, at best. And once the
technical debt gets to be unworkable, someone comes up with the great idea to
hand everything over (or in pieces, whatever) to a vendor. But then eventually
the cost structure there gets too onerous as well, and so the business tries
to replace it in-house again, after spending the last decade clearing out all
their in-house expertise. And so the cycle continues.

Some banks are worse than others, but if this article has you thinking that
maybe at Goldman Sachs, or Credit Suisse, or Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank,
technology isn't an absolute shit-show, well think again. And these places run
the world economy while their technological infrastructure is held together by
duct tape.

The article is right, of course, that banks will still be around in 20 years.
Obviously. But, the big banks have known they need to get their act to
together for, at the very least, forty damn years. And not a single one of
them (not one!) has done it. And they never will, because they are dominated
by a culture going back two hundred years that will not ever let engineers
anywhere near the levers of the business, which is where they need to be, and
for that matter will most of the time not invest profits back into the
business when they can funnel it into their own bonus instead.

If you want to disrupt banks, start a bank! Start a bank where you can do
things and enter markets that the big guys can't, because their tech is half-
assed and they aren't creative enough to do anything about it. Finance is in
need of disruption, and the potential windfall to pulling it off is enormous,
but you aren't going to get there by selling to existing players.

