
At World’s Largest Hedge Fund, Sex, Fear and Video Surveillance - kafkaesq
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/business/dealbook/bridgewater-associates-hedge-fund-culture-ray-dalio.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
======
cscurmudgeon
I had the most unprofessional interview experience of my life with
Bridgewater.

They contacted me out of the blue and had me go through one phone interview,
their culture introduction and quiz on their website, a HR round with a
recruiter, and a coding project. After I passed all these, I was put in
another phone interview. (Note: I am in the West coast.)

Remember, these clowns were trying to recruit me. I was at that time working
as a Research Scientist in X in one of the big firms over in the West coast.

A good part of the interview was spent by them disparaging X. Then they ended
the interview with "We have all the information we need, we won't be calling
you."

I felt like I had been hazed by a couple of dimwits who were not even that
good at it.

This article assuages my worry that I was being unreasonable.

~~~
m52go
I had an incredibly positive experience with Bridgewater. I didn't get an
offer, but I witnessed their celebrated "radical transparency" first-hand.

Everyone was respectful and courteous throughout, from the recruiter to the
CCO who interviewed me.

The moment I'll never forget: when the CCO came back to the conference room to
tell me they weren't going to give me an offer. Most people would stop there,
maybe say sorry, and send me on my way. Nope. He asked me, "what do you
think?" and "do you think this is a reasonable decision, why or why not?" and
"how could we have improved the process" etc.

I reasoned with him. We had an amazing, rational, open conversation. I learned
why they rejected me. They learned how their process could be improved.

Remember: this is with a C-level executive of the world's largest hedge fund,
not some rinky-dink middle-manager. A similar conversation took place with the
recruiter as she walked me out.

We complain so much, on this forum especially, about how flawed the recruiting
process is. Yet we almost NEVER ASK FOR FEEDBACK. These guys are doing that,
with every candidate who walks through their doors, and they're finessing
their process bit by bit. It shows.

Perhaps all parts of the company aren't like that (it's quite large,
especially by hedge fund standards), but I was thoroughly impressed with the
side of Bridgewater I experienced.

~~~
fapjacks
I would pay a surprising amount of money for that kind of interview. I
interview quite a lot, having my ear to the rails pretty much all the time,
and to keep my interview skills up to par. I interview perhaps once or twice
every couple of months, or less if I don't have the spare time, since it is
expensive to do this much interviewing. I have yet to interview at _any_ tech
company -- literally _any_ tech company -- that has made good on their promise
to tell me why I was rejected when it happens. Not a single one that has ever
rejected me has ever gotten back to me. I should say that I'm rejected
probably a couple of times a year. It happens more regularly than you would
think. I should say that I don't mean I want to pay one of those interview
boot camps. I want the kind of interview you've just described.

~~~
m52go
It was memorable. I'm not sure it taught me how to interview better, but it
have me a first-hand glimpse of elements I will integrate into my company/team
the first chance I get to run one.

In spite of its flaws (which company doesn't have flaws?), Bridgewater is an
exceptional company.

------
bpolverini
That video of the crying manager is what made me quit Bridgewater. The
craziest part was that the manager who ended up crying became the one who
would teach lessons to new hires on how to "diagnose" other employees. Totally
psychologically broken.

Ray Dalio won't quit and he won't relinquish power. What you have instead now
is this psychotic power grab at the top with three or more people competing
for the crown. Any time someone gets close to knocking him out, they get
demoted or fired.

Principle #41: By and large, you will get what you deserve over time.

The basis for any oppressive religion is #41. Those at the top deserved it,
and, if you are at the bottom, it's because you haven't.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
Principle #41 has a name in academia: the _just-world hypothesis_ [1]
(occasionally the _just-world fallacy_ , largely from atheist and feminist
sources). It has surprisingly widespread consequences and implications.
Conservative politicians and pundits play on it when they tout "personal
responsibility" in the face of systemic bias. Abusers use it to convince their
victims that they "deserve" the abuse. Religiously devout people use it to
minimize tragedies (not to mention crimes) as "part of God's plan", and so on.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-
world_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis)

~~~
yummyfajitas
I often see people discussing the just world hypothesis and the awfulness of
the people who believe it. But I very rarely see those same people even
considering the possibility that it might be true.

In the world of work, while exceptions exist, I've always seen a strong
correlation between position and competence. (I haven't worked at bridgewater
so I don't know if it's true there.)

In the political/economic world, I see poor people refusing to engage in
personal responsibility (i.e. having children out of wedlock, doing drugs,
smoking, eating badly and not exercising, refusing to work) while the rich do
the exact opposite.

So I'll ask the question that I guess makes me an awful person too: why do we
think the just world hypothesis is actually false?

~~~
GVIrish
> In the political/economic world, I see poor people refusing to engage in
> personal responsibility (i.e. having children out of wedlock, doing drugs,
> smoking, eating badly and not exercising, refusing to work) while the rich
> do the exact opposite.

Yet there are plenty of poor people working two jobs and clipping coupons but
never see their economic situation meaningfully improve. On the other side,
someone born into wealth can be lazy, use drugs, and be a general screw up and
still die wealthy.

Plenty of rich people do drugs too but the chances of them going to jail for
doing drugs are negligible compared to the chances of jail time for a poor
person. Law enforcement targets poor neighborhoods far more heavily, wealthy
people don't buy drugs off street corners, and wealthy people can pay for far
better legal representation.

Crime? White collar crime is rarely punished with jail time. Someone selling
drugs on the street might get several years in jail, whereas someone who helps
launder billions for drug cartels gets no jail time and their company only
pays a fine.

Unethical sociopathic behavior in politics and many parts of the business
world is how some people get to the top. It's not that the most qualified or
deserving person got what they deserved, it was that the most ruthless, self-
promoting, and deceitful person took the spoils.

The just world hypothesis is often what callous people use to justify why they
have the riches and people lower on the totem pole don't. It's easy to point
at poor people and say they're poor because they're lazy or irresponsible, but
it's much harder to admit that someone succeeded because of either advantages
they were born into, or outright immoral behavior.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Very few poor people work two jobs or even one. That's a marked contrast to
high income individuals who work very hard.

[http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication...](http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf)

Similarly, poor people are more likely to have substance abuse problems.

[http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2013MHDetTabs...](http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2013MHDetTabs/NSDUH-
MHDetTabs2013.pdf)

Now, as you note, rich people get away with things more - so wouldn't
responsible poor people be _less likely_ to do drugs? As a responsible adult,
I do far more drugs in India (a cop might want 500rs ~ $7) than Malaysia (off
with their heads!).

You seem to believe the just world hypothesis is false, yet you clearly
haven't even googled data which suggests it's a pretty solid statistical
hypothesis in this case.

It's truly a flaw in our society that such rhetoric - describing people who
hold true beliefs as "callous" and "immoral" \- is causing people to hold
utterly incorrect beliefs. It's kind of like the modern version of "only satan
worshippers believe in evolution".

~~~
GVIrish
The point isn't that most poor people work 2 jobs or whatever, the point is
that there are plenty of poor people that work very hard but don't get ahead.
Someone born into wealth who even puts in half the effort of a single mother
working two jobs is still going to be wealthy. Furthermore, if you are born
into a family where you have to work hourly jobs to support the family at the
expense of your own educational advancement, chances are you are not going to
advance as much economically as someone who doesn't have to make that
compromise.

As far as poor people and substance abuse, several states implemented drug
testing regimes for people on welfare and what they found in all cases is that
the drug use rate for welfare recipients was less than that of the general
public, in most cases, about an order of magnitude less.

[http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-
testing/](http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/)

The problem with the just world hypothesis is that it goes backwards from the
successful outcome, then asserts that this outcome is proof that the world is
fair. Person A is rich and successful because they worked hard and people who
aren't rich and successful must've failed because they were lazy or
irresponsible. But the truth is that circumstances are a large part of success
and failure.

Sure, when you equalize circumstances someone's personal effort, ability, and
choices are what determines outcomes, but circumstances are rarely equal. When
you're talking about groups of people born into massively unequal
circumstances, the whole 'just world' thing falls apart. Someone born into a
poor area, with bad schools, poor economic opportunities, and crime problems
is simply not playing with the same deck of cards. Similarly, someone in the
professional world who doesn't have the same connections as others or is not
willing to bend the rules like others may be, is at a disadvantage.

It doesn't mean that working hard and being skilled won't get you forward in
life, most times it does. What it means is that success and achievement are
not always fair and they are almost never independent of the situation someone
is born and raised in.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Congrats - you've just disproven the just world hypothesis as a hard and fast,
100% true for every person rule. That straw man is now just a pile of hay!

 _The problem with the just world hypothesis is that it goes backwards from
the successful outcome, then asserts that this outcome is proof that the world
is fair._

Ok, so you have no problem with a _statistical_ just world hypothesis like
what Dalio and I suggested? Namely, good behavior causes good outcomes, but
only probabilistically?

 _Someone born into a poor area, with bad schools, poor economic
opportunities, and crime problems is simply not playing with the same deck of
cards._

It's far from clear that this is true. Consider a statistically typical
American born into such circumstances. Now consider a Gujurati, born into far
worse circumstances who then shifts into American "bad circumstances" at age
12.

Do you think the Gujurati will have the same bad outcomes as the American? If
not, then it's not really a defensible claim that circumstances (at least as
far as variation within the US goes) matter a lot.

(We know from historical experiment that the answer is no, the Gujurati will
perform quite well.)

~~~
abawany
There are a lot of problems with your post. How do you know that these
ubermensch "Gujarati" were uniformly born info "far worse circumstances"? Were
their ancestors forced into slavery in the USA, then Jim Crow, then systematic
segregation and on-going police brutality? I think you have lived in India for
a while. Can the strata of society that is actually able to afford/obtain a
visa to move to the US be compared one on one with a person from a bad
neighborhood in this country? And why "Gujaratis" for goodness sake? Are
Tamils SOL? How many of these folks do you know that have had good vs. bad
outcomes? What historical experiment are you referring to here? I am
spluttering but the rules of this site prevent me from venting what I actually
feel after reading the above.

~~~
yummyfajitas
From age 0-12, the Gujurati lived in circumstances that were below the bottom
5% of the US, same as basically all Indians:
[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-
and-t...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-
nots/)

 _Were their ancestors forced into slavery in the USA, then Jim Crow, then
systematic segregation and on-going police brutality?_

You seem to be suggesting that bad circumstances at time X cause bad
behavior/outcomes which then is passed down through the generations.

Lets assume this odd Lamarckian theory were true for a moment (I don't think
it is) and explore it's consequences. Wouldn't this provide a specific causal
mechanism for hereditary inferiority of various groups, thereby making it more
likely that such theories (usually termed "white supremacist", though not by
me) are true? Lets consider another group - folks persecuted by the Nazis, and
hundreds of other incidents before then. Shouldn't they be underperforming?

(Let me emphasize that I'm a Darwinian, not a Lamarckian. I'm just exploring
your theory and illustrating why I think it's false, and why I think you
should too. Let me also point out that you made this hypothetical American
black, in my comment he was "statistically typical" which would make him
white.)

The historical experiment I refer to is the Gujurati diaspora.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_people#Diaspora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_people#Diaspora)

Your last line suggests you are having a strong emotional reaction to the idea
I'm attempting to convey, namely that Gujuratis engage in certain behaviors
that drive success while other groups don't. (Or perhaps it's the idea of
black Lamarckian inferiority that is causing you negative emotions.) Can I ask
why that is?

(Tangentially, why Gujus vs Tamils? No compelling reason, Gujus just spring to
mind because a good friend of mine - with whom I occasionally discuss issues
like this - is Guju. But I believe that a Tamil immigrant would also behave
differently and have better outcomes than an American.)

~~~
abawany
You know, I am not as aware of these theories as you are so my view is a
little bit simpler. In the NYT article you helpfully listed, the insight that
the richest folks in India are worse off than some of America's poorest is
interesting but a false comparison nonetheless. In my view, comparing the
outcome of the poorest class in India, specifically the high unlikelihood of
their chances for moving up not to mention getting to America, to the outcome
of the poorest class in the US is a more fair comparison. I must clarify that
based on my knowledge of that society and this, I find the conclusion in the
article a little bit ridiculous but I need to read it carefully again when I
have more time.

You have also somewhat misunderstood my statement about systemic, multi-
generational oppression of the poor and African Americans in the US: I feel
unable to compare in any rational manner this long-term ethnic and class
oppression in the US to the Nazi oppression of the Jewish people in Germany.
EDIT: the closest thing I can think of is the oppression and discrimination
against Jewish people in society prior to the Nazis and its role in driving
social outcomes for the Jewish people. For example, in the book Neuro Tribes,
the author posited that since medicine and psychiatry were few of the
professions open to the Jewish people in Austria, you saw a significant number
in that role.

My emotional reaction came about because it was extremely strange for me to
see someone blithely compare such blatantly obvious apples and oranges to make
a point. I can't understand why that makes sense to you and I still don't. To
make a somewhat charged statement about "outcomes": one can argue that
Philando Castile had a good outcome in this society until a misguided reach
for the wallet per his apparent interpretation of the officer's instructions.
The multi-generational set of circumstances that led to "this" (whatever it
might be) is what I think you are missing but what I feel unable to
communicate clearly.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_In my view, comparing the outcome of the poorest class in India, specifically
the high unlikelihood of their chances for moving up not to mention getting to
America, to the outcome of the poorest class in the US is a more fair
comparison._

So it's more fair to compare poor Americans to poor Indians who poop in the
field, have no power, get water from a communal well, and may well be living
under naxalite (communist) oppression?

Actually, I suspect that latter group may also do pretty well if allowed to
enter the US. Poor Vietnamese fleeing Communism didn't do too badly, nor did
the poor illiterate Chinese who came here to work on the railroads.

 _EDIT: the closest thing I can think of is the oppression and discrimination
against Jewish people in society prior to the Nazis and its role in driving
social outcomes for the Jewish people._

I was deliberately hinting at this. Yet somehow American Jews have excellent
outcomes, far better than non-Jewish whites, nearly as good as Asians. It's
weird how their circumstances didn't hinder them.

Of course, it's not so weird if you observe that American Jews share certain
behaviors with other high income Americans, with Gujuratis, and with Chinese.
But they don't tend to share these behaviors with either low income whites or
blacks. It's almost as if behavior is far more important than circumstances.

 _My emotional reaction came about because it was extremely strange for me to
see someone blithely compare such blatantly obvious apples and oranges to make
a point. I can 't understand why that makes sense to you and I still don't._

Why is it apples and oranges?

I'm also curious why you seem to want to make my statistically typical
American black. Virtually none of the things you bring up happened to white
Americans, yet the Gujurati (or Tamil if you prefer) will probably have better
outcomes than the typical poor white American also.

------
Nokinside
I know one company where semi-formal ultra competitive asshole culture worked.

It worked because it was only applied at senior level (80% marketing and
sales) and there was extremely strict policy for not behaving like that for
outsiders or underlings. Boss giving temper tantrum or bullying his workers
resulted creative and humiliating punishments. Employees who were not part of
luscious bonus program knew they were safe.

My theory is that forcing people to change behavior in different context was
easy way to differentiate between people who enjoy aggression and job
insecurity from people who are assholes 24/7.

Obvious downside was very self selective almost exclusively male club that had
to exclude talent that could not adjust. But those who liked it had incredible
job satisfaction and earned lots of money.

~~~
tomp
> Obvious downside was very self selective almost exclusively male club that
> had to exclude talent that could not adjust

Why is that a downside? I mean, you say that they were very successful...
Maybe the people they excluded wouldn't be as successful?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
For that particular circular definition of "successful."

If you follow the naive but socially sanctioned view that making money =
success, or "getting what you want from life" = success, then hedge funds can
look like very successful places.

If you have a more independent view - the kind of view that someone like
Dalio, for all his alleged openness, is likely incapable of understanding -
then hedge funds aren't going to be the right place for you.

------
mdorazio
So it seems then that ultra-transparency and a culture of candor bordering on
hostility doesn't prevent people from being assholes, and takes away avenues
for raising concerns with management. I wonder if this is more a result of the
company being an old boys club (like just about every hedge fund), or if it's
just a commentary on human nature.

~~~
smallnamespace
> ultra-transparency and a culture of candor

I interviewed there and got the strong impression that their 'total
transparency' spiel was just a cover for bosses to be assholes.

~~~
eropple
I've never encountered an environment where this wasn't the case. When I was
younger and, in many ways, more of an asshole, I found myself playing along in
such a culture--candor and "straight talk" were ways for me to step right up
to the line and try to put me over somebody else. Breaking free of it was
difficult.

------
Caligula
I interviewed onsite at bridgewater and it was a very strange but interesting
experience.

They take radical transparency very seriously. They record everything, but do
ask your permission first(well... can I say no?)

The people were nice. They are brutally honest and let me know what I was
lacking.

Watching videos including the crying manager were too much for me.

It doesn't surprise me that fucked up HR situations occur.

The one fun event was watching the receptionist applying radical
transparency(assholeism) to a delivery guy. They take it seriously!

~~~
zaroth
It sounds like you didn't take the job (or maybe you weren't offered) but
certainly you can say no!

------
siliconc0w
Such 'cultural principles' are typically platitudes wielded and bent like
biblical verses to support arbitrary positions. I think I'd prefer something
honest like "1) we're a business. 2) we like to make money. 3) We will do
whatever the executive leadership thinks might eventually do that".

~~~
duncan_bayne
Typically, yes. But not always.

[https://youtu.be/sf5r4yLTc9k](https://youtu.be/sf5r4yLTc9k)

(Disclaimer - I work there :) )

------
l33tbro
Not that I condone this culture in any workplace, but it's a damn hedge fund.
You can't really expect "bring your cat to work day" or yoga break-out spaces.
Looking at the sole-focus of companies like this and the effect they have on
our society, it's hardly surprising that their workplaces are toxic.

~~~
spot
i work at a hedge fund where people are nice, there are yoga break-out spaces
(literally), and the prevalent culture is laid-back, like a typical west-coast
tech company, or academia.

~~~
ryandrake
One person winning the lottery does not invalidate the statement "You can't
really expect to win the lottery".

------
bootload
_" The firm is governed by “Principles” — more than 200 of them — set out in a
little white book of Mr. Dalio’s musings on life and business that some on
Wall Street have likened to a religious text."_

Is there a copy of this online?

~~~
sebthomas
[http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...](http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-
Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf)

Sounds like a lot of Trumpisms.

And lots of obvious things only a dim egotist would consider to be revelations
worth collecting into a manifesto.

"... if a billionaire loses $200 million he will probably be unhappy, while if
someone who is worth $10,000 unexpectedly gets another $2,000, he will
probably be happy".

woah, fark, really?

------
lighttower
I also interviewed there. They had me fill out a feedback form following the
interview to tell them how to improve

------
0xmohit
Is nytimes.com down? HNed?

~~~
mintplant
It's up for me (and I doubt HN could single-highhandedly bright down
nytimes.com).

~~~
mintplant
Yikes, looks like autocorrect did a number on this one. That should be
"single-handedly" and "bring down".

