zlacker

>>pg_123+(OP)
Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. Actual code + NDAs banning literal reimplementations of stuff aren't that valuable, the knowledge and ideas will stay in the head of the employees.

The two main issues I have with them are that firms tend to give them to just about everybody (instead of just to folks working very directly with real IP), and they only pay base salary, not something closer to actual total compensation (often multiples of the base pay).

Having said that, the quant firm is relatively unimportant and not a good reason to prevent a total noncompete law. It's probably better to just ban them then try and make allowances that aren't full of loopholes.

>>vgathe+Cg
What kind of sensitive IP do quants have? How is it different than the tech industry?

>>saagar+Zj
Most tech work is not particularly novel at a technical level. Very few services have any sort of massive advantage in the technical IP. Some of them might have advantage in customer/data analytics, but most advantage is in the idea itself as well as being gaining the market and brand. Another firm can't just go "Ah, today we'll knock out X new app and take 50% of the market"

This is not true in trading. If I go take my strategy/forecast and go to a competitor, I can just outright take the same opportunities that the other desk was taking (to a fairly good approximation). There's no real branding/network effect - it's a pure quality of execution business.

>>vgathe+qt
Why is that the employee's problem? Pay the employee well and they will stick around.

>>xvecto+pv
The compensation model in investment companies is such that they will not be able to pay employees well compared to how much value they bring in, unless you're a partner.

Furthermore the industry attracts the sort of people who are never satisfied with what they got, and are always looking for more.

Not that I'm advocating for non-competes, just saying that you can't address the concerns non-competes are attempting to address by "paying employees well".

>>gorbac+5G
> The compensation model in investment companies is such that they will not be able to pay employees well compared to how much value they bring in

There's definitely an argument here that those companies deserve to be out-competed then.

I'm not saying to ban any of these practices, but the legal system doesn't have to guarantee the feasibility of companies.