Technology and Traders

Every day I find it absolutely striking how "old-school" trading remains and how much of an edge one can get simply by understanding technology. I think this holds especially true in fixed income. In equities, there is a fair bit of sophistication around electronic platforms and algorithms, but I would say what I am about to discuss is probably true. In structured products the key to those products comes in modeling them correctly (and not getting forced out of your position), but being able to build tools to react to market changes quickly still remains pivotal.

Fixed income still large revolves around the telephone. Everyone seems extremely relationship-centric and most products still trade over a telephone call. Many institutions get things as simple as modeling an interest rate swap wrong. An elemetary part of trading interest rate products, building a yield curve, is done in some surprisingly simplistic and ultimately incorrect ways. While most participants won't be off by more than a basis point, that basis point can be a rather significant edge over the long run (especially for a market-maker!). They won't be off for some simple ten year swap, but ask for specific dates on the forward curve and you can sometimes arb between dealers, albeit not in significant size, on something as basic as a swap.

In addition to the simplicity of their pricing tools, a lot of institutions have rather mediocre risk tools. Risk is absolutely paramount to a trader. If a trader knows his risk, he can trade around it and manage it. Any faulty risk will create PnL anomalies--one of the primary reasons for traders to get fired. A good risk system can mean the difference between a profitable desk and a non-existent desk. For a market-maker risk systems are especially paramount because they tend to make money on bid-offer, but not being able to hedge correct can cost millions.
It occurs to me that the reason these simple issues remain so unsophisticated is that most traders don't understand systems at all! The savvy young technologist can find many more efficient and more elegant solutions to many of the issues a trading desk runs into. Furthermore, a good couple of quants can usually come up with very good risk measures. The issue, however, is getting the technology people to understand the needs of the trading desk and getting the quants to understand what the trading desk needs to see.

One of my bosses used to say "visual display of quantitative information is the key to trading." I couldn't agree more. The trader who will survive and be able to pick-off other traders it he trader who can at once view everything in the market and everything in his risk in a consolidated, understandable form. I always see technology people going for the the most complicated and most cutting-edge solution when it doesn't help the trader's task at all (and often it takes so long that the trader's urgency with the problem makes them want to explode). With quants, the primary issue tends to be trying to find the "elegant" solution (I have to say I have been guilty of this) when the simple and quick solution will do just as well. Another issue with quants is that they often neglect the presentation of the information, which is really one of the most important parts to a trader who is constantly being bombarded with information and needs to be able to filter out the important from the unimportant. By providing a trader with proper systems to be able to quickly and concisely view market and risk information, he stands at the best advantage to make money in the markets--thus getting everyone paid.

How does an institution solve this dilemma? Of course it comes down to the people at the institution. Goldman often says "the key to the success is their people. Without their people, they would be like any other bank." I believe that statement to be 100% true. One way to solve the problem is to get the right quants and technology people who understand the trader's issues. This can happen either by having quants and technology guys who have been traders (nothing gets one to understand the traders sense of urgency and priorities more than actually trading), or finding ones who have a combination of quant/tech skills along with some significant experience with traders. I think the former approach works best. The other way to solve the problem is to get traders who understand technology and higher mathematics. Personally, I think this path is the better of the two.

In my opinion traders should all have the ability to re-create all their systems given sufficient time. No, they won't be the best, most efficient or fastest programmers. And maybe they won't be the best of mathematicians. They should, however, have a thorough understanding of how everything they use works. My experience shows me that the best way to do this is to actually have the primary technologists and quants hired by the desk. Specifically, that mean they don't work for the technology area of the company or risk or any other "branch." The desk themselves have to hire and pay the quants and techs. That dedicates the professionals to the well-being of the desk and helps them understand the needs of the desk. Just as important, the desk then needs to pick and choose the best of the techs and quants to actually become traders.

In this way, the people who best understand both the systems and the traders' needs become the next generation of traders. I have found this method of building a desk to be almost always successful. Another added benefit is the boost in morale the desk gets from this path. When traders can build the tools as well as the quants and techs, then the quants and techs respect the traders. In many places traders, techs and quants have a certain animosity for each other. If the traders know what the others are doing (because they've done it before) and can look over their shoulder to offer intelligent tips, that's what builds respect on the trading desk. The high morale that results from everybody being able to respect the breadth of knowledge thr traders have is priceless.

When I was first interning at a bank I was once told that most areas of the bank have a pretty good interview process, but the trading desks have the most issues because it's so hard to filter for the skills that make a good trader. I think my method of training new hires to think like traders and build the traders' tools makes the most sytematic and successful method of weeding out the best of the candidates to be traders. Too few desks on the street have a good systematic way of producing both good traders and good trading tools. In trading there is a never-ending supply of good ideas that need to be developed, tested and implimented. It seems no matter how long you've been developing tools, there are always new ideas to make the tools smarter and faster. The key to running a successful business in trading these days lies in the ability to continuously improve one's tools, and only the trader can drive that process.

Stupid Interviewers and Stupid Interviewees

I hate seeing stupid interviewers as much as I hate seeing stupid interviewees. Stupid interviewers turn away excellent candidates and ask completely irrelevant questions. Stupid interviewees just waste my time. At least the latter doesn't hurt my firm.



You can tell an interviewer is stupid if he obviously has some canned questions to ask you. The obvious ones are that stupid light-bulb problem (brain-teaser having to do with figuring out how three light bulbs relate to three light switches in another room, it's a stupid problem because you either get it or you don't and you usually get very little about how they think from the problem) or "how do you value a call option?" A good interviewer will focus on your resume and be able to pick out details that seem interesting that they can quiz you about. When it comes down to it, an interviewer for a junior position should be looking for aptitude not knowledge or experience. We should be looking for the smartest people who can pick the most up in the shortest period of time, not the kid who happened to have an internship last year. Some of the best people I've met have had no background in finance (art major anyone?) but rocked the brain teasers and critical thinking problems. Granted you should still be able to do some good math, even if you're an art history major. No dice if you're mathematically illiterate. Most of the moron I see interviewing are just looking for finance knowledge. Those guys are clearly going to get mediocre talent who already had internships or studied finance in school. Not necessarily the best and the brightest.



I'll do another post one day for interviewing tips, but for the most part you can't help a stupid interviewee. It's like asking a snail to contemplate calculus.

Step Up or Step Behind

One thing I see consistently in top performers in the industry is the desire and ability to grab additional responsiblity. A lot of people shed responsibility like a nympho sheds her skirt. Sooner or later upper management realizes if you're adding value to the firm and how you're doing it. If they look at your profile and realize that you don't actually have any real responsibilities, you'll be the first to go in an industry downturn. Those who do well grab all sorts of odd responsibilities (from organizing club/recreational events, to recruiting and training new employees, to managing others' work when they're on vacation) eventually get noticed as the ones holding the train together and get promoted.


There are two reasons why you should be taking as much responsibility as you can. The first reason, as outlined above, works as insurance against being fired and as a way to stand out. The second reason is that you will learn more and gain new skills by taking on additional responsibilities. You can learn management skills, presentation skills, even risk management skills from various random jobs you may take on to better the firm. Those skills will eventually come in handy, no matter how you may have acquired them.

That being said, this post was labeled "step up or step behind" for a reason. It is unreasonable to take ALL responsibilty for everything. Eventually this labels you as a nuisance and/or a micro-manager. The key is to take responsibility for new things that add new value to the firm and teach you new skills. Then you have to learn to give responsibilities to the next eligible character. Eventually you will be viewed as a leader who takes on new tasks and teaches/delagates other tasks to junior people. Being labeled as a leader, teacher and mentor will take you far. Part of being a leader is being able to train people to replace you.

Weaker folks might be trying to horde their work to themselves as a way to guard their jobs, but this approach is outdated. In the new rough-and-tumble world of finance it's up or out. If you're not being promoted, you're being fired. Keep yourself moving up by taking on the next job and making sure others know how to take over your old job. One of my mottos I tell people who work for me is "if I'm not teaching you to take my job, then I'm failing at my job." Implied is "if I'm not learning to take my superior's job, then I'm failing at my job."

Mix and Match

So rumors abound these days about various companies (e.g. Countrywide) nearing default. Suddenly it came to mind for me to use some of my past training as a credit quant. I'm sure you know by now, I trade primarily fixed income and currencies with some dabbling in commodities. Why am I looking at credit? Well, the credit problem is clearly driving all markets right now, but there's more to it than that. I was looking at specific credits (specifically an old model I once looked at on ABCP default rates). Stuff I can't trade at all.

So why spend time on this? Well, when it comes down to it more information helps everyone. As part of the team, if I can help anyone in the company, that's money in the bank (quite literally. . .unfortunately not money in my pocket though). Eventually I wouldn't be surprised to find myself trading a bit of credit as well. You can never foresee your career path, so there's no reason to limit your view at any time. If you're working in one area but you've found something interesting somewhere else, take some time to pursue it. Even if it's on your own time (as if often will be), that knowledge and that curiosity will serve you well in some role in the future. Who knows, it might even let you make a cross-division connection, which is how these large institutions justify their existence. People who can mix and match information and resources from across an organization are the ones who become leaders of organizations.

"Big picture, mate."

Being Great

I find this to be a speech I give fairly frequently in one form or another, so I thought I'd post it:

What do you want to become? Are you here to make a comfortable living and live your life? Yea, there are quite of few of you aren't there? You know who you are. Most people, actually, are the type I just described. You want to do well, but you just want to be comfortable.

A great many of you probably think "pfft, that's not me. I'm destined for greatness." You think you are aggressive and ready to take the world by storm. You know what? I love it. That's exactly the attitude I want. It is, however, an unfortunate reality that a great many of you are wrong. You really fall into the former crowd, just looking to make a comfortable living. Now there's nothing wrong with that, most people are happier that way. In fact, most of you who think you're really destined for greatness would be miserable trying to be truly great.

I think of the following questions when I assess people for traits of greatness. Are you willing to put up your opinion even when everyone you work with thinks you're wrong? Are you going to push your project through, even if it's unapproved? Are you willing to be the least popular person just to prove you're right? Would you be happy being unpopular as long as you were right? If you answered yes to all of these, you're lying. If you answered no to most of these you're going to be comfortable. If you said yes to most but weren't sure about some, then you might have a chance to be great. Let me assure you, you won't be comfortable though.

Let's talk about greatness--let's talk about the people who really will be legend. These are the people who are willing to push a correct idea to it's limits. The types of people who will act on an idea if they know it to be right. You need to know that what you do matters. And every decision you make actually can resonate through the culture of the company no matter how small you think you might be. You have to be willing to take on the most senior of people if you believe your idea to be right. Those who are great face risks and take action. Taking action is what makes one great.

Yea, sometimes you'll be wrong. And you should feel like shit that you were wrong. Sometimes there'll be really shitty consequences too. You should feel like shit that you were wrong, but you still did something great. You should feel great that you did something great. You should feel like shit that you did something wrong. Don't be afraid to make mistakes because even mistakes can be a sign of greatness.

Any institution that is not willing to listen to voices of dissent will not survive, especially when those voices of dissent are correct and well formulated. Many institutions are like this. They ignore great ideas because they do not "follow protocol" or come from "senior management." These institutions will fail.

There is no such thing as a great institution. Every institution will fail without its people. It is the people who are great. Is is the leaders who inspire greatness. How do great leaders build lasting and reputable institutions? They do so by collecting people who are great. They collect those who have the conviction to act and the willingness to take risks on their beliefs. It is the conference room full of strong minded people ready to dissent about any topic they feel is incorrect that will come to the best conclusions and float the best ideas. Decisions should be built on debate, not on consensus.

So why are the majority of you not great? You are not great because you are afraid of the consequences. You would rather follow the route everyone else takes. Are you willing to step up and argue with your manager's manager? Are you willing to say "that's just dumb, I will not conform?" Most of you are not. You either wouldn't risk it, or you are uncomfortable with direct confrontation.

There's nothing wrong with taking the most accepted path. Thousands of very wealthy doctors, lawyers and bankers all did so with much success. No parent is every ashamed of their very comfortable son or daughter.

You know what, though? Those people are not great. They're comfortable.

You know who was great? Jack Welch, Reg Jones, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Bill Allen, Henry Ford, A.P. Giannini. Not one of these people settled for "comfortable." They pushed the envelope, took a highly criticized path and rose to the top. Not one of these people was generally popular. Not one of these people took the typical path to the top. Not one of these people had many people who thought they would succeed. But they acted even when everyone thought they were wrong.

Yes, it's risky. Yes, it's unpopular. But you know what? It's greatness. They are legends.

Do you have the conviction to get there?

Teamwork

I found this article inspiring:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/31/magazines/fortune/marines_greatteams_fortune/index.htm

I copied it below in the case that the site disappears (which it undoubtedly will at some point). I think every group manager should read this as the ideal form of teamwork. It may not always be possible, but everyone should strive for it. Whenever I sense myself seeming selfish at the desk, I now think to myself -- two sheets and a blanket:

From Wharton To War

While working in consulting and private equity, Jim Vesterman thought he was a good team player. Then he joined the Marine Corps.

By Jim Vesterman

June 1, 2006: 3:34 PM EDT

(FORTUNE Magazine) - Going to war wasn't a textbook career move. In 2002, Jim Vesterman, an Amherst grad who had spent several years in the business world, was scheduled to begin the MBA program at Wharton.

For some time, however, he had considered joining the military - both out of a sense duty and because he felt that it would challenge him like nothing in the civilian world could. Then 31, he wondered if this was his last shot.

Wharton let him defer admission, so Vesterman set his sights on the elite Marine Corps' Special Ops unit called Force Recon, whose members are drawn from enlisted men rather than the officer ranks. He was able to sign on for two years of active duty and two years in the Reserves, rather than the normal four to six years of active duty. The catch: If he didn't make it into Recon, he was headed for a long tour, starting as a private.

Vesterman knew that he'd learn to jump from airplanes and survive behind enemy lines. But he had no idea he'd learn so much about what it meant to be part of a team. He agreed to share his experiences--from his first day at boot camp through his tour in Iraq--with FORTUNE.

"I can't breathe! I can't breathe!" yelled a fellow Marine Corps recruit during our early boot camp training in the tear-gas chamber. The drill instructor's response: "I! I! I! What does 'I' have to do with anything?"

From the first day in boot camp, we were told we weren't allowed to use the word "I."

This was completely different from my experience in the business world, where I'd spent the past seven years. Throughout my career "I" had to do with almost everything. Though I considered myself a pretty good team player, personal success and achievement were my real benchmarks. Yet everything I thought I knew about working with other people was about to change. It started on April 22, 2002, the first day of boot camp on Parris Island - when we learned to make our beds.

It's called "two sheets and a blanket." When the drill instructor begins counting, you've got three minutes to make the bed - hospital corners and the proverbial quarter bounce. When you're done, you're told to get back in a line. The goal is to have every bed in the platoon made. So I made my bed, then I stood on the line. I was pretty proud, because when three minutes were up, there weren't more than ten men who had finished.

"Ahead of the pack," I thought. But the drill instructors weren't congratulating us. Everyone's bed had to be made. So rip off the sheets and do it again.

I ripped off the sheets, made the bed, and stood on the line. "We've got all day to get this right," the drill instructors were saying, looking at all the unfinished beds. "Two sheets and a blanket!"

I ripped off the sheets again, and again, and again. Finally one of the drill instructors looked me in the eye. "Your bunkmate isn't done. What are you doing?" I thought, "What am I doing?" Standing on line, thinking I'd accomplished something, while my bunkmate struggled.

Together my bunkmate and I made our beds about twice as fast as we did alone. Still, not everyone was finishing. Finally we realized, "Okay, when we're done, we've got to go help the bed next to us, and the bed down from that," and so on.

I went from thinking, "I'll hand my bunkmate a pillow, but I'm not going to make the bed for him" to making beds for anyone who needed help. That first lesson was an epiphany for me: You can't survive in the Marine Corps without helping the guy next to you.

Recon school

After 13 weeks of boot camp, Vesterman graduated first in his platoon of about 50 recruits. He then spent eight weeks at Infantry School, where he passed a Marine Special Ops physical qualifying test called the Recon Indoc, and was sent to RIP (Reconnaissance Indoctrination Platoon), then to Amphibious Reconnaissance School (Recon School), considered one of the most challenging schools in the U.S. military. On average, 40 percent of those who have already passed all previous screenings will quit Recon School within the first week.

In Recon School, everything gets more intense. Recon Marines are trained to conduct missions behind enemy lines in small teams, usually comprising six men. As the physical and mental challenges get more extreme, you become ever more reliant on your team - both to accomplish missions and simply to survive.

We'd go for six or seven days without sleep, and in the middle of some chaotic exercise, the instructor would say, "The guy next to you is down. You get him to that ravine." I'm 5-foot-7, and it took more than I thought I had to put some 230-pound guy on top of the pack on my back and run. Until Recon School, I don't think I ever really let anyone carry my weight. I don't think I was man enough to say, "Hey, I can't do this" or "You're stronger than I am at this. I need help." Then came the telephone pole.

Running five miles while carrying a telephone pole is a grueling task - made more so when it's a race between your six-man team and several others. The only instructions: move our telephone pole along the route, don't let it touch the ground, come in first. "It pays to be a winner," shouted the instructor, a phrase in Recon-speak that let us know there was a reward for coming in first.

The race began immediately, so we had to come up with the best technique on the fly. There was no time to discuss a strategy or organize our process. My team struggled at first, but our approach evolved quickly. We had four guys carrying the pole and two resting by jogging alongside. When we switched off, we decided, it should be the two guys hurting the most - not necessarily the two who had been carrying the longest - who got to rest.

Nobody, especially a type A Recon Marine, wants to be the person who's "not carrying his weight." But some of these guys were simply workhorses - they could run forever with this thing - and some of us could not. We were learning to put team success ahead of our own egos. That was the only way we could move the fastest as a team and win the race. This was a huge change.

Back at Wharton

Vesterman was the Honor Grad in Recon School - graduating first in his class of around 50 Marines. He went on to complete Airborne Jump School, Marine Combat Dive School, and finally SERE School (Search, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape), where Marines learn to survive as POWs. He was moved to reserve status and two weeks later, in August 2003, began his MBA courses at the Wharton School.

Back in Philadelphia, I quickly became enmeshed in Wharton's own team structure, including my first-year 60-student MBA cohort and my learning team of six peers. In your first year, the majority of projects are done in these peer groups. You're thrown together, graded together, and have to keep up with a flood of assignments, so it's an intense experience. I felt I had made a strong commitment to this new team.

At the end of my first semester, I learned that my unit, 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, was being called up to serve in Iraq. That same week Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs (and now chairman), came to Wharton and spoke to my class. When it came around to question time, I raised my hand. "Sir, it looks like I'm being called to serve in Iraq. Do you have any advice for me?"

At that point I hadn't even told my classmates yet, and I had very mixed feelings about going to combat and leaving my Wharton team midyear. General Pace, a Marine, didn't reply for three or four seconds. Then he looked at me and the first thing he said was simply, "Congratulations." Immediately, everything became clear to me. The Marine Corps' highest purpose is to serve the nation in time of war, and it was my once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to serve.

To Iraq

The Marine Corps and the Army had entered Iraq in March 2003. Once a war is over it falls to the Army to keep the peace, but when the insurgency surfaced, and then continued, the Marines were sent back in. After several weeks at Camp Pendleton, Calif., in February 2004, Vesterman and his platoon were among the first Marines to be redeployed to the Anbar province in western Iraq.

The youngest guy on our six-man team was 24; the oldest was 38. Our backgrounds ranged from a plant manager to a SWAT cop. Some of us had known each other for a few months, others for nearly a decade. Six totally different lives. But very quickly it felt like we were moving as one - instinctively.

We didn't do a lot of speaking. When you need something like binoculars from your pack, you don't stop, put the pack down, and open it, because if you're attacked, the group can't respond immediately. You just say to the guy behind you "I need binos," and you hold security for both of you while he gets them and reseals your pack. When he hits your pack, it means "ready."

There's a tremendous level of trust required between Marines. But since boot camp it's been drilled into all of us to do the right thing. Whether it's good for you or not. Whether it's easy or hard. Whether someone is watching or you're alone.

Our specialty was to enter a town unseen and set up shop there for days at a time in order to do reconnaissance and launch raids. Everyone on a Recon team has a different role, but each person needs to be able to move into any job.

I learned in the Marine Corps that the strongest teams have members who transition easily between roles. On one mission in a violent town along the border with Syria, we took up a clandestine position in an abandoned building that provided a good view of an intersection where many roadside bombs had been detonated. Our surveillance began to focus on a group of men who were meeting repeatedly on a nearby corner. The man who appeared to be the leader was wearing purple pants, so that's what we called him.

Suddenly we spotted these men retrieving objects in burlap bags from a nearby ravine and moving them in a pushcart toward the corner. They needed to move only 200 meters before they were out of our sights. While we thought the objects were bombs, we weren't sure, so we couldn't engage from our sniper position.

We had only seconds to confer. Then our team leader made the call: "Four men go and intercept." The other two would stay behind and maintain watch from an elevated and defensible position. What followed was the sort of chaotic scene our team was trained for. We exited our position and covered 500 meters at a dead sprint. A local lookout had warned the men, however, and as we turned the corner, the only thing visible was the pushcart.

We instinctively split into buddy teams - you never work alone - and my buddy and I began searching the area while the other team moved toward the pushcart. We recognized one of the men moving away from the scene and intercepted him. While I flex-cuffed the man, my partner moved to hold security.

The same coordination was happening with the other buddy team: One held security while the other opened the abandoned pushcart. As we suspected, there were two Saddam-era artillery shells inside, rigged as bombs. We immediately called this back to our team leader, who was then able to take a shot on "purple pants" when he momentarily reappeared at the original corner. "Purple pants" ended up escaping that day with only a shot to the arm, but we captured him a few weeks later.

We didn't react as six individuals that day. We were one team. Our platoon commander would often quote Kipling to describe the Marines: "The strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack." The Marine Corps recruits wolves. But its strength comes from training them to fight as a pack.

Home again

For his actions that day, Vesterman was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. After finishing a seven-month tour, he and his team turned in their gear. Six weeks later, in November 2004, he returned to Wharton.

Elasticity of demand. That's what they talked about in my first class back at Wharton. That culture shock was more jarring than going to Iraq. I slowly came to. In many ways there's probably no better preparation I could have had for the business world than joining the Marine Corps. The Marines teach you how to be both a leader and a follower.

I don't have to lead in every situation - but I've come to enjoy stepping up in a time of chaos. When I'm working with a group now, I can honestly say that I think about the team first. The "I first" approach has been drilled out of me.

I'm certainly not the only veteran at Wharton, and for the past several years, the veterans' club has organized a field trip to the Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Va. Students with no military experience are suddenly crawling through mud and under barbed wire while drill instructors shout orders. Two months before I graduated, we made the trip again.

The first drill was familiar: two sheets and a blanket.

Complacency

Everyone knows complacency kills, but too many people say it without really understanding what it means to have to combat complacency. Many people at the top of their game start to "play defense." Being the top dog suddenly means to them that they need to protect their methods from everyone else. Basically, they make sure others don't catch up to him. I think the modern world has shown this to be the wrong approach.

Here is the question. Let's say you sell a product that it might take the competition four years to be able to compete with. What do you do? Most companies sit on their great product for four years and make continuous upgrades to it. Sooner or later the next guy comes in with the next great thing making them obsolete. People in finance do the same thing. Some guy has a great valuation or pricing tool. They make the best prices for the street constantly. Then someone else comes up with the next great thing and they're left in the dust.

You might be reading this and saying "duh, that's how business works, through competition." I say to you, bullshit. That's not how business has to work. You can continue to innovate through your leadership. If your product is going to be the top dog for four years, make that product obsolete yourself in less than four years. One thing Steve Jobs is famous for is taking his i-pod mini and making it obsolete with his i-pod nano in 18 months. No one else would have the chops to make a product and then make it obsolete himself, but that's how you stay on top of the game.

Finance is largely the same. Do you have any clue how entrenched and complacent financial companies often are? Step in and innovate. Business leaders are innovators, and the first financial company to make a breakthrough in ways to raise capital will make a killing. Notice Goldman made their TrUE exchange? Everyone considers them to be on top of the capital raising game, but they are going to make the usual avenues of capital obsolete by producing the next new thing.

Don't sit around learning the ways of the old guard. Think about what the alternatives are. Do fixed income people really believe that spreadsheets are always going to be the way to go for pricing? Do equity guys really believe that there is no new innovation to be made in their markets? Do bankers really think that the old-school handshake and phone call will forever be the way the deal is struck? Things will change. Be the one who changes them, not the one who gets blindsided by the change.