"Bankers" may not be the most likeable lot, or even the smartest, but telling folks who have perfected the art of siphoning small percentages from vast pools of other people's money over long periods of time, often with room for meaningful upside and limited downside, that they have no idea what they're doing is kind of silly.
Note: I'm assuming that your use of the word "bankers" refers broadly to those who work in finance (investment bankers, fund managers, etc.).
Of course there are plenty of clueful angels/vcs/analysts/bankers/traders/hedge fund operators. Just like there are programmers that are qualified to pick good startups. The stereotypes and generalities are a bit ridiculous, which I was trying to (and I think you helped) illustrate.
so, this is my point. your assumption is wrong. very, very, obviously wrong. that isn't at all the meaning of the word "banker" in finance. and it's not "my" use of the word. it's the broadly used / accepted / understood meaning. and they aren't small percentages. the percentage they receive for making deals is published, look it up. banker != trader != portfolio manager, etc.
also, i didn't say they weren't likable. generally they are very likable. and i didn't say they don't know what they are doing. they know very well what they're doing.
You do realize that what I wrote was in reply to somebody else's comment, not yours, right? I guess it's time to run for the exits when folks who don't understand how a discussion forum works are leaving finance for software engineering. I mean, if you can't figure out how to read a hierarchical comments structure, how in the world are you going to get your head around recursion?
