[Vanguard partners with Infosys for Defined Contribution recordkeeping]

[marcopolo]

The problem with this is the risk it presents to the reliability and security of the software. Outsourced contractors if not very careful in selection will lead to degradation of the product since they are less loyal to the company and have less at risk if things don't go according to plan. They're incentivized to care less compared to a FTE who has tied bonus and stock incentives on the line along with the potential for future salary increase.

I'm an IT project manager and it's a vicious cycle I've witnessed, they outsource to offshore and then realize the terrible tech debt that has been created and customers depart. Most of the time it was really too many cooks in the kitchen to begin with. A small centralized highly skilled engineering team with the right incentives and local to HQ with little management overhead can be more effective than the average engineering team 10x the size.

A shame to see Vanguard go this route, this move puts them at serious risk of crippling tech debt. This is a perfect highlight of the flaws in American management.

It is not like this transition was to some mom and pop shop that has never done financial services before.
You might already be doing banking or other financial transactions on their platforms.

I have not been a Vanguard customer for a long time, but reading many of the threads here, it might just be possible that this move will actually improve the customer experience when it comes to the IT platforms.


https://www.infosys.com/investors/news- ... rvices.pdf

[austin757]

While the 1300 employees are not laid off, they are moved to Infosys. This should lead to lower overall expenses for Vanguard, which in turn means more money in the pocket of Vanguard Investors. I see this as a win for Vanguard customers.

In time the jobs will be out sourced to H-1B's.
In time those jobs will be out sourced to India (or other lower income countries).
In time those jobs will be automated.

Each step of the way, we as customers of Vanguard keep winning.

Winning and customer service sinks to new lows. Wonderful.

Do many people actually have to call and deal with Vanguard customer service? I haven’t spoken to them since I first opened my account 5 years ago. It seems most of the transactions can be handled easily on the website.

[SB1234]

The problem with this is the risk it presents to the reliability and security of the software. Outsourced contractors if not very careful in selection will lead to degradation of the product since they are less loyal to the company and have less at risk if things don't go according to plan. They're incentivized to care less compared to a FTE who has tied bonus and stock incentives on the line along with the potential for future salary increase.

I'm an IT project manager and it's a vicious cycle I've witnessed, they outsource to offshore and then realize the terrible tech debt that has been created and customers depart. Most of the time it was really too many cooks in the kitchen to begin with. A small centralized highly skilled engineering team with the right incentives and local to HQ with little management overhead can be more effective than the average engineering team 10x the size.

A shame to see Vanguard go this route, this move puts them at serious risk of crippling tech debt. This is a perfect highlight of the flaws in American management.

I think what you say makes sense. But one thing I have noticed not just with my employer but generally, is that the core functions (money makers) still are kept in house while non core increasingly being outsourced.
Sometimes it's just not practical to maintain a large IT team and have them under utilized.

From what I read they cut the entire 401(k) team (~5-10% of their total work force). I'm sure some architect(s) will be overseeing things still but do not see that going over well and making that drastic of a change I consider to be reckless behavior for a financial services company. There's no way all data, security and infrastructure can be properly managed with such a large transition.

How do you know what vanguard is actually doing.

[Grt2bOutdoors]

Where does it say that they are getting laid off?

Read between the lines - guaranteed 12 months of benefits, what happens after that? What do you think?

[j9j]

Not wonderful for the Vanguard workers. The 12 month infosys transition guarantee looks like a way for infosys to do knowledge transfer and for vangurd to avoid severance packages. Probably a wise move if you are a vanguard person to get to finding another job immediately. As for innovation many of these outsourced development/operations undertakings end poorly. That said, these agreements are all too common in financial services type situations where tech is largely seen as a bottom line contributor to expense rather than a top line contributor. And Vanguard certainly has the bottom line focus at a cultural level...so.

This post nailed it. I have participated in several large scale outsourcing and service always decreased with the offshoring.

I hope all the Vanguard works don’t put too much hope on staying there long term.

[SB1234]

The amount of ignorance and xenophobia displayed on this thread by many is so unremarkable.

Vanguard IT has failed to deliver over the years, everyone know this, people complain about the glitches and quality of tech endlessly. There are complaints about trades and transactions not happening as expected, although I never had issues myself since I am not very active.

I did not hear one comment about possibility of Tech improving from this move, why I wonder? are we so afraid of some tech company in India might actually make improvements to Vanguard that it's American workers could not, for whatever reasons.

Let us wait and see what comes out this move down the line, as Infosys takes over the IT and work through the issues. Perhaps they will improve the platform and make Vanguard more competitive to match Fidelity or Schwab, while keeping costs low. In the event they won't then Vanguard can always fire them and go with another provider. The days of in-house IT is so outdated, especially a company whose core competency is not Tech has no business running it's own IT department.

Personally, I think Infosys is cheaper and lower quality than IBM, but are we prepared to pay the fees required by IBM to run IT for Vanguard'?
Oh, but I forgot IBM is now run by an Indian, forget it

My thoughts exactly. The knee jerk xenophobia is quite disappointing.

LoL. IBM. That's one of the biggest proponents of this business method.. Layoff in the 10s of thousands here and hire hundreds of thousands india. This is not your dad's IBM.

I am ex-IBM, and do sub-contracting on and off, you do not know what you are talking about. Obviously, they will outsource if they cannot meet the costs demanded by the customer over here, and there is a limit to availability of talent.

According to wikipedia IBM employs nearly 350000 in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_India

[sparksfly]

I’m surprised and amazed by the level of ignorance in this thread. So many are talking about going to Fidelity (or Schwab). I hope people understand that Fidelity, Schwab, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Wells Fargo, USAA, Geico, Allstate, State Farm, Fifth Third and on and on and on...everyone has large number of IT services delivered out of India. I can write name the largest of companies in every industry that does this. Where are you going to bank, who will you buy insurance from, which retail store will you buy from, which CPG brand will you boycott?

To others, if you are under impression that IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and Cap Gemini keep jobs in US, pls use google. They are some of the largest employers in India.

Get real folks!!!

[reln]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 93262.html

The only winner here is Infosys.

This is definitely bad for their employees, as I have witnessed a very similar layoff where my employer handed over their IT dev and operations to Infosys and the employees were "re-badged" as Infosys employees. Fast-forward 12 months, Infosys will let most of them go, and will low-ball the salaries for the ones who are still around.

This does not bode well for Vanguard's customers, us, as Vanguard is yet another cash cow for Infosys and there will be no focus on customer experience.

I hope I am wrong.

Thoughts?

Disappointing

[RocketShipTech]

I’m surprised and amazed by the level of ignorance in this thread. So many are talking about going to Fidelity (or Schwab). I hope people understand that Fidelity, Schwab, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Wells Fargo, USAA, Geico, Allstate, State Farm, Fifth Third and on and on and on...everyone has large number of IT services delivered out of India. I can write name the largest of companies in every industry that does this. Where are you going to bank, who will you buy insurance from, which retail store will you buy from, which CPG brand will you boycott?

To others, if you are under impression that IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and Cap Gemini keep jobs in US, pls use google. They are some of the largest employers in India.

Get real folks!!!

M1 Finance is based in Chicago. Their clearing house, Apex Clearing, is based in Dallas. Neither of them offshore their operations to India.

It's absolutely possible to put your money where your values are.

[JackoC]

Well, we might be hypocritical if we are concerned about this type move, since so many of the companies we own via S&P 500 and Total Stock Market have been doing the same thing for years and years. We do like those nice returns, no? Those companies did it to reduce expenses, just like Vanguard is doing.

Broken Man 1999

Yes, while this is in amazingly 'political' (under this forum's very broad definition) thread to have even lasted this long (moderator dinner break?), the prohibition on 'politics' here in general prevents a lot of people confronting the potential contradiction you present. I have no problem with shareholder value as the prime mission of companies, so it's not a contradiction for me. But a lot of people personally believe in a model where shareholders (or in this case mutual owners, fund holders) should not always come first, but rather workers, the community, etc should sometimes come out ahead at the expense of shareholders (beyond empty platitudes about eg. giving workers whatever they want will always benefit shareholders in the long run as if there are no competing interests, that's a fairy tale). Yet if you love, love, love US stocks, as is the general zeitgeist here, or even refuse to invest anywhere else, as is not uncommon here, you are endorsing the most shareholder-first system among major markets.

In any given case you can argue that, as disembodied voice in the wilderness of the internet who never worked for the company, you know better than company managers that a cost reduction move is 'short sighted' and actually inimical to shareholder value. But if you look at the big picture that doesn't seem to be true generally. Managers *and* shareholders seem to have made out better as emphasis on profit has been taken to a new level via advanced technology and globalization.

There's really no reason to make a big deal about one move by Vanguard and ignore the whole rest of the forest in all you US stocks you hold through Vanguard. Though with that said you can choose Vanguard or any other broker for whatever reason you like. They are several that are approximately the same as broker/custodian. But on low costs as in ER's that's going to come back to minimizing cost, and there's no way to make everybody happy about that.

[fredflinstone]

I’m surprised and amazed by the level of ignorance in this thread. So many are talking about going to Fidelity (or Schwab). I hope people understand that Fidelity, Schwab, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Wells Fargo, USAA, Geico, Allstate, State Farm, Fifth Third and on and on and on...everyone has large number of IT services delivered out of India. I can write name the largest of companies in every industry that does this. Where are you going to bank, who will you buy insurance from, which retail store will you buy from, which CPG brand will you boycott?

To others, if you are under impression that IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and Cap Gemini keep jobs in US, pls use google. They are some of the largest employers in India.

Get real folks!!!

I agree. Offshoring and outsourcing are features of modern-day capitalism, not bugs. And Infosys is not "abusing" the H1B program. What they are doing is 100% legal. In fact, I would argue that they are using it exactly as Congress intended. What Vanguard is doing is sad for the US workers who will be laid off, but let's not kid ourselves that Vanguard treats its American workers worse than other companies that do the exact same thing.

[UpperNwGuy]

I thought we owned the place.

Indeed. Where are all those Bogleheads who like to wax eloquently about Vanguard's governance model in which they say that the investors are the owners? How many of the investor-owners would have voted for this business decision.

[willthrill81]

So if I ever need to call in for help, it could be going to India?

The article states this is only for DC plans -- so things like 401ks and profit sharing plans. Doesn't sound like it will impact the retail investor.

Yep, just read it. Thank goodness.

Doesn't mean retail investors should support or condone it. Besides if the deal sticks it likely will expand.

Agreed. Once this move starts, it will turn into a trend if Vanguard's 'customer-owners' don't object.

This will definitely make me think about moving our Vanguard accounts elsewhere.

[Flyer24]

Thread locked for moderator review.

[gmc4h232]

[Thread merged into here, see below. --admin LadyGeek]

So I see the thread about Vanguard outsourcing 1300 jobs to Infosys was locked and subsequently removed. Since the general attitude towards this move by Vanguard was negative, and Im sure there are lots of Vanguard shareholders on this forum, what power do we have to reverse this decision? Seems like there is something we can do to save these 1300 jobs...

[LadyGeek]

A post which was interpreted as a racial comment, along with quite a number of responses to that comment have been removed. The discussion was derailed.

News about Vanguard is on-topic. Emotions are running high, but please try to state your concerns in a civil, factual manner.

This thread is now unlocked to continue the discussion.

[Nate79]

Move your business to another broker. We moved to Schwab and couldn't be happier.

[JoMoney]

While the thread is locked, I don't see it as having been "removed" viewtopic.php?p=5371382#p5371382

Is moving your assets or complaining to them a personally actionable topic? I think .. maybe...

EDIT.. doesn't even appear to be locked anymore ...

[Elysium]

The amount of ignorance and xenophobia displayed on this thread by many is so unremarkable.

Vanguard IT has failed to deliver over the years, everyone know this, people complain about the glitches and quality of tech endlessly. There are complaints about trades and transactions not happening as expected, although I never had issues myself since I am not very active.

I did not hear one comment about possibility of Tech improving from this move, why I wonder? are we so afraid of some tech company in India might actually make improvements to Vanguard that it's American workers could not, for whatever reasons.

Let us wait and see what comes out this move down the line, as Infosys takes over the IT and work through the issues. Perhaps they will improve the platform and make Vanguard more competitive to match Fidelity or Schwab, while keeping costs low. In the event they won't then Vanguard can always fire them and go with another provider. The days of in-house IT is so outdated, especially a company whose core competency is not Tech has no business running it's own IT department.

Personally, I think Infosys is cheaper and lower quality than IBM, but are we prepared to pay the fees required by IBM to run IT for Vanguard'?
Oh, but I forgot IBM is now run by an Indian, forget it

My thoughts exactly. The knee jerk xenophobia is quite disappointing.

LoL. IBM. That's one of the biggest proponents of this business method.. Layoff in the 10s of thousands here and hire hundreds of thousands india. This is not your dad's IBM.

I am ex-IBM, and do sub-contracting on and off, you do not know what you are talking about. Obviously, they will outsource if they cannot meet the costs demanded by the customer over here, and there is a limit to availability of talent.

According to wikipedia IBM employs nearly 350000 in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_India

IBM is in 175 countries, that's almost every country in the world, and they employ hundreds of thousands worldwide.

[Nate79]

I thought we owned the place.

Indeed. Where are all those Bogleheads who like to wax eloquently about Vanguard's governance model in which they say that the investors are the owners? How many of the investor-owners would have voted for this business decision.

That Vanguard investors are "owners" of Vanguard is one of the silliest themes that gets thrown around here.

People need to take their business elsewhere. There are many reasons to not hold your money at Vanguard, this can just be one more.

[Nate79]

I thought bogleheads loved low costs....

You get what you pay for.

[LadyGeek]

I merged gmc4h232's thread into the on-going discussion.

To explain, this thread was removed while we evaluated which posts needed attention by the moderators (removed).

The thread is back and reopened.

Frustration regarding outsourcing is understandable, but we need to keep the discussion civil. To reiterate, please remove emotion from your posts and state your concerns in a civil, factual manner.

[SB1234]

My thoughts exactly. The knee jerk xenophobia is quite disappointing.

LoL. IBM. That's one of the biggest proponents of this business method.. Layoff in the 10s of thousands here and hire hundreds of thousands india. This is not your dad's IBM.

I am ex-IBM, and do sub-contracting on and off, you do not know what you are talking about. Obviously, they will outsource if they cannot meet the costs demanded by the customer over here, and there is a limit to availability of talent.

According to wikipedia IBM employs nearly 350000 in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_India

IBM is in 175 countries, that's almost every country in the world, and they employ hundreds of thousands worldwide.

Yes and it still doesn't change the truth that IBM has laid off tens of thousands US employees and hired 100s of thousands in India. Who do think started the outsourcing trend to India. Hint. It was IBM and GE.
I advise you to learn your history and not simply be a company man.

[SB1234]

I’m surprised and amazed by the level of ignorance in this thread. So many are talking about going to Fidelity (or Schwab). I hope people understand that Fidelity, Schwab, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Wells Fargo, USAA, Geico, Allstate, State Farm, Fifth Third and on and on and on...everyone has large number of IT services delivered out of India. I can write name the largest of companies in every industry that does this. Where are you going to bank, who will you buy insurance from, which retail store will you buy from, which CPG brand will you boycott?

To others, if you are under impression that IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and Cap Gemini keep jobs in US, pls use google. They are some of the largest employers in India.

Get real folks!!!

M1 Finance is based in Chicago. Their clearing house, Apex Clearing, is based in Dallas. Neither of them offshore their operations to India.

It's absolutely possible to put your money where your values are.

It must the the 'skim as much of the top while no one notices' kind of values.

[Elysium]

LoL. IBM. That's one of the biggest proponents of this business method.. Layoff in the 10s of thousands here and hire hundreds of thousands india. This is not your dad's IBM.

I am ex-IBM, and do sub-contracting on and off, you do not know what you are talking about. Obviously, they will outsource if they cannot meet the costs demanded by the customer over here, and there is a limit to availability of talent.

According to wikipedia IBM employs nearly 350000 in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_India

IBM is in 175 countries, that's almost every country in the world, and they employ hundreds of thousands worldwide.

Yes and it still doesn't change the truth that IBM has laid off tens of thousands US employees and hired 100s of thousands in India. Who do think started the outsourcing trend to India. Hint. It was IBM and GE.
I advise you to learn your history and not simply be a company man.

Do Indians in India consume Coca-Cola, Pepsi, buy Apple, Microsoft, IBM, so on? Are there Indian products perhaps instead they could be buying? why is their Government allowing such things as buying Foreign products. In a global economy products and jobs do tend to go around. That's the way it is, adapt or perish.

[LazyNihilist]

A little bit of satire and a little bit of truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaZ57Bn4pQ

[SB1234]

I am ex-IBM, and do sub-contracting on and off, you do not know what you are talking about. Obviously, they will outsource if they cannot meet the costs demanded by the customer over here, and there is a limit to availability of talent.

According to wikipedia IBM employs nearly 350000 in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_India

IBM is in 175 countries, that's almost every country in the world, and they employ hundreds of thousands worldwide.

Yes and it still doesn't change the truth that IBM has laid off tens of thousands US employees and hired 100s of thousands in India. Who do think started the outsourcing trend to India. Hint. It was IBM and GE.
I advise you to learn your history and not simply be a company man.

Do Indians in India consume Coca-Cola, Pepsi, buy Apple, Microsoft, IBM, so on? Are there Indian products perhaps instead they could be buying? why is their Government allowing such things as buying Foreign products. In a global economy products and jobs do tend to go around. That's the way it is, adapt or perish.

I understand the reality. I was just amused by your inaccurate and undue gloryfying of IBM vs Infosys. In truth both are same. There are American, Indian and other countries companies that are in this business.

[konic]

A little bit of satire and a little bit of truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaZ57Bn4pQ

That is hilarious! Thanks for that. This thread needed a lighter touch.

[pcsrini]

The important point a lot of companies that drink the outsourcing kool-aid miss is that the quality of engineers they hire from India are not going to be comparatively productive to engineers trained in the US. Even if they build the loss of productivity into their models, it still often falls short. India's universities vary greatly in quality - at the high end, there are absolutely world class institutions. The engineers from the top end schools are hired by the FAAMNG (facebook, amazon, apple, microsoft, netflix, google) and other real product companies.The engineers who end up at outsourcers like Infosys with their main focus being sustaining engineering are generally towards the bottom end of the spectrum. And then they have a lot of turnover because the better engineers even at these outsourcing companies are quick to leave to product companies working on the newest tech and products. The constant turnover means lack of continuity, accountability and as a result quality issues as the new hires are coming up to speed (learning on the job). The numbers look fantastic from a C-Suite perspective (2 to 1, or 3 to 1 is often quoted), but the "follow the sun" model puts a ton of burden on engineers who have to work with outsourcers, and often a lot is lost in translation resulting in customer pain.

It was initially really hard to explain this to the finance folks, as they get super excited about reducing the amount of money they have to spend on their R&D & IT folks. A number of the high tech companies will never use outsourcers - it they do work in remote locations, they are extensions of US product team or in advanced cases full independant real product teams. Quality, intellectual property in the hands of a third party, and ultimately no real gains in productivity/money saved after all the back and forth are often the reasons. Companies wanting to tap into worldwide talent should invest in actually setting up remote locations, training these folks, hiring the cream of the crop from the top schools. They should not do this to cut costs.

[Pomegranate]

I’m surprised and amazed by the level of ignorance in this thread. So many are talking about going to Fidelity (or Schwab). I hope people understand that Fidelity, Schwab, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Wells Fargo, USAA, Geico, Allstate, State Farm, Fifth Third and on and on and on...everyone has large number of IT services delivered out of India. I can write name the largest of companies in every industry that does this. Where are you going to bank, who will you buy insurance from, which retail store will you buy from, which CPG brand will you boycott?

To others, if you are under impression that IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and Cap Gemini keep jobs in US, pls use google. They are some of the largest employers in India.

Get real folks!!!

. What they are doing is 100% legal.

Well, Equifax did another 100% legal move - put someone with degrees in music in charge of the company’s data security. You know what happened next, right ?

[sparksfly]

I’m surprised and amazed by the level of ignorance in this thread. So many are talking about going to Fidelity (or Schwab). I hope people understand that Fidelity, Schwab, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Wells Fargo, USAA, Geico, Allstate, State Farm, Fifth Third and on and on and on...everyone has large number of IT services delivered out of India. I can write name the largest of companies in every industry that does this. Where are you going to bank, who will you buy insurance from, which retail store will you buy from, which CPG brand will you boycott?

To others, if you are under impression that IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and Cap Gemini keep jobs in US, pls use google. They are some of the largest employers in India.

Get real folks!!!

M1 Finance is based in Chicago. Their clearing house, Apex Clearing, is based in Dallas. Neither of them offshore their operations to India.

It's absolutely possible to put your money where your values are.

You are missing the point entirely. By that logic, is it fair to assume that you don't use Gillette or Tide, you don't buy at Walmart, best buy or kroger, you never use Stanley Black & Decker tools, you don't fly United, American, Delta or Southwest? May be you always drive but it couldn't be a Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford or VW (nor Tesla) and you are probably not renting a car too with Hertz or Enterprise. Even if you somehow get to where you want to...you don't stay in a Marriott, Hilton, Holiday Inn etc. What about Hershey's chocolates? Disney or Universal visits? Do you use a cell phone with TMobile, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint?

I can go on with many more examples but I hope you understood the point of my post. Anyone losing a job is sad but this is another drop in the bucket and so many here are chosing to focus on the drop and missing the bucket

[SB1234]

The important point a lot of companies that drink the outsourcing kool-aid miss is that the quality of engineers they hire from India are not going to be comparatively productive to engineers trained in the US. Even if they build the loss of productivity into their models, it still often falls short. India's universities vary greatly in quality - at the high end, there are absolutely world class institutions. The engineers from the top end schools are hired by the FAAMNG (facebook, amazon, apple, microsoft, netflix, google) and other real product companies.The engineers who end up at outsourcers like Infosys with their main focus being sustaining engineering are generally towards the bottom end of the spectrum. And then they have a lot of turnover because the better engineers even at these outsourcing companies are quick to leave to product companies working on the newest tech and products. The constant turnover means lack of continuity, accountability and as a result quality issues as the new hires are coming up to speed (learning on the job). The numbers look fantastic from a C-Suite perspective (2 to 1, or 3 to 1 is often quoted), but the "follow the sun" model puts a ton of burden on engineers who have to work with outsourcers, and often a lot is lost in translation resulting in customer pain.

It's really hard to explain this to the finance folks, as they get super excited about reducing the amount of money they have to spend on their R&D & IT folks.

For sure. These companies are making money hands over fist. But don't be deluded into thinking that once profit pressure starts they will not go down the same route. Already these companies employb as many if not more contingent workers than their regular employees.
Who do think provides those contingent workers.

[pcsrini]

The important point a lot of companies that drink the outsourcing kool-aid miss is that the quality of engineers they hire from India are not going to be comparatively productive to engineers trained in the US. Even if they build the loss of productivity into their models, it still often falls short. India's universities vary greatly in quality - at the high end, there are absolutely world class institutions. The engineers from the top end schools are hired by the FAAMNG (facebook, amazon, apple, microsoft, netflix, google) and other real product companies.The engineers who end up at outsourcers like Infosys with their main focus being sustaining engineering are generally towards the bottom end of the spectrum. And then they have a lot of turnover because the better engineers even at these outsourcing companies are quick to leave to product companies working on the newest tech and products. The constant turnover means lack of continuity, accountability and as a result quality issues as the new hires are coming up to speed (learning on the job). The numbers look fantastic from a C-Suite perspective (2 to 1, or 3 to 1 is often quoted), but the "follow the sun" model puts a ton of burden on engineers who have to work with outsourcers, and often a lot is lost in translation resulting in customer pain.

It's really hard to explain this to the finance folks, as they get super excited about reducing the amount of money they have to spend on their R&D & IT folks.

For sure. These companies are making money hands over fist. But don't be deluded into thinking that once profit pressure starts they will not go down the same route. Already these companies employb as many if not more contingent workers than their regular employees.
Who do think provides those contingent workers.

Yes, but I do think it's the responsibility of the product owners, CIO's and CTO's to not allow this. Often they do this to please their CEO & CFO, who may not be technical. You generally get what you pay for in R&D/IT. That is why the FAAMNG's even in the valley pay top dollar for the best engineers. We often used to say that a rock star engineer was worth 10X an average software engineer, and we would incentivize the best to stay through options and other compensation.

[SB1234]

The important point a lot of companies that drink the outsourcing kool-aid miss is that the quality of engineers they hire from India are not going to be comparatively productive to engineers trained in the US. Even if they build the loss of productivity into their models, it still often falls short. India's universities vary greatly in quality - at the high end, there are absolutely world class institutions. The engineers from the top end schools are hired by the FAAMNG (facebook, amazon, apple, microsoft, netflix, google) and other real product companies.The engineers who end up at outsourcers like Infosys with their main focus being sustaining engineering are generally towards the bottom end of the spectrum. And then they have a lot of turnover because the better engineers even at these outsourcing companies are quick to leave to product companies working on the newest tech and products. The constant turnover means lack of continuity, accountability and as a result quality issues as the new hires are coming up to speed (learning on the job). The numbers look fantastic from a C-Suite perspective (2 to 1, or 3 to 1 is often quoted), but the "follow the sun" model puts a ton of burden on engineers who have to work with outsourcers, and often a lot is lost in translation resulting in customer pain.

It's really hard to explain this to the finance folks, as they get super excited about reducing the amount of money they have to spend on their R&D & IT folks.

For sure. These companies are making money hands over fist. But don't be deluded into thinking that once profit pressure starts they will not go down the same route. Already these companies employb as many if not more contingent workers than their regular employees.
Who do think provides those contingent workers.

Yes, but I do think it's the responsibility of the product owners, CIO's and CTO's to not allow this. Often they do this to please their CEO & CFO, who may not be technical. You generally get what you pay for in R&D/IT. That is why the FAAMNG's even in the valley pay top dollar for the best engineers. We often used to say that a rock star engineer was worth 10X an average software engineer, and we would incentivize the best to stay through options and other compensation.

But the management is not doing this in a vacuum. We as share holders are demanding that. We debate endlessly why US markets outperform ex-US. Perhaps this is the reason why or at least a contributing factor.

[pcsrini]

The important point a lot of companies that drink the outsourcing kool-aid miss is that the quality of engineers they hire from India are not going to be comparatively productive to engineers trained in the US. Even if they build the loss of productivity into their models, it still often falls short. India's universities vary greatly in quality - at the high end, there are absolutely world class institutions. The engineers from the top end schools are hired by the FAAMNG (facebook, amazon, apple, microsoft, netflix, google) and other real product companies.The engineers who end up at outsourcers like Infosys with their main focus being sustaining engineering are generally towards the bottom end of the spectrum. And then they have a lot of turnover because the better engineers even at these outsourcing companies are quick to leave to product companies working on the newest tech and products. The constant turnover means lack of continuity, accountability and as a result quality issues as the new hires are coming up to speed (learning on the job). The numbers look fantastic from a C-Suite perspective (2 to 1, or 3 to 1 is often quoted), but the "follow the sun" model puts a ton of burden on engineers who have to work with outsourcers, and often a lot is lost in translation resulting in customer pain.

It's really hard to explain this to the finance folks, as they get super excited about reducing the amount of money they have to spend on their R&D & IT folks.

For sure. These companies are making money hands over fist. But don't be deluded into thinking that once profit pressure starts they will not go down the same route. Already these companies employb as many if not more contingent workers than their regular employees.
Who do think provides those contingent workers.

Yes, but I do think it's the responsibility of the product owners, CIO's and CTO's to not allow this. Often they do this to please their CEO & CFO, who may not be technical. You generally get what you pay for in R&D/IT. That is why the FAAMNG's even in the valley pay top dollar for the best engineers. We often used to say that a rock star engineer was worth 10X an average software engineer, and we would incentivize the best to stay through options and other compensation.

But the management is not doing this in a vacuum. We as share holders are demanding that. We debate endlessly why US markets outperform ex-US. Perhaps this is the reason why or at least a contributing factor.

I get it. But I do think at the end of the day after trying outsourcing for a decade or more, most healthy organizations reach the conclusion that it was a mistake. If a company is having other challenges and is not able to invest in the product, then they will outsource R&D, outsource CS, and continue to drift downwards. Having high hiring standards , hiring the best, paying them competitively, giving them opportunities to shine and grow is the only formula that really works whether you are in highly profitable or a profits challenged company. A lot of folks think Software engineering is easy - writing code is easy, but not world class engineering! Creating world class products that scale, having customers who are delighted by your products, and reducing the burden on Call centers because the product has been engineered correctly has a much higher bar than folks who can write some code. I really hope that boards, investors, and C-Suite folks embrace this - there is no free lunch.

[Broken Man 1999]

Me, I love globalization.

A DD has worked for three foreign corporations, currently working for one now.

Americans aren't competing against just each other today. They are competing against the world. It is all about what the skill set is worth.

Vanguard is a business. It isn't blind to these type cost savings opportunities, nor should they be.

I'm signing off to watch some TV. On my Samsung TV. I remember the Curtis Mathis
TV ads, something like this, Curtis Mathis, the most expensive TVs in America, and darn well worth it. I don't see those ads anymore.

Broken Man 1999

[Tommy]

Expect problems with website, errors in the accounts, whatever can go wrong will go wrong.

Vanguard website problems? Errors with accounts? Next thing you're going to tell me Vanguard won't answer the phone on the weekend anymore!

Just wait. Give them one 1-2 years, till they release their first project.

[SB1234]

The important point a lot of companies that drink the outsourcing kool-aid miss is that the quality of engineers they hire from India are not going to be comparatively productive to engineers trained in the US. Even if they build the loss of productivity into their models, it still often falls short. India's universities vary greatly in quality - at the high end, there are absolutely world class institutions. The engineers from the top end schools are hired by the FAAMNG (facebook, amazon, apple, microsoft, netflix, google) and other real product companies.The engineers who end up at outsourcers like Infosys with their main focus being sustaining engineering are generally towards the bottom end of the spectrum. And then they have a lot of turnover because the better engineers even at these outsourcing companies are quick to leave to product companies working on the newest tech and products. The constant turnover means lack of continuity, accountability and as a result quality issues as the new hires are coming up to speed (learning on the job). The numbers look fantastic from a C-Suite perspective (2 to 1, or 3 to 1 is often quoted), but the "follow the sun" model puts a ton of burden on engineers who have to work with outsourcers, and often a lot is lost in translation resulting in customer pain.

It's really hard to explain this to the finance folks, as they get super excited about reducing the amount of money they have to spend on their R&D & IT folks.

For sure. These companies are making money hands over fist. But don't be deluded into thinking that once profit pressure starts they will not go down the same route. Already these companies employb as many if not more contingent workers than their regular employees.
Who do think provides those contingent workers.

Yes, but I do think it's the responsibility of the product owners, CIO's and CTO's to not allow this. Often they do this to please their CEO & CFO, who may not be technical. You generally get what you pay for in R&D/IT. That is why the FAAMNG's even in the valley pay top dollar for the best engineers. We often used to say that a rock star engineer was worth 10X an average software engineer, and we would incentivize the best to stay through options and other compensation.

But the management is not doing this in a vacuum. We as share holders are demanding that. We debate endlessly why US markets outperform ex-US. Perhaps this is the reason why or at least a contributing factor.

I get it. But I do think at the end of the day after trying outsourcing for a decade or more, most healthy organizations reach the conclusion that it was a mistake. If a company is having other challenges and is not able to invest in the product, then they will outsource R&D, outsource CS, and continue to drift downwards. Having high hiring standards , hiring the best, paying them competitively, giving them opportunities to shine and grow is the only formula that really works whether you are in highly profitable or a profits challenged company. A lot of folks think Software engineering is easy - writing code is easy, but not world class engineering! Creating world class products that scale, having customers who are delighted by your products, and reducing the burden on Call centers because the product has been engineered correctly has a much higher bar than folks who can write some code. I really hope that boards, investors, and C-Suite folks embrace this - there is no free lunch.

What you state maybe ideal, but that is simply not the reality. Even at the top tech companies today, Reality is even large parts of what you think are being developed completely internally are being developed in partnership with these outsourcing companies.
I work in biomedical engineering. But software is a big part. My employer has strategically decided that they don't want to buildb software team. instead they choose to invest in IP and really core competencies. Simply because products change very quickly, you need to end of life something but at the same time launch the new and shining next thing. You build a team for something that didn't work in the market now you need to layoff that team is not better model. Instead now you just ask for different skills from the outsourcing partner. Someone left project, no worries they just find someone else. For many major companies that don't have tech as their product, the outsourcing model makes sense. And even for tech companies, the number of people required is just too much to keep hiring internally.

[Tommy]

The important point a lot of companies that drink the outsourcing kool-aid miss is that the quality of engineers they hire from India are not going to be comparatively productive to engineers trained in the US. Even if they build the loss of productivity into their models, it still often falls short. India's universities vary greatly in quality - at the high end, there are absolutely world class institutions. The engineers from the top end schools are hired by the FAAMNG (facebook, amazon, apple, microsoft, netflix, google) and other real product companies.The engineers who end up at outsourcers like Infosys with their main focus being sustaining engineering are generally towards the bottom end of the spectrum. And then they have a lot of turnover because the better engineers even at these outsourcing companies are quick to leave to product companies working on the newest tech and products. The constant turnover means lack of continuity, accountability and as a result quality issues as the new hires are coming up to speed (learning on the job). The numbers look fantastic from a C-Suite perspective (2 to 1, or 3 to 1 is often quoted), but the "follow the sun" model puts a ton of burden on engineers who have to work with outsourcers, and often a lot is lost in translation resulting in customer pain.

It was initially really hard to explain this to the finance folks, as they get super excited about reducing the amount of money they have to spend on their R&D & IT folks. A number of the high tech companies will never use outsourcers - it they do work in remote locations, they are extensions of US product team or in advanced cases full independant real product teams. Quality, intellectual property in the hands of a third party, and ultimately no real gains in productivity/money saved after all the back and forth are often the reasons. Companies wanting to tap into worldwide talent should invest in actually setting up remote locations, training these folks, hiring the cream of the crop from the top schools. They should not do this to cut costs.

This is basically my post but for some reason it got removed..

[pcsrini]

For sure. These companies are making money hands over fist. But don't be deluded into thinking that once profit pressure starts they will not go down the same route. Already these companies employb as many if not more contingent workers than their regular employees.
Who do think provides those contingent workers.

Yes, but I do think it's the responsibility of the product owners, CIO's and CTO's to not allow this. Often they do this to please their CEO & CFO, who may not be technical. You generally get what you pay for in R&D/IT. That is why the FAAMNG's even in the valley pay top dollar for the best engineers. We often used to say that a rock star engineer was worth 10X an average software engineer, and we would incentivize the best to stay through options and other compensation.

But the management is not doing this in a vacuum. We as share holders are demanding that. We debate endlessly why US markets outperform ex-US. Perhaps this is the reason why or at least a contributing factor.

I get it. But I do think at the end of the day after trying outsourcing for a decade or more, most healthy organizations reach the conclusion that it was a mistake. If a company is having other challenges and is not able to invest in the product, then they will outsource R&D, outsource CS, and continue to drift downwards. Having high hiring standards , hiring the best, paying them competitively, giving them opportunities to shine and grow is the only formula that really works whether you are in highly profitable or a profits challenged company. A lot of folks think Software engineering is easy - writing code is easy, but not world class engineering! Creating world class products that scale, having customers who are delighted by your products, and reducing the burden on Call centers because the product has been engineered correctly has a much higher bar than folks who can write some code. I really hope that boards, investors, and C-Suite folks embrace this - there is no free lunch.

What you state maybe ideal, but that is simply not the reality. Even at the top tech companies today, Reality is even large parts of what you think are being developed completely internally are being developed in partnership with these outsourcing companies.
I work in biomedical engineering. But software is a big part. My employer has strategically decided that they don't want to buildb software team. instead they choose to invest in IP and really core competencies. Simply because products change very quickly, you need to end of life something but at the same time launch the new and shining next thing. You build a team for something that didn't work in the market now you need to layoff that team is not better model. Instead now you just ask for different skills from the outsourcing partner. Someone left project, no worries they just find someone else. For many major companies that don't have tech as their product, the outsourcing model makes sense. And even for tech companies, the number of people required is just too much to keep hiring internally.

Thanks - I appreciate the perspective. FWIW, my experiences were core product companies, and we at least were able to undo outsourcing in the core product. But as you said, this perhaps comes up in every annual review cycle, and there is the constant need to be more productive and cut costs. Some of the cloud providers are also a different approach to cost cutting more because of tech advances but does need massive re-engineering to make the existing products cloud ready.

[babystep]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 93262.html

The only winner here is Infosys.

This is definitely bad for their employees, as I have witnessed a very similar layoff where my employer handed over their IT dev and operations to Infosys and the employees were "re-badged" as Infosys employees. Fast-forward 12 months, Infosys will let most of them go, and will low-ball the salaries for the ones who are still around.

This does not bode well for Vanguard's customers, us, as Vanguard is yet another cash cow for Infosys and there will be no focus on customer experience.

I hope I am wrong.

Thoughts?

The title of your post is factually incorrect and misleading. You should update the title of the post.

quotes from the news article:

Approximately 1,300 Vanguard roles currently supporting the full-service recordkeeping client administration, operations, and technology functions will transition to Infosys. All Vanguard employees currently performing these roles will be offered comparable positions at Infosys in close proximity to Vanguard's offices in Malvern, PA, Charlotte, NC, and Scottsdale, AZ. Transitioning employees will receive the same salary, comparable benefits for a transition period of 12 months, plus meaningful incentive opportunities. Infosys is dedicated to this business and the transition offers prospects for long-term career growth and development.

Ms. King, currently head of Vanguard Institutional Investor Group, will also transition to Infosys to head the firm's Mid-Atlantic Retirement Services Center of Excellence and serve as the firm's Chief Client Officer. The transitioning Vanguard crew will report up through Ms. King and Mr. Joshi.

Infosys currently serves half of the top 20 retirement service firms in the U.S., helping clients to manage risk, improve participant experience, and deliver better retirement plan outcomes through business transformation, technology services, and digital solutions. The firm offers end-to-end, enterprise-wide insurance and retirement business-process solutions across five core businesses: life insurance and annuity services, producer services, retirement services, employer sponsored services, and functional BPO services.


I read some folks moving to Fidelity in response to the news. Does anyone know for a fact that Fidelity doesn't use a similar approach?
Fidelity has software development center in India.

Let me break the news... the world economy is interconnected and global. The very electronic device on which you are reading this comment is very likely built in China or some other country. Are you now gonna stop using that as well?

We should be mature and invest in future generations so that they have the right set of skills for the next century.

[beyou]

I am ex-IBM, and do sub-contracting on and off, you do not know what you are talking about. Obviously, they will outsource if they cannot meet the costs demanded by the customer over here, and there is a limit to availability of talent.

According to wikipedia IBM employs nearly 350000 in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_India

IBM is in 175 countries, that's almost every country in the world, and they employ hundreds of thousands worldwide.

Yes and it still doesn't change the truth that IBM has laid off tens of thousands US employees and hired 100s of thousands in India. Who do think started the outsourcing trend to India. Hint. It was IBM and GE.
I advise you to learn your history and not simply be a company man.

Do Indians in India consume Coca-Cola, Pepsi, buy Apple, Microsoft, IBM, so on? Are there Indian products perhaps instead they could be buying? why is their Government allowing such things as buying Foreign products. In a global economy products and jobs do tend to go around. That's the way it is, adapt or perish.

Actually India is among the most protectionist nations. This is a one way street, don’t be so naive.

[palanzo]

I’m surprised and amazed by the level of ignorance in this thread. So many are talking about going to Fidelity (or Schwab). I hope people understand that Fidelity, Schwab, Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Wells Fargo, USAA, Geico, Allstate, State Farm, Fifth Third and on and on and on...everyone has large number of IT services delivered out of India. I can write name the largest of companies in every industry that does this. Where are you going to bank, who will you buy insurance from, which retail store will you buy from, which CPG brand will you boycott?

To others, if you are under impression that IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and Cap Gemini keep jobs in US, pls use google. They are some of the largest employers in India.

Get real folks!!!

M1 Finance is based in Chicago. Their clearing house, Apex Clearing, is based in Dallas. Neither of them offshore their operations to India.

It's absolutely possible to put your money where your values are.

You are missing the point entirely. By that logic, is it fair to assume that you don't use Gillette or Tide, you don't buy at Walmart, best buy or kroger, you never use Stanley Black & Decker tools, you don't fly United, American, Delta or Southwest? May be you always drive but it couldn't be a Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford or VW (nor Tesla) and you are probably not renting a car too with Hertz or Enterprise. Even if you somehow get to where you want to...you don't stay in a Marriott, Hilton, Holiday Inn etc. What about Hershey's chocolates? Disney or Universal visits? Do you use a cell phone with TMobile, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint?

I can go on with many more examples but I hope you understood the point of my post. Anyone losing a job is sad but this is another drop in the bucket and so many here are chosing to focus on the drop and missing the bucket

Your analogies are flawed. Most Honda and Toyota vehicles sold in the US are American designed and manufactured. So are they American or Japanese? I really don't get your Southwest analogy? LUV flies 737s exclusively which are designed and manufactured in the USA and their pilots and cabin crew are American or hold a green card otherwise they would not be able to legally work in the USA. The LUV NOC (Network Operations Control) is in Dallas which is in Texas! LUV does all maintenance in the USA and their largest maintenance facility is at Houston Hobby.

I could continue with your other analogies but I suspect it would be waste of my time.

[beyou]

I work for a subadvisor of Vanguard funds.
We did something similar and then reversed it.
Over promise and under delivery by outsourcing partner.
Many years ago Merrill did same, outsource then reverted.

Quality simply wont be the same, keep that in mind if you have a Vanguard 401k. And assume they will negotiate more such deals for more services.

I am going to see how the etrade Morgan Stanley buyout goes. Etrade has had excellent service and both firms seem more committed to quality and keeping jobs in the US. Might move to Etrade.

[palanzo]

Me, I love globalization.

A DD has worked for three foreign corporations, currently working for one now.

Americans aren't competing against just each other today. They are competing against the world. It is all about what the skill set is worth.

Vanguard is a business. It isn't blind to these type cost savings opportunities, nor should they be.

I'm signing off to watch some TV. On my Samsung TV. I remember the Curtis Mathis
TV ads, something like this, Curtis Mathis, the most expensive TVs in America, and darn well worth it. I don't see those ads anymore.

Broken Man 1999

Anyone who has been involved with technology outsourcing will tell you that the "cost savings" are illusory in many cases and not achieved. The negative consequences are all too readily realized.

[JonnyB]

Where does it say that they are getting laid off?

Well, it's not exactly rocket science. Vanguard is transferring 1300 employees to another company to save money. The only way you save money on 1300 employees doing the exact same job is by cutting their pay -- a whole lot. They claim pay is guaranteed for 12 months but after that they either take the big pay cut or leave.

I'm guessing most will see the writing on the wall and be seeking other jobs before the 12 months is up. Vanguard knows this, Infosys knows this and the employees know this. It's a slow motion layoff and Vanguard doesn't take a hit on unemployment insurance taxes if employees leave voluntarily.

[palanzo]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 93262.html

The only winner here is Infosys.

This is definitely bad for their employees, as I have witnessed a very similar layoff where my employer handed over their IT dev and operations to Infosys and the employees were "re-badged" as Infosys employees. Fast-forward 12 months, Infosys will let most of them go, and will low-ball the salaries for the ones who are still around.

This does not bode well for Vanguard's customers, us, as Vanguard is yet another cash cow for Infosys and there will be no focus on customer experience.

I hope I am wrong.

Thoughts?

The title of your post is factually incorrect and misleading. You should update the title of the post.

quotes from the news article:

Approximately 1,300 Vanguard roles currently supporting the full-service recordkeeping client administration, operations, and technology functions will transition to Infosys. All Vanguard employees currently performing these roles will be offered comparable positions at Infosys in close proximity to Vanguard's offices in Malvern, PA, Charlotte, NC, and Scottsdale, AZ. Transitioning employees will receive the same salary, comparable benefits for a transition period of 12 months, plus meaningful incentive opportunities. Infosys is dedicated to this business and the transition offers prospects for long-term career growth and development.

Ms. King, currently head of Vanguard Institutional Investor Group, will also transition to Infosys to head the firm's Mid-Atlantic Retirement Services Center of Excellence and serve as the firm's Chief Client Officer. The transitioning Vanguard crew will report up through Ms. King and Mr. Joshi.

Infosys currently serves half of the top 20 retirement service firms in the U.S., helping clients to manage risk, improve participant experience, and deliver better retirement plan outcomes through business transformation, technology services, and digital solutions. The firm offers end-to-end, enterprise-wide insurance and retirement business-process solutions across five core businesses: life insurance and annuity services, producer services, retirement services, employer sponsored services, and functional BPO services.


I read some folks moving to Fidelity in response to the news. Does anyone know for a fact that Fidelity doesn't use a similar approach?
Fidelity has software development center in India.

Let me break the news... the world economy is interconnected and global. The very electronic device on which you are reading this comment is very likely built in China or some other country. Are you now gonna stop using that as well?

We should be mature and invest in future generations so that they have the right set of skills for the next century.

Wow. Vanguard got all the buzz words into that press release - end-to-end business-process solutions core business etc. Any time a company creates a Center of Excellence (they really should have used COE) one should be careful.

On a more serious note, one should ask the question - comparable benefits for a transition period of 12 months - why only for 12 months?

[AerialWombat]

Me, I love globalization.

A DD has worked for three foreign corporations, currently working for one now.

Americans aren't competing against just each other today. They are competing against the world. It is all about what the skill set is worth.

Vanguard is a business. It isn't blind to these type cost savings opportunities, nor should they be.

I'm signing off to watch some TV. On my Samsung TV. I remember the Curtis Mathis
TV ads, something like this, Curtis Mathis, the most expensive TVs in America, and darn well worth it. I don't see those ads anymore.

Broken Man 1999

+1

This entire thread is such a stereotypical American reaction that it’s almost comical.

We live in a global economy, folks. Get used to it.

[palanzo]

I work for a subadvisor of Vanguard funds.
We did something similar and then reversed it.
Over promise and under delivery by outsourcing partner.
Many years ago Merrill did same, outsource then reverted.

Quality simply wont be the same, keep that in mind if you have a Vanguard 401k. And assume they will negotiate more such deals for more services.

I am going to see how the etrade Morgan Stanley buyout goes. Etrade has had excellent service and both firms seem more committed to quality and keeping jobs in the US. Might move to Etrade.

Yes but E*Trade has a really terrible website. Arcane best describes it.

[palanzo]

Where does it say that they are getting laid off?

Well, it's not exactly rocket science. Vanguard is transferring 1300 employees to another company to save money. The only way you save money on 1300 employees doing the exact same job is by cutting their pay -- a whole lot. They claim pay is guaranteed for 12 months but after that they either take the big pay cut or leave.

I'm guessing most will see the writing on the wall and be seeking other jobs before the 12 months is up. Vanguard knows this, Infosys knows this and the employees know this. It's a slow motion layoff and Vanguard doesn't take a hit on unemployment insurance taxes if employees leave voluntarily.

Unfortunately very true. Infosys is the number one visa sponsor 2017-2019 - 53753. I expect in 12 months they will be staffing with H1B visa holders and similar.