Am I stupid to think about career as a Quant?

[paisab]

Hello All,
I wanted to describe my background and I wanted to get a honest perspective from people in the field and people trying to get into this field. Please respond to questions below and it will help me immensely to make decision about my future.

My background:
I've a MS EE from top 20 school in USA. My specialization has been signal processing and image processing.I've done coursework in signal processing, information theory, wavelet signal processing, algorithms etc.
For last 6 years, I've been working as verification and modeling engineer in semiconductor industry. I've been using C++,System C, Boost, Python and OOP concepts in my everyday work. I've written bit accurate C++ models for complex signal processing digital hardware besides building test benches for digital hardware. I'm comfortable with templates and meta-programming in C++. I don't know whether it is relevant here, but I've also build FPGA systems for image and signal processing hardware.

Financially, I've been doing ok with this job. Not to brag or anything, but I've been making $160k/year on average. I'm giving this information here, so that I can receive informed suggestions for my questions.

I've been interested in applied mathematics throughout my life. I love to prototype and build models of complex phenomenon. For sometime now, I seem to have hit limits with my current job and it has turned into sort of routine work. I believe this would be true for any job in the current semiconductor industry unless you are working for a defense contractor.

I feel Quantitative Finance is one of the best real world applications of applied mathematics out there. I looked at background needed in quant/financial analyst etc. and I think I do have some overlap in required skills. I've also traded derivatives on my own for last 3 years and I'm familiar with black-scholes options pricing but do not have any experience of working in investment bank/trader desk.

My questions:
1. At my age( 33 years), does it even make sense to try and switch to completely different field like quant with its own set of challenges ?

2. With my background, do I need to enroll in a MFE program and follow traditional route to enter this field? If not, what can I do to get a position in this field ?

3. Would any top MFE program entertain my application without any background in finance?

4. My GRE score is over 10 years old. If I've to apply for MFE program, do I need to write GRE/GMAT before I apply for MFE ? Is there anything else I can do to increase my chances to get into a top MFE program ( like unpaid internships, open source code development or anything else? )

5. Compared to my current compensation, do I stand to make substantial gains in my salary over next 5 years if I switch to quantitative finance?

6. At some point in next 5 years, I do plan to return to my native country (India) and work from there. Would this degree/experience relevant over there?

 

[goldmanta]

I don't find it crazy, but it does seem to be a slight gamble. At age 33, and application deadlines pretty much being around the corner, you may end up attending an MFE program at age 35. I don't believe in age discrimination. I'm just assuming certain things about what other things you might be concerned with at that age.

I'm pretty risk averse to begin with, so I didn't want to take several years off from work/school just to attend a full-time MFE program. What if you end up getting no offered or getting a job that you could have gotten without the degree? Aside from that, the opportunity costs + tuition is just too much for me to stomach in this economy. But this is the approach that I'm taking largely due to the fact that I do not have a solid MFE-ready mathematics skill set. The approach that a lot of QuantNet members seem to go for is take a bunch of math courses and try to get into the top MFE program. The problem is that too many qualified people are planning this route. I decided to shoot for a non-quant job at a top firm and to try and climb my way up to a quant job.

If you consider the fact that you'll retake GREs and submit applications next year, you could spend that time networking with a lot of different professionals to get your foot in the door (even if it's not in quant areas). The only problem with this approach would be that it might take a little longer to become a "quant" than say getting an MFE and getting the job directly. But hopefully the firm could pay for your CQF, which might help to expedite the transition.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

6. There are currently fewer options and a salary cut when you move back to India. Maybe being closer to home would be of more value to you.
5. Enter you own salary and compare with people who have MFE degrees. Check out the Quant Salary Database
4. GRE is valid for 5 years only.

There are definitely programs that you can get in. Top programs may be a different story. You may end up in developer positions with a lower salary. Don't think you will be doing much math or finance at work, if any.
Just look at the Quant Salary Database for some idea.

You can now draw up your own conclusion about whether doing MFE now is right path to take.

 

[abcdefh]

dude, currently 160k doing verification and going for mfe is 95% in the wrong direction.

 

[Curiousphd]

Hello All,

Sorry for jumping on to this post, out of nowhere. I have just recently joined this forum (though I have been visiting it for some time now). I must appreciate the excellent work you guys, particularly Andy, are doing by maintaining this forum and sharing your vast experience with the community.

To start with, I have a Phd in electrical engineering/applied physics. I am considering switching to the field of FE. I know it has been said several times before, in this forum, that one should only become a quant if he/she loves to do this. I think that people choose professions for two reason: 1) they love that profession or 2) they love the rewards associated with it. People told me before I started PhD that I should do PhD only if I love it. Let me tell you that I have hated it the entire duration of my PhD studies (though, I have published more papers during this time than any other PhD student has published at my school- I have graduated from a top 20 ranked school in world). So, I will have no hesitation in switching to quant field if it comes with substantially better rewards than EE.

I have looked at the salary database at this forum and also looked at some job postings in other places on the internet. The thing that confuses me is that the salary (considering the median or avg. value) for quants with even >5 years experience lies around 100K. Is that true from your experience ? Somewhere else, I came across the figure of 300-500K after 5 years. There seems to be a big gap between, say 100K and 300-500K.

In short, my question is: does anyone have an idea what is the salary of the majority of quants after 5-10-15- or 20 years. I know, people say in this field there is no limit and future is extremely unpredictable. But, from the past, can anyone comment or make a calculated guess based on his vision. I know if I stay in my own field, my salary would probably saturate at around 100-150K. Is there a saturation figure for most of the quants. I can't imagine all the thousands of quants end up making 300K or 500K in 5 or even 10 years (or then, I can be wrong !).

Guys, your comment will be much appreciated ! Thanks in advance.

 

[Ken Abbott]

Consider the evolution of compensation kind of like a Gaussian random walk, starting at, for arguments's sake 100k, with each person's trajectory a single path. There is drift, as most will make more over time, but the dispersion after a few years is huge. People go into different sub-specialities, for which demand waxes and wanes. (Who'd have thought that quantitative stress testing techniques would have become so hot?)

It sounds to me like you're more focused upon the rewards than on the job. That's dangerous. Like trading, it's easy to convince yourself that what you're pursuing is the optimal when it may not be. Beware.

 

[Curiousphd]

Consider the evolution of compensation kind of like a Gaussian random walk, starting at, for arguments's sake 100k, with each person's trajectory a single path. There is drift, as most will make more over time, but the dispersion after a few years is huge. People go into different sub-specialities, for which demand waxes and wanes. (Who'd have thought that quantitative stress testing techniques would have become so hot?)

It sounds to me like you're more focused upon the rewards than on the job. That's dangerous. Like trading, it's easy to convince yourself that what you're pursuing is the optimal when it may not be. Beware.

Thanks Ken for the reply. I think, I didn't put my question the right way. What I am trying to guess is what could be the worst case scenario in the long run. Personally, I would compare the worst case scenario with my current field, since switching to a new field (specially if you are not fresh undergrad) comes at the expense of time + money. If the money is even twice that in EE, I would definitely not switch the field, since after many years in a field, you become better at it and there is more chance of success (satisfaction + money) in it.

Yes Sir, you are right. I am more focused towards rewards than on the job itself. But wait, who isn't (except for a few exceptions). If it was just about the love of job, I would not have switched back to high school from professional athletics. I know that I start a job and then start liking (-though, maybe not loving-) it. That liking may come from the job itself or the rewards associated with it (e.g., In Science, the satisfaction of publishing papers and people citing your work! --- In sports, Winning + Money --- or In Finance, Money + being an expert in what you do). I must remind you that in most of the developing world, people do not chose a profession because they just love it, they mostly chose it because there are more chances of succeeding in there. There are more exceptions here in North America, but still many people even here, make decisions this way... I must say that I have a huge respect for people (like you) who chose a profession just because they love it. But, that's not the case for many others (even, if they want to, their processor doesn't work this way. Lolzzz) ...

 

[Ken Abbott]

Thanks Ken for the reply. I think, I didn't put my question the right way. What I am trying to guess is what could be the worst case scenario in the long run. Personally, I would compare the worst case scenario with my current field, since switching to a new field (specially if you are not fresh undergrad) comes at the expense of time + money. If the money is even twice that in EE, I would definitely not switch the field, since after many years in a field, you become better at it and there is more chance of success (satisfaction + money) in it.

Yes Sir, you are right. I am more focused towards rewards than on the job itself. But wait, who isn't (except for a few exceptions). If it was just about the love of job, I would not have switched back to high school from professional athletics. I know that I start a job and then start liking (-though, maybe not loving-) it. That liking may come from the job itself or the rewards associated with it (e.g., In Science, the satisfaction of publishing papers and people citing your work! --- In sports, Winning + Money --- or In Finance, Money + being an expert in what you do). I must remind you that in most of the developing world, people do not chose a profession because they just love it, they mostly chose it because there are more chances of succeeding in there. There are more exceptions here in North America, but still many people even here, make decisions this way... I must say that I have a huge respect for people (like you) who chose a profession just because they love it. But, that's not the case for many others (even, if they want to, their processor doesn't work this way. Lolzzz) ...

My fear is that people are flooding into quant finance like they did into mortgages in 2003-2005, like they did into Internet startups in 1995-1999, like they did into IR derivatives in 1994, and like they did into tulips in Holland in the 17th century. It's very late in the game...

 

[Curiousphd]

Lolzzz .... True ....

 

[Drache]

You need a maths degree with a Masters in Science (maths). Sorry but it's true as your computer/programming knowledge is only a small part of the picture). Think about your jo prospects. If you were given a choice between a top maths Masters/Phd grad and you, who would you choose?