"Becoming" a "Quant"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Edge
  • Start date Start date
Joined
3/18/16
Messages
8
Points
13
Hello.

I didn't really know how to start this topic, so I'll write a review. I hope I won't bore you to death. :)

I'm a Polish student currently at an average UK university (3rd year Business & Finance). I'm planning to work as an Investment Advisor in the future. It's a regulated profession here in Poland. I think the best way to describe it is that it's a Polish equivalent of the CFA. They are said to be quite similar, however, there are some differences. You don't have to be an undergraduate to start it, fail-pass threshold makes it IMO more difficult to pass, theoretically you can get the license in 1 year (there are 2 exams for each level every year). When it comes to content, the 2nd level (the most difficult one) contains 5 essay questions about financial reporting, company stocks, obligations, derivatives etc. I know it doesn't say a lot, but to give you a broad view of what knowledge is needed, to answer the option question you have to have Hull's "Options, Futures and Other Derivatives" at your fingertips. IAs responsibilities may vary a lot - from some trash like writing recommendations (which are just ads most of the time) up to managing portfolios, risk assessement etc.

Polish capital market is obviously much less developed than the US/UK one. The interesting part is that it's not as quant-driven. Quants that you know from the USA are minority (to say the least).

Up until recently I didn't even know there are such people as quants, which may sound pitiful. In short, yes, I want to "become" a "quant", but the quotation marks are there for purpose, so please do not treat this as an "oh, another guy without any knowledge that wants to become a quant in X time" kind of topic. What I want to do is to increase my knowledge in maths and programming throughout the time. I don't have a specific goal, but I would like to, if it's possible, slowly gain confidence in this area, develop a second branch of skillset, and maybe try to use it in my job / private trading in the future (it doesn't really matter if it takes 5 or 10 years or whatever). I'd like to do it because:
- I'm just interested in it, find it quite fascinating (as much as I can say something like that about the topic I don't know). But it doesn't mean I'll learn it by force - I'll probably stop if it doesn't suit me;
- I can't predict the future. If the Polish market stays the same, i.e. not so quant oriented, it can give me an advantage over the others. However, if it's by chance flooded with quants, it can give me means to compete and prevent going out of business;
- there's a chance I could use it in private trading one day, and testing it myself sounds like a fun thing to do;
- hard skills such as math knowledge and programming give me some options if I decide to seek opportunites outside of finance.

Hence, I'm asking for advice. Where should I start? My programming knowledge is non-existent. My math, IMO, is not much better - in this case I stopped education at highschool (HL Maths in IB). I know there's a reading list, but it's just a list of sources without any hand-holding. Shall I generally improve my math skills or rightaway focus on topics that are most used in the field? Start programming together with math learning or favour one over another for some time? Which langauge first? I'd prefer Excel and VBA as some IAs find it useful sometimes - is it fine? Try to get a decent grip on it, and then move to the next one, or learn more at once?

I have one more problem. In the description of many Master of Finance courses it is said that they prepare for the CFA. By the time I graduate from the present uni, I will know most of that stuff, so I don't see any point in choosing it. Ideally I would take something more math oriented, but I don't think there is a course I will be accepted for because of my math background, so don't really know...

Sorry for quite a chaotic post. I will greatly appreciate any suggestons.
 
Last edited:
Advanced books assume that you know at least the basic college math repertoire: linear algebra, calculus, differential equations, probability theory, statistics. For programming data structures is important and you can just start with Python or something easy like that. EdX, Coursera, etc. have everything you need, but it will take a long time to really get on top of these fundamentals if you start from 0.
 
Thank you for your help.

I will look into my highschool math textbook and refresh some things, then look for some higher education (bachelor oriented) textbooks/courses.

About Python - is Lutz's "Learning Python" appropriate for a complete beginner, or do I have to study something which covers absolute basics first?
 
Python is definitely recommended. Better to go Python then VBA than the other way around, as you develop good habits that way.

I don't know your level of computer knowledge, so to cover all bases it's better to go with an online course first, as video lectures and homework therein will cover a lot of small details that could trip you up if you go only from book. These are cultural things like text editors, Linux, etc. Not REALLY worth putting much detail into a book, but very natural to drop a short sentence on in a lecture or in a homework.
 
Hence, I'm asking for advice. Where should I start? My programming knowledge is non-existent. My math, IMO, is not much better - in this case I stopped education at highschool (HL Maths in IB).

The odds are you're wasting your time. If you were an ace coder who wanted to learn some math, or the other way around, you'd have a chance. But with coding and math both absent from your profile, your chances of surmounting two big obstacles are slim at best. The math will take years. The non-scientific coding can be picked up faster.
 
I don't know your level of computer knowledge, so to cover all bases it's better to go with an online course first, as video lectures and homework therein will cover a lot of small details that could trip you up if you go only from book.

Indeed, I've already looked briefly at the book and some courses, and the latter option seems more suitable and beginner-friendly.

The math will take years.

What do you mean by years? One can learn 2 or 10 hours a day. Or do you mean a person like me that spends their free time on math?

Just out of interest - I stumbled upon this link in one of the topics and was quite surprised that the University of Warsaw is 19th. Well, it's just a ranking that has its own limited methodology, but I was wondering how good this programme is in comparison to the US/UK ones. Here's the overview:
Graduate studies in Quantitative Finance at University of Warsaw, Poland

and curriculum:
http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/files/8314/5856/5219/P_M_QF_16-17.pdf.

There's some modules that you won't find in other masters like Financial Statement Analysis or Ethical Standards and Financial Law. It may be because, as I said in the first post, quantitative finance is not as developed and quants are more of quasi-quants.

But other than that?
 
What do you mean by years? One can learn 2 or 10 hours a day. Or do you mean a person like me that spends their free time on math?

There's a natural pace of assimilation for mathematics (which varies from person to person). Putting in more hours won't accelerate the learning and acquisition of skill but will lead to burnout and frustration.
 
Just out of interest - I stumbled upon this link in one of the topics and was quite surprised that the University of Warsaw is 19th. Well, it's just a ranking that has its own limited methodology, but I was wondering how good this programme is in comparison to the US/UK ones. Here's the overview:
Graduate studies in Quantitative Finance at University of Warsaw, Poland

and curriculum:
http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/files/8314/5856/5219/P_M_QF_16-17.pdf.

There's some modules that you won't find in other masters like Financial Statement Analysis or Ethical Standards and Financial Law. It may be because, as I said in the first post, quantitative finance is not as developed and quants are more of quasi-quants.

But other than that?

The program content seems to cover most of the important stuff.

As for the ranking, I wouldn't put much attention to it.
 
There's a natural pace of assimilation for mathematics (which varies from person to person). Putting in more hours won't accelerate the learning and acquisition of skill but will lead to burnout and frustration.

I'm not sure if I understand you. I agree that putting in more hours won't accelerate the learning. What I'm trying to say, however, is that there's no difference, ceteris paribus, between learning 2 hours a day for 3 years and 6 hours a day for 1 year. I don't see why there would be, given the same amount of focus, contemplation, mastering of fundamentals etc. If you know some papers that prove me wrong, then I'll gladly see them.

As for surmounting two big obstacles, the point about a graduate improvement and no ultimate goal still applies. If it takes e.g. 10,000 hours of learning during next 10 years to be quite good, then it's not a fundamental problem for me.


The program content seems to cover most of the important stuff.

As for the ranking, I wouldn't put much attention to it.

Thank you.
 
I'm not sure if I understand you. I agree that putting in more hours won't accelerate the learning. What I'm trying to say, however, is that there's no difference, ceteris paribus, between learning 2 hours a day for 3 years and 6 hours a day for 1 year. I don't see why there would be, given the same amount of focus, contemplation, mastering of fundamentals etc. If you know some papers that prove me wrong, then I'll gladly see them.

Your own experience should convince you otherwise -- unless the math you're doing is strictly plug-and-chug (i.e., putting numbers into formulas). The concentration can't be maintained for six hours consistently with difficult math -- you will burn yourself out. Bite-sized chunks over a long period of time, interspersed with days and weeks of rest and consolidation. But go ahead -- try the 10 hours a day regimen.
 
Last edited:
Hi, it's me again.

It's been quite some time. I abandoned the idea of picking up math requirements to apply for a more math oriented finance master's. I've finished my studies and will start working soon. However, I'm going to start a part-time bachelor in math next academic year. I'm not looking at it from a finance point of view right now, just want to get my fundamentals first.

The reason I'm posting is that I've seen many people, especially bigbadwolf, have a good grasp of math literature. I thought it would be a good idea to ask for advice as to what books (specifically, one per module) to buy beside the ones recommended from the uni.

First things first:
Currently I'm reading George F. Simmons' Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell. Then I want to read Keith Devlin's Introduction to Mathematical Thinking and G. Polya's How to Solve It. Having done that, I plan on to pick up An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning by Peter J. Eccles. Any other suggestions? I thought about something along the lines of Journey into Mathematics by Joseph J. Rotman or Proof Patterns by Mark Joshi, but I'm not sure. I still have a few months before the academic year starts.

As for the studies themself, here's the list of first-semester modules:
1. Revision Course of Elementary Mathematics - it's a rehash of high school math + introduction of some things that may have been omitted there due to dumbing down of the material over the years. It says that its aim is to provide an equal footing for students.
2. Introduction to Mathematics - introduction of some concepts of logic, set theory, discrete mathematics, proofs, combinatorics, graph theory.
3. Introduction to Algebra and Number Theory
4. Mathematical Analysis 1

I don't think I need an additional textbook for 1. 2 and 3 - I'm not even sure what to look for. 4 - I thought about vol. 1 of Apostol.

If you want, I can provide you with more information about the modules or recommended readings. However, most of them are by Polish authors exclusively. In addition, some of them are quite old (50s-90s) and probably haven't been translated into English. The only exceptions are Rudin (Principles of Mathematical Analysis for 4) and Fichtenholz - he was Russian, but I don't think the books listed have been translated into English either. I'm talking about this and this. "Rachunek różniczkowy i całkowy" means "Calculus".

I will appreciate any help.
 
4 (mathematical analysis) is at a different level of difficulty if baby Rudin is the prescribed text. It is real math whereas the others are math for liberal arts/comp sci students. You should have a good command of calculus before you approach Rudin.
 
4 (mathematical analysis) is at a different level of difficulty if baby Rudin is the prescribed text. It is real math whereas the others are math for liberal arts/comp sci students. You should have a good command of calculus before you approach Rudin.
Spot on. The topics 1..4 are awful watered down. They do no develop fundamental DIY mathematical skills.

I think Apostol Calculus and Widder are OK. What is Rodrigue's formula? Rolle's theorem, mean value theorem etc.

And the Numerical Methods book by Germund Dahlquist is a classic. Program it all up in Python or C to get your hands dirty. Yes, there are libraries out there that do it for you.

Proof Patterns by Mark Joshi
?? C++??

//
The point about maths is NOT reading things, but _doing_ things.
 
Last edited:
Spot on. The topics 1..4 are awful watered down. They do no develop fundamental DIY mathematical skills.

You mean 1-3? 1 isn't watered down - its aim is just to be a revision of high school math. 2 - maybe. 3 - from looking at the reading list, I don't think so.

And the Numerical Methods book by Germund Dahlquist is a classic. Program it all up in Python or C to get your hands dirty. Yes, there are libraries out there that do it for you.

Ok, thanks.

Proof Patterns by Mark Joshi
?? C++??

I don't understand what you mean.
 
What is "Proof Patterns" by JoshI A book and what is its relationship with maths in the current context?

Let me put it this way: which skills do you wish to learn and how will you use them?
 
Higher math being much more proof oriented than high school math, I thought about a book that would smooth the transition, try to develop some mathematical sophistication etc.
 
Higher math being much more proof oriented than high school math, I thought about a book that would smooth the transition, try to develop some mathematical sophistication etc.
Mathematics is much more than "proving things".

How do you compute pi by Archimedes' method? It is neither "calculus" nor "proving" in the current context.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom