Hi, I recently completed a phd in applied math with extensive graduate coursework in statistics, computational modeling and am currently working as a career senior statistician in pharmaceuticals. I would like to move into the financial sector as a quant and was wondering the most effective way to make the transition. Do you have suggestions that would make my cv competitive without getting another masters degree. I started working through the quant interview book questions. thank you...
career change
- Thread starter Dean
- Start date
- Joined
- 4/21/11
- Messages
- 872
- Points
- 73
PhD in Applied Math? That's excellent! Just read through some finance books (check the list on QuantNet) and you will be in great shape for a Quant job. And you are correct: Do not go back to school.
Make your CV competitive by learning C++ (and other languages) well as well as putting finance skills that you pick up from your reading onto your CV. No job is going to turn you down for "lack of smarts". Just show them that you are truly interested in finance by plastering it all over your CV.
Good luck!
Make your CV competitive by learning C++ (and other languages) well as well as putting finance skills that you pick up from your reading onto your CV. No job is going to turn you down for "lack of smarts". Just show them that you are truly interested in finance by plastering it all over your CV.
Good luck!
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,179
- Points
- 273
The QuantNet Guide and the master reading list will get you started. (link on my sig)
What technical skills do you need? See Todd Fahey article here (also in the QN Guide).
Ellen Reeves has a column here that will help you with how to sell yourself better to employers
What technical skills do you need? See Todd Fahey article here (also in the QN Guide).
Ellen Reeves has a column here that will help you with how to sell yourself better to employers
Dean, I wish you good luck with your career but I have a few words of warning
1) statisticians RARELY become quants and in todays market it's not so much an issue of lack of jobs, but that employers are looking for exact matches. There are jobs out there and good quants with a grasp of tail risk are needed, but I would tread carefully as statisticians aren't a traditonal match. Just to give an example Way to be a quant from a Master in Statistics.
The thing I'm concerned about is that it was very hard to become a quant BEFORE THE CREDIT CRUNCH, now to add to the above the amount of people that have 6-12 months experience is huge and they are ahead of the queue as your current experience is irrelevant. I wouldn't let it discourage you from learning C++, but I can see line managers not even bothering to interview you. Yes people will have loads of anecdotes that appear to contradict this, but when it comes down to it will they tell you about the hardship people went through to get a quant job? It took me 3 months just to prepare for interviews, 2 months to get the job in 2005 and things will have moved on since then. Nevertheless, please do use this forum's advice as there are always ways in, in spite of what I said.
2) Quant jobs are not worth it - what few people will tell you is that typically a quant either gets veered away from being a quant through restructuring/shutting down of quant teams. This was quite common even back in 2000-2005 and is a hell of a lot worse now. If this happens too early for you it could ruin your career if your firm shoves you into a role that is not you.
With that in mind all these marvelous salaries and bonuses have to brought into perspective - bonuses in finance are a reflection of the likelihood that you will have 4-8 redundancies in your career, not a bit of extra cash. Also generally speaking traders make the bonus money and quants get the leftovers, which only be good if they've worked in a high pressure job where the hours are nasty, you work with traders that are sharp and trained to abuse quants whenever they get the hump about them.
People usually retort with "but you're well paid" when you explain this, but frankly this is a non-argument as the danger with redundancies is that your career veers off track and you end up in a non-quantitative finance job, unable to get back to being a quant, get fired and earn £0k per annum.
3) Sorry to be so negative, but most quants either spend 5-10 years in the industry and leave because they hate it or get veered away from being a quant. It's all and well giving you the right tips to become a quant, but there are other fields for statisticians and you really have to understand your favoured way of working.
But, again, in case you haven't figured it out career transitioning, particularly in technical fields is prohibitively difficult and "being highly qualified" is irrelevant - one of my close banking friends described career transitioning as "not allowed" within banking, even when you consider using further education. Banking and finance is also renowned for lack of transferable skills and migration (e.g. most trader friends of mine with the right MSc in risk management simply can't get into risk management) which means that unless jobs are easy to come by you will have a mammoth task to get out of finance. On top of that, rather than valueing relevant experience, many employers in non-finance fields see your motivations for getting into finance as "so you thought the grass was greener on the other side" when you're trying to get them to employ you.
1) statisticians RARELY become quants and in todays market it's not so much an issue of lack of jobs, but that employers are looking for exact matches. There are jobs out there and good quants with a grasp of tail risk are needed, but I would tread carefully as statisticians aren't a traditonal match. Just to give an example Way to be a quant from a Master in Statistics.
The thing I'm concerned about is that it was very hard to become a quant BEFORE THE CREDIT CRUNCH, now to add to the above the amount of people that have 6-12 months experience is huge and they are ahead of the queue as your current experience is irrelevant. I wouldn't let it discourage you from learning C++, but I can see line managers not even bothering to interview you. Yes people will have loads of anecdotes that appear to contradict this, but when it comes down to it will they tell you about the hardship people went through to get a quant job? It took me 3 months just to prepare for interviews, 2 months to get the job in 2005 and things will have moved on since then. Nevertheless, please do use this forum's advice as there are always ways in, in spite of what I said.
2) Quant jobs are not worth it - what few people will tell you is that typically a quant either gets veered away from being a quant through restructuring/shutting down of quant teams. This was quite common even back in 2000-2005 and is a hell of a lot worse now. If this happens too early for you it could ruin your career if your firm shoves you into a role that is not you.
With that in mind all these marvelous salaries and bonuses have to brought into perspective - bonuses in finance are a reflection of the likelihood that you will have 4-8 redundancies in your career, not a bit of extra cash. Also generally speaking traders make the bonus money and quants get the leftovers, which only be good if they've worked in a high pressure job where the hours are nasty, you work with traders that are sharp and trained to abuse quants whenever they get the hump about them.
People usually retort with "but you're well paid" when you explain this, but frankly this is a non-argument as the danger with redundancies is that your career veers off track and you end up in a non-quantitative finance job, unable to get back to being a quant, get fired and earn £0k per annum.
3) Sorry to be so negative, but most quants either spend 5-10 years in the industry and leave because they hate it or get veered away from being a quant. It's all and well giving you the right tips to become a quant, but there are other fields for statisticians and you really have to understand your favoured way of working.
But, again, in case you haven't figured it out career transitioning, particularly in technical fields is prohibitively difficult and "being highly qualified" is irrelevant - one of my close banking friends described career transitioning as "not allowed" within banking, even when you consider using further education. Banking and finance is also renowned for lack of transferable skills and migration (e.g. most trader friends of mine with the right MSc in risk management simply can't get into risk management) which means that unless jobs are easy to come by you will have a mammoth task to get out of finance. On top of that, rather than valueing relevant experience, many employers in non-finance fields see your motivations for getting into finance as "so you thought the grass was greener on the other side" when you're trying to get them to employ you.
Liam, your points are good. Though if I read OP correctly, he has a PhD in applied mathematics. I think that would make him a mathematician who has worked as a statistician, not the the other way around. I guess it would depend on how much 'irrelevant' (to finance) time he has spent in pharma.
OP - if you don't mind sharing, in light of the above, what makes you want to work in quant finance versus your current career?
OP - if you don't mind sharing, in light of the above, what makes you want to work in quant finance versus your current career?
Glad you agree Jose - whether or not becoming a quant is possible will depend upon the exact nature of OP's experience. Your right - if experience in the current job is short (e.g. a few months to 1 year) it mightn't be an issue, as employers might see him easily transitioning into a hardcore banking environment. Wait too long and the OP may never career transition into being a quant, even with the right education.
It's not like other environments aren't tough and I didn't mean to be so negative, but the OP needs to steer away from naivety and realise being a quant is a very, very tough job. Bankers are not overpaid and being a quant is a prime example of where the higher the salary, the more stressful the job is and where the higher the target bonus is, the more stuff like potential redundancy hangs over your head. OP, if you want overpaid work become a sports star.
OP, I would also look at wilmott.com as top quants (e.g. Nasim Taleb) are senior members there and know their stuff. There's also good recruiters there (Dominic Connor) that are ex quants and that can take you through the process aswell as help you decide if being a quant is for you.
It's not like other environments aren't tough and I didn't mean to be so negative, but the OP needs to steer away from naivety and realise being a quant is a very, very tough job. Bankers are not overpaid and being a quant is a prime example of where the higher the salary, the more stressful the job is and where the higher the target bonus is, the more stuff like potential redundancy hangs over your head. OP, if you want overpaid work become a sports star.
OP, I would also look at wilmott.com as top quants (e.g. Nasim Taleb) are senior members there and know their stuff. There's also good recruiters there (Dominic Connor) that are ex quants and that can take you through the process aswell as help you decide if being a quant is for you.
Hi, thank you for the posts and input.
I agree with Liam, technical adaptation/retooling is required to make an effective transition into any new industry since sound financial engineering design and implementation requires a team effort among finance, math, statistics and information science.
Jose, your question is well taken. My formal degree is in applied math, including phd level probability theory, graduate training just shy of an MS in statistics, 2 years industry experience in software development using C++ with university computer science training in computational modeling, algorithm design, numerical analysis using C++, MatLab, Java, R and SAS.
The university I attended had strong public health and medical school ties with the math/stats/cs department, not finance. This created a practical, time-effective pathway out of academics into a solid industry while concurrently working on a phd in partial differential equations. Bottom-line is that it is difficult to predict how well one fits into a career before gaining hands on experience. And yes, the 'grass is greener' is not to be taken lightly and following a practical career passion tends to increase the quality of life.
Finance is a dynamic industry. Globalization, in conjunction with the massive growth of information technologies, lending itself to new fields like high frequency and algorithmic trading, has increased the financial problem space tremendously. Speaking as someone trained in applied mathematics, statistics and information science, this is exciting.
I am curious if this newer regulatory involvement will prompt positive changes on financial engineering systems by requiring more serious quality control and statistical model validation as employed by medical regulatory agencies? I am curious why many top quantitative finance departments have very close ties with departments of statistics, applied math and computer science?
One reason for my post was to get a sense of whether doing the required independent study, including developing a financial software portfolio, guided by targeted study from QuantNet's master reading list, will be marketable enough? Or will a few good graduate online courses be required in order to pass the initial HR resume screen?
I agree with Liam, technical adaptation/retooling is required to make an effective transition into any new industry since sound financial engineering design and implementation requires a team effort among finance, math, statistics and information science.
Jose, your question is well taken. My formal degree is in applied math, including phd level probability theory, graduate training just shy of an MS in statistics, 2 years industry experience in software development using C++ with university computer science training in computational modeling, algorithm design, numerical analysis using C++, MatLab, Java, R and SAS.
The university I attended had strong public health and medical school ties with the math/stats/cs department, not finance. This created a practical, time-effective pathway out of academics into a solid industry while concurrently working on a phd in partial differential equations. Bottom-line is that it is difficult to predict how well one fits into a career before gaining hands on experience. And yes, the 'grass is greener' is not to be taken lightly and following a practical career passion tends to increase the quality of life.
Finance is a dynamic industry. Globalization, in conjunction with the massive growth of information technologies, lending itself to new fields like high frequency and algorithmic trading, has increased the financial problem space tremendously. Speaking as someone trained in applied mathematics, statistics and information science, this is exciting.
I am curious if this newer regulatory involvement will prompt positive changes on financial engineering systems by requiring more serious quality control and statistical model validation as employed by medical regulatory agencies? I am curious why many top quantitative finance departments have very close ties with departments of statistics, applied math and computer science?
One reason for my post was to get a sense of whether doing the required independent study, including developing a financial software portfolio, guided by targeted study from QuantNet's master reading list, will be marketable enough? Or will a few good graduate online courses be required in order to pass the initial HR resume screen?
Dean, educationally you're fine it sounds, to get past this HR screening I would network, hit the headhunters and just try and talk to as many industry experts as possible. A lot of headhunters won't know how to approach firms properly to sell you, but you're bound to come across the ones that can. Unfortunately these are difficult options in terms of a career change and networking into finance is not easy, but good luck.
In terms of additional training it is unnecessary and completing online courses simply won't sell yourself in the same way as a PhD will. Most course barely scratch the surface compared to a PhD, and a PhD gives evidence that you can create solutions and take charge of problems solving unsupervised, as opposed to being told what to do (as an MSc would do) and therefore can work as a quant analyst creating new solutions to financal problems. It's not about having a fancy degree or loads of knowledge, it's far more about the working skill set you picked up than the smarts.
One idea you might want to explore is publishing research on QuantLib.org, which may give you significant clout on your CV as this would make a strong statement which makes it clear you can work as a quant, may get around the whole issue of having "done something else" for a job and this would be stronger than waving a PhD in an employer's face.
The only thing I would say about regulation is that while it might be creating exciting for you, that it could be a milestone around your neck. Also while it would seem like a good idea to mention that excitment in interviews if you do make it into the quant sphere, I would tone it down so you come across as professional, especially when being interviewed by individuals whose life is made a misery of by over-regulation - I was one of those individuals once at a Japanese bank that got inspected 5 times in 2009. Generally this stuff just makes banking jobs harder and harder for everyone, which isn't always going to be reflected in pay increases.#
Nevertheless this excitement and enthusiasm is the right reason to get into quant finance - next question is can you put up with bad stuff (arsey traders, over-regulation, anal politics etc)?
In terms of additional training it is unnecessary and completing online courses simply won't sell yourself in the same way as a PhD will. Most course barely scratch the surface compared to a PhD, and a PhD gives evidence that you can create solutions and take charge of problems solving unsupervised, as opposed to being told what to do (as an MSc would do) and therefore can work as a quant analyst creating new solutions to financal problems. It's not about having a fancy degree or loads of knowledge, it's far more about the working skill set you picked up than the smarts.
One idea you might want to explore is publishing research on QuantLib.org, which may give you significant clout on your CV as this would make a strong statement which makes it clear you can work as a quant, may get around the whole issue of having "done something else" for a job and this would be stronger than waving a PhD in an employer's face.
The only thing I would say about regulation is that while it might be creating exciting for you, that it could be a milestone around your neck. Also while it would seem like a good idea to mention that excitment in interviews if you do make it into the quant sphere, I would tone it down so you come across as professional, especially when being interviewed by individuals whose life is made a misery of by over-regulation - I was one of those individuals once at a Japanese bank that got inspected 5 times in 2009. Generally this stuff just makes banking jobs harder and harder for everyone, which isn't always going to be reflected in pay increases.#
Nevertheless this excitement and enthusiasm is the right reason to get into quant finance - next question is can you put up with bad stuff (arsey traders, over-regulation, anal politics etc)?
Thanks again Liam. It did seems you where speaking from experience. Do you have any suggestions on where to find good research topics that would be useful for QuantLib.org? This would definitely help focus my studies.
An olympic swimmming coach once said, anything done conistently for over 8 hours per week is no longer fun and exciting, politics will alway increase as the stakes get higher and hopefully my exposure to clinical pharma has given me a taste for highly reglated environments.
An olympic swimmming coach once said, anything done conistently for over 8 hours per week is no longer fun and exciting, politics will alway increase as the stakes get higher and hopefully my exposure to clinical pharma has given me a taste for highly reglated environments.
One difference between the regulated environment in clinical pharma versus finance is that in clinical pharma, the regulatory framework is well-established and well-accepted by industry participants. Many of the regulations in the finance industry are new and not well-defined (and not popular among bankers). Hopefully, that will change as time goes by but for the near future, keep in mind that working in one 'highly regulated' environment (clinical pharma) may not be indicative of the challenges of working in another 'highly regulated' environment (finance). I've worked in both myself. Good luck.
Dean, in terms of a good research topic I am unsure - this was just a suggestion that was proposed to me by people in wilmott.com and I'm not even sure if it would work.
I would listen to Jose - the problem with finance is that words like "regulatory" are very ambiguous between 2 industries. You see plenty of petty examples of this in Japanese banks where you get slapped on the wrist for getting your paperwork wrong, even though you went by the rulebook, but because these things aren't well defined someone can just whip out a booklet you were never given that overrules the rulebook. The idea of just learning the rules simply doesn't work here and all banks are going to adopt this approach at some point. This is one reason why being under pressure in finance is way, way different from other industries.
The other thing is that transeferable skills simply don't exist like in other industries - I see this issue when non-finance people give bankers advice. Usually what banking analysts do is something very skilled and niche (like modelling) which doesn't translate into other industries as it is too industry specific, or simply interpret/read other people's work (e.g lenders will read reports from engineers, legal or insurance advisors) which isn't really a skill at all. Many non-finance people dream up ideas of industries for bankers to enter (e.g construction sector if they financed toll roads) but simply having read other people's work from another industry doesn't cut it at all and frankly if you end in that situation it's going to piss you off royally as you might find that pharma companies may hesitate to let you back into being a stats guy (even though all people you talk to about this will deny that). The only example of a sustained career change is from accountancy roles, which isn't really a career change. People will have tons of anecdotes of bankers going into all sorts of industries but they are exceptions to the rule and the market just doesn't work that way.
I would look at other industries aswell. While the finance space is more interesting it will always carry with it, not a risk, but the inevitability that you get made redundant at some point, even once the recession is dead and buried. There is a lot of talk of machine learning which may be better suited to mathematicians with passion for the subject and more secure with better job satisfaction and there are sure to be other fields.
I would listen to Jose - the problem with finance is that words like "regulatory" are very ambiguous between 2 industries. You see plenty of petty examples of this in Japanese banks where you get slapped on the wrist for getting your paperwork wrong, even though you went by the rulebook, but because these things aren't well defined someone can just whip out a booklet you were never given that overrules the rulebook. The idea of just learning the rules simply doesn't work here and all banks are going to adopt this approach at some point. This is one reason why being under pressure in finance is way, way different from other industries.
The other thing is that transeferable skills simply don't exist like in other industries - I see this issue when non-finance people give bankers advice. Usually what banking analysts do is something very skilled and niche (like modelling) which doesn't translate into other industries as it is too industry specific, or simply interpret/read other people's work (e.g lenders will read reports from engineers, legal or insurance advisors) which isn't really a skill at all. Many non-finance people dream up ideas of industries for bankers to enter (e.g construction sector if they financed toll roads) but simply having read other people's work from another industry doesn't cut it at all and frankly if you end in that situation it's going to piss you off royally as you might find that pharma companies may hesitate to let you back into being a stats guy (even though all people you talk to about this will deny that). The only example of a sustained career change is from accountancy roles, which isn't really a career change. People will have tons of anecdotes of bankers going into all sorts of industries but they are exceptions to the rule and the market just doesn't work that way.
I would look at other industries aswell. While the finance space is more interesting it will always carry with it, not a risk, but the inevitability that you get made redundant at some point, even once the recession is dead and buried. There is a lot of talk of machine learning which may be better suited to mathematicians with passion for the subject and more secure with better job satisfaction and there are sure to be other fields.
Dean,
I hope my messages don't sounds harsh. Thing is after 7 years in the industry and what is, in effect, my 3rd redundancy I'm fed up with banking - the lack of industry mobility is the clincher, which means that more than other industry experience is valued above talent.
I have begun to get experience teaching and maths tutoring and in the end, when you factor in the actual risks in banking and NPV it out, unless you are a very good and lucky trader there is little advantage paywise over other industries.
Most quants are disillusioned and that's why they leave (it's rarely because they earn so much that they can retire) and it can turn from an exciting job into pissing into the wind against your employer's nonsensical approach to risk, or in my case, being in a job vastly different to what you were originally hired for thanks to restructuring, which ruined my career.
I hope my messages don't sounds harsh. Thing is after 7 years in the industry and what is, in effect, my 3rd redundancy I'm fed up with banking - the lack of industry mobility is the clincher, which means that more than other industry experience is valued above talent.
I have begun to get experience teaching and maths tutoring and in the end, when you factor in the actual risks in banking and NPV it out, unless you are a very good and lucky trader there is little advantage paywise over other industries.
Most quants are disillusioned and that's why they leave (it's rarely because they earn so much that they can retire) and it can turn from an exciting job into pissing into the wind against your employer's nonsensical approach to risk, or in my case, being in a job vastly different to what you were originally hired for thanks to restructuring, which ruined my career.
Hi,
I asked for career change guidance last October (post above). Thank you for the valuable input. Do the comments still apply regarding the most effective way to make a career change, i.e., going through the master reading list and getting solid C++ skills applied to financial modeling then following career advice? I noticed an increasing focus on risk management, to the point that UW renamed its degree.
My phd, via a publication, could be extended to include stochastic modeling, would this be an effective use of time compared to focusing on basic financial engineering core skills as suggested?
Your input is greatly appreciated
Dean
I asked for career change guidance last October (post above). Thank you for the valuable input. Do the comments still apply regarding the most effective way to make a career change, i.e., going through the master reading list and getting solid C++ skills applied to financial modeling then following career advice? I noticed an increasing focus on risk management, to the point that UW renamed its degree.
My phd, via a publication, could be extended to include stochastic modeling, would this be an effective use of time compared to focusing on basic financial engineering core skills as suggested?
Your input is greatly appreciated
Dean
- Joined
- 1/27/10
- Messages
- 1,037
- Points
- 173
I've been watching this thread with some interest.
I tend to be pretty bearish on the quant job market. While in not quite as negative as Liam, I observe a) the used to be 3 QF programs; now there are around 150, b) bank trading risk is way down for a number of reasons, c) there are many career-switchers and d) there are a lot of people who, for reasons beyond my comprehension, think they will somehow be able to develop algorithms to beat the market (and the millions who came before them.)
Think hard and carefully. Do you know what quants really do? Are you ready to work long hours?
While I don't see the same level of redundancy that Liam sees, I have seen the market top out and have even seen some anti-quant backlash among hiring managers.
I tend to be pretty bearish on the quant job market. While in not quite as negative as Liam, I observe a) the used to be 3 QF programs; now there are around 150, b) bank trading risk is way down for a number of reasons, c) there are many career-switchers and d) there are a lot of people who, for reasons beyond my comprehension, think they will somehow be able to develop algorithms to beat the market (and the millions who came before them.)
Think hard and carefully. Do you know what quants really do? Are you ready to work long hours?
While I don't see the same level of redundancy that Liam sees, I have seen the market top out and have even seen some anti-quant backlash among hiring managers.
Last edited:
Hi Ken,
I do appreciate your input and if you had the time for a 10-20min informational interview it would be greatly appreciated! I have a LinkedIn account.
Regarding do I know what a quant does: I did read the book "Wall Street Job Primer", looked at some career websites, job descriptions, spoke with a few recruiters and had a few informational interviews. Currently, I am seriously studying the basics while working full-time: stochastic pdes, financial mathematics, refreshing C++ programming skills and reading through Hull's book. I then plan to work through the foundations of fixed income models, modeling, simulation (including monte carlo) and computing using C++ and R, time-series, Credit Risk: Modeling and Management and portfolio optimization. Any refinements or advice regarding this study plan would be appreciated!
Regarding the anti-quant comment, Stanford's Mathematical Finance webpage has an interesting blurb:
"...The Institute is of timely relevance in the wake of the recent financial crisis, which exposed the weaknesses and limitations of traditional financial models, pricing and hedging theories, risk measures and management of derivative securities and structured products. Better use of information technology and data, and better models and strategies for investments, risk management and regulatory reforms are called for...ripe for the Financial Mathematics program to integrate itself...by adopting a more computational and data-oriented approach."
Would you agree with this assessment?
From my experience as a clinical statistician, models are developed with many unrealistic assumptions. Regulatory agencies thus use them only as part of their drug approval process. I respect, as an outsider to the industry, the anti-quant perception and one natural questions arises: Are, regulatory agencies and long term economic health requiring less quantitative finance and risk management as a result of the crisis or is there a restructuring of their roles and modernization of methods?
Regards
Dean
I do appreciate your input and if you had the time for a 10-20min informational interview it would be greatly appreciated! I have a LinkedIn account.
Regarding do I know what a quant does: I did read the book "Wall Street Job Primer", looked at some career websites, job descriptions, spoke with a few recruiters and had a few informational interviews. Currently, I am seriously studying the basics while working full-time: stochastic pdes, financial mathematics, refreshing C++ programming skills and reading through Hull's book. I then plan to work through the foundations of fixed income models, modeling, simulation (including monte carlo) and computing using C++ and R, time-series, Credit Risk: Modeling and Management and portfolio optimization. Any refinements or advice regarding this study plan would be appreciated!
Regarding the anti-quant comment, Stanford's Mathematical Finance webpage has an interesting blurb:
"...The Institute is of timely relevance in the wake of the recent financial crisis, which exposed the weaknesses and limitations of traditional financial models, pricing and hedging theories, risk measures and management of derivative securities and structured products. Better use of information technology and data, and better models and strategies for investments, risk management and regulatory reforms are called for...ripe for the Financial Mathematics program to integrate itself...by adopting a more computational and data-oriented approach."
Would you agree with this assessment?
From my experience as a clinical statistician, models are developed with many unrealistic assumptions. Regulatory agencies thus use them only as part of their drug approval process. I respect, as an outsider to the industry, the anti-quant perception and one natural questions arises: Are, regulatory agencies and long term economic health requiring less quantitative finance and risk management as a result of the crisis or is there a restructuring of their roles and modernization of methods?
Regards
Dean
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7/2/12
- Messages
- 119
- Points
- 38
This is an excellent post. Everything that Liam writes rings true to me.
Dean, I think Ken has hit the nail on the head. Tbh I was very, very unlucky with my career in that I was given a choice after 5 months of my first job of either be made redundant or do non-mathematical work due to financial difficulties my original firm was facing.
The details of what you plan are logical and since you are employed (based on what you posted) at worst you keep your current job. I know a PhD physics graduate that once tried to extol to me the virtues of me entering accountancy as if he was giving manna advice from heaven, so be easy on yourself as you're light years ahead of him. He's still working in a call centre and frankly the less said about him the better...
However Ken's points are accurate - quant programs have become so common that it is harder now to be a quant than ever. It's become a bit like when a stock rises in value and everyone is aware of it - suddenly it's not as easy to profit. While there's a lot of junk out there as Ken alludes (e.g. most software engineers that can still solve a quadraditic equation think they'll walk into a quant job, and a lot of MFE programs and math/physics programs cut corners) there are many maths and physics people that know what they're doing are getting into the mix - 10 years ago many of these individuals wouldn't have gone for quant jobs due to lack of awareness.
Finally don't discount coming across the right way - yes, quant jobs are much more about being olympian in technical ability than charismatic but one recent complaint from a line manager on Wilmott.com is how arrogant graduates are, particularly Oxbridge ones. Simply being the person on the CV and showing humility is underrated - I've always done this and whether it's been a big bank or small hedge fund, I usually get told I'm a breath of fresh air.
The details of what you plan are logical and since you are employed (based on what you posted) at worst you keep your current job. I know a PhD physics graduate that once tried to extol to me the virtues of me entering accountancy as if he was giving manna advice from heaven, so be easy on yourself as you're light years ahead of him. He's still working in a call centre and frankly the less said about him the better...
However Ken's points are accurate - quant programs have become so common that it is harder now to be a quant than ever. It's become a bit like when a stock rises in value and everyone is aware of it - suddenly it's not as easy to profit. While there's a lot of junk out there as Ken alludes (e.g. most software engineers that can still solve a quadraditic equation think they'll walk into a quant job, and a lot of MFE programs and math/physics programs cut corners) there are many maths and physics people that know what they're doing are getting into the mix - 10 years ago many of these individuals wouldn't have gone for quant jobs due to lack of awareness.
Finally don't discount coming across the right way - yes, quant jobs are much more about being olympian in technical ability than charismatic but one recent complaint from a line manager on Wilmott.com is how arrogant graduates are, particularly Oxbridge ones. Simply being the person on the CV and showing humility is underrated - I've always done this and whether it's been a big bank or small hedge fund, I usually get told I'm a breath of fresh air.
Last edited:
Thank you Liam for the valuable information. Your inside data on the profession is invaluable. Ken's question and stress on the work load ahead, strengthens my resolve to work/study hard in order to develop a marketable financial skills set. I apologize if I came across as arrogant, this was not my intention.
Regards
Dean
Regards
Dean
- Joined
- 7/2/12
- Messages
- 119
- Points
- 38
Well, I guess that we didn't talk you out of it...
I can relate my experience. I will be completing my Masters degree in Computational Finance at the University of Washington next month. It was a great program and I had very good professors. I've gotten a couple of phone interviews in finance, but basically nothing else.
The job market for quants is terrible. The salaries are not too good either. The job market for software engineers is much better. You can make as much working as a software engineer and you don't have to live in or work in Manhattan or Chicago. Also, the better you are at software engineering, the better you will do in finance. So if you don't already have very good software skills, I'd work on getting this experience. This way if things don't work out in finance you have a plan B. (If you don't like to program, in my opinion this is not a good field for you).
One of my classmates mentioned that he knows several people who are leaving jobs at funds like AQR to take jobs in Silicon Valley. It's worth thinking about.
I really love finance and I'll always to quantitative finance work, for my own portfolio if nothing else. But the world has changed. Wall Street profits are up, but the quant job market has not been effected. As Ken mentioned, there's are a bunch of programs turning out newly minted quants (like me). So it's not like there's any shortage of talent (my fellow students in my Masters program are some of the smartest people I've known).
