I appreciate the spirited discussions above, this is what I've gleaned:
- Apply to a boat load of jobs
- If I'm not getting interest on job applications its because I lack something(s)
- Identify skills gaps for roles I want and work on closing those gaps
- Network, network, network
- Don't be the annoying guy on the trading floor
Apply to a boatload of jobs that are
related enough to what you want. You'd be surprised how many people I know that do something daft like do an MFE/MFM then try accountancy thinking they'll be "at an advantage" over other graduates because "they've worked and graduates haven't". I had that smug, dumb advice shoved down my throat as a graduate a lot and anybody that took it never got into quant finance later, which is why I bring it up. I suspect you won't make that mistake. Remember you have a job that uses your skills already, no need for daft, rushed decisions.
As another answer says be useful when networking. It's more of an incremental thing that happens by and by as you keep in touch with people that have seen you in action e.g. I have a client in my freelancing business that I did side projects with through a charity where we teach coding. The most ideal thing is to actively look people to work with on side projects. It's hard to force the issue - maybe cold calling will help. I used to do a cold calling marketing job before being a quant and got good at it, so I know what's needed. You will really need to do something like volunteer for a charity helpline until you can handle any random crap the public throw at you before even considering randomly ringing a senior manager. Whatever approach you have make sure your elevator pitch is solid and you only sell skills you are confident about. Most shitty networking seminars gloss over this, but any prospective line manager will be able to spot bullshit. In fact most juniors with 2-3 years experience will see through BS.
In terms of "annoying guy on the trading floor" I would say think
business people and speaking like a
business person. What you don't want is someone that meanders when talking and going into tangents and wasting people's time, you want someone that can communicate very quickly and clearly. People usually can learn to be clear with a little effort, but at the expense of not getting things across quickly/with no nonsense - even people from more people oriented disciplines fail on this. When line managers ask about your hobbies they are looking to see if you are no nonsense but can talk like a human at the same time. Also consider what would suit you. Front office is about politics and you're likely to get poor feedback on attention to detail unless you make virtually no mistakes. People who've never set foot in a bank have in the past waved me away with "but you get that in all jobs", yet somehow I never got any poor feedback on attention to detail when in middle office or in other industries, even though my standards are still the same as they were in front office. Also in middle office, your technical ability is valued more, so consider if that's more "you". Some quants I've met are really good with people, others are pencil-knecked inroverted geeks that are more suited to producing libraries of pricers, so it really varies and depends on the person.
Getting back to the original question I would say that your first job can have an enormous impact on your first few years, even as you move on to other companies. Finance is very specialised where you can get tied into a career too tightly, although it can depend on the firm as I have seen people laterally switch when in hedge funds. But getting a mentor that shows you stuff or being in a firm that is ahead of the curve helps. In my first firm I was on a team of 4 and talked to senior management as a junior frequently. I got the first job I went for after 3 years, where the spec said '5 years minimum'. Thing was that my opposite number in a bank would have been on a large team and not doing as much, but my new employers saw that I was up to it and hired me. And by the same token I have come across people that work in a firm where nothing is done right and they are doing glorified admin work instead of developing their career and thus struggle to move on. I'm not sure how common that is as I haven't been in finance for years, but I'd say it's still a hugely variable market.
But long term what matters is networking and communication skills where any good or bad luck with your first job gets cancelled out over time through your own gumption. As your career wears on it becomes more and more about communicating complex ideas to non technical people - this type of communication can in some ways be
harder than the communication aspect of sales. And if you have not got the soft skills sales people typically have, it's a double whammy of difficulty.
To be fair, it's not as bad as trying to speak to your idiot relative that couldn't tell a solid elevator pitch apart from a geeky overly technical presentation. Most non-enumerate management I've worked for may have no techncial skills, but they have always, always understood how the business works and responded well if I succinctly related my work to cost and time savings or unlocking revenue potential or freeing up capital.
The thing about being technically trained aswell is that some people you work with cannot see beyond the prejudice that you're just some 'good with numbers but not with soft skills' guy unless your soft skills are of the uber-confident "in your face" variety. I've never come across it in the wokrplace because I've always been careful with who I worked for, so any efforts I made to improve communication skills were well received.
But other quants have not been so lucky eg one guy that I used to work with moved on to become a quant trader in charge of a team. He was fired not for any lack technical skills, nor any lack of soft skills, nor any lack of business acumen. He was fired because he was
perceived to be too technically/academically oriented. Reality was he knew the business angle inside out and never let the academic side take over AND could do a TED talk on the spot if asked. Thing is he never made it "in-your-face" obvious and suffered as a result. It was more like, when I worked with him, I'd be thinking "he's really good at presenting, never expected that" after meetings and it took time to see that he was shrewd. Another part of that is picking a good firm - take a hint during the interview process and make a judgement call. Management in that firm sounded like they got triggered by him just using a technical term in a sentence, even if it was clear the point he was making was businessy/marketing in nature and when you get that it's a disaster.