What's the most disappointed part of quant career to you?

[judyontheway]

Hi,

Would anyone share their experience on the following question please?

Has quant career ever disappointed you? e.g. the work is not as you imaged or there is not much development or the job market is shrinking, etc.

Thank you!

 

[bigbadwolf]

English is clearly not your first language.

 

[IntoDarkness]

harsh

 

[pingu]

English is clearly not your first language.

I knew that was going to be disappointing.

 

[judyontheway]

English is clearly not your first language.

It is not.
You are clearly off topic. Irrelevance is disappointing in any circumstances.

 

[Philip_Mitterrand]

Your question is juvenile so dont be surprised if you are branded as an idiot.
Its like asking did being a nun dissappoint you or wasnt nunnery all fun.

It is not.
You are clearly off topic. Irrelevance is disappointing in any circumstances.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

Hi,

Would anyone share their experience on the following question please?

Has quant career ever disappointed you? e.g. the work is not as you imaged or there is not much development or the job market is shrinking, etc.

Thank you!

“All great men are dead, and I'm not feeling too well myself”
― Mark Twain

 

[amraj]

English is clearly not your first language.

Why does that matter? And why is that so relevant that you have to state it? I've seen quite a few of these bitter, sarcastic posts by you.
"If you have nothing nice/worthy to say, don't say anything".

 

[bigbadwolf]

Why does that matter? And why is that so relevant that you have to state it?

Because if he/she/it lacks command of the language, the questions won't be exactly phrased either. On top of that, the questions are puerile as well. Just another worthless thread. Difficult to recall the last time a worthwhile thread was started.

 

[amraj]

Because if he/she/it lacks command of the language, the questions won't be exactly phrased either. On top of that, the questions are puerile as well. Just another worthless thread. Difficult to recall the last time a worthwhile thread was started.

I agree that the threads on here are becoming weaker, but I guess people of all levels are here so we should respect that. I usually check QuantFinance on Stack Exchange. They have tons of questions related to the mathematics - Some are unanswered so give them a go if you're bored.

 

[judyontheway]

Because if he/she/it lacks command of the language, the questions won't be exactly phrased either. On top of that, the questions are puerile as well. Just another worthless thread. Difficult to recall the last time a worthwhile thread was started.

1. Referring a person as 'it' not only shows a lack command of the language but also a lack of respect.
2. If it's worthless to you, just ignore it and post something worthwhile by yourself.
3. I'm new to quant, but I'm expert in another subject. A lack of basic manners and respect is always worse than a lack of knowledge in a specialized subject.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

edit: I do see bigbad's reaction. Do you expect a discussion on a forum of (in the main) strangers on such an open question? There have been soo many silly questions down the years.

You might get more sympathy (if that's the goal??) if you gave more background (your point 3); no one knows you here.

 

[vertigo]

Hmm there are so many disappointments that at times it is laughable. Here are a few but I could think of many more if pressed

• You take no risk. By constructing stochastic models, pricing models, risk models, etc, you are essentially constructing a toy version of how finance works. But you never trade on that information yourself and don't really profit from it. The way around this is to become a quant trader or just a trader.
• You have to deal with idiots, real stupid people. Sales, consultants' business analysts and project managers deserve a special place in hell for how they deal with quants. Traders are usually better. Often these people bug you and annoy you.
• It is impossible to create good models in bureaucratic environments. I remember looking at the models used to price CDOs and credit default swaps and knew they were garbage. So what. They were still used and banks lost a fortunate. A lot of quants felt useless, the ones who didn't got fired.
• You have to run a lot of boring computational business tasks to keep the pricing functions up to date and you have to always deal with shitty data.
• There is very little scope for new ideas. Quants have mutant strains and often choose a model by looking at what the competitor is using.
• Academic quants deserve a special place in hell - they know absolutely nothing. Same with regulators, consultants and the virus of all viruses, senior management. These people need quants but understand nothing. I mean absolutely nothing. I had meetings with senior guys explaining why CDOs were so dangerous - I ended up explaining why CDOs were so dangerous with the following analogy: imagine a house of cards, some cards have high ranks others have low ranks. If just one or a couple cards fall, they all fall, it doesn't matter what ranking have have. Senior risk managers were happy with that explanation and they felt it was rigorous. I felt humiliated working with these people.

Long story cut short: lots of idiots, boring tasks, computationally intensive and lots of bureaucracy. But you get to play with geometric Brownian motion all day - so that makes up for it.

 

[financeguy]

Hmm there are so many disappointments that at times it is laughable. Here are a few but I could think of many more if pressed

• You take no risk. By constructing stochastic models, pricing models, risk models, etc, you are essentially constructing a toy version of how finance works. But you never trade on that information yourself and don't really profit from it. The way around this is to become a quant trader or just a trader.
• You have to deal with idiots, real stupid people. Sales, consultants' business analysts and project managers deserve a special place in hell for how they deal with quants. Traders are usually better. Often these people bug you and annoy you.
• It is impossible to create good models in bureaucratic environments. I remember looking at the models used to price CDOs and credit default swaps and knew they were garbage. So what. They were still used and banks lost a fortunate. A lot of quants felt useless, the ones who didn't got fired.
• You have to run a lot of boring computational business tasks to keep the pricing functions up to date and you have to always deal with shitty data.
• There is very little scope for new ideas. Quants have mutant strains and often choose a model by looking at what the competitor is using.
• Academic quants deserve a special place in hell - they know absolutely nothing. Same with regulators, consultants and the virus of all viruses, senior management. These people need quants but understand nothing. I mean absolutely nothing. I had meetings with senior guys explaining why CDOs were so dangerous - I ended up explaining why CDOs were so dangerous with the following analogy: imagine a house of cards, some cards have high ranks others have low ranks. If just one or a couple cards fall, they all fall, it doesn't matter what ranking have have. Senior risk managers were happy with that explanation and they felt it was rigorous. I felt humiliated working with these people.

Long story cut short: lots of idiots, boring tasks, computationally intensive and lots of bureaucracy. But you get to play with geometric Brownian motion all day - so that makes up for it.

I think what this post gets at is that quant groups at banks are generally viewed as supporting revenue producing groups (sales and trading desks), and are therefore cost centers that those desks pay out of their P&L, rather than being revenue producers themselves. The S&T desks come up with business plans and prioritization pipelines for development of systems or model upgrades, and the quant groups execute those plans without a load of say other than feedback on feasibility of tasks and how long each task might take. This division keeps quants from doing things they intrinsically find interesting or useful, why their opinions on business plans or viability are rarely heard, and why many feel frustrated that they are directed by people who have no technical knowledge at all (read: salespeople).

 

[Daniel Duffy]

Hmm there are so many disappointments that at times it is laughable. Here are a few but I could think of many more if pressed

• You take no risk. By constructing stochastic models, pricing models, risk models, etc, you are essentially constructing a toy version of how finance works. But you never trade on that information yourself and don't really profit from it. The way around this is to become a quant trader or just a trader.
• You have to deal with idiots, real stupid people. Sales, consultants' business analysts and project managers deserve a special place in hell for how they deal with quants. Traders are usually better. Often these people bug you and annoy you.
• It is impossible to create good models in bureaucratic environments. I remember looking at the models used to price CDOs and credit default swaps and knew they were garbage. So what. They were still used and banks lost a fortunate. A lot of quants felt useless, the ones who didn't got fired.
• You have to run a lot of boring computational business tasks to keep the pricing functions up to date and you have to always deal with shitty data.
• There is very little scope for new ideas. Quants have mutant strains and often choose a model by looking at what the competitor is using.
• Academic quants deserve a special place in hell - they know absolutely nothing. Same with regulators, consultants and the virus of all viruses, senior management. These people need quants but understand nothing. I mean absolutely nothing. I had meetings with senior guys explaining why CDOs were so dangerous - I ended up explaining why CDOs were so dangerous with the following analogy: imagine a house of cards, some cards have high ranks others have low ranks. If just one or a couple cards fall, they all fall, it doesn't matter what ranking have have. Senior risk managers were happy with that explanation and they felt it was rigorous. I felt humiliated working with these people.

Long story cut short: lots of idiots, boring tasks, computationally intensive and lots of bureaucracy. But you get to play with geometric Brownian motion all day - so that makes up for it.

. And they have to be very patient with you Just kiddin'

 

[mhy]

• business analysts and project managers deserve a special place in hell for how they deal with quants. Traders are usually better. Often these people bug you and annoy you

Can confirm...

 

[Cricket Freak]

I knew that was going to be disappointing.

Should not be surprising. I have never seen that guy post a single positive thing ever. Almost always negative. Criticizes almost all schools, discourages everybody, now goes on to comment on someone's English-writing skills.

 

[vertigo]

. And they have to be very patient with you Just kiddin'

haha, indeed. it's funny that you mention patience. some people like patience, others don't. generally speaking, if you work in a bureaucratic company, i.e. an investment bank or even worse a retail bank, being impatient is not very helpful as you develop more enemies than friends (more liabilities than assets). if you work in a meritocratic company (no such company exists, but hedge funds are closer to it) then impatience can be a good skill to have.

i do have an example where not being patient was a good thing. what is a good thing? in finance a good thing is whenever you win. one of my consulting projects was at a prop trading company whom possessed a group of 'hardcore' quants, namely the russian / french type. these guys were very aggressive and had no time to deal with back office idiots. i showed the office to a certain potential VIP client. he was asian and the story is that he liked to 'judge' the company before he invested with them by observing the employees. what a total voyeur, but anyway. my mission was to convince him that the company would fight for his money. he saw the traders and was impressed - tidy desks and very aggressive, he felt that they would fight for his money. he met senior management and liked them. i introduced him to a beautiful sales lady and he liked her - and i dont think it was because of her CFA qualification..... finally, i took him to the quants. one of the quants was showing some IT TECH people how to run a spreadsheet at his desk and he lost all patience - he started shouting, swearing at them, telling them that they were slowing him down, that he cannot price important products (quant mutant strain, remember) because they are wasting his time. he told them to go back to their desks and banish in hell. you could get fired for saying that. the client was shocked but i said nothing. afterwards, he told me after he saw how even the quants were aggressive, he was convinced the company would fight for him and he invested money. that quant's impatient nature secured the client's confidence to invest in the firm.