Is becoming a quant a waste of time?

Quote from fatrat:

This part scares me.

I am handicapped and have speech and motor control problems. The whole reason I am trying to make a living independently is because of my problems communicating. I have failed many times, because health care costs consume my earnings outside of a conventional job. I went down this career path hoping there would be more independence.

It's almost a guarantee I will never become a manager anywhere. Computer science and math is not a problem. Despite what people say about being equal opportunity employers, they are absolutely frightened of me. This is why most employment I have obtained in the past has been 1099. I have done quite well as a contractor, but W2 positions are unusually oppressive and biased.

In any case, I'm finding that other people are telling me to continue down the path of independent systems development. The job is just a necessary evil until I can bootstrap a reasonable trading operation.
More...

If you have the skills, contact GS, UBS, Morgan Stanley, and other investment banks. You want to talk with the IT dept associated with various trading ops (prime brokerage, derivatives, etc.).

As trading becomes more automated, there is a strong need for IT people with knowledge and capability. There is strong support usually for people with disabilities at some of these places. But they are not really needing Ph. Ds. They need talented programmers - BS, MS is fine.
 
Quote from rcanfiel:

If you have the skills, contact GS, UBS, Morgan Stanley, and other investment banks. You want to talk with the IT dept associated with various trading ops (prime brokerage, derivatives, etc.).

As trading becomes more automated, there is a strong need for IT people with knowledge and capability. There is strong support usually for people with disabilities at some of these places. But they are not really needing Ph. Ds. They need talented programmers - BS, MS is fine.
More...

I've spoken to these organizations. I feel like I should give warning to people who're out there reading the forums and thinking a CS/math education makes it much easier to get closer to the business of trading.

Most of the roles that are offered to me are not very stimulating. Primarily because the problems these organizations [UBS, Goldman, MS] face with regard to developing trading system has a lot more to do with large-organization bureaucracy and management ineptitude. Furthermore, there are firms out there that are packaging and cleaning up most of the software required for interfacing to the exchange.

Goldman, for example, has a horrible division where they use something called SECdb. The recruiters and interviews will tell you it's great up front. However, if you can talk to anyone on the inside, you know the work is boring and probably should be off-shored to children in a 3rd world country. The only thing stopping them from of-shoring it to children in a dingy mine in a third world country is probably some fear/regulation/fine. These are the sorts of grinder-roles that investment banks look to fill. Even more demeaning than SECdb work is front-end trader interface work. These roles contribute to mind-rot, and are a complete waste of my youth, education, and energy. I suspect I'd be better served working for city sanitation.

The individuals who control the business and trade management in investment banks have no interest in letting the reasoning behind quantitative strategy development get to grunt workers who're trading their time and youth for dollars that buy little to nothing in the Manhattan area. Taxes, rent, prescription drug costs will eat a gimp's $120,000/yr up. The city pollution then kills off said gimp.

In addition, my experience with large organizations as a W2 employee is mostly like this: Once they have you in a role, they keep you in a role. Especially if you're handicapped. It's not particularly in their interest to expose you to core business logic, especially on the quantitative and trading side.

Finally, while I'm smart, I'm certainly not smart enough to land a role in DE Shaw or RenTec. Their recruiters will ask up front what my SAT/GRE/Whatever scores are, or ask for stellar academic credentials. As I've stated before, my GPA was above 3.5, but not 3.8 or higher. Regardless of my Ivy League credentials, my past seems to be condemning me to low-tier systems level work and grunt work.

Academia offers some hope and growth, but I'm growing increasingly skeptical that my predicament will lend itself to a role I actually could enjoy.
 
Quote from Diamond Geezer:


By acting like a market maker I suppose you mean getting paid to be a liquidity provider by say enveloping stocks with bids and offers that either get hit within a certain time frame or else get cancelled?

Did you hold up during this turmoil?
More...
Let's say you follow a universe of 100 REITS...
(The kind of stocks Quants might trade... ** but I do not **)...
At any given time...
You will have the Top 10 overvalued REITS...
And the Top 10 Undervalued REITS.

You will then construct a Portfolio...
That is Long 10 REITS and Short 10 REITS.

You are very close to market neutral.

Assuming your quantitative analysis is well done...
Which is a VERY big assumption...
You have just built a 20 stock Portfolio at very favorable price.

Even if you do NOTHING...
You can expect your Portfolio to be worth MORE one week from now... or one month from now.

That's the FIRST way you are making money... maybe 50% of the ballgame.

But you then proceed to actively scalp each of these stocks...
In effect...
Acting as a temporary market maker...
For each of these 20 stocks for a period of hours or days.

Needless to say...
You are a "one way" market maker.
With an Undervalued stock...
You buy with a Limit Order...
And immediately try to flip a fill for $0.02 to $0.10 depending on the stock.
Reverse for an Overvalued stock.

This is the SECOND way you make money...
Exploiting the bid-ask spread...
And is about 50% of the ballgame.

There are 1000 variations on this ** general approach **...
But it requires lots of infrastructure...
And the OP is well qualified to be building this type of infrastructure.

In volatile markets...
One tends to see FAR greater market inefficiency and mispricing...
So one will make more money in volatile markets...
But extensive experience is a PREREQUISITE to exploit fast or very volatile markets.

In the last month...
My profits have been roughly triple my normal profit level...

But I have 15 years experience.
If I had 2 years experience... I would be lucky to break even over the last month.
 
Quote from teun:

Why not work for a hedge fund?
More...

I've spoken to a few hedge funds. They're no better than investment banks.

I'm at a loss as to why I'm in Manhattan anymore. I'm thinking to stick on the education path for myself, then leverage the skills I already have to just create my own fund.

Looking to people outside for opportunities in seems like a losing proposition.
 
Why don't you put up a little money and go to a prop firm?

Bright does alot of stat. arb and offer very high leverage for market neutral strategies.
 
Quote from Midas:

Why don't you put up a little money and go to a prop firm?

Bright does alot of stat. arb and offer very high leverage for market neutral strategies.
More...

I'm going to investigate this option as soon as I finish my degree. It's just a matter of whether it's the sane choice.
 
Quote from fatrat:

I've spoken to these organizations. I feel like I should give warning to people who're out there reading the forums and thinking a CS/math education makes it much easier to get closer to the business of trading.

Most of the roles that are offered to me are not very stimulating. Primarily because the problems these organizations [UBS, Goldman, MS] face with regard to developing trading system has a lot more to do with large-organization bureaucracy and management ineptitude. Furthermore, there are firms out there that are packaging and cleaning up most of the software required for interfacing to the exchange.

Goldman, for example, has a horrible division where they use something called SECdb. The recruiters and interviews will tell you it's great up front. However, if you can talk to anyone on the inside, you know the work is boring and probably should be off-shored to children in a 3rd world country. The only thing stopping them from of-shoring it to children in a dingy mine in a third world country is probably some fear/regulation/fine. These are the sorts of grinder-roles that investment banks look to fill. Even more demeaning than SECdb work is front-end trader interface work. These roles contribute to mind-rot, and are a complete waste of my youth, education, and energy. I suspect I'd be better served working for city sanitation.

The individuals who control the business and trade management in investment banks have no interest in letting the reasoning behind quantitative strategy development get to grunt workers who're trading their time and youth for dollars that buy little to nothing in the Manhattan area. Taxes, rent, prescription drug costs will eat a gimp's $120,000/yr up. The city pollution then kills off said gimp.

In addition, my experience with large organizations as a W2 employee is mostly like this: Once they have you in a role, they keep you in a role. Especially if you're handicapped. It's not particularly in their interest to expose you to core business logic, especially on the quantitative and trading side.

Finally, while I'm smart, I'm certainly not smart enough to land a role in DE Shaw or RenTec. Their recruiters will ask up front what my SAT/GRE/Whatever scores are, or ask for stellar academic credentials. As I've stated before, my GPA was above 3.5, but not 3.8 or higher. Regardless of my Ivy League credentials, my past seems to be condemning me to low-tier systems level work and grunt work.

Academia offers some hope and growth, but I'm growing increasingly skeptical that my predicament will lend itself to a role I actually could enjoy.
More...

Funny, I have been WORKING for Investment Bank IT shops. What you say does NOT ring true for people who know what they want. They have HUNDREDS of smart computer people, and were hiring by the boatload.

Getting a job is not about getting discouraged by something you heard or instances of "discussions". It is about sending resumes, contacting IT leads, talking to recruiters, preparing yourself, practice interviews, getting advice, getting your foot in the door.

If you do not plan to fight for what you want, then you do not deserve to work in your intended fields. Academia is no easy lunch or beacon of hope for you.

It is less about disabilities, and more about proving yourself, getting an opportunity.

There are plenty of people on this board who could probably give you some kind of intro. But you seem somewhat defeatist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top