That's what you yourself said a few posts ago. What did I spin?
You stated word by word "
Frankly, much to the protests of the majority, the less one isformally educated in finance the better chance one has"
How come all banks, hedge funds, hft firms, pension funds and other buy side firms hire and employ people with strong formal educational backgrounds? The truth is that perhaps 0.1% or less of the entire population are entrepreneural, creative, and self motivated enough to acquire knowledge and skills on their own. For the huge remaining majority, formal education that trains free thinking and allows for room to experiment and play with thoughts gets them into the positions they want to spend a majority of their lives in. And yes, only the top echelon of education provides that. I never claimed that in general a university degree prepares for trading careers. Quite the opposite, I said that successful trading requires first and foremost a DNA makeup that cannot be learned or acquired. The other half is the acquisition of skills, knowledge, and experience. The entire financial industry seems to agree with me and when you look at the vast majority of successful traders (the pool of those who profitably trade over a long period) you realize that most have a strong formal educational background. I rather err with the assessment and experience those institutions employ in hiring talent than siding with an anonymous poster who seems to have a chip on his shoulder re formal education.
Yes and, from your response, most likely you did not read the links I posted.
To answer your next question - because they are looking for well-trained employees.
Being an employer requires a different skill set, separate and distinct than an employee has developed or have the possibility of ever developing.
The assumptions you have are what the links I posted illuminate.
Trading with one’s own roll is closer to being an entrepreneur than being an employee.
If one has always been an employee, what I am describing will generate negative emotions. One of the purposes of formal education is to create conditioned responses to be a well-trained employee.
In contrast;
Knocking on door after door after door, hustling gear out of the trunk of a car, cold-calling through a phone book (when they existed), doing whatever it takes to make payroll, put food on the table, selling assets to make scratch, find the next principal to pull a deal together, etc,... and/or the majorities least favorite - ‘experiencing failure in all it’s forms and guises’ provides hard-knock lessons that formal education cannot provide. Words don’t teach, only life experiences do.
The above is not to discount formal education entirely. It’s just to pose a possibility that it does not warrant the premium that you give it in all situations and circumstances.
Also quite frankly, the returns possible from extracting the market’s full offer pales what is proposed by conventional wisdom in the institutions you cite.