Quote from Mike805:
This whole "athelete MIT grad" thing is bordering on the mythical, although there is an element of truth to it.
I agree - but I think the mythical ideas are sometimes reinforced by (non-deposit) prop firms themselves and it exposes how it's not easy to know who is going to work out for the firm - so they've got to set interesting criteria. Like Optiver and the speed math tests - seems relatively meritocratic - fact is they have to do _something_ to significantly thin the herd before actual interviews.
I have the criteria you outlined (including good related academic pedigree) - but I'm also 35, work as a programmer, and am married with a kid and a mortgage. I'll keep networking and trying for a 'real' job in the industry - but in the meantime I'm continuing moonlighting projects that will get me where I want to be sooner or later. If anyone who works at a non-deposit prop firm can offer to do a resume review and share some thoughts, please send me a PM..
To the question at hand: how the ideal prop firm would find those who can effectively use capital.
There are a couple of interesting crowd-sourcing attempts, and I hope that more ideas in this space come to market:
- AlgoDeal.com let you develop/test models on their hardware and would supposedly back the good ones. Neat idea. They aren't in business anymore. I think basically because not many garage-quants exist or showed up. Has to solve the trust problem.
- TopStepTrader.com - you trade sim, they evaluate performance, fund good performers with a small live account. This might be good for practice, but the performance eval is necessarily simplistic. Theoretically, someone could grow there - but I'm not sure it's likely. Some great guys there, though.
To me, the ideal firm is meritocratic and casts a wide net. The fact is, though, they probably don't need to in order to survive. Only when what they're currently doing doesn't work anymore would they have an incentive to find new ways. It's an interesting problem to solve.
