QuoteOriginally posted by: Nikkei1) At the end of the day, financial data are not that amenable to quantitative analysis. As a result, the advanced modeling skills are excessive. If one wants to do model "on a PhD level", he has to look elsewhere.I think otherwise. Even when you figure out that something is random noise, that's significant, and any sort of signal that you can find in the middle of noise can be profitable. Also I'm finding my astrophysics research skills to be quite useful.Quote2) Quant work consists mainly of programming, not quantitative modeling.Sure.Quote3) When advanced models are used, they are just for show. Nobody really believes in them."Belief" is something that is a topic of religion. I don't "believe" in any of the models that I produce, but on the other hand I don't "believe in" general relativity either. The model works, it seems to describe reality, and can be used for useful things. It may turn out that the model is wrong under different conditions, but reality is like that.Also, not all models are quantitative. Sometimes words are useful. The other thing is that derivative markets aren't the only markets that can be modeled. Labor markets can me modeled also.The other thing is that advanced != lots of fancy math. Sometimes it turns out that a dead simple linear model happens to be more "advanced." Quote4) On the Wall Street, quants do not have any political influence.Depends on the place. It should be pointed out that the people that are really running things right now are government regulators, and a lot of quant work involves writing reports to convince the government that you are not blowing up the world economy.Also, it may because I come from a physics background. Finance is very similar. Observe X, try to write down some equations that describe X, use equations to do something useful (like make money).
Last edited by twofish
on January 27th, 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.