SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
ArthurDent
Posts: 1166
Joined: July 2nd, 2005, 4:38 pm

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 11th, 2013, 1:49 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsHe's also saying that the QA guy (whatever QA is) doesn't do his QA job, and that he wants to be in any of the Windows/Office/XBOX teams, and that it's not clear why exactly he's even paid.If the argument were: the actual development of production system (EDIT and models) is only done in FO and they are also paid more, then I would agree, end of story. It's all the surrounding absurdity around the total uselessness of MV that I don't agree on.But most QA (MV) guys are looking to get out of the QA (mid office) ghetto and become Product (FO) developers! Except they are QA (MV) guys because they are not strong enough to be developers. Microsoft calls them SDE and SDET.QA (and MV) are great ideas in theory. In practice, they are totally screwed since they are perceived as cost centers that impede revenue generation.
 
User avatar
ArthurDent
Posts: 1166
Joined: July 2nd, 2005, 4:38 pm

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 11th, 2013, 1:54 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: capafan2Even if paid less, good QA guys are worth their weight in gold.This I agree with.QuoteOriginally posted by: capafan2Also societally we respect more well paid jobs more than less paid jobs. Part of high pay is demand-supply and part perception that job deserve more money. Which is why SAS programmers and statisticians which got paid lot less typically are now suddenly in demand because their job has more appeal when they are called "Data Scientists". If demand-supply was no critical to being paid well, the FO jobs should have been worth peanuts now as so many people are clamoring for them and so little growth exists. But that never happens which means the market is not functioning as it should be. But I digress.I think it is just a matter of more money for perceived revenue generators (FO, Dev) than for fact checkers (MV, QA).Pay is higher under the model that it will attract the more skilled individuals. And it works - witness how QA/MV guys want to move to Dev/FO.And FO pay is not moving lower despite the hordes knocking on doors because the number of qualified people is small despite the best efforts of the degree mills to churn out QF/QE/FE degree holders...
Last edited by ArthurDent on April 10th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 11th, 2013, 2:15 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsHe's also saying that the QA guy (whatever QA is) doesn't do his QA job.Not because he doesn't want to or isn't able to do his QA job, but because he is so positioned is his company. I know, I know, yours is an exception. Did I already mention about my envy?
 
User avatar
capafan2
Posts: 924
Joined: June 20th, 2009, 11:26 am

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 11th, 2013, 3:11 pm

QuotePay is higher under the model that it will attract the more skilled individuals. And it works - witness how QA/MV guys want to move to Dev/FO.And FO pay is not moving lower despite the hordes knocking on doors because the number of qualified people is small despite the best efforts of the degree mills to churn out QF/QE/FE degree holders...In general I agree that smarter (or more intelligent) people end up in FO. But what I challenge is, is their differential intelligence compared to "Fact Checkers" critical to the success at their jobs. Or would the "Fact Checkers" perform as well if given that job. Like a programmer who can calculate Big-O notations of all major algorithms is probably a lot smarter than most others. But that smartness is not essential to performing on majority of programming jobs.If that "high smartness or intelligence" becomes a selection factor despite it being irrelevant to job success, then it is clearly a case of too many people too few job which pay DISPROPORTIONATELY higher- Disproportionate relative to the demand or the risk inherent in the job. If failure as a trader led to automatic bankruptcy fewer people who clamor for it . Smarter people are often not good risk takers. They get attracted to free lunches very easily (Ivy Leagues and all are a ticket to free lunches as they encourage a class system which benefits only the Ivy Leaguers). Which is why so fewer people try to become prop-traders. The reward is there but the risk is real.If the salary for FO jobs was suddenly lower tomorrow than MO jobs because of demand created by increased regulatory requirements, I am willing to bet that FO's would flock to MO without a thought,
 
User avatar
ArthurDent
Posts: 1166
Joined: July 2nd, 2005, 4:38 pm

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 11th, 2013, 3:32 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: capafan2 If the salary for FO jobs was suddenly lower tomorrow than MO jobs because of demand created by increased regulatory requirements, I am willing to bet that FO's would flock to MO without a thought,Absolutely! And in this thought-experiment-world, MO would be using thinly veiled IQ tests for admission!QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalQuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangs He's also saying that the QA guy (whatever QA is) doesn't do his QA job.Not because he doesn't want to or isn't able to do his QA job, but because he is so positioned is his company. I know, I know, yours is an exception. Did I already mention about my envy?Universally true. Would MS have stopped the shipment of Windows 8 for non-touchscreen systems such as business desktops just because some Fact checking monkey in QA pointed this out? If not, what is this QA person's position in his company doing to his motivation for spotting such obvious mis-design?(Obvious banking analogue being MV and the financial crisis!)
Last edited by ArthurDent on April 10th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
spice
Posts: 491
Joined: March 22nd, 2006, 11:53 am

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 11th, 2013, 10:46 pm

I'm a FO quant for 7 years at an IB, but currently not working. Agents have been bombarding me with specs from MV and risk management. With FO jobs thin on the ground, should I relent and take up a job in risk, or hold my ground for jobs that fit my FO experience no matter how long it takes?
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 6:10 am

Read the topic and take your own decision. All the necessary information about MV is here.
 
User avatar
DevonFangs
Posts: 3004
Joined: November 9th, 2009, 1:49 pm

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 9:22 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: spiceI'm a FO quant for 7 years at an IB, but currently not working. Agents have been bombarding me with specs from MV and risk management. With FO jobs thin on the ground, should I relent and take up a job in risk, or hold my ground for jobs that fit my FO experience no matter how long it takes?Hard to go back to FO when you're in MO, so if you want a FO job and are not starving maybe better just wait a bit more. Market risk management might be an option if you're sick of the quant nonsense.
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 9:30 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsHard to go back to FO when you're in MO.It depends on the markets. During the boom is was quite easy, I moved from MV to FO.
 
User avatar
DevonFangs
Posts: 3004
Joined: November 9th, 2009, 1:49 pm

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 9:31 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalQuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsHard to go back to FO when you're in MO.It depends on the markets. During the boom is was quite easy, I moved from MV to FO.Hard to go back to FO when you're in MO in the current market.
 
User avatar
ThinkDifferent
Posts: 659
Joined: March 14th, 2007, 1:09 pm

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 9:59 am

as a matter of fact, now it not easy to move from FO to MV MV is a different profession. We do not need IT monkeys or people with a knowledge of 2-3 models (no matter how deep it is).tell you what, in relative terms, during interviewing process over the last year we rejected more candidates coming from FO than MV. As for "FO do more model vallidation than MV" - what a load of poop. Here are some typicall conversations with FO quants.... MV: ..is your correlation parametrization always non-negative definite? doesn't look like. *provides an example*FO: ehh...we never checked. it never blew up before.MV: *WTF?!* ________MV: ... you model does not guarantee some no-arbitrage conditions e.g. I increase the range of a MCRA and the price goes down... should go up (model-independent no-arbitrage condition).FO: ...eh... it's probably the adjustors method...we will have a look_______MV: have you asssed the impact of correlation? it is 1.0 in your set up.FO: no. it's marked by the desk.MV: how do they mark it?FO: I don't know. Ask the trader. MV: *WTF*________MV: when assessing the impact of this parameter what period of historical data you used?FO: the last two years.MV: what about the stressed period (2008-2009)...it implies vols that are twice higher and some corrs are negative...FO: we didn't do that.MV: OK Apparently we are not blessed with working with people like Gamal.
 
User avatar
DevonFangs
Posts: 3004
Joined: November 9th, 2009, 1:49 pm

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 10:16 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: ThinkDifferentas a matter of fact, now it not easy to move from FO to MV MV is a different profession. We do not need IT monkeys or people with a knowledge of 2-3 models (no matter how deep it is).tell you what, in relative terms, during interviewing process over the last year we rejected more candidates coming from FO than MV. As for "FO do more model vallidation than MV" - what a load of poop. Here are some typicall conversations with FO quants.... Or my favorite one:MV: If the vol is bigger than X% your model underestimates the price by 10% because you are neglecting this thing.FO: It doesn't matter because the vol's always been lower than that.
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 10:35 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: ThinkDifferentApparently we are not blessed with working with people like Gamal.I'm in RM these days, not exactly in MV but close to. Recently I have tried to convince some people from RM that a model used by them isn't arbitrage-free. They didn't care much.
 
User avatar
bluetrin
Posts: 292
Joined: September 9th, 2005, 6:41 am

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 11:17 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsQuoteOriginally posted by: spiceI'm a FO quant for 7 years at an IB, but currently not working. Agents have been bombarding me with specs from MV and risk management. With FO jobs thin on the ground, should I relent and take up a job in risk, or hold my ground for jobs that fit my FO experience no matter how long it takes?Hard to go back to FO when you're in MO, so if you want a FO job and are not starving maybe better just wait a bit more. Market risk management might be an option if you're sick of the quant nonsense.What market risk management daily duties consist of practically ?
 
User avatar
capafan2
Posts: 924
Joined: June 20th, 2009, 11:26 am

Market Risk? Model Validation? Quant Business analyst?

April 12th, 2013, 12:50 pm

Quote[We do not need IT monkeys or people with a knowledge of 2-3 models (no matter how deep it is).Good IT Monkeys make plenty more than good MV's and RM's based on the "Area of the Curve" not "Spot Price" concept. Also they have more job mobility. Also pontificating is fun and makes you feel important but the main reason why Deep Tech or Deep Math folks do not rise. They do not get it is that most of that they feel so proud of is not relevant to growing companies. When all is said and done FO guys have targets to meet and when you have a carrot on one hand and stick on the other you are forced to make compromises. It is like having pressures to publish and then writing a paper after paper which says "Null Hypthesis is not rejected". You end up looking like a "Honest" Idiot. As always interviews have two purposes. To find out - 1. Can the person do the job 2. Will the person adapt to the culture. It is quite clear based on what your wrote where the FO guys were coming from. They culture requires them to gloss over some finnesse in the model. It is quite likely they have a sense of entitlement (cannot adapt to the culture). But to reject them solely because of their answers without understanding the context of where they come from makes no sense unless you have too many other candidates to choose from. In which case why invite FO guys to interview. Just to pontificate? Pontification is very self-serving and feel good like a sudden dose of "Single Malt" but it is terrible for ones own self.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On