QuoteOriginally posted by: capafan2Quote[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.TBH I think in MV we could use also ex FO people, because they are probably more sensitive about the model developer culture and for their superior knowledge of the market. It's just that it's very rare for them to apply for MO positions. On the other hand I'm with ThinkDifferent that the skill set is largely different because of different goals. Many of the FO quants I know are genuinely smart guys who would do very well in model validation as well, but for some others I strongly doubt they would be good validators. You must have seen a million models before your validation can add value, and actually one of the interesting sides of MV is really that you can get to see (and understand and implement and stress) dozens of different models every year.However, like Gamal said it appears that the problem is the positioning of MV teams within a variety of firms, and that apparently people in MV are constantly looked down on by the desk. And now don't say it's not about looking down on people because I think I could gather some remarkable quotes.
Last edited by DevonFangs
on April 11th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.