QuoteOriginally posted by: mbuneaNow, my thoughts on this. From the beginning I must say that what he calls 'quant' is not at all my image of it. The part I consider quant work is #2 and he says his involvement in it was exactly 0%. Then I tend to have a very simple rule of thumb for discerning between high quality (career-enhancing) work and low quality (career killing) work: 'data wrangling: bad, data analysis: good'.Am I wrong?I'd say right if you are talking about quant resarch or trading (and quite a few other analyst roles in corporate banking or MBA finance too). Often banks sucker people into thinking they are 'working their way up' like in other industries, but in reality they are wasting their skills on stuff other firms probably computerise - happened to a classmate at HBOS and destroyed his career and him mentally (8 years on I still stay way from him).In terms of the website, where he is trying to sell trading algorithms, this is important as he seems to be implicitly saying he is a trading guru, but in my experience, quant developers' work is as he describes (i.e. vastly different from a derivatives pricer), more or less, albeit Hansi has an important point in the sense that quant roles are very variable. So my reading of this is that he hasn't lied on his website, but is using the 'I worked alongside these people' gambit to fool people into thinking he actually learnt this stuff in the workplace and to pass over money for his books, while covering himself legally. Maybe I'm really stating the obvious, but if you ever been lectured about careers by some arseholes in my family you would realise just how insanely thick people are and how, once the notion that this guy is a trading guru gets into people's head there's no taking it out.It's not the worst crap I have ever come across about quants and at least his section on becoming a quant doesn't have shite like 'it's about who you know, not what you know", which I have come across on other 'getting into quant finance' guides. Also it's nowhere near as retarded as some of the half baked 'career advice' family and friends sometimes barf out.And there are far, far worse cons - check out Greg Secker's "Knowledge 2 Action" or "Learn to Trade" and prepare to laugh so loud you get sectioned but also prepare for being revolted at the same time. A mate of mine took me one of his seminars in 2007 - I thought he was talking about a talk from some bank like GS on trading, but when I saw this it made me laugh. The strategy was obviously bullshit and his workers walked around in uniforms that looked like something you'd wear to work in Sainsbury's trying to convince people they were earning thousands of pounds a month using his strategy. The thing that makes me wretch is that the FSA actually approved his retarded trading course (that costs £3k!!!!) even though he lies through his teeth about being an ex-trader (wasn't one). Doubt the new regulators are any better. A friend of mine that worked at Credit Suisse in settlements came across it recently thinking it was a genuine course for helping people invest and said he couldn't stop laughing - scary that the course is STILL there, just because he changes it's name when people complain (used to be Trader's University). And punters are still handing over their cash to this twat.QuoteOriginally posted by: mbuneaFrom one of the other threads referred by Hansi: "Working as an air-hostess will not make you a pilot."Another classic example - John Cleese had to tell a chartered accountant that he can't become a lion tamer just because he has a lion tamer's hat.
Last edited by liam
on February 5th, 2016, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.