I've watched the quant job market go from "BSc needed, but quantitative MSc would be nice" in the job ads to "PhD minimum required". While the job market is currently "in the dog house" so to speak, it wouldn't surprise me that much if in a few years time "3 years post-doc research required" started to appear on some of the ads !On the basis that the job market is currently saturated, I've had a few thoughts about what might be in demand in the future - I'm trying to look 5 years from now. I know that my "future-prediction goggles" are rather clouded and certainly don't claim 100% accuracy, but it's a best guess. Any comments would be appreciated on my thoughts.1) Structured products are generally sold to sophisticated investors, as opposed to retail investors. I can't imagine many CDOs being sold to widows and orphans ! In particular insurers (general and life) and pension funds are often on the look-out for a product that will solve a particular problem for them - i.e. they want a product whose payoff has a certain profile in order to fit the needs of the life/pension fund, rather than just because a product has a sexy name. However, an insurer / pension fund has its investment needs defined by an actuary, or someone with a similiar role. Conclusion ? While actuaries have in the past looked at vanilla investments - i.e. equities, Govt bonds and a few corporate bonds and not much else - there may be a need in the future for those who can both do the quant stuff and cope with the actuarial stuff. How many PhD quants could really do the analysis needed on a pension or life fund ? Do the recent changes in the actuarial exams signify a sea change in attitude by the UK Institute of Actuaries to bridge the quant-actuary gap ?2) The prospectus for any structured investment is often over 100 pages long and essentially full of legal blurb. Most lawyers can add up a column of numbers, but their maths skills don't go much beyond this. Anything to do with modelling cashflows is usually beyond them. Conclusion ? There may be a need in the future for quants with a legal training.Comments and discussion from all are welcomedMichael

On this topic my wife, who has a phd in topology and her thesis topic was intersections of curves in surfaces, was told by a lawyer while arguing about the definition of a discount curve in a legal document:"Don't worry, my dear, three points determine a curve."

hehe.. "quants with a legal training" sounds interesting - that's a shitload of education! first you get a solidmaths education, preferably a PhD, then some finance education and to top it off a few years of lawschool!if you're not a total prodigy you won't be done before you're 30 well, doing a mathematical degree and a economical degree now I should perhaps throw in a couple ofcourses on the law also, just to make sure I end up an overworked academic freak then the natural extension is to learn multiple countries specific laws in order to be geographically movable..personally I don't think one person will have to learn (or will be able) so many different and complex areas,it's more efficient with team approach. Complex legal documents would require specific law knowledge andthat in term would demand a more throughal law-education than a qualified quant could resonably haveaquired. but you never now, there might exist a bunch of tripple-degree (math,finance,law) people out there..

Educational requirements for running an event driven hedge fund:Law degree: you'll want to do some merger arbitrage, which requires knowledge of legal documentsPh.D in physics or applied math: you'll be modelling credit spreads in your distressed bookMaster's in electrical engineering: to cover Silicon ValleyM.D.: to cover the biotechs and health services companiesM.B.A.: to schmooze with potential and current investorsChiropractory degree: to soothe that aching back at the end of the day

All in jest However, an insurer / pension fund has its investment needs defined by an actuary, or someone with a similiar role. Conclusion ?Actuaries doomed ?!!How many PhD quants could really do the analysis needed on a pension or life fund ?Man, never say never ......Do the recent changes in the actuarial exams signify a sea change in attitude by the UK Institute of Actuaries to bridge the quant-actuary gap ?Confirmation of point 1 above?There may be a need in the future for quants with a legal trainingWhy is it that scientists & engineers are left holding the bag? Can't we for once say that in future "MBA's & lawyers with math training will be required" Why this shift of onus on the techies? Where are all the well-entrenched quants to combat such moves? Quants of the world UNITE!!!!Okay, okay, I started off in jest but it only got me fuming ...... poor scientists, I guess if they can't speak up they must bear the brunt....but then what do I know......other than that plumber down the road made more than I did as a scientist....

I would think that many areas of finance would be very interested in hiring a joint JD/MFE. And that could easily be done in under 4 years. You probably wouldn't use most of your training, but it would certainly make you employable.

We have quants who focus of different areas (theory, risk, pricing etc.)We have lawyers who focus on different areas (confirms, ISDA's, IP etc.)We do not have superman who can do everything. If he/she exists, please get in touch..........Seriously, the trend is in the opposite direction. Employees are becoming more specialized, rather than taking on "jack-of-all trades" positions.