Quote One problem in finance is that you have to keep your mouth shut about what you do, and that tends to be challenging for me since I work on so much cool stuff, and when I read the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, I can see how what I'm doing influences and is influenced by the headlines. They money is decent (not good this year, hopefully much better in the coming years), but what I find really cool about the work is that you really do end up being part of history.Whilst you may find what you doing cool and see the links of your work in the Wall street Journal, question how many others really understand the link between quant finance and the wider world and would think its *cool* I don't think you will be recognized for being part of history as there is a poor public image of quant finance which needs to be addressed first. SG

QuoteOriginally posted by: StatGuyWhilst you may find what you doing cool and see the links of your work in the Wall street Journal, question how many others really understand the link between quant finance and the wider world and would think its *cool* For me it doesn't matter that much. As long as I actually am doing something useful, and the people that matter know it, I don't care much what the rest of the world thinks.QuoteI don't think you will be recognized for being part of history as there is a poor public image of quant finance which needs to be addressed first.The poor public image has to do with the poor state of the economy, and if that improves then the image of people in finance will improve. If the economy doesn't, then quants are doing to get blamed for it. Whether this is fair or unfair is rather irrelevant. It's reality. So if people in finance want the public to have a better image, then the first thing and most important thing to do is to help fix the economy.

QuoteThe poor public image has to do with the poor state of the economy, and if that improves then the image of people in finance will improveYes it will improve but there is a poor image of those in most quant based careers that needs to be addressed to the wider domain if we are to get any global creditability for what we do, be it quant, statisticians etc.. And not just seen as a bunch of geeks crunching numbers or IT support.SG

QuoteOriginally posted by: StatGuypoor image of those in most quant based careers that needs to be addressed to the wider domain if we are to get any global creditability for what we do, the problem with "quant finance" is that there is too much quant and no finance. The typical quant finance dude is analogous to the biophysicist who sees the world in physics equations but cannot name the 7 parts of a cell. These people are very defficient.

QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuoteOriginally posted by: StatGuypoor image of those in most quant based careers that needs to be addressed to the wider domain if we are to get any global creditability for what we do, the problem with "quant finance" is that there is too much quant and no finance. The typical quant finance dude is analogous to the biophysicist who sees the world in physics equations but cannot name the 7 parts of a cell. These people are very defficient.That is very well said. Unfortunately, with the growing number of Phds in Mathematics, Physics, it is becoming more and more the case. It almost looks like these dudes are living in some kind of memory land, i.e., refuse to show the humility to learn Finance thinking themselves to be too smart for the same. The only reason, they are in Finance is because of money - the very reason, if they had said frankly during most interviews would have disqualified them right away. As if that is not enough, more and more MBAs are quoted for their shallow understanding of models and investment theory to confirm their lack of interest in Finance.

Perhaps it's too much of an ask to think like a *good* statistician/applied mathematician, programmer along with strong people/communication and finance skills. I would estimate the subset of such people in the PhD/MBA camp is around 1% or less.SG

QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuoteOriginally posted by: StatGuypoor image of those in most quant based careers that needs to be addressed to the wider domain if we are to get any global creditability for what we do, the problem with "quant finance" is that there is too much quant and no finance. The typical quant finance dude is analogous to the biophysicist who sees the world in physics equations but cannot name the 7 parts of a cell. These people are very defficient.You hit the nail on the head. Quants (for the most part) are like that, they know equations, they can prove Girsanov's theorem on the back of an envelope. But if you ask a really simple market question they have no clue. I guess part of the problem is that some banks segregate the quants and leave them with zero market exposure (some quants don't even have bloomberg). Coupled that with the fact that most quants did not have proper financial training and you have an explanation for this. I think in the last couple of years banks moved the people who would otherwise be FO quants to exotics/prop/stat arb where quants became part of the business (as traders, structurers, pricers, etc). The other quants, for the most parts, are software developers disguised into quants. Very few of them work developing models and driving the modeling agenda.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NomadeQuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuoteOriginally posted by: StatGuypoor image of those in most quant based careers that needs to be addressed to the wider domain if we are to get any global creditability for what we do, the problem with "quant finance" is that there is too much quant and no finance. The typical quant finance dude is analogous to the biophysicist who sees the world in physics equations but cannot name the 7 parts of a cell. These people are very defficient.You hit the nail on the head. Quants (for the most part) are like that, they know equations, they can prove Girsanov's theorem on the back of an envelope. But if you ask a really simple market question they have no clue. I guess part of the problem is that some banks segregate the quants and leave them with zero market exposure (some quants don't even have bloomberg). Coupled that with the fact that most quants did not have proper financial training and you have an explanation for this. I think in the last couple of years banks moved the people who would otherwise be FO quants to exotics/prop/stat arb where quants became part of the business (as traders, structurers, pricers, etc). The other quants, for the most parts, are software developers disguised into quants. Very few of them work developing models and driving the modeling agenda.But if you ask a really simple market question they have no cluecompletely false

QuoteOriginally posted by: NomadeI guess part of the problem is that some banks segregate the quants and leave them with zero market exposure (some quants don't even have bloomberg). Coupled that with the fact that most quants did not have proper financial training and you have an explanation for this. I know many quants who don't want to learn finance because they believe, deep in their heart, that the world obeys their equations. Thus, they hold the soft side of finance and business in disdain. You can't expect banks to be finance training centers -- quants with deficient education have to take their own initiative and invest their own time.

But Kack, from my albeit limited experience of investment banks they put the quants and the FO ppl through the same training course. Frankly most of it you can pick up from a few of the Fabozzi books and take the CFA exams. I believe that in reality the banks don't want quants who are that into the finance side b/c they wouldn't want to spend their time on development, and worrying about things like pricing systems staging and rollouts... When they ask you if you are interested in finance it is a red herring!

Also, aside from conversations where people have to justify why they are to be paid, few would to admit that any of the mathematical stuff is reality (Rentec excluded, they don't talk at all, hehe) - just like if you are in any trader's confidence he/she will admit a monkey could do their job, and that often times they aren't much more than highly paid telephone operators...

QuoteOriginally posted by: MartingaleBusterjust like if you are in any trader's confidence he/she will admit a monkey could do their job, and that often times they aren't much more than highly paid telephone operators... they are smart to tell you that -- so you won't bug them to find out their REAL secret.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MartingaleBusterBut Kack, from my albeit limited experience of investment banks they put the quants and the FO ppl through the same training course. Frankly most of it you can pick up from a few of the Fabozzi books and take the CFA exams. yeah, but with the quants, the stuff goes in one ear and out the other ear. Quants think the CFA exam is too "trivial" for them to waste their Einsteinian intellect on.

QuoteOriginally posted by: cryptic26he only reason, they are in Finance is because of money - the very reason, if they had said frankly during most interviews would have disqualified them right away. Personally, I don't see how you can earn money in finance without understanding it. Also if they only reason that someone is in finance is for the money, I don't think this disqualifies them at all. Something that I do ask in interviews is "why are you interested in finance" and if the candidate doesn't somehow mention "because I want to make money" in the reply, I start having pretty serious doubts about the candidate.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MartingaleBusterAlso, aside from conversations where people have to justify why they are to be paid, few would to admit that any of the mathematical stuff is reality (Rentec excluded, they don't talk at all, hehe)The purpose of the job is to model reality, and if you have models that don't model reality well, then you really do need to admit that, toss the models into the garbage, and then come up with new models that provide some insight on what is going on. Personally, I think that the models that I work on have some connection with reality, and if they didn't, what I'm doing would be a waste of time, and I really should be working on something else.