I am applying for quant positions. The truth about my perm/contract preference is that I like the relative security of a permanent placement but I would prefer a 6 month contract position to a comparable perm position if the perm position paid much less, particularly if the contract position had reasonable prospects of becoming permanent.When recruiters ask me the contract-or-perm question, I generally see no reason not to tell them the exact truth (as stated above).However, it's more awkward to be asked the question directly during the job interview by the employer. This happened in my interview today. Here are some variables that I was juggling around in my mind, as I struggled to answer:1) The recruiter told me that this is a 6 month contract -- I'm almost sure there are prospects of it becoming permanent.2) I have previously been in a situation (in an unrelated incident about three years ago) where my recruiter told me I was applying for a contract position, but the employer was actually, in reality, considering me for a permanent position. Apparently, the reason for this mismatch was that my recruiter was in the contracts market and therefore wanted to push me and the employer towards a contract arrangement even though neither I nor the employer wanted this.3) I therefore wondered (and still wonder) whether the same game is going on here. My recruiter is quite emphatic that this is a contract opportunity, so I find it strange that I would be asked "Would you rather have a permanent or a contract position?".4) Despite what the recruiter says, the actual wording of the job spec doesn't suggest a contract. (It doesn't directly say "permanent" either, but surely the convention is to assume permanent unless stated otherwise.)5) It might seem strange to answer that I would prefer a contract position to a permanent position, because it doesn't sound like a stance of enthusiastic commitment.6) On the other hand, it might seem strange to say that I would prefer a permanent position, since my recruiter tells me that this is a contract opportunity.Any advice as to how this question could have been handled?Many thanks,CommodityQuant

I am of course in favour of telling recruiters the truth I think your trade off may not be optimal though...In quant work, there is typically not much extra to be earned as a contractor, though that does vary.The difference is that contractors can expect very little in terms of career development, and they tend to be given less good work. That is slowly changing, but is what you should assume.]1) The recruiter told me that this is a 6 month contract -- I'm almost sure there are prospects of it becoming permanent.As I've written elsewhere one way that managers are getting around headcount crap is by hiring contractors hoping that they will be allowed to maker them permie. So that's a realistic view, and OK so long as you don't assume it will work out.2) I have previously been in a situation (in an unrelated incident about three years ago) where my recruiter told me I was applying for a contract position, but the employer was actually, in reality, considering me for a permanent position. Apparently, the reason for this mismatch was that my recruiter was in the contracts market and therefore wanted to push me and the employer towards a contract arrangement even though neither I nor the employer wanted this.That happens quite a lot in some firms, especially those that have a large IT operation, indeed some mix IT and quant recruitment.I leave it to you to forecast the quality of their work.In some cases the recruiter will get paid lot less if you go permanent, and it can happen that he literally gets nothing.3) I therefore wondered (and still wonder) whether the same game is going on here. My recruiter is quite emphatic that this is a contract opportunity, so I find it strange that I would be asked "Would you rather have a permanent or a contract position?".Could be, but it could also be that they genuinely want to know, some people are "dedicated" contractors.4) Despite what the recruiter says, the actual wording of the job spec doesn't suggest a contract. (It doesn't directly say "permanent" either, but surely the Most job specs are crap. Sometimes I genuinely believe that they exist to annoy me. You're lucky it gets the name of the firm right, even that cannot be assumed (yes, really). It may be that it simply has not been decided whether it is perm or contract, and they are still arguing about it internally. It may be that the manager will only commit the time to fighting for headcount if he thinks you are worth it, or that he hopes by the time you turn up, he can have it suited.5) It might seem strange to answer that I would prefer a contract position to a permanent position, because it doesn't sound like a stance of enthusiastic commitment.You have an indifference curve between variability of income and the expectation. You're a quant, the person hiring you is a quant, if both of you are competent then it should be an easy conversation to have.6) On the other hand, it might seem strange to say that I would prefer a permanent position, since my recruiter tells me that this is a contract opportunity.Ask the recruiter what he would prefer to place you in, there is good chance he will tell the truth.But you need to communicate your more complex utility function to your new boss.But...As I say at the start, I don't think you are pointing in the right direction here at all.A far better pitch is to sell yourself as someone they want, express interest and commitment to this job, then discuss the price and how it will be paid.In that orderBetter to say "I can do X and Y for you, and I'm really interested in Nigerian options....so would it it be better for me to be perm or contract ?", than to get bogged down in employment law before they even feel they want you.The last clause "so would it it be better for me to be perm or contract ?" is what a good pimp will call an "assumptive close". ie pitching the question in terms of how you will be employed rather than if you will be taken on.

Many thanks for your reply, Dominic. You say that "in quant work, there is not typically not much extra to be earned as a contractor." This is the only part of your response that surprises me a bit. If we assume that my recruiters are being reasonably honest about the salaries of their positions, I can say that, roughly speaking, when I apply for perm positions I tend to get pitched at around 70k sterling + 15% estimated bonus. When I apply for contract positions, I tend to get pitched at 500+ sterling per day. Assuming 250 business days per year, the contract rates that have been suggested to me are therefore massively higher than the permanent rates. But this is very hypothetical stuff since I am not employed yet. Perhaps, the real salaries of these positions is rather different.CommodityQuant

no offense, but that doesn't sound like a 'proper' quant job then.maybe more on the lines of qaunt-developer, where there's more programming skills than prcing theory / numerical methods knowledge involved.i'd expect a much higher bonus for perm quant position.

You are absolutely correct, and no offence taken at all. Most of the jobs I apply for are quant dev jobs where programming skills are more relevant than anything else. But my real point was that my experience doesn't match what Dominic says about rates being equivalent for contract and perm.In terms of terminology, I use the word "quant" to mean "either quant developer or quant analyst". Or, should quant developers not be called quants?In terms of approx salaries quoted by recruiters, I usually get quoted (in sterling): 70k + 15% bonus (annual) perm. Or 500 per day contract.So contract pays much higher, in my (limited) experience.CommodityQuant

I would have thought 500 pd is a bit low for a decent quant developer. Rates have come down a bit, but of course it varies with skill set."assuming 250 business days per year, the contract rates that have been suggested to me are therefore massively higher than the permanent rates."Very few contractors work 250 days a year. Aside from holidays, you have to allow for gaps between contracts. 200 is a much better number, so that brings 500 per day down to 100K per year.You are comparing that to 70K + 15%, which is also not quite right.A staffer will get (about 10-15%) in various benefits like pension, healthcare etc. Some firms actually let you pick your own mix of benefits within a budget.So 70K + 2 * 15% is low 90's Thus premium is about 10%I assume you are in London (else the numbers in $ are scary).From that % you must pay accountancy fees and National Insurance. It is of course possible to claim more expenses than as a permanent employee but in total, I think you're about as well paid in either mode if employment.Banks do some training, for instance about half of CQF students are paid for by their employer, but there are also seminars, conferences et al.Also the tails are not so good, usually.If you get really sick most banks in London will take some time to get rid of you, as a contractor no work = no pay. The odds of long term illness or disability are relatively small, but can leave you in a deep hole. We often refer to this as cabbage insurance.You can't buy this insurance as a contractor.Yes, there exists PHI, but the exclusion clauses make it so hard to claim that it is very hard to see an event or sickness that hurts you badly enough to quality that does not also kill you.Even if you do qualify, they will claim that you won't. Imagine the least moral person you have ever met. Imagine then someone they would despise for a complete lack of any ethics. Then that person can at least say "at least I'm not an insurance loss adjuster".Also if you screw up (or get blamed) it is very much easier to lose a contractor than a permanent member of staff.Few contractors manage to get promoted, so the upper bound to earnings is lower.

Thanks for this clarification, Dominic. I'm a bit surprised that you say 500 sterling per day is low because I scrutinise job postings very actively, and I would say that 80% of the contract positions I've seen advertised are <= 550 sterling per day. Among the contract rates I've seen, I would think 500 pd is greater than the mean and around equal to the median. Obviously, if I'm missing a trick or too to raise my probable rate, I'd love to hear about it. However, I already told my recruiter that I'd be happy with 500 pd for the position that I'm in process for.By the way, I'm by no means a shoo-in for this position. I estimate my probability of being successful at around a third.Having said that my chances are worse than even, my best-case scenario is that my recruiter tells me that I have an offer at 500 pd. Would it be considered inappropriate and unwise to attempt to negotiate that upwards? I would think so (given that I already said 500 pd is fine) but I'm not an experienced salary negotiator.CommodityQuant