I am a fresh applied math phd, coming across this two jobs:(1) Structurer in Barcap, for asia insurance clients, HongKong based(2) Desk Quant, for US treasuries, CT basedThe base is about the same, looking for inputs on pros and cons comparing the two in terms of :(1) total compensation(2) career path(3) possibility of coming back to B-school as a facultythanks ~~

Quotecoming across this two jobsDo you mean you saw job ads for them or you got them?

I meant I have the offers.

Structurer without a doubt - FAR less computer programming.

Rates quant without a doubt - much more math/intellectually challenging

QuoteOriginally posted by: airmenowI am a fresh applied math phd, coming across this two jobs:(1) Structurer in Barcap, for asia insurance clients, HongKong based(2) Desk Quant, for US treasuries, CT basedThe base is about the same, looking for inputs on pros and cons comparing the two in terms of :(1) total compensation(2) career path(3) possibility of coming back to B-school as a facultythanks ~~1) Total Compensation: Very hard to tell. It's a function of hard work and luck2) Career Path: US might be a better place to start your career. If you just don't like programming, you probably wanna consider structurer job. But I've seen it's not very easy for structurers to move to other areas (only from what I've seen). Quant will of course mean you'll be coding 60% of the time but the job might be more intellectually satisfying and since you'll be building models for traders, you could switch to trading or move to a hedge fund more easily. 3) Almost impossible. B-school jobs are pretty hard to get and without a PhD in Finance, it's nearly impossible. Moreover, you will see on Wall St if you go there that there're tons of PhDs (Econ, Finance, Math, Physics). They will all tell you that once you're out of academia, you're out. Now if you have a top PhD and don't mind going to Dunk State school of Management, there is a chance you'll make it.

1) I assume by total comp you mean area under the curve, not your spot price at entry level ?A lot goes to how you think China will develop. As it happens I think of the 3 contenders ( Sg, Shanghai, HK), HK will be the main centre for this region.Sg is more back office and has governmental and labour market issues. Because of the lack of law, Shanghai can never be a major centre, and that leaves HK where more front like work is done.But HK is not as good as Conneticut in terms of what you will learn on the job.2) Career path is hard to define, but again, the newbie role in the USA will count for more especially if you see your long term future in China.3) I'd forget that option, indeed it worries me a little that it is in your mind. Yes, some quants do become lecturers, and many give lectures or parts of courses.But to get good faculty positions will be viciously difficult, and after a couple of years you may want something different.The reason it worries me a little is that I detect that you feel this is not what you want to do. Although money is a fine motivation, it cannot push past a feeling that you really want to be somewhere else, and that can make you far less successful than you ought to be.

The reason it worries me a little is that I detect that you feel this is not what you want to do. Although money is a fine motivation, it cannot push past a feeling that you really want to be somewhere else, and that can make you far less successful than you ought to be. --- So true Dom...

Have you ever considered quitting your job and becoming a monk or something, EA?I doubt you could be any LESS happy with such a move than you are now (based on how you post)....

Thanks, HyperGeometric, my senses are in line with yours.Particularly for career path, I have a good idea of the quant trajectory, but not for structuring. It looks to me the road is getting narrower as time passes by. And Dominic, your points are well taken, but valuing China concept against Treasury market in the compensation context 3 yr going forward is a relative value play and both legs have large vol. Total conpensation, yes the area, as payoff on these two drivers also depends on how I advance my career along each of the path. I guess I see less correlation of my career advancement with treasury market than with doing asia institutional business...

To be honest, Dominic, my thought on the faculty option is a bit psychological. I am good at what I do in math finance as a researcher, for which one is compensated more by intellectural satisfaction and fame, but less by money. In this regard, what I haven't sorted out is the weight of each of the elements in my achievement portfolio, I don't know my utility as a function of the three, nor do I know it will evolve, to be honest. But I guess that might just because I am a newbie.I will appreciate your perspective on this matter.

You cannot teach in the Business School with a Math PhD. AACSB will not allow it. The positions are definitely there but you will have to go through the AACSB certification process and then land up in a very low-ranked third tier teaching school.IMHO the UBS option in Conn definitely looks to be the best for you career-wise. If you are obsessed with research, you can try for a job at the Fed, but they prefer Economics and Finance PhDs.

This is news to me TJ, I know a variety of people with Maths, Physics, Economoics PhDs and they teach in business schools.Am I to understand that you can't teach at an AACSB place without some piece of paper ?If so, what is it's name ?

My negativity against quant work is well known here, but don't dismiss what I have to say completely because of that. You would have to be mad to work as a treasuries quant over insurance structuring - even in HK! Personally, I believe most of what you will be doing is writing software to compute portfolio risk exposure - using other people's models (even worse - code) and fixing the bugs when it breaks down - as it is this is becoming more of a commodity business and unless you are one of the main guys operating "the machine" you will be a Mr Fixit guy... Could be very dull, and not nearly as well compensated as you think.... And for that matter not lead onto any kind of trading role.If you work as a structurer you will get experience in FRONT of clients (read sales skills) something not developed in academia, and not developed working as a desk quant. Secondly the structuring maywell end up being more technical than you think - having to use your knowledge of the models, and of the clients to create profitable solutions that your clients will find value in. The banks will always need quant guys who can do math and program, there is no need to run to that job now, do something creative, go to a new place absorb some of the local culture, and it's Barcap - you can always move offices later if you perform in HK. You want to go and work in Stamford at UBS instead????? Are you mad? I would say that I think Barcap is a better firm than UBS as well (unless you were doing PWM at UBS - and I am not sure how great that business is now either)Dude, don't be stupid, don't just do the comfortable thing that you think maximises certain career opportunities - you are modelling long dated payoffs with very crap data. So do something more interesting. Go to HK, do the structuring job, make some contacts in China, experience the local culture - live your life!

AACSB has got the requirement that to teach in an AACSB accredited business school, the person must have a PhD from an AACSB accredited business school. Because of the shortage of business PhDs they have started some sort of program to induct people who have PhDs from other disciplines into teaching positions in the Business schools. It is quite new, only a few years old. Don't know how it will work out. Personally, I have never come across anyone with a Math / Physics / Engineering PhD teaching in a Business school, but I am sure they exist. Derman is teaching at Columbia, but I don't know if it is in the Business school. It may be in the Math or OR department.