Hello. I'm trying to get clarification on what are the most mathematically sophisticated job roles in finance.This is my understanding so far of the "high-math" jobs in finance:* research team in fixed income organization* quantitative research team in investment management organization* risk analysis in investment management organization* quant analysis in hedge fund organization* risk analysis in hedge fund organization* some quant role in quantitative finance software firmWhich job roles should be placed in a "2nd-tier" lower than the others?Are there job roles that I should add to this "high-math" list?Any other clarifications appreciated.Thx.

… in my (very) humble opinion it’s not the job itself but the firm and the peopletake Equity Derivatives for instance, one investment bank might treat an instrument in a shallow way while another might use highly sophisticated mathematics for the same problem … to me the most sophisticated people were probably in Salomon Fixed Income (Meriwether &Co who went to LTCM with Merton & Scholes)... O’Connor (was in Chicago and got bought by Swiss Bank and then UBS)... and lets not forget Bankers Trust (Lipton & Pugachevsky who I think are in DB & Bear Stearns now) … and by the way, seems like all these people were a little too smart for their own good plus, the same Quant can move from FI to Eq Derivatives and then to Risk Management (e.g. Derman in Goldman)so again it’s hard to say that FI uses more sophisticated math than Eq or vice versa …but what the hell do I know? I’m just bored and want to say something Others?

Reza,Let us not forget Peter Carr from the Quantitative Equity Department of Morgan Stanley. His working papersDavid

Let us not forget Peter Carr from the Quantitative Equity Department of Morgan Stanley >>I think he left Morgan Stanley for Bank of America around three years ago and recently he left there too for independent consulting ... but you're right, Carr-Madan is the same kind of dangerous mathematical combination as Lipton-Pugachevsky ...

An admittedly biased set of opinions, but ...a. In the interests of being creative (i.e., not getting bored), I would tend to steer clear of vanilla fixed income derivatives (except in the high-yield area), since the forward curve has been beaten to death as a research topic. It's a bit like having legions of mathematicians look at Schroedinger's equation and make incrementally better estimates, which may be useful in physics but not really in finance. You don't need to get the price right to E-10, unless you are trading a 10 million lot of something ... .b. Naturally, equity stuff is less analytical, since the market is more heterogeneous and the relationships are weaker and more idiosyncratic. c. Exotics used to be the way to go (people didn't have a handle on pricing convertible bonds, barriers, etc.) but valuations are fairly good now and more emphasis is placed on getting the inputs right.d. Maybe risk management is a good area to look at, with people trying to get a grip on extremal events and things. However, I'm too ignorant to comment on that.Hari

reza, "Carr-Madan is the same kind of dangerous mathematical combination as Lipton-Pugachevsky ... "I don't know any thing about Lipton-Pugachevsky. What do you mean, when you say 'dangerous mathematical combination.' Are they some how connected with Banker's Trust demise or some thing like that.

Currently, I'd say FI and cresit derivatives are more sophisticated ... FI derivatives since one has to worry about the evolution of the entire yield curve ... and credit derivatives because one has to worry about options on baskets, guaranteeing various traunches of ABS, etc.