I will be graduating from my PhD at the end of this year, and so far I've got two job offers that I need to choose from. A. A quantitative analyst role from a major bank.B. Model building for a rich individual, the models he's interested in are statistical arbitrage types, and racecourse/sports gambling.Option A is a fairly standard "first-quant-job from PhD" type of package, while Option B pays substancially higher (even includes an equity component in the package). However, I'm a little worried about the career development side if I took Option B. In particular, suppose if I was to look for another job on Wall St in 2 years time, how well will others regard my experience working for an individual compared to having worked for a big bank?Any comments are welcome, thanks a lot ppl!

You're right to be worried about the higher variance of working for one person.One upside is that you will be closer to the many from day 1, and in many IB jobs it will take longer to get that class of experience and some quants ending up drifting away from the money.If you do get that sort of hands on you will be more marketable.Your opportunity to learn will be bounded both by the individuals own knowledge and his willingness to share. Experience is good of course, but it needs to be mixed with the advice of older hands.A lot goes to the nature of this guy himself.

If the personality of the rich guy is such that you can imagine working under him for the next 2 years, and your description of the role and comp is accurate, I'd say this is by far the cooler thing to do - close to the money, high responsibility, and having a slightly unusual, but relevant, career is a nice way to stand out of the crowd. And it's in the guy's interest toi train you to an extent.Of course, the risk of something going wrong is higher too, but if you got an offer from a bank now, it should be even easier getting another one if things go wrong with the rich guy

Thanks for everyone's replies, it has been quite helpful. I guess I want to ask one more question, this is especially directed to senior members: If you're hiring a quant, and you see an applicant who has a PhD, worked for an individual for 1 or 2 years, would you1. Think that the applicant can't find a job at a decent bank, so he worked for an individual?2. Will not consider the applicant for any roles that requires some experience in banking (as trading for an individual may not qualify as *banking*)?

Where did you find job B. working for the rich gambler?

QuoteOriginally posted by: SU2Thanks for everyone's replies, it has been quite helpful. I guess I want to ask one more question, this is especially directed to senior members: If you're hiring a quant, and you see an applicant who has a PhD, worked for an individual for 1 or 2 years, would you1. Think that the applicant can't find a job at a decent bank, so he worked for an individual?2. Will not consider the applicant for any roles that requires some experience in banking (as trading for an individual may not qualify as *banking*)?No to both in my book. Regarding 1., it's much easier to find a job in a bank than one such as you describe; as for 2., there is no such thing as 'banking'. You do portfolio allocation, stat arb, or some other combination of specific things, usually relating to specific asset class or three. If that job works out, looks like you'll have not just first hand experience at trading decisions of a certain kind, but also a PnL of your own to show - and banking jobs that both have a quantitative aspect and let you have your own PnL within the first 2 years are few and far between.

What I think Z is saying is that by doing the more non-standard job you are making yourself more attractive to certain types of manager, looking to fill specific roles.Others will take one look at "gambles on horses", and lose your CV with extreme prejudice.Some managers like to see good "brands" on your CV, and you won't get that.