4 ms·

Only few people in finance really "make it" - and it mostly consists of portfolio managers (quantitative or else). "Superstar economy" analogy discussed in this

by kozikow 10y ago

Only few people in finance really "make it" - and it mostly consists of portfolio managers (quantitative or else). "Superstar economy" analogy discussed in this thread have very strong effect in finance. Luck is also a huge factor. I know cases of International Olympiad gold Medalists, who didn't make it as portfolio managers. Do you really think you are smarter? If you are mathematically inclined software engineer, I would avoid finance unless you are immediately hired into the quantitative role in the front office. In Silicon Valley you will get similar or better salary, more freedom, more respect and better culture. I worked on the both sides.

yodsanklai 10y ago
> To even get considered for the good quant position you need a good phd in applied mathematics or statistics. Are you sure about that? again, it's only anecdotal but I know at least 3 quants that didn't do a PhD (just a MS from reputable schools), including one that worked at GS as a new graduate. But there may very well be the exceptions.
- kozikow 10y ago
  I was editing the post while you replied. I realised that my post wasn't conveying any useful point. In general, when many people hear Quant they think about quantitative portfolio manager - this is what I was talking about and where the "money" is at. It seems that IBs tend to use "quant" nowadays for a role that is very similar to Silicon Valley "data scientist".
ethan_g 10y ago
If you define "really make it" as making millions every year, yes that's rare. But if it's making 300k+ per year, there are multitudes of math-types doing that, and not much luck is involved.
- kozikow 10y ago
  > But if it's making 300k+ per year In Silicon Valley it's not uncommon to see new grads (not even PhD) getting 200K total first year compensation. I was comparing quantitative finance vs silicon valley as a career for mathematically inclined software engineers. You won't end up poor either way.

by kozikow 10y ago

yodsanklai 10y ago

> To even get considered for the good quant position you need a good phd in applied mathematics or statistics. Are you sure about that? again, it's only anecdotal but I know at least 3 quants that didn't do a PhD (just a MS from reputable schools), including one that worked at GS as a new graduate. But there may very well be the exceptions.

kozikow 10y ago
I was editing the post while you replied. I realised that my post wasn't conveying any useful point. In general, when many people hear Quant they think about quantitative portfolio manager - this is what I was talking about and where the "money" is at. It seems that IBs tend to use "quant" nowadays for a role that is very similar to Silicon Valley "data scientist".

ethan_g 10y ago

If you define "really make it" as making millions every year, yes that's rare. But if it's making 300k+ per year, there are multitudes of math-types doing that, and not much luck is involved.

kozikow 10y ago
> But if it's making 300k+ per year In Silicon Valley it's not uncommon to see new grads (not even PhD) getting 200K total first year compensation. I was comparing quantitative finance vs silicon valley as a career for mathematically inclined software engineers. You won't end up poor either way.