11 ms·

I liked this article because the roll of the programmer on wall street has been going down recently from my perspective. Programmers used to work along side qu

I liked this article because the roll of the programmer on wall street has been going down recently from my perspective. Programmers used to work along side quants and were well respected. This was generally because practicing quants didn't used to be able to program. This was especially true in the 80s and 90's where programmers and quants where almost valued identically as one required the other to make things happen. Somewhere around mid 2000's most quants started to be able to program pretty well. Not necessarily with C++, though lots (especially former physics) could use C++, but certainly with mat-lab, etc. This really shrunk the required programmer head count, This, coupled with the fact that few programmers were trained in fields like stochastic calc, and the advent of offshoring meant that programming started to be come a lower status job around this time. Some relatively small fields like HFT kept good programmers in need, but these jobs are relatively few and far between compared to the sell side bank jobs. Now, programmers are much more valuable/respected once again, due to the requirement for top notch software, not even as a competitive advantage, but just table stakes to compete in the markets. And like most fields programming in finance has really started to specialize: - lockless programming, low level Linux, user mode network drivers, etc for HFT - distributed systems, low latency messaging for quote dissemination in large systems like what most sell side banks run. - real time risk limits, web UIs for helping to visualize and alert portfolio risk - "production" modeling of quantitative models, for those that can span the programming/math boundary

rhcom2 9y ago
Thanks for the detailed response. A lot of good stuff to Google.
smallnamespace 9y ago
> This, coupled with the fact that few programmers were trained in fields like stochastic calc, Anecdotally though, I've met plenty of coders who did this to themselves by refusing to learn more about the domain or the business. They basically silo'd themselves, then wondered why their colleagues didn't treat them as an integral part of the team when they couldn't speak the language or understand the concerns. Taught myself enough stochastic calc to change and validate pricing models while on the job. Coders who understand their domain well are immensely valuable, and are easily worth at least 3x, because they don't over- or under-engineer a solution, and because they can conjure up with technological solutions for problems that nobody else in the company can even conceive of.
- codebolt 9y ago
  > Coders who understand their domain well are immensely valuable, and are easily worth at least 3x, because they don't over- or under-engineer a solution, and because they can conjure up with technological solutions for problems that nobody else in the company can even conceive of. This is a crucial point to me. Being able to code is good, but being able to code well while also having an intermediate or expert understanding of the domain that you are working within is what is going to set you apart in the long run. In the industry, developing software can usually be seen as the process of creating a tool that will help to better solve a problem. It seems strange to me that you would want someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of the nature of the problem (or the solution) to be designing and building the tool, just because they claim to be good tool-makers.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    > It seems strange to me that you would want someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of the nature of the problem (or the solution) to be designing and building the tool, just because they claim to be good tool-makers. I couldn't agree more and this is my main objection to "AI will replace [insert any job here]". A lot of problems are inaccessible to programmers just because not enough of them seem to be willing to understand them. Complex rules about accounting in large companies seems to be one of them for example. This is why I think AI will certainly overtake many professions but mostly professions that are required on a large scale and that are easy to understand: driving, cleaning a house, building a house, ironing, cooking, assembling objects, etc. For complex accounting or legal issues, I am a lot more skeptical. You don't need complex AI to run accounting systems, they can easily be done with regular software. However in large companies you still have huge accounting departments booking and maintaining these complex logics by hand (excel), a lot could be automated now. And the same reason why they haven't been automated in C# now will apply to AI in the future.
    - scrumper 9y ago
      Re your AI thesis, I think it’s the exact opposite. Deterministic, rule-based processing applied to lots of similar data are perfect for AI-fication. It’s all in the computer, and you can kick out to a human-driven exception process when required. All that physical, real-world stuff you mentioned (cleaning, cooking etc) is vastly more complicated, riddled with experience-driven subjective judgements (is this paper on the floor trash or should I put it back on the desk?) and highly situational. Extremely difficult to generalize and handle with an AI. Not to forget it’s messy stuff in the real world, with engineering and hardware and grease and failures.
newman8r 9y ago
Additionally, financial institutions are getting geared up for major participation in the cryptocurrency markets. Will be interesting to see how that changes the landscape.
otakucode 9y ago
Has offshoring ever been a significant factor in this arena? Given the profoundly proprietary nature of the systems being built, I would think that unlikely. Offshoring development is a good way to find your custom software reskinned and sold to a competitor without much legal recourse. Also, is 'mainstream' programming that common of a need? I had read (here on a HN comment thread) awhile ago that many organizations use commercial languages that simply aren't available outside of the financial services sector (I forget the name, it was 1 or 2 letters... KQ or something like that, an array programming language whose code looks like APL). I wondered how people broke into such a market. It's always seemed like an environment with interesting challenges which would have pretty objective goals and practices out of need.
- tomrod 9y ago
  Huh. I see C++, Java, and Python as the go-to languages with my wall-street programming and modeling acquaintances. Very little esoterica.
  - stochastic_monk 9y ago
    Jane Street's famous for its obsession with OCaml.
    - sulam 9y ago
      Honestly, OCaml is hardly esoteric. It's not a major language, but it's not a specialty language either. I'd put it in the same category as Elm, Erlang, or even something like Julia. Scala takes a ton of inspiration from OCaml, to the point where you pretty much feel like you know one if you know the other (at least speaking for myself that's been true).
- bm212 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language)
- praulv 9y ago
colordrops 9y ago
I apologize for the off the wall comment. Every time I read about wall street programming, I've got this subliminal voice in the back of my head wondering how anyone could find the motivation to do this work. I'm obviously revealing my biases against the financial industry here. Also, I'm unable to make myself do work if I don't see it contributing to some greater vision or cause. Are there people out there who love finance and learn these types of specializations on the job, or are they hired away from other industries lured by big comp packages? I guess it's just a case of lack of empathy on my part. I just can't understand why anyone would want to put so much effort and skill into making bots for farming money for a bunch of questionable people. I don't feel too guilty for saying this. Every time a story about bitcoin is posted to HN, people go off topic and start complaining about everything that is wrong with bitcoin. I don't see the same when we talk about finance in general, even though similar sentiments apply, maybe more so.
- tomrod 9y ago
  Cash motivates plenty of people, as does the joy in solving a problem. Whether the value of that solution to society's benefit is positive or negative does not always factor into a solution architect's moral calculus. This is how I explain your observed point to myself when I see folks stoked to work for $largetechco or $adtechco.
  - v64 9y ago
    > as does the joy in solving a problem This is it for me. Futures trading is a zero sum game (negative sum if you factor in fees), so writing a program to automatically extract value from an ever changing market is a nontrivial and ongoing project. But unlike a game, getting good at it can pay the bills in a real way. I understand that in the big picture long term, I'm not making much of a mark on society, but nevertheless it satisfies my personal and financial needs.
    - Chyzwar 9y ago
      Markets are not zero-sum game it is a common misconception. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-stock-market-is-not-a-zero-sum-game-2013-4?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/the-stock-market-is-not-a-zer...
webkike 9y ago
I can program way better on average than a quant, but what does that matter to a quant
alexcnwy 9y ago
To be fair, quant vs. programmer is a false dichotomy since most quants did degrees like mathematical finance, actuarial science, etc. where computer science and numerical programming courses are part of their degrees.
- jabretti 9y ago
  Depends where you go. Some firms have a very bright line between "quants" and "programmers", and you don't want to wind up on the "programmer" side of it.
  - throwaway_hft 9y ago
    Agree 100%. First firm where I worked the programmers were treated like monkeys, and the traders, some of whom weren't even that bright at the time, were almost godlike. Some other person wrote on here about traders being angry assholes. That firm had a ton of angry asshole traders because they'd push and push and push on deadlines, didn't understand the system at all, got hacked up buggy code, never invested in unit or system tests. It was an absolute disaster. Little anecdote: First year I was out with a more senior trader on my team over drinks. He was talking about the glory days of 08 where every single trader earned a million dollar bonus or more. I asked about the one infrastructure developer who came up with a system to use multicast to simultaneously publish our EuroStoxx signal to DAX along with a dozen other instruments. Nothing earth shattering in 2017, but it quadrupled our P&L and market share at the time. He got 10 grand.

rhcom2 9y ago

Thanks for the detailed response. A lot of good stuff to Google.

smallnamespace 9y ago

> This, coupled with the fact that few programmers were trained in fields like stochastic calc, Anecdotally though, I've met plenty of coders who did this to themselves by refusing to learn more about the domain or the business. They basically silo'd themselves, then wondered why their colleagues didn't treat them as an integral part of the team when they couldn't speak the language or understand the concerns. Taught myself enough stochastic calc to change and validate pricing models while on the job. Coders who understand their domain well are immensely valuable, and are easily worth at least 3x, because they don't over- or under-engineer a solution, and because they can conjure up with technological solutions for problems that nobody else in the company can even conceive of.

codebolt 9y ago
> Coders who understand their domain well are immensely valuable, and are easily worth at least 3x, because they don't over- or under-engineer a solution, and because they can conjure up with technological solutions for problems that nobody else in the company can even conceive of. This is a crucial point to me. Being able to code is good, but being able to code well while also having an intermediate or expert understanding of the domain that you are working within is what is going to set you apart in the long run. In the industry, developing software can usually be seen as the process of creating a tool that will help to better solve a problem. It seems strange to me that you would want someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of the nature of the problem (or the solution) to be designing and building the tool, just because they claim to be good tool-makers.
- cm2187 9y ago
  > It seems strange to me that you would want someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of the nature of the problem (or the solution) to be designing and building the tool, just because they claim to be good tool-makers. I couldn't agree more and this is my main objection to "AI will replace [insert any job here]". A lot of problems are inaccessible to programmers just because not enough of them seem to be willing to understand them. Complex rules about accounting in large companies seems to be one of them for example. This is why I think AI will certainly overtake many professions but mostly professions that are required on a large scale and that are easy to understand: driving, cleaning a house, building a house, ironing, cooking, assembling objects, etc. For complex accounting or legal issues, I am a lot more skeptical. You don't need complex AI to run accounting systems, they can easily be done with regular software. However in large companies you still have huge accounting departments booking and maintaining these complex logics by hand (excel), a lot could be automated now. And the same reason why they haven't been automated in C# now will apply to AI in the future.
  - scrumper 9y ago
    Re your AI thesis, I think it’s the exact opposite. Deterministic, rule-based processing applied to lots of similar data are perfect for AI-fication. It’s all in the computer, and you can kick out to a human-driven exception process when required. All that physical, real-world stuff you mentioned (cleaning, cooking etc) is vastly more complicated, riddled with experience-driven subjective judgements (is this paper on the floor trash or should I put it back on the desk?) and highly situational. Extremely difficult to generalize and handle with an AI. Not to forget it’s messy stuff in the real world, with engineering and hardware and grease and failures.

newman8r 9y ago

Additionally, financial institutions are getting geared up for major participation in the cryptocurrency markets. Will be interesting to see how that changes the landscape.

otakucode 9y ago

Has offshoring ever been a significant factor in this arena? Given the profoundly proprietary nature of the systems being built, I would think that unlikely. Offshoring development is a good way to find your custom software reskinned and sold to a competitor without much legal recourse. Also, is 'mainstream' programming that common of a need? I had read (here on a HN comment thread) awhile ago that many organizations use commercial languages that simply aren't available outside of the financial services sector (I forget the name, it was 1 or 2 letters... KQ or something like that, an array programming language whose code looks like APL). I wondered how people broke into such a market. It's always seemed like an environment with interesting challenges which would have pretty objective goals and practices out of need.

tomrod 9y ago
Huh. I see C++, Java, and Python as the go-to languages with my wall-street programming and modeling acquaintances. Very little esoterica.
- stochastic_monk 9y ago
  Jane Street's famous for its obsession with OCaml.
  - sulam 9y ago
    Honestly, OCaml is hardly esoteric. It's not a major language, but it's not a specialty language either. I'd put it in the same category as Elm, Erlang, or even something like Julia. Scala takes a ton of inspiration from OCaml, to the point where you pretty much feel like you know one if you know the other (at least speaking for myself that's been true).
bm212 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language)
praulv 9y ago

colordrops 9y ago

I apologize for the off the wall comment. Every time I read about wall street programming, I've got this subliminal voice in the back of my head wondering how anyone could find the motivation to do this work. I'm obviously revealing my biases against the financial industry here. Also, I'm unable to make myself do work if I don't see it contributing to some greater vision or cause. Are there people out there who love finance and learn these types of specializations on the job, or are they hired away from other industries lured by big comp packages? I guess it's just a case of lack of empathy on my part. I just can't understand why anyone would want to put so much effort and skill into making bots for farming money for a bunch of questionable people. I don't feel too guilty for saying this. Every time a story about bitcoin is posted to HN, people go off topic and start complaining about everything that is wrong with bitcoin. I don't see the same when we talk about finance in general, even though similar sentiments apply, maybe more so.

tomrod 9y ago
Cash motivates plenty of people, as does the joy in solving a problem. Whether the value of that solution to society's benefit is positive or negative does not always factor into a solution architect's moral calculus. This is how I explain your observed point to myself when I see folks stoked to work for $largetechco or $adtechco.
- v64 9y ago
  > as does the joy in solving a problem This is it for me. Futures trading is a zero sum game (negative sum if you factor in fees), so writing a program to automatically extract value from an ever changing market is a nontrivial and ongoing project. But unlike a game, getting good at it can pay the bills in a real way. I understand that in the big picture long term, I'm not making much of a mark on society, but nevertheless it satisfies my personal and financial needs.
  - Chyzwar 9y ago
    Markets are not zero-sum game it is a common misconception. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-stock-market-is-not-a-zero-sum-game-2013-4?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/the-stock-market-is-not-a-zer...

webkike 9y ago

I can program way better on average than a quant, but what does that matter to a quant

alexcnwy 9y ago

To be fair, quant vs. programmer is a false dichotomy since most quants did degrees like mathematical finance, actuarial science, etc. where computer science and numerical programming courses are part of their degrees.

jabretti 9y ago
Depends where you go. Some firms have a very bright line between "quants" and "programmers", and you don't want to wind up on the "programmer" side of it.
- throwaway_hft 9y ago
  Agree 100%. First firm where I worked the programmers were treated like monkeys, and the traders, some of whom weren't even that bright at the time, were almost godlike. Some other person wrote on here about traders being angry assholes. That firm had a ton of angry asshole traders because they'd push and push and push on deadlines, didn't understand the system at all, got hacked up buggy code, never invested in unit or system tests. It was an absolute disaster. Little anecdote: First year I was out with a more senior trader on my team over drinks. He was talking about the glory days of 08 where every single trader earned a million dollar bonus or more. I asked about the one infrastructure developer who came up with a system to use multicast to simultaneously publish our EuroStoxx signal to DAX along with a dozen other instruments. Nothing earth shattering in 2017, but it quadrupled our P&L and market share at the time. He got 10 grand.