3 ms·

> The industrialized countries are already so poor that the birth rates are so low they are rapidly going extinct. Country wealth and birth rates are not posit

> The industrialized countries are already so poor that the birth rates are so low they are rapidly going extinct. Country wealth and birth rates are not positively correlated, and due to immigration, countries can have positive population growth even as their birth rate is below replacement. > For Wall Street, I still have the letter back from Fisher Black at Goldman Sachs saying that he saw no opportunities for optimization on Wall Street. I sent lots of resume copies, went on a few interviews, had not yet heard of James Simons, and got nothing. To conclude from this, despite everything that has happened in the interim, that math is unemployable is an, uhm, mistake. As I recall, President Obama was lamenting the brain drain to Wall Street speaking precisely of the number of math PhDs lured there from more fruitful pursuits. Not to mention, as I recall there is an equation bearing Mr. Black's name, the accurate/efficient solution of which has had some importance in finance.

graycat 8y ago
The industrialized countries are poor in a special, curious sense: The people are so eager to get financial security that motherhood is neglected. Or, when wives have to go to work for financial security, the country is still poor. In a sense, living in some of the tropical countries is better if only because can get by without heating oil in the winter or an expensive car. Yes, Black-Scholes etc. have been important, were for a while via "covered call options", or as in the E. Thorpe, Beat the Street -- essentially the same as what Black-Scholes did the math for with a Brownian motion assumption, etc. I got an interview at Morgan-Stanley, gave a little lecture on my recent work in anomaly detection, indicated that I wanted to work in developing applied math, algorithms, and software for automated trading, but was ignored. They just wanted people to hack code for back office record keeping. The money making was elsewhere in the company and was based on more traditional ideas, e.g., investment banking. For automated trading, listen to a James Simons remark: Someone walks in and is just convinced that they should short GM and go long the German Mark or some such. Well, that's more traditional stock picking or hedge fund portfolio management, and Simons made clear that his group, no way, would ever do such a thing. Instead, each buy/sell decision was from some data, ideas, analysis, and software already thoroughly tested; when that software said buy/sell, there wasn't much doubt. Well, that's what Simons did. Don't expect many other people on Wall Street ever to have done such a thing -- it's a lot easier to have a gut feel to short GM and go long the Mark. Lawyers have learned: A working lawyer reports only to another lawyer. Well, math guys need such a rule, but outside of academics and some national security shops, there are nearly no math guys to report to. So, my desire to do applied math, software, etc. for automated trading was just ignored. Once I was invited to lunch in lower Manhattan for a guy claiming to be recruiting for Goldman-Sachs .... There just is no respect for a mathematician on Wall Street, no matter what Obama said. Other than James Simons, not clear that math made much money for anyone on Wall Street.
- tanderson92 8y ago
  I understand your critique much better (and agree more), thanks for clarifying.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

graycat 8y ago

The industrialized countries are poor in a special, curious sense: The people are so eager to get financial security that motherhood is neglected. Or, when wives have to go to work for financial security, the country is still poor. In a sense, living in some of the tropical countries is better if only because can get by without heating oil in the winter or an expensive car. Yes, Black-Scholes etc. have been important, were for a while via "covered call options", or as in the E. Thorpe, Beat the Street -- essentially the same as what Black-Scholes did the math for with a Brownian motion assumption, etc. I got an interview at Morgan-Stanley, gave a little lecture on my recent work in anomaly detection, indicated that I wanted to work in developing applied math, algorithms, and software for automated trading, but was ignored. They just wanted people to hack code for back office record keeping. The money making was elsewhere in the company and was based on more traditional ideas, e.g., investment banking. For automated trading, listen to a James Simons remark: Someone walks in and is just convinced that they should short GM and go long the German Mark or some such. Well, that's more traditional stock picking or hedge fund portfolio management, and Simons made clear that his group, no way, would ever do such a thing. Instead, each buy/sell decision was from some data, ideas, analysis, and software already thoroughly tested; when that software said buy/sell, there wasn't much doubt. Well, that's what Simons did. Don't expect many other people on Wall Street ever to have done such a thing -- it's a lot easier to have a gut feel to short GM and go long the Mark. Lawyers have learned: A working lawyer reports only to another lawyer. Well, math guys need such a rule, but outside of academics and some national security shops, there are nearly no math guys to report to. So, my desire to do applied math, software, etc. for automated trading was just ignored. Once I was invited to lunch in lower Manhattan for a guy claiming to be recruiting for Goldman-Sachs .... There just is no respect for a mathematician on Wall Street, no matter what Obama said. Other than James Simons, not clear that math made much money for anyone on Wall Street.

tanderson92 8y ago
I understand your critique much better (and agree more), thanks for clarifying.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]