• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Long term career trajectories of quants

Joined
8/18/17
Messages
1
Points
11
Every year a place like Goldman Sachs hires dozens of new strategists (quants) and the same can be said about many other firms. Some of those quants become managing directors and are set for life. But what is a typical career trajectory for a quant like? Does it depend on whether a person has a PhD or not? Even as a VP in NYC you do not really become a high net worth individual, even though you can probably afford a decent life there, so I am curious what happens to most of these people that enter the industry but are not quite in the top 1% that earns the big bucks.
 
Same thing as happens to research analyst. Same thing as happens to lawyers. Same thing as anyone working at a big bank...

A pretty senior MD once told me:

"Everyone makes VP. Excellent employees make ED. Only exceptional employees make MD."

Be exceptional and you won't have a problem.
 
Same thing as happens to research analyst. Same thing as happens to lawyers. Same thing as anyone working at a big bank...

A pretty senior MD once told me:

"Everyone makes VP. Excellent employees make ED. Only exceptional employees make MD."

Be exceptional and you won't have a problem.

Keyword is employee. Keep that in mind.
 
Keep in mind that long-term success as a quant is probably more weakly correlated to pure technical competence than you might be assuming it is. The most successful quants I know haven't solved a pde or run a regression for years. They succeed by communicating effectively and by managing people and process.

Agreed. From my experience, I also haven't seen any correlation between long term success and technical competence. Navigating internal politics is the top skill required to evolve your career in most large corporations. In addition it's now more difficult for banks to attract talent for quant roles as there is more competition: the best candidates seem to prefer to join startups and tech companies where the projects and working environment are probably more attractive.
 
Some of those quants become managing directors and are set for life. But what is a typical career trajectory for a quant like?
As you move on strategy, management skills and looking after team costs grow in importance, particularly when you run teams or become MD.

And even after your first promotion it move away from technical skills. Your boss will expect you to be a go to person for help for juniors - thing is you will be expected to do this quickly and efficiently, so you will have to be good at controlling people and quickly getting to the heart of their problem. Some AVP quants often go around in circles and never ask questions 'what exactly are you trying here?' which would cut out a lot of faffing about.

I think it's very important to understand your purpose from a costs/P&L basis. This changes over time - initially you're a technical person, but as you get more senior it becomes more about strategy and, maybe, being the go to person. The best senior quants I've known probably hadn't actually run code or math in years, but can offer guidance on projects. You don't have to be technically speaking the best, just to have been there and able to communicate.

The most common mistake people make in technical careers, not just quants, is to get too good at technical processes. This approach works fine in the junior ranks, but there comes a point where it gives diminishing returns. Also it comes across badly and when it comes to management roles I've seen people not get into management because they are perceived to be "too intellectual", or in one case was fired from a management role for that reason. I've put the word perceived in italics because in my experience it's not enough to have communication or client facing skills - you have to ensure the way you talk and behave around senior people doesn't trigger prejudices (e.g. using technical words when talking about marketing/business matters etc).
 
Last edited:
Does it depend on whether a person has a PhD or not?

Getting into your first quant finance role might be harder with an MFE or MSc, but once you prove yourself it becomes about politics, communication etc. Look at it this way - if after 5 years you're up for a role managing a quant team your competence on the job in those 5 years will matter more than any PhD you did or didn't do.

The reason many companies hire PhDs tends be down to a few things e.g. a PhD can work on industry projects and their experience of a PhD is much more practical. There is also a perception when (as happens every 3-7 years) industries shift if you tell a PhD something like "you've got to re-tool and switch specialism to be marketable" they relish the challenge, while an MSc falls apart and starts counting their savings etc.

The word perception is important as if you are an MSc that could have done a great PhD, you should be able to convince someone to hire you as a quant.

I think the problem is that most math undergrads think doing a PhD would have been undergrad 2.0 where they'll be fine. They're used to having failed a maximum of 2/3 exams in their whole life but it's a complete culture change + your job is to expand knowledge, not pass a glorified memory test (face it, even in math tests that throw in problem solving that's the bulk of what they are).

If you have a job in mind already A) make sure you have better reasons (plural) to do a PhD than "getting a job" and that they are realistic (a lot of undergrads have a naive view of PhDs and professors' lives) and B) if any aspects of the PhD make you shudder then don't do it, whether it be the environment or the prospect of being in a situation few people outside of your research group understand.

It can be stressful, particularly if family and friends have some skewed views on PhDs and/or have some brain disease where they cannot acknowledge that you know what your degree is useful for (and that they actually don't understand it one iota). I've been graduated 13 years and worked in 2 industries USING my degree yet my family STILL think I don't know that a maths degree is useful in industry (not one word of a joke) and have never once considered that I got into quant finance BECAUSE I understood what the degree is useful for. The scary thing is that it's such a norm (norm-ish as some families aren't so stupid) - I'm glad I did an MSc as it only meant 1 year of that BS ringing in my ears, not 5 - think about it.
 
Last edited:
Take this with a pinch of salt as I have no experience as a quant, I would say actually speak to a few quants before trying to become one.

I've accepted a role as a statistical modeller at a major international firm to start when my MSc ends. I decided against becoming a quant after meeting a few people in mathematical careers through a senior quant my family knows.

I think you'll get the politics the mentioned in this thread in any career and good communication skills are a must, but I just got a nagging feeling from meeting these people that many get chewed out of quant finance, even if they have done very well. My dad's friend hasn't had it happen but he seems to be an exception, not the rule. It seems that if there is a change in strategy to not invest in the derivatives products you price/model/do IT for/etc and you're done for, while in other industries you would do projects in different domains and technologies and diversify so that when donwturns happen you're ok.

I wouldn't advise either for or against trying to be a quant. I'd just say look at it properly first. One thing I notice is people trying to be a quant that have only looked at salary levels before ever looking at Black Scholes, markets or anything quant related and seem to assume it's just a fun job coding all day long. I'm sure there are others that have more genuine interest and, who knows if I'll regret my decision later on if the industry I'm covering doesn't do well. Also, QF is a real career and if you start getting prima-donna-like about doing IT stuff or which models you use, you probably should look elsewhere - I suspect that's something that applies to my own choice of career as much as any.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top