Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#121
Report 4 years ago
#121
(Original post by gr8wizard10)
you an undergrad?

Quant positions are for PhD students, these guys are smart af.. not undergrad smart but really ****in smart to the extent i can hands down say will never be able to compete in my entire life.
Not entirely true. I got to the final round of Quant-Strat recruitment as an undergrad (and for a Quant role where you'd typically need a PhD). Realistically, you'd need a PhD, but there is quite a bit of variance of roles under the term 'Quant' - some are more accessible as an undergraduate than others.
0
reply
iPixelBlue
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#122
Report 4 years ago
#122
(Original post by gr8wizard10)
you an undergrad?

Quant positions are for PhD students, these guys are smart af.. not undergrad smart but really ****in smart to the extent i can hands down say will never be able to compete in my entire life, coming from a guy who has been made an offer for a summer in a strat derivatives structuring type fo role.
I have an offer for MSci Maths at Imperial (A*A*A, with one A* already achieved). If that isn't enough i will probably do a 3-year Pure Maths Phd after that to maximise my chances (the Phd again at Imperial), or Oxford's modelling MSc which has an equally good rep for sending ppl into quant. (I'd rather do pure maths at Imperial than Oxford because Imperial's pure maths department is insanely good haha, while oxford is better for applied maths).

I will definitely consider strating too, since most people say that's more interesting as it is half trading-half quant, and pays slightly better
0
reply
samba
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#123
Report 4 years ago
#123
(Original post by Noble.)
Not entirely true. I got to the final round of Quant-Strat recruitment as an undergrad (and for a Quant role where you'd typically need a PhD). Realistically, you'd need a PhD, but there is quite a bit of variance of roles under the term 'Quant' - some are more accessible as an undergraduate than others.
I've found as a general rule, that the better the firm, the less rigid the requirements. Then again, the better the firm, the more chance you have of screwing up one of the interviews.
0
reply
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#124
Report 4 years ago
#124
(Original post by iPixelBlue)
I have an offer for MSci Maths at Imperial (A*A*A, with one A* already achieved). If that isn't enough i will probably do a 3-year Pure Maths Phd after that to maximise my chances (the Phd again at Imperial), or Oxford's modelling MSc which has an equally good rep for sending ppl into quant. (I'd rather do pure maths at Imperial than Oxford because Imperial's pure maths department is insanely good haha, while oxford is better for applied maths).

I will definitely consider strating too, since most people say that's more interesting as it is half trading-half quant, and pays slightly better
It's way too early for you to be thinking about doing a PhD (never mine one in pure maths, at a top university). Pretty much everyone I know who was considering doing a PhD in first/second year is no longer considering it. Not to mention doing a PhD to try and help yourself get into a Quant role is quite silly.
0
reply
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#125
Report 4 years ago
#125
(Original post by samba)
I've found as a general rule, that the better the firm, the less rigid the requirements. Then again, the better the firm, the more chance you have of screwing up one of the interviews.
Haha, interestingly my series of interviews went really well with general problem solving/non-finance maths questions until the head of all the Strats started testing my (superficial) knowledge of Brownian motion.
0
reply
iPixelBlue
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#126
Report 4 years ago
#126
(Original post by Noble.)
It's way too early for you to be thinking about doing a PhD (never mine one in pure maths, at a top university). Pretty much everyone I know who was considering doing a PhD in first/second year is no longer considering it. Not to mention doing a PhD to try and help yourself get into a Quant role is quite silly.
Then why is everyone telling me stuff like 'you need a PHd, preferably one from Cambridge, Imperial, Oxford, Warwick in that order' to get into quant, or you won't get in? Literally more than 10 people have told me this now who have all got senior roles at the top banks (not just on tsr haha)
0
reply
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#127
Report 4 years ago
#127
(Original post by iPixelBlue)
Then why is everyone telling me 'you need a PHd, preferably one from Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, Warwick in that order' to get into quant, or you won't get in? Literally more than 10 people have told me this now who have all got senior roles at the top banks (not just on tsr haha)

apologies if my q are dumb, i'm new to this whole IB thing, but i know what i want
I don't disagree that to stand a good chance you need a PhD. I'm saying that people who want to do PhDs to boost employment prospects in one job are pretty silly.

In regards to a PhD in pure maths, it's much more difficult to do than one in applied maths because there's significantly less funding, so it's more competitive and the pure areas tend to attract the more talented mathematicians. For some pure areas at Oxford you need ~80%+ in an undergrad degree from Oxford/Cambridge to have a competitive application. Before university, very few people have studied proper pure maths in a formal setting and, in fact, pure maths does change quite a bit over the years of the course - you simply cannot be making an informed decision in wanting to pursue a pure PhD at this point.

Out of interest, why are you so convinced you want to be a Quant?
0
reply
Anonynmous
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#128
Report 4 years ago
#128
(Original post by Noble.)
x
I personally don't get the appeal of being a Quant.

Granted, there's loads of maths and fun programming involved but other than that, why is it more appealing than say a trading position?

Traders do have more upside compensation wise and arguably easier to get in than a Quant position.
0
reply
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#129
Report 4 years ago
#129
(Original post by Anonynmous)
I personally don't get the appeal of being a Quant.

Granted, there's loads of maths and fun programming involved but other than that, why is it more appealing than say a trading position?

Traders do have more upside compensation wise and arguably easier to get in than a Quant position.
If you're a PhD student working in probability, stochastic calculus/SDEs, something very heavily slanted towards simulations/modelling then I can see many reason why an individual in that situation would rather become a Quant as opposed to go into trading (it's relevant to the work they're already doing, if they're really enjoying the research aspects of their PhD the good Quant jobs tend to have an element of research and more freedom to be intellectually curious). Also, I would argue that people who do PhDs tend to be less 'concerned' about their salary and so probably aren't that fussed than they'd earn less than traders. Desk Strats, in particular, is quite appealing because you eventually assume a role that's on a sliding scale from 'Desk Quant' to 'Trader' - it's a varied job and not one you'll instantly find yourself out of if it turns out you're crap at trading. Also, they tend to work nicer hours (that's true for Quants in general, probably much less true for Strats).

That said, I find it odd when people who aren't even in university yet want to be a Quant (at least in part stemming from the fact no-one pre-university knows if they're PhD material). I suspect a lot of people completely disassociate quanting/trading, neglect to realise that there's a huge variance in the complexity, and how quant, different trading desks can be. If people are under the impression every trading role is at the same quantitative level as a cash equities (or fx spot) desk, then I can see why people would completely skim over trading, but of course you have things like credit/rates exotics desks (and plenty others) which are highly quantitative and full of maths/physics/engineer grads.
1
reply
Anonynmous
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#130
Report 4 years ago
#130
(Original post by Noble.)
If you're a PhD student working in probability, stochastic calculus/SDEs, something very heavily slanted towards simulations/modelling then I can see many reason why an individual in that situation would rather become a Quant as opposed to go into trading (it's relevant to the work they're already doing, if they're really enjoying the research aspects of their PhD the good Quant jobs tend to have an element of research and more freedom to be intellectually curious). Also, I would argue that people who do PhDs tend to be less 'concerned' about their salary and so probably aren't that fussed than they'd earn less than traders. Desk Strats, in particular, is quite appealing because you eventually assume a role that's on a sliding scale from 'Desk Quant' to 'Trader' - it's a varied job and not one you'll instantly find yourself out of if it turns out you're crap at trading. Also, they tend to work nicer hours (that's true for Quants in general, probably much less true for Strats).

That said, I find it odd when people who aren't even in university yet want to be a Quant (at least in part stemming from the fact no-one pre-university knows if they're PhD material). I suspect a lot of people completely disassociate quanting/trading, neglect to realise that there's a huge variance in the complexity, and how quant, different trading desks can be. If people are under the impression every trading role is at the same quantitative level as a cash equities (or fx spot) desk, then I can see why people would completely skim over trading, but of course you have things like credit/rates exotics desks (and plenty others) which are highly quantitative and full of maths/physics/engineer grads.
Thanks for clearing that up m8
0
reply
Uchiha_
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#131
Report 4 years ago
#131
(Original post by Noble.)
If you're a PhD student working in probability, stochastic calculus/SDEs, something very heavily slanted towards simulations/modelling then I can see many reason why an individual in that situation would rather become a Quant as opposed to go into trading (it's relevant to the work they're already doing, if they're really enjoying the research aspects of their PhD the good Quant jobs tend to have an element of research and more freedom to be intellectually curious). Also, I would argue that people who do PhDs tend to be less 'concerned' about their salary and so probably aren't that fussed than they'd earn less than traders. Desk Strats, in particular, is quite appealing because you eventually assume a role that's on a sliding scale from 'Desk Quant' to 'Trader' - it's a varied job and not one you'll instantly find yourself out of if it turns out you're crap at trading. Also, they tend to work nicer hours (that's true for Quants in general, probably much less true for Strats).

That said, I find it odd when people who aren't even in university yet want to be a Quant (at least in part stemming from the fact no-one pre-university knows if they're PhD material). I suspect a lot of people completely disassociate quanting/trading, neglect to realise that there's a huge variance in the complexity, and how quant, different trading desks can be. If people are under the impression every trading role is at the same quantitative level as a cash equities (or fx spot) desk, then I can see why people would completely skim over trading, but of course you have things like credit/rates exotics desks (and plenty others) which are highly quantitative and full of maths/physics/engineer grads.
What the pay be for someone working in a Quant Fund/Hedge Fund as a trader and for someone working on the Trading desk at a IB at different levels

ie Math Undergrad (MMath/Msci) and PhD in Mathematical Finance?
0
reply
Econight
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#132
Report 4 years ago
#132
(Original post by Uchiha_)
What the pay be for someone working in a Quant Fund/Hedge Fund as a trader and for someone working on the Trading desk at a IB at different levels

ie Math Undergrad (MMath/Msci) and PhD in Mathematical Finance?
Maybe a bit more at analyst level but once you get more experience it will be much higher at a quant fund due to the nature of the fees they collect and the reduction of prop trading at banks; but at a quant fund you will be building models that take advantage of statistical anomalies and looking at pricing action and will be all executed by computers. Google BlueTrend and read up about Leda Braga for starting knowledge.
0
reply
Brubeckian
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#133
Report 4 years ago
#133
What are the advantages of working as a trader for an investment bank as opposed to trading by yourself (with your own trading account)?
0
reply
fuuji
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#134
Report 4 years ago
#134
(Original post by Brubeckian)
What are the advantages of working as a trader for an investment bank as opposed to trading by yourself (with your own trading account)?
Well you get paid?
0
reply
gr8wizard10
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#135
Report 4 years ago
#135
(Original post by Brubeckian)
What are the advantages of working as a trader for an investment bank as opposed to trading by yourself (with your own trading account)?
lol, salary. do you have millions of pounds lying around to trade?

besides banks aren't allowed to take proprietry positions anymore, well.. it's called 'hedging' now.
0
reply
fuuji
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#136
Report 4 years ago
#136
(Original post by Uchiha_)
What the pay be for someone working in a Quant Fund/Hedge Fund as a trader and for someone working on the Trading desk at a IB at different levels

ie Math Undergrad (MMath/Msci) and PhD in Mathematical Finance?
Pretty much what Econight said. Whilst I'm not a hedgefund trader I'm an analyst, which I think is a better job personally, my comp is not that much higher then it was in IBD, which is similar to that of trading. I presume it will rise faster.
0
reply
vela1
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#137
Report 4 years ago
#137
(Original post by fuuji)
Pretty much what Econight said. Whilst I'm not a hedgefund trader I'm an analyst, which I think is a better job personally, my comp is not that much higher then it was in IBD, which is similar to that of trading. I presume it will rise faster.
What do you do as a financial analyst? Banking n00b here.
0
reply
Commercial Paper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#138
Report 4 years ago
#138
(Original post by vela1)
What do you do as a financial analyst? Banking n00b here.
Financial Analyst can literally refer to hundreds of different roles, it needs more context. Analyst in what division?

In general terms, with exceptions to certain roles such as Research, HFs etc. Analyst is the lowest rank (i.e. a graduate role).

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
gr8wizard10
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#139
Report 4 years ago
#139
(Original post by vela1)
What do you do as a financial analyst? Banking n00b here.
analyse financial stuff
1
reply
fuuji
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#140
Report 4 years ago
#140
(Original post by vela1)
What do you do as a financial analyst? Banking n00b here.
I research equities, build models and then write bull/sell recommendations on them. Portfolio manager will decide how to change the portfolio based on the report and then traders will execute on those decisions. I'm a hedgefund analyst, analysts in other parts of finance are going to do completely different stuff.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (142)
17.95%
It's just nice to be back! (213)
26.93%
Not great so far... (283)
35.78%
I want to drop out! (153)
19.34%

Watched Threads

View All