Too Old for Trading?

You could always start to trade your own capital.

I've thought about that Gekko. I had a good 2009 and 2010 and beat the index by a good margin but to be quite honest with myself that was just blind ass luck. I could not point to anything that I could call a real edge.

At the risk of sounding phony, I don't want to do it just for the money: I want to do it because this is something I want to be good at. Sitting at home, I don't think I will learn as much from Wilmott or Hull as I would from real traders. Making the right decision in the markets gives me the same rush as making a good move in chess or poker. There is nothing else in my life that I really look forward to getting up in the morning for.

Sounds like you have a good story. Now you need to quantify your performance in the markets and why you want to make the switch to really have a solid shot. There are a lot of heavy hitters in S&T. You need to come in with the personality and brains to make them trust you with their millions.

you don't need a phd to win at poker and read von mises (btw you lose your "scientist" credibility by admitting you read that). you need to find an edge. tell us what kind of empirical techniques you learned in your phd (of what?) and brainstorm how that can be relevant in finance. If you can't/won't do that then the PhD part of your profile is useless and you'd be picked after the 2001-version of yourself (which would be unfortunate, but not a deal-breaker). Now if you don't think your phd is relevant and you want read amateur economics and try to be some sort of long-term macro trader, that's fine. But your age is less forgivable then.

If Ludwig von Mises is "amateur economics" unworthy of a scientist then The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money must have been written in fucking crayon.

its unscientific because (1) it's too abstract and (2) it's against any empirical verification. That's my rote definition of unscientific. But even besides that it's also too ideologically/politically biased. If you want to be an economic philosopher and/or write political papers on classical liberalism than ludwig is your man, but if you want to aspire towards scientific/practical economics than its garbage.

.

Look far and wide for opportunities. Prop shops, physicals, banks, any place is good if the money isn't your foremost motivation. I have a buddy who's spent the past year in the treasury department of a major energy company. The people there make 100k-200k but risk management is pretty loose and they just mess around with fx and rates trades all day.

Also, read this: http://tinyurl.com/2usambe

Thanks to all for the input. Goodbread, I'm going to do your plan and see how much alpha I can generate in the coming year. If I don't blow up I am going to recruit hard next fall.

Seig: von Mises, Hazlitt, etc. are just for fun. I went to a saltwater Keynesian UG school so the Austrian stuff is like econ-porn to me.

It's Bondarb's plan just to give props where they're due. For my part, I'm planning on starting to trade eurodollar futures after some reading.

Apply to legit prop trading companies. Your background will certainly get you interviews. It's all up to you after that.

Second the DE Shaw suggestion...they love PhD/Science types

Let's see now, you've got a Ph.D., but can you do math? How many people are out of work? Just get a job.

"scientific/practical economics"

lmfao. you kids and your mathematical sophistry. economics is not a science buddy. humans make decisions with their emotions, markets are not efficient, there isn't perfect information, and your stupid little models simplify too much. it's all a house of cards

I'm aware of this most simple fact. That's why I wrote "aspire to scientific/practical economics".

Econometrics is flawed. Recursive Methods are flawed. Dynamic Stochastic Equilibrium models are flawed. By definition any model is a simplification and thus flawed. No economist would ever argue otherwise. But when it comes to practical economics- e.g. testing general theories with specific observations and building investment theories/forecasts, there is a need for economics to be presented in a way that it can be empirically measured. (1) Otherwise it's just not "practical"- you can't even attempt to develop consensus opinion even within a similar general theory. And (2) even with consensus, you can't declare meaningul policy (or investment) times and targets (which is fairly well avoided by the Austrians by simply promoting the pitfalls of any interventionist strategy). Honestly I can't think of a worse economics framework to base investment decisions. It's easy sans-maths nature doesn't make up for its flaws in practicality and implentation. Hell it's "we should" scenarios aren't even relevant to the policy decisions we have come to expect in the future.

You certainly can make the transition! I know of a number of people who have successfully transitioned into trading positions in their thirties. You just need someone to give you a chance to prove yourself. Doing an internship or going back to school are two options that could help you if it's difficult to get hired directly. But, I'm pretty sure prop shops like Jane Street Capital, who don't really care about age as much as mathematical mental prowess, will give you a shot at interviewing for a trader position.

You can try any reputed hedge fund like Renaissance Technology, DE Shaw, Two Sigmas, AQR etc. As a HPY PhD, you will certainly get interviews, but whether you can get in depends on how good your math is. I bet if you are as good as a International Mathematics Olympiad Gold Medal or a Math Assistant Professor level, they will certainly hire you. Doing a science PhD does not necessarily prove you can be good at what they are looking for.

But don't many students get in through MBA's with prior experiences in Non-Mathematics / Trading fields? (age around 30).