Discretionary vs Systematic - Quant Roles
Currently finishing my PhD in STEM and am looking to join the hedge fund industry as a quant. I currently have two offers for London; one from a top macro fund (e.g. Brevan Howard/Rokos) and the other from a well-known US systematic fund (e.g. 2Sigma/Cubist). While I prefer joining the macro fund (more interesting work, good fit during interviews, growth) I am a bit worried as I would be joining as a quant on a “quantitative” discretionary team.
Would anyone here have some thoughts on this problem? Would it make more sense to start at the systematic firm? My main concern is long term growth and future opportunities inside the industry.
Note: both offer solid compensation packages (although the the systematic one is a bit higher).
If ever there was a time for me to shine on this blasted website. I'll give you a second to prep for my rant :).
1) Systematic. This is really dependent on the shop. Some are silo-ed and some are more collaborative; depends on what you want. There will be more support in the form of better tech, guidance/development from senior quants, most likely a better culture fit, and most importantly: better career growth because you are the main business and quants run the show in unlocking uncorrelated alpha for LPs. Higher compensation as well.
Way less stress and pressure since either your senior quant PM knows how to handle that or the firm is very well run so that you don't need worry about that. Exit strategies are tech, other quant funds, etc.
2) Discretionary: you'll have to elaborate on what a quantitative discretionary team means, but I reckon it's flipingp a biased coin where the odds are that you hate it more than you like it. First off, chances are that the discretionary PM doesn't know anything about quant. Either they are making you do dashboards, be their tech support (because discretionary firms have shit tech, so you'll be doing everything from cloud to databases to scrapping to market data vendor management, fighting with IT, etc), or even make it so that you come up with data to support their arguments, (decision driven data rather than data driven decisions). I don't think you'll be the main business (hence lower compensation compared to a quant fund), won't be as analytical as a systematic firm and I doubt there's much career growth other than perhaps making TA/subPM, which will be hard regardless.
I notice you are a fresh phd grad. I think it's because new grads come cheap in upgrading from excel to python and I doubt they would bring in a senior guy from a quant fund in. Those are my assumptions, but I acknowledge that things can be very different.
Without knowing more about your situation, I'd say systematic over discretionary. I suppose you can try the discretionary firm, but if you don't like it, then there is a very short time window which you can transition to a systematic firm, but the systematic firms you turn down now probably won't extend you an offer again FYI.
Happy to chat more over DMs.
Thanks for the response! Lots of interesting points although it makes the decision harder now :)
I am (2) here. For the love of God, choose (1).
Been there and it became an excruciating experience.
How long have you been at your shop? Have you tried looking or you reckon you don't have the experience needed to pass an interview?
Comment above is spot on, will add a bit myself.
What's the role? If its QR explicity for Brevan then that might actually be a really good bet. The quantamental stuff they have going on there I hear is very interesting. If its general quant analyst then almost certainly it will be absolutely random what you do - will probably do a bunch of different crap, and if under a pure discretionary PM, probably not even much alpha research.
If its 2Sig make sure it is a QR role - I wasn't aware they had anything but SWEs in London perhaps that's changed.
My personal preference (I'm fairly risk seeking and think pods are best way to learn when young) if all are QR positions would be:
Cubist > Brevan > 2Sig > Rokos
Thanks for the response! Not sure I'm as risk seeking (have a hard time gauging past pod performance) but will this take into account.
Reviving an old thread here, but interested in why cubist at the top, and also on the 'quantamental' stuff at Brevan? Any new thoughts here? Is quantamental a growing area, and who is doing it?
Ipsam aut modi nostrum sequi. Delectus qui eaque ab qui. Molestiae ea beatae sapiente laborum omnis nobis autem. Dolorem perspiciatis eos odit odio dolores qui voluptate. Et delectus ut consequuntur itaque. Odit est vitae molestias itaque dolores. Aliquam adipisci voluptatem velit nihil.
Et culpa molestiae itaque accusamus esse quo. Nostrum odio corrupti autem. Et consequatur nesciunt dolorem suscipit nulla eligendi aut. Et tenetur qui excepturi quia voluptates beatae optio.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...