why isnt being a quant not a MORE popular career choice then things like ib
From what I'm seeing, it pays more at every level, even if you're comparing working at a small boutique shop compared to J.P. Morgan. Compared to IB that everyone wants to be, it has better WLB and the work pays more.
A couple of reasons I could see why is, it's basically like accounting vs. actuary, being a quant I would assume requires a more niche intense longer education. So in turn, way fewer people are qualified to be like an actuary/quant compared to a banker/accountant, especially here. Which I would think would lower the demand of people wanting the job. And while they both have horrible job security for the majority of the career, it seems that quant traders/researcher pay is more volatile?
So there could be people making 400-600k to millions later (way more than bankers) but also people making 200k for their career and getting laid off> correct me if I'm wrong on these answers. While because it's more niche like being an actuary there's way less relevant applicants than being a banker/accountant, making the competitiveness pretty equal i would assume.
There are wayyyyyyyyyyyyy fewer seats than candidates. Thus, I would call it a popular career choice.
I said "more" not "is" they're both probably the top most competitive jobs to get
Pretty sure it’s one of the most popular choices
Gotta be the umpteenth thread on "why doesnt everyone becomes a quant".
Same answer every time: barriers to entry. That's it. All the other reasoning is just noise.
I’ve honestly never seen other than one other person say this question
Well pat on the back for you for having an original thought
It is 1000% a popular choice, its just that WSO leans more towards IB + PE cohort who obviously lean more towards fundamental. The industry AUM wise and seat wise still is predominantly non-quant, but go to any school these days and there are a ton of kids gunning for quant paths (jane st citadel etc.)
Just fewer seats obvs
I'm getting fatigued by these "omg quant" posts, but I'll bite again anyway -
First this premise is bad. Show me someone who had a quant research offer and an IB offer and was choosing between them. This set is not empty but it sure is small. Now show me someone who's skills and interests are equally suited for both in the long run. So the interest in each career is going to be largely a function of the population size of people whose skills and interests match the job.
So from these comment’s it’s because:much higher barrier to entry, hours are less but it requires 100% focus, much more cuttthroat, and much more competitive to get those positions. Did I miss any
I think you missed arguably the most valuable part of Gary’s post:
The most challenging aspect of QR is the uncertainty of research process, there’s very little hand holding, it’s not like school where you have obvious right/wrong answers and structured steps laid out to solver a problem. A lot of times it’s literally a whiteboard: here figure this thing out. Good luck finding reference materials on a niche topic deep in the weeds.
There’s a reason a lot of these quant roles prefer PhDs to masters, it’s exactly this need to be self sufficient and the ability to grind through challenging topics with little guidance.
?
Hit the nail on the head here. No "right" answers, no certainty, but you still have to bet on it and are 100% accountable for an outcome you can only control a small part of.
Though you could say exactly the same about discretionary/fundamental investing.
same reason why someone goes into ib instead of being a doctor or lawyer or swe etc.
diff skillsets, diff work, diff types of colleagues - all just different industries.
frankly other than both being in "finance", there is nothing in common about ib and quant
Yeah but isn’t the whole pro with ib how easy its skill set takes to learn?
Comparing quant to IB is hilarious
Because they're different jobs that require completely separate competencies, have almost 0 overlap in the type of person they attract, and give optionality to entirely unrelated career paths... How is that not obvious?
Also Quant requires high-level math proficiency - take a look at the test scores nationwide on that subject then ask again why it's not as readily popular for folks...
It’s not a “different type of person” … one just requires a much higher IQ, pays better, and has much more challenging/interesting. Anybody who can take a job out of school paying 3-10x IB for about half the hours, will take that job over IB.
I mean yeah getting into a top stem school to study math definitely requires a lot of intellect
3-10? And investment banker starting I’ve seen make 160-180k a year unless you’re talking per hour then probably not
It's a completely different type of person and this attitude gives the impression you haven't done either... a "much higher IQ" by default would indicate it's "different", not even going into the different type of personality/interests your avg. quant is likely to have vs a banker. Pays much better - depends where, but 3x-10x is just so wildly inaccurate it hurts. Maybe 3-4x if you're adjusting for hours worked and comparing someone headed to a Citadel/Jane Street-type role and benchmarking vs a regional bucket shop/boutique/LMM bank, but anything more right out of school is absurdly false. You can count on your fingers the # of places quants right out of school making $500k+/yr, nobody is paying a fresh grad almost $1m... As for half the hours, totally person-dependent. If you're a 10x coder genius sure, you'll work far less hours in-office, but you were already going to because you're a rare top 0.1% quality of worker. Avg. quant vs avg. banker maybe working 20-30% less but again, it's a totally different job with different expectations. One you're working for a client, the other you're basically a regular developer just focused on financial issues instead of commercialized applications.
I was going to say "a person qualified enough could become banker sense the skill set is easy to get" but there wouldn't be incentive I mean if you were qualified for a more interesting higher paying better wlb you wouldn't take the other option
I have no doubt any person qualified to be a quant could absolutely crush IB technicals and on the job, but to your point I don't think they'd go that route. To make the counter comparison, I don't for a second believe that even a majority BB analysts would be able to qualify for a quant role at even an avg. firm, let alone places like JS/Citadel/HRT/etc. which is where they'd need to go for the outlier pay packages.
Not a ton of seats and, at least imo, the work is crazy boring.
Awesome career if that’s your thing tho, one of the best at good shops
Really? I thought it was said to be the most interesting in the finance industry
I think it depends what you enjoy doing, I started out in a quant role under a bunch of HYS PhDs building models. They were all really into video games and had 35-60 year olds discussing world of Warcraft half the time. Nothing wrong with that, but not my cup of tea. The friends I suffered with in IB are still some of my closest.
I realized I was there bc I had a penchant for math and studied it bc it was comfortable.
I had a former roommate in SF doing tech banking and another flying around the world at Bain. I’d visit often, they’d party with all these cool people and beautiful girls. They were living in cool cities, seeing the world and this was back when IB/Consulting paid a lot better.
I don’t regret it at all. I would’ve had a better shot at retiring by 40 if I kept on the quant course, but I’ve been so many places, worked on cool deals and met a ton of incredible people.
That said, having IB bonuses stacked for the biggest bull run ever was a cheat code. It’s also way more competitive now in quant so I may not have even had the same opportunity these days.
Like others have said, barriers to entry. You can bullshit your way much easier into an IB role, but you gotta actually know some math, coding, and statistics to be a quant.
Possimus nobis non sint eum numquam blanditiis. Est neque autem debitis earum quod iste. Adipisci quasi eos odit quisquam. Quasi aut nam eveniet mollitia cum enim.
Inventore fugiat commodi optio atque in. Numquam ut recusandae inventore quia. Sed quod modi tenetur maxime quasi rerum magnam.
Autem eum placeat eos sapiente qui. Consequuntur dolorem vel repudiandae praesentium omnis asperiores error. Vel adipisci libero magni tempora.
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...
Est recusandae amet dolores nulla. Quis doloremque pariatur alias. Debitis vitae quas cum quia quisquam assumenda saepe. Est quasi nisi eos eum deleniti repellendus. Expedita sint et totam soluta maiores odio.
Voluptatem error illo cum sapiente voluptates vero. Fuga enim voluptas molestiae voluptas quia aliquam quaerat. Occaecati et doloribus aut eligendi sed. Perspiciatis facere exercitationem et maxime deserunt eos id.
Id id voluptas placeat exercitationem laboriosam perferendis et. Omnis deserunt rerum quis sit praesentium modi. Deserunt deserunt qui pariatur rerum vel.