Do I need to be a genius to be a buy side quant
do you have to be in the 99 percentile at MIT? Everytime I look at a ib forum they always say that but when i look at quant forum they say the exact opposite I truly don’t know at This point.
It it true with a t20 university you have a good shot? or do you have to be naturally exceptional in mathematics?
Other than very low paying jobs, The quantitative finance and tech industry is what I would like to work in the most. However maybe that’s out of reach, maybe I should just try being a banker people say that’s not talent based.
If you aren’t born naturally very gifted in math, and coding you will never make more than banker, even with a top 20 education. if you are in it for the money become a banker, because it’s very unlikely to make more. Unless, you are a literal genius in mathematics. You probably won’t even get a job at a big buy-side firm without being very gifted.
Really? I thought I had a good chance I want to double major in cs/stats and I just got accepted to a hypsm (still think I’m no where near a genius in intellect though)
icl this genius requirement is absolute bs. i’m stem at a hypsm/oxbridge and have mates who have interned at and got returns at top shops. very smart ofc but nothing that would make u think genius.
from ur position u have good shot at getting in if u try hard and work for it.
another anecdote - at an optiver recruitment event their traders literally said that there’s a baseline intelligence requirement but above that it’s all work rate and effort and some luck ofc to succeed at the job.
stem at top uni pretty much confirms the baseline level is met
One of the dumbest guys I know is at a target right now. This guy wants to do quant - despite not even being able to do calculus.
Rough ride he’s in for
Buddy of mine is in a top quant program and even he is having trouble finding a good position. He’s incredibly smart but is having trouble competing against the true geniuses that are in his program with him
Resumes with Putnam scores aren't uncommon (at least when I was on the quantier side of things)
"Everytime I look at a ib forum they always say that but when i look at quant forum they say the exact opposite I truly don’t know at This point."
My smartest friends in finance always think they're not so smart. People who easily breeze into quant roles at top firms w/o PHDs or who easily jump from complex engineering into FICC prop trading and such.
Conversely, the stupidest people that I know in finance all think that they're very smart. I'm talking idiots who cannot understand basic accounting & corporate finance after 6+ years, and do not want to acknowledge that they've only clung on to their jobs because of their last name / good ol' favourtism.
Just pure DK effect, really. Most really smart people really don't think they're smart, and underestimate just how much faster they get things.
It happens because of the difference in the perception of "genius" between your standard banker profile and your average quant profile. Most people at top universities studying maths or similar have been top in their class in every school they went to before university and were notably better than their peers, which makes for example your average banker who went to a good school to study finance view them as a "genius".
On the other hand, if you're one of those maths people yourself then you're most likely worse than half of the people studying the same thing as you, and so your perception of "genius" is the handful of people at your school who completely outshine you.
You absolutely do not need to be one of the top students at a top school to land quant, probably about the upper quartile of any maths-related course at a top university has the potential to land quant (perhaps not e.g. Jane Street, but still some respectable quant shop). Since this population tend to be so much better at maths etc. than others, it makes landing quant for the average investment banker basically impossible, hence the perception of needing to be a genius.
(clearly not an expert with this so take it with a grain of salt) I get where you’re coming from, but when they say genius, I think they’re talking about top shops like Citadel or Jane Street. Which, looking at the salary difference between them and top investment firms, they seem to need genius/only paid-level talent or at least significantly more competitive, even just looking at their separate relevant population that qualified for it.
I would imagine that if there are 1000 math students at a target school, only 5 of them get into firms much larger than their IB counterparts, and only 15 other students get into a firm that will pay them as much or a little higher compared to their IB counterparts, and every other student either goes to a low-paying firm or doesn't get into any of the buy-side roles.
Just looking at the salary difference I also would assume there would be far more people in a 1000-person class in a finance target getting into a big firm, like 50 in this example. While yes, they may make less than the quants who went into big firms comparable to JP Morgan, there are still more of them who have the potential to make a lot of money.
Two points to make here (I am not personally in quant but know many friends who are, and I went to such a top STEM program).
I will also add that the average quant in a lower level shop is most probably at least as smart as an above average IB / PE dude. They're just less ambitious / obsessed with money, and care more about other facets of their working life.
There are a lot more people in quant / CS who seem to choose WLB over the highest pay / prestige possible.
I've personally know of 2 people rejecting Citadel / JS for say, Google CS (in a maintenance rather than product development role) or a more senior role in a crypto startup (bcuz they consider it more fun).
There are plenty who are content to bank ~90 to 100k / year out of undergrad instead of the multiples more at Citadel / JS.
I have a few friends who run very small funds of their own for fun / interest, and their hiring strategy is basically based on getting this sort of talent.
OTOH, they have to sort out any fires on their own and be careful to keep their workforce happy, which generally means letting them work remote from almost every day, having to check in with fresh grad hires to make sure that they're feeling ok etc etc (compare to that to how long your MD took to remember your name or even your existence)
Do you need to be a genius? No. Do you need to be smart and intuitive, yes. I was on a FICC derivatives desk at GS. Many of my friends are now PMs at the major strat funds. I shouldn’t have left to pursue ib, but that’s another story. They are all super sharp and quick decision makers. They are not the smartest people I’ve ever met
Where are the smartest people you know at?
Engineering and physics, I have several friends at defense contractors doing black ops stuff. They are next level. They are all so smart and interesting in their own way but would never want to face down a client in an uncomfortable situation.
Voluptatem sed incidunt consequatur. Fugiat nihil repudiandae qui molestiae. Et quia cupiditate sapiente ea distinctio. Nisi libero possimus sapiente accusantium dolores dolor dolores est. Vitae natus et vero. Exercitationem ut enim id magnam sint omnis.
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...