I am considering leaving a tenured associate prof (TC:~200K in an expensive city with 2 kids / CS dpt / 35yo with zero industry experience / my research is quite applied) for a quant research position in an HFT firm (one of the usual suspects). I did a few interviews which went OK, and salary negotiations are likely to start in January. Some of my/colleagues' former PhDs/PostDocs were offered a TC:400/500K in firms of similar caliber.
1. WLB in that firm is very OK (from what I have gathered from several forums), but indeed absolutely cannot compare to a tenured prof position. I do not personally know any colleague going from a tenured position to HFT (which is scary). Any comment? How common is it? I know of a few cases in tech.
2. Colleagues are telling me I would be crazy to leave a tenured position, but (like me) most of them have very little knowledge of the industry. What's a/the typical trajectory for somebody working on the buy-side when reaching 45yo, say? [no, I'm not planning to retire at 45yo] How easy is it to switch to a different firm? Are you guys still excited to go to work after 10y in the HFT industry? Is this industry likely to still go strong in 10 years time?
3. What would be a reasonable starting package? How does a typical TC look like after 5y in the industry?
Money is indeed a motivating factor, but working with very bright people on applied problems *is* definitely very exciting (+ the impact of most academic research is way over-rated + supervising not-that-good PhD students can be tiring + actual research/coding (which I enjoy tremendously) is only a very small part of academic life). I have a lot of respect for the people working in that firm, but I am still on the fence.
#finance #hft #academia #tenured
Want to see the real deal?
More inside scoop? View in App
More inside scoop? View in App
blind
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
FOLLOWING
Industries
Job Groups
- Software Engineering
- Product Management
- Information Technology
- Data Science & Analytics
- Management Consulting
- Hardware Engineering
- Design
- Sales
- Security
- Investment Banking & Sell Side
- Marketing
- Private Equity & Buy Side
- Corporate Finance
- Supply Chain
- Business Development
- Human Resources
- Operations
- Legal
- Admin
- Customer Service
- Communications
Return to Office
Work From Home
COVID-19
Layoffs
Investments & Money
Work Visa
Housing
Referrals
Job Openings
Startups
Office Life
Mental Health
HR Issues
Blockchain & Crypto
Fitness & Nutrition
Travel
Health Care & Insurance
Tax
Hobbies & Entertainment
Working Parents
Food & Dining
IPO
Side Jobs
Show more
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
comments
WLB is better than assistant professor but still not as good as G/FB RS.
Regarding academia vs industry, read “The Man Who Solved the Market”. Math professor started his own quant firm at age 40-50. Now a billionaire.
In my opinion, stop writing over-hyped grants and forcing out incremental papers. Start doing work that produces immediate, tangible results — and get paid a lot while you’re at it. Not to mention the HFT colleagues are, on average, smarter than university faculty and PhD students.
1. Senior HFT quant managers spend very little time on research and development, which is the number one reason for burnout among high levels.
2. "working with very bright people on applied problems..." = Lots and lots of politics
There are many paths to reach the same goal. A lot of people assume that their way is the only way to do things, resulting in fights, politics and back-stabbing.
Unfortunately, no. There's the intermediate problem of incentives and attribution. At least in Google, the metrics are clear but many people are playing the game of trying to get their name on everything they can, so that more metric can be attributed to them, and thus promo/TC. You also have factions and competing teams who are ready to take your idea and run with it, so you have to be careful what you say to whom. Then there's "visibility," the invisible fourth axis of promo...
We always like to look and tell stories about the extremes but the reality is that luck and timing is more important than whatever academic skills you bring to the table. Those kids at GetCo 15 years were less smart than you are but they were at the right place at the right time and they made it.
Sorry to say, smart doesn't win. All the great strategies are very simple and they are few and sometimes stem from structural advantages. Every firm has only a few strats making money, everything else is hopeful. Not knowing any more about you you're likely going to be in that bucket.
If you like academia, stay there. If you don't, welcome to the jungle.