Talk:Quantitative analyst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having a PhD in statistics with a minor in math, having taught math and statistics at five different universities, I've never heard the term except here. I suspect it may have currency among business people, so that it should be labeled as business jargon rather than either "maths" (which would be appropriate if mathematicians or statisticians used the word quant). Those same business people who decided to use the term rocket scientist to refer to those who apply sophisticated mathematics to the financial markets are mathematical ignoramuses who don't know that, for example numerical is nowhere near synonymous with mathematical. Michael Hardy 00:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

... and now I have moved this article. Michael Hardy 00:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I moved it again and re-wrote the article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are probably right Dr Hardy. The equations used in these models are very similar or even identical to those used in Thermodynamics, which are naturally used to model real thermodynamic systems. I believe the praise was that a very complicated system such as markets, which have, statistically speaking, billions of degrees of freedom, could be so successfully described by such simple equations, until the market 'decided' to fight back, and throw all these Quants off-balance. Of course, when all these complicated looking formulae are evaluated, what is returned is just a number. An engineering friend told me that in engineering, when a confidence limit has to be given, what you do is just think of a number and double it. Successful traders may not have the mathematical knowledge of Quants, but they sure know which way the market is going. I agree with you, rocket science isn't really that complicated, although rocket engineering and technolgy are. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Whatever else happens to this stub, I have to say I find the phrase "Within the industry, such workers are universally known" jarring. If the term is used only within the industry, why use the word "universally?" It's kind of like saying, "Only among people in Rhode Island, everyone in the whole world believes that ..." Slrubenstein

It is a legitimate bit of verbiage [1]. It would also be legitimate to say "Rhode Islanders universally agree that they live in a pretty small state" for "All Rhode Islanders agree that they live in a pretty small state." But I changed it anyway, no point in jarring people unnecessarily. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mean the question the validity of the word, just its use in this context. I like your change and think it reads much better now. Slrubenstein

Being a quant myself, and a PhD in Physics - I kinda like the word. And its usage IS ubiquitous in the Financial industry. To seal this discussion, read the "Uber-quant" Emanuel Derman's autobiography "My Life as a Quant". VSreekantan

what do u have to do to become a quant?


The external links at the bottom of this article: many of them are links to headhunters with their self-described claims of being THE places to go to for jobs. I think their shouldn't be advertising at the bottom of Wikipedia entries. Can one delete those references? Is there any point since the advertisers who put them there will simply put them back again.

Opinions?


Mr Hardy, "Mathematical ignorami", surely?

Here's a 2007 NYTimes article that uses the term in its title: Even Quants Wobble When Markets Quake. For what it's worth. Antelan talk 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


I think this article needs a lot of work. The paragraphs about Paul Wilmott and CFA institute are completely out of place. They do nothing to further understanding of the topic of "quantitative analyst" and are arguably non-NPOV. Albertod4 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote those paragraphs about Paul Wilmott and the CFA institute and I do not understand why they were out of place. Nor do I understand why they are non-NPOV. I do NOT say I approve their work. I do NOT say they will make you money. What I do say is that they are entirely typical of these approaches. I choose them not because I like them but because they were more typical than any other examples I could think of. A penguin is a bird, but it is not a typical bird the way a robin is, by way of analogy. I am trying to be adult about these things and I am fully willing to edit those paragraphs, but right now I think they make a positive contribution.

Part of what I wanted to do is to show that quantitative analysis is not one thing (which is what the article still implies, in large part) it is several things.JustAnInvestor (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the edits others have made to my additions to this article. All were correct and I would like to thank whoever made them. My one complaint is the removal of the footnote sourcing Gehm’s quote. As I understand the rules here, this is exactly the kind of stuff that needs to be sourced. His observation seems both correct (see everyone else’s argument above) and original (no one mentions it above or anywhere else.)

I also changed my description of Gehm from ‘quantitative analyst’ to ‘fund of fund analyst’ in the text. Judging by his website, this seemed a better description of him.--JustAnInvestor (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor layout rework

I hope you appreciate my layout rework. Previously, the introduction was almost longer than the rest of the article, with a lengthly narration on statistical and mathematical quants. I created a new section for this content. Still I think, even as a section this should be shortend. It partly reads like an advertisment, a strong form of POV. Then, I have also changed the sections sequence. I hope you agree that Histroy should come first. At last, I moved Mr Merton's picture into the section where he occurs. I am wondering, whether this picture is really necessary. Has he really had that paramount impact to the described job profile that we should display it? Since I am not an expert to the field, I am just suggesting and did not want to change the contents myself, but leave it up to others. Tomeasy (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)