Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[lala]

[ QUOTE ]


Specialist at NYSE:
Trading method = Stop hunting, filling orders at bad prices to gain an edge and piss off daytraders, customer flow


[/ QUOTE ]

why does everyone make it seem specialists are so crooked? imo, not much more than any person on wall st.

[hapaboii]

Sorry, my education chart is a bit misleading because it leaves out regular undergrads.

Undergrads from top schools, typically quant oriented majors(math, stats, finance, accounting, physics, engineering, CS, etc), will have opportunities to join sales & trading analyst programs with big banks. They typically do the recruiting senior year with the on campus career center, etc. Depending on how "quant" they are, personality, interests, and bank needs, will determine which desk they end up on. I think some firms offer rotational programs so you get to try out a lot of products before settling in. Others you might just be placed in corp bond sales or something, and that's it. These programs will effectively be assistant trading/sales roles that will lead up to full-fledged trading/sales roles - note: you won't be prop trading, you'll be responsible for customer flow, market making, pricing, structuring, etc. I don't know if it's possible to get on a bank prop desk right out of school as an undergrad. Undergrads will also have opportunities to join well-regarded prop firms right out of school, Geneva Trading, Schneider, Marex, FNYS, DE Shaw, etc.

The Street is aggressively hiring quants because the general trend is toward algorithmic executions. So to stay competitive, all the firms need to build up their program trading desks, algorithms offered, TCA and OMS software. Also, quants are in demand for prop desks because high-frequency strategies are becoming more popular. Stat arb, pseudo-market making, mean reversion, etc. Lots of statistical analysis, data mining, and implementation of models by very talented programmers is necessary to create these black boxes. Is this trend going to continue and will we see trading become more and more automated? Probably, but when everyone starts chasing the same edge it usually disappears, already you have box wars going on, but I think it'll become a game of who can adapt their models best.

Just take a look at efinancialcareers.com and you'll see how many firms are looking to hire quants and programmers.

[edtost]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if it's possible to get on a bank prop desk right out of school as an undergrad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definitely happens, but is rarer than getting placed on a sell-side desk. From the people I know who've gotten those types of jobs, it seems to be ones who got good internships before senior year and got job offers through them, and were then able to go into fall interviews saying "If you don't put me on a _____ prop desk, I won't be accepting a position" without being completely FOS.

[edtost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well-regarded prop firms...Geneva Trading, Schneider, Marex, FNYS, DE Shaw, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never heard of any except Bright. How is this option? Bright seemed like a hard sell to me and I was less than convinced they could help me become a good trader.

Anybody have any/heard of any good experiences w/ these types of firms?

[/ QUOTE ]

DE Shaw has a pretty good rep as a quantitative firm, but has the most obnoxious recruiting advertising campaign i've ever seen, by far.

[hapaboii]

Bright isn't a true prop firm because they require you to put up capital. But on the other hand you get to keep 100% of your profits. Many people in the industry will look down on firms like Bright, Echo, Assent, HLV, etc. If you join one of these firms, even if you are successful, don't expect to be able to get a job on Goldman's prop desk. Two different worlds and backgrounds. But if you really want to trade, shops like Bright offer immediate access.

Out of the firms that require you to put up your own capital, I think Bright might be the best because they are pretty straight up about what they do and why they do it. They provide training through Don's boot camp, I don't know how good it is but from what I hear about most daytrading firms in general, don't expect them to teach you how to make money. They might help inspire you and provide ideas, but ultimately it's going to come down to yourself. Business models like Bright basically provide them with little risk and high reward. They make money off your commish churning and desk fees, but they'll make sure that your stake is the only thing at risk when you start off trading 100 shares at a time. If you go el busto, they don't lose anything. If you make it big and they monitor your risk and will probably give you huge leverage on something like a pair strategy(that's what a lot of Bright is doing now, pairs... I don't know if that's a good idea when they are gonna be competing against stat arb boxes), then limited downside for them and lots of commissions generated.

Agreed, DE Shaw's recruiting campaign is annoying.