Talk:Quantitative analyst

Business jargon
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)

No such thing as quant or not. Data analysis is just a tool. No nerdx or not. Use a tool is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VunslK (talk • contribs) 07:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Jaring phrase
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 . 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

Usage in finance industry
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?

Seconded. I worked in finance and software in the Financial District of London since 1994, and I've known what a quant is for the last ~10 years, and so I took numerous courses and a Mathematical Finance PhD, and now finally my job title and role is Quantitative analyst WillSmith (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Usage of the term
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. Ante  lan  talk  02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since "ignoramus" is not a Latin noun but a verb inflection meaning "we do not know," and came into English in a 1615 play which used the word as a joke, "ignorami" is not the natural plural. Most dictionaries prefer "ignoramuses." 67.173.10.34 (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

More work needed
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)

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)

Notable Quants
Does Nassim Taleb count as a quant? Rachelm1978 (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)He doesn't call himself a quant, and doesn't work as one. But his contributions to both the way people think in this field, even if they reject his ideas wholly is such that we have to reference him.

Time for a standard
The most recent changes seem to be disagreements about who should be on the list of well-known quants. I happen to disagree with some of the changes, for example, why is Bill Chen, who is indeed a quant but widely-known only for writing a book on poker, more important that Espen Haug, who has been a quant for many years longer and written three important quant books, including the canonical early work The Complete Guide to Options Pricing Models?

If we solve this by people adding and subtracting quants with comments like "in my opinion, not as important as the other guys" or "I've never heard of this guy," it won't do much good. I propose instead to agree on a reasonably verifiable standard. Some guys on the list have Nobel prizes for quant finance, if we eliminate everyone less important than them, we might as well title the list "Nobel prize winning quants." On the other hand, if we include everyone who works as a quant, it'll be like a telephone directory.

My suggestion is anyone with a biography on Wikipedia, whose primary fame comes from the practice or teaching of quantitative finance, should be listed. Granted, there is a wide range of importance of Wikipedia biography subjects, but if someone's important enough for that, they're important enough to be referenced on this list. If you don't think they're important enough for a biography, fight it out on the biography page instead of here. This list will then be a useful cross-reference for people interested in particular aspects of quantitative finance.

I'll wait a couple of weeks for objections or other suggestions. If there are no responses, I'll take a stab at implementing this standard.

AaCBrown (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds very reasonable to me. T om ea s y T C 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I second the motion, but what standard to use for determining primary fame? Btyner (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the proposal. Alternatively, I was thinking about replacing the "short list of notable quants" with a timeline including notable papers and books relevant to the area of quantitive finace. This would also solve earlier discussed problem whether N.N.Taleb is a quant or not. Example:
 * 1977 - Oldrich Vasicek published paper An equilibrium characterisation of the term structure, his approach to modelling of interest rates is known as Vasicek model
 * 2001 - Nassim Nicholas Taleb published book Fooled by Randomness, criticizing over-reliance on models developed by quants and trading strategies with Taleb Distribution
 * I admit that my move of Espen Haug from short list to long list should have been discussed in advance. JanSuchy (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The timeline idea is a good substitute for my proposal, I generally don't like lists in Wikipedia. The "notable" makes it worse, I don't think it makes much difference to the average Wikepedia user whether Espen's name is there or not, but it makes it seem like a value judgement.


 * The timeline is more work but if JanSuchy (or anyone else) is willing to do it, it removes the issue. The notable quants will be included, along with some possibly arguable candidates who happened to co-author an important paper or participate in a public event.


 * If we do revert to my idea, I don't think determining "primary" will be a problem. For many people, it's obvious. If you call your autobiography My Life as a Quant, it's hard to argue. Someone like Nassim Taleb could be included or not. Dynamic Hedging was pure quant, but his main fame comes from later books which I would call quant-flavored but not quant. Since a million times as many people bought The Black Swan as Dynamic Hedging, and he'd personally rather be called a philosopher, I guess I'd leave him off.

AaCBrown (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have prepared an initial timeline of "seminal publications" that could be used as replacement for "short list of notable autors". Sources include scholar.google.com, top cited autors/papers in Risk magazine in 1988-2006 etc. I did not find seminal publications in the area of quantitative finance of some autors currently included in the short list (Bill Chen, Andrew Kalotay), on the other hand there are widely cited papers of autors who are currently not included in the long list (for example paper Pricing with a smile by Bruno Dupire)


 * 1952 - Harry Markowitz, Portfolio Selection, Modern portfolio theory
 * 1973 - Fischer Black and Myron Scholes, The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities and Robert C. Merton, Theory of Rational Option Pricing, Black–Scholes
 * 1976 - Fischer Black, The pricing of commodity contracts, Black model
 * 1977 - Phelim Boyle, Options: A Monte Carlo Approach, Monte Carlo methods for option pricing
 * 1985 - John C. Cox, Jonathan E. Ingersoll and Stephen Ross, A theory of the term structure of interest rates, Cox-Ingersoll-Ross model
 * 1988 - John Hull, Options, futures, and other derivatives (8th edition issued in 2008)
 * 1990 - Fischer Black, Emanuel Derman and William Toy, A One-Factor Model of Interest Rates and Its Application to Treasury Bond, Black-Derman-Toy model


 * The timeline is just a proposal, I am not against keeping the current "short list of notable quants" as long as it is reviewed AaCBrown or some other editor.

JanSuchy (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is great, go for it. I've stuck in a few more, but it doesn't have to be complete to be an improvement.

1900 - Louis Bachelier, Théorie de la spéculation

1956 - John Kelly, A New Interpretation of Information Rate, Bell System Technical Journal, 35, (1956), 917–926

1967 - Edward O. Thorp and Sheen Kassouf, Beat the Market

1972 - Eugene Fama and Merton Miller, Theory of Finance

1980 - Lawrence G. McMillan, Options as a Strategic Investment

1996 - Philippe Jorion, Value at Risk

1997 - Espen Haug, The Complete Guide to Option Pricing Formulas

1997 - Nassim Nicholas Taleb Dynamic Hedging: Managing Vanilla and Exotic Options

1998 - Paul Wilmott, Derivatives: The Theory and Practice of Financial Engineering

2004 - Emanuel Derman My Life as a Quant: Reflections on Physics and Finance

2004 - Riccardo Rebonato Volatility and Correlation: The Perfect Hedger and the Fox

AaCBrown (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AaCBrown, your selection is perfect. I'll start an article about quants on Czech Wikipedia just to put it there. Regards JanSuchy (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The word “quant”
is a jargon word. Unincyclopedic, needs to be replaced, as this article is not about the word itself.
 * done

DominicConnor (talk)It might jargon, but the term is so common that in my opinion it would be a disservice not to use it. The vast majority refer to themselves as quants. A plumber does not call himself a heating systems maintenance operative, even if that is what it says on his employment contract. —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

Role of Quants in the Financial Crisis
This is a controversial subject, with nothing that even resembles a consensus for the causes or the solutions. But it's the most important thing in this field, so we need to start thinking about how to cover this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Removed from main article. Comment: It has been educated several quants with specialisation in optimal stopping, Ito calculus, HJB optmisation etc at the University of Oslo, Norway since early -80. One of the most used books in quant-finance: "stochastic Differential Equations" is written by Øksendal. He has been and still is lecturing Stochastic calculus with applications in finance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilaudid (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Quant" is in OED
Oxford English Dictionary:

quant, adj. and n.3

B.n.3.

2. Finance and Econ.

A quantitative analyst; a person who excels at or depends upon quantitative methods of analysis.

1979   Forbes 16 Apr. 120/2   Russell isn't a ‘quant’, one of the young consultants who do much of their monitoring by questionnaire and most of their evaluating by quantitative analysis.

1989   Computers in Banking (Nexis) July 26   Quants, usually trained in mathematics, physics, or engineering disciplines, are being increasingly hired by Wall Street firms as analysts.

1993   Harper's Mag. Oct. 64  A group of ‘policy wonks’ and quants disdainful of the sticky dilemmas inherent in moral reasoning.

2000   S. Hörter in L. Schuster Shareholder Value Managem. Banks ii. 31  The top management of financial firms has to be able to interpret figures‥. Otherwise, power will informally shift to ‘quants’ and risk managers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umquant (talk • contribs) 12:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sell Side vs Buy Side
The article does not stress the sell side (market makers) vs the buy side (fund managers). The book by Patterson provoked confusion. Traditionally quants were sell side. Will add references in addition to "Derman's My Life as a Quant". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limit-theorem (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the notion that quants started on the sell side is inaccurate. Bernstein's "Capital Ideas" documents efforts by fund managers to apply the theories of Markowitz, Sharpe, and Lintner to portfolio construction and asset allocation in the 1960s. I propose some modification to the introduction to correct this, and to expand the history section with a key development that lead to the first stock index fund in the early-1970s, as well as elaborate a bit on Bachelier's work. S.detoro (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)