Whatever it is... ET has a trauma against quants. Quants for most in ET is someone who does more than technical analysis. I'll re-ask the original question: If they were great traders, why don't they just start their own hedge funds? All replies can apply to traders as it was towards quants.
Not necessarily, especially since you are forgetting the sell-side... A cursory skim of Wilmott and NP shows quants are far more interested in understanding risk and pricing derivatives and exotics than actually taking directional views on the market (as traders do).
Where exactly did you learn to write this kind of extraordinary doublespeak? It is remarkable that you were able to maintain an authoritarian prose throughout your lengthy narrative without making even a single coherent statement. Perhaps this can explain some of your popularity among the glassy-eyed lemming constituency.
Quants work with great traders, but are not traders by nature. They start with a math, physics, or computing background and get exposure to the markets through there roles at trading firms. Some as they evolve become great traders and start their own funds. Some quants are great traders too. take a look at Ken Griffen, James Simons, D.E. Shaw, Monroe Trout was and his predecessor Mathew Tewksbury is, there are a few of the biggest. An infamous group was LTCM.
Yes, I agree. I may not have the same point as you but... It's about being profitable, in the end. Where you started doesn't really matter. The advantage of starting up as a quant is simply due to how the industry has set standards. Risk management is very quantitative and most fund transactions have due diligences where quantitative analysis is required. Financial ITs have an advantage of being able to deal with algos and researching. Where ever you start, we all end up in the same place. I'm a former-prop. trader with no technical background, who learned/learning financial IT and quant. risk management. Quants learn to financial IT and markets. Financial ITs learn risk management and markets. Of course, there's a whole lotta of other things people learn. Gotta add that the turn-over for quants are higher than traders or financial IT people, in hedge funds. Traders are close second, and finally the ITs. (Traders are lower because they are picked to join based on their track record...)
Yup. That's right. So why do great quants/traders don't start their own hedge funds? because they can't or don't want to deal with the biz/marketing side of the hedge fund right? Raising equity, tax, legal implications etc.
You can ask the same question of almost any profession. Why do other people work for other people rather than starting their own business based on their skill-set? Pick any profession and ask the same question. Some people just don't have the business acumen, initiative, entreprenurial spirit or most likely are not in a position to take the risk of starting a business. Quants don't necessarily have trading track records to start a hedge fund. Most likely any work they develop belongs to their current employer - they can't take it with them. A Quant would also most likely need to team up with a number of other people such as Sales/Marketing, IT professionals to consider starting a hedge fund business. Finding like-minded people to start a business with is a non-trivial task. Experienced Quants get paid handsomely. Most people prefer a near-risk free high salary vs. high risk venture of starting a business. It's a matter of risk and reward. If you have a family and expensive lifestyle you've become accustomed to, do you then just take the plunge into starting a new business with a high probability that it won't work? There are different kinds of Quants doing different kinds of work. Not all are in a position where their work is suitable for starting a hedge fund. Not all are working with traders in the front office. Again, most of these questions can be applied to almost any profession. I'm not sure I'm getting the point you're getting at, if you are indeed trying to make a point.
I find doublespeak too nice a term, it suggest two separate meanings somehow concocted in one sentence. In this case it is a mass of words ending up with no meaning at all. Black-hole speak would be more apt. And yes, it is amazing how many sheep fall for this gibberish. Ursa..