I heard that at GS Rubin pushed
algorithmic trading.
Sure, would've been great to have met
Simons. Heck, I never got around to
working in differential geometry but
at one time did get the notes of
S. S. Chern! And once tried to understand
a seminar of an A. Gleason student!
But I did cover exterior algebra,
from both Fleming and Spivak. Now
I have Cartan's book, now in English!
I have no idea just what Simons did
to make his $12 billion or so,
but likely it had to do with algorithmic
trading in some sense.
Once I did get an interview at
Morgan-Stanley, showed them some
work I'd done in mathematical
statistics, I later published,
and mentioned that I'd like to
work in the applied math of
trading but got no interest.
The people on Wall Street made plenty
of money and didn't need me.
So, I decided to go where I could
make money just by pleasing users/customers --
do a start-up, i.e., hire myself.
From headhunters, I got a lot of
just hostility: The main reaction
was that in looking for a job I
was doing something wrong. For
another, my resume said I'd been
a professor. Right, I had been.
So, the head hunter got all twisted
out of shape suggesting that I
claimed the title of Full Professor.
Nope, I claimed no such thing.
The headhunter was eager to be
nasty. Bizarre. Dysfunctional.
Destructive. Nonsense.
I don't know what Wall Street wanted;
I have to doubt that much of Wall Street
knew what Wall Street wanted;
whatever they did or didn't want,
they didn't want me.
It's a very old problem: If working
very high up, then are almost certainly
(Simons is a grand exception) are
working for people who, net, don't
know measure theory. Then a person
actually making use of such math
will have a huge interpersonal
interface problem.
Quite broadly
one of the main bottlenecks in
getting value from technical work
is the problem of the awkward,
often bitter, interface between
a good technical person and a less
technical superior.
I have heard that the lawyers have
a solution here: A working lawyer
is supposed to report only to
a qualified lawyer.
Really, then, a technical person with
some valuable technical work should
just start their own business.
Or, how many people on Wall Street
working as applied mathematicians
and not for themselves
earn money enough to live
in a nice Manhattan townhouse
or apartment? My guess is, not many
and that, instead,
the big bucks, say, for a $20 million
townhouse, are going to
non-technical people, management,
sales, IB, trading, firm ownership, etc.
Really, then, a technical person with some valuable technical work should just start their own business.
Precisely. You've correctly identified the irrational non-technical prejudice the financial industry may have towards someone such as yourself. The only solution is to become their competitor. You'd be surprised how easy it is to beat incompetent corporations at their own game. If it can be done with multi-stage rockets, it can be done with hedge funds.
Hence why we're all united here as fans of PG's essays on HN. Welcome aboard, and god speed in your entrepreneurial ventures.
For me, it has been some fun math
and software. I'm gathering some
initial data and should go live
soon. Then if people like the work,
I'll be in good shape.
Just checked with my ISP: Can
upgrade to 25 Mbps upload speed
with a static IP address for
$89 a month. That 25 Mbps is
a lot: If users really like my
work, enough to half fill that
24 x 7, it adds up to millions
a year in revenue. Less expensive
to start than a pizza carryout,
and makes money even when
I'm asleep.
I'm borrowing at least two of
PG's points: (1) At first
don't try to please 1 million
users only a little but
try to please 100 users a lot.
Then they will tell others and
will have 1000 users and 10,000
users. Then expand to another
100 users .... (2) Initially,
don't be afraid to do work that
does not scale. So, I'm following that:
For the data, the 'business model'
has that gathered, in a way that
will scale, automatically
as a by-product of the usage, but
that will work well only with a lot
of usage. In the meanwhile, I will
will just insert good data by hand!
From the lectures in Sam Altman's
course at Stanford, just completed,
what I'm doing looks fine except
I'm a solo founder, who's done all
the work, thus, knows all the work,
has no co-founder disputes,
owns 100% of the business, and has
meager burn rate. The burn rate
is so low that by the time the business
qualifies for equity funding, it will
likely also be profitable enough
for me to buy lots more servers,
in a spare bedroom, upgrade my
house circuit breaker to 200 A,
put in a window A/C, get some
UPS units, put my emergency
electric generator on a pad in
a small shack just out back
and have it kick off when the
UPS says so, get a new SUV
and Corvette, and keep growing.
Outsource bookkeeping, accounting,
taxes, and legal, and grow.
Maybe be like the Canadian
romantic matchmaking service
Plenty of Fish, long just
one guy, two old Dell servers,
ads just from Google, and
$10 million a year in revenue.
Sure, if we were four co-founders,
all married, with all four
wives pregnant and wanting
a new, two bath, three bedroom
house, with a nice backyard,
in a nice neighborhood, and
a new SUV, for her, with
a baby car seat, a play pen,
a bassinet, a crib, a stroller,
two washing machines, help
with the housework, a GYN,
OB, pediatrician, GP, dentist,
dermatologist, optometrist,
swimming instructor, etc.,
then, sure, we'd be desperate
for equity funding! But,
not me!
Looks fine so far.
$10 million a year is a lot
for a mathematician on Wall Street.
Sure, would've been great to have met Simons. Heck, I never got around to working in differential geometry but at one time did get the notes of S. S. Chern! And once tried to understand a seminar of an A. Gleason student! But I did cover exterior algebra, from both Fleming and Spivak. Now I have Cartan's book, now in English!
I have no idea just what Simons did to make his $12 billion or so, but likely it had to do with algorithmic trading in some sense.
Once I did get an interview at Morgan-Stanley, showed them some work I'd done in mathematical statistics, I later published, and mentioned that I'd like to work in the applied math of trading but got no interest.
The people on Wall Street made plenty of money and didn't need me.
So, I decided to go where I could make money just by pleasing users/customers -- do a start-up, i.e., hire myself.
From headhunters, I got a lot of just hostility: The main reaction was that in looking for a job I was doing something wrong. For another, my resume said I'd been a professor. Right, I had been. So, the head hunter got all twisted out of shape suggesting that I claimed the title of Full Professor. Nope, I claimed no such thing. The headhunter was eager to be nasty. Bizarre. Dysfunctional. Destructive. Nonsense.
I don't know what Wall Street wanted; I have to doubt that much of Wall Street knew what Wall Street wanted; whatever they did or didn't want, they didn't want me.
It's a very old problem: If working very high up, then are almost certainly (Simons is a grand exception) are working for people who, net, don't know measure theory. Then a person actually making use of such math will have a huge interpersonal interface problem.
Quite broadly one of the main bottlenecks in getting value from technical work is the problem of the awkward, often bitter, interface between a good technical person and a less technical superior.
I have heard that the lawyers have a solution here: A working lawyer is supposed to report only to a qualified lawyer.
Really, then, a technical person with some valuable technical work should just start their own business.
Or, how many people on Wall Street working as applied mathematicians and not for themselves earn money enough to live in a nice Manhattan townhouse or apartment? My guess is, not many and that, instead, the big bucks, say, for a $20 million townhouse, are going to non-technical people, management, sales, IB, trading, firm ownership, etc.