Why UBS Is Hiring So Many Quants(bloomberg.com) |
Why UBS Is Hiring So Many Quants(bloomberg.com) |
I mean yesterday we had an article about how Goldman was making its SecDB available to high networth individuals and today we've got another article about how UBS is targeting the same group.
UBS hasn't traditionally been held in the same tier as Goldamn Sachs etc as far as trading and quant jobs go, but one area they do excel in is a more traditional banking are, Wealth management for high worth individuals.
This is the area of the bank the article is talking about.
They are trying to be for high worth people, what Wealthfront or Betterment is for middle class people in that they are trying to bring money strategies that previously were the area of hedge funds to high net worth individuals.
See p. 59 - http://www.goldmansachs.com/investor-relations/financials/cu...
p. 51 - http://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/GS...
~10% YoY growth since 2010; Investment Banking has actually grown a bit quicker than that.
As much as the Volcker Rule has been watered down, it's still having a big impact on banks' ability to take on risk via their trading desks, so you're seeing them shift back into the classic businesses of making deals (investment banking), making rich people richer (private wealth), and making rich institutions richer (investment management in general).
It all seems very corrupt to me.
$2 trillion must include assets under custody, though I did think UBS had 3-4 trillion under custody, which is smaller than some of the biggest names, BNY Mellon, State Street, JP Morgan, Citi, Euroclear.
Under custody absolutely does not mean under management. Oversee is true: Their corporate governance is trusted to ensure these assets are held in safe keeping and administered for example for tax. It does not mean actively invested.
$1.5bn (managed by quants) is still a small number. My second job, at 24, was on a team of 5 people (total) that actively managed $6bn; the team was remarkably lean.
On the trading side they would have a variety of instruments (hedge fund is probably the most convenient and easily understood wrapper for various "miscellaneous" financial activity, but there are also private REITs, MLPs, CEFs, etc.) which would then try to attract funds. The funds would bring money from various sources, such as firm's own money, partners' personal capital, as well as wealth managers, some of which could be associated with UBS. This is the actual money available to quants.
For example, they managed to break my Vertica database from delivering instant results (something it is explicitly designed for in "big data" scenarios) to running 18+ hours for a single SQL query.
[1] Rule of Representation: Fold knowledge into data, so program logic can be stupid and robust.
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2878...
[2] Rule of Robustness: Robustness is the child of transparency and simplicity.
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2878...
They have some prestige on the trading floor.
Edit: They don't literally have bats, you guys. But when the guy who's paying you ~250K a year looks over your shoulder and asks for a risk report, the effect is more or less the same.
BTW, most quants that I know don't find the term derogatory, quite the opposite.
It is an abbreviation commonly used among finincial experts to denote a particular discipline of expertise.
Jargon, parlance, slang.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16FOB-OnLanguage-...
"When I asked Derman recently about his early years in finance, he said that at first he felt that quant, like rocket scientist before it, was largely a derogatory put-down for the brainy newcomers, many of them foreign-born: 'two-thirds pejorative, one-third grudging praise,' by his calculation."
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=quant%20&sort=byPopularity&pre...
Why do people play TIL on HN?
However, the logical among you will realize, over time, that those people are insecure weaklings and that they are bluffing. They are basically child bullies dressed in suits and wearing ties.
Once confronted, they will attempt to outwit their opponent until faced with undeniable facts. When this happens, they break down. It also seems to be a rite of passage for anyone dealing with them, otherwise they show no respect.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-12/ex-barclay...
[1] http://dealbreaker.com/2012/12/in-wake-of-exec-accidentally-...
How do you accidentally shoot your feet of with a bat?
Apparently it is not yet widely accepted that sociopaths or psychopaths, or persons with both disorders should not be the decision makers, let alone leaders; not only is that not the state of affairs yet, but these people usually cower everyone else and thus come into leadership positions. Why this is tolerated and accepted, I cannot comprehend. I for one fight and oppose them at every turn and opportunity, because I will not accept fallacies, will not accept subjugation, and will not be cowered into obedience; only logic works with me.
30,000 years ago groups of prehistoric humans had communities no larger than 30 because that was about the maximum that the hunting-gathering methodology could support while maintaining coherence. It is noteworthy that sociopaths would usually be expelled from such groups, and that they would not have more than one or two psychopaths in the group, whose function was primarily to hunt and fend off enemies, not lead the group.
Where I read that, I don't remember, but considering the sociopathic psychopaths I have to deal with on a daily basis, it makes perfect sense to me why prehistoric groups of humans did that. Once I read that, the proverbial light bulb went off, as they say.
Somehow, we have gone from that working model to a model where a psychopath, a sociopath, or a combination of both becoming a leader is actually promoted as a role model, something to aspire to, and appreciated by the society at large.
SEE ALSO
http://leedanielhughes.blogspot.com/2013/08/psychopathy-capi...