Discussion in 'Business and MBA degrees' started by Mac Juli, Nov 22, 2020.
In honor of our Phoenician heritage, perhaps?
You made my day, Steve!
Many thanks, Johann. Your explanation helps, and the word "engineering" makes sense to me then. The multidisciplinary "wheels" and "wrenches" will contribute to fixing financial issues.
My mention of derivatives brings something to mind, here. George Soros has called derivatives "the crack cocaine of finance." Yet he uses them.
Derivatives are pretty cool. However, teaching derivatives is interesting. Nothing like explaining to folks how these contracts derive value from another entities performance.
That said, derivative calculations in economics is quite fun.
And derivative miscalculations can be disasters of epic proportions. Remember Long Term Capital Management? I do, because one of the founders of the firm was previously a professor at my local Uni. Before the disaster, the founders shared a Nobel Prize in Economics for their "unprecedented service to mankind" in creating a method of evaluating derivatives. Then it all hit the fan... a $3.65 Billion S-P-L-A-T! Oh, what a little leverage can do!
As a devotee of Islamic Finance, I can't use derivatives. There's a fatwa. "Gharar" - gambling, speculation etc. The Imam said...
"I have seen the best minds of my generation -- starving, naked, hysterical..." (Allen Ginsberg)
As a non-Muslim, I suppose I could use derivatives - if I wanted to - but I have no desire to. They're against my new-found principles, and those have worked so well for me that I don't want to mess anything up. I don't find them restrictive and I'm financially at peace for the first time in my life.
I do know basically how a few kinds (the more common ones) of derivatives work. I did know how to value a couple, but I'd have to look it up, now. And yes, it was interesting. Does anyone really know how (of even if) the more exotic kinds work? I have to wonder sometimes, if some of them are real or imaginary.
As the late John Denver used to say --"far out!"
I mentioned this solely because I think it's an amusing contradiction, of sorts. George Soros is known to be one of the most generous givers on earth, (far into the $ billions) to the causes in which he believes - including University scholarships, anti-poverty and transparency initiatives. I have nothing against him. Just an observation on what someone says vs. does - simply a bit of self-contradiction. Nothing nefarious - or blameworthy, as I see it. Not to say Mr. Soros doesn't have his detractors - but so many of them seem to be people in repressive governments.
I failed getting only 70%, you need 75%. Still got another try. But I think I already tried my best. Anyone tried appealing and get in!
Well, it's a logo of the financial company. In all likelihood, that's supposed to be a mathematical symbol called "universal quantor". It is used in formulating statements and reads "for any" (so this symbol followed by variable x stands for "for any value of x, the following is true"). It's used everywhere in Calculus and up.
If you got 70% on your first try - I think you have a good chance of getting 75% or better on a re-test. The new test will probably look a bit different - but it examines you on the same topics. They even tell you what the topics are in their ads. Look at what you did wrong on the first test. Study accordingly. Simple arithmetic: if you can learn one-fifth of what you didn't know - that should be 5% overall and raise your score to 75%. I think you're smart - and can do better than that. If you learn 2/5 of the material you got wrong, you'll get 80% and so on. I'm pretty sure it's do-able - by you.
No wonder I didn't know what it was --- and you DID. Thanks Stanislav. It explains why I'll never get to WorldQuant... and you could, if you wanted.
Well, I am a Math major after all. 20 years ago, this would not even be that hard. I could brush up on math now, but I doubt I can find energy for something like this. Especially to complete the whole program.
Yeah - but if you DO complete the program, put it into practice, and make a pile of money sitting in front of your home computer for a couple-three hours a day - you'll never have to work for anyone else again. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? No?
I think efficient markets assumption says it's not that simple. There are a bunch of strong quant people working for someone else. This guy actually went to university with me:
Now, if one wants a high-paying quantitative finance job at, for example, a successful asset management company like WorldQuant, this degree program might be one path. Besides, it's quite interesting.
All true. BTW - I wasn't serious. Although I've encountered people who believe 100% in what I said as a joke. Some of them actually hold degrees. (Not from WorldQuant, of course.)
And right again. It IS interesting!
I failed the entrance exam twice and passed on the third attempt about a year ago. I never was able to see my score on the attempts and just wanted to see if I could do it since it was free. I continue to get frequent emails from them about sending my official transcript and have yet to start the program.
Hmm, I failed it once and didn't bother, maybe I should... Are you planning to start it anytime soon, Carlton?
I'm not sure if I have the bandwidth right now to start the program. It's two years full-time which will likely be much harder to complete than the UCN PhD degree. I'm tempted to go for it though. I also passed the entrance exam for the Applied Data Science Certificate which is a program that only lasts about 4 months (roughly a semester) so I thought about completing that program first and then entering the Master's program. It will definitely be a commitment!
I'm thinking my next degree for lifelong learning besides finishing up the free graduate certificate from Thunderbird School of Global Management will either be a Master's from WorldQuant or ENEB. I know ENEB likely won't be nearly as challenging as WorldQuant.
Separate names with a comma.