Thanks, your post helps give me some good salary perspective and general affirmation. I have a bias for non-finance background people that may be unrealistic. I used to work technology contracts in Canary Wharf in my previous life and I have mixed feelings.
I live simply, I don't want to get into distracting conversations about money and money related stuff during the day. I have money, that is enough and thinking about it is the maybe little death that brings.. success breeds success and don't question it too much etc.
I have a chat arranged with an early-retired air traffic controller tomorrow night so the universe is co-operating with me again.
You have put it neatly. My opening question was poorly conceptualised.. late night post with my back aching
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is industry areas I should start looking at CV's from.
I get on well with anyone at work providing they really good at something. I don't expect people to be my mirror, I am not very typical. A friend described me last weekend as a 'kind of like a.. fluffy laser thing?' haha unfortunately that makes sense to me.
Yep, I need a statistics/probability person for sure. Thats number 1. Its a barrier to going past 40 contracts, the money management, order dispersal etc is getting really tough and I'm probably just lucky so far this year. I could learn stats but your right, the work has to be correct to trust money on and I don't have the time and akin to trading, probability analysis is subjective and professional experience is needed.
The guy I'm talking to tomorrow has much of what I need so hopefully... but yes, if not I should just fill one of the gaps and see how that goes.
I'll be honest. This is a serious concern. A good 'statistics/probability person' has no incentive to stay with you in the long-term for obvious reasons - your pull factor as an employer is probably compensation && (hopefully) decent technology && early opportunity.
Obviously, you can't win 100+ man shops in the first two criteria. As for the last, you have to be careful as the chances are that the person will overvalue the opportunity and come in and be disappointed and leave ultimately.
Now on the other hand, if you are a good 'statistics/probability person' looking to hire a software engineer, there's plenty of fish out there. I always see posts on SO that suggest that a software engineer is trying to build a trading system, I rarely see 'statistics/probability persons' wondering how to build a trading system because that's not as significant of a barrier entry.
@treydog999 is one of the more informed participants in this forum and I respect his views. However, in this particular instance, I disagree with his approach. I believe the mindset towards setting salaries should be the same as the mindset towards pricing options. If you're providing an interesting opportunity, you should discount your salaries. If you're providing a less interesting opportunity, you have to pay a premium.
Usually, my group pays out 60-80% cash/guaranteed bonus as compared to what a mid-tier prop firm (e.g. Allston, Spot) would for the same candidate. The candidates generally still accept the discount factor because they know we have great infrastructure; smarter people that they can work with; and we are presenting better learning opportunities.
In my experience, the only instance where paying a high salary is justified is if you have some kind of bonus lockup scheme or draconian noncompete agreement and you're outbidding your competitors to lock in fresh recruits out of college/grad school and you don't mind paying an extra 60-80% to secure your the talent pool. (It's often fine to carpet bomb and overpay $60-80k for 10 candidates, because there's very good chance that 1 of those 10 candidates will actually make you back $540-720k in his tenure at your firm.)
In your case, I would suggest playing up the opportunity card as much as possible.
The following 2 users say Thank You to artemiso for this post:
Actually that is a great mindset for this. I read and reread your post it makes a lot of sense. I should play up the opportunities and learning about finance more. usually i feel like i am convincing them that finance / trading is a legitimate job vs the standard engineer,doctor, IT guy standards in China. Providing that statement with the optionality mindset was really clarifying. I enjoyed that, thanks
The following 3 users say Thank You to treydog999 for this post:
Something that has amused/bemused/occasionally distressed me all my first live year is the comparative cleverness/effort/scale required to make money and/or 'real money'.
If points are proof, my semi-automated system that I jokingly call 'The Total Perspective Vortex' is elegant and really quite sharp. I hardly ever burn out trying to keep up with it anymore. Given I went live in August 2014, its all good. Prior experience of career success makes any new challenge much easier of course.
Also synchronicity may have delivered me a short term assistant solution. I'm interviewing a retired air-traffic-controller tonight.. He knew my address because his brother, the really pleasant and under-employed mathematics lecturer lives in my building... I can't pretend surprise somehow.
I'll give it until my second year of live trading and see how I feel about going shop/fund etc. Though I think I can scale now, I want to keep it fun?
Thanks again for your considered insights!
The following user says Thank You to Rory for this post: