“Many programs in undergraduate physics require less advanced mathematics that programs in computer science.”

This is just plain wrong. I have 2 Bachelor’s from a top 5 university. One is in Physics and the other is in CS. Not in any way is the mathematical rigour of CS even touching that of Phyics. Some of the senior-level courses in statistical mechanics and quantum had math that PhD students in mathematics don’t see until their 2nd semesters.

For ex., here are the Portfolio Analysts for Invesco Trimark, most of them do not have PhDs in math or physics:
http://www.invescotrimark.com/publicPortal/portal/retail.portal?_nfpb=true&_nfxr=false&_pageLabel=invExpertise_portfolioManagers_landing_page_label

First off, most computer science schools – particularly the more theoretical ones – are offering programs with a level of rigor equivalent to many programs in mathematics. In fact, many departments in the highest-ranked universities worldwide are departments of “Computer Science and Mathematics”… these are fundamentally entwined elements of quantitative analysis. Therefore, your point is moot. Many programs in undergraduate physics require less advanced mathematics that programs in computer science.

Second of all, while graduate degrees are a benchmark for many portfolio manager positions, the Ph.D is not the-all-and-end-all. In fact, a master’s degree with an additional 3 or 4 years of intensive work experiences is very often more of a competitive advantage than a Ph.D in a moderately related field. We’d rather see your history of Investment Analysis than your Ph.D in Quantum Optics.

Finally, many Portfolio Managers have backgrounds in Engineering, a category under which Computer Science is often considered. Analytical skills are key.

Good work on an informative article about the earning powers of Portfolio Management, however it is my great hope that further research be done into acceptable qualifications when writing an article like this, for it has the potential to misinform a future generation of potentially gifted managers that may not fit your narrow range of descriptives.

After 15 years of working in the domain….

Evgen

Also – I love the phrase “math-averse.” It makes me think of A) someone who doesn’t like equations, or B) a universe built entirely of math. Good times.

P.S. Thanks for checking out my blog, Sasha!

As for the money and the math, it goes together. Quant is heavy heavy math and it takes big brains to power the models.

You’re right though, most of the high salaries for PhD’s in math and physics are for folks that ended up coding and founding their own companies. But you can do that without a degree too.

Now manage my own portfolio and more than match some of these over-paid manager’s underachieving portfolios.

Perhaps I am just bitter,

The Dividend Guy

But it’s really not the life for either of us, so we’ll take the lower pay and the greater happiness. But dang.

This is similar to what I did for a living up until a few months ago. And you’re right: the money is breathtaking. In my experience though, much more than 25% of the compensation was tied to performance. Performance-based bonuses accounted for 80% of mine.

You can also make significantly more than $500,000 per year. I have two friends that start private equity funds, and both of them clear over $1 million per year.