A year or so ago a chum asked me to take a look at a paper that some of her quants were basing their work on. When I dug through it and pulled out all the plagiarism in it (and I do mean that; it had literally been hacked together out of other papers by some chancer in a middle-eastern university) it turned out to be a Crank–Nicolson method, and then when I saw what they were doing with it, I reckoned they could have just used a crayon and drawn over the graph they were interested in to get their smoothed graph. I do know that soon after that she got a job somewhere else. You can find hacks and chancers in every walk of life.
[1] In the above text, "hack" and "hacker" is used in the pejorative sense, similar to a "hack journalist".
Comments
I don't know any successful quants that claim what they do is "advanced" in any fashion.
A year or so ago a chum asked me to take a look at a paper that some of her quants were basing their work on. When I dug through it and pulled out all the plagiarism in it (and I do mean that; it had literally been hacked together out of other papers by some chancer in a middle-eastern university) it turned out to be a Crank–Nicolson method, and then when I saw what they were doing with it, I reckoned they could have just used a crayon and drawn over the graph they were interested in to get their smoothed graph. I do know that soon after that she got a job somewhere else. You can find hacks and chancers in every walk of life.
[1] In the above text, "hack" and "hacker" is used in the pejorative sense, similar to a "hack journalist".