Execution Specialist

The problem.

Execution cost is measurable. That makes it unusually honest work. The difficulty is attribution: the market moved, size changed, the venue was busier. Separating improvement from circumstance is most of the job.

What you would do.

• Build measurement first: a cost model that decomposes what was paid into parts you can act on and parts you cannot.
• Design and run controlled comparisons between order-placement approaches, with enough observations to say something.
• Work the mechanics: order type selection, sizing across the book, cancel and replace behaviour, late acknowledgements.
• Feed measured cost back into research so a strategy is judged against what it actually pays.
• Keep a record of every change to execution behaviour and what happened after it.

What we would want evidence of.

• You have measured execution cost against a benchmark you chose and can defend the choice.
• You have improved a number and can show it was not the market being kind that month.
• You understand microstructure well enough to know which parts apply here and which are borrowed from another asset class.
• You can specify an experiment on a live system that is safe to run.
• You are precise about latency: what is measured, from where, and at which percentile.

What would make this a bad fit.

This role is a poor fit if you are used to co-location and hardware timestamps. The measurement floor here is coarser. You would spend the first months improving it.

This role is a poor fit if you want the improvement without the instrumentation. The instrumentation is the job.