Maybe someone else with more admissions insight can chime in here, but as best as I understand it, there isn’t a huge difference between your ability to get in round 1 vs. round 2; round 2 is still relatively early. But it does decrease your chances of getting good scholarships (Can someone else confirm/provide insight here?)
Given your investment analyst experience and undergrad education from H/Y/P, the 45 is probably less of a red flag. Especially if in your statement of purpose, you can show that you’ve been successful and developed over your two years of work experience, had opportunities to take on increasing levels of responsibility and leadership. I’d say actually a 45 might be more of a red flag, say, for a math major with a 4.0 in-major GPA. Then the 45 would be a sign that there’s some sort of discrepancy in the application. Like maybe it’s a 4.0 at a school with inflated grades, or maybe the person is naturally good at math but didn’t study at all for the GMATs and scored poorly because they forgot the high school math that’s tested/didn’t bother (re)learning some of the stat. That’s not the kind of attitude/work ethic b. schools want to reward.
So there are certain cases where, given the whole history/background of the person, the imbalance between an amazing verbal score and a respectable but not awe-inspiring quant score would be a red flag. But given what you’ve told us about your background, it’s probably not for you. So long as the rest of your application package is strong, coherent, and consistent, then, yes, I’d agree with the characterization that a 45 quant is “solid enough” for you. I’d still consider applying round 2 to give yourself extra time to improve the IR. Then spend most of the additional time working on IR and maybe just a little to keeping the quant fresh in your head to make sure your quant score doesn’t get worse (and maybe improves a bit?).