By Felix Salmon | 10 November 2007
|
Veryan Allen says it doesn't, and has some good one-liners, to boot:
• Few investment managers admit to using that big institutional no-no called technical analysis despite the fact that many do. But calling it quantitative analysis is still ok, just. |
Meanwhile, the great mathematician and philosopher Baruch Spinoza (or at least a fund manager in Switzerland writing under his name) makes an impassioned plea in favor of humans over machines. There's actually less difference between the two than it might seem at first glance: they differ only in their opinion of whether it's really possible to be a quant fund which doesn't behave like all the other quant funds.
But Spinoza does make one important point: that if a market-neutral strategy blows up and the fund has to be chaotically unwound, then the effect on the market as a whole is neutral, and in fact the absence of quants might have greater systemic consequences [[e.g., on volatility: normxxx]] than their presence did.
For every long that was sold there was an offsetting short that was bought. Directionally, which is what I believe Bookstaber and Buttonwood refer to when they discuss systemic risks, there was no impact from the Quant meltdown. If I am right, by the way, when I say that one impact the quants did have in stocks was in dampening overall levels of volatility (selling stocks that rise and buying those which fall) from 2003 to 2007, then nervous nellies like Bookstaber and Buttonwood will in fact miss them when they have faded back into the obscurity that beckons; Quants’ absence will increase volatility and the magnitude of directional movements in markets and stocks.
Quant-fund managers are well aware that their strategies don't last forever, or even, nowadays, for much longer than a few months at best. They don't kid themselves that there are any universal truths about markets which can be easily arbitraged and monetized. But they do think that at any given point in time there are some temporary truths about markets which will give them their precious alpha. If you want to invest in a quant fund, then, make sure you can answer two basic questions in the affirmative:
1. Will markets always offer these temporary arbitrage opportunities?
2. Is my fund manager capable of identifying these opportunities, not only now but in the future as well?
Even then, however, there's the problem that these opportunities are getting ever smaller, both in size and in duration— which means that in order to generate superior returns, your fund manager will have to use increasing amounts of leverage— or, if he doesn't, he will have to have the discipline necessary to accept smaller returns just for the sake of keeping his leverage down. Is that something you think both of you will be happy with? And how do you think a standard 2-and-20 fee structure in any way provides an incentive to keep leverage to a minimum?
I'm with Spinoza on this one, at least insofar as he's calling an end to the quant boom. I'm not convinced that his brand of fundamental analysis is much better: there's precious little empirical evidence that fundamentals-based investing is any more successful than any other strategy. But it's certainly easier to explain and to justify.
Normxxx
______________
The contents of any third-party letters/reports above do not necessarily reflect the opinions or viewpoint of normxxx. They are provided for informational/educational purposes only.
The content of any message or post by normxxx anywhere on this site is not to be construed as constituting market or investment advice. Such is intended for educational purposes only. Individuals should always consult with their own advisors for specific investment advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment