Jim Simons Trashes Trend Following

marketsurfer said:
as I have been saying for years, trend following is an ancient tactic that has no relevance in today's markets. No matter what its high priests like Mike Covel say:

08 JS: In the old days -- this is kind of a graph from the old days, commodities or currencies had a tendency to trend. Not necessarily the very light trend you see here, but trending in periods. And if you decided, OK, I'm going to predict today, by the average move in the past 20 days -- maybe that would be a good prediction, and I'd make some money. And in fact, years ago, such a system would work -- not beautifully, but it would work. You'd make money, you'd lose money, you'd make money. But this is a year's worth of days, and you'd make a little money during that period. It's a very vestigial system.

10:55 CA: So you would test a bunch of lengths of trends in time and see whether, for example, a 10-day trend or a 15-day trend was predictive of what happened next.

11:05 JS: Sure, you would try all those things and see what worked best. Trend-following would have been great in the '60s, and it was sort of OK in the '70s. By the '80s, it wasn't.
More...
" JS: ... Trend-following would have been great in the '60s, and it was sort of OK in the '70s. By the '80s, it wasn't."

A swing and a big miss! :D

The '80s is when the most famous trend-following system of all --the Turtle Trading System-- came to prominence.

This guy clearly is confusing TF with something different altogether.
 
funny thing is you guys reduce Rennaissance to Jim Simons while as he says success was possible due to brilliant excellent people working there.. so there is Simons + at least 150 guys who are SCIENCE PEOPLE.. you really wanna argue that they DON'T UNDERSTAND whatever you claim they don't understand??
you,kut2k2 like taking about probabilities:) what are the chances here?? chances are you don't understand probability / neither do I/.. in one of his interviews he says they base their decisions on statistics rather than probability and they have a HUGE, HUUUUGE data base which is impossible to create by a retail trader, so probably they checked their predictions against ALMOST EVERYTHING..
anyways,if interested go to nuclear phinance forum where there is a thread devoted to Rennaisance , anything that was made public.. and one more thing- if this guy + 150 can't do the so called trend following - probably almost nobody can or it might mean that there are better methods..
 
Last edited:
if SImons and Rentech are so genius, how come they had to boost their returns by evading the leverage limits every other hedge fund follows? that was in the senate report too. don't believe the hype on SImons. if rentech had a special sauce, it wouldn't have needed 10-12 leverage when the legal limit is 6.
 
Last edited:
Mtrader said:
You don't get it do you?
You told he did average 80% a year. If we fill up the list till 2014 we see that he should have dont from 2011 till 2014 275% a year. If not he can never reach an average of 80% a year. Just to show you that your 80% is complete nonsense.

View attachment 156548
More...

35% is after fee
35%
Mtrader said:
You don't get it do you?
You told he did average 80% a year. If we fill up the list till 2014 we see that he should have dont from 2011 till 2014 275% a year. If not he can never reach an average of 80% a year. Just to show you that your 80% is complete nonsense.

View attachment 156548
More...

35% is after fee, while he charges 5% annual management fee and 44% profit fee. That is pretty close to 80% right? I saw the figure around 80% before fee somewhere. Who is "complete non sense" now?
 
next thing, this guy kut2k's gonna say is that Simons & the bunch probably don't even understand SLA !! :))
150 scientists - that's ONE COLLECTIVE SCIENCE MIND ! I wonder how many professors does for instance Harvard hire??
 
Mtrader said:
This attitude is often used in religion. Allah says...,God says....
It is never good to worship any human being because then you lose all objectivity
More...

well, as long as he prays to people following SCIENTIFIC METHOD he should be ok .. priests don't follow science ,if anything, they try not to get in the way..
so, yes, praying to you would be no good :)
 
vinc said:
150 scientists - that's ONE COLLECTIVE SCIENCE MIND ! I wonder how many professors does for instance Harvard hire??
More...

If it would only be a matter of having the most (in number) scientists, then these companies would make all the inventions that were ever made.
How could a student then create Facebook? Shouldn't this not be done by these smart scientists, PHD's or MBA's? Same question for Google, Microsoft, Dell, Snapchat, Twitter.....

How is it possible that small companies can invent new medecines with less researchers and less budget than the big companies?

Having many and very smart scientists is no guarantee at all for success. That was already proven many times in past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top