Quant funds in trouble this time. Any insights into what went wrong?

Hedge funds under-performing is only a recent phenomenon. Hedge funds out-performed during the bear market from 2000-2002. They under-performed in the bull market that started in 2009. Furthermore, since hedge fund managers are paid so well, they should out-perform. Otherwise, it will seem like free market forces do not work on money managers.
%% Four [4] % drawdown sounds fine.
NOT buying the 11 year bullmarket, in the sense 20%/+ = a bear market[OCT 2018]; but the trend is still up, so no problem there.

Bsides that time spent below 200 dma trended like abear; so I guess the hedge funds have a good excuse to underperform again...…...2019 NOT a prediction.
 
Last edited:
AQR is known to be one of the top quant funds. The Equity Market Neutral fund is down 6.9% year to date 2019. Did I read wrongly? I thought the U.S equity market just had one of the strongest quarter in history. Cliff Asness is one of the quant managers that I like to listen

He's in deep... see my comments about his approach in the thread above
 
First, we hear about trend-followers doing badly. Then, value investors. Now, the nerdy quants. All these happening in one of the longest bull markets in U.S history. As a retail investor, I look up to these hedge fund managers and like to read books and watch videos about them. I sincerely think they are smarter than me, hence I actively hear them out when they give interviews.

AQR is known to be one of the top quant funds. The Equity Market Neutral fund is down 6.9% year to date 2019. Did I read wrongly? I thought the U.S equity market just had one of the strongest quarter in history. Cliff Asness is one of the quant managers that I like to listen.

Can the elitetraders here share their insights what has gone wrong when even highly intelligent, passionate people are doing badly in a BULL market?!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...id-to-liquidate-its-1-billion-quant-portfolio

BlueMountain Capital Management is liquidating its $1 billion computer-driven portfolio, as it shifts back to focus on its roots: human-run fixed income and credit.

The systematic portfolio gained 4.4 percent last year, Vogel said. It fell about 1 percent in 2017, according to one of the people.

Quant hedge funds have struggled from lackluster performance, investor withdrawals and rising costs. Systematic trading funds lost 3.6 percent in April, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said in an April 26 note. That’s the worst month since January 2015 when the bank started tracking the data. The losses were spurred by funds crowding into wagers against stocks and momentum trades or betting on short-term market trends.

Among quant fund losers last month was AQR Capital Management’s Equity Market Neutral Fund, which slumped 4.8 percent in April and 6.9 percent this year, according to its website.


Seems, all these "quant hedge funds" are incapable of reading AND understanding basic 101 correlations:

1) Harvard, Hawaii Gambled on Market Calm—Then Everything Changed

Harvard, Hawaii and others, pressed to improve returns, made risky bets that depended on low stock-market volatility


https://www.wsj.com/articles/pensio...arket-calm-then-everything-changed-1518626836

2) Thus, investors putting monies into "quant hedge funds" will experience what a certain Mr Geenspan dubbed one day as "irrational exuberance"

3) There are funds out there who perform exceptionally well in these circumstances but certainly not "quant funds". Example:

a) H2O Alegro global macro/currency fund: www.h2o-am.com


See Alegro Fact Sheet attached below.

b) Optimum Capital: www.optimum-fund.com

c) Audentia Capital:

https://audentiacapital.eu/funds/world_fx

https://audentiacapital.eu/assets/documents/audentia_world_en-new.pdf
 

Attachments

Thanks to President Trump, these quant hedge funds bet on low volatility just when high volatility is about to strike back. You've been Trumped!!

Seems, all these "quant hedge funds" are incapable of reading AND understanding basic 101 correlations:

1) Harvard, Hawaii Gambled on Market Calm—Then Everything Changed

Harvard, Hawaii and others, pressed to improve returns, made risky bets that depended on low stock-market volatility


https://www.wsj.com/articles/pensio...arket-calm-then-everything-changed-1518626836

2) Thus, investors putting monies into "quant hedge funds" will experience what a certain Mr Geenspan dubbed one day as "irrational exuberance"

3) There are funds out there who perform exceptionally well in these circumstances but certainly not "quant funds". Example:

a) H2O Alegro global macro/currency fund: www.h2o-am.com


See Alegro Fact Sheet attached below.

b) Optimum Capital: www.optimum-fund.com

c) Audentia Capital:

https://audentiacapital.eu/funds/world_fx

https://audentiacapital.eu/assets/documents/audentia_world_en-new.pdf
 
If we view solely hedge funds as the system under consideration, then not really: there are some market inefficiencies caused by other participants (the environment) that is a net flow into the system. The problem is, the external environment in this case does not enjoy losing money and is gradually becoming more efficient. In the long run, there is no point to hedge funds or trading, but we're not at a perfectly efficient market quite yet.

Above semantics aside, I agree with you. Finding anything that does better than random/index in a non-stationary environment is just bloody hard and there's no guarantee that someone who is competent right now will be so next year. Pitching shit products (funds) is a salesman's job however and more people can manage to do that.

On a side note, most algos (like common factor algorithms) are based on the assumption that the environment is stationary. This is why they eventually fail. lulz

Loosely following on stationary thread... Why is it that people make things stationary (eg log returns) in order to deal with them quantitatively instead of developing new tools to work with the fact that things are non-stationary... If everyone is doing it, it's probably wrong, no?
 
Loosely following on stationary thread... Why is it that people make things stationary (eg log returns) in order to deal with them quantitatively instead of developing new tools to work with the fact that things are non-stationary... If everyone is doing it, it's probably wrong, no?

I will try to find some links I've read later.

To be fair, stationarity might remain for a while and if your edge is hidden, potentially a long while. I feel sorry for AQR who are very transparent about their research results...
 
I will try to find some links I've read later.

To be fair, stationarity might remain for a while and if your edge is hidden, potentially a long while. I feel sorry for AQR who are very transparent about their research results...

OK thanks look forward to those.

Why feel sorry? I'm sure they knew there would be bad days...
 
Back
Top