They've been around, so they'd have known pretty well trading is not 100% about science (it might improve their odds a bit, but to be the good or the best in this business, there's an art element to it, plus little bit luck.
chances are they wouldn't be able to execute trades...
Usually, doesn't end well.
Depends on what he/they do.
At least in Sweden, due to the passive investment wave and AI hype there's currently a big demand for "robot investors" that are just supposed to pick some assets for you to create a "well diversified portfolio" and rebalance it... no alpha required whatsoever. Heck, you can probably underperform for years and the client will be happy because "it's AI".
If I may expand on the above: There's quite a lot of completely unsubstantiated talk in financial news here about how investment robots (fixed the term) will supposedly revolutionize the investment industry. They (including journalists) don't realize that every corner of the market with decent liquidity has been searched extensively by incredibly well funded research teams already for the last 20 years, and that e.g. ETFs like SPY are already robots by definition. Meanwhile, (not necessarily for their case incorrect) people have given up trying to beat passive funds, so the situation is conductive to having people putting their money into something and not caring about what that is. S&P500 membership premium says hello, as do zero interest rates.
The office must be in the cave or something ,. 30 years too late folks.how investment robots (fixed the term) will supposedly revolutionize the investment industry.
It will probably last for a maximum of a few months.
If you can't trade, AI or super AI wouldn't save you.
@maxinger thinks that anyone who does not do intraday trend trading is not doing it right, so obviously Simons would be an amateur in his bookJust out of curiousity,where would you place Simons??