Quant funds to terminate human-managed ones?
Jan 18th, 2010 | Filed under: Hedge Fund Industry Trends, Today's Post
Technological evolution invariably brings with it a chorus of concerns about the loss of a human element. Some point to Frankenstein or the Terminator as examples of what could happen if we put too much trust in technology, while other brand them as Luddites and say that technological progress has saved lives, improved our lot in life, and given birth to this website.
In the investment industry, this multi-front battle takes the form of the debate between quants and fundamental managers. Different terms are often used, but the debate is usually the same. Were market neutral (quant) managers responsible for the fiasco of August 2007? Do 130/30 funds really require hundreds of positions to execute properly? Did the birth of algorithmic trading cause the 1987 market crash? More…
To continue reading this article please login (at the right) or click here to learn more about accessing our archives.
Related Posts
- Asness: Quant funds not actually “HAL 9000″ black boxes
- 130/30 Quant vs. Fundamental: Quants have a bigger spice cabinet
- Reality Check: “130/30″ and “quant” not synonymous
- New surveys on August quant meltdown: Investors have learned a lesson. But have managers?
- Lintner Redux: Omega Ratios and Managed Futures
