Quantopian's community platform is shutting down. Please read this post for more information and download your code.
Back to Community
Formula That Killed Wall Street

As someone who is interested in the dream of Holy Grail formula or algorithm for the market, while fully accepting that one probably doesn't exist that is legal or ethical, you have to confront the fact that some very smart people think quant finance is at best dangerous, at worst dumb.

Take the richest man in the world, for example. He's no PhD but he is the biggest winner of them all, so his opinion does matter.

"Investors should be skeptical of history-based models. Constructed by a nerdy-sounding priesthood using esoteric terms such as beta, gamma, sigma and the like, these models tend to look impressive. Too often, though, investors forget to examine the assumptions behind the symbols. Our advice: Beware of geeks bearing formulas."

He could have been talking about any variety of quant blowups in the past few decades. From Long Term Capital management to the Gaussian Copula formula, history is littered with the tossed out garbage produced by quants. While I do believe some can exploit market inefficiencies for a while without outright cheating, more than likely ANY model you build will eventually blow up if portfolio management rules are not enforced. That is to say, leverage has to be kept low and I would suggest even that the amount invested should remain constant to avoid compounding gains and having level draw downs. In other words, to avoid D-Day.

The fact is, there is one simple strategy that I think everyone should have most of their money tied to until some "Holy Grail" proves itself over the long run. Buy and hold an index fund with no leverage. But wait, you say, that has high Beta! It can't be any good! It's not hedged! Wrong. Buying an index fund is itself a hedge against the most powerful danger of them all: inflation. You will protect your purchasing power by investing in an index because that index will always incorporate real pricing. That is to say, $100 in stocks after a 90% crash is worth $10, but that $10 will probably buy all the things you could buy when it was at $100. So, there's no reason to be concerned. I think inflation is the number 1 enemy of the every-man, not trying to rack up huge returns and risk a blow up using leverage or a quant formula.

Look, I love quant in theory. I love exploring data and believing that there are short term inefficiencies to exploit. I think it can be entertaining to develop and maybe even profitable for a while. I'd just advise putting an expiration date on anything you put into practice. Walk away from the algo entirely if it's done well for some time and just move on to something else.

6 responses

Index investing is rule based, systematic investing. It is a quantitative approach.

Odd that almost no-one seems to recognise that fact.

However I quite agree about leverage and the inevitable ruin it will bring.

I also think you are right about what Ed Seykota calls "mathturbation".

Most is it is drivel for the same reason von Neumann failed to control or predict the weather.

Well, my hunch is that almost nobody follows the advice of Bogle (and others with a similar angle on investing) and just socks money away as a percentage of income over 40-50 years, into a couple index funds, shifting to fixed income/cash as they age (e.g. total stock market and total bond market type funds/ETFs). And how many folks have 6 months to a year of salary in cash? And don't take on more consumer and mortgage debt than they should? And so forth...

Awhile back, I read The Intelligent Asset Allocator by William Bernstein (see http://www.efficientfrontier.com/BOOK/title.shtml). It was a pretty good intro to the topic, with some technical details mixed in. My guess is that his other books are worthwhile, too.

I disagree with some of the statements here. Stock index don't just get hit in inverse proportion to inflation. They get hit by two things: surprise inflation and surprise deceleration in growth. By holding only an index fund, you are exposing yourself to both those risks. Any downturn due to these surprises may take years to recover, and be completely unrelated to inflation in the meantime. If your time horizon is 20 years, maybe this does not matter, but for most people it does. You diversify to get rid of this risk, and hedge funds are just a slightly more exotic diversifier.

Also, I disagree with the use of the word hedge. In no sense I understand are stock indices hedged against inflation. If you want an inflation hedged investment, try index linked bonds. Your government would be happy to sell them to you for a small negative real interest rate!

The time horizon is the kicker. I've heard (100-your age)% in stocks, so by 60, you're down to only 40% in stocks. But this assumes that you've been saving ~15% or more of your salary since you started working (16-18 years old?)--40+ years. If you get smacked by a few huge draw downs over that time horizon, but stick with your allocation, then in theory, you should be o.k.