Quantopian's community platform is shutting down. Please read this post for more information and download your code.
Back to Community
Why QTradableStocksUS?

I appreciate Quantopian, a lot, and I understand what it's trying to do. What I don't understand though, is if Quantopians aim for the fund is hundreds of independent returns streams, all running off of different strategies and alpha sources. Why are we constrained to a set Universe?

Surely if all the algorithms are constrained to trading the same stocks, or similar stocks, you're going to get a lot of similarity in the returns that you wouldn't see if you had algorithms trading small cap stocks, high cap stocks and anything else that's available on the platform. I understand the need for all the other constraints, you want to make sure that algorithms, which appeared to be un-correlated return streams aren't going to suddenly turn around and move in tandem with each other. In my mind constraining eligible algorithms to a specific number of stocks can only be detrimental to this aim. How many different return streams can you get off of the S&P500? A very limited number. Expanding that out to the QTradableStocksUS Universe there's still going to be a limited (albeit much larger selection). You're also increasing the chance of algorithms from the fund treading on each others toes, taking long positions and short positions in the same stock at the same time.

If an algorithm can function on stocks which aren't in the QTradableStocksUS Universe, and can find liquidity to trade. Why is it automatically disqualified from the contest? Surely the ability to do that shows that it's an un-correlated return stream in and of itself and massively different from anything else that's going on.

It seems to me at least that everything in the Risk Model is designed to make our algorithms more likely to be un-correlated return streams, except the QTradableStocksUS requirement, which in my mind does the opposite.

I would be really interested in why Quantopian decided on this constraint?

(Apologies if this came off confrontational or anything, it's meant to be anything but. I just struggle a lot with conveying tone over the written word. I am genuinely interested in Quantopian's rationale behind this decision.)

3 responses

I'd say mainly size and liquidity. Stocks not in QTSUS are likely mostly illiquid micro-caps which any real money couldn't trade (too wide spread and not enough volume on each side). The Q default slippage model may also be way too generous when simulating trading in illiquid stocks, giving you fills at prices you wouldn't get in the real market (and too costly probably for the highly liquid stuff).

You also want contest algos to trade 'apples to apples'. QTSUS filters out a ton of (some probably very liquid) ETFs (some leveraged, and others holding Futures and Commodities for example) and ADRs (currency exposure), which wouldn't be a fair comparison to just listed US stocks.

Just to add...

In addition to adjusting several of the existing filters, a new filter was added: removing any securities marked as M&A targets. When a security becomes an acquisition target, its behavior can significantly deviate from its regular trading regime, and your strategy may falsely detect an opportunity without knowing about the external event. This premium dataset is available for your free usage within the built-in universe, helping to remove idiosyncratic risk.

Per Q these M&A targets pose some idiosyncratic risk that needs to be removed, while to others it is a great opportunity if timed and positioned right. So I would check your trade transactions detail and see if some of your major gains are coming from M&A targets. This may also explain some of your spectacular returns.

There is also some discussion of universe selection here:

https://blog.quantopian.com/a-professional-quant-equity-workflow/

"...successful cross-sectional strategies balance a tension between price dispersion and self-similarity in the universe. By definition, cross-sectional strategies extract relative value across securities and, in order to be able to rank something intelligently, there needs to be some degree of uniformity in the characteristics of the things being ranked. "

So, you want a pool of stocks that are kinda-sorta all the same.

I also suspect that the QTradableStocksUS and the entire present contest/fund requirements are intended to match with existing common investment options, and so could be benchmarked and considered more-or-less a familiar "safe bet" by investors. Specifically, I would assume that Quantopian has been working closely with Point 72, so that when they get ~25 algos, with ~$10M capital each, Point 72 would be willing to put in $250M, as was announced.