Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byLewis Austin Alexander Modified over 9 years ago
1
Quantitative Asset Management
2
24/11/2015 2 Most math departments now offer finance courses 2007 2010: 61% decline in AUM Reflects loss of clients + poor performance Different varieties: hedge funds, 130/30, long only They differ in trading frequency/portfolio turnover Quantitative hedge fund 1 in 4 has closed since 2007 Negative impact of Bear Stearns, Lehman (prime brokers for many funds)
3
Recent Criticisms of Quantitative Management 24/11/2015 3 The quant space is too crowd By and large the same story: value, momentum, small tilt Reliance of historical data and similar statistical methods Returns highly correlated and any value added has been competed away
4
LSV’s Response 24/11/2015 4 May 2010 article Research questions: Is there more crowding among quantitative managers compared to discretionary managers? How does the information ratio (industry version) between the two groups compare over time? Does the style (value/momentum..etc.) differ significantly between the two groups?
5
Data 24/11/2015 5 Database: eVestment Alliance, launched in 2000 Monthly data, widely used by consultants in manager searches Self-reported data, back-filled bias Long-only institutional managers, large cap, EAFE (i.e., LSV’s universe) Managers self identify as either fundamental or quantitative Style is self reported, but consultants will typically perform a holdings-based or returns-based analysis to confirm
6
Summary of Findings 24/11/2015 6 Sample period: 1995-2009 Quantitative AUM US large cap has been stable at ~ 16% Number of quantitative firms Percentage of total stable at ~29% Average pairwise correlation of value added Low and comparable to fundamental managers Dispersion of in performance exists among quantitative managers
7
Summary of Findings 24/11/2015 7 Quantitative managers have bigger exposure to momentum Place a larger weight on momentum in ranking stocks Poor recent relative performance can be explained by this difference to a large extent From Ken French’s data library: Mkt-RfSMBHMLMom 200611.400.5014.34-7.83 2007 2.63-8.21-12.4821.38 2008-39.964.18 1.0113.39 2009 31.587.90-5.15-83.36 201017.9614.02-3.595.85
8
Annual Factors (%) 1927-2010 24/11/2015 8 Mkt-RFSMBHMLRFMom Arithmetic mean8.043.764.873.679.73 Geometric mean5.852.833.923.627.69 S.D.20.9514.2713.973.1115.95
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.