$350M 'Quant Fund' Played the Stock Market Using Real-Time Data -- Then 2020 Happened (thenextweb.com) 72
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: Coatue's $350 million data-driven 'quant fund' made a swift exit from the market in early April -- having realized the coronavirus pandemic had rendered its algorithm unreliable, Business Insider reports. The tech-focused fund, launched by billionaire Philippe Laffont just over one year ago, joins a growing list of "quant funds" to have failed to turn a profit due to 2020's unpredictable nature. Quant funds use complex algorithms to find hidden trade signals in a hyperconnected web of data. While Coatue's quant fund mixes old-school stock picking with quantitative analysis (a method dubbed "quantamental"), execs were reportedly concerned that data farmed in the midst of COVID-19 would confuse its in-house trading program.
One example cited by Business Insider's sources highlighted the way Coatue's program interpreted ecommerce data. It reportedly showed surges in website traffic for certain retailers as COVID-19 lockdowns spread across the world -- usually a positive sign for stock -- but failed to consider their dwindling revenues and closed physical stores. But Coatue's quant fund had underperformed long before COVID-19 hit. In February, reports surfaced showing it had posted only 2% returns since its launch in May 2019, and had actually lost money (1.2%) in last year's fourth quarter. On the other hand, Laffont's human-led fund bested the industry average to return 10% profit last year. Bloomberg has since noted that those profits have taken a hit, bringing its losses the year to roughly 6%. While quant funds as a whole have had a really tough year, there were at least two that are doing just fine. "Toronto's Castle Ridge Asset Management, which trades some $100 million in assets, made 2.6% in March with its 'self-evolving' AI system that works with large-cap stocks," reports The Next Web.
"Over in Sweden, Volt Capital Management AB (in charge of roughly $30 million in assets) has returned a loin-tickling 24% to investors this year. Volt's fund was also reportedly prepared for those plunging oil prices."
One example cited by Business Insider's sources highlighted the way Coatue's program interpreted ecommerce data. It reportedly showed surges in website traffic for certain retailers as COVID-19 lockdowns spread across the world -- usually a positive sign for stock -- but failed to consider their dwindling revenues and closed physical stores. But Coatue's quant fund had underperformed long before COVID-19 hit. In February, reports surfaced showing it had posted only 2% returns since its launch in May 2019, and had actually lost money (1.2%) in last year's fourth quarter. On the other hand, Laffont's human-led fund bested the industry average to return 10% profit last year. Bloomberg has since noted that those profits have taken a hit, bringing its losses the year to roughly 6%. While quant funds as a whole have had a really tough year, there were at least two that are doing just fine. "Toronto's Castle Ridge Asset Management, which trades some $100 million in assets, made 2.6% in March with its 'self-evolving' AI system that works with large-cap stocks," reports The Next Web.
"Over in Sweden, Volt Capital Management AB (in charge of roughly $30 million in assets) has returned a loin-tickling 24% to investors this year. Volt's fund was also reportedly prepared for those plunging oil prices."
Re:Is a stockbroker or A (Score:4, Insightful)
> that the stock market is doing anything to help solve these problems, I'm going to look at your evidence with great interest and much skepticism.
Doctor Fauci wants to have "a couple million doses" of the Monera covid vaccine produced I've the next few months, while the last phases of human testing are done. Experts think it's likely that the vaccine will be safe and as effective as we can get this year, so it makes sense to have that vaccine ready to actually use once the proof is in, Dr Fauci says.
In order to fund buying equipment and materials to make millions of doses, the company issued some stock, raising money via the stock market I order to be able to produce the vaccine.
That's what the stock market is - companies sell stock to raise money to do be able to do useful things, like making vaccines. The machines that make N95 masks for doctors and nurses don't magically appear out of nowhere. They have to be bought, with money. Money comes from people like me who check the "401k" box to invest a portion of my paycheck.
As you pointed out, anyone trying get investors to put their money into building more movie theaters isn't going to attract much investment right now. People making a covid vaccine attract investment. My paycheck goes to make vaccines, masks etc and it seems maybe you're mad that it's not going into building more movie theaters, that we respond to the situation?
> The fake money will still be there next month and even the month after.
It's very real money coming out of my paycheck. It's the money you use buy Starbucks or Netflix or whatever you do after paying bills - I invest rather than having Netflix or Starbucks. Starbucks coffee is real. Real good. I really don't get to have any, because I buy ownership of General Mills (and Starbucks) instead of buying coffee from Starbucks. Over time, that's grown to a real pile of money, so I can really retire.
Re: Is a stockbroker or A (Score:1)
Starbucks coffee is real. Real good.
Starbucks' business model is well-known: sell shitty Indonesian beans and over-roast so as to disguise the [shitty] flavor. Perhaps you were thinking of McDonalds coffee (sell the shittiest beans and serve hot enough to disguise the flavor. Or maybe you were just confusing coffee with a piping-hot cup of fresh fecal matter?
PS stock resale when we're ready to retire (Score:2)
I forgot to mention, 10 years from now when the people who financed the covid vaccine (Monera raised $1.3 billion) are ready to retire, sure enough they can sell those shares to get their money back. Meaning someone to else will then be the part-owner of the vaccine-producing equipment.
Is that resale of stock important? Does it somehow serve a purpose for society? Let's see ...
I'm responsible for handling my mother's life savings, the money she'll live on for the rest of her life. It's a pretty decent chu
Re: (Score:2)
Your general point is bang on the money (no pun intended). You paint a picture of exactly how the stock market should work. The investments that you describe are a win-win situation. You win, and society wins.
Tying shanen's comments back to the original article, I think that shanen is upset about all the derivatives of that market. The gambling, the arbitrage, etc. The value that these day-gambling funds add is questionable. They try to predict when a stock will go up, buy that stock, then sell it hig
Re: (Score:3)
> I think that the shorter (time, not "shorting" a stock) you hold a stock, the higher you should be taxed from the capital gain.
Congress agrees with you. If you hold the investment for more than a year, that's treated as investment and taxed at 20% or less. Less than a year, that's not a long-term investment and it's treated as ordinary income with a tax of up to 37%.
> The gambling, the arbitrage, etc. The value that these day-gambling funds add is questionable. They try to predict when a stock will
A *relative* oversupply vs a *relative* shortage (Score:3)
I should have said a *relative* shortage. Arbitrage is buying something where there is a strong supply/low demand (therefore low prices) and selling it where there is a *relative* shortage, where the supply is *less* or demand is higher, so prices are higher.
In other words, it's the same thing as trucking. Truckers don't make anything, they don't produce something of value. But I think that moving oranges from Florida to Vermont and bringing maple syrup back is a useful service. Oranges are cheap in Florid
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose there are 10 million N95 masks sitting in a warehouse in Arizona, unused. The stores have them stocked up, everybody has as many as they want. In New York, there is a shortage and if you can find one it's very expensive. So somebody buys a truckload of masks in Arizona and brings them to New York. Do you think what that person did has any value?
That's arbitrage - buying something where there is an oversupply and selling it where there is a shortage.
They've added value by tackling the logistics. Yes, they've taken advantage of the arbitrage, but they've added value on top. They've added value by moving between markets.
A high frequency trading algorithm is adding no value because it is buying and selling the same stock on the same market.
When Buyer A is going to buy from Seller B, however Actor C jumps in the middle and steals some of the trade because they have a lower ping time to the trading computer systems. That's called a "leech", not an arbite
How long can you create imaginary money? (Score:1)
Basically an accurate assessment of my position. However the general solution approach I would favor would be based on transaction fees, with higher fees for the more speculative and less productive transactions. Right now the stock market runs like a friction-free engine with an unlimited energy supply. It keeps going faster and faster, and at some point it has to explode. Last time it exploded was in 2008, but the government managed to print up enough money to patch it back together again.
The case with Co
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of millionaires become millionaires by simply checking the "401k" box
OMG - funniest thing I've read all day!
79%, to be exact (Score:2)
79% of millionaires built their wealth primarily in the employer sponsored retirement plan. This is from a study of 10,000 millionaires (Hogan et al, 2018).
Further data:
33% never made over $100K in a year.
Only 7% averaged over $200K.
Millionaires generally are people who put aside 15% of their $60K-$150K salary, their employer matched 8% or so.
Check out the math of what happens when you invest 12-15% of a $100K salary and your employer is matching half of your investment:
https://www.calculator.net/inv... [calculator.net]
The
Re: (Score:2)
That's only a small part of what the stock market is. The vast, vast percentage of shares that get purchased every day, including by your 401k money, is "used": the issuing company sold it a while back, and now one investor/fund is selling it to another (in a transaction in which the i
Re: (Score:2)
See:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
You don't get people investing for 10, 20, or 50 years until they retire if they can't get their money back when they need it, after they retire. The ability to get back out by selling those shares to the next investor 20 years later is essential to allowing people to invest in the first place.
Without that part, what we had is that only the ultra wealthy, the lords, could afford to invest since they didn't need to get the money back. All of the resources were owned by a
Re:Is a stockbroker or AI more moral than a FP tro (Score:2)
You are trying to tell me the government could not have provided that money? The ONLY thing the government has done so far is spray YUGE fire hoses of cash at every aspect of the MEDICAL problem. Covid-19 hasn't cared. I'm calling BS. Your appeal to authority is a really weak one.
However, people certainly did make YUGE amounts of cash on your chosen example. Or are you going to pretend that you didn't know the executives of that company then turned around and dumped $60 million worth of stock? They knew to
Re: (Score:2)
> You are trying to tell me the government could not have provided that money?
The government is the Trump administration.
Are you trying to tell me that the Trump administration is better at getting stuff done than Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or the rest of the business leaders?
Perhaps it's not that the Trump administration is *better* at getting things done. Perhaps you prefer having the government force you to do things rather than have companies offer you things?
Re: (Score:1)
No, the Trump administration is only a disease. It should not be confused with an actual functioning government. Even in theory.
Do we have any actual basis for an actual discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether we like it or not (and I don't like it), government-run programs are in fact run by the Trump administration. Denying that fact doesn't change it.
Wanting them to run MORE of your life because you're pretending Trump never got elected - well that's insanity z plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're some sort of troll, then I have to give you credit for cleverness or cunning or something. You raise some interesting points.
Do you have to "be in charge" to actually "be running" something? That, after all, was the defense many voters of the late GOP persuasion offered up to justify their party-loyalty votes for Trump in 2016. Something along the lines of "Sure, Trump is immoral and incompetent and unqualified, but he can't actually harm things because these government programs will just keep on
Re: (Score:2)
You are trying to tell me the government could not have provided that money? The ONLY thing the government has done so far is spray YUGE fire hoses of cash at every aspect of the MEDICAL problem. Covid-19 hasn't cared. I'm calling BS. Your appeal to authority is a really weak one.
The US government does, in fact, provide money for vaccine development. Lots of it. Do you want the government to provide ALL of it? It appears so. You want to close the capital markets and let the government distribute investment capital as they see fit. We have a word around here for that sort of thing.
And there's no "appeal to authority" fallacy anywhere in raymorris' post. Not one. All you've done with that statement is demonstrate your ignorance of basic logic.
However, people certainly did make YUGE amounts of cash on your chosen example. Or are you going to pretend that you didn't know the executives of that company then turned around and dumped $60 million worth of stock? They knew to take the money and run away, and sure enough, now there are new questions if that particular vaccine is going to win the race.
Wrong. [cbsnews.com] The execs "dumped" $30M a
Public masturbation of 3493987 (Score:1)
Z^-2
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Z^-3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-6
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you're so very close. In the meantime...
Quoted for insurance visibility:
Oh Shannon Shannon Shannon. We know you're angry. And why wouldn't you be? After all, being out of work for so long has got to be frustrating. And there must be a lot of shame you feel due to being supported by your wife. Especially true for a man of your vintage.
It's obvious that you've just given up on finding a job. Instead, you're spending your days posting rambling diatribes on dozens of sites across the internet. It's a waste of your talents, and actually undermines your employability as a writer. I mean, since you use your real name on the internet so ubiquitously, any HR department lackey can easily pull up your many writings and see just what kind of person you really are. Unfortunately, the picture isn't pretty.
But, there might be some writing opportunities still available to you - even though you've badly poisoned your own well. So let's get started!
The first thing you should do is re-work your linkedin page. The most glaring thing that should be addressed is that you proclaim right at the top that you're an "Ontologist". You claim this without having any educational/vocational experience or publications in the field. You don't even have a graduate degree of any kind, much less any post doc work in Ontology. Ontologists have extensive graduate/post graduate experience and have scholarly papers and books to their name. You list nothing on linkedin that even remotely indicates any qualifications for that job title.
Additionally, Ontologists don't run around the internet peddling poorly defined, grandiose software projects with negative ROI. Ontologists don't make up acronyms for their imaginary systems and use them in posts all over the internet, thinking someone will understand them. Ontologists don't set up facebook accounts using their real name for the sole purpose of griping about facebook and privacy. Ontologists don't create a bunch of blogs nobody reads, where the only comments are from themselves. Ontologists don't say they know VIPs on WT.Social, then balk when Jimmy Wales asks "like who?" Ontologists don't post articles about how unemployed people should be sent to resorts to sanitize hand rails for the "real vacationers". Ontologists don't "threaten" Google with a letter writing campaign to convince web admins to remove Google links from their systems. And Ontologists certainly don't continuously post Trump/public masturbation trolls on Slashdot.
So you see, it's time to stop claiming you're an Ontologist. That doggy just don't hunt.
Next most glaring item on linkedin is your personal photo. It's low quality, and very unflattering (to put it kindly). It's even a little creepy, since it shows you peering out from behind a plant. Get someone who knows what they're doing to take a decent portrait and use that instead. Might not be a bad idea to lose the 'stache too - it's not a good look for you.
And don’t refer to yourself as an “old tool”. As true as it may be, it’s not something you want to say about yourself on a linkedin page.
Make these and a few other changes and you might actually land an interview or two. Since you've kind of poisoned your own well with your natural tendency to write about what a bogeyman Trump is, I think you'll have to aim pretty low, since no reputable organization is going to touch you with a ten foot pole. But hey, if all you've got is lemons, make some lemonade, amirite?! So after you've fixed your linkedin page, why don't you approach some of the lesser-known anti-Trump news outlets as a freelance writer? You've certainly got an immense portfolio of articles that would be very relevant for such a position. Probably wouldn't pay much, but it would at least show your wife you're trying. And that'll go a long way towards relieving some of the self-hate you display here on such a regular basis.
So good luck! We're all rooting for you!
Fucking hilarious!
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-7
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Shannon Shannon Shannon. We know you're angry. And why wouldn't you be? After all, being out of work for so long has got to be frustrating. And there must be a lot of shame you feel due to being supported by your wife. Especially true for a man of your vintage.
It's obvious that you've just given up on finding a job. Instead, you're spending your days posting rambling diatribes on dozens of sites across the internet. It's a waste of your talents, and actually undermines your employability as a writer. I mean, since you use your real name on the internet so ubiquitously, any HR department lackey can easily pull up your many writings and see just what kind of person you really are. Unfortunately, the picture isn't pretty.
But, there might be some writing opportunities still available to you - even though you've badly poisoned your own well. So let's get started!
The first thing you should do is re-work your linkedin page. The most glaring thing that should be addressed is that you proclaim right at the top that you're an "Ontologist". You claim this without having any educational/vocational experience or publications in the field. You don't even have a graduate degree of any kind, much less any post doc work in Ontology. Ontologists have extensive graduate/post graduate experience and have scholarly papers and books to their name. You list nothing on linkedin that even remotely indicates any qualifications for that job title.
Additionally, Ontologists don't run around the internet peddling poorly defined, grandiose software projects with negative ROI. Ontologists don't make up acronyms for their imaginary systems and use them in posts all over the internet, thinking someone will understand them. Ontologists don't set up facebook accounts using their real name for the sole purpose of griping about facebook and privacy. Ontologists don't create a bunch of blogs nobody reads, where the only comments are from themselves. Ontologists don't say they know VIPs on WT.Social, then balk when Jimmy Wales asks "like who?" Ontologists don't post articles about how unemployed people should be sent to resorts to sanitize hand rails for the "real vacationers". Ontologists don't "threaten" Google with a letter writing campaign to convince web admins to remove Google links from their systems. And Ontologists certainly don't continuously post Trump/public masturbation trolls on Slashdot.
So you see, it's time to stop claiming you're an Ontologist. That doggy just don't hunt.
Next most glaring item on linkedin is your personal photo. It's low quality, and very unflattering (to put it kindly). It's even a little creepy, since it shows you peering out from behind a plant. Get someone who knows what they're doing to take a decent portrait and use that instead. Might not be a bad idea to lose the 'stache too - it's not a good look for you.
And don’t refer to yourself as an “old tool”. As true as it may be, it’s not something you want to say about yourself on a linkedin page.
Make these and a few other changes and you might actually land an interview or two. Since you've kind of poisoned your own well with your natural tendency to write about what a bogeyman Trump is, I think you'll have to aim pretty low, since no reputable organization is going to touch you with a ten foot pole. But hey, if all you've got is lemons, make some lemonade, amirite?! So after you've fixed your linkedin page, why don't you approach some of the lesser-known anti-Trump news outlets as a freelance writer? You've certainly got an immense portfolio of articles that would be very relevant for such a position. Probably wouldn't pay much, but it would at least show your wife you're trying. And that'll go a long way towards relieving some of the self-hate you display here on such a regular basis.
So good luck! We're all rooting for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-10
Re: (Score:1)
very real money coming out of my paycheck
sorry to tell you, but you don't get paid with real money, $8 trillion printed in one month
Re: (Score:1)
The stock is a band of thieves. They are indefensible. We feed them [michael-hudson.com], and we get austerity. It is the primary drain on the real working economy that we depend on.
Re: (Score:2)
"The stock is a band of thieves"
Okay so ... a stock is an ownership share in a company z such as Tesla, Ben & Jerry's, or General Mills. It's not a person or group of people. It's how you and I can choose to own the means of production. Importantly, we can choose WHICH means of production, to produce WHAT. You can choose to be part owner of a solar company, in which case you have solar company stock and own the means of producing solar panels, or you can choose to be part owner of Smith & Wesson,
Re: (Score:1)
Contrast the socialism system which is the same except you don't get to choose - you have to fund the gun company, the liquor company, and the solar company.
Heh, sounds like you're reading straight from the propaganda pamphlet, the kind we saw in grade school about the "east", or you are taking it personally. A socialist system for the financial industry is precisely what we have with the bailouts, only we get no equity, a double ripoff! Sorry, unless the financial markets can work without government price
Re: (Score:2)
Is anyone else troubled by gambling for profit on other people's deaths? Obviously, the AI is "innocent". It's just doing as ordered. But what's the stockbroker's excuse?
How exactly are stockbrokers "gambling for profit on other people's deaths?" Such a claim deserves at least some explanation.
In particular, as a result of Covid-19, I think the stock markets should still be closed.
The stock markets were never closed. The floor of the NYSE was closed for a while, but trading continued. And why should markets be closed because of COVID-19? How would closing markets help with fighting the virus?
Public masturbation of 3493987 (Score:1)
Z^-1
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Z^-4
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-5
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Shannon Shannon Shannon. We know you're angry. And why wouldn't you be? After all, being out of work for so long has got to be frustrating. And there must be a lot of shame you feel due to being supported by your wife. Especially true for a man of your vintage.
It's obvious that you've just given up on finding a job. Instead, you're spending your days posting rambling diatribes on dozens of sites across the internet. It's a waste of your talents, and actually undermines your employability as a writer. I mean, since you use your real name on the internet so ubiquitously, any HR department lackey can easily pull up your many writings and see just what kind of person you really are. Unfortunately, the picture isn't pretty.
But, there might be some writing opportunities still available to you - even though you've badly poisoned your own well. So let's get started!
The first thing you should do is re-work your linkedin page. The most glaring thing that should be addressed is that you proclaim right at the top that you're an "Ontologist". You claim this without having any educational/vocational experience or publications in the field. You don't even have a graduate degree of any kind, much less any post doc work in Ontology. Ontologists have extensive graduate/post graduate experience and have scholarly papers and books to their name. You list nothing on linkedin that even remotely indicates any qualifications for that job title.
Additionally, Ontologists don't run around the internet peddling poorly defined, grandiose software projects with negative ROI. Ontologists don't make up acronyms for their imaginary systems and use them in posts all over the internet, thinking someone will understand them. Ontologists don't set up facebook accounts using their real name for the sole purpose of griping about facebook and privacy. Ontologists don't create a bunch of blogs nobody reads, where the only comments are from themselves. Ontologists don't say they know VIPs on WT.Social, then balk when Jimmy Wales asks "like who?" Ontologists don't post articles about how unemployed people should be sent to resorts to sanitize hand rails for the "real vacationers". Ontologists don't "threaten" Google with a letter writing campaign to convince web admins to remove Google links from their systems. And Ontologists certainly don't continuously post Trump/public masturbation trolls on Slashdot.
So you see, it's time to stop claiming you're an Ontologist. That doggy just don't hunt.
Next most glaring item on linkedin is your personal photo. It's low quality, and very unflattering (to put it kindly). It's even a little creepy, since it shows you peering out from behind a plant. Get someone who knows what they're doing to take a decent portrait and use that instead. Might not be a bad idea to lose the 'stache too - it's not a good look for you.
And don’t refer to yourself as an “old tool”. As true as it may be, it’s not something you want to say about yourself on a linkedin page.
Make these and a few other changes and you might actually land an interview or two. Since you've kind of poisoned your own well with your natural tendency to write about what a bogeyman Trump is, I think you'll have to aim pretty low, since no reputable organization is going to touch you with a ten foot pole. But hey, if all you've got is lemons, make some lemonade, amirite?! So after you've fixed your linkedin page, why don't you approach some of the lesser-known anti-Trump news outlets as a freelance writer? You've certainly got an immense portfolio of articles that would be very relevant for such a position. Probably wouldn't pay much, but it would at least show your wife you're trying. And that'll go a long way towards relieving some of the self-hate you display here on such a regular basis.
So good luck! We're all rooting for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-8
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Shannon Shannon Shannon. We know you're angry. And why wouldn't you be? After all, being out of work for so long has got to be frustrating. And there must be a lot of shame you feel due to being supported by your wife. Especially true for a man of your vintage.
It's obvious that you've just given up on finding a job. Instead, you're spending your days posting rambling diatribes on dozens of sites across the internet. It's a waste of your talents, and actually undermines your employability as a writer. I mean, since you use your real name on the internet so ubiquitously, any HR department lackey can easily pull up your many writings and see just what kind of person you really are. Unfortunately, the picture isn't pretty.
But, there might be some writing opportunities still available to you - even though you've badly poisoned your own well. So let's get started!
The first thing you should do is re-work your linkedin page. The most glaring thing that should be addressed is that you proclaim right at the top that you're an "Ontologist". You claim this without having any educational/vocational experience or publications in the field. You don't even have a graduate degree of any kind, much less any post doc work in Ontology. Ontologists have extensive graduate/post graduate experience and have scholarly papers and books to their name. You list nothing on linkedin that even remotely indicates any qualifications for that job title.
Additionally, Ontologists don't run around the internet peddling poorly defined, grandiose software projects with negative ROI. Ontologists don't make up acronyms for their imaginary systems and use them in posts all over the internet, thinking someone will understand them. Ontologists don't set up facebook accounts using their real name for the sole purpose of griping about facebook and privacy. Ontologists don't create a bunch of blogs nobody reads, where the only comments are from themselves. Ontologists don't say they know VIPs on WT.Social, then balk when Jimmy Wales asks "like who?" Ontologists don't post articles about how unemployed people should be sent to resorts to sanitize hand rails for the "real vacationers". Ontologists don't "threaten" Google with a letter writing campaign to convince web admins to remove Google links from their systems. And Ontologists certainly don't continuously post Trump/public masturbation trolls on Slashdot.
So you see, it's time to stop claiming you're an Ontologist. That doggy just don't hunt.
Next most glaring item on linkedin is your personal photo. It's low quality, and very unflattering (to put it kindly). It's even a little creepy, since it shows you peering out from behind a plant. Get someone who knows what they're doing to take a decent portrait and use that instead. Might not be a bad idea to lose the 'stache too - it's not a good look for you.
And don’t refer to yourself as an “old tool”. As true as it may be, it’s not something you want to say about yourself on a linkedin page.
Make these and a few other changes and you might actually land an interview or two. Since you've kind of poisoned your own well with your natural tendency to write about what a bogeyman Trump is, I think you'll have to aim pretty low, since no reputable organization is going to touch you with a ten foot pole. But hey, if all you've got is lemons, make some lemonade, amirite?! So after you've fixed your linkedin page, why don't you approach some of the lesser-known anti-Trump news outlets as a freelance writer? You've certainly got an immense portfolio of articles that would be very relevant for such a position. Probably wouldn't pay much, but it would at least show your wife you're trying. And that'll go a long way towards relieving some of the self-hate you display here on such a regular basis.
So good luck! We're all rooting for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-9
I keep wondering if you could manipulate (Score:2)
this type analysis by feeding it fake information, then taking advantage of the trading patterns?
(Would it be legal?)
I assume the trading takes place so quickly most of the time, that there isn't any human oversight.
Re: (Score:3)
this type analysis by feeding it fake information, then taking advantage of the trading patterns?
How would you inject false information into, say, Bloomberg data?
(Would it be legal?)
Absolutely not. But white-collar prisons are not so bad. Do you enjoy tennis?
I assume the trading takes place so quickly most of the time, that there isn't any human oversight.
Quants and HFTers are different but there is overlap.
Much of what quants do is known as "picking up nickels in front of a steamroller."
You almost always make a small profit. Until a black swan comes along, your model fails, and you get squashed.
Re: (Score:2)
this type analysis by feeding it fake information, then taking advantage of the trading patterns?
(Would it be legal?)
I assume the trading takes place so quickly most of the time, that there isn't any human oversight.
How would you feed their trading program "fake information", unless you were one of the program's developers?
If you *were* one of the developers, and you tried to make money based on your inside knowledge of what the trading program is about to do... yes, that would be quite illegal. I believe it's known as "front-running".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Those dumb Quants (Score:1)
You gotta love those dumb quants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another great example was the collapse of Barings Bank.
Nick Leeson had a sure thing, going long on Japanese derivatives ... until a black swan showed up: The 1995 Kobe earthquake. Oops.
Who needs an algorithm? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But this is not the time to learn trading stocks because right now almost everything is going up. I can understand how an algorithm trained under normal conditions might go errant prone.
With about 15 somewhat diverse stocks I'm up 15% overall, they are all up except one which I intentionally bought for the experience of selling, HTZ, lol.
Tax time
SARS-CoV-2 = Asimov's Mule? (Score:3)
having realized the coronavirus pandemic had rendered its algorithm unreliable
Is the SARS-CoV-2 virus then the equivalent of Asimov's "Mule" (from the Foundation series) in disrupting the predictability of socio-historical trends?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A new adjective! (Score:2)
"Over in Sweden, Volt Capital Management AB (in charge of roughly $30 million in assets) has returned a loin-tickling 24% to investors this year. Volt's fund was also reportedly prepared for those plunging oil prices."
Loin-tickling? WTF? I must remember to use it in conversation!
Re: (Score:1)
Traders suddenly stop fucking the stock market (Score:3)
Coatue's $350 million data-driven 'quant fund' made a swift exit from the market in early April
Shall we call it coatues interruptus?
Re: (Score:2)
Well played, old chap!
That explains it! (Score:3)
So that's whose money I just made. Thanks, guys!
They sold at the bottom, LOL (Score:2)
Stupid article (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news: A roulette player returned 3500%. The player was reportedly prepared for the number 17 to turn up.
I really hate this kind of reporting. It is cherry picking a few examples from a huge random sample and pretending there is some kind of clever or poor decisions that explains the result. Are any of the examples in the article statistically significant in any way?
Their solution is to stop learning? (Score:2)
No, this is an opportunity to improve. This isn't confusing data, this is just more data on how markets behave. The stress illuminates flaws in their models, like the mentioned ignorance of physical store behavior, which they can correct in order to produce better predictions.
Or maybe the real problem is that they didn't really have the kind of machine learning model they claimed to.