The Quant Model Effect
I was reading an article in the WSJ yesterday about how smaller investors have been dabbling in arcane hedging strategies just like big time Wall Street institutions. They’re trading future options, dabbling in currencies, and even selling short puts. Just like the pro’s, they figure that the markets can be analyzed using rational mathematical strategies and just like the pro’s they’re feeling the pain right now.
The talk on the street is that a lot of the recent market volatility is due from sophisticated quantitative models breaking down because they couldn’t adjust fast enough and value their positions. This, in my opinion, is leading to a lot of assets being mis-priced in this turbulent market but that’s another post altogether.
Quantitative models are fallible in turbulent markets because they can’t adapt fast enough to changing conditions. Their fallibility lies in the mathematical analysis that assumes turbulent markets can be rationally modeled. Everything works fine as long as the market operates fairly smoothly and during low volatile periods. This sure sounds like the markets we’ve had over the past few years! Taleb would say that we model the markets with the belief that we live in mediocristan but in reality we live in extremistan.
What about neural net models? Are they fallible too or can they adapt fast enough in a turbulent market? The answer is, “it depends.” Normally, neural net models will be unable to “turn on a dime” but they work relatively well if the market action remains within the bounds of their training data. By this I mean if your training data had captured similar volatile events during the construction of the model, you’ll be able to model possible outcomes. If the events are outside the training data range, then you have to continually re-optimize the model.
For the record, when I write words like “predict”, or “predictive” I usually put them in the context of a type of directional/trend neural net model which has some sort of nonlinear relationships between the inputs and outputs. It is foolish to use neural nets to predict the price of XYZ for Friday’s close because its like shooting in the dark, you don’t know if you’ll hit that target or not. I’m more interested in the curve plot that shows the relationships of the inputs to the outputs than predicting an exact price.



August 15th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hi,
I don’t think that the answer for the question “why quantitative funds suffered so huge losses?” can be answered so simply (because “mathematical models are fallible in turbulent markets”). Many of these models can handle these kind of situations, they sell in euphoria, and buy in panic. I’d rather say that the problems are in the human beings who use these models, or control the ones who constructed them. As far as I know, these models need markets that liquid enough to work properly. But I think that in the first half of this year, there was a great pressure on the guys who use such models either form their bosses or their clients to generate as big returns as even a simple equity strategy did. This could cause the passing of their boundaries and participating in illiquid markets, but illiquidity is a far greater risk in the universe of these systems than otherwise. On top of that they over-leveraged themselves, I guess. Naturally, there are many more details involved, please find this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/business/13hedge.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
Thank you for your attention, and please correct me if I am wrong in my thoughts.
Tom, I really enjoy your blog, hope you continue regular posting soon!
Bye,
Tibor
August 16th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Tibor, thanks for your kind words. Your thoughts are correct. What happened with respect to the quant models, in my opinion, is that they invested in very illiquid markets with loads of leverage. When things unraveled, they couldn’t value these positions correctly as investors wanted their money.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:39 am
[...] previously wrote, Quantitative models are fallible in turbulent markets because they can’t adapt fast enough to [...]