Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Quantitative investment’ Category

The only fair fight in finance: Joel Greenblatt versus himself. In this instance, it’s the 250 best special situations investors in the US on Joel’s special situations site valueinvestorsclub.com versus his Magic Formula. Wes Gray and crew at Empiritrage have pumped out some great papers over the last few years, and their Man vs. Machine: Quantitative [...]

Read Full Post »

The rationale for a value-weighted index can be paraphrased as follows: Most investors, pro’s included, can’t beat the index. Therefore, buying an index fund is better than messing it up yourself or getting an active manager to mess it up for you. If you’re going to buy an index, you might as well buy the best one. An index based on the market capitalization-weighted [...]

Read Full Post »

Joel Greenblatt’s rationale for a value-weighted index can be paraphrased as follows: Most investors, pro’s included, can’t beat the index. Therefore, buying an index fund is better than messing it up yourself or getting an active manager to mess it up for you. If you’re going to buy an index, you might as well buy the best one. An index based [...]

Read Full Post »

Last week I looked at James Montier’s 2006 paper The Little Note That Beats The Market and his view that investors would struggle to implement the Magic Formula strategy for behavioral reasons, a view borne out by Greenblatt’s own research. This is not a criticism of the strategy, which is tractable and implementable, but an observation on how pernicious our [...]

Read Full Post »

The excellent Empirical Finance Blog has a superb series of posts on an investment strategy called “Profit and Value” (How “Magic” is the Magic Formula? and The Other Side of Value), which Wes describes as the “academic version” of Joel Greenblatt’s “Magic Formula.” (Incidentally, Greenblatt is speaking at the New York Value Investors Congress in October [...]

Read Full Post »

I burned some digital ink on these pages discussing the utility of quantitative investment processes over more qualitative approaches. The thesis was, in essence, as follows: Simple statistical models outperform the judgements of the best experts Simple statistical models outperform the judgements of the best experts, even when those experts are given access to the simple [...]

Read Full Post »

In A Crisis In Quant Confidence*, Abnormal Returns has a superb post on Scott Patterson’s recounting in his book The Quants of the reactions of several quantitative fund managers to the massive reversal in 2007: In 2007 everything seemed to go wrong for these quants, who up until this point in time, had been coining profits. This inevitably [...]

Read Full Post »

As I’ve discussed in the past, P/B and P/E are demonstratively useful as predictors of future stock returns, and more so when combined (see, for example, LSV’s Two-Dimensional Classifications). As Josef Lakonishok, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny showed in Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation, and Risk, within the set of firms whose B/M ratios are the highest (in other [...]

Read Full Post »

One of the most interesting ideas suggested by Ian Ayers’s book Super Crunchers is the role of humans in the implementation of a quantitative investment strategy. As we know from Andrew McAfee’s Harvard Business Review blog post, The Future of Decision Making: Less Intuition, More Evidence, and James Montier’s 2006 research report, Painting By Numbers: An Ode To Quant, in context [...]

Read Full Post »

I’ve just finished Ian Ayres’s book Super Crunchers, which I found via Andrew McAfee’s Harvard Business Review blog post, The Future of Decision Making: Less Intuition, More Evidence (discussed in Intuition and the quantitative value investor). Super Crunchers is a more full version of James Montier’s 2006 research report, Painting By Numbers: An Ode To Quant, providing several [...]

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,008 other followers