6 ms·
Two interesting inside baseball tidbits here that I thik are worth pointing out: > From inception Two Sigma’s early funds, like Eclipse and Spectrum, focused o
by chollida1 9y ago
Two interesting inside baseball tidbits here that I thik are worth pointing out:
> From inception Two Sigma’s early funds, like Eclipse and Spectrum, focused on trading stocks globally. Eclipse was faster, changing positions within weeks, while Spectrum had a longer-term horizon closer to one month.
> The duo eventually used their algorithms to create programs that operate outside the global stock markets, like the trend-following Compass funds that bet on futures markets. In 2014 another important fund, Horizon, was folded into Spectrum, which had diversified its offering beyond stocks. One of Two Sigma’s least visible funds is its Partners Fund, an internal fund of funds, fueled mostly by capital from the founders.
Most, all?, of the largest hedge funds are actually partnerships that encompass multiple funds. From an internal perspective this allows each fund to focus on a few core competencies, like trend following vs market making vs global macro. Each of these strategies will do well at certain times and do poorly during others.
From a firms's perspective this allows for diversification, which is almost always good. From an employee's perspective it allows them to get paid for their work and be insulated a little bit from the performance of their peers in other funds.
And in some cases like Steve Cohen's SAC it allows the good ideas to retroactively be put into the blessed fudn while the bad ideas are shuffled to the lesser feeder funds. Yes, this is illegal, yes it happens.
From an outsider's perspective its usually means that there is one well performing fund that is closed for new money while there are several lesser performing funds that are open to outside money. Even RenTech has funds that are open to outside money and they don't perform anywhere near as well as their master fund that is for employee's only.
> Two Sigma researchers spend time testing existing models, and each researcher is expected to come up with two or three new models per year. These are presented to Overdeck in a white paper that is typically less than ten pages long. Since Two Sigma’s trading models can change its forecast in seconds, lots of back-testing goes into each model. It’s not unlike the way Amazon exhaustively tests various Web-page changes in real time to ensure optimal clicks and purchases. At Two Sigma headquarters the model builders, who need to write code, sit with the engineers and collaborate with them all the time.
From the strategy development side, often idea's have a half life of anywhere from months in the HFT space to years in the global macro space. For idea's I've since come to believe that idea generation is equal parts people, ie brain power, and platform, ie the ability to iterate.
RenTech is a perfect example of this. They had two people leave who were very high up and go to another fund. They had 2-3 years of poor performance away from the huge backtesting platform that RenTech had built. it's not like these Phd's suddenly forgot everything. Its the ability to iterate quickly on idea's that is the key once the bar has been met for math and intellect.
As they say, its not the algorithm you use but the features that produce your alpha. If you want to make money in the markets focus all your time on feature engineering.
Fun reading:
https://medium.com/@63ey5f4uw3k42v1exp7/chronology-mercer-medallion-fund-9aa719ceeb4f https://medium.com/@63ey5f4uw3k42v1exp7/chronology-mercer-me...
- twic 9y ago> idea generation is equal parts people, ie brain power, and platform, ie the ability to iterate To be clear, when you talk about the platform, you mean the research platform used to develop the idea, rather than the execution platform used to apply the idea, right? What is there to such a platform? What does it actually do? Is it just a question of pumping historical data into a model and measuring its performance?
- dsacco 9y agoThis is precisely the kind of question for which you won’t find any meaningful, public answer. I’d be thoroughly shocked if you could find someone in the know to give you an answer even anonymously.
- jacques_chester 9y agoBased on very little more than other journalism and recruiters trying to chat me up, here is my understanding. The major hedge funds build in-house big data platforms that allow their quantitative traders come up with an idea (what if the price of IBM is 22% predicted by soybean futures in Tokyo on Tuesdays?) and then essentially replay history and see the result. Say you have the soybean-IBM theory. You feed it into the platform. It applies your proposed strategy across billions or trillions of data points. It probably does a lot more than an SQL query -- possibly checking for interactions with other current strategies in use at the firm, running sensitivity analyses, blasting various parts of it with Monte Carlo simulations and so on. A lot of the same tech is also used to perform forecasts of the coming hour, day, week, month or whathaveyou. It comes back with the simulated return. If it's good, and if you think you can disguise your strategy while trading, then and only then can you code it up and deploy it to the trading platform. In this article it's claimed that the models are reviewed by a company founder as well. By now, going on Google's publications about Millwheel and Dataflow, the hedges will already be advanced enough to provide model testing that can converge to a number quickly enough that you can abort the test if it's not shaping up well, thus saving platform time for other uses. Building your own platforms is a mixed blessing. If you the first to do it you can get an enormous advantage because you are the only company with that capability. Later, as technology continues the march of commoditisation, others gain the capability "for free". Now you are at a slowly increasing disadvantage -- again, because you are the only company with that platform.