4 ms·
It's more like ensuring an opportunity to leverage the information that's already being gathered. As it stands, PMs have to construct concrete portfolios becaus
by lpage 5y ago
It's more like ensuring an opportunity to leverage the information that's already being gathered. As it stands, PMs have to construct concrete portfolios because they need to send the trading desk specific instructions on what to buy and sell. The portfolio they ship out for execution is effectively a low dimensional projection of a high dimensional decision process. That process has extensive substitutability (sizing and substitutability if something is going to be more or less expensive to execute than transaction cost models predicted), but there's no way to communicate that in today's trading workflows. That results in the market missing out on Pareto outcomes.
We've already seen this in sourcing markets [1]. Capturing more information at the time of bidding resulted in massive (40-60%) efficiency gains for both sides of the market.
[1]: https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/journal_contribution/Very-Large-Scale_Generalized_Combinatorial_Multi-Attribute_Auctions_Lessons_from_Conducting_60_Billion_of_Sourcing/6612779 https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/journal_contribution/Very-L...
- anonymouse008 5y agoOh yes, I see the problem statement and agree from a PM perspective this is quite good. That said, there are a lot of people who make good money making inferences from these current concrete dynamics - in some sense, you're just forcing the market to innovate (this is good). I always like to know who I'm asking to change when building products -- and this one is a very interesting (read: fun and potentially lucrative) set of actors.