Algorithmic Investors on Wallstreet 249
eldavojohn writes "Recently, setting up prediction markets that people play was the big thing to guess the future. But is there a chance that computers will replace investors? From the article: 'Quantitative investment managers use a model to identify sets of characteristics for their investments. Computing power is now relatively cheap. Obviously, computing power can access data almost instantaneously and simultaneously. Asset classes and financial instruments within those asset classes can then be screened and investments are selected. They reflect the manager's views.'"
Market News Writing Computers Also (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Market News Writing Computers Also (Score:5, Informative)
The price of a stock is determined by external factors, and the key into being a good investor is access to information: who sued who, what is the union planing, what product is the competition developing etc. So to replace humans with algorithms, you must make them as intelligent as humans in the basic task of finding and understanding information. AI is ages away from this stage, and when/if we will finally have such powerful AI, the stock exchange will be our last concern.
Re:Market News Writing Computers Also (Score:5, Interesting)
I also know of a company nearby doing exactly that and doing well and have an acquaintance who retired at the age 35 or so after running his companies dept. who found (using algorithms) and exploited these patterns that don't exist.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These guys [predict.com] are supposed to be really good, but notice how little information you can find on their site. The company was started by one of the guys who mathmatically beat roulette (something else everyone thought was impossible at the time).
Re:Market News Writing Computers Also (Score:5, Informative)
This is equivalent to saying that he "mathematically beat the tossing of a coin" i.e. the statement makes no sense.
Re:Market News Writing Computers Also (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it difficult? Yes. That's why it's impressive. It is not impossible though.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You must get out a little too much if you haven't seen this [historychannel.com]
Scroll down a little to where it says "Beat the Wheel". They did, in fact, mathmatically beat roulette. Here's the blurb from The History Channel, for those too lazy to click...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Market News Writing Computers Also (Score:5, Informative)
They are not as secretive about their methods as you might imagine.
As noted by earlier posters computers are not used to "pick stocks", but to construct portfolios with desirable characteristics, find arbitrage opportunities, etc. I can give a little insight into the first. I'll gloss over a lot and use language somewhat loosely, so please don't jump if you know your finance
There is a tradeoff in the market between risk and return. You can construct a portfolio with a very high expected return, but it will involve a lot of risk. Alternatively, you could have portfolio with very little risk, but low expected returns. The trick is to get the highest expected return with the lowest expected risk. Here is where mathematical models run on a computer can help. The most famous and the one everybody knows about is the CAPM [wikipedia.org] (capital asset pricing model). There is a lot of debate in academia over this model, but it is still useful in practical ways.
Last year I attended a lecture and had a discussion with Bob Litterman, the director of quantitative resources at Goldman Sachs. He oversees several billion dollars worth of investments and does so quite successfully. One thing he stressed was that all of the tools they use are publicly available in the form of academic literature that their competition tends to ignore. For example, they use a modified CAPM that allows an investor to incorporate their "views" about certain stocks or sectors into the portfolio problem (this is the somewhat famous Black-Litterman model). Generating these views is still a human endeavor, but then the computers generate the portfolios that accurately represent these views and that have high expected returns with low risk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Price, Pattern, and Profit (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, the price dynamics are not entirely caused by exogenous factors. Investors, speculators, the media, and government officials do watch the prices. People make buy and sell judgments without any fundamental basis such a stock being "expensive" just because the stock is $300/share (never mind understanding the relationships between price per share and capitalization). Humans also have instinctual beliefs in patterns such as trends or momentum that are self-fulfilling. If enough traders believe in trends or momentum, they will trade in a way that creates trends.
The profitable patterns do exist (and so do a large number of profitless pseudopatterns). People with a very sound understanding of both market psychology and statistics can and do succeed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
However, most people agree that publicly available information will be absorbed by the market and eat available profit from that information. The key point of dispute is how quickly this information will be absorbed. So having a program to mull through the flood of information quickly to help capitalize on it is not too hard to believe. Particularly when the guidelines for
Re:Price, Pattern, and Profit (Score:5, Informative)
I've never believed in the EMH, but I'm going to try to defend it anyway.
I've heard that joke many times, and it always seems to me like a false analogy. The EMH doesn't deny the possibility of luck; it denies the possibility of systematically beating a competitive market. The patch of grass is not a competitive market, and finding $100 there by luck is not beating it systematically. In other words, there are fundamental differences between equity markets and patches of grass. For example, shares of the grass are not being bought and sold, therefore information about the existence of the $100 is not being incorporated into prices, which is a fundamental assumption underlying the EMH.
A better analogy would be the following. Assume the existence of a patch of grass upon which a given amount of money falls according to some pattern. Assume also that there is a mature, well-developed industry to predict when the money falls. Assume also that the industry is competitive; ie, when one person takes the money from the grass, it's no longer there for another to take. Assume also that there is some monetary cost to visit the patch of grass and determine if there's any money there. Given all those assumptions, at some point, the grass would cease yielding abnormal returns--in other words, the cost of visiting the grass would equal the average amount found there, given the best available algorithm for determining how much money will be there.
The EMH people would probably respond as follows. Granted, humans believe in patterns which can become self-fulfilling prophecies. Thus, they create a pattern. However other, more sophisticated traders are also aware of the pattern ("momentum") and will place trades that destroy the pattern. For example, if I (as an investor) recognize momentum then it would benefit me to buy shares at the beginning of momentum and sell short at the end, before the bubble bursts. If I do this profitably, then I (and other, similar investors) will control an increasing share of the money being invested, and "momentum" will no longer occur. Note that this pattern-destroying mechanism can occur with any pattern that could be recognized, including self-fulfilling prophecies of naive investors, and including momentum.
...Nevertheless, EMH aside, there are trends which can be identified. One example is the NASDAQ from 1997-2000, which is a particularly striking incidence of momentum. That trend persisted even though there was frank discussion by experts months beforehand that the NASDAQ was certainly in a tremendous bubble. The fact that momentum persisted for years despite publically available pronouncements by all experts that there was momentum, is difficult to reconcile with the EMH, since the EMH asserts that any such trend would automatically disappear.
I believe there's a fatal flaw with the EMH. I believe the EMH rests upon a number of assumptions, one of which is false. But this post is already long enough...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My suspicion is that skilled traders avoid many common mistakes...but that most of being a "very successful" trader over any short period of time, say a year, is luck. It also means taking unwise chances with other people's money. Most such traders will lose, but some will win. When they lose, their clients lose. When they win, their clients win, and they gain more client
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are not just picking stocks.
They are being used to do things like:
Incidentally the article is pretty useless: it does not actually have very much specific content, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
I agreed with you right up until this point. I think that when we do get an AI that powerful, the very first thing anyone will do with it, is put it to work gaming the stock market. Maybe after that, someone will try asking it for the cure for cancer or how to bring about world peace. But I'm pretty sure that "what's the next Yahoo?" will be first.
In a similar vein, I'm pretty sure if anyone ever builds a device t
Re: (Score:2)
Across all that data, there are patterns... (heh, that's my PhD research topic!) they may only give you a slight advantage over everyone else, but I bet that's the point... to have a slight advantage to beat the market average return. If your prediction of the market is just a bit more
An artificial life approach (Score:2)
You're awfully sure of yourself (Score:2)
You're assuming that since you haven't found a pattern, and since nobody has suggested a successful pattern, that one does not exist.
Honestly, if you found a reproducible, reliable pattern in stock market data, would you give it away? How long would you take advantage of the situation before releasing your research in the name of science? Even if you're not a greedy person, who would give aw
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking about computers looking for patterns and you've got almost the same thing. The more computer controller traders you've got then the more predictable the ma
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the AI should be smart enou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1998. But LTCM wasn't purely quantitative. They went and got information that they thought would be useful to them other than the quantitative data... whether it be for their fixed income or equity trades.
Re: (Score:2)
Crash of 87, and arbitrage in general. (Score:3, Informative)
An
Nothing new here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the safeguard you mentioned the person could take their time hitting the button, and they wouldn't know enough to notice when something fishy was going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense these algorithms have been in use for decades. If you look at the way SCO has been performing over the last few years, the chart fundamentals th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the question of "Why?", the answer is on the page you linked. Black Tuesday, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not illegal (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Late reporting (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Replace investors? (Score:5, Informative)
As for replacing the advisors... Even the article tells you that isn't going to happen. "They reflect the manager's views." Oh... So if there's no manager, there's no view... and the computer does nothing. So you can't drop the advisor.
This is simply another tool. It's not going to change much. My father will still complain bitterly when his portfolio loses money, and complain a little less when he's almost back to where he's started... again. And again.
The fact is... If everyone made money, the stock market would be an impossible thing. Some people will lose while some will gain. No magic piece of software is going to change that.
Re:Replace investors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The other side of the coin is equally important: just because someone loses money does not mean someone else has to make money. It's all imaginary. The stock market used to serve the purpose of helping would-be businessmen find people with the resources to help start their companies, but has morphed into a numbers game, a form of legal gambling to create phantom "wealth" for those who play the game well, producing nothing o
Re:Replace investors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With that definition all economics is gambling. If I build gadgets or grow corn, I'm "gambling" that I can trade it; if the market for the item dries up all the value disappears. When you buy stock you are purchasing part of a compan
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with your assement of the scenrio, however real money does go into the IPO, and does (sometimes) infuse a company with the resources to grow. other times it just pays off (excesively?) the people who already did all the hardwork, and took the risks in creating a company.
If their wasn't people trading stocks, then their wouldn't be the incentive to those who purchase IPO's... As far as t
Re:Replace investors? (Score:5, Informative)
That's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding.
If that was true -- if the stock-market was a zero-sum game where the only way to win was to have someone else lose the same amount, then there'd be no point in playing it. Your average return would be zero.
Luckily that is not the case for investments. It *is* the case for speculation (for example day-trading) but that's something else.
When you buy $1000 worth of oh, say, Arendal Fossekompani. You are buying a certain small part of a company. The company, as most companies, try to turn a profit. On the average, they manage that. Some companies make a loss and (if they stay like that) eventually go bankrupt. But the sum total of the profits (or losses) of all companies is hugely positive.
Now, your $1000 part of the company made say $100 of profits this year. They can do two things with this money. Either they divide their profit up and give it to the owners (that's the ones holding the stock), in which case you'd get $100 cash as dividend.
Or they can invest the money, for example use this years profit to improve the powerplant so that it'll produce more power next year. In this case you still own a certain part of the company, but it's a larger, more valuable company. (your piece should now be worth on the order of $1100, but market-forces can change this in either direction) The stock market is not a zero-sum game with no profits. It's a game where the profits are, over time, equal to the average profit of the companies you invest in.
Re:Replace investors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Replace investors? (Score:4, Interesting)
But the real growth of the economy is all based on debt, the government decides how much to lend out and that decides how big companies get and how much money there is to pay workers and stuff.
Of course, if you get too much money out there relative to other countries (like now, where the government has been printing $500B per year of new money in the form of debt), your currency falls and your money is worth less and less. You can only push so far before people begin to lose confidence. Having a good leader can really help out the confidence, both in and out of the country. But the economy is showing that it could take the huge infusion of money pretty well and we're sending it to China and they're still taking it so what do we care?
Now, what's going to happen when we move to one world currency? Well, it's going to be a long process and there's going to be a big war and eventually we'll all settle down and we can all move a bit slower. But as long as there are more people than there is available water, food, energy, etc. it will not be possible. I think we will probably hit that population number soon. I like to follow the progress of the "Euro" because that was a major major change for the world that we haven't even felt yet. In the West we have most of S. America tied to the dollar now. Since Europe is now the biggest economy in the world, once they get the kinks straightened out, free up trade between the member states and drop tax rates, they(you) are going to be a force to reckon with.
The only country with anything to fear right now is Russia; they have a huge land mass with huge resources and on the outside you have overcrowded China and Japan in the East, and Europe on the West. But I like the Russians, I think they are some of the most brilliant people. I think they will be our friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Replace investors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are still growing, the losers are those who grow slower than inflation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd much rather have 4% of the global economy's worth than 100% of my current net worth.
The global economy literally means a friggin big amount of money. Explain to me how any country, company or individual that grows slower than the global average is not a loser in this game.
So if a $10^12 country grows only by 3% a year, it must be a loser compared to all the $10^9 countries that manage a 15% growth ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Money wants growth. It will generally move into paper that has less money attached to it so that it may attain a higher percentage return (depends on how much risk the money's owner wants to take on).
{blab_1}
The funny part is, a higher re
Re: (Score:2)
First you say (or atleast imply) that it is a zero-sum gain... then you say that the losers are those who 'grow slower than average'.
You've contradicted yourself quite obviously. If it is a zero sum game, then the global average growth would be zero. What the parent was pointing out is that this is not the case.
You can't then change your definition and say that people lose n
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, great summary... The computers wouldn't be replacing investors, but 'investment advisors'... That's a whole different rung on the ladder. If they replaced the investors, there'd be no money and the stock market would die.
That is incorrect. There's no reason a computer program couldn't own the investments it manipulates. In fact, I'd say that there's a good chance that you get proven wrong by the end of the century.Not a zero sum game... (Score:2)
Thanks to the inputs of human labor and intelligence bringing increases in productivity into the economy, the stock market is not a zero sum game. Even accounting for inflation, there has been real growth in the overall value of the market, just as there has been real growth in the overall value of the world economy. So it IS p
This is trading not investing. (Score:5, Insightful)
What they're talking about is arbitrage and trading, not investing. Their trades are designed to be in the short-term. Sometimes, very short-term - within a second.
Reminds me of a movie (Score:2)
Reducing inefficiency is the key (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, the models provide insight into market inefficiencies to be applied rapidly across asset classes and the vast number of financial instruments within those asset classes. Whole markets can be analysed daily for buy and sell indications at an individual instrument level. This enables portfolios to contain a larger number of instruments and reduce risk through greater diversification of the portfolio.
As inefficiencies are identified (such as when the return / risk ratio is not correct) provides an opportunity to increase returns by taking advantage of them. Of course, as more people use models the inefficiencies will be corrected quicker, leaving less opportunities to exploit. In effect, the market fixes itself. This, of course, is nothing new - markets adjust to new technologies all the time and eventually the opportunities they offered disappear; for example when the telegraph first came out no doubt someone discovered they could buy an item at one place for less then the same item where they were and arbitrage the prices - but as more people started doing that the spread disappeared.
But will it run on Windows? (Score:2, Funny)
Would be interesting to see how an advisor would interpret -that-
LTCM anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
the stock market collapse in 1987 (Score:5, Informative)
back in 1987 when automated selling by computers was blamed for making the collapse worse
The most popular explanation for the 1987 crash was selling by program traders. Program trading is the use of computers to engage in arbitrage and portfolio insurance strategies. Through the 1970s and early 1980s, computers were becoming more important on Wall Street. They allowed instantaneous execution of orders to buy or sell large batches of stocks and futures. After the crash, many blamed program trading strategies for blindly selling stocks as markets fell, exacerbating the decline. Some economists theorized the speculative boom leading up to October was caused by program trading, while others argued that the crash was a return to normalcy. Either way, program trading ended up taking the majority of the blame in the public eye for the 1987 stock market crash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Computer trading ... bah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Warren Buffet has outperformed the market over many years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett [wikipedia.org]
Buffet understands the economy and invests accordingly. The computer programs only understand the market. In other words they can't really respond faster than the rest of the market. Buffet can be years ahead of the market.
Cradle to Grave...instantly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But don't feel upset now. The 12-year recovery afterwarts is worth it, the artifica
Dangerous idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Investment by numbers is by definition a rather conservative way to invest. In other words, put your money where there already is money. Risk investment is usually something done by visionaries, not by bean counters. And yes, 9 out of 10 times the idea bombs. But the one that works pays hundredfold.
Wallstreet isn't Chess (Score:2, Interesting)
Until you can look at the numbers of a company and know everything about that company with certainty (meaning that a human _could_ do it if they had an infinite amount of time), or until we have computers that are great at telling when people (enron) are bluffing, I'll stick with investmant companies that rely predominantly on humans.
Finding stock data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One, Mathematics is the language of nature.
Two, Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
Three, if you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns everywhere in nature.
Evidence: The cycling of disease epidemics;the wax and wane of caribou populations; sun spot cycles; the rise and fall of the Nile.
So, what about the stock market? The universe of numbers that represents th
Yahoo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look for August 21st, 2006 post on my blog @theparticle.com [theparticle.com]. There's a TON of data out there... just gotta look for it.
A Hedge Fund That Opts for Engineers, Not MBAs (Score:3, Interesting)
http://tinyurl.com/ke2ey [tinyurl.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BS. Successful hedge fund managers do not have "quirky, daring trading styles." Every successful hedge fund out there has a set of metrics and a set of formulae that they apply in order to dete
Re: (Score:2)
Surreal... (Score:2, Interesting)
If that happens, and if all the investitors has access to such software, my bet is that the whole point of investing on market will flop. Since everybody will always "win", nobody will actually make a huge profit, the money will enventually be equally distributed among all inv
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not at all. Every major player in the market already uses some kind of computer modelling, for risk analysis, pricing, arbitrage or whatever. There is basically a perpetual arms race as different investors come up with new strategies or better ways of modelling a particular part of the market. The result is a more efficient market - fewer things are mispriced.
The sad thing
Re: (Score:2)
*BZZZZZT*
Please look at your textbook again.
You forgot about inflation (Score:2)
You forgot that governments print money. They make it out of thin air and devalue currencies. The US government is doing exactly that right now. There are inputs to the economy, the sun, oil, human inventiveness which mean it isn't a zero sum game, it's only zero sum on the very shortest timescales.
Read "Debt of Honor" (Score:3, Interesting)
Just wait... (Score:2)
(Good data && Good Algo) (Score:4, Interesting)
When everyone is crunching numbers on their head, the computing might give an advantage. If everyone is computing with compters, the advantage goes to the one with better algorithm. And the better "algorithm" might actually turn out to be thinking and looking at the global picture instead of madly computing.
When huge trades are decided by these algorithms it is almost like a huge herd of milling cattle. When the stampede, just get out of the way. But if someone could trigger a stampede and send it over the cliff, there will be rich pickings later. And in free markets, if there is a way for someone to make money, someone will.
I think algorithmic investing is the new name for the old "programmed trades" and it might actually make the thinking and studying fundamentals investors richer.
The code is
if( InputDataIsGood() && AlgorithmIsGood() && AlgorithmIsBetterThanOthers()){
Output(profit);
}else{
Output(loss);
}
Re:(Good data && Good Algo) (Score:2)
I was thinking about this a lot. Basically, if someone made a perfect stock trading program (imagination-land), and then sold it to -everyone-, how would it work?
Ignoring that it would be a chaotic feedback loop, in the best of cases, it would still make money for -everyone-, but at the rate that's highly correlated with the overall economic growth. Imagine a completely efficient market (where if you buy stock at $20, you -know- it's worth $20 on that da
This makes the rounds every now and then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, it's intriguing isn't it? I mean, one of the things I use computer programming for is to learn how things work. I look at it this way; a computer is rock-stupid, but it does exactly what you tell it to do. So, if I could write a code to do market analysis, I'd be learning the intricacies of how to do it along the way. Sure, most invesment sites have tools for you, but there is value in learning the underlying mechanisms.
Seems the best approach would be to write such a program to simply do the analysis, then you make the final commit to buy or sell. You'll have a good idea how to interpret what you get back because you told it what to do in the first place and you should be able to spot errors/weaknesses in your strategy. It could be downright symbiotic.
Heisenberg Principle in play, of course (Score:2)
A Mathematician Plays The Stock Market (Score:2)
The book is pretty much as it sounds. While the author doesn't *actually* invest in stocks, he *is* a mathematician and he plays through (mostly with logic) ways to get ahead in the stock market game. As you would probably guess, it's not easy.
A great read. Sadly, my dreams of a quick fortune by computing stocks were quickly squashed by his well presented arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Comments from a friend in the business (Score:5, Insightful)
One of his most interesting comments: "The model can inform your decisions, but you have to know when to NOT trust the model." Another of his comments on a completely different talk: "Mathematical models are never perfect, but they can be useful."
The trading system can be modeled, but you can never capture all the true complexity of the real world. If you leave the model to do it's thing, if I know how it's going to act, I can game the system. If the world changes in a way that the model builders did not predict, then the system will also act inappropriately.
I can't imagine ever getting rid of all the traders out there, though I imagine expert systems will become more 'expert' as time goes on.
It's being done (Score:2)
Its made of...people! (Score:2)
That said, it is pretty easy to statistically spot deviations caused by "irrational exuberance". Even so, a computer betting against the "new economy" rally of the late 1990's would have su
The Story line is sensational (Score:2)
And since the dawn of computers people have been searching for the magical program that could predict stock growth with enough accuracy that you give it a little money and retired to a tropical island.
While a computer program might be able to match or beat the average investor in the stock market, that is only because publicly traded companies hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really - they started out with arbitraging the slight price differences in bonds, knowing they could make money as the prices converged. They eventually went into other areas as they got more money; and the small differences required huge positions so they were highly leveraged - when an ex
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Old headlines apparently. [wikipedia.org]
(durn lameness filter! if the original had a greater percentage of caps, why can't I quote it without extra text like this!)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this has been done. Effectively. No, seriously, it has. Read Fortune's Formula [amazon.com].