@InstAllocator 2/2 Backtesting results usually have no information value. Specific trade examples and investing stories are not relevant. Instead you need to look at the trading statistics. Persistence in the ability to out-perform. Also, strategy performance under various market conditions.
@InstAllocator 1/2 Probably want to distinguish quantitative (some maths involved) from systematic (decision-making is not discretionary). Then identify exactly when discretion is used (almost always exists). Ask to see return attribution to alpha (excess return) versus other factors over time.
@InstAllocator I can provide some questions but first can you let me know your time-frame for investing? 3m, 1y, 5y? How long does it normally take you to come to a decision to invest? Your questions and approach will depend on these answers.
@tseides I understand why you would get out of this role, Ted. It is very inefficient and likely fairly biased. Thousands of emerging managers and thousands of allocators/investors trying to find a bilateral fit with each other. The industry needs a better business model.
@HedgeFundRisk This article is kind of nonsense.
"Index funds minimize risk by tracking a market metric, like the S&P 500" - except that markets can crash by 30%
"Hedge funds are high-risk products designed to seek the maximum possible return in any situation." - really, that is what they do?
@JacquesQuant This is compounded by issues such as principal-agency where the portfolio manager may have to explain the "algo" to the Fireman's pension fund board of trustees (which has firemen on it) and also the idea that good ex ante decisions do not always look good ex post.
@JacquesQuant I think it is hard for people to "see" the value in an industry with high levels of complexity and uncertainty. "Is that really alpha?";
"Does an extra 80 basis points justify fancy portfolio construction over equal weight?";
"Will this work going forward?".
@JacquesQuant And then we dig the hole a little deeper by trying to show some sophisticated statistical results about how these outcomes really are better, about which even we are a little suspicious.