Factor investing

Over the past decade and a half, the US equities have set the hard-to-beat performance benchmark. Nearly all of the other countries, no matter if small or big, emerging or developed, have lagged behind. However, what are the forces behind this outperformance? Why did most of the other markets and even investing styles bow to the US large-cap growth dominance? A new paper written by David Blitz nicely analyses the rise of the behemoth.

In two of our previous articles, we explored the idea of using artificial intelligence to backtest trading strategies. Since then, AI has continued to develop, with tools like ChatGPT evolving from simple Q&A assistants into more complex tools that may aid in developing and testing investment strategies—at least, according to some of the more optimistic voices in the field. Over a year has passed since our first experiments, and with all the current hype around the usefulness of large language models (LLMs), we believe it’s the right time to critically revisit this topic. Therefore, our goal is to evaluate how well today’s AI models can perform as quasi-junior quantitative analysts—highlighting not only the promising use cases but also the limitations that still remain.

This is the moment we all have been waiting for, and today, we would like to acknowledge the accomplishments of the researchers behind innovative studies in quantitative trading. So, what do the top five look like, and what will the authors of the papers receive?

Let’s find out …

Building machine learning models for trading is full of nuances, and one important but often overlooked question is: what exactly should we try to predict—the direction of the next market move or the actual value of the asset’s return? A recent paper by Cheng, Shang, and Zhao, titled “Direction is More Important than Speed” offers a clear and practical answer. Their research shows that focusing on direction—simply whether returns will be positive or negative—leads to better model accuracy and, more importantly, stronger real-world investment performance. This is especially true when using machine learning methods, where predicting the direction allows models to better capture downside risks and build more effective trading strategies. For anyone using ML in finance, this paper makes a strong case that predicting where the market is headed is often more valuable than predicting how far it will go.

Can machine learning models better predict stock returns if they are tailored to specific industries, or is a one-size-fits-all (generalist) approach sufficient? This question lies at the heart of a recent research paper by Matthias Hanauer, Amar Soebhag, Marc Stam, and Tobias Hoogteijling. Their findings suggest that the optimal solution lies somewhere in between: a “Hybrid” machine learning model that is aware of industry structures but still trained on the full cross-section of stocks offers the best performance.

With financial markets increasingly whipsawed by geopolitical tensions and unpredictable policy shifts from the Trump administration—investors are once again questioning how to understand risk, fear, and the true drivers of returns. A recent and compelling paper dives into this debate with a provocative thesis: in “Fear, Not Risk, Explains Asset Pricing,” authors Rob Arnott and Edward McQuarrie argue that traditional models built on quantifiable risk have failed to explain real-world returns, and that fear—messy, emotional, and deeply human—is the missing piece.