Smart beta

The low-risk anomaly in financial markets has puzzled researchers and investors, challenging the traditional risk-return paradigm (higher risk->higher return). This phenomenon, where low-risk assets outperform their high-risk counterparts on a risk-adjusted basis, has been observed across various asset classes, including stocks and mutual funds. What may be the possible explanation? Pass-through mutual funds, which aim to replicate the performance of specific market indices, play a crucial role in this context by channeling investor flows and potentially influencing asset prices through demand pressure.

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 …

Pragmatic Asset Allocation (PAA) represents a portfolio construction approach that seeks to balance the benefits of systematic trend-following with the realities faced by semi-active investors (mainly taxes and lack of time to manage positions). Approximately a month ago, we ran a test and filtered asset allocation strategies from our Screener and looked for those that performed well on a YTD basis. One of those models that fared surprisingly well was the PAA model, and given the challenging market conditions so far in 2025, with mixed signals across asset classes and increased macroeconomic uncertainty, we believe it is an ideal time to revisit the PAA framework. This analysis may help clarify whether a pragmatic, rules-based approach can still hold its ground—or even outperform—in a year when many models have struggled.

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.