Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
We write algorithms that take observational data from satellites, pixels, and turn
them into real-time insights about our world. The applications for this technology
extend from farming to government and, as you might expect, finance. Weve got
hedge funds knocking on our door almost every day, but our ambitions will take us
far beyond the business of investing.
We use artificial intelligence, via evolutionary algorithms, to explain and predict
complex ecosystems, such as patient outcomes in health care. Our platform does a
good job of predicting financial markets. Still, were not interested in being a
financial services company in the long run. Were interested in explaining
complexity and predicting successful outcomes in a range of domains.
We model trust among entities in a network by examining social connections,
online interactions and backgrounds. Our ability to predict trust- and
creditworthiness will have a huge impact on the peer-to-peer industry thats
developing, such as in ride sharing or apartment renting. And, of course, itll also
create a massive opportunity in financial services, but thats not our focus.
Will the financial services industry soon be challenged by technology entrepreneurs
with little initial or no exclusive interest in the investment business? The three
abridged and anonymized quotes above, from real people running real technology
companies, would seem to suggest that, yes, thats increasingly probable. Which is
not to say that companies arent emerging from Silicon Valley to target bloated
segments of the financial services industry (that is, pretty much all of the financial
services industry) they definitely are. But weve noticed something rather more
profound in the past year: The hot technologies being developed today will offer
unparalleled insight into the complex world around us, and the applications to the
entire domain of finance and investing are countless.
One example: The ascendance of nonbiological intelligence means computing
systems will learn and process many types of inputs far faster than even the mostexpert individuals. Once experts partner with the systems, these man-machine
teams will become extremely competent at rules-based goal seeking. The days of
using scarce computing resources to model complex systems backcasting,
calibrating, validating and eventually forecasting are nearly over. Massive and
scalable parallel systems are now available for rent by the second, and the
implications of having access to almost limitless computing environments to attack
the largest data sets imaginable augur a paradigm shift in the discovery and
communication of relevant data patterns. Machine-learning science and
technologies are increasingly agnostic to the internal mechanisms of models. Rather,
the scale of data that can be evaluated and processed in real time on massive grid
networks will allow systems to inform their operators as to what the key variables
are, instead of being restricted by top-down architectures.
In short, a growing number of computing systems and technologies will empower
people, organizations, networks and information in transformative ways. Service
industries will be particularly affected, as they often require human, labor-intensive
analytics and networking to scale. But if technologies can help people network and
analyze faster and better, some of the companies in the industries that provide these
very services will face an existential challenge. As with the rise of computing and the
Internet, we expect new technologies in the coming decade to challenge service
industries, such as finance, in ways that few people today appreciate.
What does all this mean for institutional investors? Well, it means that computer
systems may soon do for them directly what asset managers have been doing as third
parties. It means the private club of hedge funds, which you once happily paid 2 and
20 to join, wont be as exclusive as it used to be. It means the mythical black box
that some asset managers use to drive outperformance and reinforce their own
people, process and information and how they can come together to create
knowledge. Whatever your unique approach to investing may be, its component
parts likely fall into one of these categories. People refers to the talented
individuals who drive returns for investment organizations. Talent is critical in the
investment business, which is why skilled investors have sufficient leverage to get
paid more than skilled professionals in any other industry. Process refers to the
decision-making inputs required by an organization to execute on its strategic plans
and achieve its long-term objectives. Process also refers to governance, which is a
critical factor for success, as the board has the ability to give the organization the
resources it needs to achieve its objectives. Information refers to the insights and,
ultimately, knowledge used by investors to make decisions. This may refer to the
algorithms running in a black box, to a highly cultivated network of trusted
individuals or to the theoretical models in a finance textbook. Its important to note
that not all information is of equal importance, and informational advantages are
crucial. Its for this reason that some investors are willing to push their information
gathering to the boundaries of what is legal.
In our view, these three inputs and the way in which they are combined offer a
framework for considering the key factors that drive success or failure among
investors. These inputs are often of different qualities and combined in different
ways to achieve similar return objectives. For example, the endowment model of
institutional investment is based largely on informational advantages; the best
endowments are adept at leveraging their networks to identify and access top
managers to drive high performance. The Canadian model of institutional
investment is based largely on process and human resources; institutions that follow
it pay competitive salaries and manage assets internally, reducing fee overhang and
improving their ability to think creatively about portfolio construction. The
traditional model of institutional investment, which outsources all of the assets to
external service providers, assumes that people and information are best procured
outside the confines of an institutional investment organization.
As University of Oxford professor Gordon Clark suggests, the key differences among
the varying investment models often stem from a simple decision on whether to
make or buy the key inputs (or a subset of inputs) to produce investment returns.
If you have a robust governance framework that values investments in dataprocessing and knowledge-acquisition infrastructure and has the ability to pay top
talent, you may choose to make most of your money on your own. If not, you may
choose to take a hybrid approach. Indeed, the question underpinning the different
models of institutional investment is ultimately whether the processes, people or
information should be developed within an organization or sourced on the market.
But what this question fails to consider and what nearly all large institutional
investors perhaps do not appreciate is the extent to which technology will alter the
way in which these three inputs interact. Indeed, what the existing analyses of
present and future models for investment did not realize was how much people,
process and information could be disrupted through technological innovation. In the
sections that follow, we will review some of the technological disruptions looming in
each of these categories.
People
The largest institutional investors in the world are in most cases public in nature and
located in cities far from major financial centers. Although hiring talent can be a
challenge in any location, it is made all the more difficult by the fact that these public
funds are limited by both compensation and geography. Many investors need to fill
public sector jobs in cities like Edmonton, Juneau and Sacramento with people who
can compete in and with the private sector. This isnt easy, especially with yawning
salary differentials.
The conventional finance wisdom, however, has it that the highest-paid investors are
the best at their jobs. If an investment organization wants to get the best returns,
this logic goes, it has to be willing to pay the highest salaries. This is why public
pensions and sovereign funds, according to intermediaries, should outsource to
intermediaries.
We bet we can find more hedge fund employees earning $500 million per year in the
U.S. today than you can find pension fund employees earning $500,000 per year.
You on? Actually, dont take that bet. Youll lose.
But this raises an important question: Are the hedge fund employees who set the
stage for the 1,000-times differential in compensation 1,000 times smarter? Of
course they arent. They arent superhumans. Many simply have supercomputers.
The technologies that certain hedge funds have been using are, in fact, at least 1,000
times better. Indeed, some early hedge funds made significant investments in
technology, and they continue to reap rewards from those investments today. The
economies of scale those funds enjoyed served to reinforce their hegemony. This is
still the situation on the ground today, for the most part, though more and more
managers rely on or help shape financial services through communication and
discovery technologies like social media.
Thanks to technologys ability to gather and analyze enormous amounts of data,
investors that use technology are able to employ far fewer people to perform the
same or better analytics. You can think of technology as an augmentation of
capabilities or a brain extender; as with any other profession, the work flow an
investor can accomplish is generally fixed by the limits of his or her experience, skill
and intelligence. Discount what are for now unforeseeable events chance and so
forth add a widely varying array of access to information (market indicators and
economic data, however sophisticated or simple), and you have a basic outline of the
capabilities of any individual financial analyst: one analyst, one brain, surrounded by
the tools of the trade and possessed of differing abilities to use those tools.
But now imagine if that person were not just one person, if the hard limit that is a
single brain was in fact a much softer limit than we thought. Imagine a dozen
artificially intelligent versions of any analyst say, of you taking in information
and parsing it, making sense of it exactly as you might do but on a massive scale.
That information is sorted and then passed to you, the human investor, as a set of
recommendations to act upon as you like.
The result is, essentially, the creation of digital clones of a good analyst or trader.
The applications for machine learning and artificial intelligence will prove invaluable
for institutional investing. Deriving real-time insight from the daily data deluge,
scraping data from the web as well as compiling and analyzing more-conventional
sources of financial information, could easily become an automated process.
These days its not difficult to imagine that bots might learn to make rapid, granular
decisions about which stocks to buy, in keeping with any given investment style
that is, in keeping with your investment style. These bots could be trained through
machine learning to identify the signals you would identify, independent of any toostringent, rule-bound conditions. Bots can learn, simulate, replicate and amplify the
reach of that idiosyncratic perspective.
An asset might exhibit certain traits and behavior that would be impossible to reduce
to a logical set of conditions, but you might nevertheless find it appealing. You can
only look at one chart or read one news story at a time to draw your personality-driven inferences; bots can look at millions simultaneously and eventually will be
able to do so from a perspective they learned directly from you. Bots would not make
investment decisions independently but would pass them on to traders as a set of
near perfectly engineered recommendations derived by functional digital replicas, or
avatars, of their own brains.
In sum, though quants have had their day in the sun, artificially intelligent bots may
soon put them out of business. And as a result, the complete reliance on talented
investment professionals, one of the scarcest resources in the investment business
today, will give way to even-more-talented man-machine teams. The implications for
a sovereign fund in Doha or a pension fund in Auckland are significant.
Information
We now take for granted the ability to zoom into a virtual map containing millions of
data points with our fingertips and to have a system reveal to us relevant
information in stages and layers as we tap and swipe phone numbers, photos,
addresses and GPS coordinates. Voice-commanded real-time computation of dozens
that youve indicated you might be interested in (via predetermined signals) but that
you can most rapidly de-risk (thanks to your unique qualities). One of these
companies is even building technologies to construct optimized syndicates of
different investor groups that will coinvest in a deal, maximizing the value brought
to entrepreneurs by a community of different investors and increasing the likelihood
of success.
But how many investment bankers realize this is happening? How many venture
capitalists understand whats coming to their comfy niche? In our view, those
companies and individuals that made their money in financial services because they
sat at the intersection of networks (see brokers, bankers and some asset managers)
should be nervous. A powerful matchmaking engine that can thoughtfully
understand investors and entrepreneurs and can assess, using massive data sets and
parallel processing, the potential for successful partnerships will give even the top
venture capitalists a run for their money especially because the fees charged by the
technology platform will be a tiny fraction of what the venture capital firms charge.
In sum, we are close to a future in which institutional investors will no longer have to
rely on third-party managers to assess the morass of signals and heaps of data to
make informed investment decisions. The financial services companies in global
money centers many of which have accumulated talent and technology on a
massive scale to inform their own investment decisions will be challenged by
technology companies that have unparalleled analytics capabilities to inform
everybodys investment decisions. And these technology companies will form the
basis of a virtual pool of resources that will bring most if not all of the professional
capabilities of financial centers sourcing, screening, conducting due diligence,
structuring, syndicating, trading and monitoring, among other tasks to the
fingertips of investors around the world. All they will require is access to a connected
device. And the technological systems that will make all this possible live in what we
are calling the virtual financial center.
Process
We spend a lot of our time trying to help investors think creatively about how they
do things. We do this for two key reasons. First, we believe that the best investors
accept financial markets as constantly changing ecosystems in which good ideas are
ephemeral and there are rewards for spotting new opportunities early and acting in
an entrepreneurial manner. Second, we believe new approaches will be almost by
definition less competitive than traditional approaches, meaning that creative
investors can reduce the fees and costs associated with their investment execution.
In short, we think it pays to constantly think creatively about the process of
investing. Most investors dont seem to agree. In reality, institutional investment
organizations are often allergic to innovation, enjoying monopoly control over their
own asset bases. They prefer the company of a good herd, and the individuals in
charge tend to focus on managing political and career risk instead of investment
risks.
One of the main reasons for this behavior is that most investment organizations are
flying blind. The theoretical models they use to build their portfolios, which are
based on unrealistic assumptions like rational actors and efficient markets, are often
powerless to explain let alone predict crises and often follow one another right
into the middle of them. In fact, the majority of financial models derive from work
done in the 1960s to the 80s, when pencil-paper tractability was prized precisely
because of a lack of computational power. Worse, such investors recognize all too
well that they live in a very dangerous world, but their business, risk and information
technology systems are obsolete or lacking in critical functionality, redundancy and
security. Boards of directors are told repeatedly by consultants and intermediaries
that effective investment management in financial markets is enormously
demanding in terms of talent and resourcing, that this is a business for professionals
and that No disrespect, yall, but pension fund employees arent professionals.
In this context, its reasonable that institutional investors rush into the arms of costly
intermediaries and the mainstream financial service providers. Its understandable
that they spend their time constructing diversified portfolios of risks rather than
digging into individual assessments of opportunities. Its understandable that they
hug benchmarks and match peers; buy products, not assets; invest in managers, not
companies; and manage according to expected returns, not risks. They optimize
ratios rather than focusing on key variables, and they use diversification as a crutch
rather than as a tool. And over time these mechanisms, which were meant to
simplify investors lives, have become exactly the things that complicate them. The
models and abstractions the products and managers are not substitutes for realworld understanding and investing.
Can technology help? No doubt. Boards and managers will soon have systems that
can explain and predict markets. They will have the ability to slice and dice their own
portfolios in real time. They will finally have powerful tools to plot a course that
meets their own unique needs, recognizing who they are, where they are and where
they can go in an idiosyncratic world of constraints and challenges. The era of big
data will reduce our reliance on top-down models by allowing explanatory data to
emerge into coherent explanations and predictions, without draining human
resources or relying too heavily on external managers and consultants. Again, an
asset might exhibit certain traits and behavior that would be impossible to reduce to
a logical set of conditions, but data-mining tools will help make sense of it all.
Boards will finally have an effective risk management function based on real-world
agents that will facilitate the development of an effective investment function. They
will only empower managers and delegate authorities when they are confident that
risk systems are functioning effectively. Investors need not be averse to complexity,
but they need to be able to ensure that they fully appreciate the component risks of
every investment and seek to diversify those risks at the total portfolio level.
Technology will make this much easier than it is today.
Technology will also help overcome the limitations of existing governance models. It
will provide a means of collaborating with peer organizations. It will help minimize
errors and biases via checklists and diligence tools, all of which will increase
efficiency: Investors will better understand their portfolios and be able to manage
them more effectively. No longer will a pension fund have to beg for ten more people
technology will make a single individual capable of doing the work of ten people.
The only losers in this world will be the highest-cost intermediaries, whose own
some institutional investors look to technology companies as key partners, filling the
roles that used to be played by consultants and asset managers.
Among other benefits, placing their trust in the virtual financial center will help
institutional investors access the promise of machine learning and data mining.
Theyll also begin to overcome the geographical restrictions that have kept them
from attracting top talent. (It isnt clear that top talent will continue to work at
traditional firms, as technology companies continue to attract young professionals
who might formerly have gone to Wall Street.) In short, everywhere one looks,
technology has begun to revise a relatively conservative, slow-moving industry.
Over the past 30 years, advances in technology have served to empower financial
intermediaries. Going forward, technology may threaten their existence. As we saw
in the quotes that opened this article, the final aims of the most-exciting technology
companies may lie elsewhere. In the meantime, a new virtual financial center is
rising.
Get more from authors Ashby Monk and Daniel Nadler in their blogs, Avenue of
Giants and At the Digital Edge