Keys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1236783273&p > lay=1 > > Wilmott was on CNBC today… > > The journalists just don’t get it…Hey Paul, What > are your mathematicals telling ya or tell me which > asset class is going up…uggghhh wow…what dumbasses. so they wanted Paul to come out and say what he would and wouldnt buy?
Too expensive for me, but I would like to do it at some point. I did do Atillio Meucci’s quant bootcamp a few weeks ago. 6 days, about $1k. I thought it was a good deal, though it goes fast enough that it’s hard to keep up.
Paul essentially summarized what happens on this channel all day as BS. Well-done.
I view quantitative methods as a subset of “fundamental analysis” since the former involve analyzing real data that bears some sensible conceptual relationship to the value of the thing being looked at, as opposed to things like charting. I view fundamental analysis (including certain quantitative methods) as the only legitimate “analysis” discipline, for that matter. I’ve recently become aware that form ADV II, used by US regulators, includes “charting”, “technical” and “cyclical” analysis as security analysis methods, which I find disappointing and borderline astonishing. So let it be written. So let it be done.
Ideally Quant should work with Fundamental analysis. In practice, there’s a great wall between both fields. Charting is BS btw, but using tendency indicators to support (or put doubts in) your asset selection is not.