In quantitative trading, the strategy used and how a trade or an investment is placed is through data analysis and mathematical formulation. However, while there is some level of order in this systematic field of work, human psychology does at times get involved in decision making which leads to some behaviours that bias how performance is maximized. Neuroscience and economics together have coined ‘behavioural finance’ that identifies factors that affect even a seasoned data-driven trader’s performance. Armed with knowledge on these biases, traders can guard themselves against potential hazards and take initiative to avoid them.
1. Overconfidence Bias.
Overconfidence in this case is the quality of an individual to place too much trust in their skills, his or her knowledge or how correct their model is. Within the context of quantitative trading, overconfidence could drive traders to take impractical trades, ignore potential threats, or models based on great certainty. Such over-confidence may be perilous, particularly in erratic markets where even the best models have certain trends that may be damaging. People can protect themselves and their confidence from being so high by frequently disputing beliefs and assessing the models in multiple situations.
2. Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias is when people search for evidence or arguments that are consistent with what they believe, and they may avoid evidence contradicting their viewpoint. For quantitative traders, this implies favoring results that regard data or model outcomes that correspond with initial expectations. A trader, for example, might even be fixating into backtesting results that affirm the model and ignore the times it did not work. This cognitive bias of confirmation can instill unwarranted confidence and trust in a model which may even be outrageously false. One way of lessening this bias is by challenging their beliefs and actively searching for evidence that contradicts their expectations.
3. Loss Aversion
Loss aversion is the concept of loss aversion which explains the preference for losses to be avoided rather than achieved, tending to inflict more pain than pleasure. In quantitative trading, this results in the trader holding onto a losing position for too long or being unable to take desirable risks to generate returns. Loss-averse traders may find it difficult to make an unbiased assessment of the strategy in the presence of losses. Creating a disciplined approach to risk management, including consistent rules, could help traders from overindulging in losing strategies while not being detached from the overall performance of the portfolio.
4. Anchoring Bias
For content writers, the Anchoring Bias is the problem of requesting extra information that turns out to be useless. People make decisions leaning on their very first impressions. For example, the very first result that a model gets when it’s applied or assumptions about a market during the entry. The trouble with Anchoring Bias is that it can make investors hang onto their initial encounters with a new concept too much even when they encounter fresh thoughts that require alterations. For instance, a trader employing a strategy from a bullish market while the economy is performing poorly. Efficacies of models in such cases have noticeable flaws. In such situations, the only remedy is to constantly monitor the conditions of the markets and change the models accordingly.
5. Hindsight Bias
Hindsight Bias in this situation means when distress has passed, and time may have caused traders to reassess things they have gone through, they repeat ‘I knew it would happen’- which isn’t the case before the events actually took place. Such distortions may lead into traders thinking it’s easy to have foreseen certain events and therefore caused them to behave in a way that can be damaging to them. When traded in a calm market, quant traders tend to execute models designed to take advantage of looser financial conditions and become fixated with these fixed returns. Market conditions, where things do not happen according to predictions, should be acknowledged, and it would be prudent to formulate several outcomes when setting up a model and conducting tests.
6. Recency Bias
Recency bias means that people have the tendency to be influenced by events that occurred in the recent past which makes them fail to take a more historical approach. In other words, it means a quantitative trader may over rely on a model because it feels out of shape to the previous market conditions leading to that model underperforming in the long run. For example, if you are a trader and you change your strategies based on what is happening now, you will be sweeping under the carpet other broader patterns that would have led to better results over sustaining periods of time. If traders apply this principle when formulating their models, it will help them in avoiding recency bias.
7. Availability Bias
Availability bias is wherein people’s decisions are made based on the most influential pieces of information they have compared to what they actually have at their disposal. Inappropriate availability bias also applies in the context of quantitative traders, where commonplace financial indicator dependence is combined with less importance on unusual, but more informative datasets, such as social sentiment or macroeconomics, which may enhance model fit. Availability bias không biên giới might impose limitations on the specificity and flexibility of quantitative models. Consistent data ingests from a wide range of sources and coverage of different market scenarios are effective in mitigating this bias.
8. Endowment Effect
The endowment effect refers to the phenomenon whereby an individual or organization will simply value an asset more than its market price simply because they own it. As for quant traders, it can be viewed as grasping on to developed models or strategies yet there is more evidence showing that these models and strategies aren’t effective anymore. With this, traders may find it difficult to let go of or to change an ineffective model due to feelings and emotions attached to it. To overcome such an effect, objective evaluation techniques are paramount as the measurables such as the performance of an individual model are put on prime focus rather than emotional visuals towards any certain model.
9. Gambler’s Fallacy
The gambler’s fallacy can also be said to be the erroneous belief that the likelihood of future events is influenced by previous event results. In the case of quant traders, it can be the belief that a certain failed strategy such as the bearish model cannot possibly fail over and over again, some future time, ’the likelihood of it succeeding will be greater’ or vice versa with the bullish model. It is a type of bias that can cause unwarranted trading actions such as decisions with respect to risk management for instance. This cognitive error may also be avoided by traders; through reliance on statistical evidence rather than psychovisual figures.
Survivorship bias refers to the problem when participants only notice successful outcomes and ignore those who fail. This is especially true with quantitative trading where it is easy to look at the most successful models or firms without accounting for those that went bust. Survivorship bias can mislead traders in embracing an overly aggressive profile on what a strategy’s image would be and instead looking up to only the ideal outcomes. It will always be more advantageous to take into perspective a wider scope of historical data which includes losses in order to fully appreciate the pillars of winning strategies.
Ways of Alleviating Behavioral Biases
Behavioral biases are detrimental in the execution of quantitative trading. Below are methods of coping with such biases:
Reduce Manual Interventions: With trade executions, emotions, and psychological pressures engage less because the trade was automated.
Periodic Review: With a strategy in place, the traders get to evaluate their models over appropriate periods and make changes where necessary as a form of bias checking.
Risk Limits: Basing trades on maximum loss limits reduces the probability of biases arising, for example, the loss aversion bias.
Use of Diverse Resources: In diverse alternative data, dependence on the first available information is minimized as the picture is harder to grasp.
Understand that all modelling has a level of uncertainty: Building such a perspective will allow traders to conduct their plans in a more reasonable manner.
Conclusion
Disregarding the evidence, behavioral biases seem to afflict very intelligent number-oriented traders as well. It is however advisable for quantitative traders to explore possible solutions to these behavioral biases so as to better their strategies in terms of objectivity and robustness. Utilizing a systematic approach backed by data, in conjunction with an understanding of biases’ commonalities, can lead to improved decisions, which in turn benefit trading outcomes.
To avail our algo tools or for custom algo requirements, visit our parent site Bluechipalgos.com
Leave a Reply