The returns from high-frequency quantitative trading have indeed been outrageous in the past two years. An annualized profit of around 50% is on display—what industry can achieve that? Traditional companies struggle to make that much profit even with their best efforts. As a result, a large amount of capital and traders are naturally attracted, all eager to see if quantitative trading can make easy money.
The problem is, once more participants and funds enter the market, the microstructure begins to change. High-frequency quantitative teams have algorithms, technology, and data advantages—they can capture arbitrage opportunities that last only a few milliseconds. But what about retail investors? When the market rises, their positions are shaken out during volatility, and they end up realizing that they are losing money compared to the index, even if they initially made gains.
More and more small and medium investors are helplessly choosing to exit. They realize that in this market, without technological and capital support, relying solely on traditional fundamental or technical analysis cannot keep up with the pace of high-frequency trading. In the end, many can only stop trading and shift their funds to other fields.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
15 Likes
Reward
15
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeePhobia
· 12-16 16:52
Annualized 50% sounds great, but in reality, it's just a pretext for institutions to make money
Retail investors simply can't play this game; machines harvest in milliseconds and it's over
When the index rises, they actually lose money—that's the reality
Rather than being exploited here, it's better to turn around and do something else
Honestly, it's still too many people without capital and technology
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketSurvivor
· 12-16 16:52
Annualized 50%? Laughable, that's their story. Our story is a 50% annual loss.
Retail investors here are just being harvested like leeks, there's no way to play.
This is a game of capital; winners with money and technology eat everything.
I also thought about doing quantitative trading, but just looking at the threshold, I gave up and decided to play it safe and buy the dip.
Millisecond-level arbitrage? We are even ten thousand miles behind in reaction time.
I've seen through it long ago—technology dominates. Without capital, don't even think about entering.
Algorithms are benchmarked against the human brain; this battle is simply unwinnable.
View OriginalReply0
FrogInTheWell
· 12-16 16:43
Basically, it's just robots taking retail investors' money; we simply can't compete.
The returns from high-frequency quantitative trading have indeed been outrageous in the past two years. An annualized profit of around 50% is on display—what industry can achieve that? Traditional companies struggle to make that much profit even with their best efforts. As a result, a large amount of capital and traders are naturally attracted, all eager to see if quantitative trading can make easy money.
The problem is, once more participants and funds enter the market, the microstructure begins to change. High-frequency quantitative teams have algorithms, technology, and data advantages—they can capture arbitrage opportunities that last only a few milliseconds. But what about retail investors? When the market rises, their positions are shaken out during volatility, and they end up realizing that they are losing money compared to the index, even if they initially made gains.
More and more small and medium investors are helplessly choosing to exit. They realize that in this market, without technological and capital support, relying solely on traditional fundamental or technical analysis cannot keep up with the pace of high-frequency trading. In the end, many can only stop trading and shift their funds to other fields.