ABSTRACT
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
I N THE SECOND HALF OF THE 1990s, there was so much skepticism about quantitative fundmanagement that Leinsweber (1999), a pioneer in applying advanced techniques borrowed from the world of physics to fund management, wrote an article entitled: ‘Is
quantitative investment dead?’ In the article, Leinweber defended quantitative fund
management and maintained that in an era of ever faster computers and ever larger
databases, quantitative investment was here to stay. The skepticism towards quantitative
fund management, provoked by the failure of some high-profile quantitative funds, was
related to the fact that investment professionals felt that capturing market inefficiencies
could best be done by exercising human judgement.
