Hi, I'm the founder of Q. You're right about the turnover, though it is a multi-faceted trade-off. While increasing the trading frequency accelerates the accumulation of data, it also increases drag from transaction costs and that tends to lower a strategy's capacity.
As someone who works for a start-up and tries to hire in MA, our biggest issue for innovation is a lack of people. Hiring is extremely hard here due to lack of applicants. The cost of living in the area is relatively high (only about 20% less than SF) and the winter weather is too cold for most people. Thankfully, Boston isn't as opposed to building as SF, so lots of new apartments are coming on the market every year. Hopefully that will drive down rents, or at least justify the high rents with nicer apartments. I'm not sure what to tell people about the weather, though.
All those issues sound just like the scenario in Washington State, which mostly means the greater Seattle area.
Our blocking issues for growing are enough devs, infrastructure costs (roads are crowded, buildings are in shorter supply, hard to find a place to build a new building in Kirkland, say). Also high cost of living. I personally think non-competes must hurt freedom to move around companies here a little bit too. I have only heard of it being an issue a few times. Still, more worker freedom is better; it must be that some people are disincentivized from switching. Worker "job switching lubrication" is an important economic boost that California has and we don't.
As someone that lives in Cambridge and going by your linkedin profile and glassdoor salaries, you might want to try bumping your salaries up by 15+%...
Really? Have you or someone you know had their noncompetes held against them? I've never actually seen it done here (MA), which is a good reason alone to abolish them but doesn't equate to them holding back innovation.
It's a bullying tactic that makes it difficult for employees to either go out on their own or go to other companies.
Would you be willing to go to court to find out?
I used to work with a guy who came up with a fairly good product idea (in his own time and at his own cost). He brought it to mgmt and they were not interested (wasn't in our space). So he tried to go out on his own with it and immediately received a Cease & Desist order. His lawyer said if he went to court could easily cost him up to $50K to defend successfully. So he gave up & complied.
Can you imagine the outrage if a plumbing business tried to enforce a non-compete (e.g. "you can't work as a plumber for 2 years"). Well ... unions.
Mass. would do well to outlaw them, but sadly the state legislature is easily bought so I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
The worst I've had to endure myself is "friendly warnings" in exit interviews, but I know others who have been sued or overtly threatened with a suit. It doesn't take many actual cases for the chilling effect to be felt all around.
To be fair, we invested our own money in the winner.
The composition of the algo portfolio for the fund != the winners only. Our challenge is to choose the optimal set of algorithms from a huge pool. Optimal means maximizing returns while also minimizing correlation between the strategies.
The holy grail of investing is 10 or so uncorrelated return streams. We're building a community and platform to consistently turn out algorithms with uncorrelated return streams.
Here's how I think about our contest:
If you only had backtesting, you could win by fitting.
If you only had 1 month of paper trading, you could win by luck (taking excessive risks).
But our contest is 2 years of backtesting + live trading for a month. I don't think it is likely you can both overfit and be lucky with one strategy.
Assuming you blackbox test the algorithms, you could include some signatures of past data. If those signatures are detected, you know the future and can trade optimally. If they are not detected, go for blind luck.
Investing is planning for the future. It is a critical tool for society. Everyone from individuals to important institutions like universities and pensions need to invest. It is a need of the many, not a diversion for the few.
Because of HFT, it has become popular to blindly condemn investing.
I went to college because an endowment was able to provide me with a scholarship. Investing has a huge effect on society and on people.
Sector weighting equally is based on diversification. Market cap weighting will tend to bet more on winners (the market cap is going up), concentrating your investment there.
Another way to think about it: market cap weighting is a momentum strategy. Equal across sectors is mean reversion.
