Talk:Alpha generation platform

This lead explains nothing

The lead section uses alpha generating process to explain alpha generating platform. Unfortunately, this is not fixed till the very end of the article. Perhaps it is a good idea to start explaining what that alpha is that is generated by the platform. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have introduced a Methodology section to motivate needed contribution. Make it a worthful article by elaborating on what these platforms do and how they do it and how humans interact in this process. How they work and what they are doing is more important in an encyclopedia then talking in length about the growth of this business. While the business itself is not yet explained. Good luck! Tomeasy _{T C} 08:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for huge amount of information you have added today user: Jnb7, excellent job! Tomeasy _{T C} 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! - jnb7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnb7 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

COI

This puff piece appears to exist solely to generate a (favorable) link to Alphacet. The primary author is the sole author of that entry, and has made no other contributions other than a link the Quantitative analyst.

Moreover, anyone who actually wants to know what an "alpha generation platform" does would not be enlightened by this article.

Anyone who cares should improve it. If I remember to check, I will flag it for deletion in a few weeks. Bongomatic (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this fringe article. I think you are just the second person after me who laid hands on it. I removed the section that you suspected as advertisement.

With respect to the other objection that the article does not inform well about its subject: As you can see above, I had the same criticism initially, but I think this issue has been quite solved by Jnb7. If you read the first sentence only, you already know very much what it is about, or not? I have to admit that I am familiar with the subject and thus might not be able to look at it from an outside perspective.

I am not sure about your relevance criticism: These platforms are widely used software tools in this very special industry. For me it is comparable to having an article about finite element packages used by engineers for stress analysis. Well, I am not sure whether we need something like this here or not. For me it would be a bit sad to remove it, because I invested some time copy editing the article. However, if an experienced wikipedian with knowledge on the subject tells me that this is out of our scope, I would agree on deleting it. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reasonably familiar with CAPM and the concepts of alpha and beta. However, in markets generally, fund managers use / misuse the term 'alpha' in too many ways to count. Hence, while if you have a particular means of generating alpha in mind, "locate[ing] excess return in the capital market" is so vague as to be meaningless. If this were an article about quantitative trading strategies, such a generality (backed up with details on specific strategies that attempt to do so) would seem to have a place in an introductory paragraph. However, since no specifics are given, and no details on the strategies generated are provided, in aggregate, the article appears to me--even on several re-readings--to contain no material information. I would be quite pleased to see it improved. Bongomatic (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DONT DELETE

what are you talking about, I found it usefull and I looked at stats - there are dozens of people who come here every day See here: http://stats.grok.se/en/200810/Alpha_generation_platform —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.131.243 (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact the people come looking does not necessarily imply that the page is useful, rather that there is a demand for the information it purports to offer. As a newcomer to the finance world I personally found I was no better off after reading this material than I was before I started.

Please also note that the link to references [1] and [5] gives a 404 response, so bit-rot has set in.

89.197.50.90 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability

AGPs are notable, as they direct hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the world economy. Not to mention they are an active field of research by thousands of PhDs. I think AGPs are more noteworthy than most featured articles in Wikipedia, even if the people who work with them are usually too bussy to edit this article. Bagsc (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My two cents

I'm a software developer. I've heard the term 'quant' before, but not 'alpha generating'; I think this article is worth-while because a) it mentions a whole category of software (which is ipso facto note-worthy e.g. to software developers), and b) even if it doesn't do a great job at introducing/covering the subject, at least it tells me the name of the suject so that I can research it further. As long as there exists more than one product of this type in the world (so that this isn't spamming a single product), in my opinion this *is* sufficiently noteworthy. That's not to say that it can't be improved, only that it ought to exist, and that even in its present state it's better than nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.245.164 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like puff to me

DominicConnor (talk) Some Quants do try to generate alpha, but... Firstly they rarely if ever use an alpha generation platform, in my years in ths business I've never heard this term, nor more recently as a headhunter even seen a job specification that mentions it, not had any conversation with a manager at any group where an equivalent term was mentioned.

Next, quants tend not to use 'platforms', they use tools, things like Matlab, R, Excel, Factset, et al.

If this activity exists at all in any significant way, it will be amongst portfolio managers who may use it because they don't have quants that they can use for this task.

The Aite numbers aren't just puff, they are hopelessly wrong.

Also there is a clear and blatant attempt to mislead here. Whatever number you pick for AUM by quants, the % that uses this "platform" is so low that I would not like to say it exists at all, even if it does, it probably is too small to pass the notability test.

The puff links need to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk)I just looked at editing this, and found that when one removed the Aite puff there was nothing left at all.

And no, I'd never heard of Aite either, I am left with the clear impression that this article exists only to promote them.