Quant hedge fund statistics are best read through two lenses: how quantitative strategies were classified, and how funds reported high-frequency trading (HFT) exposure. The AIMA/HFR classification data below measures strategy shares of global hedge fund industry assets under management (AUM) at the end of 2013. SEC Form PF figures cover quarterly HFT reporting from 2017Q2 through 2019Q1. These are historical observations, and the underlying research is legacy research that was not independently verified.
Contents
- How quantitative strategies were classified
- Strategy shares in the 2013 industry snapshot
- Relative-value and fixed-income context
- Equity, macro, and event-driven comparisons
- How many funds reported HFT exposure
- NAV managed by funds using HFT strategies
How quantitative strategies were classified
The AIMA Research Paper, How to better understand hedge fund performance, describes an HFR classification system with 29 hedge fund sub-strategies. Quantitative Directional is one of those 29 sub-strategies. The 29 sub-strategies are grouped into four main buckets: equity hedge, event-driven, macro, and relative value.
That structure matters when interpreting quant hedge fund statistics. “Quantitative” is not presented in the supplied AIMA figures as one single, separately measured industry-wide AUM category. Instead, quantitative approaches appear within a broader classification framework. The clearest named quantitative category in the supplied data is Quantitative Directional, while other systematic or rules-based categories are reported separately.
The same AIMA source identifies Systematic Diversified as representing 8.51% of total global hedge fund industry AUM at the end of 2013. Equity Market Neutral represented 1.64%, and Currency-Systematic represented 0.47% of total industry AUM at the same measurement point. These percentages describe the global industry snapshot, not a current estimate and not the share of all hedge funds using any quantitative technique.
Strategy shares in the 2013 industry snapshot
The AIMA/HFR figure provides a useful historical comparison of strategy shares. The largest named share in the supplied data was Fundamental Value at 16.33% of total industry AUM. Multi-Strategy (Relative Value) accounted for 15.54%, while Systematic Diversified accounted for 8.51%.
The table below places several of the reported categories side by side. Every percentage refers to total global hedge fund industry AUM at the end of 2013, as reported in the AIMA Research Paper.
| Strategy | Share of total industry AUM |
|---|---|
| Fundamental Value | 16.33% |
| Multi-Strategy (Relative Value) | 15.54% |
| Systematic Diversified | 8.51% |
| Discretionary Thematic | 5.50% |
| Fixed Income - Corporate | 4.50% |
| Fundamental Growth | 4.32% |
| Distressed/Restructuring | 6.45% |
The comparison shows why a single “quant hedge fund market share” number can be misleading. Systematic Diversified was substantial in the classification snapshot, but it was smaller than Fundamental Value and Multi-Strategy (Relative Value). The figures should be read as category shares, not as a ranking of performance or an estimate of future returns.
Other reported categories included Discretionary Thematic at 5.5%, Fixed Income - Corporate at 4.5%, Fundamental Growth at 4.32%, and Distressed/Restructuring at 6.45%. Activist represented 3.54% of total industry AUM. Technology/Healthcare represented 2.39%.
Relative-value and fixed-income context
Several of the AIMA categories provide context for where systematic and quantitative approaches sat alongside relative-value and fixed-income strategies. Multi-Strategy (Relative Value) represented 15.54% of total industry AUM at the end of 2013. Fixed Income - Asset Backed represented 2.54%, Fixed Income - Convertible Arbitrage represented 1.8%, and Fixed Income - Sovereign represented 0.69%.
The same historical figure reported smaller or specialized categories as follows:
- Fixed Income - Corporate represented 4.5% of total industry AUM.
- Volatility represented 0.53%.
- Commodity represented 0.95%.
- Energy/Basic Materials represented 0.87%.
- Active Trading represented 0.43%.
- Short Bias represented 0.27%.
- Private Issue/Regulation represented 0.2%.
Currency strategies were also split by style. Currency-Systematic represented 0.47% of total industry AUM, while Currency-Discretionary represented 0.28%. This distinction is useful because it separates a systematic currency category from a discretionary currency category, but it does not establish that every fund in the systematic category used HFT or a particular trading technology.
The source also reported Multi-Strategy (Macro) at 3.33%. That category, like Multi-Strategy (Relative Value), combines approaches rather than isolating one quantitative model. Comparisons across the categories therefore need to respect the classification labels instead of treating all systematic, multi-strategy, and market-neutral approaches as interchangeable.
Equity, macro, and event-driven comparisons
Equity Market Neutral represented 1.64% of total global hedge fund industry AUM at the end of 2013. In the supplied classification, it sits alongside broader equity hedge categories and should not be treated as identical to Quantitative Directional or Systematic Diversified. Its market-neutral label describes the strategy category, while the data does not provide a separate percentage for every possible quantitative implementation within it.
The historical AIMA figures also included Multi-Strategy (Equity Hedge) at 1.22% and Multi-Strategy (Event-Driven) at 2.04%. Technology/Healthcare was 2.39%, Activist was 3.54%, and Distressed/Restructuring was 6.45%. These figures show the breadth of the HFR framework around the quantitative categories.
Fundamental and thematic strategies were also material in the same snapshot. Fundamental Value represented 16.33%, Fundamental Growth represented 4.32%, and Discretionary Thematic represented 5.5% of total industry AUM. The supplied facts do not give a combined total for quantitative strategies, and adding categories would risk double-counting because the classification labels may describe different levels or groupings of the industry.
AIMA’s classification also listed Quantitative Directional among the 29 HFR sub-strategies grouped into equity hedge, event-driven, macro, and relative value. The supplied research does not provide a percentage of total AUM for Quantitative Directional itself. That missing percentage is important: the existence of a category is not evidence of its size.
How many funds reported HFT exposure
SEC Form PF data summarized in the SEC 2019 PF Report to Congress gives a different view of quantitative trading: the number of hedge funds reporting zero, partial, or at least full NAV usage of HFT strategies. In 2017Q2, 7,668 hedge funds reported 0% of NAV using HFT strategies. The corresponding count was 7,704 in 2017Q3, 7,767 in 2017Q4, and 7,883 in 2018Q1.
The zero-usage count reached 7,990 in 2018Q2 and 8,057 in 2018Q3. It was 7,918 in 2018Q4 and 7,986 in 2019Q1. These counts are reported fund observations for the specified quarters; they are not a percentage of all hedge funds and should not be converted into one without a denominator from the same table.
The number reporting less than 100% HFT usage was much smaller. SEC Form PF data listed 66 funds in 2017Q2, 63 in 2017Q3, 42 in 2017Q4, and 70 in 2018Q1. It listed 69 in 2018Q2, 58 in 2018Q3, 64 in 2018Q4, and 67 in 2019Q1.
Funds reporting 100% or more HFT usage were fewer still: 12 in 2017Q2, 13 in 2017Q3, and 12 in 2017Q4. The count was 11 in 2018Q1, 11 in 2018Q2, and 11 in 2018Q3. It fell to 5 in 2018Q4 and remained 5 in 2019Q1.
Taken together, the three reporting bands distinguish funds with no reported HFT NAV usage from funds reporting some exposure and funds reporting at least full usage. They do not measure the profitability, speed, capacity, or technological sophistication of a quant hedge fund. They also do not mean that a fund with 0% HFT usage had no quantitative process.
NAV managed by funds using HFT strategies
The SEC 2019 PF Report to Congress also reported NAV managed by hedge funds using any HFT strategy. The measure was $1,366 billion in 2017Q2 and $1,394 billion in 2017Q3. It reached $1,397 billion in 2017Q4 and $1,423 billion in 2018Q1.
| Quarter | NAV managed by funds using any HFT strategy |
|---|---|
| 2017Q2 | $1,366 billion |
| 2017Q3 | $1,394 billion |
| 2017Q4 | $1,397 billion |
| 2018Q1 | $1,423 billion |
| 2018Q2 | $1,430 billion |
| 2018Q3 | $1,434 billion |
| 2018Q4 | $1,324 billion |
| 2019Q1 | $1,385 billion |
The reported NAV was $1,430 billion in 2018Q2 and $1,434 billion in 2018Q3. It was $1,324 billion in 2018Q4 and $1,385 billion in 2019Q1. These are nominal NAV figures for funds using any HFT strategy in each reported quarter, not an estimate of the total quant hedge fund industry.
The distinction between the AIMA/HFR and SEC Form PF data is essential. AIMA’s end-2013 figures describe strategy classifications and shares of global hedge fund industry AUM. The SEC figures describe quarterly HFT usage reporting and NAV for funds using any HFT strategy from 2017Q2 to 2019Q1. They cover different concepts, periods, and measurement bases, so they should not be merged into a single time series.