Background: Limitations of Machine Learning in Finance
"If deep learning could predict stock prices, why aren't all top AI companies doing quantitative trading?"
Core Limitation: Extremely Low Signal-to-Noise Ratio
| Domain | Signal-to-Noise Ratio | Achievable Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| Image Recognition | High | 95%+ |
| Speech Recognition | High | 90%+ |
| Natural Language | Medium | 80%+ |
| Stock Price Prediction | Extremely Low | 52-55% is already top-tier |
Why is financial signal-to-noise so low?
- Markets are nearly efficient: Obvious patterns are quickly arbitraged away
- Many participants: Patterns you find, others are using too
- Noise dominates: 90% of short-term price movement is random fluctuation
- Reflexivity: The prediction itself changes what's being predicted
Limitation 1: Not Enough Data
Deep learning requires massive data, but financial data is limited.
| Data Type | Sample Size | Deep Learning Suitability |
|---|---|---|
| 20 years daily data | 5,000 records | Far from enough |
| 5 years minute data | 500,000 records | Marginally usable |
| 1 year tick data | Millions of records | Can try |
Comparison: ImageNet has 14 million images, GPT was trained on trillions of tokens.
Limitation 2: Unstable Distribution
Training data and prediction data have different distributions (Regime Shift).
Training Set (2015-2019):
- Bull market mostly
- Volatility 15%
- VIX average 15
Test Set (2020):
- COVID crash
- Volatility spiked to 80%
- VIX peak 82
-> Model completely fails
Deep Learning Assumption: Training and test data come from the same distribution. Financial markets violate this assumption.
Limitation 3: Easy to Overfit
"Patterns" in financial data may just be noise.
| Model Complexity | Training Set Performance | Test Set Performance | Diagnosis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple Linear | 8% annualized | 6% annualized | Normal |
| Random Forest | 25% annualized | 8% annualized | Slight overfitting |
| LSTM | 80% annualized | -5% annualized | Severe overfitting |
| Transformer | 150% annualized | -15% annualized | Catastrophic overfitting |
Complex Model does not equal Better Prediction; in finance, often the opposite.
Limitation 4: Prediction does not equal Profit
52% accuracy sounds better than random, but may lose money after costs.
Assumptions:
- Prediction accuracy 52%
- Each win 1%, each loss 1%
- Trading cost 0.3%
Expected return = 52% x 1% - 48% x 1% - 0.3%
= 0.52% - 0.48% - 0.3%
= -0.26% (losing money!)
Required win/loss ratio:
Win 1.5%, lose 1%
-> 52% x 1.5% - 48% x 1% - 0.3% = 0.28% (small profit)
Limitation 5: Poor Interpretability
Deep learning is a black box; financial regulation and risk control need explanations.
| Scenario | Linear Model | Deep Learning |
|---|---|---|
| Why buy this stock? | "High momentum factor score" | "Network output 0.7" |
| Loss attribution | "Value factor failed" | Unknown |
| Regulatory explanation | Can provide | Difficult |
| Risk control adjustment | Adjust single factor | Needs retraining |
Limitation 6: Hardware and Cost
Training deep models requires significant compute power; quant returns may not cover costs.
| Resource | Cost | Required Return |
|---|---|---|
| GPU cluster training | $10,000+/month | Annualized > 10% |
| Data purchase | $50,000+/year | Annualized > 5% |
| Talent cost | $200,000+/year | Annualized > 20% |
Comparison: A simple moving average strategy costs near zero.
When Does ML Actually Work?
| Scenario | ML Effectiveness | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| High-frequency trading | Limited | Latency matters more than model |
| Daily stock selection | Usable | Enough data, moderate complexity |
| Monthly asset allocation | Limited | Too little data |
| Alternative data mining | Valuable | Unstructured data processing |
| Risk modeling | Valuable | Predicting volatility easier than returns |
Practical Recommendations
1. Simple Models First
First choice: Linear regression, Ridge regression, Logistic regression
Second: Random Forest, XGBoost
Last: LSTM, Transformer
2. Validation Over Model
Spend 80% of time on validation:
- Walk-Forward validation
- Multi-period stability
- Return after costs
3. Features Over Model
80% of Alpha comes from feature engineering
20% from model selection
Good features + Simple model > Poor features + Complex model
4. Predict Volatility Instead of Returns
Volatility is easier to predict:
- Volatility has clustering effect
- Volatility autocorrelation 0.7-0.9
- Return autocorrelation ≈ 0
Use ML to predict volatility -> Use rules to trade
Summary
| Limitation | Impact | Coping Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Low signal-to-noise | Accuracy hard to exceed 55% | Lower expectations |
| Insufficient data | Easy to overfit | Simplify model |
| Distribution drift | Model failure | Rolling retraining |
| High costs | Returns eaten up | Reduce turnover |
| Black box | Hard to risk control | Maintain interpretability |
Core Conclusion: ML's value in quant is signal enhancement, not predicting price movements.