Fundamentals of Quantitative Investments
In this series, the Omphalos AI Research Team want to discuss the key and fundamental aspects of quantitative investing in detail and depth. In particular, our series will not be a beautiful story of how to build the holy grail of investing, but rather a long list of pitfalls that can be encountered when building such systems. It will not be a complete and exhaustive list of pitfalls, but we will try to describe those we discuss in great depth so that their significance is clear to everyone. And importantly, this will not be a purely theoretical discussion. We will provide a practical view on all of these aspects — shaped by real-world lessons and, in many cases, by our own painful and sometimes even traumatic experiences in building and testing systematic investment strategies. These hard-earned lessons are precisely why Omphalos Fund has been designed as a resilient, modular, and diversified platform — built to avoid the traps that have undone so many before.
At Omphalos Fund, we have always been clear about one thing: artificial intelligence is not magic. It is a powerful tool, but its value depends entirely on the system it operates in and the rules that guide it. When applied to asset management, this means that even the most advanced AI can only be effective if it is built on a deep understanding of how markets work — with all their complexities, inefficiencies, and risks.
That is why our latest Behind the Cloud white paper takes a step back from the technology itself. Instead, it examines the foundations of quantitative investing — the real-world mechanics, pitfalls, and paradoxes that shape investment strategies. The aim is not to present a flawless “holy grail” of investing, but to show the challenges and traps that every systematic investor must navigate.
We believe this is essential for anyone working with AI in finance. Without appreciating the underlying business of investing, AI models risk becoming black boxes that look impressive in theory but fail in practice. By shedding light on the subtle but critical issues in quantitative investment design — from overfitting to diversification, from the illusion of normal distributions to the reality of risk of ruin — we provide context for why our platform is built the way it is: modular, transparent, and resilient.
The goal of this white paper is simple:
To help readers understand that using AI in asset management is not only about smarter algorithms — it’s about building systems that are grounded in strong investment fundamentals and designed to survive the real world of markets.
Yet for all the romanticism, history shows a consistent pattern: the human element is the weakest point in systematic investing. Even the most carefully designed strategies can fail when emotion, bias, or inconsistency overrides the rules.
Automation is not just a technological upgrade. It’s a philosophical shift. It means replacing inconsistency with discipline, emotion with logic, and intuition with repeatable process. Above all, it means protecting strategy execution from the well-documented cognitive flaws that erode performance: chasing trends too late, selling winners too early, doubling down on losers, or abandoning rules under pressure.
Automated systems, especially when powered by AI agents, do not hesitate, doubt, or deviate. They execute precisely as designed, every time. That’s not just faster. It’s more honest. A Case in Point: Jérôme Kerviel and the €4.9 Billion Loss
In early 2008, Société Générale disclosed a catastrophic trading loss of €4.9 billion, the result of unauthorized trades by a single mid-level trader: Jérôme Kerviel. Kerviel exploited weak internal controls, using fictitious offsetting positions to hide his real exposure. His trades went undetected until market volatility forced the bank to unwind the positions, locking in enormous losses.
Kerviel wasn’t a rogue genius with unique market insight. He was a discretionary trader operating within a flawed human system. His actions were driven by overconfidence, loss concealment, and the belief that he could “trade out” of mounting risks. The automation, discipline, and oversight necessary to prevent such an event were all missing.
The fallout was not just financial. It shook investor confidence, damaged Société Générale’s reputation, and triggered sweeping changes in compliance and oversight.
The case illustrates a hard truth: when humans override rules, they don’t just become a source of risk … they can become the risk.
But Kerviel was not an isolated outlier. Similar patterns have appeared in other institutions — most famously the Barings Bank collapse in 1995, driven by trader Nick Leeson, later chronicled in the book Rogue Trader and the film adaptation. Different time, different instruments — but the same underlying lesson: when discretionary behavior, weak controls, and mounting losses intersect, a single human can accumulate outsized risk faster than organizations can react.
Research Spotlight
The Psychology of Trading: A Losing Game?
Even professional traders are not immune to the traps of the human brain. Fear and greed cloud judgment. Loss aversion encourages irrational risk-taking after losing streaks. Anchoring leads to overreliance on outdated data. Recency bias causes overreaction to short-term noise.
Under pressure, even experienced professionals bend their own rules. Exit too soon. Freeze when volatility spikes. Add to losers, hoping for a rebound. Then hesitate when it finally comes.
No matter how good the strategy is, it’s worthless if it isn’t followed consistently. That’s where humans fail. And where machines excel. Why Automation Matters
Automating execution is not just about speed or efficiency. It’s about protecting the integrity of the investment process:
Omphalos Perspective
At Omphalos, we deliberately removed the human trader from the execution loop. Not because humans are slow, but because they’re inconsistent. Our decision to build a 100% AI-managed fund was philosophical.
We believe that rules should be followed, not debated. That risk should be measured, not guessed. That discipline beats discretion in the long run. Our agents operate with no emotion, no fatigue, and no ego. They execute based on the best available data, using logic developed through rigorous backtesting and forward simulations.
This doesn’t mean humans aren’t involved. We build, test, and monitor the systems. We handle research, stress testing, and risk controls. We develop the next version of the system. But the final decision to trade - long or short, enter or exit -is made by the system. Not by a person under pressure.
By removing the weakest point, we’ve made the entire process stronger.
Series Wrap-Up: What Comes After Rules, Data and Agents?
This concludes our current Behind The Cloud arc on quant foundations and on why execution discipline matters as much as strategy design. We explored the hidden traps that quietly destroy systems: diversification illusions, future data leaks, fragile “holy grails,” volatility shocks, misleading risk metrics, and the ultimate question of survivability. But if there is one thread running through all of it, it’s this: markets punish inconsistency — and reward systems that can adapt without breaking. That is exactly where we go next.
Next Series: AGI for Investments – How It Will Look and How It Will Change Markets
In our next series, we explore how artificial intelligence in investing could evolve beyond today’s narrow, task-specific applications toward systems that resemble Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in function - not in science-fiction form, but as autonomous, adaptive, and coordinated decision-making systems operating across assets, data domains, and market regimes.
What follows is not a prediction in the strict sense. The future rarely unfolds exactly as imagined. Yet some variant of the trajectory described in this series is highly likely to materialize, and every plausible variant would have a profound impact on capital markets, on how investments are managed, how risks are understood, and how market behavior itself evolves.
Rather than focusing on algorithms or short-term performance, this series examines the structural implications of AGI-like systems in investing. We begin by clarifying what AGI means in a financial context and what it does not. From there, we translate the concept into a concrete, experience-based narrative, outline the architectural principles such systems would require, and explore how learning, uncertainty, and risk must be re-thought once decision-making becomes autonomous and continuous.
A central part of the series is dedicated to the practical path toward AGI in investments. Over the past eight years, Omphalos has consistently developed AI-driven investment systems, evolving from independent trading agents to coordinated, collaborative intelligence operating at the portfolio level. This experience does not imply that a final destination has been reached. On the contrary, it highlights why AGI in investing is best understood as an evolutionary process, shaped by iteration, failure, and learning in live market environments.
Stay tuned. The cloud is just beginning to clear.
If you missed our former editions of "Behind The Cloud", please check out our BLOG.
Omphalos Fund won the "Funds Europe Awards 2025" in the category "European Thought Leader of the Year".
Omphalos Fund nominated for "EuroHedge Awards 2025"
© The Omphalos AI Research Team - February 2026
If you would like to use our content please contact press@omphalosfund.com