- The report discusses the early and modern history of quantitative theory, highlighting key figures and their contributions, such as Thales, Fibonacci, Cardano, Pascal, Fermat, Bernoulli, Bachelier, Kolmogorov, Ito, Markowitz, Tobin, Sharpe, Fama, Ross, Vasicek, Kahneman, and Tversky[11][12][17] - The development of quantitative strategies in the new century is driven by advancements in computing, cloud computing, big data, and machine learning technologies, including decision trees, random forests, SVM, and deep learning models[13] - The report highlights the growth of global hedge fund management, particularly in North America, and the increasing adoption of AI strategies by fund managers to improve operational efficiency and returns[13] - The report reviews the development of domestic public quantitative funds, noting the slow growth before 2010 and the significant impact of the 2008 financial crisis and the introduction of margin trading and stock index futures in 2010[19][20] - The report discusses the future prospects of domestic public quantitative funds, emphasizing the continued growth of ETFs and passive products, the potential of Smart Beta, and the importance of index enhancement products[27][28] - The report highlights the importance of developing intelligent investment advisory and diversified asset allocation to improve investor experience using quantitative methods and tools[28] - Multi-Strategy, 12M AUM Weighted: 13.59%, Mean: 10.02%, Median: 11.24%[16] - Equity L/S, 12M AUM Weighted: 13.45%, Mean: 12.13%, Median: 11.21%[16] - Long biased, 12M AUM Weighted: 10.60%, Mean: 11.08%, Median: 9.74%[16] - Event, 12M AUM Weighted: 10.27%, Mean: 9.10%, Median: 8.40%[16] - Credit, 12M AUM Weighted: 9.76%, Mean: 9.75%, Median: 9.11%[16] - Macro, 12M AUM Weighted: 9.64%, Mean: 7.92%, Median: 7.58%[16] - Quant, 12M AUM Weighted: 8.72%, Mean: 6.55%, Median: 6.74%[16] - Arbitrage, 12M AUM Weighted: 5.87%, Mean: 3.79%, Median: 6.88%[16] - HF Composite, 12M AUM Weighted: 11.29%, Mean: 10.33%, Median: 9.33%[16]

Core Insights - The article discusses the phenomenon of employees avoiding responsibility and identifies three underlying psychological barriers: fear, lack of confidence, and lack of motivation [1][4][11] - It emphasizes that responsibility should not be equated with blame, but rather seen as a proactive attitude and willingness to be accountable for outcomes [3][4] Group 1: Understanding Responsibility - Employees' sense of responsibility is characterized by ownership, proactivity, and willingness to step up beyond their defined roles [3][4] - A supportive environment is essential for cultivating responsible employees; otherwise, the pressure and ambiguity can deter them from taking initiative [3][10] Group 2: Reasons for Avoiding Responsibility - Fear of failure and being blamed leads employees to withdraw and avoid taking responsibility [5][7] - Lack of confidence arises from insufficient resources, past failures, or perceived inability to succeed, which discourages employees from stepping forward [6][9] - Absence of motivation results in employees questioning the benefits of taking responsibility, leading them to prefer inaction over potential blame [11][12] Group 3: Strategies for Encouraging Responsibility - Leaders should clearly delegate responsibilities rather than merely stating that employees should be accountable [13] - Creating an environment where failure is viewed as a learning opportunity rather than a reason for blame can reduce fear and encourage participation [14][18] - Motivating employees by connecting their responsibilities to personal and professional growth can foster a sense of ownership and willingness to engage [19][20] Group 4: Building a Culture of Responsibility - A culture that encourages responsibility is designed, not just communicated; it requires a supportive and trusting environment [21][22] - Employees are more likely to take ownership when they feel valued and supported, which is crucial for high-performing teams [22]