The 25-year-old quantitative giant AlphaQuest collapses: three consecutive years of losses, and a $2 billion fund liquidated

Executive Summary: AlphaQuest, a renowned quantitative hedge fund established approximately 25 years ago, officially announced its closure in February 2026 after suffering significant losses for three consecutive years, and returned all remaining capital to its investors. AlphaQuest: The Quiet Exit of a Quantitative Titan On February 19, 2026, major news reverberated across the hedge fund industry: AlphaQuest—a veteran quantitative hedge fund managing approximately $2 billion under the leadership of Nigol Koulajian—formally decided to shut down. After roughly 25 years of operation, the fund reached its end, primarily due to its most severe performance downturn in history—three straight years mired in losses. This decision entails ceasing all operations and fully returning remaining capital to all investors. Three-Year Loss Trajectory: From Peak to Collapse AlphaQuest’s decline was not sudden. Public information indicates that its troubles began in 2022: 1. October 2022: Initial Turning Point Fund performance began deteriorating sharply, marking the onset of a prolonged downward spiral. 2. 2023: Deep Losses The fund posted an annual loss of 15.2%, far exceeding industry-average volatility ranges, underscoring a fundamental failure of its investment strategy. 3. 2024–2025: Persistent Losses Despite multiple shifts in market conditions, the fund failed to recover effectively; cumulative losses since October 2022 had widened to approximately 30%. 4. Early 2026: Final Blow By February 2026, the fund had already declined 3.1% year-to-date, with over 4% of that loss occurring in February alone—the final straw that precipitated its closure. Multiple Questions Raised by the Closure AlphaQuest’s demise has triggered profound industry-wide reflection on quantitative investment models and market resilience: - Strategy Failure and Market Adaptability As a quant fund reliant on mathematical models and algorithmic trading, AlphaQuest’s sustained losses exposed the fragility of its core strategy amid recent extreme market volatility—including geopolitical conflicts and abrupt liquidity shifts. Its models failed to adapt promptly to structural changes, resulting in uncontrolled risk exposure. - Fading Luster of Top-Tier Funds AlphaQuest’s $2 billion scale meant it was no obscure player. Its closure shattered the myth of “too big to fail,” confirming that even historical track records and large asset bases offer no immunity against systemic risks in complex macroeconomic environments. - Erosion of Investor Trust Persistent losses severely undermined investor confidence. When a fund fails to demonstrate strategy efficacy within a reasonable timeframe, redemption pressure and reputational damage feed into a vicious cycle—ultimately compelling management to exit voluntarily to preserve industry credibility. Industry Implications: Future Challenges for Quantitative Investing

Breaking the Ice and Forging Ahead: How Can ‘Chinese Private Equity’ Break Free from the ‘Negative Spiral’ Trap? | IIR

The State Council General Office’s ‘Document No. 1’ explicitly states that government-guided funds shall not be established solely for the purpose of attracting investment. It strengthens tiered and centralized management to prevent redundant investments and disorderly competition; strictly controls the establishment of new district- and county-level guidance funds and fund managers—requiring tight alignment with local fiscal capacity and resource endowments; encourages relaxing requirements on local investment (‘fan tou’); and establishes sound tolerance mechanisms for errors. These measures are accelerating the transformation of government-guided funds—from earlier patterns of ‘daring not to invest’ or ‘unwilling to invest,’ or investing merely to meet local investment quotas—toward market-oriented capital. Yet, on the other hand, as one of the core pillars of China’s current private equity market, the targeted scale of newly launched government-guided funds is likely to shrink substantially. Fund establishment in regions with weaker fiscal capacity will significantly decline, and district- and county-level government-guided funds in less-developed areas may disappear entirely. This further demands that the market’s fundraising side introduce new types of long-term capital to balance and stabilize the funding structure—specifically, increasing the allocation weight of long-term, patient capital—such as national social security funds and insurance funds—within private equity investment. III. Liquidity Drought and Structural Imbalance: Banks and Insurance Companies Have Yet to Step Up—They Are Not Currently Systemically Important LPs. Unlike overseas institutions—which primarily raise capital from pension funds, asset management firms, and insurance companies—and which have recently been actively exploring product innovation (e.g., PEO Partners and AlphaQuest launched, in January this year, an actively managed PE-themed ETF featuring a hybrid strategy of equities and derivatives, with equity investments targeting publicly listed companies aligned with leveraged buyout themes and characteristics of private equity funds; Apollo Global Management and State Street launched a private credit ETF at the end of February, offering 10–35% exposure to private credit), and expanding funding channels (e.g., the U.S. is seeking to include private equity in 401(k) retirement plans under its second-pillar system; Wealth Club in the UK recently launched an online platform enabling direct private equity investments, with a minimum investment of £10,000, allowing investors to participate in semi-liquid private equity funds managed by firms such as Apollo, Brookfield, and EQT—similar models having previously been rolled out in the U.S. by KKR and others), China’s private equity market operates within a distinct developmental context, policy framework, and capital landscape. On one hand, China’s household savings rate remains persistently high and continues to hit record highs; yet vast pools of savings have failed to translate efficiently into corporate loans—or otherwise serve the real economy effectively (since the 2018 ‘Asset Management Regulations,’ bank-affiliated capital has virtually exited China’s private equity market). On the other hand, mainstream financial institutions—including banks and insurers—are currently not primary funding sources on the LP side of the private equity market (as of Q4 2024, total assets of China’s banking institutions stood at RMB 444.6 trillion in both domestic and foreign currencies; total assets of insurance companies and insurance asset management companies amounted to RMB 35.9 trillion; and total insurance fund allocations reached approximately RMB 33.26 trillion). In 2024, overall LP contributions from financial institutions—including banks and insurers—declined, with insurance capital’s LP contributions (i.e., indirect equity investments) falling sharply (while direct investment volumes rose significantly). Insurance capital’s LP contribution in 2024 (RMB 73.2 billion) declined by 45.9% year-on-year.

AlphaQuest LLC Increases Stake in Minerals Technologies Inc.

May 28, 2026

AlphaQuest LLC purchased 20,411 additional shares of Minerals Technologies Inc., raising its total holding value to $1.69 million. This investment follows MTX's strong quarterly earnings, surpassing analyst expectations with $546.9 million in revenue.

MarketBeat

2026-05-13

Minerals Technologies VP Sells 6,000 Common Shares

2026-05-18

Minerals Technologies CEO Exercises Options and Sells 21,568 Shares

2026-05-19

Minerals Technologies Inc. Declares Quarterly Dividend

2026-05-21

Minerals Technologies Director Receives Phantom Stock Units Grant

2026-05-28

AlphaQuest LLC Increases Stake in Minerals Technologies Inc.