Another CFA bureaucrat...
It couldn't be put better
The authors argument about fundamental market shift is quite silly because those shifts also bankrupt many fundamental research driven hedge funds and asset management firms. In fact even the man who became famous for benefiting from regime changes and market shifts got almost wiped out twice. George Soros of course :D, from tech bubble and Swiss Franc rally. After the case with Swiss Franc he announced his retirement. In Davos he said that interventions of governments and international crises increased volatility, uncertainty and unpredictability enormously in the recent years.
There is a certain double standard that whenever quant funds incur big losses, some people not just question their methodology (which would be a fair criticism) but also question their existence as if quantitative finance is alchemy. As Cliff Asness brilliantly said, nobody says "Human judgment failed us today." and it fails us all the time.
Also one aspect that was missing in the article is management fee. I have no particular knowledge about fees but according to Cliff Asness, fundamental research driven funds charge much higher fees. Logically though, several quantitative analysts can cover a portfolio which normally would require dozens of fundamental research analysts. So probably in this area quant funds are far superior.
I do have respect for fundamental researchers as well and perhaps what they are doing won't be replicated by quant models for a very long time. But automation is a very strong trend affecting many aspects of our life and computers become more intelligent each year despite the disappointments in AI. So I would say:
LONG Quantitative Investing