Reading a finance paper by someone who never worked in finance is useless 98% of the time.
It's like listening to football strategy from someone who never played or coached football.
It's like taking dating advice from someone who never dated.
OP has a point and doesn't have a point at the same time.
On the one hand, you don't need to be an astronaut to be an astrophysicist. Why do you think Wall Street experience is a prerequisite to understanding markets?
On the other hand, it is true that finance academia is getting more and more out of touch with "real world" finance (thank you, regression monkeys!). But that has nothing to do with "practicing" finance versus "writing" about finance.
Your point is valid for 95% of finance papers. But some of them are worth reading and the authors have no practical experience in finance.
I was debating 98% or 95%. But you might be correct, 95% may be more accurate.
To be honest, that 5% of insightful papers with authors who never worked in finance is kind of amazing. It's like solving a math paradox without a math Ph.D.
OP has a point and doesn't have a point at the same time.
On the one hand, you don't need to be an astronaut to be an astrophysicist. Why do you think Wall Street experience is a prerequisite to understanding markets?
On the other hand, it is true that finance academia is getting more and more out of touch with "real world" finance (thank you, regression monkeys!). But that has nothing to do with "practicing" finance versus "writing" about finance.
You don't need to have dated to understand women. This is only true for a very very small percentage of the population.
Reading a finance paper by someone who never worked in finance is useless 98% of the time.
It's like listening to football strategy from someone who never played or coached football.
It's like taking dating advice from someone who never dated.
Wall Street is 100% sales and marketing
once you understand that, you can position yourself for a successful career in finance
Your analogy is wrong. A football coaches job is to think about how they can win a game, it is the job of an analyst to figure out who has the highest probability of winning out of everyone. They arent the same thing. Similarly, it is the job of a trader to MAKE money, it is the job of an academic to figure out what happens in a market where everyone is TRYING to make money. Different skill sets.