All people who find the opposite result need to get together and write a refutation paper against Schmalz et al.
(Impossibility of) Replicating Schmalz's work on "common-ownership"
-
Look, even if you do things a little differently (but still in a reasonable way) you shouldn't get completely different results. It just shouldn't matter much - unless it is cooked up. And yeah all the critics of course didnt do it in a reasonable way. Then just post the complete code that does all the manipulations and we're done here. I'm sure using that code you get the result. and if you still get them when you do things a little differently, it's probably all correct.
-
Rather than having a big mouth, why don't you give it a shot? Start of with the Compensation paper and move on to their Airline paper. Read the data description of the Compensation paper and see whether there is some relevant discussion on how they construct their variables. They don't even talk about the variables and how they constructed them.
OP, if you lack the skills and knowledge to replicate someone's work, then it is your problem, not theirs.
Which one is the compensation paper? Working paper "Common Ownership, Competition, and Top Management Incentives"?
-
Lit consulting bro here. Everything we do is replicable and can be traced back to the raw data. My junior people are taught that if you can't demonstrate exactly how a result was achieved that we won't accept it.
Lit consulting standards are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than academic fenance standards.
-
Lit consulting bro here. Everything we do is replicable and can be traced back to the raw data. My junior people are taught that if you can't demonstrate exactly how a result was achieved that we won't accept it.
Lit consulting standards are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than academic fenance standards.
academic finance = bunch of people with data that they don't share = lots of room to cook up the results
-
Lit consulting bro here. Everything we do is replicable and can be traced back to the raw data. My junior people are taught that if you can't demonstrate exactly how a result was achieved that we won't accept it.
Lit consulting standards are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than academic fenance standards.
academic finance = bunch of people with data that they don't share = lots of room to cook up the results
To be fair, this is just corporate finance. Asset Pricing uses the same data 90 percent of the time
-
really embarrassing mistake. You cannot take results in academic journals serious anymore. People tend to make too many mistakes, whether on purpose or by accident does not matter. It would be much better to return to short and well-conducted studies instead of 100+ page behemoths that nobody can or will fully understand.
Blackrock showed that some researchers simply do not have a clue what they are actually writing about, and this is happening in JF.
-
Wait, the note is already from January this year. So for ~7 months it has been known that the paper in question is deeply flawed. Have the authors ever responded to this?
-
Have the referees and editor asked for a correction?
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/whitepaper/policy-spotlight-common-ownership-data-is-incorrect-january-2019.pdf
Wait, the note is already from January this year. So for ~7 months it has been known that the paper in question is deeply flawed. Have the authors ever responded to this?
-
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/whitepaper/policy-spotlight-common-ownership-data-is-incorrect-january-2019.pdf
Wait, the note is already from January this year. So for ~7 months it has been known that the paper in question is deeply flawed. Have the authors ever responded to this?
This thread started 10 months ago.