Definitely deserves a bump.
JF editor drops citation of identical paper before paper gets published in JF.
-
The 2011 TAR paper does not examine the effect of guidance on liquidity. The 2014 JF paper by Kelly and Ljungqvist, as its title indicates, does exactly that. The 2011 TAR paper appears to be a noisy version of the first stage of the 2014 JF paper.
I'm not a fan of BK or AL. Both are arrogant AF. But, you're trying WAY TOO HARD to create drama on this one.
-
I read a little more. Your original post is not accurate. The two papers DO NOT have the same identification strategies.
The 2011 TAR paper decomposes the decrease in coverage for a firm into a purportedly exogenous part attributable to brokerage firms restructuring or discontinuing their research operations and an endogenous part. However, its estimated exogenous part does NOT capture the actual decrease in coverage for a firm. Specifically, the TAR paper ESTIMATES the exogenous decrease in coverage for a firm in a year as the average decrease in coverage for all firms in that year times the firm’s beginning coverage level, i.e., as a cross-sectionally constant proportion of the firm’s beginning coverage level.
The 2014 JF paper uses the actual shocks to analyst coverage identified in Kelly and Ljungqvist's RFS paper.
Not the same research question (the JF paper has a 2nd stage that the TAR paper doesn't) and NOT the same identification strategy.
Come on. Be fair. Maybe the JF paper should have cited the TAR paper. But, it's ridiculous and strains all credibility to argue they are identical.
-
Gee thanks, Bryan! That was a quick response. Did Alex have to approve this before you posted it?
I read a little more. Your original post is not accurate. The two papers DO NOT have the same identification strategies.
The 2011 TAR paper decomposes the decrease in coverage for a firm into a purportedly exogenous part attributable to brokerage firms restructuring or discontinuing their research operations and an endogenous part. However, its estimated exogenous part does NOT capture the actual decrease in coverage for a firm. Specifically, the TAR paper ESTIMATES the exogenous decrease in coverage for a firm in a year as the average decrease in coverage for all firms in that year times the firm’s beginning coverage level, i.e., as a cross-sectionally constant proportion of the firm’s beginning coverage level.
The 2014 JF paper uses the actual shocks to analyst coverage identified in Kelly and Ljungqvist's RFS paper.
Not the same research question (the JF paper has a 2nd stage that the TAR paper doesn't) and NOT the same identification strategy.
Come on. Be fair. Maybe the JF paper should have cited the TAR paper. But, it's ridiculous and strains all credibility to argue they are identical. -
Seriously? I don't disagree that the JF paper should have cited the TAR paper. I am merely saying that I don't agree that they ask identical research questions and have the same identification strategies. I'm not at all a fan of BK or AL. I didn't even really know the papers until I skimmed them looking to be outraged and join in the BK/AL bashing. My bad. I thought people here actually read papers. It's cool, I'm out.
-
I read a little more. Your original post is not accurate. The two papers DO NOT have the same identification strategies.
The 2011 TAR paper decomposes the decrease in coverage for a firm into a purportedly exogenous part attributable to brokerage firms restructuring or discontinuing their research operations and an endogenous part. However, its estimated exogenous part does NOT capture the actual decrease in coverage for a firm. Specifically, the TAR paper ESTIMATES the exogenous decrease in coverage for a firm in a year as the average decrease in coverage for all firms in that year times the firm’s beginning coverage level, i.e., as a cross-sectionally constant proportion of the firm’s beginning coverage level.
The 2014 JF paper uses the actual shocks to analyst coverage identified in Kelly and Ljungqvist's RFS paper.
Not the same research question (the JF paper has a 2nd stage that the TAR paper doesn't) and NOT the same identification strategy.
Come on. Be fair. Maybe the JF paper should have cited the TAR paper. But, it's ridiculous and strains all credibility to argue they are identical.Ok. I have a question for you. Do you think those same standards of novelty and contribution would have been applied if the author had not been HRM?
-
Even if it's not identical, the point is that they are very clearly and obviously related but that the HRMs flat out dropped the citation in the published version as though they were trying to conceal the other paper from clueless referees. If they're so different, then why hide it? They can't even claim ignorance about the TAR paper because they have a previous version which cites it. It's ostensibly unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.