is every phd student at hku and cuhk RA for this paper?
Wouldn’t be surprised If this paper started in a seminar in the spring semester
JFE Forthcoming: Corporate Immunity to the COVID-19 Pandemic
-
I wonder if there are some people of REPUTE would write an open letter to JFE editors asking why this paper is published.
This paper could be good for USA Today or Breiebart, but this "Research" appearing in a so called Top 3 Academic journal is a disgrace.
What happened to academic journals being at the forefront of the knowledge?
Tax payer's money is spent to pay CL and WX and RL to write this, and BS to accept this piece of cr\a\p.
Lol at the finance academia which does research on market discipline, while it itself lacks one to disincentivize/ punish this kind of people and this kind of research.
And, at the end, I wonder if some particular set of people have bought out some referees and getting their hollow and cra\p papers published at a breakneck speed.
People need to reflect. People deserve to know what's going on at JFE. People deserve to know how, conditional on a bad paper published at JFE, overwhelmingly has a selected few authors, and it keeps repeating.
-
I wonder if there are some people of REPUTE would write an open letter to JFE editors asking why this paper is published.
This paper could be good for USA Today or Breiebart, but this "Research" appearing in a so called Top 3 Academic journal is a disgrace.
What happened to academic journals being at the forefront of the knowledge?
Tax payer's money is spent to pay CL and WX and RL to write this, and BS to accept this piece of cr\a\p.
Lol at the finance academia which does research on market discipline, while it itself lacks one to disincentivize/ punish this kind of people and this kind of research.
And, at the end, I wonder if some particular set of people have bought out some referees and getting their hollow and cra\p papers published at a breakneck speed.
People need to reflect. People deserve to know what's going on at JFE. People deserve to know how, conditional on a bad paper published at JFE, overwhelmingly has a selected few authors, and it keeps repeating.Remember: JFE is not a top journal
-
Yeah. I mean, if you think finance is more prestigious than Econ, maybe, but even in finance.... eh.
I wonder if there are some people of REPUTE would write an open letter to JFE editors asking why this paper is published.
This paper could be good for USA Today or Breiebart, but this "Research" appearing in a so called Top 3 Academic journal is a disgrace.
What happened to academic journals being at the forefront of the knowledge?
Tax payer's money is spent to pay CL and WX and RL to write this, and BS to accept this piece of cr\a\p.
Lol at the finance academia which does research on market discipline, while it itself lacks one to disincentivize/ punish this kind of people and this kind of research.
And, at the end, I wonder if some particular set of people have bought out some referees and getting their hollow and cra\p papers published at a breakneck speed.
People need to reflect. People deserve to know what's going on at JFE. People deserve to know how, conditional on a bad paper published at JFE, overwhelmingly has a selected few authors, and it keeps repeating.Remember: JFE is not a top journal
-
From the abstract, each piece of evidence is pretty natural. It is everyone's prior and of course also theirs.
With prior in mind, let's start data mining! Wonderful! We've proven our prior. What kind of geniuses we are!I disagree with this attitude. The drive for counterintuitive results is what is killing econ.
Yeah it's not a paper you read on a Saturday night. But it is honest economics work and people need to be doing it.
-
Agreed. In the end, people just hate that it isn’t their paper getting in to JFE. It’s a completely new shock, and it finds some interesting correlations that are consistent with how we generally think about things. It’s not like anyone else has shown this, right? That would be different. The drive to show up is down, left is right, and nothing is as it seems drives me nuts.
From the abstract, each piece of evidence is pretty natural. It is everyone's prior and of course also theirs.
With prior in mind, let's start data mining! Wonderful! We've proven our prior. What kind of geniuses we are!I disagree with this attitude. The drive for counterintuitive results is what is killing econ.
Yeah it's not a paper you read on a Saturday night. But it is honest economics work and people need to be doing it. -
I had a read this JFE forthcoming paper. Be honest, not as bad as the abstract describes. CL indeed has many publishable ideas. Research is a habit and different people have different ways of life. Leave this guy alone. He is not doing anything wrong and is more successful than most of us in the profession.
-
This is not success. The identical paper written by a different set of authors would be laughed out of any half decent journal. They didn’t write a great or even good papers. JFE is certainly devaluing itself and charging $1000 per submission. Almost like cashing out..
-
Look at all the forthcoming covid papers in RCFS. This profession has no shame.
This is the problem with special issues on timely topics. You get a bunch of half-baked ideas, rushed to meet a submission deadline. The research does not get properly vetted or thought about. I discount the findings in every special issue.
-
Agreed. In the end, people just hate that it isn’t their paper getting in to JFE. It’s a completely new shock, and it finds some interesting correlations that are consistent with how we generally think about things. It’s not like anyone else has shown this, right? That would be different. The drive to show up is down, left is right, and nothing is as it seems drives me nuts.
From the abstract, each piece of evidence is pretty natural. It is everyone's prior and of course also theirs.
With prior in mind, let's start data mining! Wonderful! We've proven our prior. What kind of geniuses we are!I disagree with this attitude. The drive for counterintuitive results is what is killing econ.
Yeah it's not a paper you read on a Saturday night. But it is honest economics work and people need to be doing it.
Lol. Hi CL.
I would never want anything even remotely like this on my resume in my life. -
Agreed. In the end, people just hate that it isn’t their paper getting in to JFE. It’s a completely new shock, and it finds some interesting correlations that are consistent with how we generally think about things. It’s not like anyone else has shown this, right?
Neither has anyone shown facial ratio/dck size/body language has anything to do with finance, I suggest you also forage into those areas.
I will never send my student to HKU to be Chen Lin's mistress RA. -
JFE should seriously reconsider their 1000 submission fee if they keep accepting papers like this piece of shiet.
Who will cite this paper? Only competing corp fin bros writing the same s**ttie topic will cite it. Otherwise they will reject your paper because "we are the first COVID-CorpFin paper".By Wenzhi Ding; Ross Levine; Chen Lin and Wensi Xie:
http://jfe.rochester.edu/astat.pdf
We evaluate the connection between corporate characteristics and the reaction of stock returns to COVID-19 cases using data on over 6,700 firms across 61 economies. The pandemic-induced drop in stock returns was milder among firms with (a) stronger pre-2020 finances (more cash and undrawn credit, less total and short-term debt, and larger profits), (b) less exposure to COVID-19 through global supply chains and customer locations, (c) more CSR activities, and (d) less entrenched executives. Furthermore, the stock returns of firms controlled by families (especially through direct holdings and with non-family managers), large corporations, and governments performed better, and those with greater ownership by hedge funds and other asset management companies performed worse. Stock markets positively price small amounts of managerial ownership but negatively price high-levels of managerial ownership during the pandemic.