Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 years - 75 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 180 Goods vs 93 No Goods

1. Economist
   b720
   

   Not CL, and honestly the guy annoys me. But I would take this over the Panama papers paper by SZ any day of the week.

   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.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 2 Vlad !

2. Economist
   b720
   

   What a straw man. It’s the drive for counterintuitive results that has led to the stupid CEO facial structure type papers. As far as I can see, this isn’t surprising, and that’s why people dislike 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?

   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.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   1d55
   

   People don't like it because it is SHALLOW. And it was clearly rushed. And we all know that CL pays his RAs more when they deliver the right results. That's why we do not like the paper.

   BS probably thought it would be highly cited, but he is senile and out of touch.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 9 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   3b3c
   

   "Bad companies did bad when bad exogenous thing happened." C'mon...

   2 years ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   8696
   

   I don't see anything "counter-intuitive" in CEO facial papers, it's your drive for "hey somebody has never done this before" that lead to these stupid papers, including COVID papers. Even if CL's paper did find something counter-intuitive, these correlation-spammed papers are still bad. Like you said, it's just some "interesting correlations", right?
   We dislike it because it's a disgrace to the once Top3 JFE and misleading to younger researchers that this is what finance academia is all about. Reg Y X, fe robust, boom, you get some wild stories to tell. Tell it to the editor's liking and boom, you get an A pub.
   I assume you want to cite this paper? Go head bro, nobody is saying you cannot do it. Just make sure don't indulge yourself in it.

   What a straw man. It’s the drive for counterintuitive results that has led to the stupid CEO facial structure type papers. As far as I can see, this isn’t surprising, and that’s why people dislike 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?

   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.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   00d2
   

   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.

   By your logic, shouldn't top math journals these days publish results like "Even in the face of this pandemic, we still have 1 + 1 = 2"? After all, and I quote: "[i]t’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?" I mean, nobody has shown that 1 + 1 is still 2 in a pandemic right? That has to be written down and get published in a top journal!

   While the rest of sciences try to either show interesting new results / replicate existing results / disprove existing results, finance academia chooses to p-hack to get counter-intuitive (ridiculous?) results, or write papers with blatantly obvious things.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   4e30
   

   XT: my COVID and innovation paper is coming too. Stay tuned.

   Thanks. working on it.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   00d2
   

   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.

   I'm afraid you're kinda late on the facial ratio vs finance and body language vs finance literature.

   For facial ratio vs finance, we have the seminal (pun intended) papers like: "Facial Structure and Achievement Drive: Evidence from Financial Analysts" (He et al. 2019), "Masculinity, Testosterone, and Financial Misreporting" (Jia et al. 2014), "Facial Structure and Delegated Portfolio Management" (Lu et al. 2018), and many others in this growing literature.

   For body language vs finance literature, there's the classic and immortalized EJMR discussions of https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/yet-another-jfe-classic-age-effect-and-fund-manager-performance.

   Having said that, the above two effects are clearly just of second order importance. The important first order problem of CEO d*cksize vs ___insert your favorite "finance" variable___ is clearly an open question that urgently demands the best and brightest in finance academia to research.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   8696
   

   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.

   I'm afraid you're kinda late on the facial ratio vs finance and body language vs finance literature.
   For facial ratio vs finance, we have the seminal (pun intended) papers like: "Facial Structure and Achievement Drive: Evidence from Financial Analysts" (He et al. 2019), "Masculinity, Testosterone, and Financial Misreporting" (Jia et al. 2014), "Facial Structure and Delegated Portfolio Management" (Lu et al. 2018), and many others in this growing literature.
   For body language vs finance literature, there's the classic and immortalized EJMR discussions of https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/yet-another-jfe-classic-age-effect-and-fund-manager-performance.
   Having said that, the above two effects are clearly just of second order importance. The important first order problem of CEO d*cksize vs ___insert your favorite "finance" variable___ is clearly an open question that urgently demands the best and brightest in finance academia to research.

   so it seems our azian colleagues really love to have a taste of masculinity (pun unintended)...I know these topics have been pursued, but I don't know why there're getting enormous. Any AEs here care to tell why these papers incite your interest? Is it because Corp Fin AEs also write this kind of shiet?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    36ef
    

    Not CL, and honestly the guy annoys me. But I would take this over the Panama papers paper by SZ any day of the week.

    Paper factory who p-hacks vs. secret data fraudster (check the comments here on his Jmp, published in RFS), not exactly the best our profession has to offer

    2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 2 Vlad !

11. Economist
    36ef
    

    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.

    I'm afraid you're kinda late on the facial ratio vs finance and body language vs finance literature.
    For facial ratio vs finance, we have the seminal (pun intended) papers like: "Facial Structure and Achievement Drive: Evidence from Financial Analysts" (He et al. 2019), "Masculinity, Testosterone, and Financial Misreporting" (Jia et al. 2014), "Facial Structure and Delegated Portfolio Management" (Lu et al. 2018), and many others in this growing literature.
    For body language vs finance literature, there's the classic and immortalized EJMR discussions of https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/yet-another-jfe-classic-age-effect-and-fund-manager-performance.
    Having said that, the above two effects are clearly just of second order importance. The important first order problem of CEO d*cksize vs ___insert your favorite "finance" variable___ is clearly an open question that urgently demands the best and brightest in finance academia to research.

    so it seems our azian colleagues really love to have a taste of masculinity (pun unintended)...I know these topics have been pursued, but I don't know why there're getting enormous. Any AEs here care to tell why these papers incite your interest? Is it because Corp Fin AEs also write this kind of shiet?

    Jfe doesn't have AEs and is responsible for publishing 80% of this crap

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    e22b
    

    if it's published in a top journal, it must be great research.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

13. Economist
    3f95
    

    May I ask what is the meaning and contribution of this study? The paper itself does not even try to argue that it makes a contribution...

    2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    5f86
    

    When TW joined as an editor I thought things would improve at JFE. Not sure if they have

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    a19d
    

    Can it be worse than SK/AB?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    b981
    

    When TW joined as an editor I thought things would improve at JFE. Not sure if they have

    Lots of people thought so but she has been terrible as an editor. Accepted a paper on natural disasters & risk aversion that fails to cite the first thing that comes up when you google that.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 3 Vlad !

17. Economist
    2056
    

    But no one says JFE is a top journal, at least if the paper is handled by BS.

    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..

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    5693
    

    This evidences how useless research in this profession is. Very sad.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    012d
    

    People here are so sour.

    My 2 cents: Born rich next life, do you PhD at HRM, network big names, publish.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

20. Economist
    91a5
    

    Hi, CL, what’s your next project: 韭菜炒番茄？

    People here are so sour.
    My 2 cents: Born rich next life, do you PhD at HRM, network big names, publish.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »