Close

Complete Captcha

• 6 months - 78 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 146 Goods vs 47 No Goods

1. Economist
   2801
   

   Are you really Bernie Black? Wow. I didn’t think I’d see a tenured chair professor from Kellogg posting on econjobrumor.

   As one of the authors of this project, a few comments:
   (i) we can't make you believe that we prespecified our research design before running outcomes, but we were in fact quite rigorous about this. The results will be what they will be. We already know some of them, but let me not give away that part of the story quite yet.
   (ii) We agree with the comment that Chu, Hirshleifer and Ma is a market microstructure paper, where non-null results are more plausible. That said, if someone wants to try to replicate it (or another of the more than 30 Reg SHO papers), we'll be happy to share our sample. We can't take them all on.
   (iii) We did not forget to mention it, please see Appendix 1 to the research plan, which lists the Reg SHO papers we knew about at the time, including this one. We have found a couple of new ones since, then, but if we have in fact missed some, please tell us (bblack@northwestern.edu).
   (iv) and also tell us if you have favorites that you find especially implausible. For my money, He and Tian on patenting is among them. this was planned to be a one-year experiment. Does anyone really this it affected patents? I sure don't. And what is the theory behind why increased short-selling should *reduce* managerial myopia anyway?
   Bernie Black

   6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

2. Economist
   8539
   

   As one of the authors of this project, a few comments:
   (i) we can't make you believe that we prespecified our research design before running outcomes, but we were in fact quite rigorous about this. The results will be what they will be. We already know some of them, but let me not give away that part of the story quite yet.
   (ii) We agree with the comment that Chu, Hirshleifer and Ma is a market microstructure paper, where non-null results are more plausible. That said, if someone wants to try to replicate it (or another of the more than 30 Reg SHO papers), we'll be happy to share our sample. We can't take them all on.
   (iii) We did not forget to mention it, please see Appendix 1 to the research plan, which lists the Reg SHO papers we knew about at the time, including this one. We have found a couple of new ones since, then, but if we have in fact missed some, please tell us (bblack@northwestern.edu).
   (iv) and also tell us if you have favorites that you find especially implausible. For my money, He and Tian on patenting is among them. this was planned to be a one-year experiment. Does anyone really this it affected patents? I sure don't. And what is the theory behind why increased short-selling should *reduce* managerial myopia anyway?
   Bernie Black

   Bernie, do you understand the difference between publication bias and p-hacking?

   6 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 1 No Good !

3. Economist
   4cb0
   

   Are you really Bernie Black? Wow. I didn’t think I’d see a tenured chair professor from Kellogg posting on econjobrumor.

   As one of the authors of this project, a few comments:
   (i) we can't make you believe that we prespecified our research design before running outcomes, but we were in fact quite rigorous about this. The results will be what they will be. We already know some of them, but let me not give away that part of the story quite yet.
   (ii) We agree with the comment that Chu, Hirshleifer and Ma is a market microstructure paper, where non-null results are more plausible. That said, if someone wants to try to replicate it (or another of the more than 30 Reg SHO papers), we'll be happy to share our sample. We can't take them all on.
   (iii) We did not forget to mention it, please see Appendix 1 to the research plan, which lists the Reg SHO papers we knew about at the time, including this one. We have found a couple of new ones since, then, but if we have in fact missed some, please tell us (bblack@northwestern.edu).
   (iv) and also tell us if you have favorites that you find especially implausible. For my money, He and Tian on patenting is among them. this was planned to be a one-year experiment. Does anyone really this it affected patents? I sure don't. And what is the theory behind why increased short-selling should *reduce* managerial myopia anyway?
   Bernie Black
   

   You'd really be surprised..

   6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

4. Economist
   0f7f
   

   As one of the authors of this project, a few comments:
   (i) we can't make you believe that we prespecified our research design before running outcomes, but we were in fact quite rigorous about this. The results will be what they will be. We already know some of them, but let me not give away that part of the story quite yet.
   (ii) We agree with the comment that Chu, Hirshleifer and Ma is a market microstructure paper, where non-null results are more plausible. That said, if someone wants to try to replicate it (or another of the more than 30 Reg SHO papers), we'll be happy to share our sample. We can't take them all on.
   (iii) We did not forget to mention it, please see Appendix 1 to the research plan, which lists the Reg SHO papers we knew about at the time, including this one. We have found a couple of new ones since, then, but if we have in fact missed some, please tell us (bblack@northwestern.edu).
   (iv) and also tell us if you have favorites that you find especially implausible. For my money, He and Tian on patenting is among them. this was planned to be a one-year experiment. Does anyone really this it affected patents? I sure don't. And what is the theory behind why increased short-selling should *reduce* managerial myopia anyway?
   Bernie Black

   ...when lawyers suddenly become the authoritative voice on econometrics by simply yelling as loudly as they can...

   6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 3 No Good !

5. Economist
   cde4
   

   Will you STFO, XT .... Don't cry seeing your house of card crumbling...

   As one of the authors of this project, a few comments:
   (i) we can't make you believe that we prespecified our research design before running outcomes, but we were in fact quite rigorous about this. The results will be what they will be. We already know some of them, but let me not give away that part of the story quite yet.
   (ii) We agree with the comment that Chu, Hirshleifer and Ma is a market microstructure paper, where non-null results are more plausible. That said, if someone wants to try to replicate it (or another of the more than 30 Reg SHO papers), we'll be happy to share our sample. We can't take them all on.
   (iii) We did not forget to mention it, please see Appendix 1 to the research plan, which lists the Reg SHO papers we knew about at the time, including this one. We have found a couple of new ones since, then, but if we have in fact missed some, please tell us (bblack@northwestern.edu).
   (iv) and also tell us if you have favorites that you find especially implausible. For my money, He and Tian on patenting is among them. this was planned to be a one-year experiment. Does anyone really this it affected patents? I sure don't. And what is the theory behind why increased short-selling should *reduce* managerial myopia anyway?
   Bernie Black

   Bernie, do you understand the difference between publication bias and p-hacking?

   6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

6. Economist
   535c
   

   Then, dumbasses' body turns into its graves, knowing his charlatanism will be exposed.

   As one of the authors of this project, a few comments:
   (i) we can't make you believe that we prespecified our research design before running outcomes, but we were in fact quite rigorous about this. The results will be what they will be. We already know some of them, but let me not give away that part of the story quite yet.
   (ii) We agree with the comment that Chu, Hirshleifer and Ma is a market microstructure paper, where non-null results are more plausible. That said, if someone wants to try to replicate it (or another of the more than 30 Reg SHO papers), we'll be happy to share our sample. We can't take them all on.
   (iii) We did not forget to mention it, please see Appendix 1 to the research plan, which lists the Reg SHO papers we knew about at the time, including this one. We have found a couple of new ones since, then, but if we have in fact missed some, please tell us (bblack@northwestern.edu).
   (iv) and also tell us if you have favorites that you find especially implausible. For my money, He and Tian on patenting is among them. this was planned to be a one-year experiment. Does anyone really this it affected patents? I sure don't. And what is the theory behind why increased short-selling should *reduce* managerial myopia anyway?
   Bernie Black

   ...when lawyers suddenly become the authoritative voice on econometrics by simply yelling as loudly as they can...

   6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

7. Economist
   4eae
   

   Bernie, do you understand the difference between publication bias and p-hacking?

   Not #Bernie2020, but I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Publication bias refers to the fact that most published papers feature non-null results, while null results are stuffed in the file drawer. P-hacking refers to researcher choices that lead to non-null results without adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing null results stuffed in the filed rawer.

   6 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

8. Economist
   e4e8
   

   Bernie, do you understand the difference between publication bias and p-hacking?

   Not #Bernie2020, but I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Publication bias refers to the fact that most published papers feature non-null results, while null results are stuffed in the file drawer. P-hacking refers to researcher choices that lead to non-null results without adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing null results stuffed in the filed rawer.

   Read what you wrote and think.

   6 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 1 No Good !

9. Economist
   4eae
   

   Bernie, do you understand the difference between publication bias and p-hacking?

   Not #Bernie2020, but I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Publication bias refers to the fact that most published papers feature non-null results, while null results are stuffed in the file drawer. P-hacking refers to researcher choices that lead to non-null results without adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing null results stuffed in the filed rawer.

   Read what you wrote and think.

   To be fair to e4e8 (aka one of the Reg SHO reg monkey p-hackers), I will redefine p-hacking as researcher choices that lead to preordained results without adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing.

   6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

10. Economist
    4439
    

    FTFY

    Reg SHO reg monkey p-hackers exposed BY LAW SCHOOL PROFS

    6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

11. Economist
    c4f9
    

    FTFY

    Reg SHO reg monkey p-hackers exposed BY LAW SCHOOL PROFS
    

    Oh s**t no wonder they don't understand statistics

    6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

12. Economist
    8855
    

    Bernie - loved your causal inference workshop!

    6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

13. Economist
    0c4b
    

    e4e8 and 8855,

    Which of those p-hacked papers did you write?

    6 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

14. Economist
    57f1
    

    Bernie Black is in the law school. His appointment at Kellogg is courtesy.

    6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

15. Economist
    43ad
    

    BB strong, too much garbage in Finance pubs

    6 months ago # QUOTE 3 Good 0 No Good !

16. Economist
    2624
    

    What is the difference between law and finance professor salary at NW? Just curious.

    6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

17. Economist
    8855
    

    This "he's a lawyer" stuff is pathetic. He's one of the few people keeping the profession honest.

    Everyone with half a brain knows a minor change to short selling won't affect patenting activities or exec comp. This is why people working in the real world laugh at us. Because people have started seeing publishing as a game instead of as the pursuit of truth.

    6 months ago # QUOTE 9 Good 1 No Good !

18. Economist
    2801
    

    So you are telling me that a lawyer who has never published a single A publication in finance gets to critique an entire literature and call a few hundred authors reg monkeys and p-hackers because he wants to keep finance academia honest. This sounds just as absurd as #Bernie2020socialism# to me. When Cam Harvey points out an issue, I listen because he knows what he is talking about. What has Bernie done exactly?

    This "he's a lawyer" stuff is pathetic. He's one of the few people keeping the profession honest.
    Everyone with half a brain knows a minor change to short selling won't affect patenting activities or exec comp. This is why people working in the real world laugh at us. Because people have started seeing publishing as a game instead of as the pursuit of truth.

    6 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 4 No Good !

19. Economist
    b30c
    

    So you are telling me that a lawyer who has never published a single A publication in finance gets to critique an entire literature and call a few hundred authors reg monkeys and p-hackers because he wants to keep finance academia honest. This sounds just as absurd as #Bernie2020socialism# to me. When Cam Harvey points out an issue, I listen because he knows what he is talking about. What has Bernie done exactly?

    This "he's a lawyer" stuff is pathetic. He's one of the few people keeping the profession honest.
    Everyone with half a brain knows a minor change to short selling won't affect patenting activities or exec comp. This is why people working in the real world laugh at us. Because people have started seeing publishing as a game instead of as the pursuit of truth.
    

    Ah, yes, you definitely want an insider to look into it. Maybe appoint a group at the RFS to look into it?

    6 months ago # QUOTE 6 Good 0 No Good !

20. Economist
    d82b
    

    Not a bad idea. Ask all authors who had published a paper using Reg SHO to post their data and code.

    So you are telling me that a lawyer who has never published a single A publication in finance gets to critique an entire literature and call a few hundred authors reg monkeys and p-hackers because he wants to keep finance academia honest. This sounds just as absurd as #Bernie2020socialism# to me. When Cam Harvey points out an issue, I listen because he knows what he is talking about. What has Bernie done exactly?

    This "he's a lawyer" stuff is pathetic. He's one of the few people keeping the profession honest.
    Everyone with half a brain knows a minor change to short selling won't affect patenting activities or exec comp. This is why people working in the real world laugh at us. Because people have started seeing publishing as a game instead of as the pursuit of truth.
    

    Ah, yes, you definitely want an insider to look into it. Maybe appoint a group at the RFS to look into it?

    6 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

Reply »