Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 156 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 268 Goods vs 94 No Goods

1. Economist
   85c1
   

   FHK look really, really bad here. Now I see how some people are much more productive than I am!

   wow...
   We also find it surprising that the FHK Reply presents many minor
   variations on PMDA, while ignoring the non-robustness of their PMDA results to the variations in
   Table 9, Panels F (match on current instead of lagged ROA) and insignificant results for an
   unbalanced panel (without changing both the sample and the PMDA measure), etc. FHK must
   have been aware of those variations when writing their Reply.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   9496
   

   Because the results I this paper are very robust.

   CHU, Y., HIRSHLEIFER, D. and MA, L. (2020), The Causal Effect of Limits to Arbitrage on Asset Pricing Anomalies. The Journal of Finance, 75: 2631-2672. doi:10.1111/jofi.12947

   Why this paper is not scrutinized?
   

   Really? Good for graduate students to carefully examine their text and code for a summer paper. With a decent chance you get a CFR.

   yeah, and you want your student to piss off DH before getting on the job market?
   Good luck submitting future papers to JFE.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

3. Economist
   c1fb
   

   99% of those “productive “ researchers are doing the same p-hacking game. We all know who they are.

   FHK look really, really bad here. Now I see how some people are much more productive than I am!

   wow...
   We also find it surprising that the FHK Reply presents many minor
   variations on PMDA, while ignoring the non-robustness of their PMDA results to the variations in
   Table 9, Panels F (match on current instead of lagged ROA) and insignificant results for an
   unbalanced panel (without changing both the sample and the PMDA measure), etc. FHK must
   have been aware of those variations when writing their Reply.
   

   3 months ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

4. Economist
   d390
   

   FHK response on point.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 4 No Jab !

5. Economist
   1d8e
   

   Empirical corporate finance papers should not be published, or should severely discounted! They just should not get so much space in top finance journals. This is a huge waste of resources and social energy.

   Still more valuable than empirical asset pricing papers. At least ECF scholars can earn profits for the school by MBA/EMBA teaching, while basically no entrepreneur is interested in AP.

   Teach them how to cheaxxt? In the long term, such kind of cheating also decrease social value.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

6. Economist
   519e
   

   Why these 4 papers? Why FHK rather than ...?

   3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

7. Economist
   457f
   

   this

   99% of those “productive “ researchers are doing the same p-hacking game. We all know who they are.

   FHK look really, really bad here. Now I see how some people are much more productive than I am!

   wow...
   We also find it surprising that the FHK Reply presents many minor
   variations on PMDA, while ignoring the non-robustness of their PMDA results to the variations in
   Table 9, Panels F (match on current instead of lagged ROA) and insignificant results for an
   unbalanced panel (without changing both the sample and the PMDA measure), etc. FHK must
   have been aware of those variations when writing their Reply.
   

   3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

8. Economist
   9df3
   

   In addition to the p-hacking incentives from the publication process, the profession's absurd obsession with identification is also behind so many researchers zeroing in on any newly discovered shocks or quasi-natural experiments and link them to anything and everything without understanding whether these shocks or experiments actually have any meaningful economic impacts.

   Go Team Black!

   3 months ago # QUOTE 7 Jab 0 No Jab !

9. Economist
   519e
   

   FHK is preparing a second, much stronger, reply. Just wait.

   3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 1 No Jab !

10. Economist
    457f
    

    bump

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

11. Economist
    1b59
    

    Bump

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

12. Economist
    457f
    

    Without these exogenous shocks, it becomes even easier to p-hack, u just change the set of control variables

    In addition to the p-hacking incentives from the publication process, the profession's absurd obsession with identification is also behind so many researchers zeroing in on any newly discovered shocks or quasi-natural experiments and link them to anything and everything without understanding whether these shocks or experiments actually have any meaningful economic impacts.
    Go Team Black!

    3 months ago # QUOTE 3 Jab 0 No Jab !

13. Economist
    974b
    

    really?

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

14. Economist
    457f
    

    where is the response?

    FHK is preparing a second, much stronger, reply. Just wait.

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

15. Economist
    4d5a
    

    I don’t quite understand this back and forth on the SSRN and EJMR business. JFK was published in JF. Why can’t Black and his coauthors just send their paper to JF and get it formally reviewed?

    where is the response?

    FHK is preparing a second, much stronger, reply. Just wait.
    

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

16. Economist
    eb45
    

    Have you ever tried to publish a paper that says another paper is wrong? That is why.

    I don’t quite understand this back and forth on the SSRN and EJMR business. JFK was published in JF. Why can’t Black and his coauthors just send their paper to JF and get it formally reviewed?

    where is the response?

    FHK is preparing a second, much stronger, reply. Just wait.
    

    3 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

17. Economist
    b4a7
    

    There's a JF replication section... come on.

    Have you ever tried to publish a paper that says another paper is wrong? That is why.

    I don’t quite understand this back and forth on the SSRN and EJMR business. JFK was published in JF. Why can’t Black and his coauthors just send their paper to JF and get it formally reviewed?

    where is the response?

    FHK is preparing a second, much stronger, reply. Just wait.

    3 months ago # QUOTE 3 Jab 0 No Jab !

18. Economist
    34d4
    

    ^ they are sort of making a broader point here. Come on.

    3 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

19. Economist
    b18e
    

    I am also curious. Doesn’t AER require all data and codes be posted on its website?

    I don’t quite understand this back and forth on the SSRN and EJMR business. JFK was published in JF. Why can’t Black and his coauthors just send their paper to JF and get it formally reviewed?

    where is the response?

    FHK is preparing a second, much stronger, reply. Just wait.
    

    3 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

20. Economist
    a983
    

    What does AER's data policy have to do with JF? Besides, some of the recent posts seem to forget that the Black et al. paper is about more than just FHK (not JFK lol).

    I am also curious. Doesn’t AER require all data and codes be posted on its website?

    3 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply »