Jealous much? The guy is only three years out, and his jmp already has 400+ citations... That’s probably more than all your papers combined lol
This guy faked it until he made it. He has published one single paper in his career. The paper is weak but got published despite negative referee and AE letters because the editor was a faculty at his PhD institution.
Impressive!
Jealous much? The guy is only three years out, and his jmp already has 400+ citations... That’s probably more than all your papers combined lol
This guy faked it until he made it. He has published one single paper in his career. The paper is weak but got published despite negative referee and AE letters because the editor was a faculty at his PhD institution.
If they aim to go up in the rankings, finance departments need to strengthen their econ side these days. All the very top finance departments have strong Econ work nowadays. A department that only works in traditional finance topics, even if productive, would not be perceived as a top department anymore
His works are good but not finance. He should be hired by a decent Econ department.
This I don't understand. It is great if good finance research gets published on top econ journals, but what's the point of doing non-finance research in a finance department? Just to boost the number of top-5 to make the department look better?
What you don’t understand is what is finance research to be pursued in academia and what is not. Finance academia should study questions of general interest that produce knowledge as a public good and for this reason are financed through educational institutions. Coming up with trading strategies or new methods to price and value exotic options is an endeavor for the private sector. AQR and similar can finance such research because they will gain out of it by implementing their proprietary strategies. Doing that type of research in academia makes no sense. Academia should study the foundations of financial decision making, the motivations for the behavior of investors and managers in financial settings etc. academia should study what the private sector would not study because it is a public good
If they aim to go up in the rankings, finance departments need to strengthen their econ side these days. All the very top finance departments have strong Econ work nowadays. A department that only works in traditional finance topics, even if productive, would not be perceived as a top department anymoreHis works are good but not finance. He should be hired by a decent Econ department.
This I don't understand. It is great if good finance research gets published on top econ journals, but what's the point of doing non-finance research in a finance department? Just to boost the number of top-5 to make the department look better?
What you don’t understand is what is finance research to be pursued in academia and what is not. Finance academia should study questions of general interest that produce knowledge as a public good and for this reason are financed through educational institutions. Coming up with trading strategies or new methods to price and value exotic options is an endeavor for the private sector. AQR and similar can finance such research because they will gain out of it by implementing their proprietary strategies. Doing that type of research in academia makes no sense. Academia should study the foundations of financial decision making, the motivations for the behavior of investors and managers in financial settings etc. academia should study what the private sector would not study because it is a public good
Thanks for your explanation. I still think coming up with implementable trading strategies is a tiny subset of finance research. There are way more other questions in financial economics to be answered, and many of these questions are foundational and valuable to the society as well. What made finance departments prefer non-finance questions than these finance questions?
I still don’t see which questions you refer to as non-finance questions... I honestly do not. Are you talking about household finance research? Consumption/saving? If you have some examples of questions you think are non finance maybe the discussion can move forward. I suspect that what seems non-finance questions to you is interpreted as finance questions by others
What you don’t understand is what is finance research to be pursued in academia and what is not. Finance academia should study questions of general interest that produce knowledge as a public good and for this reason are financed through educational institutions. Coming up with trading strategies or new methods to price and value exotic options is an endeavor for the private sector. AQR and similar can finance such research because they will gain out of it by implementing their proprietary strategies. Doing that type of research in academia makes no sense. Academia should study the foundations of financial decision making, the motivations for the behavior of investors and managers in financial settings etc. academia should study what the private sector would not study because it is a public goodThanks for your explanation. I still think coming up with implementable trading strategies is a tiny subset of finance research. There are way more other questions in financial economics to be answered, and many of these questions are foundational and valuable to the society as well. What made finance departments prefer non-finance questions than these finance questions?
I still don’t see which questions you refer to as non-finance questions... I honestly do not. Are you talking about household finance research? Consumption/saving? If you have some examples of questions you think are non finance maybe the discussion can move forward. I suspect that what seems non-finance questions to you is interpreted as finance questions by others
Questions narrowly confined to labor/capital share, household consumption/saving, etc. If financial friction plays a role in the model, they can be referred to as finance questions. However, in many cases these papers have nothing to do with financial investing decisions, financing decisions, or the financial industry.
FTFY
What you don’t understand is what is finance research to be pursued in academia and what is not. Finance academia should study questions of general interest that produce knowledge as a public good and for this reason are financed through educational institutions. Coming up with trading strategies or new methods to price and value exotic options is an endeavor for the private sector. AQR and similar can finance such research because they will gain out of it by implementing their proprietary strategies. Doing that type of research in academia makes no sense. Academia should study the foundations of financial decision making, the motivations for the behavior of investors and managers in financial settings etc. academia should study what the private sector would not study because it is a public good
If they aim to go up in the rankings, finance departments need to strengthen their econ side these days. All the very top finance departments have strong Econ work nowadays. A department that only works in traditional finance topics, even if productive, would not be perceived as a top department anymoreHis works are good but not finance. He should be hired by a decent Econ department.
This I don't understand. It is great if good finance research gets published on top econ journals, but what's the point of doing non-finance research in a finance department? Just to boost the number of top-5 to make the department look better?
LSE has a better finance department than LBS for years now!
Job rumor? He was discussed with the other job market cases back in February. Pretty stale for a rumor.
LBS has horrible teaching deals and the school is doomed with corona and brexit. Also, if you check their roster their faculty isn't really that strong. Even LSE finance has been putting together a better department over the last few years. LBS is a strong name for MBAs in Europe, but in terms of research quality it would be a top 40-50 in the US.Here's an actual job rumor. I just saw this on his website, very surprised. This is a great hire for BC.
Is LBS falling apart?
4e86 has a point. Finance research that has broader implications or comes in contact with other fields is and will always be important in business schools. While economists first looked into the labor/capital share, that line of research has obvious spillovers to finance. Lots of people are now working on related issues such as investment, q-theory, intangibles, profits, mergers, and the stock market.
Finance is about allocating resources over time and studying how agents make such type of choice by trading off today-s consumption with future consumption. Understanding how households make consumption/saving choices is the financial decision "par excellence", I can't think of a more appropriate object of finance research TBH. Questions related to the labor/capital share are crucial to understand the investment choices of firms, which is the corporation side of the same question: how to allocate resources over time? I really do not see why finance research means that you need a financial friction of some sort in a model, this seems a very restrictive view of what is finance research.
I still don’t see which questions you refer to as non-finance questions... I honestly do not. Are you talking about household finance research? Consumption/saving? If you have some examples of questions you think are non finance maybe the discussion can move forward. I suspect that what seems non-finance questions to you is interpreted as finance questions by othersQuestions narrowly confined to labor/capital share, household consumption/saving, etc. If financial friction plays a role in the model, they can be referred to as finance questions. However, in many cases these papers have nothing to do with financial investing decisions, financing decisions, or the financial industry.
Finance is about allocating resources over time and studying how agents make such type of choice by trading off today-s consumption with future consumption. Understanding how households make consumption/saving choices is the financial decision "par excellence", I can't think of a more appropriate object of finance research TBH. Questions related to the labor/capital share are crucial to understand the investment choices of firms, which is the corporation side of the same question: how to allocate resources over time? I really do not see why finance research means that you need a financial friction of some sort in a model, this seems a very restrictive view of what is finance research.
OK, so our disagreement roots in the definition of finance. What you describe looks like the definition of economics. It's good to know how others think about this because I could be the one who is wrong.
All these intertemporal consumption/saving decisions and real investment choices can work perfectly in frictionless endowment/production economies. If the question focuses on how many apples one eats today (or how many potatoes to procuce), there are already many macro researchers in econ departments. Kinda weird if a paper claims finance contribution if there is no explict financial market or financing at all.