Search Results

Showing results 1 to 3 of approximately 3.

(refine search)
SORT BY: PREVIOUS / NEXT
Keywords:Stock return anomalies 

Working Paper
The Limits of p-Hacking : A Thought Experiment

Suppose that asset pricing factors are just p-hacked noise. How much p-hacking is required to produce the 300 factors documented by academics? I show that, if 10,000 academics generate 1 factor every minute, it takes 15 million years of p-hacking. This absurd conclusion comes from applying the p-hacking theory to published data. To fit the fat right tail of published t-stats, the p-hacking theory requires that the probability of publishing t-stats < 6.0 is infinitesimal. Thus it takes a ridiculous amount of p-hacking to publish a single t-stat. These results show that p-hacking alone cannot ...
Finance and Economics Discussion Series , Paper 2019-016

Working Paper
Zeroing in on the Expected Returns of Anomalies

We zero in on the expected returns of long-short portfolios based on 120 stock market anomalies by accounting for (1) effective bid-ask spreads, (2) post-publication effects, and (3) the modern era of trading technology that began in the early 2000s. Net of these effects, the average anomaly's expected return is a measly 8 bps per month. The strongest anomalies return only 10-20 bps after accounting for data-mining with either out-of-sample tests or empirical Bayesian methods. Expected returns are negligible despite cost optimizations that produce impressive net returns in-sample and the ...
Finance and Economics Discussion Series , Paper 2020-039

Working Paper
Publication Bias and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns

We develop an estimator for publication bias and apply it to 156 hedge portfolios based on published cross-sectional return predictors. Publication bias adjusted returns are only 12% smaller than in-sample returns. The small bias comes from the dispersion of returns across predictors, which is too large to be accounted for by data-mined noise. Among predictors that can survive journal review, a low t-stat hurdle of 1.8 controls for multiple testing using statistics recommended by Harvey, Liu, and Zhu (2015). The estimated bias is too small to account for the deterioration in returns after ...
Finance and Economics Discussion Series , Paper 2018-033

FILTER BY year

FILTER BY Content Type

FILTER BY Author

FILTER BY Jel Classification

G10 3 items

G12 3 items

G11 1 items

G14 1 items

FILTER BY Keywords

Stock return anomalies 3 items

Mispricing 2 items

Publication bias 2 items

Anomaly zoo 1 items

Data mining 1 items

Multiple testing 1 items

show more (3)

PREVIOUS / NEXT