Weekly Top 5 Papers – March 4, 2019

1. The Most Important Law Review Article You’ll Never Read: A Hilarious (in the Footnotes) yet Serious (in the Text) Discussion of Law Reviews and Law Professors by Joe Lawprofblawg  (affiliation not provided to SSRN) and Darren Bush ( University of Houston Law Center)

The whole point of the article is to eschew downloads, citations, and law review rankings as evidence of scholarship quality.  We think those games are rigged for reasons we lay out methodically in the article.  These games also diminish the point of scholarship, which is an act of creation with the goal to improve society.
So, we’re quite frankly feeling a little awkward about being in the top 5 downloads, but immensely grateful for to the people who downloaded it, and the small subset of those who read it. The article’s above the line text is serious in nature, while the footnotes contain some humor and arguments between the coauthors. And a hidden message. – Joe Lawprofblawg


2. The Effects of Being Time Poor and Time Rich on Life Satisfaction by Marissa Sharif (University of Pennsylvania – The Wharton School) and Cassie Mogilner (University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) – Anderson School of Management) and Hal Hershfield (University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) – Marketing Area)

3. Low Interest Rates, Market Power, and Productivity Growth by Ernest Liu (affiliation not provided to SSRN) and Atif R. Mian (Princeton University – Department of Economics) and Amir Sufi (University of Chicago – Booth School of Business)

4. Global Factor Premiums by Guido Baltussen (Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR)) and Laurens Swinkels (Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR)) and Pim van Vliet (Robeco Asset Management – Quantitative Investing)

This paper shows very strong evidence on the main strategies underlying factor-based investing. Over the years several anomalous, but persistent patterns in returns have been discovered by fellow academics and ourselves. These patterns are also known as ‘return factors’ and are a hot topic in the investment industry, with tremendous growth in asset managed based on factors. 

At the same time, many studies turn out to be hard to replicate. There is bias to positive results which is referred to as ‘p-hacking’. This p-hacking is a serious concern, but it can be addressed. For example, by raising the statistical bar. Furthermore, replication studies have become more common in social sciences. Campbell Harvey has put p-hacking on the financial research agenda with his AFA Presidential Address.

Nobody knows 100% sure if factors keep on working in the future. But what if the results were fake to start with? We, therefore, apply the same cures which are proposed by the leading scientists. Replicate previous studies, raise the statistical bar and apply extensive, deep datasets. It is our duty to apply the highest possible standards when doing research.

Over the past years, we have constructed a very extensive and deep historical dataset stretching back to 1800 with which we test 24 global factor premiums. We replicate several previous studies which typically go back ‘only’ 30-40 years, with some very strong and remarkable findings. – Guido Baltussen, Laurens Swinkels, and Pim van Vliet

5. A Brief Introduction to the Basics of Game Theory by Matthew O. Jackson ( Stanford University – Department of Economics)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *