Weekly Top 5 Papers – May 3, 2019

1. Sole Survivors: Solo Ventures Versus Founding Teams by Jason Greenberg (New York University (NYU) – Leonard N. Stern School of Business) and Ethan R. Mollick (University of Pennsylvania – Wharton School)

2. Who Owns Huawei? by Christopher Balding (Fulbright University Vietnam) and Donald C. Clarke (George Washington University Law School)

3. The GPRS-V2-2017-NB National Rating System of Sustainable New Buildings and Major Renovation: A Technical Evaluation by Hazem R. Bonna (Ph.D. in Sustainable Construction, Al-Azhar University, Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, Cairo) and Ahmed S. El-Hakim(Al-Azhar University, Cairo – Department of Civil Engineering) and Hatem S. El-Behairy (Al-Azhar University, Cairo – Department of Civil Engineering)

The GPRS is a national rating & certification system for sustainable new construction, and it’s edition is published in May 2018 as the first executive national rating system for sustainable new buildings and major renovation in Egypt.
 
The paper shows evaluation of the system’s compliance compared with sustainability concerns of national new construction market, where in the system’s absence of plenty of mandatory & scoring issues, the main conclusion highlighted that the system is considered to be a distinct professional start for national rating & certification of sustainable new construction, and it necessitates additional update to cover all parameters of the three sustainability bottom lines (environmental, social, and economic) during the full life-cycle stages of new construction (design, execution, and startup of commissioning). – Dr. Hazem R. Bonna

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

5. Time-Series Momentum: A Monte-Carlo Approach by Clemens Struck (University College Dublin) and Enoch Cheng (University of Colorado at Denver – Department of Economics)

During my days as an undergraduate student, my professors showed me a set of very simple trading strategies such as the carry trade. Such strategies are usually referred to as “factor investment”. Bringing prior trading experience to the degree, I found it hard to believe that one can make serious money by following a set of naïve trading rules. Not surprisingly, many factor investors have experienced disappointment by the real-life performances of such strategies.
 
An observation I made early was that all of these rules seem to work fine in historical backtests over very short periods of time usually not longer than 10 or 20 years. Often, the sample periods contain only a single extreme market situation (e.g. a larger recession) that determines the overall performance of a strategy. Effectively, there is just one observation. 
 
While I see the need for historical backtests, I believe these tests are insufficient. Bootstrapping has been suggested as an alternative. I think we need to go one step further as bootstrapping repeats the same extreme events again and again. Thus, when you bootstrap from a historical sample with one extreme event, you repeatedly analyze the same extreme event. That’s why we looked out for something else and found Monte-Carlo approaches in the risk management literature and hand-tailored them to assess factor investment strategies. – Clemens C. Struck

Share

Leave a Reply

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