,Duke University theoretician Cam Harvey, who says that way too many academic projects that go looking for trading edges succeed in finding them. In reality, only a handful stand up outside the walls of academia.usdt接口（www.trc20.vip）是使用TRC-20协议的Usdt第三方支付平台,Usdt收款平台、Usdt自动充提平台。免费提供入金通道、Usdt钱包支付接口、Usdt自动充值接口、Usdt寄售回收。菜宝Usdt钱包一键生成Usdt钱包、一键调用API接口、一键出售Usdt。
A hedge fund pursuing a trading strategy based on fantasy goes broke. A market researcher who does it, on the other hand, is apt to get tenure.
That in a nutshell is the argument in a new paper by Duke University theoretician Cam Harvey, who says that way too many academic projects that go looking for trading edges succeed in finding them.
In reality, only a handful stand up outside the walls of academia.
By Harvey’s tally, more than 400 factors – strategies that slice and dice stocks by things such as size, volatility or valuations, and which are supposed to beat the market – have been published in top journals since the 1960s, with roughly half of them discovered in the past decade.
“It just didn’t make any sense to me. It’s really hard to find something that outperforms a market,” Harvey said in a phone interview.
“How many factors can there credibly be? Well, to me, it’s maybe up to a couple of dozen.”
Harvey, who’s also a partner at Research Affiliates and serves as an investment strategy adviser to Man Group, has pushed back against aspects of quant investing for years.
Underpinning the seemingly widespread breakthroughs, he says, is an incentive culture that encourages researchers to manipulate the data and see what they want to see. As a result, many factors that look promising on paper fail to work in real life.
“The incentive problem, along with the misapplication of statistical methods, leads to the unfortunate conclusion that roughly half of the empirical research findings in finance are likely false,” Harvey wrote in the paper titled “The Pitfalls of Asset Management Research.”
Add on top implementation costs that eat into performance and the fact that some factors generate too small extra returns, and the number of true gems in the quant world is likely significantly lower, he says.
The essay is the latest broadside against an area of research that has come to dominate the financial world and underlie the rise in both quantitative investing and smart beta exchange-traded funds. It joins a growing body of literature that suggests people looking for a trading edge through market chaos are often prejudiced, and sometimes confuse performance with luck.
At the centre of the controversy is the ever-popularised idea that certain stock attributes, from time to time, hold the key to picking winners and losers. For instance, a company’s profit potential or size may give clues to its future returns.
The latest proliferation of such factors, Harvey says, is likely inflated because of an incentive system that ties the number of publications to promotions or salary raises.