McLean/Pontiff (2016) give evidence that portfolio returns are 26% lower out-of-sample and 58% lower after publishing an academic paper on variables, which are likely to predict cross-sectional returns:

Our findings suggest that investors learn about mispricing from academic publications. [...] This result is also consistent with the idea that academic research draws trading attention to the predictors.

Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophecy, having regard to the data-snooping bias?

Assume data-snooping leads us to a variable which explains the cross-section of stock returns and luckily passes some robustness tests. After publishing our paper, the market adopts our findings and diminishes strategies based on our variable - although there is no economic reason to do so! In fact, anyone thinks of a previous mispricing but only after our publication real mispricing arises.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Only anecdotal evidence. Dong Lou once said that one of the big investment banks tried for him not to circulate this paper: personal.lse.ac.uk/loud/ATugofWar.pdf precisely because it was the type of trading they were doing. $\endgroup$ – phdstudent Oct 17 '18 at 9:27

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.