. . . and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns
Hundreds of papers and hundreds of factors attempt to explain the cross-section of expected returns. Given this extensive data mining, it does not make any economic or statistical sense to use the usual significance criteria for a newly discovered factor, e.g., a t-ratio greater than 2.0. However, what hurdle should be used for current research? Our paper introduces a multiple testing framework and provides a time series of historical significance cutoffs from the first empirical tests in 1967 to today. Our new method allows for correlation among the tests as well as missing data. We also project forward 20 years assuming the rate of factor production remains similar to the experience of the last few years. The estimation of our model suggests that a newly discovered factor needs to clear a much higher hurdle, with a t-ratio greater than 3.0. Echoing a recent disturbing conclusion in the medical literature, we argue that most claimed research findings in financial economics are likely false.
-
-
Copy CitationCampbell R. Harvey, Yan Liu, and Heqing Zhu, ". . . and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," NBER Working Paper 20592 (2014), https://doi.org/10.3386/w20592.Download Citation
Published Versions
Campbell R. Harvey & Yan Liu & Heqing Zhu, 2016. "… and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," Review of Financial Studies, vol 29(1), pages 5-68.
More from the NBER
In addition to working papers, the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter, the NBER Digest, the Bulletin on Health, and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship — as well as online conference reports, video lectures, and interviews.
