Editor's Choice … and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns
Hundreds of papers and factors attempt to explain the cross-section of expected returns. Given this extensive data mining, it does not make sense to use the usual criteria for establishing significance. Which hurdle should be used for current research? Our paper introduces a new multiple testing framework and provides historical cutoffs from the first empirical tests in 1967 to today. A new factor needs to clear a much higher hurdle, with a t-statistic greater than 3.0. We argue that most claimed research findings in financial economics are likely false. Received October 22, 2014; accepted June 15, 2015 by Editor Andrew Karolyi.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 29 (2016)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Oxford University Press, Journals Department, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513 USA.|
Web page: http://www.rfs.oupjournals.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www4.oup.co.uk/revfin/subinfo/|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:29:y:2016:i:1:p:5-68.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.