Image from Google Jackets

Estimating The Anomaly Base Rate / Alexander M. Chinco, Andreas Neuhierl, Michael Weber.

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextSeries: Working Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research) ; no. w26493.Publication details: Cambridge, Mass. National Bureau of Economic Research 2019.Description: 1 online resource: illustrations (black and white)Subject(s): Online resources: Available additional physical forms:
  • Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers
Abstract: The academic literature literally contains hundreds of variables that seem to predict the cross-section of expected returns. This so-called "anomaly zoo" has caused many to question whether researchers are using the right tests of statistical significance. But, here's the thing: even if researchers use the right tests, they will still draw the wrong conclusions from their econometric analyses if they start out with the wrong priors---i.e., if they start out with incorrect beliefs about the ex ante probability of encountering a tradable anomaly.Abstract: So, what are the right priors? What is the correct anomaly base rate?Abstract: We develop a first way to estimate the anomaly base rate by combining two key insights: 1) Empirical-Bayes methods capture the implicit process by which researchers form priors based on their past experience with other variables in the anomaly zoo. 2) Under certain conditions, there is a one-to-one mapping between these prior beliefs and the best-fit tuning parameter in a penalized regression. We study trading-strategy performance to verify our estimation results. If you trade on two variables with similar one-month-ahead return forecasts in different anomaly-base-rate regimes (low vs. high), the variable in the low base-rate regime consistently underperforms the otherwise identical variable in the high base-rate regime.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

November 2019.

The academic literature literally contains hundreds of variables that seem to predict the cross-section of expected returns. This so-called "anomaly zoo" has caused many to question whether researchers are using the right tests of statistical significance. But, here's the thing: even if researchers use the right tests, they will still draw the wrong conclusions from their econometric analyses if they start out with the wrong priors---i.e., if they start out with incorrect beliefs about the ex ante probability of encountering a tradable anomaly.

So, what are the right priors? What is the correct anomaly base rate?

We develop a first way to estimate the anomaly base rate by combining two key insights: 1) Empirical-Bayes methods capture the implicit process by which researchers form priors based on their past experience with other variables in the anomaly zoo. 2) Under certain conditions, there is a one-to-one mapping between these prior beliefs and the best-fit tuning parameter in a penalized regression. We study trading-strategy performance to verify our estimation results. If you trade on two variables with similar one-month-ahead return forecasts in different anomaly-base-rate regimes (low vs. high), the variable in the low base-rate regime consistently underperforms the otherwise identical variable in the high base-rate regime.

Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers

System requirements: Adobe [Acrobat] Reader required for PDF files.

Mode of access: World Wide Web.

Print version record

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.

Powered by Koha