indythinker85 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2339319 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constructive Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Thanks for posting. That paper is quite disappointing though. It's poorly written and full of sentence fragments. And it boils 9 decades of data down to 4 yes/no data points, for no apparent reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijk Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 agree, this is a very sloppy piece of work, actually it seems the author worked backwards and made generalizations so big that that any conclusion is meaningless... if that was not enough, nearly everything else, like data quality and calculation methods seem just as sloppy...... regards rijk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hielko Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Yes, I agree. Because of that the first paragraph is ironic: My partner and I at Graham Theodor & Co. remain skeptical of academic studies relating to the field of investing primarily because such studies have in the past resulted in the birth of various theories which we believe have little relevance on the actual practice of capital allocation. With that said, there always remains an exception to most every rule and in this case what I am hopeful this brief essay will equate to that rarity, a useful study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now