Editor's Choice … and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns

Campbell Harvey (), Yan Liu and Heqing Zhu

The Review of Financial Studies, 2016, vol. 29, issue 1, 5-68

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (75)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhv059 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:29:y:2016:i:1:p:5-68.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

The Review of Financial Studies is currently edited by Itay Goldstein

More articles in The Review of Financial Studies from Society for Financial Studies Oxford University Press, Journals Department, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513 USA.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().