lukestein’s Twitter Archive—№ 5,260

Heading in to our first session at the 2020 Financial Reaearch Association conference; live-tweet starts now. (If you’re not interested, please 48-hour mute hashtag #FRA20 ). Program with paper links is here: fraconference.com/current-program/
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 22 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @lukestein
…and if you’re eager to get going early, here’s my #FRA2019 thread from last year: @lukestein/1071502562614865920 #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
First paper is on cash windfalls and wages (by Sabrina Howell and J. David Brown; presented by Cesare Fracassi). Lots of papers ask what happens when firms get cash windfalls. Paper uses SBA-provided Small Business Innovation Research Grants (~$2.2B/yr). #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Competitive grants to SMBs: - $150K for proof-of-concept - ≤$1M followup Applying takes 1–2 months of FTE work, and program officials rank applications. Data: 270 competitions; 4,300 applications; 800 winners. (~3 of 16 win each competition). Link to IRS W2 and LBD. #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets 2019 Dec 7 Mood +7 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Why might grants affect wages? ✔︎ 1. Financial constraints (implicit contract to pay below-market wages until constraint relaxed) ✘ 2. Productivity growth ✘ 3. Bargaining ✘ 4. Incentive contracting (e.g., win bonus) ✘ 5. Agency issues ✘ 6–8. [Other] #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets 2019 Dec 7 Mood +28 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Builds on SH’s 2017 AER aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20150808 . Approach basically diff-in-RDD (of course CF has some suggestions). Winning firms - Incease wages - Basically only for incumbent employees (i.e., at firm pre-grant) - Roughly equal for higher- and lower-paid employees #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood +4 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Cesare asks: - Is this really a cash windfall? - (Strong) incentive to apply for Phase II if successful in Phase I? - Magnitudes? (Looks like $150K grant raises winners’ employees’ wages ~3% 🤷‍♂️) - More detail on apparent implicit back-loading contracts? #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood +8 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
PAPER 2. James Weston presents 🚨Wharton JMC🚨 Paul Décaire’s “Capital Budgeting and Idiosyncratic Risk.” paulhdecaire.com Do managers pad their discount rates? YES Is it a big deal? NOT CLEAR Cost of capital = Rf + 𝛽×MRP + stuff? #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 4 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @lukestein
Paper looks at 115K vertical gas wells with (largely) exogenous variation in (mostly) idiosyncratic risk. For each project, measure 1. NPV (⇒ bounds on R depending whether project done or not) 2. Idiosyncratic risk #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood -4 🙁

…in reply to @lukestein
PD finds 1. Firms inflate discount rates ~7.9% (not percentage points; 12% → 13%) 2. Firms that “pad” are worse 3. Stronger for firms where it’s hard to raise money 4. Padding is related to idiosyncratic risk (though JW asks whether measure could be capturing skewness) #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets 2019 Dec 7 Mood -4 🙁

…in reply to @lukestein
Note that Paul is 🚨on the job market🚨 paulhdecaire.com/ , and in addition to this very nice paper, has a great @RevOfFinStudies paper with Wharton’s Erik Gilje and @BabsonFinance’s @jerometaillard. @revoffinstudies/1167445736881053696 #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 6 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood +6 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
PAPER 3: @davidsontheath, Samadi, Ringgenberg, and Werner’s “Reusing Natural Experiments” is presented by Sophie Shive at @NDBusiness. Excited to see this presented; I learned that “My relevance condition is your exclusion restrictino violation.” @dlmillimet/1124331940050558979 #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 8 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Issue is lots of papers using same natural experiments to examine different outcomes. HSRW show that Romano and Wolf (Econometrica 2005 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00615.x) correction works in simulated data. #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Considers actual published finance papers (on widely applied Regulation SHO and BC law experiments). Considers - RW (2005) random ordering, and then refinements where - Outcomes are ordered by publication date or by - Variables’ apparent causal chain #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
Paper’s prescriptions include: 1. Verify relevance and exclusion restrictions of main effects before examining higher order effects 2. Caution on reuse of natural experiments 3. Conduct multiple-comparison corrections using earlier papers in literature #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
Shive notes - Goal is *not* replication existing papers (uses standardized data); goal is methodological - Appropriate corrections differ for reuse across different outcomes in same data set vs. same experiment but different contexts - [Some methodological suggestions] #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
.@davidsontheath: “We’re not trying to start a fight.” ☮️ @ctrzcinka: “You guys *should* start a fight. The first, fundamental rule of financial econometrics is that everyone is wrong.” 🥊 #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood -4 🙁

…in reply to @lukestein
PAPER 4: Ohad Karan presents Jun Aoyagi’s “Speed Choice by High-Frequency Traders With Speed Bumps.” Note Jun is a pre-market Econ PhD student at Berkeley, with (another paper) solo-authored R&R at JET. sites.google.com/site/junaoyagi19900505/ #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 5 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
Microstructure theory of sniping: Standing limit orders are essentially options, and are subject to adverse selection. One solution is to impose “speed bumps” (intentional delays in order execution). How do speed bumps affect bid-ask spreads when HFT speed is endogenous? #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
(Just spent the coffee break hanging out with @julian_finecon; I think we’re as ready as we’re going to be.) @julian_finecon/1203460752222220288 #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
HFTs choose speed endogenously, trading off that trading faster: ➕ Increases probability of successfully sniping ➖ Increases bid-ask spread, which reduces profit from sniping ➖ Has an (exogenous) Solving the model... ⇒ Optimal speed is INCREASING in speed bump #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets 2019 Dec 7 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @lukestein
Model #2 (extension): Multiple HFTs competing as both market-makers (liquidity providers) and aspiring snipers (liquidity takers). Model gives strategic complementarity. Unlike benchmark model, longer speed bump widens spread. #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
Model #3 (extension): Multiple HFTs and exogenous cost of speed (e.g., investment in tech and infrastrucure). Introduces strategic substitution (similar to existing models) depending on parameters. #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
Kadan comments: 1. Implications. Welfare (liquidity traders vs. mkt makers vs. snipers)? 2. *Baseline* model: Speed bumps are irrelevent in equilibrium (speed, Pr[sniping], etc)! Per envelope theorem 3. BUT in competitive model, speed bumps DO matter (eg increased spreads) #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood +4 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
PAPER 5 (last of the day): Brian Kelly, Toby Moskowitz, and (my @WPCareySchool colleague and good friend) Seth Pruitt’s “Understanding Momentum and Reversal,” presented by Andrei Goncalves. #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 4 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood +4 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Fama: “[Momentum] could be explained by risk, but if it’s risk, it changes much too quickly for me to capture it in any asset-pricing model.” Mmntum seems to predict 𝛽. We can model link between 𝛽s and chars in conditional factor model (as in authors’ earlier IPCA work) #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood -4 🙁

…in reply to @lukestein
Conclusion: “Momentum and long-term reversals… [are] explained by conditional betas in a no-arbitrage factor model” [Andrei notes that “Factor 3” from authors’ IPCA paper is ~0.5 correlated with momentum.] #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Dec 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
Andrei: Glass half empty: We learned that arbitrageurs know about momentum so it is not a near-arbitrage opportunity. Glass half full: We learned why momentum did not (and likely will not) disappear despite arbitrageurs knowing about it. #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 7 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
And… we’re back for the second day of #FRA20! If you’d like to catch up on yesterday’s live-tweet thread, it started here: @lukestein/1203419958799028224
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 8 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
PAPER 6: “Gig Labor: Trading Safety Nets for Training Wheels” by Fos, Hamdi, Kalda, and Nickerson; presented by Isaac Hacamo. Paper finds that the possibility of driving for @Uber helps insure workers against adverse consequences of layoffs. #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 4 Favorites 2019 Dec 8 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Made me think of this recently-replayed episode from @deathsexmoney (one of my favorite podcasts🎙) interviewing @Uber drivers about why they started working there. (I’m sorry… selling independent contracting services using their platform 😉) @deathsexmoney/1194631092961021953 #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 8 Mood +4 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Gig economy curtail individuals’ reliance following job separations on (1) UI and (2) consumer credit [utilization and delinquencies]. Is this labor demand, or an “insurance”-like option? #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 8 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @lukestein
Triple-diff using Equifax/credit bureau data ❶×❷ UberX staggered rollout across 163 CBSAs ❸ Car owners vs. non-owners Isaac suggests complementarity with approach/results from Emilie Jackson’s JMP web.stanford.edu/~emilyj91/ @jenniferdoleac/1193157451098386437 #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 8 Mood 0

…in reply to @lukestein
I’m curious: How much of this is really labor income, and how much is a mechanism for just cashing out automotive equity. Might be interesting to consider heterogeneity across states where e.g., auto title loans are more/less available. #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Dec 8 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
PAPER 7: @cdilldann and Jeff Pontiff’s “Flow,” presented by @csialm. One cool thing about this paper is we saw it in “early ideas” form at last year’s #FRA2018. @lukestein/1071929039584026624 #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Dec 8 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
Includes replications of large literature looking at predictors of fund flows (percentage change in AUM after taking out effect of returns) for aggregate active mutual funds, index funds, and ETFs; and individual funds by type (cf. Berk and Green 2004). #FRA20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets 2019 Dec 8 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @lukestein
.@csialm has some suggestions and also summarizes: - Strong index fund/ETF flow-perform. relationship puzzling if flows driven by rational invesors rewarding skill - Differences btwn passsive MF vs. active MF vs. ETF partly explained by institutional differences. (Theory?) #FRA20
On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets 2019 Dec 8 Mood +5 🙂