Jiacui Li

@jo_chanik More positive surprises, though this may just reflect my status in the profession. I often get lower-ranked authors' work to review and find "gems in the rough", rather than the opposite.

@jiacui Do you experience more negative surprises (i.e., realizing an established / famous researcher wrote a paper you decided to reject) … or more positive surprises (i.e., giving an R&R to a paper by someone relatively unknown in the field)?

To avoid biases, I've enforced a rule where I never search up the paper before submitting a referee report. As a consequence, a large pleasure/thrill of submitting a referee report is rushing to figure out who wrote the paper :)

It is just a one minute survey! We really appreciate your participation.

Hello #EconTwitter — We are conducting a one-minute academic survey on the price effects of trading. Participation is anonymous and voluntary. forms.gle/gvVDnTetdY9arw… We'd appreciate your insights. Thank you — please feel free to share!

@AsafManela Yes I actually wondered about that. And I wonder if you have an answer?

Ever wonder why in finance we refer to market-wide risk as "systematic" instead of "systemic"? Purely from the standpoint of dictionary definitions, “systemic” (affecting an entire system) might appear more intuitive for market-wide risk than “systematic” (done according to a system or plan).

@eliquinox Hi Ed - I am hoping to ask you a question regarding your digital finance article "Order flow analysis of cryptocurrency markets". If that is okay, please follow me on twitter so I can message you, or email me at jiacui.li@eccles.utah.edu. Thanks!

@achenfinance Sounds like a pre-cursor to Greenwood Shleifer RFS.

One fav papers, of the few that changed my views, is Amromin and Sharpe 2005. They show that households have exactly the -opposite- view on expected returns and recessions that I was taught in my Ph.D. This paper is also the saddest example of the Matthew effect I know of. 🧵

@achenfinance If markets are reasonably competitive for short-horizon profits, the strategies that work will be eliminated soon after publication. It would be weirder if these things continue to work out of sample.

Just learned about this re-examination of 29 recently-published academic market timing strategies by Goyal, Welch, and Zafirov. You might think after Goyal-Welch 2008, we'd have gotten better at this, but nope 😐. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

@achenfinance Is there a formal justification/mechanism for Brandolini’s law?

Gonna stick my neck out offer the counter argument: demanding referees are good because (a) we don’t need more “original” research since most papers aren’t read anyway and (b) they help guard against bullshit, which is very hard to debunk (Brandolini’s law)

@achenfinance @arubesam Hmm, it would actually be helpful if you can share the process. I believe many would be very interested in that.

@arubesam How do you feel about appealing the decision? I’ve done it several times, in part to try to help the profession.

Another day, another rejection with that one referee whose comments reveal they clearly didn’t read the paper at all.

Why is modern monetary theory so popular among many? People simply found a theory to justify wishful thinking about infinite fiscal stimulus and programs, or is there something else going on? @HannoLustig @JohnHCochrane @ProfJiang

@ben_golub Since the Zoom age started, I always begin my presentations with a multiple choice question for the audience to participate in. Their answers ALWAYS show that the audience's prior is ex-ante different from my claim, so they can't claim "we knew it all along" ex-post. (3/n)

@ben_golub because what the audience is saying is merely "your idea is understandable after you explained it to me". It's like, they can't solve the equation themselves, but after you show them the answer, they are able to plug it into the equation and verify that the answer is correct. 2/n

@ben_golub It might be worth distinguishing between "ex ante obviousness" and "ex post obviousness" of ideas. Many ideas are ex ante non-obvious, but ex post (after you explain your paper) obvious, and that's what audiences/referees are usually referring to. This is obviously unfair, 1/n

@schiller061 Cheering for Italy out of “hatred” towards England?

@jenniferdoleac I imagine the answer is no. Price stickiness isn’t due to literal “menu costs”. It is (primarily) due to customers disliking price variation. In any case, would be great to know the answer. Great research idea.

Research idea: does the switch to QR codes at restaurants make menu prices less sticky?

@AsafManela Good point about salience and human perception of risk.

Now imagine 4000 of these towers collapsed over a year. That would probably get people to risk a shot in the arm, no?

@RayDalio The problem is we are in an unprecedented age where humans can make ourselves go extinct. Therefore, every person has a moral obligation (in my view) to make sure such a fight does not happen. There is too much at stake.

If they refuse to slip into the subordinate position, there will be fighting and the painful defeat of the weaker power. That is what makes transitions of power so painful.

So the increasing use of Shanghai-Hong Kong stock connect (沪港通) does nothing to reduce the pricing discrepancies between the two markets? Hmm...