Chanik Jo

98 posts

Chanik Jo banner
Chanik Jo

Chanik Jo

@jo_chanik

Assistant Professor of Finance at CUHK working on fun stuff in asset pricing, household finance, and behavioral finance. @UofT PhD

Hong Kong Katılım Kasım 2021
881 Takip Edilen1.2K Takipçiler
Ben Charoenwong
Ben Charoenwong@BenCharoenwong·
My experience as well with some schools in China. Took it to be due to broad belt tightening measures coming from govt fiscal pressure. But on the other hand, giving up on reimbursement and using my own research funding may also be an appropriate redistribution.
Stefan Nagel@ProfStefanNagel

Rant of the day: The reimbursement process for seminar visits has really gotten insanely burdensome with universities treating a speaker getting a few hundred bucks reimbursement like a million dollar supplier.

English
1
0
3
546
Chanik Jo retweetledi
Chanik Jo retweetledi
Chanik Jo
Chanik Jo@jo_chanik·
@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)?
English
1
0
0
86
Jiacui Li
Jiacui Li@jiacui·
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 :)
English
1
0
2
153
Chanik Jo
Chanik Jo@jo_chanik·
@sc_cath I guess this means an exogenous increase in wealth inequality with shareholders getting richer and consumers suffering. Plus, it’s an overall welfare loss due to the deadweight costs from higher prices caused by the tariffs. Typical unintended consequences 😂
English
0
0
4
457
Chanik Jo retweetledi
Sylvain Catherine
Sylvain Catherine@sc_cath·
This is a deep misunderstanding of how economics works. Economists don’t start with unrealistic assumptions to reach irrelevant conclusions. Theorists spell out the assumptions under which an idealized, stylized result can be proven—and very often that result is an irrelevance result. In finance, for instance: Modigliani–Miller (capital structure doesn’t matter), no-trade theorems (nobody trades), etc. The point isn’t the conclusion. We all know firms do optimize their capital structure (we teach how) and people trade trillions of dollars of securities every day. The “result” is really the assumptions: they tell you what has to be true for a phenomenon not to matter or not to exist—and therefore what frictions make a field interesting or a phenomenon exists. A huge share of economic research is about relaxing those assumptions and studying what changes. So when we say markets work “perfectly” under perfect competition, perfect substitutes, complete markets, and fully rational agents, we’re not claiming those conditions hold. We’re saying the literature should be built around the violation of these assumptions.
Mayukh@mayukh_panja

Economics is mostly a bullshit field of study. It is specifically for people who can do a little bit of stats and calc and want to feel smart but too dumb to study physics or math. Most economic theories are built like this: they start with an assumption about human behavior. Then without checking if the assumption is true, they will pile on layers of sloppy math on it and come to all sorts of conclusions that obviously don’t hold up in the real world. Recently a couple of economists won the Nobel Prize for being the first to realize that assumptions about human behavior must be tested and they went out and did some field work, and proved that a lot of assumptions in economic theories about how humans behave with money are well just not true. I was working at a bank for 2 years and saw firsthand that economics PhDs tend to be the dumbest. These people are completely alien to the idea of first principles thinking and treat axioms as if they were written in the Bible. Also they don’t really understand what an axiom is. Economics only exists because your average normie is easily impressed buy math and midwits in power are not scientific enough to realize that it is all voodoo and keep taking economists seriously. I don’t blame them though, at some point they hit an intelligence wall and the average economist brain is simply not equipped to have meta level thoughts about their own field of study. I guess this is one of those bullshit jobs like HR, therapy, astrology, project management that will just stay around for a while cause most humans are either mid or retarded.

English
40
91
764
59.4K
Noah Williams
Noah Williams@Bellmanequation·
Scenes from the current AEA/ASSA, where booking space has not caught up to current attendance levels.
Noah Williams tweet media
English
13
4
145
53.9K
Chanik Jo retweetledi
Jay Kahn
Jay Kahn@jstatistic·
I’ve been thinking about lessons I’ve picked up over the last five years about research and publishing for policy-oriented research. I’m not an expert here, these are just things I had to figure out on my own, and maybe they’ll be useful to others. 👇
English
1
14
85
19K
Luca X. Lin
Luca X. Lin@LucaLin16·
It has been a stressful semester so jumping out of an airplane from 13,000 feet over the Niagara Falls seems like a good idea.
Niagara Falls, NY 🇺🇸 English
1
0
10
514
Luca X. Lin
Luca X. Lin@LucaLin16·
My latest publication on the Journal of Corporate Finance shows that newly public firms still often need to commit to performance sensitive debt to convince new lenders for future financing even though the IPO serves as an information-releasing event. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
English
1
0
3
287
Junxuan
Junxuan@Junxuan_Wang_·
I am pleased to announce that I have successfully completed the job market process. I will be joining @HKUSTGuangzhou as an Assistant Professor in the Thrust of Financial Technology within the Society Hub.
English
2
0
14
542
Henry Zhang
Henry Zhang@henry_h_zhang·
I am thrilled to announce that I will begin my career as an assistant professor at the Department of Finance at the CUHK Business School. I am incredibly grateful to my advisors at MIT, Rob Townsend @townsend_rm, Dave Donaldson, and Tong Liu, for their support and guidance. I look forward to developing my research agenda in an exciting and growing department in a beautiful location!
Henry Zhang tweet media
English
10
6
198
14.9K
Chanik Jo retweetledi
Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh
Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh@SVNieuwerburgh·
📣new paper alert: An Alpha in Affordable Housing? a collaboration with with @damensven and @MKorevaar_ showing that low-rent/low-income housing earns the highest returns for landlords in the U.S., Belgium, and The Netherlands.
Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh tweet media
English
5
28
123
30.6K
Chanik Jo
Chanik Jo@jo_chanik·
@jinfeisheng @sc_cath I suppose part of the yesterday market reaction is driven by uncertainty shocks -- uncertainty about the market structure, US AI dominance, etc
English
0
0
2
88
Jinfei
Jinfei@jsca1818·
@sc_cath Investors always overreact to news, both positive and negative ones.
English
1
0
3
384
Sylvain Catherine
Sylvain Catherine@sc_cath·
I'd love to see a proper IO analysis of the deepseek shock on Nvidia. What we learned, is that you can do much more with an Nvidia GPU than we thought. But it’s not immediately obvious that this is bad news for Nvidia. Imagine Nvidia had just announced that its next-generation chip would be 10 times more powerful and efficient than the previous one—would that be seen as bad news for the stock? Yes, achieving a given computational goal now requires fewer GPUs, but that perspective feels shortsighted. Lower costs—both in price and energy consumption—effectively expand the range of feasible applications, which should, in turn, increase demand. So why the sharp drop in Nvidia’s stock price? One key difference between a sudden leap in next-generation chip performance and the DeepSeek shock is that the latter retroactively upgrades the existing installed base of Nvidia GPUs, making them far more efficient than expected. In a sense, Nvidia is now competing against its own previously sold GPUs. The realization that these existing chips can deliver significantly greater output can be viewed as a massive positive supply shock—one coming from an unexpected "competitor." So maybe the overall effect on the company's value is ambiguous. Afterall, Nvidia, like any monopoly, must ration quantities to maximize profits.
English
33
29
268
28.6K
John Cochrane
John Cochrane@JohnHCochrane·
Really good point, which I should not have missed. rational expectations and economic models describe how people behave, not how they answer surveys. If they don’t act do they really believe?
Branislav Slantchev@slantchev

Really, people (both of them). This is cheap talk — people are just expressing the best/worst of their expectations of Trump. Until you show me investment/savings patterns consistent with these wild swings, these data are noise.

English
12
10
136
21.2K
Chanik Jo
Chanik Jo@jo_chanik·
@fang_leon I guess with a short window, sometimes you may lose an important variation like yesterday, but on average you can cleanly capture the immediate reaction without contaminating information.
English
1
0
0
202
Xiang Fang
Xiang Fang@fang_leon·
@jo_chanik I agree with you that it takes time to digest. But there is a tradeoff between information and identification: longer periods have more contaminating information. This paper makes the point. ijcb.org/journal/ijcb05…
English
1
0
3
227
Chanik Jo
Chanik Jo@jo_chanik·
To study the impact of monetary surprise on stock markets, FOMC literature typically examines high-frequency market reactions during a 30-min short window around the announcement. I guess a short window could be misleading if it takes time to digest the surprise, like today 🤔
Chanik Jo tweet media
English
2
0
8
976