When I got to "the characteristics he investigated only explained about 2% of the cross-section of returns over the subsequent decade" it kind of defeated the entire study. No?
Not really. In equity markets you rarely get an explanatory power of more than 20% anyway. And if you can increase your chances of finding a star performer by 2% that may already be enough to give you an edge.
I chuckled a bit at the idea of drawdowns being a force for good. In researching Operations Research in WWII I found that particular root of the 'quant' discipline was not JUST numbers-based. A dose of explanation, even an appeal to 'common sense', was called forth. This gentleman's research was rigorously numeric, I see.
When I got to "the characteristics he investigated only explained about 2% of the cross-section of returns over the subsequent decade" it kind of defeated the entire study. No?
Not really. In equity markets you rarely get an explanatory power of more than 20% anyway. And if you can increase your chances of finding a star performer by 2% that may already be enough to give you an edge.
I chuckled a bit at the idea of drawdowns being a force for good. In researching Operations Research in WWII I found that particular root of the 'quant' discipline was not JUST numbers-based. A dose of explanation, even an appeal to 'common sense', was called forth. This gentleman's research was rigorously numeric, I see.