False (and Missed) Discoveries in Financial Economics
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Multiple testing plagues many important questions in finance such as fund and factor selection. We propose a new way to calibrate both Type I and Type II errors. Next, using a double-bootstrap method, we establish a t-statistic hurdle that is associated with a specific false discovery rate (e.g., 5%). We also establish a hurdle that is associated with a certain acceptable ratio of misses to false discoveries (Type II error scaled by Type I error), which effectively allows for differential costs of the two types of mistakes. Evaluating current methods, we find that they lack power to detect outperforming managers.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
3 papers.
- 2024Adaptive Learn-then-Test: Statistically Valid and Efficient Hyperparameter Selectioncited by 13
- 2021Controlling False Discovery Rates under Cross-Sectional Correlationscited by 0
- 2026Leakage-Aware Benchmarking of LLM Forecasting: Real-Time Nowcasts as the Decision-Time Input for Macro Factor Rankingcited by 0
- 2026Leakage-Aware Benchmarking of LLM Forecasting: Real-Time Nowcasts as the Decision-Time Input for Macro Factor Ranking21 Jun 2026
- 2024Adaptive Learn-then-Test: Statistically Valid and Efficient Hyperparameter Selection24 Sep 2024
- 2021Controlling False Discovery Rates under Cross-Sectional Correlations15 Feb 2021