Author Archive

The Power of Story Telling

Posted 28 Jun 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Presentation Tips, Presentations

I think I have posted sev­eral times some­thing on story telling. I just saw this short video on youtube on story telling by Robert McKee (see his famous book). McKee is a screen­writer and con­sul­tant on basi­cally any­thing involv­ing teach­ing peo­ple to become bet­ter com­mu­ni­ca­tors pri­mar­ily through story telling. I just wish in acad­e­mia there was more story tellers…

A Good Liner of Mandelbrot

Posted 27 Jun 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Fractals

In the pref­ace of Mandelbrot’s book “Frac­tals and Scal­ing in Finance”, Man­del­brot says the fol­low­ing on finan­cial modeling:

An ideal model of price vari­a­tion is one that pro­duces sam­ple data streams that are hard to dis­tin­guish from actual records, either by eye or by algo­rithm, and achieves a good part of this goal with­out ad-hoc “patch” or “fix”.

 

Amen.

Can’t wait to read his mem­oir that will be release in Octo­ber of this year.

Research Tools: Be More Efficient

Posted 11 Jun 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Research

More I do research the more I find cool and use­ful tools to make a researcher’s life more effi­cient. Here are the tools that I use often and why:

Ever­note

Remem­ber Every­thing is Evernote’s “brand­ing mes­sage” and its cor­rect. With Ever­note, any research ideas that pop up in your mind you can write it down in Evernote’s apps. This app syncs with your PC/MAC, phone, tablet etc.

Omni­fo­cus (for Mac prod­ucts only, 80$)

Omni­fo­cus is per­sonal pro­duc­tiv­ity appli­ca­tion. It’s costly but how effec­tive to keep track of all your work, projects, bills to pay, etc! It is not a per­sonal agenda! The app was in part devel­oped with the book “Get­ting Things Done” by David Allen.

Papers ($79)

A per­sonal library of research. Keep track of all your research arti­cles and make sure they are well organized.

Google Reader

You may prob­a­bly know what Google Reader is. It’s your own lit­tle hub of all the blogs you fol­low. I like it to fol­low other aca­d­e­mic blogs. I get a lot of ideas from there.

Google Alert

I am sur­prised that many don’t know Google Alert. With Google Alert, you can ask to report you, on a daily basis, any new stuff on the web that was cre­ated in the last 24hours on a topic of choice. A great way to keep track of what is going on in your field of research.

Skim

Skim allows you open any PDF doc­u­ments and anno­tate them the way you want. Let’s just say it’s eas­ier to anno­tate doc­u­ments in PDF using Skim when shar­ing your research with co-authors than using LaTex.

Stack Over­flow

Stack Over­flow is a web­site where all pro­gram­mers meet and help oth­ers who need help with MATLAB, SAS, PYTHON, C++, etc. I had to learn Mat­lab real fast and with­out Stack Over­flow, it would have taken me an eter­nity. You can get replies really fast and when you sub­mit a ques­tion. Make sure you approve the answers (if the cor­rect one) sug­gested by authors to build up your reputation.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Case for Space

Posted 24 May 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Uncategorized

In the recent For­eign Affairs, there is bril­liant arti­cle by Neil deGrasse Tyson titled “The Case for Space”. Neil argue that coun­tries that pur­sue their curios­ity and inter­est for space has amaz­ing spillover effects within coun­tries like inno­va­tion, advance­ment in sci­ence and math, etc. Smart peo­ple needs an envi­ron­ment to think and push their curios­ity freely. Explor­ing space is not only for the sake of explor­ing space. Brilliant.

Uncertainty makes us free!

Posted 08 May 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Books, Risks

I am cur­rently read­ing the great book Against the Gods by Peter Bern­stein and we learn a lot about John May­nard Keynes and its view on risk. Like Karl Pop­per, Keynes believes that we have a very lim­ited knowl­edge. So much that there is no sci­en­tific basis on which to form any cal­cu­la­ble prob­a­bil­ity. In the words of Bern­stein “Keynes’s words bring great new: we are not pris­on­ers of an inevitable future. Uncer­tainty makes us free.”

Couldn’t agree more! Imag­ine if life was cer­tain… how bor­ing would that be!

Guides and Tips for Researchers

Posted 03 May 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Research

I recently added a new page for my web­site titled “Guides and Tips”. You will find in this sec­tion the fol­low­ing: (1) How to con­duct great research, (2) write great research, (3) pub­li­ca­tion process, and (4) on the job mar­ket + becom­ing a junior fac­ulty + teach­ing tips.

All the doc­u­ments you will find under these four sec­tions have col­lected for the past months. Hope­fully this helps!

 

Reviewing Less—Progressing More” by Matthew Spiegel — RFS Editor

Posted 11 Mar 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Research

The cur­rent Review of Finan­cial Stud­ies’ edi­tor Matthew Spiegel recently wrote a bril­liant piece for the recent RFS March 2012 edi­tion titled “Review­ing less — pro­gress­ing more”. This edi­to­r­ial piece con­cerns recent and wor­ry­ing trends in the pub­li­ca­tion process of aca­d­e­mic finance (and prob­a­bly other) studies.

abstract

Pre­sum­ably, aca­d­e­mic jour­nals exist and pub­lish arti­cles to dis­sem­i­nate new ideas. Some­how that sim­ple goal has been lost. Today, arti­cles appear in print only after a ref­eree is con­vinced that all other alter­na­tive expla­na­tions for its results have been ruled out. In real­ity, no arti­cle can exclude every pos­si­ble alter­na­tive, so this is basi­cally an exer­cise in futil­ity. The cri­te­rion for pub­li­ca­tion should be that once an arti­cle crosses some thresh­old it is good enough to pub­lish. The prob­lem seem­ingly lies in our
inabil­ity to say “good enough.” But this is a prob­lem we can fix.

This is a must read! (I par­tic­u­larly adore the last para­graph on page 8 and its fol­low­ing on page nine…“What if an arti­cle is important—that is, peo­ple read and cite it? In that case, aca­d­e­mics will dis­sect its every aspect. Some will exam­ine the article’s data fil­ters; oth­ers will check for cod­ing errors; still oth­ers will look for miss­ing fac­tors or reverse causal­ity expla­na­tions. The list is end­less. But, that is the point. The list is end­less. Authors, ref­er­ees, and edi­tors can­not even scratch the sur­face. Nor do they have to. The fact that our col­leagues will stress test any impor­tant pub­li­ca­tion means our profession’s received canon of knowl­edge has a self-correcting mech­a­nism built in. We have faith that impor­tant arti­cles are “right” because their results have been tested over and over again in myr­iad ways. Instead of try­ing to pre­empt this by demand­ing authors per­form ever more tests, we should instead just let the aca­d­e­mic process work by pub­lish­ing arti­cles if they are likely to be inter­est­ing. After that, let the pro­fes­sion deter­mine if the author’s con­clu­sions are accurate—or rather, that they are inter­est­ing enough to even make check­ing for prob­lems worthwhile”)

Do Political Institutions Affect the Choice of the US Cross-Listing Venue?

Posted 15 Feb 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Politics, Research

My mas­ters research “Do Polit­i­cal Insti­tu­tions Affect the Choice of the US Cross-Listing Venue? is now avail­able on SSRN. I ended-up co-writing with my research with my the­sis direc­tor and co-director who did a lot of work on the data side.

Abstract:

We study the impact of polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions on for­eign firms’ choice of their U.S. cross-listing venue. Using two mea­sures of polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions (an index of polit­i­cal rights and a polit­i­cal con­straint index) and con­trol­ling for var­i­ous firm-level and country-level char­ac­ter­is­tics, we show that for­eign firms from coun­tries with weak polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions are more likely to cross-list in the U.S. via the over-the-counter mar­ket and less likely to opt for an exchange-listed pro­gram (i.e., New York, Nas­daq, and AMEX).

Presentation tip #3: Follow John Cochrane’s advice to seminar presentations

Posted 04 Jan 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Presentation Tips, Presentations, Research

John Cochrane of the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago wrote a bril­liant advice paper to PhD stu­dent few years ago. The paper should be read reli­giously by all PhD research stu­dents. The sec­tion on sem­i­nar pre­sen­ta­tions (sec­tion 4) cov­ers short and sweet guide­lines to increase the prob­a­bil­ity of suc­cess when it comes to pre­sen­ta­tions. It may be incom­plete on var­i­ous pre­sen­ta­tion aspects but nonethe­less one of the best place to start think­ing and struc­tur­ing your pre­sen­ta­tions. Below I copy/paste the sec­tion 4 of the paper (page 11–12). Read it care­fully… it is not long!

4 Sem­i­nar pre­sen­ta­tions
You will not believe how fast the time will go by.

Since time is lim­ited, it’s espe­cially impor­tant to get to the point. We can’t skim to the
impor­tant stuff in a seminar!

You don’t need any lit­er­a­ture review or moti­va­tion in a sem­i­nar. Just get to the point.
Gene Fama usu­ally starts his sem­i­nars with “Look at table 1.” That’s a good model to
emulate.

Don’t “pre­view” results. It wastes time; why say it twice rather than say it once, right?

Don’t make slides with a bul­let point for every word you intend to say. This forces you
into a pre­planned order, and then you can’t change on the fly when you figure out how fast
time is going by. Slides are fine that only con­tain equa­tions, tables and graphs — things
we really need to see. At most use words for the one or two really impor­tant things you
want peo­ple to know, e.g. “Identification: inter­est rates do not respond to fiscal shocks in the Ricar­dian model.” Also, you want peo­ple to remem­ber the struc­ture of the model, definitions of vari­ables, etc. If you have too much junk on the slides, peo­ple can’t see the util­ity func­tion while you’re talk­ing about the pro­duc­tion func­tion, so they get lost. Peo­ple don’t remem­ber equa­tions from one slide to the next.

You have to leave slides up for a decent amount of time in order for peo­ple to digest
them. That means you will not be able to put up 1 slide per minute!

As in writ­ing the paper, your main objec­tive is to get to the #1 impor­tant con­tri­bu­tion
as fast as possible.

Most sem­i­nars are a dis­as­ter. They start with point­less moti­va­tion and pol­icy impli­ca­tions, which the audi­ence can’t fol­low since we don’t know the result. Then we get a long
lit­er­a­ture review, which is even more bor­ing since we don’t know the point of this paper
much less what every­one else did. Then we get a results pre­view. Usu­ally, the pre­sen­ter says “I’ll pre­view the results now because I may not have time to get to them all,” a strangely self-fulfilling prophecy. Since show­ing the main results is the only rea­son you came, why not just start right now! Worse, the rea­son we run out of time is because we wasted half an hour on the stu­pid pre­view! The sem­i­nar then bogs down as peo­ple start ask­ing ques­tions about the pre­viewed results; most of the ques­tions are dumb (“I mea­sure the demand elas­tic­ity at 0.3.” “But how did you iden­tify sup­ply shifts?”) since they will be explained in a proper pre­sen­ta­tion of the results. But the ques­tions are totally rea­son­able since the claim with no doc­u­men­ta­tion is mean­ing­less. Next, we get (in empir­i­cal papers) some “theory” that is really beside the point and only serves to pro­voke more need­less argu­ment (no, there really is no way to dis­tin­guish the “behav­ioral” and “ratio­nal” expla­na­tion. Clever audi­ence mem­bers will come up with sto­ries that reverse all the signs.) Then we get some dis­tract­ing pre­lim­i­nary results and tables and graphs of unre­lated obser­va­tions. More point­less dis­cus­sion erupts; peo­ple don’t know what point the speaker is try­ing to make and the dis­cus­sion goes off in to tan­gents. Finally the speaker sees there is only 10 min­utes to go, tells peo­ple to be quiet, and the main results go by in a big rush. Every­one is tired and con­fused and doesn’t fol­low any­thing. I timed the finance work­shop last win­ter quar­ter and not one paper got to the main results in under an hour!

Lis­ten to the ques­tions, all the way to the end, then count to three before answer­ing.
Yes, you’re in a rush, and yes, you think you can guess what the ques­tion will be and you
know the answer. This isn’t a game show, and much of the time you actu­ally don’t know
what the ques­tion will be.

Keep a sheet of paper handy. You may not have a quick answer to every ques­tion, and
some ques­tions may point to good things to change in the paper.

You can­not make it too sim­ple. Most pre­sen­ters, espe­cially Ph. D. stu­dents over­es­ti­mate
dra­mat­i­cally how much the­ory peo­ple can digest in one sit­ting, and how quickly they can
mem­o­rize and digest mod­els and results.

Speak loudly, slowly and clearly.

There’s noth­ing wrong with end­ing early!*

* I bolded the last line… and not John Cochrane. Fin­ish­ing ear­lier does not kill anyone.

Taking risks in Japan: maybe there is already too much to risk to cope with…

Posted 29 Dec 2011 — by Charles Martineau
Category Risks

Many say that Japan’s strug­gling econ­omy of the last 20 years is result of the poor entre­pre­neur­ial risk-taking. We know that avoid­ing risk is some­thing that is cul­tur­ally embed­ded. It is known that when you fail once as an entre­pre­neur you will be known as a fail­ure for the rest of your life. Quite hard to get the moti­va­tion to take risk right?

I am cur­rently on my third to Japan (a place that I now call my sec­ond home) and every time I ques­tion how this econ­omy can get back on its feet again. We can always push the peo­ple to take more entre­pre­neur­ial risk but we must rec­og­nize some­thing… that coun­try lives in an envi­ron­ment where dan­gers and risks sur­rounds them day in and day out: tsunamis, every­day earth­quakes, the crazy North Kore­ans, typhoons, vol­canos that can erupt at any moment, and now nuclear risks. Maybe, cul­tur­ally, the indi­vid­u­als are fed up on tak­ing more risks — they have plenty to cope with already!