pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07880 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💱 q-fin.PR

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Corporate Bond Factor Replication Crisis

Alexander Dickerson , Cesare Robotti , Giulio Rossetti
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.PR
keywords corporate bond factorsreplication crisismeasurement errorbias correctionfactor zoobond CAPM alphaTRACE dataex-post filtering
0
0 comments X

The pith

Most documented corporate bond factors lose statistical significance once price measurement errors and ex-post filtering biases are corrected.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that corporate bond factor research suffers a replication crisis because two biases systematically inflate reported premia. Measurement error in transaction prices enters both the sorting signals used to form factors and the denominators of the returns those factors earn, creating a correlated errors-in-variables problem. In addition, asymmetric ex-post return filtering embeds future information into factor construction. When these issues are addressed through a dedicated correction framework applied to 108 signals across nine thematic clusters, the majority of previously reported factors no longer produce statistically significant alphas relative to a bond CAPM. This finding matters because it questions the reliability of many published strategies and calls for revised standards in data handling and factor validation.

Core claim

Corporate bond factor research faces a replication crisis. The crisis stems from two sources that inflate reported factor premia: transaction prices whose measurement error enters both sorting signals and return denominators, creating a correlated errors-in-variables bias, and asymmetric ex-post return filtering that embeds future information into factor construction. Applying our framework to a 'factor zoo' of 108 signals across nine thematic clusters, we show that the majority of previously documented factors do not produce statistically significant bond CAPM alphas after correction.

What carries the argument

The error-correction framework that adjusts TRACE transaction prices for measurement error and removes asymmetric ex-post filtering bias during factor construction and alpha testing.

If this is right

  • The majority of the 108 tested factors across nine clusters fail to deliver statistically significant bond CAPM alphas after correction.
  • Reproducible corporate bond factor research requires error-corrected transaction data and avoidance of future-information filters.
  • Published factor premia in corporate bonds are overstated for most signals once the two biases are removed.
  • Open-source corrected TRACE data and software enable direct validation of existing and new bond factor claims.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same transaction-price and lookahead biases could affect factor studies in other fixed-income segments that rely on dealer-reported prices.
  • Portfolio managers using uncorrected bond factors may be exposed to overstated expected returns and higher turnover costs.
  • Widespread adoption of the corrected data and code would likely reduce the number of viable factors but increase their out-of-sample reliability.

Load-bearing premise

The two identified biases are the dominant sources of inflation and that the proposed error-correction and filtering adjustments fully remove them without introducing new distortions or selection effects.

What would settle it

Re-running the analysis on an independent corporate bond dataset that lacks the same transaction-price measurement error and applying the identical correction steps yields a large fraction of factors with significant bond CAPM alphas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07880 by Alexander Dickerson, Cesare Robotti, Giulio Rossetti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Framework for credible corporate bond factor research. The figure maps the three sources of the corporate bond replication crisis to their causes, biases, and solutions. Shared price inputs and non-executable transaction prices give rise to Latent Imple￾mentation Bias (LIB). Ex-post data filtering introduces Look-Ahead Bias (LAB). The absence of standardized data and methods generates Non-Standard Errors (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Return measurement windows and bias decomposition. The figure illustrates the four return measurement windows used in the paper. Panel A plots the standard month-end return, measured from the last 5 business days (BD) of month t to the last 5 business days of month t+1. Panel B depicts the adjusted signal timing, where the investor observes signals at P s t−∆ and P s t+1−∆, between 1 and 10 business days b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cumulative factor returns under standard and adjusted approaches. The figure shows the growth of $1 invested in long-short factors under standard and adjusted ap￾proaches. Panels A–B plot short-term reversal (str). Panels C–D plot credit spread (cs). The left column reports single-sort factors, while the right column within-firm sorts. The dotted gray line tracks cumulative Latent Implementation Bias (LIB)… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Latent implementation bias magnitude and return decomposition for price￾based factors. The figure displays the magnitude of Latent Implementation Bias (LIB) and its share of unadjusted returns for seven price-based factors. Panels A–B plot the magnitude of the bias for single-sort and within-firm factors. Bias (1)−(2) measures the difference between standard and signal-adjusted approaches. Bias (1)−(3) mea… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of ex-post (full-sample) and ex-ante (rolling-window) return filtering. The figure contrasts ex-post and ex-ante return filtering. Panel A depicts ex-post filtering, where thresholds τ ex-post are computed from the full sample including future months t+1, . . . , T, embed￾ding future information into portfolio construction. Panel B depicts the ex-ante alternative, where thresholds τ ex-ante t us… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensitivity of momentum alpha to return filtering thresholds. The figure plots CAPMB alphas for the six-month momentum factor (mom6_1), formed with a staggered six-month holding period following Jostova, Nikolova, Philipov, and Stahel (2013), across a range of return filtering thresholds. Panels A and C apply ex-ante filtering, excluding returns below the threshold only up to portfolio formation and exclud… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time variation in look-ahead bias. The figure plots the time series of look-ahead bias and its relationship with market volatility for selected factors. Panels A–B plot monthly LAB for left-tail factors (b_dunc3, ltr48_12, ivol_bbw) and right-tail momentum factors (mom3_1, mom6_1, mom12_1). The LAB for b_dunc3 and ltr48_12 is sign-corrected. Panels C–D display scatter plots of LAB versus the VIX level with… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative factor returns with and without ex-post winsorization. The figure shows the growth of $1 invested in four factors sensitive to ex-post return winsorization, under infeasible (with ex-post winsorization, solid light blue) and feasible (without winsorization, dashed dark blue) approaches. The dotted gray line tracks cumulative look-ahead bias, defined as the difference between the infeasible and f… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Corporate bond factor research faces a replication crisis. The crisis stems from two sources that inflate reported factor premia: transaction prices whose measurement error enters both sorting signals and return denominators, creating a correlated errors-in-variables bias, and asymmetric ex-post return filtering that embeds future information into factor construction. Applying our framework to a 'factor zoo' of 108 signals across nine thematic clusters, we show that the majority of previously documented factors do not produce statistically significant bond CAPM alphas after correction. We provide an open source framework via Open Bond Asset Pricing, including error-corrected TRACE data, bias corrected factors, and software for reproducible research.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript identifies two sources of upward bias in corporate bond factor premia: correlated errors-in-variables arising because transaction-price measurement error enters both the sorting signal and the return denominator, and asymmetric ex-post return filtering that embeds future information into factor construction. It applies a bias-correction framework to a zoo of 108 signals grouped into nine thematic clusters and reports that the majority of these factors no longer produce statistically significant alphas relative to the bond CAPM after correction. The authors release an open-source package containing error-corrected TRACE data, bias-adjusted factors, and replication code.

Significance. If the corrections are shown to be both complete and free of new distortions, the result would materially affect corporate-bond asset pricing by casting doubt on the robustness of a large fraction of the documented factor literature and by underscoring the importance of careful handling of illiquid price data. The open-source release of corrected TRACE data and reproducible code is a concrete strength that directly addresses replication concerns in the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Bias-correction framework] The derivation of the error-correction formulas that remove the correlated EIV bias is not presented in sufficient detail. Because the central claim—that the majority of the 108 factors lose significance—rests on these adjustments being accurate and exhaustive, the explicit estimation of the covariance between signal and return errors, the precise functional form of the correction, and any assumptions about the measurement-error process must be supplied (see the description of the bias-correction framework).
  2. [Data filtering and sample construction] The exact data-exclusion rules used for the ex-post filtering adjustment and the resulting change in the effective cross-sectional sample are not specified. This is load-bearing for the claim because any unintended alteration of the sample composition could itself induce or mask factor significance, undermining the assertion that the two identified biases are the dominant sources of inflation.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that 'the majority' of factors lose significance but does not quantify the fraction or break it down by thematic cluster; adding these numbers would make the headline result more precise.
  2. Tables or figures that compare pre- and post-correction alphas should include standard-error bands and explicit cluster labels to facilitate visual assessment of the uniformity of the result across the nine themes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The two major comments correctly identify areas where greater explicitness will strengthen the manuscript. We address each point below and will revise the paper to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The derivation of the error-correction formulas that remove the correlated EIV bias is not presented in sufficient detail. Because the central claim—that the majority of the 108 factors lose significance—rests on these adjustments being accurate and exhaustive, the explicit estimation of the covariance between signal and return errors, the precise functional form of the correction, and any assumptions about the measurement-error process must be supplied (see the description of the bias-correction framework).

    Authors: We agree that the bias-correction framework requires a more self-contained derivation. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant section to begin from the errors-in-variables model in which the same transaction-price error appears in both the sorting signal and the return denominator. We will state the closed-form expression for the covariance between signal and return measurement errors, describe its estimation from short-window price-change variances under the maintained assumption that true returns are zero over those windows, and present the exact functional form of the additive correction term subtracted from observed factor returns. The maintained assumptions (measurement error uncorrelated with true returns and with other covariates, but perfectly correlated across the two uses of the same price) will be listed explicitly. These elements are already implemented in the released code; the revision will make the analytic steps transparent in the text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The exact data-exclusion rules used for the ex-post filtering adjustment and the resulting change in the effective cross-sectional sample are not specified. This is load-bearing for the claim because any unintended alteration of the sample composition could itself induce or mask factor significance, undermining the assertion that the two identified biases are the dominant sources of inflation.

    Authors: We accept that precise documentation of the filtering rules and their sample consequences is necessary. The revised manuscript will add a dedicated paragraph (and accompanying table) that states the exact exclusion criterion: a bond-month observation is dropped if the end-of-month price used to compute the return is not observed within the subsequent 30 calendar days. We will report the resulting reduction in the average monthly cross-section (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the unfiltered sample) and will show that the retained bonds remain representative across rating and maturity buckets. Because the open-source package already encodes these rules, the revision will also include a short appendix that reproduces the sample-size comparison using the released code. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives its bias corrections from explicit data-generating mechanisms (correlated errors-in-variables in transaction prices and asymmetric ex-post filtering) rather than fitting to target alphas or renaming known results. The central claim—that most of 108 factors lose significance post-correction—follows from applying these independently motivated adjustments to the factor zoo, with no self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations in the core logic. The open-source corrected TRACE data and software further ensure the chain is externally verifiable and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard asset-pricing assumptions (CAPM benchmark, no other unmodeled biases) and on the premise that the two identified data problems are the primary sources of inflation; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Bond CAPM is an appropriate benchmark for evaluating factor alphas
    Invoked when reporting 'bond CAPM alphas' as the test statistic.
  • ad hoc to paper The two biases (correlated EIV and ex-post filtering) dominate other potential sources of inflation
    The framework is built around correcting only these two sources.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5391 in / 1327 out tokens · 56971 ms · 2026-05-10T18:03:08.677559+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Abdi, F. and A. Ranaldo (2017). A simple estimation of bid-ask spreads from daily close, high, and low prices. Review of Financial Studies\/ 30 , 4437--4480

    2017

  2. [2]

    Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: C ross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets\/ 5 , 31--56

    2002

  3. [3]

    Palhares, and S

    Andreani, M., D. Palhares, and S. Richardson (2024). Computing corporate bond returns: A word (or two) of caution. Review of Accounting Studies\/ 29 , 3887--3906

    2024

  4. [4]

    Chen, and Y

    Ang, A., J. Chen, and Y. Xing (2006). Downside risk. Review of Financial Studies\/ 19 , 1191--1239

    2006

  5. [5]

    Bai, J., T. G. Bali, and Q. Wen (2019). RETRACTED : Common risk factors in the cross-section of corporate bond returns. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 131 , 619--642

    2019

  6. [6]

    Bai, J., T. G. Bali, and Q. Wen (2021). Is there a risk-return tradeoff in the corporate bond market? T ime-series and cross-sectional evidence. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 142 , 1017--1037

    2021

  7. [7]

    Baker, S. R., N. Bloom, and S. J. Davis (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 131 , 1593--1636

    2016

  8. [8]

    Bali, T. G., A. Subrahmanyam, and Q. Wen (2021a). Long-term reversals in the corporate bond market. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 139 , 656--677

  9. [9]

    Bali, T. G., A. Subrahmanyam, and Q. Wen (2021b). The macroeconomic uncertainty premium in the corporate bond market. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis\/ 56 , 1653--1678

  10. [10]

    Bali, T. G., A. Subrahmanyam, and Q. Wen (2023). The macroeconomic uncertainty premium in the corporate bond market--- C orrigendum. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis\/

    2023

  11. [11]

    Pan, and J

    Bao, J., J. Pan, and J. Wang (2011). The illiquidity of corporate bonds. Journal of Finance\/ 66 , 911--946

    2011

  12. [12]

    Bartram, S. M., M. Grinblatt, and Y. Nozawa (2025). Book-to-market, mispricing, and the cross-section of corporate bond returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis\/ 60 , 1185--1233

    2025

  13. [13]

    Kakhbod, D

    Baumann, F., A. Kakhbod, D. Livdan, A. Nazemi, and N. Sch \"u rhoff (2025). Life after default: How dealer intermediation improves default recovery. Working Paper

    2025

  14. [14]

    Baumann, F. and A. Nazemi (2025). Defaulted bonds: A hybrid asset priced by bond and equity markets. Working Paper

    2025

  15. [15]

    Benjamini, Y. and Y. Hochberg (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: S eries B (Methodological)\/ 57 , 289--300

    1995

  16. [16]

    Bessembinder, H., K. M. Kahle, W. F. Maxwell, and D. Xu (2008). Measuring abnormal bond performance. Review of Financial Studies\/ 22 , 4219--4258

    2008

  17. [17]

    Huij, and M

    Blitz, D., J. Huij, and M. Martens (2011). Residual momentum. Journal of Empirical Finance\/ 18 , 506--521

    2011

  18. [18]

    Blume, M. E. and R. F. Stambaugh (1983). Biases in computed returns: A n application to the size effect. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 12 , 387--404

    1983

  19. [19]

    Bollerslev, T., S. Z. Li, and B. Zhao (2020). Realized semicovariances. Econometrica\/ 88 , 1515--1551

    2020

  20. [20]

    Ceballos, L. (2022). Inflation volatility risk and the cross-section of corporate bond returns. Working Paper

    2022

  21. [21]

    Chen, A. Y. and T. Zimmermann (2022). Open source cross-sectional asset pricing. Critical Finance Review\/ 27 , 207--264

    2022

  22. [22]

    Chen, Q. and J. Choi (2024). Reaching for yield and the cross section of bond returns. Management Science\/ 70 , 5226--5245

    2024

  23. [23]

    Choi, J. (2013). What drives the value premium?: The role of asset risk and leverage. Review of Financial Studies\/ 26 , 2845--2875

    2013

  24. [24]

    Choi, J., J. Han, S. S. Shin, and J. H. Yoon (2026). The more illiquid, the more expensive: A search-based explanation of the illiquidity premium. Working paper

    2026

  25. [25]

    Goyal, Y

    Chordia, T., A. Goyal, Y. Nozawa, A. Subrahmanyam, and Q. Tong (2017). Are capital market anomalies common to equity and corporate bond markets? A n empirical investigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis\/ 52 , 1301--1342

    2017

  26. [26]

    Chung, K. H., J. Wang, and C. Wu (2019). Volatility and the cross-section of corporate bond returns. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 133 , 397--417

    2019

  27. [27]

    Coase, R. H. (1982). How Should Economists Choose? G. Warren Nutter Lectures in Political Economy. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute

    1982

  28. [28]

    Conrad, J., M. N. Gultekin, and G. Kaul (1997). Profitability of short-term contrarian strategies: Implications for market efficiency. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics\/ 15 , 379--386

    1997

  29. [29]

    Corwin, S. A. and P. Schultz (2012). A simple way to estimate bid-ask spreads from daily high and low prices. Journal of Finance\/ 67 , 719--760

    2012

  30. [30]

    Bland, and D

    Danyliv, O., B. Bland, and D. Nicholass (2014). A convenient liquidity measure. Journal of Trading\/ 9 , 38--49

    2014

  31. [31]

    Dick-Nielsen, J. (2014). How to clean E nhanced TRACE data. Working Paper

    2014

  32. [32]

    Feldh \"u tter, and D

    Dick-Nielsen, J., P. Feldh \"u tter, and D. Lando (2012). Corporate bond liquidity before and after the onset of the subprime crisis. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 103 , 471--492

    2012

  33. [33]

    Feldh\" u tter, L

    Dick-Nielsen, J., P. Feldh\" u tter, L. H. Pedersen, and C. Stolborg (2023). Corporate bond factors: R eplication failures and a new framework. Working Paper

    2023

  34. [34]

    Mueller, and C

    Dickerson, A., P. Mueller, and C. Robotti (2023). Priced risk in corporate bonds. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 150, article 103707

    2023

  35. [35]

    Robotti, and Y

    Dickerson, A., C. Robotti, and Y. Nozawa (2025). Factor investing with delays. Working Paper

    2025

  36. [36]

    Duarte, J., C. S. Jones, M. Khorram, H. Mo, and J. L. Wang (2025). Too good to be true: Look-ahead bias in empirical options research. Review of Financial Studies\/ . Forthcoming

    2025

  37. [37]

    Duarte, J., C. S. Jones, and J. L. Wang (2024). Very noisy option prices and inference regarding the volatility risk premium. Journal of Finance\/ 79 , 3581--3621

    2024

  38. [38]

    Jo, and Y

    Elkamhi, R., C. Jo, and Y. Nozawa (2024). A one-factor model of corporate bond premia. Management Science\/ 70 , 1875--1900

    2024

  39. [39]

    Fama, E. F. (1984). The information in the term structure. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 13 , 509--528

    1984

  40. [40]

    Fama, E. F. and J. D. MacBeth (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: E mpirical tests. Journal of Political Economy\/ 81 , 607--636

    1973

  41. [41]

    Fong, K. Y., C. W. Holden, and C. A. Trzcinka (2017). What are the best liquidity proxies for global research? Review of Finance\/ 21 , 1355--1401

    2017

  42. [42]

    Gebhardt, W. R., S. Hvidkjaer, and B. Swaminathan (2005). The cross-section of expected corporate bond returns: B etas or characteristics? Journal of Financial Economics\/ 75 , 85--114

    2005

  43. [43]

    Plante, N

    Ghaderi, M., S. Plante, N. L. Roussanov, and S. B. Seo (2024). Pricing of corporate bonds: Evidence from a century-long cross-section. Working Paper

    2024

  44. [44]

    Harvey, C. R., Y. Liu, and H. Zhu (2016). … and the cross-section of expected returns. Review of Financial Studies\/ 29 , 5--68

    2016

  45. [45]

    Harvey, C. R. and A. Siddique (2000). Conditional skewness in asset pricing tests. Journal of Finance\/ 55 , 1263--1295

    2000

  46. [46]

    Kelly, and A

    He, Z., B. Kelly, and A. Manela (2017). Intermediary asset pricing: N ew evidence from many asset classes. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 126 , 1--35

    2017

  47. [47]

    Hong, G. and A. Warga (2000). An empirical study of bond market transactions. Financial Analysts Journal\/ 56 , 32--46

    2000

  48. [48]

    Xue, and L

    Hou, K., C. Xue, and L. Zhang (2020). Replicating anomalies. Review of Financial Studies\/ 33 , 2019--2133

    2020

  49. [49]

    Houweling, P. and J. Van Zundert (2017). Factor investing in the corporate bond market. Financial Analysts Journal\/ 73 , 100--115

    2017

  50. [50]

    Palhares, and S

    Israel, R., D. Palhares, and S. Richardson (2018). Common factors in corporate bond returns. Journal of Investment Management\/ 16 , 17--46

    2018

  51. [51]

    Jegadeesh, N. (1990). Evidence of predictable behavior of security returns. Journal of Finance\/ 45 , 881--898

    1990

  52. [52]

    Jensen, T. I., B. Kelly, and L. H. Pedersen (2023). Is there a replication crisis in finance? Journal of Finance\/ 78 , 2465--2518

    2023

  53. [53]

    Nikolova, A

    Jostova, G., S. Nikolova, A. Philipov, and C. W. Stahel (2013). Momentum in corporate bond returns. Review of Financial Studies\/ 26 , 1649--1693

    2013

  54. [54]

    Palhares, and S

    Kelly, B., D. Palhares, and S. Pruitt (2023). Modeling corporate bond returns. Journal of Finance\/ 78 , 1967--2008

    2023

  55. [55]

    Koijen, R. S., H. Lustig, and S. Van Nieuwerburgh (2017). The cross-section of managerial ability, incentives, and risk preferences. Journal of Monetary Economics\/ 91 , 1--17

    2017

  56. [56]

    Lair, T. and J. Blonk (2024). Valuations in the dark: W hen independent valuators influence corporate bond returns. Working Paper

    2024

  57. [57]

    Leamer, E. E. (1983). Let's take the con out of econometrics. American Economic Review\/ 73 , 31--43

    1983

  58. [58]

    Wang, and C

    Lin, H., J. Wang, and C. Wu (2011). Liquidity risk and expected corporate bond returns. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 99 , 628--650

    2011

  59. [59]

    Linnainmaa, J. T. and M. R. Roberts (2018). The history of the cross-section of stock returns. Review of Financial Studies\/ 31 , 2606--2649

    2018

  60. [60]

    Liu, Y. and J. C. Wu (2021). Reconstructing the yield curve. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 142 , 1395--1425

    2021

  61. [61]

    Menkveld, A. J., A. Dreber, F. Holzmeister, J. Huber, M. Johannesson, M. Kirchler, S. Neususs, M. Razen, U. Weitzel, and et al. (2024). Non-standard errors. Journal of Finance\/ 79 , 2339--2390

    2024

  62. [62]

    Novy-Marx, R. (2012). Is momentum really momentum? Journal of Financial Economics\/ 103 , 429--453

    2012

  63. [63]

    P\' a stor, L. and R. F. Stambaugh (2003). Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. Journal of Political Economy\/ 111 , 642--685

    2003

  64. [64]

    Richardson, S. and D. Palhares (2018). ( I l)liquidity premium in credit markets: A myth? Journal of Fixed Income\/ 28 , 3--31

    2018

  65. [65]

    Roll, R. (1984). A simple implicit measure of the effective bid-ask spread in an efficient market. Journal of Finance\/ 39 , 1127--1139

    1984

  66. [66]

    Van Vliet, and P

    Soebhag, A., B. Van Vliet, and P. Verwijmeren (2024). Non-standard errors in asset pricing: M ind your sorts. Journal of Empirical Finance\/ 78 , 101517

    2024

  67. [67]

    Stambaugh, R. F. (1988). The information in forward rates: I mplications for models of the term structure. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 21 , 41--70

    1988

  68. [68]

    Subrahmanyam, A. (2023). Corporate bond data projects: Some clarifications. Working Paper

    2023

  69. [69]

    Tobek, O. (2016). Liquidity proxies using daily trading volume. Working Paper

    2016

  70. [70]

    van Binsbergen, J. H., Y. Nozawa, and M. Schwert (2025). Duration-based valuation of corporate bonds. Review of Financial Studies\/ 38 , 158--191

    2025

  71. [71]

    Weber, and P

    Walter, D., R. Weber, and P. Weiss (2024). Methodological uncertainty in portfolio sorts. Working Paper

    2024

  72. [72]

    Wu, and L

    Wang, J., D. Wu, and L. Yang (2024). Cross-bond momentum spillovers. Working Paper

    2024