sounding open dataReading the waterlineLive sources are loading. Nothing is filled with placeholder market data.
Loading market readings
☴≈⌇Research validity · methodological
How many published return anomalies survive stricter replication choices?
Hou, Xue, and Zhang report that most of 452 equity anomalies fail under their microcap, weighting, and multiple-testing controls, with smaller magnitudes among those that survive.
Disputed
Hou, Xue, and Zhang report that most of 452 equity anomalies fail under their microcap, weighting, and multiple-testing controls, with smaller magnitudes among those that survive.
The result is peer reviewed, but later peer-reviewed work reaches a different broad conclusion using a Bayesian factor-replication framework.
Literature record
DisputedWhat the reviewed source and linked counterevidence support.
Bathymark reproduction
Method recordThis is cross-market method evidence that shapes Bathymark's future crypto replication rules.
Live validity
Not monitoredThe relevant output is a method receipt on each claim, not a live market state.
where the claim applies
Scope and horizon
Assets
U.S. equities, not cryptocurrencies
Venues or data
CRSP and Compustat research universe
Geography
United States
Sample
January 1967 to December 2016
Horizon
Cross-sectional anomaly portfolio tests
source result
What the work reported
The paper reports 65 percent failing a single-test threshold and 82 percent failing its higher multiple-testing threshold.
structured numbers
Anomalies tested452 anomalies
Failure rate at the single-test threshold65 percent
Failure rate at the multiple-testing threshold82 percent
how the result was made
Method and implementation boundary
Design
Replication of 452 anomaly variables under common portfolio and regression procedures.
Measures
Value- and equal-weighted returns, microcap controls, t-statistics, and multiple-testing thresholds.
Reality gap
The finding is a validation warning for crypto factor research, not direct evidence about a crypto strategy.
Assumptions
The authors' common replication choices are suitable tests of the original anomaly claims.
Economic relevance is represented appropriately by the weighting and microcap controls.
Limits
The universe is equities, not digital assets.
Replication rates change with the statistical model, weighting, factor clustering, and definition of success.
Failure under one common protocol does not prove every original mechanism false.
Required reality checks
Preserve competing replication frameworks rather than collapsing them into one score.
Apply crypto-specific listing, delisting, venue, shorting, and liquidity controls.
Report which methodological choice changes the conclusion.
What this cannot mean
That 82 percent of cryptocurrency signals are false.
That all published factors fail.
That one replication protocol is the only valid protocol.
source and version trail
The works behind this record
Bathymark stores curated bibliographic facts and its own paraphrase. It does not store the source abstract or full text. Open the original work to inspect the complete analysis.
The studies reach different high-level conclusions under different replication frameworks, so Bathymark preserves both.
append-only assessment memory
Status history
DisputedJournal result verified and linked to peer-reviewed counterevidence using a different replication framework.
current Bathymark context
Related live evidence, not a replication
The relevant output is a method receipt on each claim, not a live market state.
Reviewed 2026-07-13; next review 2027-01-13. The paper record is not a recommendation, forecast, or proof of current profitability. Information, not financial advice.