The "anomalies" literature is the scientific foundation for quantitative asset management. But as three recent papers point out, "p-hacking" is only the beginning of anomalies research problems.

It's become conventional wisdom that under-performance is due to the irrational investment behavior of individuals. It's time to question whether conventional wisdom has even a scintilla of meaning.

We've been drilled that rebalancing in portfolios results in improved returns and/or reduced risk. But the benefits of rebalancing are far smaller than we’ve been led to believe.

It has become accepted, conventional wisdom that investors underperform their investments by timing those investments badly. But this new conventional wisdom must be debunked.

According to a Harvard Business School study, the percentage of US GDP attributable to the financial industry tripled from 1950 to the 2000s. Has any of this increase improved the services rendered by the financial services industry to the real economy?

Smart beta's popularity has swept not only the ETF world but academia too. Yet there is academic debate about whether smart beta produces alpha, risk-adjusted performance or only beta, a premium for bearing risk.

Does smart beta deserve the attention it is getting? I can't see how it's possible to have more diversification benefit using a factor approach to constructing portfolios than any other approach.

Is the practice of measuring manager performance by comparing it to a market index distorting prices across the whole market? That is the conclusion of a recent paper.

Does Fama and French's latest work, A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model, provide any information that can be of practical value to advisers or investors? The answer is no.

If all the money invested in hedge funds had been put in T-bills, the results would've been twice as good.