Academic audit · free public research

The Academic Audit

We re-ran the famous published quant factors — Betting-Against-Beta, low-volatility, the 52-week-high effect, book-to-market value — on a survivorship-free, cost-aware 2005–2026 panel. Most of them failed.

48failed after costs
4validated factor-legs
2provisional

We re-ran the famous published quant factors. Most of them failed.

We took well-known strategies from the academic and practitioner literature — the kind catalogued on QuantPedia and QuantConnect, each tracing back to a published paper — and tested them the honest way: on a survivorship-free US equity panel (delisted names such as SIVBQ, FRCB, TWTR, ATVI and SGEN retained; ETFs/ETNs and leveraged/inverse products removed), with modelled, liquidity-aware costs, over a common 2005–2026 out-of-sample window.

The result is deflationary. Most of the celebrated cross-sectional factors — Betting-Against-Beta, the low-volatility effect, the 52-week-high effect, book-to-market value — turned net-negative once costs and delisted losers were put back in. Of the 54 strategies we could adjudicate, only 4 survived — and each only as a diversifying, market-neutral factor-leg. Every survivor loses money in its worst year. None is a standalone strategy.

We tested and adjudicated 54 published academic/QuantPedia strategies on a survivorship-free 2005-2026 US/FX/ETF panel with modelled costs (incl. short interest acquired from FINRA's public API). 48 failed; 4 survived as validated market-neutral factor-legs (all diversifiers with a losing worst year - none standalone); 2 remain provisional. A further 9 strategies are withheld because we could neither confirm nor refute them (missing data / no qualifying securities).

How to read this

This audit is deliberately unglamorous. Before reading any result, read these caveats — they change what the numbers mean.

  • DOLLAR FIGURES ARE NOT RETURNS: every net_notional_21y is a 21-year gross-notional P&L sum at fixed-$-per-position sizing (the SAME convention that makes trend-following look like $948M). It is not a capital return and not annualized. Judge strategies by RF, placebo percentile and worst-year RF — never by the dollar figure.
  • ALL genuine legs have a NEGATIVE worst-year RF (-0.65 to -0.81): each loses money in its worst year and is only useful COMBINED in a diversified book. None is a standalone tradeable strategy.
  • Long/short factors are market-neutral; buy&hold is NOT their benchmark and is reported only as context for long-only/beta strategies.
  • Costs are MODELLED (liquidity-aware spread by $ADV + commission), not live fills; no short-leg borrow/locate or market impact.
  • Window is 2005-2026 only — post-publication, out-of-sample vs the source papers (which start earlier). A factor failing here does not refute the paper; a factor passing is regime-conditional.
  • Placebo pass line (~P95) is within basket-sampling noise: marginal genuines sit within a few baskets of rejected items.

What "validated" means here: the strategy clears three independent bars — a survivorship-free/immune panel, a placebo rank-skill test at or above the 95th percentile (its real net beats 95%+ of random same-size baskets), and cost-aware net — *and* survives adversarial refutation. It is still only a diversifying factor-leg with a losing worst year, not a deployable book on its own.

Validated factor-legs (4)
Provisional (2)
Failed (48)

A further 9 strategies are withheld because we could neither confirm nor refute them — 8 lack a required data feed (never tested) and 1 (Graham net-nets) has no qualifying securities in the modern liquid universe. We do not publish verdicts we cannot stand behind.

The same cost-aware, survivorship-free method powers our audit of 1,000+ TradingView strategies and 1,700+ indicators. See the strategy research →