= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dan_Moore comments on Funnel plots: the study that didn't bark, or, visualizing regression to the null - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
If I can't get this study published in the traditional way, I'll "publish" it myself on the internet.
In this case, what I'm calling the null hypothesis is somewhat meatier than a null hypothesis you would typically find in a medical study. The voluntary supplemental financial reporting for these (insurance) companies (starting with 2011) is something called market consistent embedded value (MCEV). My null hypothesis is that the phrase 'market consistent' is accurate - this is roughly equivalent to assuming that, in valuing the long-term liabilities of these companies, market participants pretend that they are securities with the same cashflows. My alternate hypothesis is that market participants value these liabilities within a framework of the company as a going concern, focusing on the company's cost of meeting these liabilities.
There's always the Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis.
Where it will be only slightly more visible than a study "published" in your file drawer. I do agree you should do your best, though.
That depends on who links to it.
Yup, "Internet publishing" successfully is a combination of making it available and publicizing it; with the latter being the hard part. If you can do it well, that'd be a good thing.