Optimal Asset Allocation with Factor Models for Large Portfolios

An electronic version of the paper may be downloaded • from the SSRN website: www.SSRN.com • from the RePEc website: www.RePEc.org • from the CESifo website: Twww.CESifo-group.org/wp

Assessing the SSRN-Based Law School Rankings

One noteworthy feature of the SSRN-based rankings is the high correlation between them and other rankings. Black and Caron report correlation coefficients between their two Social Science Research Network (SSRN) school rankings (one based on downloads from SSRN and one based on the number of papers posted on SSRN) and six other published rankings. The correlations provide a useful and creative measure of consistency across studies. If ranking studies are highly correlated, then the least expensive and most efficient study to conduct can be used without incurring the expense and delay of the more labor-intensive ranking methods. SSRN has a substantial database and software that generates its rankings. SSRN-based rankings\u27 correlations with other rankings raise the possibility that labor-intensive measures, such as those taken by U.S. News & World Report ( U.S. News ), Eisenberg and Wells, and others, can be replaced by SSRN\u27s more automated methodology. This Commentary first suggests one way in which the SSRN correlations with other ranking studies are more limited than they first appear. SSRN correlations with other studies decrease in samples limited to schools that most directly compete—for example, in samples of schools ranked in the top 10 to 20 as measured by SSRN downloads. Under some reasonable approaches, no statistically significant correlations exist between SSRN downloads and other ranking systems. This is not to suggest that SSRN downloads provide little useful ranking information. That they provide some information about so many schools, without the need for labor-intensive methods, is important. They have the ability to identify schools that might otherwise appear in no ranking system. And, like any objective ranking system, they offer a method to rank all schools without depending on subjective opinions. But the use of SSRN downloads to distinguish among peer law schools—schools that in fact compete with one another—should not be premised on their generally high correlations with other ranking studies across the full range of law schools. Professors Black and Caron do not claim that SSRN rankings should replace the more labor-intensive methods. My point is simply a caution for consumers of the rankings to use the rankings for purposes for which they are most appropriate. By adding a new set of objective metrics, SSRN should enable consumers to have more information than would otherwise be available. No one metric is so clearly the best such that ignoring others seems appropriate. I then suggest one reason why SSRN-based rankings may be at a disadvantage compared to other objective ranking systems, particularly when one seeks to make fine distinctions among peer institutions. The SSRN database may provide less comprehensive coverage of downloads than competing systems, such as Westlaw and LexisNexis, provide about productivity and citations. Finally, I suggest that SSRN\u27s database offers the possibility to raise the standard of statistical analysis of ranking studies. It should take only limited additional programming to produce not just ordinal rankings but also other useful statistical outputs, such as meaningful clusters of schools

Assessing the SSRN-Based Law School Rankings

One noteworthy feature of the SSRN-based rankings is the high correlation between them and other rankings. Black and Caron report correlation coefficients between their two Social Science Research Network (SSRN) school rankings (one based on downloads from SSRN and one based on the number of papers posted on SSRN) and six other published rankings. The correlations provide a useful and creative measure of consistency across studies. If ranking studies are highly correlated, then the least expensive and most efficient study to conduct can be used without incurring the expense and delay of the more labor-intensive ranking methods. SSRN has a substantial database and software that generates its rankings. SSRN-based rankings\u27 correlations with other rankings raise the possibility that labor-intensive measures, such as those taken by U.S. News & World Report ( U.S. News ), Eisenberg and Wells, and others, can be replaced by SSRN\u27s more automated methodology. This Commentary first suggests one way in which the SSRN correlations with other ranking studies are more limited than they first appear. SSRN correlations with other studies decrease in samples limited to schools that most directly compete—for example, in samples of schools ranked in the top 10 to 20 as measured by SSRN downloads. Under some reasonable approaches, no statistically significant correlations exist between SSRN downloads and other ranking systems. This is not to suggest that SSRN downloads provide little useful ranking information. That they provide some information about so many schools, without the need for labor-intensive methods, is important. They have the ability to identify schools that might otherwise appear in no ranking system. And, like any objective ranking system, they offer a method to rank all schools without depending on subjective opinions. But the use of SSRN downloads to distinguish among peer law schools—schools that in fact compete with one another—should not be premised on their generally high correlations with other ranking studies across the full range of law schools. Professors Black and Caron do not claim that SSRN rankings should replace the more labor-intensive methods. My point is simply a caution for consumers of the rankings to use the rankings for purposes for which they are most appropriate. By adding a new set of objective metrics, SSRN should enable consumers to have more information than would otherwise be available. No one metric is so clearly the best such that ignoring others seems appropriate. I then suggest one reason why SSRN-based rankings may be at a disadvantage compared to other objective ranking systems, particularly when one seeks to make fine distinctions among peer institutions. The SSRN database may provide less comprehensive coverage of downloads than competing systems, such as Westlaw and LexisNexis, provide about productivity and citations. Finally, I suggest that SSRN\u27s database offers the possibility to raise the standard of statistical analysis of ranking studies. It should take only limited additional programming to produce not just ordinal rankings but also other useful statistical outputs, such as meaningful clusters of schools

Ernst Freund as Precursor of the Rational Study of Corporate Law

Gindis, David, Ernst Freund as Precursor of the Rational Study of Corporate Law (October 27, 2017). Journal of Institutional Economics, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2905547, doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2905547The rise of large business corporations in the late 19th century compelled many American observers to admit that the nature of the corporation had yet to be understood. Published in this context, Ernst Freund's little-known The Legal Nature of Corporations (1897) was an original attempt to come to terms with a new legal and economic reality. But it can also be described, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, as the earliest example of the rational study of corporate law. The paper shows that Freund had the intuitions of an institutional economist, and engaged in what today would be called comparative institutional analysis. Remarkably, his argument that the corporate form secures property against insider defection and against outsiders anticipated recent work on entity shielding and capital lock-in, and can be read as an early contribution to what today would be called the theory of the firm.Peer reviewe

Ranking Law Schools: Using SSRN to Measure Scholarly Performance

There are several methods for ranking the scholarly performance of law faculties, including reputation surveys (U.S. News, Leiter); publication counts (Lindgren and Seltzer, Leiter); and citation counts (Eisenberg and Wells, Leiter). Each offers a useful but partial picture offaculty performance. We explore here whether the new beta SSRN-based measures (number of downloads and number ofposted papers) can offer a different, also useful, albeit also partial, picture. Our modest claim is that SSRNbased measures can address some of the deficiencies in these other measures and thus play a valuable role in the rankings tapestry. For example, SSRN offers real-time data covering most American law schools and many foreign law schools, while citation and publication counts appear sporadically and cover a limited number of U.S. schools. The SSRN measures favor work with audiences across disciplines and across countries, while other measures are more law-centric and U.S.-centric. SSRN is relatively new and thus favors younger scholars and improving schools, while other measures favor more established scholars and schools. At the same time, the SSRN measures have important field and other biases, as well as gaming risks. We assess the correlations among the different measures, both on an aggregate and on a per-faculty member basis. We find that all measures are strongly correlated; that total and per faculty measures are highly correlated; and that SSRN measures based on number of papers are highly correlated with measures based on number of downloads. Among major schools, all measures also correlate with school size. Symposium: The Next Generation of Law School Rankings held April 15, 2005 at Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington

Will an Institutional Repository Hurt My SSRN Ranking? Calming the Faculty Fear

Faculty members should not view the institutional repository as a drain on their SSRN rankings. While SSRN excels at delivering their work to the cadre of legal specialists, IRs typically do a better job of presenting it to a broader readership. This expanded exposure should be judged a positive benefit of participation in the IR, helping to mitigate criticisms of law faculty as sequestered, insular, and writing only for themselves. Anyone interested in giving their ideas the widest possible hearing should deposit their intellectual work in as many venues as possible. For law professors, this means they should have both SSRN and the IR working for them

The Economic Valuation of Urban Ecosystem Services

10.2139/ssrn.18762101-1