Use when sample construction, estimator choice, factor/portfolio design, or measurement is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Settles design choices that make the identification credible; does NOT pick the identification strategy or run robustness.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill rfs-empirical-design --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Rfs Empirical Design?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-rfs-empirical-design)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: rfs-empirical-design
description: "Use when sample construction, estimator choice, factor/portfolio design, or measurement is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Settles design choices that make the identification credible; does NOT pick the identification strategy or run robustness."
category: business-and-finance
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Review-of-Financial-Studies-Skills/skills/rfs-empirical-design/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Review-of-Financial-Studies-Skills/skills/rfs-empirical-design/SKILL.md
---
# Empirical & Structural Design (rfs-empirical-design)
## When to trigger
- The identification strategy is chosen but sample, variables, and estimator are unsettled
- You must decide between panel FE, Fama–MacBeth, GMM, or a structural estimator
- Portfolio sorts / factor construction choices feel arbitrary
- Measurement of the key variable is contestable (proxy validity)
- A referee will ask "why this sample / this window / this proxy?"
## Design decisions that make or break an RFS empirical paper
RFS publishes design-defining empirical templates referees will hold you to — e.g., the q-factor construction in Hou, Xue, and Zhang (2015) "Digesting Anomalies" (RFS 28(3)) and the variance-risk-premium measure in Bollerslev, Tauchen, and Zhou (2009) (RFS 22(11)). Two RFS-specific pressures sharpen every choice below: (1) the **public code-release condition** means every filter and construction step must be reproducible by a stranger, not just described; (2) the **Registered Reports** option means a design can be locked at Stage 1, so pre-specify wherever you can.
### 1. Sample construction
- State the universe, the time span, and **every** filter, with the resulting N at each step (a sample-attrition table).
- Justify the start/end dates by data availability or regime, not convenience.
- Handle survivorship, look-ahead, and backfill bias explicitly (CRSP/Compustat merge timing, delisting returns, point-in-time fundamentals).
- Winsorize vs. trim: state the rule (e.g., 1%/99%) and apply it consistently.
### 2. Variable measurement
- For each key variable, give: definition, data source, construction formula, and unit.
- Defend proxy validity — a proxy needs a first-principles or validation argument, not just precedent.
- Avoid mechanical correlation between LHS and RHS (e.g., overlapping accounting items).
### 3. Estimator choice
| Question type | Default estimator |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Treatment effect, panel | Modern DID estimator + two-way FE as a benchmark |
| Cross-sectional return premium | Fama–MacBeth (with Shanken / GMM correction) |
| Predictive regression | Panel/pooled with overlap-robust SEs; OOS tests |
| Risk exposure / factor model | Time-series spanning regressions, GRS test |
| Structural parameter / counterfactual | SMM / GMM / MLE with identification argument |
### 4. Fixed effects and controls
- Saturate fixed effects to absorb the right confounders (firm, industry×year, etc.) — but show the result is not mechanical to the FE choice.
- Distinguish controls that are "bad controls" (post-treatment / outcomes) from legitimate covariates.
### 5. Standard errors
- Cluster at the level of treatment assignment or the unit of correlation.
- For asset pricing, match SE to the return structure (Newey–West for autocorrelation, Driscoll–Kraay for cross-sectional + serial dependence).
## Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Run the asset-pricing battery, don't just specify it. Full map:
[`execution-with-mcp`](../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/execution-with-mcp.md). RFS is finance top-3 (with JF, JFE) — corporate-causal chain for corporate papers, factor-zoo haircut for asset pricing.
- **Factor regressions / time-series alphas:** `feols` with the right SEs (Newey–West /
clustered) — read the alpha and t off the return.
- **Factor-zoo haircut:** after disclosing how many signals were screened, apply
`romano_wolf` / `benjamini_hochberg` and report the alpha that survives.
- **Fama–MacBeth + Shanken EIV** are Stata-canonical — run via `mcp__stata-mcp__stata_do`
with the vendored `resources/code/` (`asreg` / `xtfmb`).
- **Exhibits:** `etable`; hand formatting to the tables/figures skill.
Report the economic magnitude (bps/month alpha, Sharpe gain); full factor grid → appendix.
[JF execution walkthrough](../../../Journal-of-Finance-Skills/resources/worked-examples/02-execution-walkthrough.md).
## Checklist
- [ ] Sample-attrition table present; every filter justified
- [ ] Survivorship / look-ahead / backfill addressed (point-in-time data)
- [ ] Each key variable has definition + source + formula; proxy validity argued
- [ ] Estimator matches the question; benchmark estimator also reported
- [ ] FE structure justified; no bad controls
- [ ] SE clustering / adjustment matches the data-generating structure
- [ ] Every filter/construction step is reproducible from the to-be-released code (RFS condition)
- [ ] Design choices are pre-committed where possible (Stage-1-ready), not chosen ex post
## Anti-patterns
- An unexplained sample period or unexplained filters that conveniently strengthen results.
- A proxy defended only by "following prior literature" when its validity is in doubt.
- TWFE reported as if it were a modern staggered-DID estimator.
- Controlling for post-treatment outcomes ("bad controls").
- Standard errors that ignore overlapping returns or treatment-level clustering.
## Output format
```
【Sample】universe / span / filters / final N
【Key measures】variable → source → formula → validity note
【Estimator】... (+ benchmark)
【FE & controls】...
【SE structure】...
【Next step】rfs-robustness
```
---
**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Review-of-Financial-Studies-Skills/skills/rfs-empirical-design/SKILL.md`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!