Not, "Angel Zhong Fund announces 142% gain for year."
In fact, one might get even better results if one trains the model on the daily market charts newspapers publish such as this: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/stock-market-newspaper-backg...
Oh, that's harder to get than the top-10 list at Getty, I see. Yeah, convenience sampling is king.
Is one of the authors "Not Sure!" by any chance?
Although.. maybe this is the secret sauce that powers Jim Simons’ Medallion Fund
A confounding problem is that news sources change stories and use a/b testing to pick story winners.
This could even be a meta analysis of emerging sentiment on delay, which means you'd do better timewise on the origin sentiment than the second differential. Except you can't access the same pool of opinion so at best, it's a clever trick to access emerging sentiment through reactive reasoning on news sites. Why is that better as a driving function to invest across the market than other sources?
While it's sometimes fun to assume things, it gets hard when you talk about people. In this case, not everyone is driven by profits and money, so it's most likely incorrect to assume "They didn't use this way of gaining profit themselves, so it's probably not profitable".
So now this won't work.
The fact that we’re reading about a paper, and not a headline about a wildly successful systematic fund, suggests this isn’t all that valuable.
[1] https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/1029sechft...
One example is the low volatility anomaly, where low risk assets outperform the market, when time and again, fund managers struggle to do so without leverage. But fund managers generally won’t employ such a strategy because their investors don’t want to see themselves in low-risk assets when high-risk ones are going gangbusters because of FOMO.