Financial-institution macro research is a research paradigm aimed at “what is” (the actual) — it does not ask what the world should be, but studies the direction of asset pricing under given constraints; its core deliverable is not the elimination of uncertainty, but providing investors with a time coordinate within the cycle (a sense of position), narrowing a many-to-one choice down to a smaller, actionable range of options.

The Framework As It Stands

This section is organized from the compiled research draft: the structure, terminology, and key formulations of the original framework are preserved, including editorial bridges and supplementary factual annotations; diagrams are drawn by the compiler following the structure of the source text.

Three Categories of Macro Research Actors

Those who conduct macro research fall into three categories: university and research institutes, policy advisory bodies, and financial institutions. The first two focus on the “normative” — what the world should be; macro research in financial markets focuses on the “positive” — what the world will actually be like.

Positive research must work through constraints; it cannot apply idealized standards such as the price-to-income ratio. Ignoring constraints is the single greatest trap in macroeconomic analysis, and very easily causes research to drift into public commentary and empty theorizing.

Core Definition: Researching Asset Pricing

Macro research in financial markets is, at bottom, research on asset pricing.

Against grand narrative (Popperian critique): using grand-sounding language is “the arrogance of the insufficiently educated.” The root pathology of grand narrative is that the framework is grand, the narrative is grand, but empirical grounding is absent. Its positive counterpart is a purely technical orientation: data is data, and research is a purely technical process.

State of the field (2018-12): more than half of researchers have drifted away from the core purpose and main line of financial macro research — most have slid toward empty theorizing, grand narrative, and the normative.

Three Tenets of Macro Research

Tenet 1: Study trend problems under given constraints. Every judgment (equities will rise / housing prices will fall) is conditionally valid; there are no unconditional absolute judgments.

Tenet 2: Provide investors with a sense of position. The sense of position is a time coordinate within the cycle — identifying which point in each cycle the present moment occupies. Supporting evidence (cited 2018-12): over the past 50 years, OECD countries’ growth rates have trended broadly lower, yet within that declining backdrop one must still identify the position within each sub-cycle.

Tenet 3 / Methodological essence: From framework to regularity, from regularity to data, from data to verification, from verification to conclusion. This is an empirically-oriented, experiment-like, cold process.

The Actionable Scale of Research Value: Narrowing the Choice Range

Research value lies not in eliminating uncertainty, but in narrowing the choice range. Reason: markets are highly efficient, and predictions are broadly right and wrong in equal measure.

Five options
  → Rational analysis eliminates three invalid ranges
  → Five-to-one becomes two-to-one

This is the actionable scale of “sense of position → value.”

Compiler’s Perspective

Coordinates: Cognitive Algorithm · Fa · What It Is

Connecting Level

The unique increment of this entry is that it is not merely a “definition of research” — it is a reverse diagnostic tool for judging whether a piece of macro analysis in front of you has already drifted off the track of financial research. A concrete error: reading a macro report, being drawn in by phrases like “the greatest transformation in a century” or “structural economic transition,” and treating it as valid basis for asset pricing — this is precisely the mistake of using normative research in place of positive research, ignoring the prerequisite of constraints.

The specific fracture in the old approach: “the economy is bad so there is no opportunity” is a grand-narrative conclusion; the proper sense-of-position question is “where in the cycle are we right now — which month, which historical position does this coordinate correspond to, and what typically follows.” The framework emphasizes: research value = which invalid options were eliminated, not which forceful-looking judgment was delivered.

When OECD 50-year growth rate data (cited 2018-12) shows an overall downward trend, grand narrative’s common misreading is “long-term pessimism → no opportunity.” The use of the sense of position is exactly the opposite: even if the macro trend is down, within each sub-cycle there is still a difference between “end of winter, spring approaching” and “end of autumn, entering winter” — the sense of position is precisely locating which segment you are in.

The connection from Three Modes of Macro Research Thinking and the Primacy of Empirical Regularity to this entry: the three modes tell you “how to find high probability,” while this entry tells you “what finding high probability is for” — providing trend judgments under constraints for asset pricing, not for telling a macro story. Narrowing the choice range (five-to-one → two-to-one) is the only deliverable format that becomes actionable when both entries are used together.

See Also

Source

  • Compiled research draft · collected 2026-07

Compiled draft z-0107 · collected 2026-07