You can tell that the authors of the research paper have no direct expierince in trading due to the fact they mention "sub-optimal" gains. An optimal gain is easy to calculate with historic data...good luck while a trade is in action!
An economist points out a problem, usually an obvious one, and is hailed a genius. An engineer solves a problem, usually a complex one, and is outsourced to a low wage economy.
The biggest idiot here is the person or persons who approved the grant on the grounds of "exceptional creativity". Give me a break, the only creative aspect was coining the expression "realization utility" to describe what has been written about extensively for decades. I've lost count of the number of times I've read about cutting your losers short and letting your winners run, and that traders fail because they do the opposite. Old traders will tell you this, and they will tell you about dead traders who were masters of holding onto winning positions. What next, research to establish why when you drop an egg it breaks, complete with fancy charts to show what percentage break when dropped from 2" as compared to 6" etc? This grant does however prove the old expression 'a fool and his money are soon parted'!
C'mon, prizes mean nothing. Some rich old dude wants to feel good by giving his money away, that's all. Adolf Hitler was runner up in the 1939 Nobel peace prize award
An essential skill for economists in order to gain recognition. Unlike the hard sciences where results speak for themselves, economists have to write convincingly. If you have any interest in behavioural economics, Tim Harford is usually a good read.