We examine the online archive of the Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, in which an author is required to deposit the data and code that replicate the results of his paper. We find that most authors do not fulfill this requirement. Of more than 150 empirical articles, fewer than 15 could be replicated. Despite all this, there is no doubt that a data/code archive is more conducive to replicable research than the alternatives. We make recommendations to improve the functioning of the archive.