Translate

21 janeiro 2015

Engenharia financeira pode curar o câncer?

DNA 
This may seem an odd question, but can financial engineering cure cancer? No less of an intellectual light than Andrew W. Lo of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the Future of Finance Advisory Council believes financial engineering may be a potent weapon in the quest to find a cure. In fact, this was the topic of Lo’s presentation at the recent Fixed-Income Management Conference in Boston.
Lo’s thesis rests on several key points:
  • Applying portfolio theory to finding a cure for cancer helps increase expected returns and lower expected risks for the capital deployed.
  • Applying financial engineering through securitization allows for financing a cure for cancer in a smarter way that ensures greater participation from prospective investors.
  • Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that human genome mapping allows for the identification of problematic genes that may be targeted by customized medicines to fight specific cancers.
Notorious capital destroyers, biotech investments of more than $400 billion have never generated returns in the aggregate covering their costs of capital. In fact, venture capital firms are so discouraged by their returns that the number and size of biotech investments has steadily declined from their peaks in 2007–2008.
Lo thinks he knows why biotech investments have generated such poor returns: the industry is financed incorrectly. Specifically, he thinks the business models are bad because as biotech gets more knowledgeable, the business gets riskier. Lo believes that cures for cancers are unique to each patient and therefore require unique drug treatments as opposed to massively scalable compounds. Yet, the pharmaceutical industry cannot recoup its massive investment in research unless it has blockbuster drugs that can generate returns to compensate for massive upfront costs.

This is where portfolio management comes in. To find cures for cancer, investors must fund about 150 projects in order to lower the standard deviation of possible returns from cancer cure projects. With such a high number of viable projects, it becomes possible to issue debt. Once it is possible to issue debt, securitization concepts may be layered on top of portfolio theory to find viable cancer cures.
As with traditional securitization, various tranches would be created for different risk appetites and with different guarantees for creditors buying those differently segmented risky tranches. Equity portions of the return stream could then be financed by the traditional risk preference buyers, such as private equity and venture capital. Now the combination of portfolio management and securitization makes for a viable business, according to Lo.

This plan rests on a critical assumption: that researchers can find a cure for cancer. To support his belief that a cure for cancer may be found, Lo pointed to:
  • The mapping of the human genome.
  • The ability to analyze an individual patient’s genes and compare these genes to known genetic defects that lead to unique cancers.
  • Customized drugs that suppress the expression of “bad” genes.
Specifically, Lo offered up the story of Lukas Wartman, a cancer researcher who himself developed a very rare form of cancer with only a 5% survival rate. Wartman’s colleagues were so moved by his personal calamity that they set to finding a cure. After mapping his genes and noticing an overexpressed gene in his RNA, they then used a drug, Sutent, designed specifically to suppress that gene. Though Sutent was originally designed for a different disease, Wartman was almost immediately cured of his cancer.

While this may sound encouraging, as evidence, it strikes me as weak. First, the evidence is anecdotal and based on one person’s very unique circumstances. Yes, genome mapping is widely available and was able to identify an overexpressed gene in Wartman’s RNA that might have been responsible for his cancer; but what a fortunate coincidence that there was an extant drug, Sutent, available to suppress the overexpressed gene. With estimates for the number of genes in the human genome of at least 21,000 there would clearly need to be many more drugs developed. Further, development costs for Sutent, while not precisely available, are known to be in the tens of millions of US dollars.

Lo imagines a $30 billion cancer fund being established and funded by 10 million households investing $3,000 each. According to Lo, this would be relatively easy to procure and to make his point, he queried delegates on how many people would be willing to participate in such a fund. Nearly the entire audience raised their hands. Yet, Lo overlooks one important fact, a room full of investment managers and analysts see the possible marginal loss of $3,000 as small in comparison to their overall net worth. I am not sure that this perception would hold for middle class families, in general.

Financial engineering may have a place in helping to find a cure for cancer, but at what price tag will the niche targeted drugs be developed?

Fonte: aqui

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Traditional financing sources such as private and public equity may not be ideal for investment projects with low probabilities of success, long time horizons, and large capital requirements. Nevertheless, such projects, if not too highly correlated, may yield attractive risk-adjusted returns when combined into a single portfolio. Such "megafund" portfolios may be too large to finance through private or public equity alone. But with sufficient diversification and risk analytics, debt financing via securitization may be feasible. Credit enhancements (i.e., derivatives and government guarantees) can also improve megafund economics. We present an analytical framework and illustrative empirical examples involving cancer research.

Fagnan, David E., Jose Maria Fernandez, Andrew W. Lo, and Roger M. Stein. 2013. "Can Financial Engineering Cure Cancer?" American Economic Review,103(3): 406-11.

20 janeiro 2015

Rir é o melhor remédio

Fonte: Aqui

Eugene Fama, Lars Peter Hansen e Robert Shiller

Abstract:

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for 2013 was awarded to Eugene Fama, Lars Peter Hansen, and Robert Shiller for their contributions to the empirical study of asset pricing. Some observers have found it hard to understand the common elements of the laureates' research, preferring to highlight areas of disagreement among them. This paper argues that empirical asset pricing is a coherent enterprise, which owes much to the laureates' seminal contributions, and that important themes in the literature can best be understood by considering the laureates in pairs. Specifically, after summarizing modern asset pricing theory using the stochastic discount factor as an organizing framework, the paper discusses the joint hypothesis problem in tests of market efficiency, which is as much an opportunity as a problem (Fama and Hansen); patterns of short- and long-term predictability in asset returns (Fama and Shiller); and models of deviations from rational expectations (Hansen and Shiller). The paper concludes by reviewing ways in which the laureates have already influenced the practice of finance, and may influence future innovations.

Fonte: John Campbell -Empirical Asset Pricing: Eugene Fama, Lars Peter Hansen, and Robert Shiller
Tokelau é um pequeno arquipélago no Pacífico Sul, cerca de 2.500 quilômetros da Austrália. Tem 120 computadores, uma população de cerca de 1300 habitantes e um PIB de apenas 1,5 milhão dólar - o menor do mundo. Mas tem mais sites registrados com o seu domínio do que a Alemanha, o Reino Unido, ou a China, de acordo com a Verisign. Em 2014 haviam mais de 25 milhões de domínios registrados pela ilha (representado com um .tk), mais do que qualquer outro domínio, fora o .com.

Fonte: Aqui

Oscar: Alguns números

94% dos eleitores do Oscar são brancos, 77% são homens e a idade mediana é de 62 anos

O custo de uma campanha para Melhor Filme é de 10 milhões de dólares, sendo metade em propaganda

Para uma atriz passar pelo tapete vermelho ela deve gastar 3,5 mil dólares

O filme da lista do Oscar gera 12,7 milhões a mais que um filme não indicado

O vencedor do prêmio de Melhor Filme irá gerar 3 milhões de aumento na bilheteria

O melhor ator terá um aumento de 3,9 milhões de salário; a melhor atriz deve ter um aumento de 0,5 milhão

É possível prever o vencedor do melhor filme com 77% de precisão, o melhor diretor com 93% e melhor ator/atriz com 77%

Veja mais aqui