‘Fintech’ is transforming the financial sector at a pace that is now obvious even to the casual observer. We see this not only in daily headlines about initial coin offerings or financial applications of blockchain technology, but also in the daily experiences of the average consumer: paper cheques consigned forever to desk drawers, automatic currency conversions on a trip abroad, the rapid approval of an online loan – and most excitingly for some, personal investing.

August is typically when Wall Street goes to the beach, the mountains, or just home to recharge for a week or two. Many Europeans take the entire month off. But financial markets have a cruel knack of ruining holidays. As we lie in our hammocks this August, we might do well to recall a remarkable event that occurred, seemingly without warning, 11 years ago this month in the run-up to the financial crisis.

The increasing dominance of technology in daily lives is finally penetrating the financial industry as well. The growing popularity of algorithmic trading, mobile payment platforms and robo-advisers is just the beginning of the fintech revolution. But perhaps the most radical - and controversial - innovation in today's headlines is cryptocurrencies. Extreme volatility makes products an unreliable store of value - for now.

The information revolution has transformed everyday life for billions of people throughout the world. For example, according to mobile phone research group GSMA Intelligence, there are currently over 5 billion unique mobile phone subscribers, out of an estimated global population of 7.6 billion. This is the equivalent of a mobile phone for every person on the planet between the ages of 15 and 65.

In the past decade, financial industry excesses have been cited as the source of many ills afflicting economies and political systems in the West. But, if used responsibly, finance could help provide the cure for some of humanity’s most pressing problems – from cancer to fossil fuel depletion and climate change.

Bacteria are easily characterizable model organisms with an impressively complicated set of abilities. Among them is quorum sensing, a cell-cell signaling system that may have a common evolutionary origin with eukaryotic cell-cell signaling. The two systems are behaviorally similar, but quorum sensing in bacteria is more easily studied in depth than cell-cell signaling in eukaryotes. Because of this comparative ease of study, bacterial dynamics are also more suited to direct interpretation than eukaryotic dynamics, e.g., those of the neuron. Here we review literature on neuron-like qualities of bacterial colonies and biofilms, including ion-based and hormonal signaling, and a phenomenon similar to the graded action potential. This suggests that bacteria could be used to help create more accurate and detailed biological models in neuroscientific research. More speculatively, bacterial systems may be considered an analog for neurons in biologically based computational research, allowing models to better harness the tremendous ability of biological organisms to process information and make decisions.

The debate between rational models of behavior and their systematic deviations, often referred to as “irrational behavior”, has attracted an enormous amount of research. Here, we reconcile the debate by proposing an evolutionary explanation for irrational behavior. In the context of a simple binary choice model, we show that irrational behaviors are necessary for evolution in stochastic environments. Furthermore, there is an optimal degree of irrationality in the population depending on the degree of environmental randomness. In this process, mutation provides the important link between rational and irrational behaviors, and hence the variety in evolution. Our results yield widespread implications for financial markets, corporate behavior, and disciplines beyond finance.

IMPORTANCE: Few patient populations are as helpless and in need of advocacy as children with cancer. Pharmaceutical companies have historically faced significant financial disincentives to pursue pediatric oncology therapeutics, including low incidence, high costs of conducting pediatric trials, and a lack of funding for early-stage research.

OBSERVATIONS: Review of published studies of pediatric oncology research and the cost of drug development, as well as clinical trials of pediatric oncology therapeutics at ClinicalTrials.gov, identified 77 potential drug development projects to be included in a hypothetical portfolio. The returns of this portfolio were simulated so as to compute the financial returns and risk. Simulated business strategies include combining projects at different clinical phases of development, obtaining partial funding from philanthropic grants, and obtaining government guarantees to reduce risk. The purely private-sector portfolio exhibited expected returns ranging from −24.2% to 10.2%, depending on the model variables assumed. This finding suggests significant financial disincentives for pursuing pediatric oncology therapeutics and implies that financial support from the public and philanthropic sectors is essential. Phase diversification increases the likelihood of a successful drug and yielded expected returns of −5.3% to 50.1%. Standard philanthropic grants had a marginal association with expected returns, and government guarantees had a greater association by reducing downside exposure. An assessment of a proposed venture philanthropy fund demonstrated stronger performance than the purely private-sector–funded portfolio or those with traditional amounts of philanthropic support.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A combination of financial and business strategies has the potential to maximize expected return while eliminating some downside risk—in certain cases enabling expected returns as high as 50.1%—that can overcome current financial disincentives and accelerate the development of pediatric oncology therapeutics.

In this article, the authors analyze the relation between stock market liquidity and real-time measures of sentiment obtained from the social-media platforms StockTwits and Twitter. The authors find that extreme sentiment corresponds to higher demand for and lower supply of liquidity, with negative sentiment having a much larger effect on demand and supply than positive sentiment. Their intraday event study shows that booms and panics end when bullish and bearish sentiment reach extreme levels, respectively. After extreme sentiment, prices become more mean-reverting and spreads narrow. To quantify the magnitudes of these effects, the authors conduct a historical simulation of a market-neutral mean-reversion strategy that uses social-media information to determine its portfolio allocations. These results suggest that the demand for and supply of liquidity are influenced by investor sentiment and that market makers who can keep their transaction costs to a minimum are able to profit by using extreme bullish and bearish emotions in social media as a real-time barometer for the end of momentum and a return to mean reversion.

We apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to incorporate patient preferences in the regulatory approval process for new therapies. By assigning weights to type I and type II errors based on patient preferences, the significance level (a) and power (1 b) of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) for a new therapy can be optimized to maximize the value to current and future patients and, consequently, to public health. We find that for weight-loss devices, potentially effective low-risk treatments have optimal as larger than the traditional one-sided significance level of 5%, whereas potentially less effective and riskier treatments have optimalas below 5%. Moreover,the optimal RCT design, including trial size, varies with the risk aversion and time-to-access preferences and the medical need of the target population.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) currently apply the same statistical threshold of alpha = 2.5% for controlling for false-positive results or type 1 error, regardless of the burden of disease or patient preferences. Is there an objective and systematic framework for designing RCTs that incorporates these considerations on a case-by-case basis?

OBJECTIVE: To apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to cancer therapeutics to choose an alpha and sample size that minimize the potential harm to current and future patients under both null and alternative hypotheses.

DATA SOURCES: We used the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and data from the 10 clinical trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology.

STUDY SELECTION: The NCI SEER database was used because it is the most comprehensive cancer database in the United States. The Alliance trial data was used owing to the quality and breadth of data, and because of the expertise in these trials of one of us (D.J.S.).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The NCI SEER and Alliance data have already been thoroughly vetted. Computations were replicated independently by 2 coauthors and reviewed by all coauthors.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Our prior hypothesis was that an alpha of 2.5% would not minimize the overall expected harm to current and future patients for the most deadly cancers, and that a less conservative alpha may be necessary. Our primary study outcomes involve measuring the potential harm to patients under both null and alternative hypotheses using NCI and Alliance data, and then computing BDA-optimal type 1 error rates and sample sizes for oncology RCTs.

RESULTS: We computed BDA-optimal parameters for the 23 most common cancer sites using NCI data, and for the 10 Alliance clinical trials. For RCTs involving therapies for cancers with short survival times, no existing treatments, and low prevalence, the BDA-optimal type 1 error rates were much higher than the traditional 2.5%. For cancers with longer survival times, existing treatments, and high prevalence, the corresponding BDA-optimal error rates were much lower, in some cases even lower than 2.5%.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Bayesian decision analysis is a systematic, objective, transparent, and repeatable process for deciding the outcomes of RCTs that explicitly incorporates burden of disease and patient preferences.

Half of all Americans have money in the stock market, yet economists can't agree on whether investors and markets are rational and efficient, as modern financial theory assumes, or irrational and inefficient, as behavioral economists believe—and as financial bubbles, crashes, and crises suggest. This is one of the biggest debates in economics and the value or futility of investment management and financial regulation hang on the outcome. In this groundbreaking book, Andrew Lo cuts through this debate with a new framework, the Adaptive Markets Hypothesis, in which rationality and irrationality coexist.

Drawing on psychology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and other fields, Adaptive Markets shows that the theory of market efficiency isn't wrong but merely incomplete. When markets are unstable, investors react instinctively, creating inefficiencies for others to exploit. Lo's new paradigm explains how evolution shapes behavior and markets at the speed of thought—a fact revealed by swings between stability and crisis, profit and loss, and innovation and regulation.

A fascinating intellectual journey filled with compelling stories, Adaptive Markets starts with the origins of market efficiency and its failures, turns to the foundations of investor behavior, and concludes with practical implications—including how hedge funds have become the Galápagos Islands of finance, what really happened in the 2008 meltdown, and how we might avoid future crises.

Ever since I was a graduate student in economics, I’ve been struggling with the uncomfortable observation that economic theories often don’t seem to work in practice. That goes for that most influential economic theory, the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, which holds that investors are rational decision makers and market prices fully reflect all available information, that is, the “wisdom of crowds.”

Recent cases of aggressive pricing behavior in the biopharmaceutical industry have raised serious concerns among payers and policymakers about industry ethics. However, these cases should not be confused with price increases motivated by challenging business conditions that ultimately lead to greater investment in R&D and improved patient access to therapeutics. We study the example of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, which was forced to choose between increasing the price of an effective drug in 2007 and ceasing production and shutting down. We consider Questcor’s journey from inception to its acquisition in 2014, analyze the factors leading up to the price hike of its main revenue generator, Acthar Gel, and discuss its resulting impact on patients after 2007. A counterfactual financial simulation of the company’s prospects in the case where prices were not increased shows that Questcor would have become insolvent between 2008 and 2010.

Uncertainty surrounding the risk and reward of investments in biopharmaceutical companies poses a challenge to those interested in funding such enterprises. Using data on publicly traded stocks, we track the performance of 1,066 biopharmaceutical companies from 1930 to 2015—the most comprehensive financial analysis of this sector to date. Our systematic exploration of methods for distinguishing biotech and pharmaceutical companies yields a dynamic, more accurate classification method. We find that the performance of the biotech sector is highly sensitive to the presence of a few outlier companies, and confirm that nearly all biotech companies are loss-making enterprises, exhibiting high stock volatility. In contrast, since 2000, pharmaceutical companies have become increasingly profitable, with risk-adjusted returns consistently outperforming the market. The performance of all biopharmaceutical companies is subject not only to factors arising from their drug pipelines (idiosyncratic risk), but also from general economic conditions (systematic risk). The risk associated with returns has profound implications both for patterns of investment and for funding innovation in biomedical R&D.