We propose a quantitative framework for assessing the financial impact of any form of impact investing, including socially responsible investing (SRI), environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives, and other non-financial investment criteria. We derive conditions under which impact investing detracts from, improves on, or is neutral to the performance of traditional mean-variance optimal portfolios, which depends on whether the correlations between the impact factor and unobserved excess returns are negative, positive, or zero, respectively. Using Treynor-Black portfolios to maximize the risk-adjusted returns of impact portfolios, we propose a quantitative measure for the financial reward, or cost, of impact investing compared to passive index benchmarks. We illustrate our approach with applications to biotech venture philanthropy, divesting from “sin” stocks, investing in ESG, and “meme” stock rallies such as GameStop in 2021.

In this paper, we create machine learning (ML) models to forecast home equity credit risk for individuals using a real-world dataset and demonstrate methods to explain the output of these ML models to make them more accessible to the end-user. We analyze the explainability of these models for various stakeholders: loan companies, regulators, loan applicants, and data scientists, incorporating their different requirements with respect to explanations. For loan companies, we generate explanations for every model prediction of creditworthiness. For regulators, we perform a stress test for extreme scenarios. For loan applicants, we generate diverse counterfactuals to guide them with steps to reverse the model's classification. Finally, for data scientists, we generate simple rules that accurately explain 70-72% of the dataset. Our work is intended to accelerate the adoption of ML techniques in domains that would benefit from explanations of their predictions.

Recent outbreaks of infectious pathogens such as Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19 have under-scored the need for the dependable availability of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases (EIDs). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost and risk of R&D programs and uniquely unpredictable demand for EID vaccines discouraged many potential vaccine developers, and government and nonprofit agencies have struggled to provide timely or sufficient incentives for their development and sustained supply. However, the economic climate has changed significantly post-pandemic. To explore this contrast, we analyze the pre-pandemic economic returns of a portfolio of EID vaccine assets, and find that, under realistic financing assumptions, the expected returns are significantly negative, implying that the private sector is unlikely to address this need without public-sector intervention. However, in a post-pandemic policy landscape, the financing deficit for this portfolio can be closed, and we analyze several potential solutions, including enhanced public–private partnerships and subscription models in which governments would pay annual fees to obtain access to a portfolio of stockpiled vaccines in the event of an outbreak.

Brains are the indispensable drivers of human progress, but brain health issues can wreak havoc on society. Consider the devastation of disorders like depression, anxiety, and Alzheimer disease—which cost the economy trillions each year. There are currently $40.5 trillion allocated to Environment, Sustainability, and Governance (ESG) investing around the world. If only a portion of these funds were diverted into brain health, they could produce major improvements for our society.

One of the longest debates in economics involves the existence of a rare Hominid “species” known as Homoeconomicus, the economic human. H. economicus is able to determine the optimal use of its resources to maximize its well-being as defined by the assumptions of neoclassical economics, leading to behavior that has come to be known as economic rationality. When interacting with other members of this species in market settings, such behavior leads to a magical out-come. The participants’ self-interested efforts to exploit their disparate pieces of information aggregates, distills, and compresses their information into a single number: the price. And because no piece of information is left unused or uninterpreted in the process of price discovery, this market is deemed “efficient.” Prices fully reflect all available information, as Eugene Fama concluded in his first articulation of the efficient markets hypothesis (1).

We describe a novel collaboration between academia and industry, an in-house data science and artificial intelligence challenge held by Novartis to develop machine-learning models for predicting drug-development outcomes, building upon research at MIT using data from Informa as the starting point. With over 50 crossfunctional teams from 25 Novartis offices around the world participating in the challenge, the domain expertise of these Novartis researchers was leveraged to create predictive models with greater sophistication. Ultimately, two winning teams developed models that outperformed the baseline MIT model—areas under the curve of 0.88 and 0.84 versus 0.78, respectively—through state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithms and the use of newly incorporated features and data. In addition to validating the variables shown to be associated with drug approval in the earlier MIT study, the challenge also provided new insights into the drivers of drug-development success and failure.

The 75th anniversary of the founding of the Financial Analysts Journal offers a rare vista of the evolutionary path of financial analysis and its practitioners. That path is by no means random but is shaped by a complex ecosystem in which technological innovation interacts with shifting business conditions and a growing population of financial stakeholders. Using the lens of the Adaptive Markets Hypothesis—the principles of evolutionary biology and ecology applied to the financial system—we can clearly identify eight discrete financial “eras” in which unique combinations of economic need and technological advances gave rise to new products, services, and financial institutions. By understanding the underlying drivers and resulting dynamics of these eras, we can begin to develop a deeper appreciation for the origins of financial innovation and its great promise for our future.

We collect tax return data from all 311,222 public NPOs in the United States over the 2009-2017 period to study the asset allocation choices and investment returns of their endowment funds. One in nine public NPOs have endowment funds. The majority of funds allocate their assets conservatively to low-risk assets, and as a result, earn an average annual return of 5.3%. There is substantial heterogeneity in investment returns across funds. Large funds significantly outperform small funds across all return measures and nonprofit sectors. Endowments in NPO sectors devoted to public and societal benefit, the environment, and the arts are among the top performers. High returns among higher education endowments are explained by size, while hospital endowments significantly underperform. Higher investment returns are associated with better governance, more highly paid management, lower discretionary spending, and lower investment management fees. Lastly, when faced with volatile contributions, endowment funds hold more cash and invest more conservatively.

We represent risk factors as sums of orthogonal components capturing fluctuations with cycles of different length. The representation leads to novel spectral factor models in which systematic risk is allowed—without being forced—to vary across frequencies. Frequency- specific systematic risk is captured by a notion of spectral beta. We show that traditional factor models restrict the spectral betas to be constant across frequencies. The restriction can hide horizon-specific pricing effects that spectral factor models are designed to re- veal. We illustrate how the methods may lead to economically meaningful dimensionality reduction in the factor space.

Bayes' rule is a fundamental principle that has been applied across multiple disciplines. However, few studies have addressed its origin as a cognitive strategy or the underlying basis for generalization from a small sample. Using a simple binary choice model subject to natural selection, we derive Bayesian inference as an adaptive behavior under certain stochastic environments. Such behavior emerges purely through the forces of evolution, despite the fact that our population consists of mindless individuals without any ability to reason, act strategically, or accurately encode or infer environmental states probabilistically. In addition, three specific environments favor the emergence of finite memory—those that are Markov, nonstationary, and environments where sampling contains too little or too much information about local conditions. These results provide an explanation for several known phenomena in human cognition, including deviations from the optimal Bayesian strategy and finite memory beyond resource constraints.

One of the longest debates in economics involves the existence of a rare Hominid “species” known as Homo economicus, the economic human. H. economicus is able to determine the optimal use of its resources to maximize its well-being as defined by the assumptions of neoclassical economics, leading to behavior that has come to be known as economic rationality. When interacting with other members of this species in market settings, such behavior leads to a magical outcome. The participants’ self-interested efforts to exploit their disparate pieces of information aggregates, distills, and compresses their information into a single number: the price. And because no piece of information is left unused or uninterpreted in the process of price discovery, this market is deemed “efficient.” Prices fully reflect all available information, as Eugene Fama concluded in his first articulation of the efficient markets hypothesis (1).

We construct an evolutionary model of a population consisting of two types of interacting individuals that reproduce under random environmental conditions. We show that not only does the evolutionarily dominant behavior maximize the number of offspring of each type, it also minimizes the correlation between the number of offspring of each type, driving it toward −1. We provide several examples that illustrate how correlation can be used to explain the evolution of cooperation.