4 ms·

The major side effect was brain swelling and headaches. The company developing it even said the side effects are scary (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/yo

The major side effect was brain swelling and headaches. The company developing it even said the side effects are scary (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mutual-funds-routinely-rout-the-market-zero.html?_r=0&referrer= http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mut...). These "drug X may help Y" are always misleading, usually by the media. Quote: The most common side-effect was a type of brain swelling. It seemed to pass once a patient's dose was lowered, Biogen said, but it's a worrying symptom, and was worst in patients given the highest dose. Inflammation of the brain has caused companies to dump some earlier experimental Alzheimer's treatments.

copperx 12y ago
I read the article you linked and I am baffled.
cjensen 12y ago
Your link goes somewhere unrelated to this drug. Copy pasta error?
stox 12y ago
Other monoclonal antibody therapies have had similar side effects. There is the possibility that this is a direct reaction to the removal of the plaques. Also, I wouldn't get my hopes up until there is a lot more data. See what happened with Elan's bapineuzumab.
randyrand 12y ago
Not sure if linked the right article: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mutual-funds-routinely-rout-the-market-zero.html?_r=0&referrer= http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mut... But I want to comment on that. The article makes it seem like mutual fund managers provide no benefit whatsoever because they did not beat the market. Bullshit. They might not help investors make money, but they still provide benefits. Saying otherwise like saying Apple and Google and Microsoft provide no benefit because they have not done any better than the tech sector as a whole. In fact, we can look at the growth of the market as a measure of how well mutual fund managers are investing. We need to remember, mutual fund managers compete with other mutual fund managers. They're investments do matter as they dictate where investment money in our economy goes. They might not make money relative to the market as a whole, but they still provide important benefits to society. For example, just because airlines only make .2% profits, their services benefit society tremendously. Replacing mutual fund managers with investing in any company whatsoever (though limiting to public companies changes things) by "flipping a coin" like the article suggests, would likely have a very bad impact on the economy. It would have no effect on how well mutual fund managers do relative to the market, though.
- im2w1l 12y ago
  The more fund managers you have, the more efficient capital allocation you'll have. The fact that mutual fund managers do not beat the market means that we have too many fund managers chasing diminishing returns. The increased efficiency in the markets is too small for their wages. As the fraction of active fund managers to passive fund managers decreases, this fact will change. More and more passive investors following in the footsteps of less and less active investors. This means the tracking error will increase. At some point the cost of the tracking error will be about the same as the cost of active management, and that is when we have the right amount of active management. I think at least

copperx 12y ago

I read the article you linked and I am baffled.

cjensen 12y ago

Your link goes somewhere unrelated to this drug. Copy pasta error?

stox 12y ago

Other monoclonal antibody therapies have had similar side effects. There is the possibility that this is a direct reaction to the removal of the plaques. Also, I wouldn't get my hopes up until there is a lot more data. See what happened with Elan's bapineuzumab.

randyrand 12y ago

Not sure if linked the right article: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mutual-funds-routinely-rout-the-market-zero.html?_r=0&referrer= http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mut... But I want to comment on that. The article makes it seem like mutual fund managers provide no benefit whatsoever because they did not beat the market. Bullshit. They might not help investors make money, but they still provide benefits. Saying otherwise like saying Apple and Google and Microsoft provide no benefit because they have not done any better than the tech sector as a whole. In fact, we can look at the growth of the market as a measure of how well mutual fund managers are investing. We need to remember, mutual fund managers compete with other mutual fund managers. They're investments do matter as they dictate where investment money in our economy goes. They might not make money relative to the market as a whole, but they still provide important benefits to society. For example, just because airlines only make .2% profits, their services benefit society tremendously. Replacing mutual fund managers with investing in any company whatsoever (though limiting to public companies changes things) by "flipping a coin" like the article suggests, would likely have a very bad impact on the economy. It would have no effect on how well mutual fund managers do relative to the market, though.

im2w1l 12y ago
The more fund managers you have, the more efficient capital allocation you'll have. The fact that mutual fund managers do not beat the market means that we have too many fund managers chasing diminishing returns. The increased efficiency in the markets is too small for their wages. As the fraction of active fund managers to passive fund managers decreases, this fact will change. More and more passive investors following in the footsteps of less and less active investors. This means the tracking error will increase. At some point the cost of the tracking error will be about the same as the cost of active management, and that is when we have the right amount of active management. I think at least