Combination Forecasts of Bond and Stock Returns: An Asset Allocation Perspective

We investigate the out-of-sample forecasting ability of the HML, SMB, momentum, short-term and long-term reversal factors along with their size and value decompositions on U.S. bond and stock returns for a variety of horizons ranging from the short run (1 month) to the long run (2 years). Our findings suggest that these factors contain significantly more information for future bond and stock market returns than the typically employed financial variables. Combination of forecasts of the empirical factors turns out to be particularly successful, especially from an an asset allocation perspective. Similar findings pertain to the European and Japanese markets

The cost-effectiveness of antenatal and postnatal education and support interventions for women aimed at promoting breastfeeding in the UK

Background: Breastfeeding is associated with health benefits to mothers and babies and cost-savings to the health service. Breastfeeding rates in the UK are low for various reasons including cultural barriers, inadequate support to initiate and sustain breastfeeding, lack of information, or choice not to breastfeed. Education and support interventions have been developed aiming at promoting breastfeeding rates. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of such interventions for women, initiated antenatally or in the first 8 weeks postnatally, aiming at improving breastfeeding rates, in the UK. Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of a breastfeeding intervention from the perspective of health and personal social services in England. Data on intervention effectiveness and the benefits of breastfeeding were derived from systematic reviews. Other model input parameters were obtained from published sources, supplemented by expert opinion. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the modelled intervention added on standard care versus standard care was £51,946/QALY, suggesting that the intervention is not cost-effective under National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria in England. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the cost-effectiveness of the intervention improved as its effectiveness increased and intervention cost decreased. At the base-case effect (increase in breastfeeding rates 16–26 weeks after birth by 19%), the intervention was cost-effective (<£20,000/QALY) if its cost per woman receiving the intervention became ≈£40–£45. At the base-case cost (£84), the intervention was cost-effective if it increased breastfeeding rates by at least 35–40%. Conclusions: Available breastfeeding interventions do not appear to be cost-effective under NICE criteria in England. Future breastfeeding interventions need to have higher effectiveness or lower cost compared with currently available interventions in order to become cost-effective. Public health and other societal interventions that protect, promote and support breastfeeding may be key in improving breastfeeding rates in the UK