Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of an oncologists’ exercise recommendation with and without exercise motivation package on the amount of exercise participation and quality of life (QOL) in breast and colon cancer survivors. Methods A total of 162 early stage breast and colorectal cancer survivors who completed primary and adjuvant treatments were recruited for this study. Participants were randomly assigned into one of three groups: 1) control (N=59), 2) Oncologists’ exercise recommendation (N=53), and 3) Oncologists’ exercise recommendation with exercise motivation package (N=50). At baseline and after 4 weeks, the level of exercise participation and QOL were assessed. Results A total of 130 (80.7%) participants completed the 4-week assessment. The result showed that participants who only received oncologists’ exercise recommendation did not increase their exercise participation level. But participants who received oncologist’s exercise recommendation with motivation package significantly increased the level of exercise participation [4.30±7.84 Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET) hour per week, p<001] compared with that of the control group and significantly improved role functioning, pain and diarrhea. Conclusion Oncologists’ exercise recommendation may not be enough to increase exercise participation.. Exercise motivation package with oncologists’ exercise recommendation may be ideal to increase exercise participation to cancer survivor Implications of cancer survivors The providence of exercise motivation package in addition to oncologists’ exercise recommendation to increase the level of exercise among breast and colorectal cancer survivors should be considered.

"This paper analyses the risk-return trade-off in the hedge fund industry. We compare semi-deviation, value-at-risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall (ES) and Tail Risk (TR) with standard deviation at the individual fund level as well as the portfolio level. Using the""Fama and French (1992)""methodology and the combined live and defunct hedge fund data from TASS, we find that the left-tail risk captured by Expected Shortfall (ES) and Tail Risk (TR) explains the cross-sectional variation in hedge fund returns very well, while the other risk measures provide statistically insignificant or marginally significant results. During the period between January 1995 and December 2004, hedge funds with high ES outperform those with low ES by an annual return difference of 7%. We provide empirical evidence on the theoretical argument by""Artzner et al. (1999)""that ES is superior to VaR as a downside risk measure. We also find the""Cornish-Fisher (1937)""expansion is superior to the nonparametric method in estimating ES and TR." Copyright 2007 The Authors Journal compilation (c) 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

This paper compares downside risk measures that incorporate higher return moments with traditional risk measures such as standard deviation in predicting hedge fund failure. When controlling for investment strategies, performance, fund age, size, lockup, high-water mark, and leverage, we find that funds with larger downside risk have a higher hazard rate. However, standard deviation loses the explanatory power once the other explanatory variables are included in the hazard model. Further, we find that liquidation does not necessarily mean failure in the hedge fund industry. By reexamining the attrition rate, we show that the real failure rate of 3.1% is lower than the attrition rate of 8.7% on an annual basis during the period of 1995–2004.

No abstract

No abstract