Today’s restrictive Fed policies in a rapidly deteriorating economy are the preconditions for a steep recession. Contrary to the unprecedented monetary and fiscal support we had following the last economic downturn, we are currently experiencing a major withdrawal of liquidity at a time when corporate fundamentals are starting to contract. Despite the deepest yield curve inversion in decades, the Fed is raising rates at its fastest pace since 1984 as it prepares to shrink its balance sheet by $90 billion per month, starting next month. Already, in the last three months, M2 money supply also contracted by its largest amount in 63 years!
In the meantime, inflation remains deeply entrenched in the economy. These are arguably the most challenging set of circumstances the Fed has confronted in many decades. Central banks can sacrifice economic growth as long as unemployment rates stay low, which we believe to be highly unlikely.
Looking back at the Great Inflation period from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, the rise in consumer prices preceded substantial increases in unemployment rates. On average, after two years of the initial appreciation in inflation rates, labor markets started to falter. Today, it has been exactly two years and three months since CPI rates began to trend higher. With such a level of monetary tightening with already eroding economic conditions, we strongly believe unemployment rates are poised to rise significantly from their current levels.
In 1973-4, it took a decline of 48% in stocks for inflation to start trending lower for the next couple of years. The persistent increase in consumer prices at the time forced the Fed which had to radically tighten financial conditions. As a result, a brutal inflationary recession followed and, outside of precious metals, overall equities and Treasuries collapsed together. A similar macro setup is unfolding today.
In our view, the US and most other developed economies have decisively entered an inflationary regime. Consequently, the role of monetary policy will be much more directed towards price stability which inhibits the backdrop of excessive central bank liquidity that drove overall market prices to today’s unsustainable levels.
We believe January 3rd marked the peak for US stocks and this is just the beginning of a bear market from truly historical overvaluations.
Decades of reckless Fed actions have created one of the most frenzied investment environments in stock market history. Outside of natural resource industries, we are seeing a profusion of unsustainably high valuations across most of the equity market.
Unsurprisingly, today’s consumer discretionary sector is now worth 2.6 times the size of the energy sector, while the latter generates over 5 times more in free cash flow. We believe these price imbalances are true opportunities. In our global macro and long/short hedge funds, we are long undervalued stocks in scarce commodity industries today, including precious and base metal miners, oil and gas E&Ps, and fertilizer producers while we are short a variety of overvalued stocks in a variety of sectors with deliberate over-weighting of short positions in consumer discretionary and information technology, in particular mega-cap tech.
The Fundamental Setup for Mining Stocks
In a similar concept to how historically undervalued energy companies continue to be, other commodity businesses may offer an even stronger value proposition. Mining stocks, for instance, are currently trading at multiples not seen since their historically most depressed levels. This is a function of falling stock prices coupled with strong fundamentals. The P/E ratio for metals and mining stocks in the S&P 500 are now retesting the lows of the 2008 bottom.
Greatest Dividend Yield in Almost a Decade
Gold miners also have the highest dividend yield in almost ten years. While this seems compelling, it is just a supplementary part of our bullish thesis on gold and silver mining stocks. These companies are almost paying more dividends than utility stocks for the first time in the history of the data.
Similarly, energy stocks are paying more dividends than any other sector in the S&P 500 today.
Energy Stocks-to-Oil Ratio on the Rise
Energy stocks have underperformed oil prices for almost six years. Even after most energy commodities reached a bottom in April 2020, exploration and production companies have not kept up with the level of appreciation. It is interesting, however, that in this recent pullback in WTI and Brent oil prices, energy stocks behaved significantly better. We think this is a very bullish sign for the overall industry. It is always important to see the risker parts of a sector leading the way. We believe the energy stocks-to-oil ratio will break out from this key resistance and continue to move higher.
The Resurgence of the Inflation Narrative
None of the structural issues causing inflation have been resolved. Overall CAPEX for commodity producers has gone nowhere and monetary tightening has only reduced capital available for new investments. We believe that the Fed still runs a major risk of prematurely shifting its hawkish stance and re-igniting the inflation narrative. The softer tone we have seen from policy makers recently is likely to drive commodity prices higher again. That has already begun. Look no further than natural gas prices making new highs recently.
Natural Gas Sends Strong Message
The surge in natural gas prices to recent highs is perhaps one of the most important developments unfolding in the macro environment today. It is happening right at a time when the inflation narrative has dissipated due to recession fears. The appreciation of natural gas reminds us that commodity markets are fundamentally linked. Rising energy prices often drive rising agricultural and materials prices.
Natural Gas and Ammonia Prices Are Strongly Correlated
Note the historical correlation between natural gas and ammonia prices. In the past, one has led the other. Higher ammonia prices mean higher fertilizer prices which trigger agricultural commodities to rise leading to higher food prices.
Most Erratic Energy Policy in History
In case one thinks that the selling pressure in oil has been solely driven by recession fears, the US government just sold another 27 million barrels last month. At this pace, the strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) will be zero in 18 months.
Nonetheless, with recent recession fears, the demand deterioration in the Chinese economy, and the US government selling its SPRs, one would think oil would not be trading anywhere close to as high as $90 per barrel. Such strength in the price speaks to the overall supply tightness in the energy market. We believe oil is headed substantially higher.
The Early Innings of a Bear Market
Equity markets are not priced for the vicious stagflationary environment that we envision. Overall, stocks are behaving as if we were still in a secular disinflationary environment which allows the Fed to loosen monetary conditions without causing inflationary pressure. As prices for goods and services continue to increase at historically elevated levels, so will the cost of capital. That is not a positive scenario for growth stocks, particularly relative to value companies. The Russell Growth vs. Value index spread still is near the peak levels reached in the Tech Bubble of 2000. This further supports our view that the decline in the overall equity markets is just the beginning.
Value vs. Growth
The long-term double bottom in the energy-to-tech stocks ratio illustrates how early we are in this upward trend for oil and gas stocks. For over a decade, capital flows have solely focused on growth-related companies and have completely forgotten about businesses that are crucial to the basic functioning of the global economy. We are excited to be able to invest in historically undervalued energy companies at what we believe to be only the beginning of an inflationary era.
Job Openings Collapsing
Maybe it is just a coincidence, but 774 CEOs have left their roles this year in the US alone. That is the highest number in 20 years!
What do these high-profile executives know that investors don’t?
There have been significant changes in labor market indicators recently. Job opening just had their largest 3-month decline in the history of the data, excluding the initial shock of the pandemic. This is probably just the beginning. Fed tightening with PMIs already at levels only seen in the Global Financial Crisis is just one more nail in the coffin for the economy.
Tech Bubble on Steroids
At the height of the Tech Bubble in 2000, the top-10 US market cap tech stocks collectively reached an enterprise value of 30% of GDP. The problem then was the same as it is today. Growth expectations were too high for these companies. Their valuations had simply become too rich relative to the size of the overall economy to justify the growth assumptions.
Furthermore, the spending boom to address the Y2K computer problem made the fundamentals truly unsustainable. Investors were extrapolating high short-term growth rather than realizing that it was a top in both growth and profitability for the business cycle. Over the next two and a half years, the enterprise value of these companies would plunge to just 5% of GDP as the combined revenue, earnings, free cash flow, and stock prices for these companies plummeted and led the entire economy into recession.
Fast forward to year-end 2021, the height of today’s mega-cap-tech-led stock market bubble. The top-10 US market cap tech stocks collectively reached an even higher 56% EV to GDP, 87% higher than it was at the peak of the 2000 tech bubble. The record-breaking fiscal and monetary stimulus during Covid accelerated the move to the cloud and the corresponding IT spending boom, just like Y2K. Once again, investors have extrapolated unsustainable growth and profitability to justify high valuations.
Remarkably, even as the fundamentals are already deteriorating, the further downside risk for these mega-caps remains totally incomprehensible to most market participants today. The common investment narrative remains that these companies have reasonable P/E ratios. Not only is the E coming off unsustainably inflated levels, but the P/E multiple is also too high compared to likely future growth.
The chart below shows the potential further downside risk for the top-10 mega-cap tech stocks today, on an EV-to-GDP basis, if they were to approach the same cyclical low valuation levels that they did in 2002 of 5 times EV to GDP. We are not necessarily calling for a full retest of those multiples, but we believe the market will continue to head in that direction. We are indeed looking for substantially lower stock prices for many of these companies along with continued downward revisions to earnings and free cash flow projections and contracting multiples, all of which should coincide with an economic recession over the next several quarters.
Investors have been buying the dip and continue to get sucked into what we believe has been a mere bear market rally over the last two months, one that is starting to roll over again. The technical analysis of this macro/fundamental chart looks like a monster head-and-shoulders pattern.
Payrolls: Still Partying Like It’s 1999
Nonfarm payrolls recently surprised the markets with a surge of 528,000. Despite what seems to be very positive news, here is a reminder that nonfarm payrolls also surged by almost 500,000 right at the peak of the tech bubble in March 2000. It is important to understand that most labor market gauges are lagging indicators. An extremely low unemployment rate is often a contrarian indicator.
Hardly Even Growth Stocks Anymore
In contrast to what most investors believe, the “FAANG” stocks are starting to show serious signs of weakness in their fundamentals. The median real revenue growth for these companies has officially turned negative for the first time in almost two decades. Interestingly, investors still consider them “growth” stocks despite their meaningful exposure to a cyclical downturn in the economy at large. We think mega-cap tech companies pose a significant risk to the overall equity market. After years of attracting investment flows from capital markets on the back of incredibly successful business models, these stocks are deteriorating fundamentally, and most investors are not even paying attention.
More Buybacks Than Capex
S&P 500 companies are spending more money on share buybacks than they are investing in their businesses. They are doing this at the highest ratio in the history of the data which goes back 25 years. Aggregate annual buybacks are 134% of CAPEX. This trend is likely to crimp productivity growth and innovation for years to come.
Financial Engineering Failure
While many investors believe share buyback programs have been widely successful, the data shows otherwise. Stocks with the highest buyback ratios have underperformed the overall market in the last three years. It gets worse. If we look at the members of the S&P 500 Buyback index, 89% of their cash flow generated in the last 12 months was used to buy back their shares. Managers have been making poor capital allocation decisions, buying back expensive shares, and under-investing in future growth.
While we have seen most stocks in the technology sector being re-rated at lower price levels, fundamentals for these businesses continue to weaken, particularly for the smaller players. Aggregate profit margins for the Russell 2000 Technology index members are now at their lowest level since the Global Financial Crisis.
Yield Curve Inversions During Tightening Cycles
In the last 30+ years, every time the yield curve inverted, the Fed was forced to end its tightening cycle as the economy was heading into a recession. Over time, the sharp reversal of these policies, i.e., subsequent easing cycles, are what have fueled the excesses we see in financial asset valuations today.
For every economic downturn we have had since the late 1980s, government and Fed support became progressively larger. Such policy behavior is only achievable in a macroeconomic environment where inflation is not a long-term problem.
In the inflationary late 1960s to early 1980s, in contrast, central banks were much more limited in their ability to deploy liquidity measures during recessions. We think we are entering a similar macro setting today. This potential lack of liquidity is yet to be reflected in the prices of risky assets, which remain near historic high levels. Nonetheless, despite the steep inversion in the US yield curve, we think the Fed will be forced to remain hawkish for longer. In our strong view, the tightening of financial conditions in a fragile economy should be detrimental to equity markets.
The 1-year Eurodollar curve is now as inverted as it was at the beginning of the Global Financial Crisis. That just means markets believe the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates in the next 12 months. For us, this inversion reflects how investors continue to bet on the potential for a deflationary outcome.
We believe it is unlikely that the Fed will be able to loosen financial conditions given that long-term inflation expectations are likely to remain well above the 2% target. In this sense, today’s setup reminds us of the 1970s when policy makers will be forced to maintain a hawkish stance for longer. As a result, market liquidity will remain challenged.
China’s Balance Sheet Recession
China is currently facing a full-blown balance sheet recession due to an over-levered banking system and real estate market. The unwinding of its severe macro imbalances has forced the PBOC to loosen monetary conditions not only in an inflationary environment but also with a significantly more restrictive Fed policy. In our strong view, a devaluation of the Chinese yuan is the next wrecking ball that very few investors are positioned for.
Note how China’s imports of steel products are now at the lowest level in 24 years.
The Fed is Tightening While the PBOC is Easing
The PBOC-to-Fed’s interest rate policy spread has consistently led the changes in USDCNY by 6 months.
Such divergence in central banks’ stance is likely to add major pressure on the yuan to depreciate relative to the dollar.
The disconnect between the Chinese yuan and the required deposit reserve ratio for major banks remains one of the most important charts in the current macro environment.
Biden’s Secret Promise To OPEC Backfires: Shellenberger
Biden’s Secret Promise To OPEC Backfires: Shellenberger
Submitted by Michael Shellenberger,
In early September, United States Secretary of…
In early September, United States Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, told Reuters that President Joe Biden was considering extending the release of oil from America’s emergency stockpiles, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), through October, and thus beyond the date when the program had been set to end. But then, a few hours later, an official with the Department of Energy called Reuters and contradicted Granholm, saying that the White House was not, in fact, considering more SPR releases. Five days later, the White House said it was considering refilling the SPR, thereby proposing to do the exact opposite of what Granholm had proposed.
The confusion around the Biden administration’s petroleum policy was cleared up yesterday after a senior official revealed that the White House had made a secret offer to buy up to 200 million barrels of OPEC+ oil to replenish the SPR in exchange for OPEC+ not cutting oil production. The official said the White House wanted to reassure OPEC+ that the US “won’t leave them hanging dry.” The fact that this offer was made through the White House, not the Department of Energy, may explain why a representative of the Department called Reuters to take back the remarks of Granholm, who has shown herself to be out-of-the-loop, and at a loss for words, relating to key administration decisions relating to oil and gas production.
The revelation poses political risks for Democrats who, in the spring of 2020, killed a proposal by President Donald Trump to replenish the SPR with oil from American producers, not OPEC+ ones, and at a price of $24 a barrel, not the $80 a barrel that the Biden White House promised to OPEC+. At the time, Trump was seeking to stabilize the American oil industry after the Covid-19 pandemic massively reduced oil demand. Trump and Congressional Republicans proposed spending $3 billion to fill the SPR. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer successfully defeated the proposal, and later bragged that his party had blocked a “bailout for big oil.”
Even normally strong boosters of the Biden White House viewed the Democrats’ opposition to refilling the SPR as a major blunder. “That decision,” noted Bloomberg, “effectively cost the US billions in potential profits and meant Biden had tens of millions of fewer barrels at his disposal with which to counter price surges.” Moreover, observed Bloomberg, it will take significantly more oil today to fill the SPR than it would have two years ago. In spring 2020, the SPR contained 634 million barrels out of a capacity of 727 million. Now, the reserve is below 442 million barrels, its lowest level in 38 years.
The decision looks even worse in light of the decision by OPEC+ today to cut production, which will increase oil prices. The Biden administration in recent days has been pulling out the stops trying to persuade Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ members, a group that includes Russia, to maintain today’s levels of oil production. Last Friday, the Biden administration sought a 45-day delay in a civil court proceeding over whether Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman should have sovereign immunity for the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, for which bin Salman has taken responsibility.
The behavior by the Biden White House displays a willingness to sacrifice America’s commitment to human rights for the president’s short-term political needs. Instead of pleading with OPEC+ to maintain or increase high levels of oil production, the Biden administration could have simply allowed for expanded domestic oil production. Instead, Biden has issued fewer leases for on-shore and off-shore oil production than any president since World War II. As such, the pleadings by Biden and administration officials have backfired. The perception of the U.S. in the minds of OPEC+ members has weakened while the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin has strengthened.
Why is that? Why did the Biden administration decide to spend so much political capital trying, and failing, to get Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ members to expand production when it could have simply expanded oil production domestically? What, exactly, is going on?
What Really Divides America
What Really Divides America
Authored by Joel Kotkin via UnHerd.com,
The Midterms aren’t a battle between good and evil…
The Midterms aren't a battle between good and evil...
Reading the mainstream media, one would be forgiven for believing that the upcoming midterms are part of a Manichaean struggle for the soul of democracy, pitting righteous progressives against the authoritarian “ultra-MAGA” hordes. The truth is nothing of the sort. Even today, the vast majority of Americans are moderate and pragmatic, with fewer than 20% combined for those identifying as either “very conservative” or “very liberal”. The apocalyptic ideological struggle envisioned by the country’s elites has little to do with how most Americans actually live and think. For most people, it is not ideology but the powerful forces of class, race, and geography that determine their political allegiances — and how they will vote come November.
Of course, it is the business of both party elites — and their media allies — to make the country seem more divided than it is. To avoid talking about the lousy economy, Democrats have sought to make the election about abortion and the alleged “threat to democracy” posed by “extremist” Republicans. But recent polls suggest that voters are still more concerned with economic issues than abortion. The warnings about extremism, meanwhile, are tough to take seriously, given that Democrats spent some $53 million to boost far-Right candidates in Republican primaries.
Republicans are contributing to the problem in their own way, too. Rather than offering any substantive governing vision of their own, they assume that voters will be repelled by unpopular progressive policies such as defunding the police, encouraging nearly unlimited illegal immigration, and promoting sexual and gender “fluidity” to schoolchildren. They ignore, of course, the fact that their own embrace of fundamentalist morality on abortion is also widely rejected by the populace. And even Right-leaning voters may doubt the sanity of some of the GOP’s eccentric candidates this November.
In short, both major parties stoke polarisation, the primary beneficiaries of which are those parties’ own political machines. But most Americans broadly want the same things: safety, economic security, a post-pandemic return to normalcy, and an end to dependence on China. Their divisions are based not so much on ideology but on the real circumstances of their everyday life.
The most critical, yet least appreciated, of these circumstances is class. America has long been celebrated as the “land of opportunity”, yet for working and middle-class people in particular, opportunity is increasingly to come by. With inflation elevated and a recession seemingly on the horizon, pocketbook issues are likely to become even more important in the coming months. According to a NBC News poll, for instance, nearly two-thirds of Americans say their pay check is falling behind the cost of living, and the Republicans hold a 19-point advantage over the Democrats on the economy.
A downturn could also benefit the Left eventually. As the American Prospect points out, proletarianised members of the middle class are increasingly shopping at the dollar stores that formerly served working and welfare populations. Labour, a critical component of the Democratic coalition, could be on the verge of a generational surge, with unionisation spreading to fast food retailers, Amazon warehouses, and Starbucks.
To take advantage of a resurgent labour movement, however, Democrats will have to move away from what Democratic strategist James Carville scathingly calls “faculty lounge politics”: namely, their obsession with gender, race, and especially climate. For instance, by demanding “net zero” emissions on a tight deadline, without developing the natural gas and nuclear production needed to meet the country’s energy needs, progressives run the risk of inadvertently undermining the American economy. Ill-advised green policies will be particularly devastating for the once heavily Democratic workers involved in material production sectors like energy, agriculture, manufacturing, warehousing, and logistics.
To win in the coming election and beyond, Democrats need to focus instead on basic economic concerns such as higher wages, affordable housing, and improved education. They also need to address the roughly half of all small businesses reporting that inflation could force them into bankruptcy. Some progressives believe that climate change will doom the Republicans, but this is wishful thinking. According to Gallup, barely 3% of voters name environmental issues as their top concern.
Racial divides are also important — though not in the way that media hysterics about “white supremacy” would lead you to believe. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s decision to fly undocumented immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard was undoubtedly a political stunt, and one arguably in poor taste. But it succeeded in its main goal: highlighting the enormous divide between the border states affected by illegal immigration and the bastions of white progressivism who tend to favour it.
Under Biden, the Democrats have essentially embraced “open borders” — illegal crossings are at record levels, and few of the migrants who make it across the border are ever required to leave. This policy reflects a deep-seated belief among elite Democrats that a more diverse, less white population works to their political favour. Whether they are right to think so, however, is far from clear. Black people still overwhelmingly back the Democrats, but Asians (the fastest-growing minority) and Latinos (the largest) are more evenly divided, and have been drifting toward the Republicans in recent years.
Here, too, class is a key factor. Many middle and upper-class minorities are on board with the Democrats’ anti-racist agenda. But many working-class Hispanics and Asians have more basic concerns. After all, notes former Democratic Strategist Ruy Teixiera, these are the people most affected by inflation, rising crime, poor schools, and threats to their livelihoods posed by draconian green policies.
Culture too plays a role. Immigrants, according to one recent survey, are twice as conservative in their social views than the general public and much more so than second generation populations of their own ethnicity. Like most Americans, they largely reject the identity politics central to the current Democratic belief system. Immigrants and other minorities also tend to be both more religious than whites; new sex education standards have provoked opposition from the Latino, Asian, African American and Muslim communities.
The final dividing line is geography, always a critical factor in American politics. For decades, the country seemed to become dominated by the great metropolitan areas of the coasts, with their tech and finance-led economies. But even before the pandemic, the coastal centres were losing their demographic and economic momentum and seeing their political influence fade. In 1960, for example, New York boasted more electoral votes than Texas and Florida combined. Today, both have more electoral votes than the Empire State. Last year, New York, California, and Illinois lost more people to outmigration than any other states. The greatest gains were in Florida, Texas, Arizona, and North Carolina. These states are high-growth, fertile, and lean toward the GOP.Likewise, regional trends suggest that elections will be decided in lower density areas; suburbs alone are home to at least 40% of all House seats. Some of these voters may be refugees from blue areas who still favour the Democrats. But lower-density areas, which also tend to have the highest fertility rates, tend to be dominated by family concerns like inflation, public education and safety, issues that for now favour Republicans.
Put the battle between Good and Evil to one side. It is these three factors — class, race, geography — that will shape the outcome of the midterms, whatever the media says. The endless kabuki theatre pitting Trump and his minions against Democrats may delight and enrage America’s elites — but for the American people, it is still material concerns that matter.
Switzerland, Not USA, Is The ‘Most Innovative’ Country In The World
Switzerland, Not USA, Is The ‘Most Innovative’ Country In The World
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has released its 2022…
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has released its 2022 Global Innovation Index. It evaluated innovation levels across 132 economies focusing on a long list of criteria such as human capital, institutions, technology and creative output as well as market and business sophistication, among others.
The 2022 index has found that innovation is still blossoming in some sectors despite the global economic slowdown and coronavirus pandemic, especially in industries to do with public health and the environment.
As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, Switzerland topped the rankings with a score of 64.6 out of 100, the 12th time it has been named the world leader in innovation. The United States come second while the Sweden rounds off the top three.
You will find more infographics at Statista
One of the biggest winners of the ranking was South Korea, which climbed up from rank 10 in 2020 to rank 6 in 2022.
China is now the world's 11th most innovative nation, up from rank 14 in 2020 and 2019 and rank 17 in 2018.
China was also named the most innovative upper middle-income country ahead of Bulgaria (overall rank 35), while India (overall rank 40) came first for lower middle-income countries, followed by Vietnam (overall rank 48).
Notably, China is now on a par with the United States in terms of the number of top 100 Science & Technology clusters
Finally, WIPO notes that on the one hand, science and innovation investments continued to surge in 2021, performing strongly even at the height of a once in a century pandemic. On the other hand, even as the pandemic recedes, storm clouds remain overhead, with increasing supply-chain, energy, trade and geopolitical stresses.
Expecting Volatility In An Uncertain Market
SSR MINING ANNOUNCES POSITIVE EXPLORATION RESULTS FOR THE ÇAKMAKTEPE EXTENSION PROJECT (ARDICH), INCLUDING 28.3 METERS AT 8.23 G/T AU
Three Infrastructure Investments to Buy as War and Inflation Rage
SIGNS POINT TO INDUSTRY HEALTH: NEARLY 40% OF PRIVATE BOAT SELLERS REPORT INTENT TO UPGRADE VESSELS
The 4th Japan SciCom Forum 2022 on October 21 online
Ampio Pharmaceuticals Inc (OTCMKTS: AMPE) Biotech Hits the OTC with a Thud but There’s a Silver Lining
Amazon Sends Chilly Signs About the Economy
Growing Surgical Revenue and Automating OR Processes a Top Priority for Health Systems
Measuring the Ampleness of Reserves
Singapore holds lead position in Omdia Fiber Development Index
Economics9 hours ago
First Mining Files NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Duparquet Gold Project, Quebec
Science4 hours ago
Revive Therapeutics To Re-Apply For Primary Endpoint Change With The FDA
Economics6 hours ago
Gene Synthesis Services Market to Record a CAGR of 17.6%, Majority of Market Growth to Originate from North America – Technavio
Science10 hours ago
Stealth Mission: Novel mRNA Vaccine Delivery System
Government6 hours ago
Washington Gave $28M To Chinese Entities For Joint Research Since 2015: Report
Economics17 hours ago
Argentina Lithium Continues to Build on Property Positions at the Rincon and Antofalla Salars
Economics18 hours ago
Smart Solar Power Market to Reach $47.7 Bn, Globally, by 2031 at 13.6% CAGR: Allied Market Research
Science19 hours ago
NHS seeks digital solution for “treatment gap” in mental health