Economist Impact: World Cancer Series – pharmaphorum in attendance, day one (part iv)
To conclude pharmaphorum’s look back at day one of The Economist’s 8th Annual World Cancer Series congress in
The post Economist Impact: World Cancer…
To conclude pharmaphorum’s look back at day one of The Economist’s 8th Annual World Cancer Series congress in Brussels, Belgium, in November – where the foci were “innovation, equity, and excellence” – after the panel, ‘The future of European cancer control in a time of crisis’, came The Economist’s health policy editor Natasha Loder’s interview with Dame Kate Bingham, managing partner at SV Health Investors and former chair of the UK Government’s Vaccine Taskforce during the pandemic.
In an exciting interview, one of Loder’s questions asked: if the efficacy of monotherapies, for example, can’t be shown, then how can funding be attained? These, after all, are expensive, she said. Bingham replied that pharma, biotech, and academia all need to come up with new approaches. Then, head-to-head studies. However, she continued, pharma generally doesn’t voluntarily go down such a route. In the case of rare diseases, patients get randomised into different arms, and what is needed if every patient is going into a trial is to actually generate some data: there has to be funding for this, Bingham said.
Loder stated that well over half of investment dollars are spent on cancer. One only has to look at the statistics, she said, to see it is a relatively easy place of investment, due to the massive demand and the amount of innovation in the space.
Reimbursement and diagnostics markers
Parker Moss, chief ecosystems and partnership officer at Genomics England, spoke from the audience, mentioning how it is harder to get reimbursement for a diagnostics marker. He asked what should be done in an increasingly stratified world. Bingham replied that companion diagnostics are required. Ultimately, she said, the majority of cancer diagnoses need to be carried out much earlier on. If the clinical trial data works, she said, then early detection would be ‘a complete game changer’. She also mentioned, “vaccines before cancer even presents, before the massively hostile tumour environment”. In short, data is crucial.
Bingham continued that the Inflation Reduction Act would hit cancer patients heavily in the US as there would be a disincentive to innovate. “You’ll start your clinical trials in fifth-line, where they’ve failed all other forms of therapy,” she said. “And it takes years and years, and by that time pricing […] It’s a real concern. You can test early, but without the innovative medicines, you’re in trouble,” she warned.
Stepping up prevention – the foundation of cancer control
Following Loder’s interview with Dame Kate Bingham, the afternoon continued with another panel: ‘Stepping up prevention – the foundation of cancer control’. Moderated by Matthew Hickey, chief executive of The Health Value Alliance, panellists included: MEP Antoni Comin i Oliveres; Wendy Yared, director of the Association of European Cancer Leagues; Milka Sokolović, director-general of the European Public Health Alliance; and Marko Korenjak, president of the European Liver Patients’ Association.
Hickey opened the conversation by asking what strategies are being used to reach vulnerable groups. Oliveres replied that equity must be a driving principle, particularly when it comes to cancer. So it is, he said, that public policies need to be integrated closely with the primary healthcare world and that the primary care network should be a place where prevention work is carried out. There is, he said, a paradox in the European health system, wherein budget is spent on curing illness, instead of prevention.
Summarising that it was prevention and policy – targeting the individuals at highest risk – Hickey next asked whether there was enough ambition to address inequalities. Sokolović responded that the European Cancer Plan certainly welcomes and applauds specific attention to inequalities. There are persistent discrepancies, she said, between women, elderly people, minor ethnic and racial backgrounds, and marginalised communities, all disadvantaged in different ways: more than enough reason to focus on inequalities.
From a prevention point of view, she continued, it is important to look at the variation between EU member states. For example, HPV vaccine rates in Malta are 97%; in Bulgaria, they are 2%. Furthermore, she said, for people experiencing homelessness, cancer is the second most common cause of death and there is no data for that group to help them. So, she asked in return, is the plan ambitious enough? She considered that it is, but that it depends on the extent to which member states will commit to ambitions. Only Romania and Czechia, she said, have revised their cancer policies in reaction to the plan, though.
Data is knowledge which must be shared
Hickey stated that it’s a matter of understanding the data: knowledge is power, yes, but like power, knowledge must be shared. Korenjak philosophically entered the conversation with the comparison of the water jug on the table before him: he was thirsty, but he couldn’t reach the water, and a similar experience is what is happening in Europe, he said. If you take communicable diseases and lower the cases (like hepatitis B), he said, you will directly impact the non-communicable cases (like liver cancer). A committee for health in the EU parliament would make the job easier, he noted.
Yared spoke at this point, describing how the European Cancer League is a network of cancer societies in the EU, working across the entire spectrum of cancer control. Prevention, she said, is a key area of what they do at both the umbrella and national levels. Funded by the general public, that public has to be happy. Referencing the WHO’s European Code Against Cancer, Yared highlighted the fact that 50% of cancers can be prevented by following actually very simple messages. Apart from the obvious ones like not using tobacco products, a healthy lifestyle (Mediterranean diet, exercise, and screening) – all these, she said, help. But they need translations, for example, Turkish in the Netherlands. As to whether the plan was ambitious enough, Yared reminded the panel that the EU has put cancer in a primary position before, in the 1980s. So, the important thing to focus on now is implementation.
Hickey asked what the barriers might be to implementation: Oliveres replied, the institutional merger of financial systems, and cultural barriers. Yared joined that there is a Ministry of Health, but there is also a Ministry of Finance, and cigarettes – money is derived from this. In short, Sokolović added, serious buy-in from governments is necessary; serious collaboration of commercial sectors. Also, food for prevention. Korenjak additionally thought the sharing of good practices and making systems for best practices, wherein a smarter way for distributing the budget of the EU cancer plan can be achieved.
Patient engagement and prevention on a plate
An audience member noted that money won’t work if the patient population is not engaged in stepping up for prevention. Yared agreed, stating that if populations don’t know how to reach a screening, then boots on the ground are needed to ensure awareness of screening availability. And for that, funding is required. Sokolović joined that inclusive and consistent public messaging was necessary, also.
Another audience member mentioned that Europe is very good at breakthrough, rather than follow through. There were screening recommendations back in 2003 and they have yet to be fully implemented. Yet another attendee stated that only 3% are aware of the European Code Against Cancer.
Korenjak admitted that those working in health should start with themselves, as case examples, member states offering free check-ups for different types of cancer. However, he said, lifestyle choices will always be made based on availability and access, and so education is a key first step. There need to be, he explained, financial incentives, too. Healthy food environments must be created, also.
Yared agreed: health choice must be the easy choice, she said. If people don’t have access to healthy food – “How much is lettuce compared to crisps?” she asked – then you have what is already occurring, with fast foods congregated around lower-income areas. She closed with the tale of a meeting with a supermarket chain, at which she’d wanted the European Code Against Cancer near the vegetables: they refused, stating that they had to sell everything and that they would end up having problems with certain brands.
And so, the panel came to a close, and pharmaphorum’s attendance at the event ended, prevention starting with the patients themselves a notion orbiting the minds of those within the room.
The post Economist Impact: World Cancer Series – pharmaphorum in attendance, day one (part iv) appeared first on .congress pandemic vaccine clinical trials therapy european europe uk netherlands eu
The Great Silence
The Great Silence
Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via DailyReckoning.com,
The kids are two years behind in education. Inflation still rages. White-collar…
Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via DailyReckoning.com,
The kids are two years behind in education. Inflation still rages. White-collar jobs are disappearing thanks to the reversal of Fed policy. Household finances are a wreck. The medical industry is in upheaval. Trust in government has never been lower.
Major media too is discredited. Young people are dying at levels never seen. Populations are still on the move from lockdown states to where it is less likely. Surveillance is everywhere, and so is political persecution. Public health is in a disastrous state, with substance abuse and obesity all at new records.
Each one of these, and many more besides, are continued fallout from the pandemic response that began in March 2020. And yet here we are 38 months later and we still don’t have honesty or truth about the experience.
Officials have resigned, politicians have tumbled out of office and lifetime civil servants have departed their posts, but they don’t cite the great disaster as the excuse. There is always some other reason.
This is the period of the great silence. We’ve all noticed it. The stories in the press recounting all the above are conventionally scrupulous about naming the pandemic response much less naming the individuals responsible.
Maybe there is a Freudian explanation: things so obviously terrible and in such recent memory are too painful to mentally process, so we just pretend it didn’t happen. Plenty in power like this solution.
Everyone in a position of influence knows the rules. Don’t talk about the lockdowns. Don’t talk about the mask mandates. Don’t talk about the vaccine mandates that proved useless and damaging and led to millions of professional upheavals.
Don’t talk about the economics of it. Don’t talk about collateral damage. When the topic comes up, just say, “We did the best we could with the knowledge we had,” even if that is an obvious lie.
Above all, don’t seek justice.
Where’s the National Commission?
There is this document intended to be the “Warren Commission” of COVID slapped together by the old gangsters who advocated for lockdowns. It is called Lessons from the Covid War: An Investigative Report.
The authors are people like Michael Callahan (Massachusetts General Hospital), Gary Edson (former deputy national security adviser), Richard Hatchett (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), Marc Lipsitch (Harvard University), Carter Mecher (Veterans Affairs), and Rajeev Venkayya (former Gates Foundation and now Aerium Therapeutics).
If you have been following this disaster, you might know at least some of the names. Years before 2020, they were pushing lockdowns as the solution for infectious disease. Some claim credit for having invented pandemic planning. The years 2020–2022 were their experiment.
As it was ongoing, they became media stars, pushing compliance, condemning as disinformation and misinformation anyone who disagreed with them. They were at the heart of the coup d’etat, as engineers or champions of it, that replaced representative democracy with quasi-martial law run by the administrative state.
The first sentence of the report is a complaint:
We were supposed to lay the groundwork for a National COVID Commission. The COVID Crisis Group formed at the beginning of 2021, one year into the pandemic. We thought the U.S. government would soon create or facilitate a commission to study the biggest global crisis so far in the 21st century. It has not.
That is true. There is no National COVID Commission. You know why? Because they could never get away with it, not with legions of experts and passionate citizens who wouldn’t tolerate a coverup.
The public anger is too intense. Lawmakers would be flooded with emails, phone calls and daily expressions of disgust. It would be a disaster. An honest commission would demand answers that the ruling class is not prepared to give. An “official commission” perpetuating a bunch of baloney would be dead on arrival.
This by itself is a huge victory and a tribute to indefatigable critics.
‘We Didn’t Crack Down Hard Enough’
Instead, the “COVID Crisis Group” met with funding from the Rockefeller and Charles Koch foundations and slapped together this report. Despite being celebrated as definitive by The New York Times and The Washington Post, it has mostly had no impact at all.
It is far from obtaining the status of being some kind of canonical assessment. It reads like they were on deadline, fed up, typed lots of words and called it a day.
Of course it is whitewash.
It begins with a bang to denounce the U.S. policy response: “Our institutions did not meet the moment. They did not have adequate practical strategies or capabilities to prevent, to warn, to defend their communities or fight back in a coordinated way, in the United States and globally.”
Mistakes were made, as they say.
Of course the upshot of this kvetching is not to criticize what Justice Neil Gorsuch calls “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.” They hardly mention those at all.
Instead they conclude that the U.S. should have surveilled more, locked down sooner (“We believe that on Jan. 28 the U.S. government should have started mobilizing for a possible COVID war”), directed more funds to this agency rather than that and centralized the response so that rogue states like South Dakota and Florida could not evade centralized authoritarian diktats next time.
The authors propose a series of lessons that are anodyne, bloodless and carefully crafted to be more-or-less true but ultimately structured to minimize the sheer radicalism and destructiveness of what they favored and did. The lessons are clichés such as we need “not just goals but road maps,” and next time we need more “situation awareness.”
There is no new information in the book that I could find, unless something is hidden therein that escaped my notice. It’s more interesting for what it does not say. Some words that never appear in the text: Sweden, ivermectin, ventilators, remdesivir and myocarditis.
‘Look, Lockdowns and Mandates Worked!’
Perhaps this gives you a sense of the book and its mission. And on matters of the lockdowns, readers are forced to endure claims such as “all of New England — Massachusetts, the city of Boston, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine — seem to us to have done relatively well, including their ad hoc crisis management setups.”
Oh really! Boston destroyed thousands of small businesses and imposed vaccine passports, closed churches, persecuted people for holding house parties, and imposed travel restrictions. There is a reason why the authors don’t elaborate on such preposterous claims. They are simply unsustainable.
One amusing feature seems to me to be a foreshadowing of what is coming. They throw Anthony Fauci under the bus with sniffy dismissals: “Fauci was vulnerable to some attacks because he tried to cover the waterfront in briefing the press and public, stretching beyond his core expertise—and sometimes it showed.”
“Trump Was a Comorbidity”
This is very likely the future. At some point, Fauci will be scapegoated for the whole disaster. He will be assigned to take the fall for what is really the failure of the national security arm of the administrative bureaucracy, which in fact took charge of all rule-making from March 13, 2020, onward, along with their intellectual cheerleaders. The public health people were just there to provide cover.
Curious about the political bias of the book? It is summed up in this passing statement: “Trump was a comorbidity.”
Oh how highbrow! How clever! No political bias here!
Maybe this book by the Covid Crisis Group hopes to be the last word. This will never happen. We are only at the beginning of this. As the economic, social, cultural, and political problems mount, it will become impossible to ignore the incredibly obvious.
The masters of lockdowns are influential and well-connected but not even they can invent their own reality.
Pandemic babies’ developmental milestones: Not as bad as we feared, but not as good as before
Research findings are mostly reassuring for parents — despite the disruptions to nearly every aspect of life during the COVID-19 pandemic, most children…
The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions that threatened children’s healthy development.
Scientists and physicians raised concerns early in the pandemic, pointing out that increased parental stress, COVID infections, reduced interactions with other babies and adults and changes to health care could affect child development. Furthermore, some children could be especially vulnerable to the pandemic circumstances.
With these concerns in mind, we started a longitudinal study of pregnant Canadians to understand how pandemic stressors might influence later child development.
Our initial findings were alarming: the rates of anxiety and depression among pregnant individuals were two to four times higher during the early phase of the pandemic compared to numerous pregnancy studies prior to the pandemic. This worrisome increase in mental health problems was seen worldwide.
Impact on children’s development
To determine how the pandemic might be affecting children’s development, we measured developmental milestones in 3,742 12-month-old infants born during the first 18 months of the pandemic. We then compared these infants to a similar group of 2,898 Canadian infants born between 2015 and 2018.
The study evaluated developmental milestones using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3. The ASQ-3 is a parent report of child behaviour that can help identify children at risk of developmental delays in five separate domains: Communication, Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Personal-Social and Problem Solving.
In a study to be published in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, we found that most children born during the pandemic were doing fine, with almost 90 per cent meeting their key developmental milestones in each area. This should be reassuring for parents, caregivers and communities, because it suggests that most children are developing normally despite adverse early circumstances.
However, a slightly higher proportion of children born during the pandemic were at risk of developmental delay in Communication, Gross Motor and Personal-Social domains, compared to children born before the pandemic. Our findings are consistent with prior smaller studies showing only small increases in the risk for poor verbal, motor and cognitive performance among 12-month-old infants born during the pandemic.
The largest effects we observed were in the Communication and Personal-Social domains. Infants born during the pandemic were almost twice as likely to score below cutoffs compared to pre-pandemic infants.
This represents an increase of about one to two additional children in 100 who are at risk, but highlights some potentially concerning effects of the pandemic on early child development. Across Canada, this could result in service demands for 20,000-40,000 additional preschool children.
Although small in absolute terms, these increases have important implications, since already limited resources will need to increase to meet the needs of more children. Certainly, it will be important to continue monitoring infants/children born during the pandemic to determine how long-lasting these effects are.
Reassuringly, early interventions can be highly effective for children who are struggling.
Concerns about child development
Parents should be mostly reassured by these findings. Despite the disruptions to nearly every aspect of life during the pandemic, the majority of children continue to show healthy development. Parents with concerns about their child’s development may find these suggestions helpful:
Provide your child with many opportunities for one-on-one interaction with a caring and responsive adult. The Harvard Center on the Developing Child describes the back-and-forth interactions that form the key processes of child development as “serve and return.”
Believe in “ordinary magic.” This is the phrase that child development expert Ann Masten uses to describe how resilience emerges from ordinary, everyday processes and interactions. Children develop resilience when they have access to the right environments, the right relationships and the right chances to be able to safely explore themselves and the world around them.
Talk and sing with your child. Engaging an infant in conversation or song (even a pre-verbal infant) is a powerful way to encourage language learning.
There is a wide range of development that is considered “normal.” It is okay for your child to be at a different stage than other children their age, as long as your child is still showing signs of development.
If you are concerned about your child’s development after some time of monitoring, discuss your concerns with a qualified health professional to determine if further investigation is needed.
Overall, the findings of our study (and others) suggest that the effects of the pandemic on infant development (at least to one year of age) have not been as bad as we feared. However, a greater number of children will likely require further evaluation and support compared to pre-pandemic.
Gerald Giesbrecht receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation.
Catherine Lebel receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Brain Canada, the Azrieli Foundation, Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation, and the Canada Research Chairs program.
Lianne Tomfohr-Madsen receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Brain Canada, Calgary Health Trust, the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation and the Weston Foundation.depression pandemic covid-19 canada alberta
Nasdaq statistics in 2023
The Nasdaq is the world’s largest electronic stock exchange and second-largest stock exchange globally in terms of market capitalization behind the New…
The Nasdaq is the world’s largest electronic stock exchange and second-largest stock exchange globally in terms of market capitalization behind the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). It was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in New York City. The Nasdaq stock exchange lists over 3,500 companies, including many of the world’s leading technology companies.
The Nasdaq Composite Index, which is the largest index on the Nasdaq, measures all domestic and international common type stocks. The market-capitalization-weighted index is the second-largest stock market index in the world, after the S&P 500.
In terms of performance, Nasdaq stocks have often outperformed the broader stock market, with the Nasdaq 100 doing better than the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average in recent years.
Here is a summary of key Nasdaq stocks statistics for 2023.
- More than 3,500 companies are listed on Nasdaq.
- Nasdaq’s listed companies have a total market capitalization of $25.3 trillion.
- Over 4.3 billion shares are traded daily on the Nasdaq exchange.
- Technology stocks make up more than half of companies in the Nasdaq Composite.
- The Nasdaq 100 index comprises the largest 100 companies traded on the Nasdaq, with nearly 60% being in the tech sector.
Nasdaq stocks: market summary
1.There are over 3,500 companies listed on Nasdaq
More than 3,500 companies are listed on the NASDAQ stock market. According to this FactSheet by Nasdaq, these companies represent a wide variety of industries, including technology, healthcare, and financial services.
2. The market capitalization of the nasdaq stock market is $25.3 trillion
The total market capitalization of all Nasdaq stocks is $25.3 trillion (as of May 29, 2023). This is the second-largest market capitalization in the stock exchange industry, only behind the NYSE. Compared in terms of growth, the Nasdaq shows a faster pace since January 2018, when it had a market cap of about $11 trillion. The NYSE had a market cap of $23 trillion at the time.
3. Over $200 billion worth of stocks trade on Nasdaq daily
In 2023, an average of over $200 billion worth of stocks were traded on Nasdaq daily, with $290 billion traded on 25 May 2023.
4. An average of 4.3 billion shares are traded daily on Nasdaq
According to daily market data for Nasdaq, an average of 4.3 billion shares in volume are traded daily on the Nasdaq exchange.
5. There are over 1000 international stocks listed on the Nasdaq
There are a total of 1,000 foreign companies listed on the Nasdaq stock market. These companies represent a wide variety of countries, including China, India, and Japan.
Nasdaq markets and indices stats
6. Nasdaq operates 29 markets, a clearinghouse, and 5 central securities depositories
The Nasdaq’s operations encompass 29 markets for stocks, bonds, derivatives and commodities. It also operates a clearinghouse and five central securities depositories.
7. Nasdaq’s trading technology is used by over 100 exchanges globally
Nasdaq’s growth as a leading electronic stock exchange has seen its proprietary trading technology deployed by 100 exchanges across 50 countries.
8. Nasdaq trades under the ticker NDAQ and part of the S&P 500 since 2008
The Nasdaq Inc stock trades under the symbol NDAQ on the Nasdaq exchange. The company has also been a component of the S&P 500 Index since 2008.
9. The Nasdaq has two major indexes
Nasdaq has two major indexes that track the performance of Nasdaq stocks daily. There’s the Nasdaq Composite and the Nasdaq 100. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite tracks most securities on the Nasdaq exchange (except for mutual funds, preferred stocks, and derivatives).
10. More than half of Nasdaq Composite stocks are tech companies
Tech stocks account for 52% of the total market weight of Nasdaq Composite, with 457 tech companies currently making up the index. Consumer Discretionary is next with about 18% and 450 stocks while healthcare is the third largest with 9% and 1,078 companies.
11. About 6 out of 10 companies in Nasdaq 100 are tech stocks
Nearly 60%, or approximately six out of every 10 of the companies that make up the Nasdaq 100 are in the technology sector.
12. Apple is the top stock by market capitalization in the Nasdaq Composite
The top 3 components on the Nasdaq Composite are Apple, Microsoft and Amazon with 13.2%, 10.87% and 5.36% respectively. Nvidia, Tesla, Alphabet and Meta Platforms are in the top 10. Apple has a market capitalization of $2.76 trillion.
Nasdaq IPOs and ETFs
13. A total of 156 IPOs went live on Nasdaq in 2022
There were a total of 156 IPOs on the NASDAQ stock market in 2022. According to market details the exchange’s website, there were also 29 exchange transfers.
14. IPOs on Nasdaq raised $2.1 billion in Q1, 2023
IPOs statistics show the Nasdaq attracted $2.1 billion in new listings in the first quarter of 2023, making the stock exchange the fourth largest in Q1.
15. The Nasdaq also lists more than 2,300 ETFs
There are a total of 2,300 etf listings on the Nasdaq stock market. These etfs track a wide variety of asset classes, including stocks, bonds, and commodities.
Nasdaq stocks: performance, key milestones and facts
16. The Nasdaq Composite stocks are 24% up year-to-date
As of May 2023, the Nasdaq Composite has returned over 24%, with gains in the past month nearly at 7%.
17. The Nasdaq Composite’s YTD return is higher than that of the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average
This Nasdaq statistic will surprise investors, but the 24% year-to-date returns for the Nasdaq Composite index are higher than the 9.97% for the S&P 500 and -0.13% for the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
18. Nasdaq-100 ‘s YTD and 1-Year returns are 13% and 32% respectively
Over the past year, the Nasdaq-100 Index has returned roughly 13% after most stocks dipped in 2022 amid economic and geopolitical headwinds headlined by rising inflation and the Russia-Ukraine war. However, the index is 32% up so far (as of May 29, 2023).
19. NVIDIA, Meta and Tesla are the best performing Nasdaq stocks in 2023 so far
Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) is the best performing mega cap on Nasdaq with 172% YTD return so far. It was followed by Meta (NASDAQ:META) and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), up 110% and 78%, respectively. Nvidia’s stock exploded in May as the company highlighted major revenue gains in coming quarters due to demand for AI-powered chips.
20. Nasdaq-100 Index stocks have added just 101% in five years
Over a 5-year time frame, the Nasdaq-100 Index has yielded a positive return of 101%. The period with the sharpest climb for the index in the last five years was between March 2020 and November 2021.
21. Nasdaq-100 Index’s 10-year return is about 358%
The NASDAQ-100 Index has returned +358.37% over a 10-year period and an impressive +3,088% since May 1995.
22. Nasdaq Composite stocks have returned about 71% in the past five years
Nasdaq statistics over the past five years show that the Nasdaq Composite Index has gained 71% in that period and 285% over the past 10 years. Since 1983 (40 years), the index has gained by over 4,000%. This suggests that investing over extended time frames can come with considerable returns on investments.
23. Nasdaq’s largest point increase: 760.97 points
On October 11, 2022, the Nasdaq Composite witnessed an unprecedented positivity to record a historic surge. The index closed a staggering 760.97 points higher, marking its largest ever single-day points increase.
24. The Nasdaq Composite declined 13.3% in April 2022, its worst monthly performance since October 2008
After notching its all-time high in November 2021, the Nasdaq Composite declined sharply by 23%. This included a 13.3% dip in April 2022 that was the index’s worst monthly return since October 2008. At the time, it had fallen 17.4% as the global financial crisis raged.
25. The largest single-day points decrease for Nasdaq Composite was 970.28 points
The Nasdaq Composite experienced its most substantial single-day points drop on March 16, 2020. Amid the global panic due to the covid-19 pandemic, the index plummeted by 970.28 points.
26. Nasdaq’s highest daily trading volume was over 12 billion trades
January 27, 2021, stands as a historic day for Nasdaq in terms of trading volume. On this day, the total trading volume reached a record-breaking 12,030,107,207 trades.
The Nasdaq stock market is currently one of the most important stock exchanges in the world. It is home to a wide variety of companies, lists thousands of companies and its indexes have outperformed the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average in recent years.
The strong performance of the Nasdaq stock market is due to a number of factors, including the growth of the technology and healthcare sectors. This sees the Nasdaq Composite Index up over 24% year-to-date.
In terms of investment, the Nasdaq is a popular choice for investors who are looking for exposure to growth stocks and international exposure as it lists over 1000 companies from more than 100 countries.
The post Nasdaq statistics in 2023 appeared first on Invezz.bonds pandemic covid-19 dow jones sp 500 nasdaq stocks etf commodities india japan russia ukraine china
‘The Official Truth’: The End Of Free Speech That Will End America
President Biden & House Speaker Kevin McCarthy Agree On Tentative Debt Deal To Avert Default
In This “Age of Funemployment,” Is a Recession Possible?
Gaslighting: The American People Are Trapped In A Textbook Abusive Relationship
Costco Shares Some Really Good News For Shoppers
Costco Tells Americans the Truth About Inflation and Price Increases
‘Kevin Caved’: McCarthy Savaged Over Debt Ceiling Deal
“Hard Pass”: Here’s What’s In The Debt Ceiling Deal Republicans Are About To Nuke
Nasdaq statistics in 2023
Under Pressure From Fat Activists, NYC Bans Weight Discrimination
International22 hours ago
‘The Official Truth’: The End Of Free Speech That Will End America
Uncategorized12 hours ago
U.S. Breakeven Inflation Comments
Government2 hours ago
Gaslighting: The American People Are Trapped In A Textbook Abusive Relationship
International9 hours ago
Nasdaq statistics in 2023
International24 hours ago
Never Short a Dull Market; AI is Sexy, But Everyone Hates Oil
Government14 hours ago
Zero Young Healthy Individuals Died Of COVID-19, Israeli Data Show
Spread & Containment13 hours ago
Kids missing school: Why it’s happening — and how to stop it
International11 hours ago
Graham Criticizes Defense Spending In Debt Ceiling Deal: “Biggest Winner Of Biden Defense Budget Is China”