Connect with us

Healthcare And Biotechs Feel The Heat As The Market At New Highs

Healthcare And Biotechs Feel The Heat As The Market At New Highs

Published

on

  • Market indexes have arrived at their best point since the 52-week highs set in October last year.
  • Enough support for the market, including nervous money on the sidelines, to climb higher and record new highs.
  • Biotech indexes and the healthcare sector are making progress but have been feeling political heat which has created intense volatility.
  • Promising science and industry changes are driving biotech M&A and partnerships, even though systemic political concerns exist.
  • Biotechs remain a promising part of the healthcare sector which has an uphill climb this year.

 

PrudentBiotech.com ~ Healthcare stocks, Biotech Stocks

The stock market has continued to edge higher and the two major indexes, the Nasdaq (QQQ) and S&P 500 (SPY), touched the all-time high milestone last week.

The steady gain reflects a diminishing concern relating to the pace of a global economic slowdown, as major central banks and governments have moved to bolster growth. The Federal Reserve has been relatively aggressive in adjusting its policy this year after recognizing the potential risks to economic growth. At the same time, the Chinese economy is beginning to reveal signs of bottoming out as the government begins to boost infrastructural and stimulus spending. The ECB has been equally sensitive about signs of an economic slowdown and has indicated a patient approach. This almost concerted effort in key economic blocs is assuaging concerns that the global economy is sliding into an inevitable slowdown and recession.

The US yield curve inversion of the 3 month/10 year spread had spooked the financial markets last month. The inversion is mostly good for stocks over the next many months, as it raises the possibility of a Fed easing. However, as was noted in the article, Zero Spread Is Not Stomping Out A Bull Market, the more robust 2-year / 10-year spread did not turn zero, which would have confirmed a yield inversion and a recession in the future.

PrudentBiotech.com ~ 2 year and 10 year spread

2 Year and 10 Year Spread ~ Did Not Touch Zero Yet or Turn Negative ~ Source: FRED

The first quarter GDP growth of 3.2%, although boosted by some transitory factors, has undercut an argument for a 2019 or even an early 2020 recession. As of today, a recession is a low probability outcome. In our opinion, a more likely scenario will be a step-down in growth in the first 9-months, followed by an improvement, based on resolving trade disputes and global stimulative measures.

Earnings Showdown

The ongoing earnings season will determine the market's near-term direction. The expectation at the beginning of the month was for the first quarter earnings of the S&P 500 companies to decline by 4.3%, year-over-year, which would be the first decline since the second quarter of 2016.

Thus far, after replacing estimated earnings with actual earnings for the ~45% of S&P 500 companies that have reported, the earnings decline is 2.3%, as per Factset.

The ensuing week will provide a more concrete picture of the earnings decline as a majority of the reporting S&P 500 companies would have released their earnings by end of the week.

In all likelihood, the first quarter earnings will not be worst than the expectations of -4%. There is also the possibility that the S&P 500 earnings decline is much less than the expected -4%. In such a case, it would strengthen the bullish scenario and provide the market with a good chance to hold its ground and move consistently to new highs.

One can say that part of the expectation of a stronger earnings performance is already being factored in. It is our belief the market will in all likelihood look beyond first-quarter earnings, and into the second half of the year, with the expectation of an economic and earnings rebound.

A sector which has performed well in the earnings releases thus far has been the financial (XLF) sector. The strength in financials this month indicates an expectation of a healthy economy and not one that is at risk of an imminent recession.

The recent surge in Transport (IYT) sector is another indicator of underlying strength in the economy.

Technology earnings are very important for the health of the Nasdaq index and will determine if the Nasdaq has sufficient earnings-driven fuel to push further to consistent new highs and hold the gains or otherwise retreat and consolidate. A promising indicator for technology sector performance has often been the strength of the semiconductor group (SOXX), which has continued to make new all-time highs this month.

It should be noted that the vicious decline in the market during October to December period last year, and the anticipation of an impending slowdown and recession pushed professional investors away from risky assets. The allocations have not returned to what may be expected in a growth environment. As of mid-April, equity funds outflow for the year has been $8 billion as per Lipper. A Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey of fund managers noted a higher allocation towards defensive assets as of March 2019.

Source: Bank of America; Fat-pitch.blogspot.com

This suggests that there is money on the sideline that will flow into the stock market as confidence in the economy rebuilds.

Healthcare Faces A Very Uneasy Political Landscape

One of the sector that has declined sharply this month is the healthcare sector. It is not unexpected for the healthcare sector to be under pressure during the election season due to it being a hot button issue. What has been unexpected is how early the sector has been buffeted by the election season winds of regulatory uncertainty.

Healthcare is in the political crosshair with new policy proposals, aimed at expanding healthcare coverage and reducing costs, continuing to be offered and gaining traction as primary season heats up. The healthcare issue is the topmost concern in the minds of most Americans, as per research by Kaiser Family Foundation, and will continue to be discussed even more heavily into the elections.

An earlier article, 2019 Biotech Outlook On An Uphill Battle, discussed the inevitable forces affecting the healthcare sector that are coalescing to profoundly change the dynamics of healthcare and the investing landscape.

During 2019 and 2020, healthcare will be a difficult sector to invest in as it encounters sharp volatility. However, the sector will offer selective opportunities for promising gains.

Biotechs, The Bright Spot In Healthcare

Biotechs will remain volatile from an investing standpoint, as they continue to be affected by the headwinds being encountered by the pharmaceutical industry. But biotechs have underlying support from increased demand for innovative products and the appeal of M&A.

In an earlier article, Biotech M&A Theme Builds Momentum, we had outlined the reasons why biotechs can find support in a volatile environment. The M&A related consolidation activity will remain strong for multiple reasons, including the pursuit of new science, boosting drug pipelines, declining in-house R&D returns and setbacks on major drug programs at large pharmaceutical companies, and greater eagerness within the industry to pursue transactions as evidenced by the pace of activity this year.

While the field of biotechnology is rich with potential as science and funding have merged to pursue high-risk and high-reward opportunities, there have been some high profile failures recently as well at big pharmaceuticals companies, which will further stoke their interest in M&A.

A few late-stage setbacks have included Gilead (GILD), within its NASH therapy portfolio, Bristol-Myers' (BMY) Opdivo combo oncology studies, and most recently the failure experienced by Biogen (BIIB) last month when it terminated its Phase III trials of its pivotal Alzheimer's drug Aducanumab after receiving verdict about its futility.

Alzheimer disease is one of the areas which has proven to be extremely difficult in making progress and the landscape is littered with discontinued therapies. The near total failure in creating meaningful therapeutic progress in this field is evidenced by the fact that over the last 10 years, 85 therapy indications have been discontinued, and only 1 approved, because of a failure to achieve the desired response.

PrudentBiotech.com ~ Alzheimer Therapies and their Failure Rate, IQVIA

Source: IQVIA

The Biogen setback was most likely a decisive blow to the beta amyloid hypothesis, which aims to prevent the buildup of beta amyloid plaque in the brain and thus prevent the onset of Alzheimer. A whole class of such BACE inhibitor drugs from Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Merck (MRK) and Roche, Eli Lilly (LLY) and AstraZeneca (AZN), and Pfizer (PFE) have been discontinued over time, as Alzheimer has proven to be even more of a complex mystery.

Biogen made it clear last week that it expects to rebound from this major setback through late-stage M&A. Such setbacks at larger biopharma companies will only raise the attractiveness of acquisitions as a medium to replenish the product pipeline.

Emerging Biotechs Dominate The Fountain Of New Therapies

A compelling reason why a product pipeline refresh cannot avoid the acquisition of smallcap and midcap biotechs is that 72% or nearly three-quarters of the late stage R&D pipeline is accounted for by emerging biopharma, up from 61% a decade ago. The share of late-stage assets for big pharma has plunged over the period to 20% from 31%, as per healthcare analytics firm IQVIA.

PrudentBiotech.com ~ New Drug Pipeline

Source: IQVIA

Many large pharmaceutical companies are more open to purchases and partnerships in 2019 than in prior years, as a result of a greater emphasis on building pipelines around emerging therapies as well as in-house declining R&D returns and setbacks. This year activity provides such evidence with the blockbuster purchase of Celgene (CELG) by Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche (OTCQX :RHHBY) acquiring Spark Therapeutics (ONCE), Merck acquiring cancer drug developer Immune Design (IMDZ), French drugmaker Ipsen purchasing Clementia Pharmaceuticals (CMTA), Biogen (BIIB) acquiring British firm Nightstar Therapeutics (NITE), and Pacira Pharmaceuticals (PCRX) acquiring,  privately-held MyoScience.

Conclusion

Stocks have steadily trended higher this year and now sit near all-time highs. A risk near-term would be a natural consolidation of gains as the market achieves the milestone of a new all-time high. But this will be a transitory period of higher volatility on the way to further new highs, as the broader stock market appears firmly entrenched in an uptrend. An important risk down the road would be the monetary policy expectation. Presently, the financial markets, particularly the bond market, has factored in a quarter-point rate cut during 2019. If the expectation for growth to rekindle in the second-half begins to strengthen, the possibility of a rate cut will diminish. This will be disruptive to the bond market, but to a relatively lesser extent to the stock market since the rising earnings growth expectation would offset the disappointment of a deferred rate cut.

While the broader market appears well-positioned for further gains during the year and a prudent investment strategy remains to stay the course, for the healthcare sector we believe a more selective approach will serve investors well. Biotechs continue to have appeal, although instances of sharp volatility will rise further as healthcare policy becomes a key debating point for the primary and presidential elections. Some of the key areas of interest for investors which have also shown M&A related activity are oncology, new therapeutic approaches like gene therapy, and rare and orphan diseases.

A few promising biotech companies, some of which may be now or in the past be part of the Prudent Biotech model portfolio or the Graycell Small Cap portfolio, include Acadia Pharmaceuticals (ACAD), Alexion Therapeutics (ALXN), GW Pharmaceuticals (GWPH), Biohaven Pharmaceutical (BHVN), Sage Therapeutics (SAGE), Amarin (AMRN), Denali Therapeutics (DNLI), Array BioPharma (ARRY), Ascendis Pharma (ASND), Blueprint Medicines (BPMC), China Biologics (CBPO), Uniqure (QURE), Biohaven Pharmaceutical (BHVN), Moderna (MRNA),  PTC Therapeutics (PTCT), Mirati Therapeutics (MRTX), Ra Pharmaceuticals (RARX), Bluebird Bio (BLUE), Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical (RARE), Allogene Therapeutics (ALLO), Portola Pharmaceuticals (PTLA), Crispr Therapeutics (CRSP), Global Blood Therapeutics (GBT), Catalyst Pharmaceuticals (CPRX), Dermira (DERM), Axsome Therapeutics (AXSM), TG Therapeutics (TGTX), Medicine Company (MDCO), Ziopharm Oncology (ZIOP), and Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (ARWR). Sector exposure can also be acquired through diversified biotech ETFs like Nasdaq Biotech (IBB) and S&P Biotechnology Select (XBI) or targeted ones.

As always, take a portfolio approach in biotechs to overcome inevitable mistakes.

The article was first published on Seeking Alpha.

The post Healthcare And Biotechs Feel The Heat As The Market At New Highs appeared first on Prudent Biotech.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Mistakes Were Made

Mistakes Were Made

Authored by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

Make fun of the Germans all you want, and I’ve certainly done that…

Published

on

Mistakes Were Made

Authored by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

Make fun of the Germans all you want, and I’ve certainly done that a bit during these past few years, but, if there’s one thing they’re exceptionally good at, it’s taking responsibility for their mistakes. Seriously, when it comes to acknowledging one’s mistakes, and not rationalizing, or minimizing, or attempting to deny them, and any discomfort they may have allegedly caused, no one does it quite like the Germans.

Take this Covid mess, for example. Just last week, the German authorities confessed that they made a few minor mistakes during their management of the “Covid pandemic.” According to Karl Lauterbach, the Minister of Health, “we were sometimes too strict with the children and probably started easing the restrictions a little too late.” Horst Seehofer, the former Interior Minister, admitted that he would no longer agree to some of the Covid restrictions today, for example, nationwide nighttime curfews. “One must be very careful with calls for compulsory vaccination,” he added. Helge Braun, Head of the Chancellery and Minister for Special Affairs under Merkel, agreed that there had been “misjudgments,” for example, “overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines.”

This display of the German authorities’ unwavering commitment to transparency and honesty, and the principle of personal honor that guides the German authorities in all their affairs, and that is deeply ingrained in the German character, was published in a piece called “The Divisive Virus” in Der Spiegel, and immediately widely disseminated by the rest of the German state and corporate media in a totally organic manner which did not in any way resemble one enormous Goebbelsian keyboard instrument pumping out official propaganda in perfect synchronization, or anything creepy and fascistic like that.

Germany, after all, is “an extremely democratic state,” with freedom of speech and the press and all that, not some kind of totalitarian country where the masses are inundated with official propaganda and critics of the government are dragged into criminal court and prosecuted on trumped-up “hate crime” charges.

OK, sure, in a non-democratic totalitarian system, such public “admissions of mistakes” — and the synchronized dissemination thereof by the media — would just be a part of the process of whitewashing the authorities’ fascistic behavior during some particularly totalitarian phase of transforming society into whatever totalitarian dystopia they were trying to transform it into (for example, a three-year-long “state of emergency,” which they declared to keep the masses terrorized and cooperative while they stripped them of their democratic rights, i.e., the ones they hadn’t already stripped them of, and conditioned them to mindlessly follow orders, and robotically repeat nonsensical official slogans, and vent their impotent hatred and fear at the new “Untermenschen” or “counter-revolutionaries”), but that is obviously not the case here.

No, this is definitely not the German authorities staging a public “accountability” spectacle in order to memory-hole what happened during 2020-2023 and enshrine the official narrative in history. There’s going to be a formal “Inquiry Commission” — conducted by the same German authorities that managed the “crisis” — which will get to the bottom of all the regrettable but completely understandable “mistakes” that were made in the heat of the heroic battle against The Divisive Virus!

OK, calm down, all you “conspiracy theorists,” “Covid deniers,” and “anti-vaxxers.” This isn’t going to be like the Nuremberg Trials. No one is going to get taken out and hanged. It’s about identifying and acknowledging mistakes, and learning from them, so that the authorities can manage everything better during the next “pandemic,” or “climate emergency,” or “terrorist attack,” or “insurrection,” or whatever.

For example, the Inquiry Commission will want to look into how the government accidentally declared a Nationwide State of Pandemic Emergency and revised the Infection Protection Act, suspending the German constitution and granting the government the power to rule by decree, on account of a respiratory virus that clearly posed no threat to society at large, and then unleashed police goon squads on the thousands of people who gathered outside the Reichstag to protest the revocation of their constitutional rights.

Once they do, I’m sure they’ll find that that “mistake” bears absolutely no resemblance to the Enabling Act of 1933, which suspended the German constitution and granted the government the power to rule by decree, after the Nazis declared a nationwide “state of emergency.”

Another thing the Commission will probably want to look into is how the German authorities accidentally banned any further demonstrations against their arbitrary decrees, and ordered the police to brutalize anyone participating in such “illegal demonstrations.”

And, while the Commission is inquiring into the possibly slightly inappropriate behavior of their law enforcement officials, they might want to also take a look at the behavior of their unofficial goon squads, like Antifa, which they accidentally encouraged to attack the “anti-vaxxers,” the “Covid deniers,” and anyone brandishing a copy of the German constitution.

Come to think of it, the Inquiry Commission might also want to look into how the German authorities, and the overwhelming majority of the state and corporate media, accidentally systematically fomented mass hatred of anyone who dared to question the government’s arbitrary and nonsensical decrees or who refused to submit to “vaccination,” and publicly demonized us as “Corona deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “far-right anti-Semites,” etc., to the point where mainstream German celebrities like Sarah Bosetti were literally describing us as the inessential “appendix” in the body of the nation, quoting an infamous Nazi almost verbatim.

And then there’s the whole “vaccination” business. The Commission will certainly want to inquire into that. They will probably want to start their inquiry with Karl Lauterbach, and determine exactly how he accidentally lied to the public, over and over, and over again …

And whipped people up into a mass hysteria over “KILLER VARIANTS” …

And “LONG COVID BRAIN ATTACKS” …

And how “THE UNVACCINATED ARE HOLDING THE WHOLE COUNTRY HOSTAGE, SO WE NEED TO FORCIBLY VACCINATE EVERYONE!”

And so on. I could go on with this all day, but it will be much easier to just refer you, and the Commission, to this documentary film by Aya Velázquez. Non-German readers may want to skip to the second half, unless they’re interested in the German “Corona Expert Council” …

Look, the point is, everybody makes “mistakes,” especially during a “state of emergency,” or a war, or some other type of global “crisis.” At least we can always count on the Germans to step up and take responsibility for theirs, and not claim that they didn’t know what was happening, or that they were “just following orders,” or that “the science changed.”

Plus, all this Covid stuff is ancient history, and, as Olaf, an editor at Der Spiegel, reminds us, it’s time to put the “The Divisive Pandemic” behind us …

… and click heels, and heil the New Normal Democracy!

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A…

Published

on

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Harvard Medical School professor who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine has been terminated, according to documents reviewed by The Epoch Times.

Martin Kulldorff, epidemiologist and statistician, at his home in Ashford, Conn., on Feb. 11, 2022. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, was fired by Mass General Brigham in November 2021 over noncompliance with the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate after his requests for exemptions from the mandate were denied, according to one document. Mr. Kulldorff was also placed on leave by Harvard Medical School (HMS) because his appointment as professor of medicine there “depends upon” holding a position at the hospital, another document stated.

Mr. Kulldorff asked HMS in late 2023 how he could return to his position and was told he was being fired.

You would need to hold an eligible appointment with a Harvard-affiliated institution for your HMS academic appointment to continue,” Dr. Grace Huang, dean for faculty affairs, told the epidemiologist and biostatistician.

She said the lack of an appointment, combined with college rules that cap leaves of absence at two years, meant he was being terminated.

Mr. Kulldorff disclosed the firing for the first time this month.

“While I can’t comment on the specifics due to employment confidentiality protections that preclude us from doing so, I can confirm that his employment agreement was terminated November 10, 2021,” a spokesperson for Brigham and Women’s Hospital told The Epoch Times via email.

Mass General Brigham granted just 234 exemption requests out of 2,402 received, according to court filings in an ongoing case that alleges discrimination.

The hospital said previously, “We received a number of exemption requests, and each request was carefully considered by a knowledgeable team of reviewers.

A lot of other people received exemptions, but I did not,” Mr. Kulldorff told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Kulldorff was originally hired by HMS but switched departments in 2015 to work at the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is part of Mass General Brigham and affiliated with HMS.

Harvard Medical School has affiliation agreements with several Boston hospitals which it neither owns nor operationally controls,” an HMS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “Hospital-based faculty, such as Mr. Kulldorff, are employed by one of the affiliates, not by HMS, and require an active hospital appointment to maintain an academic appointment at Harvard Medical School.”

HMS confirmed that some faculty, who are tenured or on the tenure track, do not require hospital appointments.

Natural Immunity

Before the COVID-19 vaccines became available, Mr. Kulldorff contracted COVID-19. He was hospitalized but eventually recovered.

That gave him a form of protection known as natural immunity. According to a number of studies, including papers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, natural immunity is better than the protection bestowed by vaccines.

Other studies have found that people with natural immunity face a higher risk of problems after vaccination.

Mr. Kulldorff expressed his concerns about receiving a vaccine in his request for a medical exemption, pointing out a lack of data for vaccinating people who suffer from the same issue he does.

I already had superior infection-acquired immunity; and it was risky to vaccinate me without proper efficacy and safety studies on patients with my type of immune deficiency,” Mr. Kulldorff wrote in an essay.

In his request for a religious exemption, he highlighted an Israel study that was among the first to compare protection after infection to protection after vaccination. Researchers found that the vaccinated had less protection than the naturally immune.

“Having had COVID disease, I have stronger longer lasting immunity than those vaccinated (Gazit et al). Lacking scientific rationale, vaccine mandates are religious dogma, and I request a religious exemption from COVID vaccination,” he wrote.

Both requests were denied.

Mr. Kulldorff is still unvaccinated.

“I had COVID. I had it badly. So I have infection-acquired immunity. So I don’t need the vaccine,” he told The Epoch Times.

Dissenting Voice

Mr. Kulldorff has been a prominent dissenting voice during the COVID-19 pandemic, countering messaging from the government and many doctors that the COVID-19 vaccines were needed, regardless of prior infection.

He spoke out in an op-ed in April 2021, for instance, against requiring people to provide proof of vaccination to attend shows, go to school, and visit restaurants.

The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune,” he wrote at the time.

Mr. Kulldorff later co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for focused protection of people at high risk while removing restrictions for younger, healthy people.

Harsh restrictions such as school closures “will cause irreparable damage” if not lifted, the declaration stated.

The declaration drew criticism from Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who became the head of the CDC, among others.

In a competing document, Dr. Walensky and others said that “relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed” and that “uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity(3) and mortality across the whole population.”

“Those who are pushing these vaccine mandates and vaccine passports—vaccine fanatics, I would call them—to me they have done much more damage during this one year than the anti-vaxxers have done in two decades,” Mr. Kulldorff later said in an EpochTV interview. “I would even say that these vaccine fanatics, they are the biggest anti-vaxxers that we have right now. They’re doing so much more damage to vaccine confidence than anybody else.

Surveys indicate that people have less trust now in the CDC and other health institutions than before the pandemic, and data from the CDC and elsewhere show that fewer people are receiving the new COVID-19 vaccines and other shots.

Support

The disclosure that Mr. Kulldorff was fired drew criticism of Harvard and support for Mr. Kulldorff.

The termination “is a massive and incomprehensible injustice,” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, an ethics expert who was fired from the University of California–Irvine School of Medicine for not getting a COVID-19 vaccine because he had natural immunity, said on X.

The academy is full of people who declined vaccines—mostly with dubious exemptions—and yet Harvard fires the one professor who happens to speak out against government policies.” Dr. Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist at the University of California–San Francisco, wrote in a blog post. “It looks like Harvard has weaponized its policies and selectively enforces them.”

A petition to reinstate Mr. Kulldorff has garnered more than 1,800 signatures.

Some other doctors said the decision to let Mr. Kulldorff go was correct.

“Actions have consequence,” Dr. Alastair McAlpine, a Canadian doctor, wrote on X. He said Mr. Kulldorff had “publicly undermine[d] public health.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 21:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Correcting the Washington Post’s 11 Charts That Are Supposed to Tell Us How the Economy Changed Since Covid

The Washington Post made some serious errors or omissions in its 11 charts that are supposed to tell us how Covid changed the economy. Wages Starting with…

Published

on

The Washington Post made some serious errors or omissions in its 11 charts that are supposed to tell us how Covid changed the economy.

Wages

Starting with its second chart, the article gives us an index of average weekly wages since 2019. The index shows a big jump in 2020, which then falls off in 2021 and 2022, before rising again in 2023.

It tells readers:

“Many Americans got large pay increases after the pandemic, when employers were having to one-up each other to find and keep workers. For a while, those wage gains were wiped out by decade-high inflation: Workers were getting larger paychecks, but it wasn’t enough to keep up with rising prices.”

That actually is not what its chart shows. The big rise in average weekly wages at the start of the pandemic was not the result of workers getting pay increases, it was the result of low-paid workers in sectors like hotels and restaurants losing their jobs.

The number of people employed in the low-paying leisure and hospitality sector fell by more than 8 million at the start of the pandemic. Even at the start of 2021 it was still down by over 4 million.

Laying off low-paid workers raises average wages in the same way that getting the short people to leave raises the average height of the people in the room. The Washington Post might try to tell us that the remaining people grew taller, but that is not what happened.

The other problem with this chart is that it is giving us weekly wages. The length of the average workweek jumped at the start of the pandemic as employers decided to work the workers they had longer hours rather than hire more workers. In January of 2021 the average workweek was 34.9 hours, compared to 34.4 hours in 2019 and 34.3 hours in February.

This increase in hours, by itself, would raise weekly pay by 2.0 percent. As hours returned to normal in 2022, this measure would misleadingly imply that wages were falling.

It is also worth noting that the fastest wage gains since the pandemic have been at the bottom end of the wage distribution and the Black/white wage gap has fallen to its lowest level on record.

Saving Rates

The third chart shows the saving rate since 2019. It shows a big spike at the start of the pandemic, as people stopped spending on things like restaurants and travel and they got pandemic checks from the government. It then falls sharply in 2022 and is lower in the most recent quarters than in 2019.

The piece tells readers:

“But as the world reopened — and people resumed spending on dining out, travel, concerts and other things that were previously off-limits — savings rates have leveled off. Americans are also increasingly dip into rainy-day funds to pay more for necessities, including groceries, housing, education and health care. In fact, Americans are now generally saving less of their incomes than they were before the pandemic.

This is an incomplete picture due to a somewhat technical issue. As I explained in a blogpost a few months ago, there is an unusually large gap between GDP as measured on the output side and GDP measured on the income side. In principle, these two numbers should be the same, but they never come out exactly equal.

In recent quarters, the gap has been 2.5 percent of GDP. This is extraordinarily large, but it also is unusual in that the output side is higher than the income side, the opposite of the standard pattern over the last quarter century.

It is standard for economists to assume that the true number for GDP is somewhere between the two measures. If we make that assumption about the data for 2023, it would imply that income is somewhat higher than the data now show and consumption somewhat lower.

In that story, as I showed in the blogpost, the saving rate for 2023 would be 6.8 percent of disposable income, roughly the same as the average for the three years before the pandemic. This would mean that people are not dipping into their rainy-day funds as the Post tells us. They are spending pretty much as they did before the pandemic.

 

Credit Card Debt

The next graph shows that credit card debt is rising again, after sinking in the pandemic. The piece tells readers:

“But now, debt loads are swinging higher again as families try to keep up with rising prices. Total household debt reached a record $17.5 trillion at the end of 2023, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And, in a worrisome sign for the economy, delinquency rates on mortgages, car loans and credit cards are all rising, too.”

There are several points worth noting here. Credit card debt is rising, but measured relative to income it is still below where it was before the pandemic. It was 6.7 percent of disposable income at the end of 2019, compared to 6.5 percent at the end of last year.

The second point is that a major reason for the recent surge in credit card debt is that people are no longer refinancing mortgages. There was a massive surge in mortgage refinancing with the low interest rates in 2020-2021.

Many of the people who refinanced took additional money out, taking advantage of the increased equity in their home. This channel of credit was cut off when mortgage rates jumped in 2022 and virtually ended mortgage refinancing. This means that to a large extent the surge in credit card borrowing is simply a shift from mortgage debt to credit card debt.

The point about total household debt hitting a record can be said in most months. Except in the period immediately following the collapse of the housing bubble, total debt is almost always rising.

And the rise in delinquencies simply reflects the fact that they had been at very low levels in 2021 and 2022. For the most part, delinquency rates are just getting back to their pre-pandemic levels, which were historically low.  

 

Grocery Prices and Gas Prices

The next two charts show the patterns in grocery prices and gas prices since the pandemic. It would have been worth mentioning that every major economy in the world saw similar run-ups in prices in these two areas. In other words, there was nothing specific to U.S. policy that led to a surge in inflation here.

 

The Missing Charts

There are several areas where it would have been interesting to see charts which the Post did not include. It would have been useful to have a chart on job quitters, the number of people who voluntarily quit their jobs during the pandemic. In the tight labor markets of 2021 and 2022 the number of workers who left jobs they didn’t like soared to record levels, as shown below.

 

The vast majority of these workers took other jobs that they liked better. This likely explains another item that could appear as a graph, the record level of job satisfaction.

In a similar vein there has been an explosion in the number of people who work from home at least part-time. This has increased by more than 17 million during the pandemic. These workers are saving themselves thousands of dollars a year on commuting costs and related expenses, as well as hundreds of hours spent commuting.

Finally, there has been an explosion in the use of telemedicine since the pandemic. At the peak, nearly one in four visits with a health care professional was a remote consultation. This saved many people with serious health issues the time and inconvenience associated with a trip to a hospital or doctor’s office. The increased use of telemedicine is likely to be a lasting gain from the pandemic.

 

The World Has Changed

The pandemic will likely have a lasting impact on the economy and society. The Washington Post’s charts captured part of this story, but in some cases misrepr

The post Correcting the Washington Post’s 11 Charts That Are Supposed to Tell Us How the Economy Changed Since Covid appeared first on Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending