Connect with us

Economics

#MacroView: The Fed Has Inflated Another Asset Bubble

#MacroView: The Fed Has Inflated Another Asset Bubble

Published

on

It didn’t take long. Over the last several years, we have discussed the risk of excessive monetary policy inflating a bubble in a variety of assets from debt, to real estate, to stocks. In March, it appeared as if the bubble had finally popped. However, the Fed’s quick response and massive monetary interventions ceased the asset bubble’s deflation and reinflated it.

Another Bubble

The idea of another bubble was put forth recently by Jeremy Grantham of GMO fame:

“At GMO, we dealt with three major events before this crisis, and rightly or wrongly, we felt ‘nearly certain’ that we would be right sooner or later. We exited Japan 100% in 1987 at 45x and watched it go to 65x (for a second, more significant than the U.S.) before a downward readjustment of 30 years and counting. In early 1998 we fought the Tech bubble from 21x (equal to the previous record high in 1929) to 35x before a 50% decline. Through 2007 we led our clients relatively painlessly through the housing bust. 

In all three, we felt we were nearly sure to be right. Japan, the Tech bubbles, and 1929, which sadly I missed, were not new types of events. They were merely extreme cases akin to South Sea Bubble investor euphoria and madness. The 2008 event was also easier if you focused on the U.S. housing euphoria, a 3-sigma, 100-year event, or, simply, unique. We calculated that a return trip to the old price trend and a typical overrun in those extreme house prices would remove $10 trillion of perceived wealth from U.S. consumers and guarantee the worst recession for decades. All these events echoed historical precedents. And from these precedents, we drew confidence.

But this event is unlike all those. It is new, and there can be no near certainties, merely strong possibilities. Such is why Ben Inker, our Head of Asset Allocation, is nervous. and this is why you are worried or should be.”

Don’t Blame The Pandemic

While much of the media points to the pandemic as the “cause” of the economic problems,  it isn’t.

COVID-19 was merely the “pin the pricked the bubble.” If the pre-pandemic economy were as strong as previously reported, it would have weathered the blow better. However, the 5-year average growth of wages, productivity, and real economic growth tells the story.

Consequently, the surge in the stock market over the last decade gave an “illusion” of prosperity, that “prosperity” was relegated to a relatively small portion of the broader economy. As noted recentlythe Fed’s policies are responsible for the “wealth gap.” 

“This isn’t surprising. A recent research report by BCA confirms one of the causes of the rising wealth gap in the U.S. The top-10% of income earners own 88% of the stock market, while the bottom-90% owns just 12%.”

George Floyd, Riots Across America Are About More Than George Floyd

Reliance On Debt To Solve A Debt Problem

The reliance on debt, or what the Austrians refer to as a “credit induced boom,” has reached its inevitable conclusion. The unsustainable credit-sourced boom, which led to artificially stimulated borrowing, created diminished investment opportunities. Those diminished investment opportunities lead to widespread malinvestments, which we saw play out “real-time” in subprime mortgages in 2008 and excessive “share buybacks” over the last few years.

Now companies are struggling to take on more debt just to survive the economic downturn. Even as balance sheets are levering up, stock buybacks, a main support of the stock market over the last decade, are dropping sharply.

The Problem Of Debt

Unfortunately, given the Fed stopped the “debt reversion process” with the latest rounds of monetary interventions, nearly $4.00 of debt are required to create $1 of economic growth. This all but guarantees that future economic growth will be further retarded.

Such is a point made previously:

“Before the “Financial Crisis,” the economy had a linear growth trend of real GDP of 3.2%. Following the 2008 recession, the growth rate dropped to the exponential growth trend of roughly 2.2%. Instead of reducing the debt problems, unproductive debt, and leverage increased.”

“The ‘COVID-19’ crisis led to a debt surge to new highs. Such will result in a retardation of economic growth to 1.5% or less. While the stock market may rise due to the Fed, only the 10% of the population owning 88% of the market will benefit. Going forward, the economic bifurcation will deepen to the point where 5% of the population owns virtually all of it.

That is not economic prosperity. It is a distortion of economics.

Bubbles, Bubbles, Bubbles

Jerome Powell clearly understands this risk. After a decade of monetary infusions and low interest rates, the Fed has created the largest asset bubble in history. However, trapped by their own policies, any reversal leads to almost immediate catastrophe as seen in 2018, and again in 2020.

As previously stated:

“In the U.S., the Federal Reserve has been the catalyst behind every preceding financial event since they became ‘active,’ monetarily policy-wise, in the late 70’s.”

, Fed Trying To Inflate A 4th Bubble To Fix The Third

Not surprisingly, after the market correction in March, the immediate response stopped the correction from becoming a full-fledged bear market. However, this only forestalled the inevitable as we have seen a sharp rise in “speculative fervor” ever since. Investors, and the financial media, continue to assume there is investment risk due to the Fed. To quote Dr. Irving Fisher:

“Stocks have reached a permanently high plateau.”

Instability

It is imperative for the Fed that market participants, and consumers, “believe” in their actions. With the entirety of the financial ecosystem more heavily levered than ever, the “instability of stability” remains the most significant risk.

“The ‘stability/instability paradox’ assumes that all players are rational, and such rationality implies avoidance of complete destruction. In other words, all players will act rationally, and no one will push ‘the big red button.’”

The Fed had hoped they would have time, after a decade of the most unprecedented monetary policy program in U.S. history, to navigate the risks built up in the system. Unfortunately, they ran out of time, and the markets stopped “acting rationally.”

By not letting the system correct, letting weak fail, and allowing valuations to revert, the Fed has trapped itself into an even bigger bubble. One way to view this problem is by looking at the Nasdaq 100 versus the S&P 500 index. That ratio is now at the highest level ever.

Furthermore, that rise was not a function of a broad number of companies participating due to stronger economic growth and profits, but rather just 5-companies driving the surge.

If you don’t think this is important, I suggest you re-read Bob Farrell’s Rule #7:

Markets are strongest when they are broad and weakest when they narrow to a handful of blue-chip names.”

Bubbles Aren’t About Price

“Market bubbles have NOTHING to do with valuations or fundamentals.”

As we discussed last week, the market is now trading nearly 90% above multiple long-term valuation measures.

“One thing I had hoped for in 2018-2019 is a correction large enough to revert some of the excessive valuation levels which existed. Such would provide higher future returns over the next decade. Such would allow investors to reach their investment goals.

Instead, the Fed’s actions halted the correction. Subsequently, the ‘clearing process’ was not allowed to occur. The outcome has been increased levels of corporate leverage, and valuations remain grossly elevated on many different levels.”

fully invested bears, Technically Speaking: Unicorns, Rainbows, & Fully Invested Bears

Since stock market “bubbles” are a reflection of speculation, greed, emotional biases, valuations are only a reflection of those emotions.

It’s Elementary

Bubbles can exist even at times when valuations and fundamentals might argue otherwise. Let’s look at an elementary example. The chart below is the long-term valuation of the S&P 500 going back to 1871.

, Market Bubbles: It’s Not The Price, It’s The Mentality.

Notice that except for 1929, 2000, and 2007, every other major market crash occurred with valuations at levels LOWER than they are currently. 

Secondly, market crashes have been the result of things unrelated to valuation levels. Such as liquidity issues, government actions, monetary policy mistakes, recessions, and inflationary spike, or even a “pandemic.” Those events were the catalyst, or trigger, which started the “reversion in sentiment” by investors.

Market crashes are an “emotionally” driven imbalance in supply and demand. Such has nothing to do with fundamentals. It is strictly an emotional panic, which is ultimately reflected by a sharp devaluation in market fundamentals.

That is what started in March.

The Fed’s actions have only temporarily halted its inevitable completion.

The 4th-Bubble

Our previous prediction:

“The current belief is the Fed will implement QE at the first hint of a more protracted downturn in the market. However, as suggested by the Fed, QE will likely only be employed when rate reductions aren’t enough.”

Credit markets’ implosion made rate reductions completely ineffective and has pushed the Fed into the most extreme monetary policy bailout in the history of the world.

So far, the Fed was able to inflate another asset bubble to restore consumer confidence and stabilize the credit market’s functioning. The problem is that since the Fed never unwound their previous policies, current policies are likely to have a more muted long-term effect.

However, with 50+ million unemployed, wage growth declining, bankruptcies on the rise, and banks tightening lending standards, the Fed’s attempt to inflate another bubble to offset the damage from the deflation of the last bubble, will work.

It has taken a massive amount of interventions by Central Banks to keep economies afloat globally over the last decade. There is little evidence that growth will recover following this crisis to the degree many anticipate.

Problems QE Can’t Fix

There are numerous problems which the Fed’s current policies can not fix:

  • A decline in savings rates
  • Aging demographics
  • Heavily indebted economy
  • Decline in exports
  • Slowing domestic economic growth rates.
  • Underemployed younger demographic.
  • Inelastic supply-demand curve
  • Weak industrial production
  • Dependence on productivity increases

The lynchpin in the U.S., remains demographics, and interest rates. As the aging population grows, they are becoming a net drag on “savings,” the dependency on the “social welfare net” will explode as employment and economic stability plummets, and the “pension problem” has yet to be realized.

While the current surge in QE has been successful in inflating another bubble, there is a limit to the ability to continue pulling forward future consumption to stimulate economic activity. There are only so many autos, houses, etc., that consumers can purchase within a given cycle. 

Unfortunately, extremely high levels of unemployment, lack of incomes, and a slow economic recovery will likely undermine those hopes.

One thing is for certain. The Federal Reserve will never be able to raise rates or reduce monetary policy ever again.

The only question is, what will the Fed do if “all the king’s men can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again?”

The post #MacroView: The Fed Has Inflated Another Asset Bubble appeared first on RIA.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

US: The New Real Hoaxes?

US: The New Real Hoaxes?

Authored by Pete Hoekstra via The Gatestone Institute,

The investigative reporting by these two organizations…

Published

on

US: The New Real Hoaxes?

Authored by Pete Hoekstra via The Gatestone Institute,

  • The investigative reporting by these two organizations [the New York Times and the Washington Post] was so thorough and groundbreaking it turned up things that were not even there.

  • For having refused to rescind these awards, the Pulitzer Committee should receive its own Pulitzer -- for fraud.

  • The real hoax appears to have been the CCP's ostensible good behavior and the now-hugely-discredited initial reporting on the virus.

  • Or how about the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up? Once again, On October 14, 2020, just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, a critical story of possible extensive influence-peddling with senior intelligence officers in the CCP, Russia and Ukraine by the son of a presidential candidate. The contents of the laptop raised questions that the candidate at the time, Vice President Joe Biden, could be compromised. The entire subject was decisively pushed aside, along with the potential threat to national security that such an eventuality might entail.

  • Also not allowed during the January 6th hearings have been any witnesses for the defense, any cross-examination, or any exculpatory evidence.

  • One wonders, for instance if the January 6th Committee will consider the July 29, 2022 tweet by General Keith Kellogg, that on January 3, 2021, Trump, in front of witnesses, did indeed ask for "troops needed" for January 6. Kellogg wrote: "I was in the room."

  • The January 6th Committee has also not released any information about government informants or FBI undercover law enforcement officers who might have been in the crowd, and Pelosi is also said to be blocking access to a massive quantity of documents. Finally, according to attorney Mark Levin, under the Constitution's separation of powers, Congress, has no legitimacy even to hold a criminal investigation: that power belongs to the Judiciary. The entire proceeding is illegitimate and a usurpation of power.

  • Is it surprising that after the Pulitzer decision, the Russia collusion hoax, the Whitmer kidnapping hoax, the Covid origin hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop hoax, and now the January 6th Committee hoax, that many Americans believe there is something wrong with the system?

Recently former US President Donald Trump challenged the award of Pulitzer Prizes to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their investigative reporting on alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

The investigative reporting by these two organizations was so thorough and groundbreaking it turned up things that were not even there.

You have to hand it to them for this so-called "great reporting": the Pulitzer Committee sure did.

We now know, of course, the grand conspiracy pushed by these papers is nothing more than thoroughly debunked disinformation. For having refused to rescind these awards, the Pulitzer Committee should receive its own Pulitzer -- for fraud.

The intractability of the Pulitzer Committee is only the latest example of why so many Americans have been losing trust in their institutions, both public and private. Rather than admitting that these awards were a mistake, and that much of the reporting was not investigative reporting, but merely a recitation of fabrications put forward by political hacks for campaign purposes, the Pulitzer Committee announced that it will stand by its initial decision, facts be dammed.

The Russia hoax is emblematic of the model built by the anti-Trump, anti-America First, anti-populist movement that the American people have experienced for the last six years. It embodies many of the characteristics that have frustrated Americans. It is a combination of influential forces -- media, social media, political players, and government -- that put forward information detrimental to one -- oddly always the same -- political viewpoint. In this instance, populists -- believers in the rights, wisdom or virtues of the common people, according to Merriam Webster -- who might embrace the concept of personal freedom espoused by the Constitution, a free market economy, economic growth, energy independence, school choice, equal application of the law and decentralized governance.

Much of the material used to foster the Russia hoax originated from the discredited "Steele Dossier," pedaled by former British spy Christopher Steele, funded by Clinton-linked opposition research firm FusionGPS, and pushed by Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman. This discredited information was shared widely -- and often, it seems, with prior knowledge of its falseness -- through the mainstream media and social media when it was leaked to the press early in 2017 just before Donald Trump was sworn in as president. The material contributed to the launching of the Mueller "Russiagate" investigation, which cast a shadow over the first two years of the Trump administration. Government officials were involved as CIA Director John BrennanFBI Director James Comey and DNI James Clapper all lent their credibility to the supposed authenticity or seriousness of the Russian materials. All of this did tremendous damage to the effectiveness of the Trump administration, as it sought to govern, by putting it under a cloud of suspicion and illegitimacy from the outset.

This, however, was not the only example. Consider the disrupted kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in her key swing state for presidential elections. "The FBI got walloped [in April]", according to the New York Post, " when a Michigan jury concluded that the bureau had entrapped two men accused of plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Those men and others were arrested a few weeks before the 2020 election in a high-profile, FBI-fabricated case...."

The media, however, for the most part portrayed the kidnapping plot as the work of domestic terrorists, with the implied inference being they were right-wing Trump supporters. Whitmer went so far as to accuse Trump of being complicit in the plan, even though it emerged that these alleged plotters had also supposedly wanted to hang Trump. The FBI, it was later shown, had been heavily involved in the plot through informants and individuals it had placed in the group. By the time the case came to trial after the election, Biden had won Michigan's electoral votes and the damage had been done.

Consider, also, the COVID pandemic. The "facts" at the time were supposedly that it came from "nature" and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government had supposedly known nothing about its human-to-human transmissibility, even though it had "made whistleblowers disappear and refused to hand over virus samples so the West could make a vaccine."

The CCP, early on, was portrayed as a constructive player in controlling the spread of the virus, even as it was recalling and hoarding all of its Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). This fiction was reinforced by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the World Health Organization, and other prominent participants – apart from Taiwan, which futilely tried to warn the WHO of the coronavirus's fierce human-to-human transmissibility, only to be dismissed.

The mainstream media and social media also quickly began parroting the "official" story line. Social media companies suspended the accounts of whoever might have had a different opinion and some were even canceled.

For the 10 months leading up to the November 2020 election, the narrative was set: COVID-19 was a naturally occurring virus and the CCP was in the clear. Imagine how different the 2020 presidential election might have been if the debate was how the world would have held the CCP accountable for the leak and coverup of COVID from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Now in 2022, a lab-leak is considered the most "likely cause" of the coronavirus, but again the political damage, and a gigantic amount of non-political damage, has already been done. The real hoax appears to have been the CCP's ostensible good behavior and the now-hugely-discredited initial reporting on the virus.

Or how about the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up? Once again, On October 14, 2020, just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, a critical story of possible extensive influence-peddling with senior intelligence officers in the CCP, Russia and Ukraine by the son of a presidential candidate. The contents of the laptop raised questions that the candidate at the time, Vice President Joe Biden, could be compromised. The entire subject was decisively pushed aside, along with the potential threat to national security that such an eventuality might entail.

Discussion of Hunter Biden's laptop with its reportedly incriminating information about the Biden family business dealings with the CCPRussia, and other actors in what appeared to be a model of pay-for-play, was instantly shut down. Fifty-one former government intelligence officials , who we now know were perfectly well aware that the laptop was real – the FBI had been holding it for months -- wrote a letter describing the contents of the laptop as having "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" designed to damage Joe Biden.

NPR famously downplayed the story, and once again, if you used social media to post information originally reported by the New York Post, you were canceled.

A year and a half after the election, the facts were finally "officially" accepted: Well, what do you know, it really was Hunter Biden's laptop and the material on it "is real!"

Once again, the leadership at the FBI, the media, social media, and former government officials had developed a hoax to damage their political opposition and the people who supported it.

Finally, there is the January 6th Committee, a one-sided investigative body, sometimes called "the third (attempted) impeachment." The Committee appears to have been put in place to stop Trump from running for office again. Before the proceeding even began, its outcome was predetermined: Trump was to be found guilty of -- something. As Stalin secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria used to say during Soviet Russia's reign of terror, "Find me the man and I'll find you the crime." So the US show trial commenced.

Even its start was ominous. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an unprecedented move, vetoed the committee appointments of Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan. This rebuff led House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to pull his five Republican candidates from participating. Pelosi, it appeared, wanted only anti-Trump folks to serve on the Committee. Also not allowed during the January 6 hearings have been any witnesses for the defense, any cross-examination, or any exculpatory evidence.

One wonders, for instance if the January 6th Committee will consider the July 29, 2022 tweet by General Keith Kellogg, that on January 3, 2021, Trump, in front of witnesses, did indeed ask for "troops needed" for January 6. Kellogg wrote:, "I was in the room:"

"Great OpEd. Reinforces my earlier comment on 6 Jan Cmte. Has quote from DOD IG Report regarding 3 Jan 2021 meeting with Actg Def Secy Miller/CJCS Milley in the Oval on the 6 Jan NG request by POTUS on troops needed. I was in the room."

While purportedly examining in detail every decision and action by Trump and his team, the Committee refuses to question Pelosi, among the leading figures responsible for the security of the Capitol. She reportedly "turned down" requests for greater security. According to the Federalist:

"Four days after the riot, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who resigned his post in the aftermath, told The Washington Post his request for pre-emptive reinforcement from the National Guard ahead of Jan. 6 was turned down. Sund said House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, overseen by Pelosi, thought the guard's deployment was bad "optics" two days before the raid.... Despite the Associated Press and Washington Post's best efforts to run interference for the speaker, suddenly exonerating her of duties overseeing Capitol security, the riot on Jan. 6 was a security failure Pelosi owns. If the "speaker trusts security professionals to make security decisions," then why, as the police breach unfolded, did Irving feel compelled to seek the speaker's approval to dispatch the National Guard, as The New York Times reported? How could Pelosi also order the extended shut down of the Capitol to visitors, citing coronavirus, and install metal detectors in the House chamber?"

The Committee has not evaluated the performance of the Capitol Police or other law enforcement agencies, but it has targeted the "private records of individuals with no connection to the violence."

The January 6th Committee has also not released any information about government informants or FBI undercover law enforcement officers who might have been in the crowd, and Pelosi is also said to be blocking access to a massive quantity of documents. Finally, according to attorney Mark Levin, under the Constitution's separation of powers, Congress, has no legitimacy even to hold a criminal investigation: that power belongs to the Judiciary. The entire proceeding is illegitimate and a usurpation of power. The Committee's narrative is clear: Donald Trump is responsible for the events of January 6, now let us manufacture the evidence to prove it.

This article has not even delved into the 28 states that "changed voting rules to boost mail-in ballots." Some States apparently omitted both state law and the need for states' legislatures to be the sole arbiters of election law, as required by the Constitution; the $400 million spent by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg; the 2000-plus "mules" and the algorithms that sent conservative emails to spam while emails with liberal content went through to the addressees.

Is it any wonder that many Americans have lost faith in their institutions and leaders? Is it surprising that after the Pulitzer decision, the Russia collusion hoax, the Whitmer kidnapping hoax, the Covid origin hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop hoax, and now the January 6th Committee hoax, that many Americans believe there is something wrong with the system? The media, social media, government officials and others have been complicit in undermining our rule of law and possibly even subverting an election.

*  *  *

Peter Hoekstra was US Ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration. He served 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the second district of Michigan and served as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He is currently Chairman of the Center for Security Policy Board of Advisors and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/12/2022 - 23:55

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

LFST INVESTOR NOTICE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against LifeStance Health Group, Inc. and Announces Opportunity for Investors with Substantial Losses to Lead Case

LFST INVESTOR NOTICE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against LifeStance Health Group, Inc. and Announces Opportunity for Investors with Substantial Losses to Lead Case
PR Newswire
SAN DIEGO, Aug. 12, 2022

SAN DIEGO,…

Published

on

LFST INVESTOR NOTICE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against LifeStance Health Group, Inc. and Announces Opportunity for Investors with Substantial Losses to Lead Case

PR Newswire

SAN DIEGO, Aug. 12, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST) common stock issued in connection with LifeStance Health's June 10, 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). Captioned Nayani v. LifeStance Health Group, Inc., No. 22-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y.) – the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit charges LifeStance Health, certain of its top executives and directors, as well as the IPO's underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. 

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-lifestance-health-group-inc-class-action-lawsuit-lfst.html 

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 11, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: LifeStance Health is one of the nation's largest providers of virtual and in-person outpatient mental health care. LifeStance Health benefitted from the state and local lockdown orders necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic starting in the spring of 2020. But by December 2020, several COVID-19 vaccines were being approved and administered, meaning LifeStance Health's access to clients seeking virtual mental health services would significantly decline while demand for in-person services would increase. LifeStance Health conducted its IPO on June 10, 2021, selling 46 million shares at $18.00 per share, raising $828 million in gross proceeds.

However, as the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit alleges, the IPO's registration statement failed to disclose the following material facts: (i) that the number of virtual visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was decreasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining LifeStance Health's out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (ii) that the percentage of in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby causing LifeStance Health's operating expenses to increase substantially; (iii) that LifeStance Health had lost a large number of physicians due to burn-out and, as a result, its physician retention rate had fallen significantly below the 87% highlighted in the IPO's registration statement and LifeStance Health had been expending additional costs to onboard new physicians who were less productive than the outgoing physicians they were replacing; and (iv) as a result, LifeStance Health's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as the IPO's registration statement represented.

At the time of the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit's filing, LifeStance Health common stock traded in a range of $4.77-$7.70, a reduction of upwards of 73% from the price the shares were sold at in the IPO.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud.  You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased LifeStance Health common stock issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit.  An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Attorney advertising. 
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. 
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. 

Contact:



Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 


655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA  92101 


J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 


jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com 

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lfst-investor-notice-robbins-geller-rudman--dowd-llp-files-class-action-lawsuit-against-lifestance-health-group-inc-and-announces-opportunity-for-investors-with-substantial-losses-to-lead-case-301605195.html

SOURCE Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

House Passes the Inflation Reduction Act

House Passes the Inflation Reduction Act
PR Newswire
ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 12, 2022

Bill Goes to the President’s Desk with Important Insulin and Health Care Provisions
ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 12, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Today, the House passed the Senate-…

Published

on

House Passes the Inflation Reduction Act

PR Newswire

Bill Goes to the President's Desk with Important Insulin and Health Care Provisions

ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 12, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the House passed the Senate-approved Inflation Reduction Act – historic legislation that limits the cost of insulin for seniors enrolled in Medicare and extends the COVID-19 expansion of Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance premium tax credits, crucial financial assistance that spared millions of Americans from pandemic disruptions in their health care.

"The American Diabetes Association has been the leading organization advocating for copay caps for insulin, resulting in the enactment of these cost-sharing limits in 22 states and the District of Columbia," said Lisa Murdock, chief advocacy officer for the American Diabetes Association® (ADA). "While we have more work to do to expand this benefit to all people with diabetes who rely on insulin to survive, this first national copay cap is a significant step in the right direction and a potentially life-saving policy change for seniors."

"Having health insurance is the single strongest predictor of whether adults with diabetes have access to high-quality health care and are able to manage their diabetes," said Dr. Robert Gabbay, the ADA's chief scientific and medical officer. "Uninsured Americans who are at risk for diabetes and its complications are much less likely to receive a diagnosis, and if they do get a diagnosis, they still average 60 percent fewer office visits with a physician and experience 168 percent more hospital visits than their insured counterparts. The expansion of these ACA health insurance subsidies will literally save lives of people with diabetes."

The Inflation Reduction Act also caps the cost of all prescription drugs at $2,000 per year for seniors who have Medicare Part D and allows Medicare to negotiate the price of some of the most expensive prescription drugs directly with drug manufacturers, reducing the cost of these often out-of-reach medications to seniors. $1 in every $3 spent on prescription drugs in the U.S. is spent on someone with diabetes, and this out-of-pocket cost limit will benefit people with diabetes who rely on more than just insulin to survive.

For more information about how the Inflation Reduction Act helps people with diabetes, check out the ADA's Inflation Reduction Act explainer.

About the American Diabetes Association

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is the nation's leading voluntary health organization fighting to bend the curve on the diabetes epidemic and help people living with diabetes thrive. For 81 years, the ADA has driven discovery and research to treat, manage, and prevent diabetes while working relentlessly for a cure. Through advocacy, program development, and education we aim to improve the quality of life for the over 133 million Americans living with diabetes or prediabetes. Diabetes has brought us together. What we do next will make us Connected for Life. To learn more or to get involved, visit us at diabetes.org or call 1-800-DIABETES (1-800-342-2383). Join the fight with us on Facebook (American Diabetes Association), Spanish Facebook (Asociación Americana de la Diabetes), LinkedIn (American Diabetes Association), Twitter (@AmDiabetesAssn), and Instagram (@AmDiabetesAssn). 

Contact: 
Daisy Diaz, 703-253-4807
press@diabetes.org

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/house-passes-the-inflation-reduction-act-301605287.html

SOURCE American Diabetes Association

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending