Connect with us

Spread & Containment

REITs For The Right Reason

REITs For The Right Reason

Published

3 years ago

on

By Carol K.

Summary

  • These are my favorite REITs with fully intact dividends as of 7/29/20
  • REIT 90% payout requirement for 2020 pushed to Dec 31, 2021
  • There is no free lunch, i.e., the risk/reward tradeoff
  • A REIT really is not a bond proxy, not even the safest REITs

Most of my favorite REITs are not super high yielding as I choose to trade the reward of higher divies with a lower risk profile.  Nevertheless, their dividend yields are much higher than U.S. Treasuries and offer an inflation hedge with exposure to real assets.

Carol Ks_REITS

My filter was to first look for REITs that, as of 7/29/20,  have fully intact dividends, which does not mean that can’t change going forward.  Any change to current dividend policy will likely be announced during this quarter’s earnings release, or in Q4, depending on the performance of the economy.

COVID Disruptions

REITs pay out 90% of taxable income (REITs pay no income tax) to shareholders in the form of a dividend.  This policy was altered earlier this year due to the economic disruption caused by Covid-19  as many REITs are now not receiving full rents or none at all.

REITs have until Dec 31, 2021 to make their 90% distribution requirement for 2020.

The conventional wisdom was that the REITs which had suspended or cut dividends during 2020 would reinstate them in full or at least partial amounts or full no later Q3 or Q4 to meet this tax requirement.  However, some REITs that have cut or suspended dividends may not even reinstate even partial dividends by late 2020, which complicates their attraction as an income-generating investment.

Risk/Reward Tradeoff

As with most any asset, REITs offering a higher yield generally involve more risk.  The safest REITs with fortress balance sheets tend to yield less than those, which hold riskier assets, balance sheets, and lower credit ratings.

The above impacts the valuation metrics of a REIT, including its weighted average cost of capital (WACC).

Sectors

Bearish –  I am bearish on the following REIT sectors

Hotel REITs

All the major players in this sector have cut or suspended dividends. The bloodbath has not been quite the shock.  I see nothing in this sector attractive until a vaccine is widely available, the economy improves, and folks begin traveling en masse again.  The exception is the specialized gaming hotels/casinos, which I address later in the post.

Office REITs

Though office buildings are not going away, the sector is suffering as companies were already reducing their real estate footprint before Covid-19,  we expect this trend to grow exponentially as the work from home them continues to gain steam.  Companies have discovered many job functions can be performed remotely just as well as in the office.  Even if workers still come to the office just a few days a week, the business sector won’t require the same expanses of space they did during the old normal.   The difficulty here is determining the survivors.  Even Class A buildings in AAA markets (NYC, LA, S.F., CHI, ATL, etc) will be pressed to achieve full occupancy in the future.  Trying to pick the survivors is just too tricky and risky and not worth the reward at current prices, in our opinion.

Retail REITs

There have been many dividend cuts and suspensions in this sector.  I don’t see any upside in mall REITs in the medium-term (12-18 months), and the consensus among REIT analysts is there will only be one or two healthy survivors in the long-term, one of which will no doubt be Simon Property Group, (SPG).  CBL Associates (CBL) is in forbearance with its creditors with no guarantee of successfully emerging, and its stock is trading at 19 cents per share this afternoon (July 29).  Macerich (MAC) and Taubman Centers (TCO) do have trophy assets. Still, it’ll be a rough road going forward, risky with no guarantee the dividend will make a recovery “worth the wait” for the return to normalcy.

Shopping Center REITs

Almost all Shopping Center REITs have cut or suspended dividends, even grocery store anchored shopping centers.  Logic dictates that neighborhood grocery-anchored shopping centers will survive over the long-term as most tend to provide essential goods and services; it hasn’t been reflected in the share prices, however.  There is also a huge disconnect and REITs with assets that offer many small services, such as hair & nail salons, cafes, and coffee shops, which have been hard hit.  Because a grocery store is still full and thriving with in-store shopping, curbside pickup, or delivery, it doesn’t necessarily translate that the shopping center is doing as well.  The larger grocers often make up 50-75% of rental income in these centers.

Bullish –  I am bullish on the following REIT sectors, which should still thrive in the current environment, and are still paying their dividends:

Healthcare REITs

The Healthcare REIT sector is large and very diverse.  I would avoid Senior Housing, Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs), and diversified healthcare REITs with extensive exposure to these sub-sectors, such as Ventas (VTR)  and Welltower (WELL).  Senior Housing has become very unattractive due to COVID.  Even though the demographic trend is positive, the market is currently rethinking the long-term safety of nursing homes.  SNFs are too dependent on the direction of the political winds, and some tend to be very reliant on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement.  Though they offer higher yields, it also corresponds with the higher risk of individual SNF operator failure/bankruptcy or payments being dictated by politics.  A classic example of “there no free lunch” idiom

The best areas of Healthcare REIT investing are  Medical Office Buildings (MOBs), and it’s close cousin, Life Sciences buildings.  Of the MOBs, I have two potential picks, and one is a personal favorite and holding, Healthcare Trust of America (HTA), the premier MOB REIT operating in prime markets with many on-campus or campus adjacent medical facilities serving prominent academic and non-academic medical centers in major population centers. My other MOB favorite is Physicians Realty Trust (DOC).  Similar to rival HTA, Physicians Realty focuses on quality tenants, with 60% of tenants rated as investment-grade.

DOC has outperformed HTA over the past six months (DOC -8.82% vs. HTA -4.91%), but unlike HTA, which has raised its dividend every year since 2015, DOC has only increased the dividend twice since 2014.  Rent collections have been over 95% for both HTA (98%) and DOC (96%), even during this time of canceled appointments and closed medical practices. Physicians, dentists, imaging services (MRI/CT scan), and labs have primarily continued to pay their rent in full and on time.

I hold HTA and looking to initiate a position in DOC on the next pullback.

I also like Alexandria Real Estate (ARE), which engages in the acquisition, leasing, and management of properties in the Life Sciences/Pharmaceutical research/Biotechnology sectors, including top-tier academic medical research centers (like UCSF and Harvard).  I consider ARE to be both recession and COVID-resistant as these companies have deep pockets of funding.  Moreover, while office or H.Q. level workers may be able to work from home, scientists and research assistants cannot do their lab work at home and rely on highly specialized, costly equipment in temperature-controlled environments. ARE’s portfolio is concentrated in the Greater Boston, SF, Houston, and LA/SD metropolitan areas. The dividend yield is 2.4%, admittedly low, but at its current valuation provides room for capital appreciation as well as a growing dividend — a very relevant stock in the age of a global pandemic.  I am long ARE and plan to add future pullbacks.

Data Center REITs

Data Center REITs, own…wait for it…data centers.  Data centers (D.C.) are often perceived as a real estate play in the technology sector.  They house the servers,  not just tech sector darlings but almost all major companies, which rely on D.C.s to store their data.  Though it’s a growing industry,  I believe much of the growth is likely already priced in.  D. dividend yields are typically lower than other REITs at around 2.3%.  Investors could see long-term growth in the sector take off, boosting price appreciation and the total return, outperforming some of higher-yielding but lower growth REITs.  My faves in the data center space are Digital Realty Trust (DLR) and CoreSite Realty (COR).  I am long DLR.

Industrial REITs

I’m limiting my focus here to REITs specializing in single-tenant net lease warehouses and distribution centers. These properties are in demand regardless of whether buying takes place online or in a physical store as the merchandise has to be stored somewhere while in transit to homes or to local stores.  Prologis (PLD) is one of my favorites in this sector, but the current dividend yield is fairly low for a REIT at 2.3%.

I do prefer STAG Industrial (STAG) for several reasons.  STAG’s portfolio contains mostly warehouse and distribution center properties critical to e-commerce as well as regular B2B shipping (like the local grocer receiving shipments of paper towels or those, not my favorite Little Debbie Snack Cakes).  Located in all major markets, STAG also has an impressive presence in secondary and tertiary markets, and all are single-tenant buildings with an average remaining lease term of 5 years, 97% occupied at the end of Q2 2020. It’s top three tenants are Amazon, General Services Administration, and XPO Logistics.  Another attractive feature of STAG is its dividend is paid monthly, which is great for retirees or those relying on current income from their investments.

STAG released earnings on July 28 and beat on earnings and revenue.  The dividend remains intact at 0.12 per share, $1.44 annually, which yields 4.5%.  The REIT also reported that  98% of Q2 rent was collected, with 97% occupancy.

I have a position in STAG and look to pick it up anytime it dips under $30.

Neutral –  I am neutral on the following REIT sectors.

Residential REITs

I am ambivalent about residential REITs.

Recall in my May post, Back To Class: REITs 101,  out of principle, I do not invest in Residential REITs in the Single Family Home (SFH) space.  Many buy their future rental homes, often at a deep discount out of foreclosure or short sales, and perform minimal cosmetic improvements before putting the house into the rental market.  What bothers me, however, is the poor customer service support and lack of critical maintenance issues they provide, such as assuring renters have running water or repairing blown electrical boxes.  Most SFH REITs are owned directly or indirectly by Wall Street private equity firms, some of the biggest names in the business. Not my kind of capitalism,  driven by sheer greed.

The multifamily/apartment side of the equation offers much better prospects, in my opinion.  Yes, I get unemployment is rampant, many folks can’t pay rent and are facing eviction and the alarm bells or ringing of complete collapse for apartment REITs.  Not so fast, however.

My favorite apartment REITs develop and lease properties at the higher end of the rental spectrum.  Because, thus far, the overwhelming majority of the COVID unemployed are lower-paid service sector workers,  higher rent properties are not affected to the degree Class B/Class C properties are.  My two favorites are AvalonBay Communities (AVB) and Essex Property Trust (ESS). Avalon Bay focuses on high-quality Class A apartment complexes in major metro areas of California, New England, New York/New Jersey, Washington DC, and Seattle.  The major negative of Essex is their portfolio is concentrated on the West Coast, all in southern and northern California, and Seattle.  However, ESS properties command some of the highest rents and occupancy rates in each of the respective markets.

Specialty REIT 

Finally,  I am looking at Vici Properties ($VICI), which owns casino and gaming hotels, resorts, and entertainment/leisure properties in 23 locations across the U.S.  I know it doesn’t seem like a good story at this time.  Still, it’s one of those situations where the hotels and casinos are leased very long term to reliable gaming industry names, such as Harrah’s, Caesar’s, Horseshoe, and Bally’s.  It is also the only REIT in any sector, that I am aware of, reporting 100% rent collections since the March COVID lockdown.  Vici’s tenants are all well-funded companies who will pay the rent even if they have to borrow the money, which is not an issue, especially in the current financial environment.

Q2 Earnings Updates

Vici Properties: Casino & Gaming Hotels and Resorts, Golf Course properties
– Beat on FFO & Revenue
– Collected 100% of July rent
– Collected 100% of Q2 rent

Investment thesis intact after earnings

Avalon Bay Communities: Luxury apt communities in major coastal cities
– Misses Q2 FFO by 4 cents, a decline of 1.3% YOY
– Misses Q2 Rev = (-2.9%)  YOY
– Rent Collections as of July 28:  April 97.7%;  May 96.4%;  June 95.5%

Investment thesis intact after earnings, higher than peer group with the exception of Essex, which will release earnings after the market closes on Monday, August 03, 2020.

The information in this post represents our own personal opinions and are not investment recommendations.  We may or may not hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the post or have acted upon what has been written.  

All information posted is believed to be reliable and has been obtained from public sources believed to be reliable. We make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information.

 

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

From LTCM To 1966. The Perils Of Rising Interest Rates

Based on some comments, it appears we scared a few people with A Crisis Is Coming. Our article warns, "A financial crisis will likely follow the Fed’s…

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 4, 2023

By

Based on some comments, it appears we scared a few people with A Crisis Is Coming. Our article warns, “A financial crisis will likely follow the Fed’s “higher for longer” interest rate campaign.” We follow the article with more on financial crises to help calm any worries you may have. This article summarizes two interest rate-related crises, Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) and the lesser-known Financial Crisis of 1966.

We aim to convey two important lessons. First, both events exemplify how excessive leverage and financial system interdependences are dangerous when interest rates are rising. Second, they stress the importance of the Fed’s reaction function. A Fed that reacts quickly to a budding crisis can quickly mitigate it. The regional bank crisis in March serves as recent evidence. However, a crisis can blossom if the Fed is slow to react, as we saw in 2008.  

Before moving on, it’s worth providing context for the recent series of rate hikes. Unless this time is different, another crisis is coming.

fed rate hiking cycles

LTCM’s Failure

John Meriweather founded LTCM in 1994 after a successful bond trading career at Salomon Brothers. In addition to being led by one of the world’s most infamous bond traders, LTCM also had Myron Scholes and Robert Merton on their staff. Both won a Nobel Prize for options pricing. David Mullins Jr., previously the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve to Alan Greenspan, was also an employee. To say the firm was loaded with the finance world’s best and brightest may be an understatement.

LTCM specialized in bond arbitrage. Such trading entails taking advantage of anomalies in the price spread between two securities, which should have predictable price differences. They would bet divergences from the norm would eventually converge, as was all but guaranteed in time.

LTCM was using 25x or more leverage when it failed in 1998. With that kind of leverage, a 4% loss on the trade would deplete the firm’s equity and force it to either raise equity or fail.

The world-renowned hedge fund fell victim to the surprising 1998 Russian default. As a result of the unexpected default, there was a tremendous flight to quality into U.S. Treasury bonds, of which LTCM was effectively short. Bond divergences expanded as markets were illiquid, growing the losses on their convergence bets.

They also wrongly bet that the dually listed shares of Royal Dutch and Shell would converge in price. Given they were the same company, that made sense. However, the need to stem their losses forced them to bail on the position at a sizeable loss instead of waiting for the pair to converge.

The Predictable Bailout

Per Wikipedia:

Long-Term Capital Management did business with nearly every important person on Wall Street. Indeed, much of LTCM’s capital was composed of funds from the same financial professionals with whom it traded. As LTCM teetered, Wall Street feared that Long-Term’s failure could cause a chain reaction in numerous markets, causing catastrophic losses throughout the financial system.

Given the potential chain reaction to its counterparties, banks, and brokers, the Fed came to the rescue and organized a bailout of $3.63 billion. A much more significant financial crisis was avoided.

The takeaway is that the financial system has highly leveraged players, including some like LTCM, which supposedly have “foolproof” investments on their books. Making matters fragile, the banks, brokers, and other institutions lending them money are also leveraged. A counterparty failure thus affects the firm in trouble and potentially its lenders. The lenders to the original lenders are then also at risk. The entire financial system is a series of lined-up dominos, at risk if only one decent-sized firm fails.

Roger Lowenstein wrote an informative book on LTCM aptly titled When Genius Failed. The graph below from the book shows the rise and fall of an initial $1 investment in LTCM.

LTCM valuations

The Financial Crisis of 1966

Most people, especially Wall Street gray beards, know of LTCM and the details of its demise. We venture to guess very few are up to speed on the crisis of 1966. We included. As such, we relied heavily upon The 1966 Financial Crisis by L. Randall Wray to educate us. The quotes we share are attributable to his white paper.

As the post-WW2 economic expansion progressed, companies and municipalities increasingly relied on debt and leverage to fuel growth. For fear of rising inflation due to the robust economic growth rate, the Fed presided over a series of rate hikes. In mid-1961, Fed Funds were as low as 0.50%. Five years later, they hit 5.75%. The Fed also restricted banks’ reserve growth to reduce loan creation and further hamper inflation. Higher rates, lending restrictions, and a yield curve inversion resulted in a credit crunch. Further impeding the prominent New York money center banks from lending, they were losing deposits to higher-yielding instruments.

Sound familiar? 

The lack of credit availability exposed several financial weaknesses. Per the article:

As Minsky argued, “By the end of August, the disorganization in the municipals market, rumors about the solvency and liquidity of savings institutions, and the frantic position-making efforts by money-market banks generated what can be characterized as a controlled panic. The situation clearly called for Federal Reserve action.” The Fed was forced to enter as a lender of last resort to save the Muni bond market, which, in effect, validated practices that were stretching liquidity.

The Fed came to the rescue before the crisis could expand meaningfully or the economy would collapse. The problem was fixed, and the economy barely skipped a beat.

However, and this is a big however, “markets came to expect that big government and the Fed would come to the rescue as needed.”

Expectations of Fed rescues have significantly swelled since then and encourage ever more reckless financial behaviors.

The Fed’s Reaction Function- Minksky Fragility

Wray’s article on the 1966 crisis ends as follows:

That 1966 crisis was only a minor speedbump on the road to Minskian fragility.

Minskian fragility refers to economist Hyman Minsky’s work on financial cycles and the Fed’s reaction function. Broadly speaking, he attributes financial crises to fragile banking systems.

Said differently, systematic risks increase as system-wide leverage and financial firm interconnectedness rise. As shown below, debt has grown much faster than GDP (the ability to pay for the debt). Inevitably, higher interest rates, slowing economic activity, and liquidity issues are bound to result in a crisis, aka a Minsky Moment. Making the system ever more susceptible to a financial crisis are the predictable Fed-led bailouts. In a perverse way, the Fed incentivizes such irresponsible behaviors.

minsky cycle

Nearing The Minsky Moment

As we shared in A Crisis Is Coming: Who Is Swimming Naked?:

The tide is starting to ebb. With it, economic activity will slow, and asset prices may likely follow. Leverage and high-interest rates will bring about a crisis.

Debt and leverage are excessive and even more extreme due to the pandemic.

debt to gdp

The question is not whether higher interest rates will cause a crisis but when. The potential for one-off problems, like LTCM, could easily set off a systematic situation like in 1966 due to the pronounced system-wide leverage and interdependencies.

As we have seen throughout the Fed’s history, they will backstop the financial system. The only question is when and how. If they remain steadfast in fighting inflation while a crisis grows, they risk a 2008-like event. If they properly address problems as they did in March, the threat of a severe crisis will considerably lessen.

Summary

The Fed halted the crises of 1966 and LTCM. They ultimately did the same for every other crisis highlighted in the opening graph. Given the amount of leverage in the financial system and the sharp increase in interest rates, we have little doubt a crisis will result. The Fed will again be called upon to bail out the financial system and economy.

For investors, your performance will be a function of the Fed’s reaction. Are they quick enough to spot problems, like the banking crisis in March or our two examples, and minimize the economic and financial effect of said crisis? Or, like in 2008, will it be too late to arrest a blooming crisis, resulting in significant investor losses and widespread bankruptcies?

The post From LTCM To 1966. The Perils Of Rising Interest Rates appeared first on RIA.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

No Privacy, No Property: The World In 2030 According To The WEF

No Privacy, No Property: The World In 2030 According To The WEF

Authored by Madge Waggy via SevenWop.home.blog,

The World Economic Forum…

Published

7 hours ago

on

October 4, 2023

By

No Privacy, No Property: The World In 2030 According To The WEF

Authored by Madge Waggy via SevenWop.home.blog,

The World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded fifty years ago. It has gained more and more prominence over the decades and has become one of the leading platforms of futuristic thinking and planning. As a meeting place of the global elite, the WEF brings together the leaders in business and politics along with a few selected intellectuals. The main thrust of the forum is global control.

Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values, but state interventionism and collectivism. Individual liberty and private property are to disappear from this planet by 2030 according to the projections and scenarios coming from the World Economic Forum.

Eight Predictions

Individual liberty is at risk again. What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” According to the WEF’s scenario, the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change. The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast. It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically since with the announcement of a pandemic and the consequent lockdowns. 

According to the projections of the WEF’s “Global Future Councils,” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade. The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions. The WEF projection says that consumer goods, too, would be no longer private property.

If the WEF projection should come true, people would have to rent and borrow their necessities from the state, which would be the sole proprietor of all goods. The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system. Shopping in the traditional sense would disappear along with the private purchases of goods. Every personal move would be tracked electronically, and all production would be subject to the requirements of clean energy and a sustainable environment. 

In order to attain “sustainable agriculture,” the food supply will be mainly vegetarian. In the new totalitarian service economy, the government will provide basic accommodation, food, and transport, while the rest must be lent from the state. The use of natural resources will be brought down to its minimum. In cooperation with the few key countries, a global agency would set the price of CO2 emissions at an extremely high level to disincentivize its use.

In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:

  1. People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.

  2. The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.

  3. Organs will not be transplanted but printed.

  4. Meat consumption will be minimized.

  5. Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.

  6. To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.

  7. People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.

  8. Western values will be tested to the breaking point..

Beyond Privacy and Property

In a publication for the World Economic Forum, the Danish ecoactivist Ida Auken, who had served as her country’s minister of the environment from 2011 to 2014 and still is a member of the Danish Parliament (the Folketing), has elaborated a scenario of a world without privacy or property. In “Welcome to 2030,” she envisions a world where “I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” By 2030, so says her scenario, shopping and owning have become obsolete, because everything that once was a product is now a service.

In this idyllic new world of hers, people have free access to transportation, accommodation, food, “and all the things we need in our daily lives.” As these things will become free of charge, “it ended up not making sense for us to own much.” There would be no private ownership in houses nor would anyone pay rent, “because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it.” A person’s living room, for example, will be used for business meetings when one is absent. Concerns like “lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment” are things of the past. The author predicts that people will be happy to enjoy such a good life that is so much better “than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth.”

Ecological Paradise

In her 2019 contribution to the Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils of the World Economic Forum, Ida Auken foretells how the world may look in the future “if we win the war on climate change.” By 2030, when CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced, people will live in a world where meat on the dinner plate “will be a rare sight” while water and the air will be much cleaner than today. Because of the shift from buying goods to using services, the need to have money will vanish, because people will spend less and less on goods. Work time will shrink and leisure time will grow.

For the future, Auken envisions a city where electric cars have substituted conventional combustion vehicles. Most of the roads and parking spaces will have become green parks and walking zones for pedestrians. By 2030, agriculture will offer mainly plant-based alternatives to the food supply instead of meat and dairy products. The use of land to produce animal feed will greatly diminish and nature will be spreading across the globe again.

Fabricating Social Consent

How can people be brought to accept such a system? The bait to entice the masses is the assurances of comprehensive healthcare and a guaranteed basic income. The promoters of the Great Reset promise a world without diseases. Due to biotechnologically produced organs and individualized genetics-based medical treatments, a drastically increased life expectancy and even immortality are said to be possible. Artificial intelligence will eradicate death and eliminate disease and mortality. The race is on among biotechnological companies to find the key to eternal life.

Along with the promise of turning any ordinary person into a godlike superman, the promise of a “universal basic income” is highly attractive, particularly to those who will no longer find a job in the new digital economy. Obtaining a basic income without having to go through the treadmill and disgrace of applying for social assistance is used as a bait to get the support of the poor.

To make it economically viable, the guarantee of a basic income would require the leveling of wage differences. The technical procedures of the money transfer from the state will be used to promote the cashless society. With the digitization of all monetary transactions, each individual purchase will be registered. As a consequence, the governmental authorities would have unrestricted access to supervise in detail how individual persons spend their money. A universal basic income in a cashless society would provide the conditions to impose a social credit system and deliver the mechanism to sanction undesirable behavior and identify the superfluous and unwanted.

Who Will Be the Rulers?

The World Economic Forum is silent about the question of who will rule in this new world.

There is no reason to expect that the new power holders would be benevolent. Yet even if the top decision-makers of the new world government were not mean but just technocrats, what reason would an administrative technocracy have to go on with the undesirables? What sense does it make for a technocratic elite to turn the common man into a superman? Why share the benefits of artificial intelligence with the masses and not keep the wealth for the chosen few?

Not being swayed away by the utopian promises, a sober assessment of the plans must come to the conclusion that in this new world, there would be no place for the average person and that they would be put away along with the “unemployable,” “feeble minded,” and “ill bred.” Behind the preaching of the progressive gospel of social justice by the promoters of the Great Reset and the establishment of a new world order lurks the sinister project of eugenics, which as a technique is now called “genetic engineering” and as a movement is named “transhumanism,” a term  coined by Julian Huxley, the first director of the UNESCO.

The promoters of the project keep silent about who will be the rulers in this new world. The dystopian and collectivist nature of these projections and plans is the result of the rejection of free capitalism. Establishing a better world through a dictatorship is a contradiction in terms. Not less but more economic prosperity is the answer to the current problems. Therefore, we need more free markets and less state planning. The world is getting greener and a fall in the growth rate of the world population is already underway. These trends are the natural consequence of wealth creation through free markets.

Conclusion

The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy. Values like individualism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at stake, to be repudiated in favor of collectivism and the imposition of a “common good” that is defined by the self-proclaimed elite of technocrats. What is sold to the public as the promise of equality and ecological sustainability is in fact a brutal assault on human dignity and liberty. Instead of using the new technologies as an instrument of betterment, the Great Reset seeks to use the technological possibilities as a tool of enslavement. In this new world order, the state is the single owner of everything. It is left to our imagination to figure out who will program the algorithms that manage the distribution of the goods and services.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/03/2023 - 23:45

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Vehicles Sales increase to 15.67 million SAAR in September; Up 15% YoY

Wards Auto released their estimate of light vehicle sales for September: September U.S. Light-Vehicles Sales Bounce Back Despite Gloomy Conditions (pay site).Hard to say exactly how much but sales could have been slightly stronger in September if not f…

Published

13 hours ago

on

October 3, 2023

By

Wards Auto released their estimate of light vehicle sales for September: September U.S. Light-Vehicles Sales Bounce Back Despite Gloomy Conditions (pay site).
Hard to say exactly how much but sales could have been slightly stronger in September if not for some lost inventory caused by production cuts related to plant shutdowns from UAW strikes at Ford, General Motors and Stellantis. Sales losses will be more strongly felt in October as production cuts mount.
Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows light vehicle sales since 2006 from the BEA (blue) and Wards Auto's estimate for September (red).

The impact of COVID-19 was significant, and April 2020 was the worst month.  After April 2020, sales increased, and were close to sales in 2019 (the year before the pandemic).  However, sales decreased in 2021 due to supply issues.  The "supply chain bottom" was in September 2021.

Vehicle SalesThe second graph shows light vehicle sales since the BEA started keeping data in 1967.

Vehicle sales are usually a transmission mechanism for Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) policy, although far behind housing.  This time vehicle sales were more suppressed by supply chain issues and have picked up recently.

Sales in September were above the consensus forecast.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending