Connect with us

Government

Technically Speaking: Market Realized No Help Is Coming

Technically Speaking: Market Realized No Help Is Coming

Published

on

Last week, we asked the question: Is everything ‘priced in?'” On Monday, the market realized no help is coming as the political backdrop worsened markedly.

However, we need to back up a little bit to discuss how we got here. In the middle of August, we wrote “Close But No Cigar,” which addressed the potential of a market correction due to the extreme positioning in markets. To wit:

“With the markets overbought on several measures, there is a downside risk heading into the end of the month. These risks come from several fronts we will discuss momentarily. However, from a technical perspective, the downside risk is about 5.6% to the 50-dma and 9.4% to the 200-dma. (Shown above)

A 5-10% decline in any given year is not outside of the norm. However, since investors have entirely forgotten what a drop feels like, a 5-10% slide will ‘feel’ worse than it is.”

At that time, there seemed to be little to worry about. The Federal Reserve was remaining accommodative to the markets, and expectations of additional monetary support were high. Expectations were high that Congress would pass other fiscal measures to support the recessionary economy soon.

More money meant higher markets, hence the speculative bias.

As I stated then, the market was overbought on multiple measures, which typically coincides with short-term market peaks and corrections. That overbought condition, combined with more extreme speculative positioning by investors, provided the fuel for a correction when it came.

All that was needed as a “catalyst” to trigger the selling.

Remembering 2016

I liked David Rosenberg’s note yesterday on the current correction:

“The stock market has really gone through a change of complexion — to a far greater degree than the last corrective phase in June when valuations, momentum, leverage, and sentiment were less extreme than was the case heading into this current period.”

Last week, we noted a list of concerns relating to the market, which could undoubtedly pressure markets lower. One of those, in particular, was the lack of additional “fiscal stimulus” coming from Congress.

Over the weekend, and summed up in the video below, a collision of events brought concerns to the forefront.

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg has sparked a replay of the 2016 passing of Justice Scalia. At that time, President Obama wanted to appoint a replacement for Scalia even as the Presidential election was just a few months away. Congress got into a contested debate over whether a justice should be selected so close to an election. That debate is again on display as President Trump wants to appoint a replacement for Ginsberg as soon as possible. Still, the Democratically controlled Congress is fighting to delay it until after the election.

Politically, this is an incredibly important appointment. Since justices get appointed for life, if President Trump adds another “conservative” justice to the Supreme Court, rulings on more liberal causes could be stymied for a decade or more.

A Collision Of Events

Why is this important to the market? Because Congress is facing three different events that have removed the focus from additional financial support for the economy.

  1. With the election fast approaching, Congress does not want to pass a fiscal support bill to help the other Presidential candidate. Such is why there are dueling bills between the House and Senate currently.  
  2. September ends the 2020 fiscal year of Congress. Such requires either a “budget,” or another C.R. (Continuing Resolution) to fund the government and avoid another shut-down.
  3. Lastly, the death of RBG will have the entire Democratic Party, which controls the House, focused on how to stop President Trump from nominating a replacement before the election. All Trump needs is a simple majority in the Senate to confirm a justice that he can likely get. 

As I discussed with our RIAPro Subscribers in this morning’s “Sector Trading Review,” the realization of “no more fiscal support” killed the “economic reflation” trade yesterday.

“A common theme through today’s update is the exit of the ‘reflation’ trade. Markets had been hoping for additional ‘fiscal support’ from Congress. However, with the election looming, a need for a budget negotiation to avoid a ‘shutdown,’ and now a battle over replacing a Supreme Court Justice, the odds of a fiscal deal getting done is minuscule.

Looking at XLB, the sell-off yesterday reflected the exit of the reflation trade. You will see the same in Industrials, and Transportation as well which were all down in excess of 3%.”

In short, this all presents a problem which markets discovered Monday morning – “no more monetary support.” 

(Click the banner below to get notified of our daily “3-minutes” videos.”

The Fed Is Limited

At the September FOMC meeting, Jerome Powell made a critical statement overlooked by the majority of the mainstream media.

“Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell warned Wednesday that a lack of further fiscal support from Congress and President Trump could “scar and damage” a U.S. economy restrained by the coronavirus pandemic.

‘If there’s no follow-up on that, if there isn’t additional support and there isn’t a job for some of those people who are from industries where it’s going to be very hard to find new work. That will start to show up in economic activity. It’ll also show up in things like evictions and foreclosures and things that will scar and damage the economy.’” – The Hill

The Federal Reserve is trying to plug a hole that fiscal policy was widely expected to fill by now. However, the Fed’s ability to expand on current programs is limited to the Treasury Department’s issuance of additional debt. Without another “fiscal relief” bill, there isn’t enough debt issuance to support another round of interventions by the Fed. 

Currently, the Federal Reserve is continuing to run “Quantitative Easing” at $120 billion per month, but much of that is just replacing bills that are maturing. As shown below, the Fed’s balance sheet has been stagnating since June as the uptake from its various programs has waned.

Short-Term Bearishness

The realization the Federal Reserve will likely not get any “fiscal support” from Washington in the short-term is problematic for the markets. Without fiscal support, the Fed is limited in its monetary response. Rates are already at zero, and economic data is beginning to show signs of weakening as the “direct checks” and “expanded U.I. benefits” to households has run out. 

The subsequent selling in the market has led to increased short-term bearishness in the markets. As shown below, markets are very oversold short-term on several measures. Furthermore, the bounce of support yesterday suggests we could see a follow-through rally back to the 50-dma, which will act as crucial overhead resistance short-term.

Furthermore, besides being oversold, there is the largest net-short position on the Nasdaq we have seen since 2008.

As we showed our RIAPro Subscribers (30-Day Risk-Free Trial), the sharp sell-off in Technology specifically pulled the sector out of its Risk/Reward range.

Such short-term bearishness provides a good backdrop for a short-term rally over the next few days. Be careful you don’t “panic sell” the market; use counter-trend bounces to reduce risk logically.

There Is Downside Risk

As noted previously:

“The reason we suggest selling any rally is because, until the pattern changes, the market  exhibiting all traits of a “topping process.”

  • Weak participation
  • Failure at long-term resistance
  • Extreme bullish speculation
  • Negative divergences in relative strength

We can show this in a long-term monthly chart.”

Since 2009, whenever the monthly MACD “buy signal” was this elevated, it typically correlated to a short- to intermediate-term market peak.

Such also correlates with weaker economic data showing up. Weaker economic data translates into reduced earnings outlooks for companies. During the last 30-days, 2021 estimates for the S&P 500 have declined by an additional $5/share. Furthermore, those estimates are down nearly $30 from the original forecast in January 2020. Yet, markets remain only slightly off all-time highs.

Still A Sellable Rally

As noted in this past weekend’s missive, we still expect a “reflexive rally” given the short-term oversold condition of the market. However, we still expect there could be further downside risk over the intermediate-term.

The current correction is the 4th of 10% or more over the last 3-years. Do not dismiss this lightly as Sentiment Trader noted on Monday:

We have discussed previously, the pickup in volatility over the last couple of years is more akin to a broader “topping” process for the markets. Outcomes from such have not been outstanding. 

However, given the more bearish tone to the market, and the extreme net short position on the Nasdaq, it won’t take much to elicit a “short-covering” rally. Some “encouraging” words from the White House promising fiscal support, or a Fed speaker suggesting monetary action, would do the trick.

While either would give the markets a short-term lift, we suggest using rallies to reduce risk, for now.

We suspect that given the rather numerous headwinds currently facing the markets, from the Fed to the election, a failure at lower highs would not be surprising.

The post Technically Speaking: Market Realized No Help Is Coming appeared first on RIA.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

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

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

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

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate…

Published

on

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate iron levels in their blood due to a COVID-19 infection could be at greater risk of long COVID.

(Shutterstock)

A new study indicates that problems with iron levels in the bloodstream likely trigger chronic inflammation and other conditions associated with the post-COVID phenomenon. The findings, published on March 1 in Nature Immunology, could offer new ways to treat or prevent the condition.

Long COVID Patients Have Low Iron Levels

Researchers at the University of Cambridge pinpointed low iron as a potential link to long-COVID symptoms thanks to a study they initiated shortly after the start of the pandemic. They recruited people who tested positive for the virus to provide blood samples for analysis over a year, which allowed the researchers to look for post-infection changes in the blood. The researchers looked at 214 samples and found that 45 percent of patients reported symptoms of long COVID that lasted between three and 10 months.

In analyzing the blood samples, the research team noticed that people experiencing long COVID had low iron levels, contributing to anemia and low red blood cell production, just two weeks after they were diagnosed with COVID-19. This was true for patients regardless of age, sex, or the initial severity of their infection.

According to one of the study co-authors, the removal of iron from the bloodstream is a natural process and defense mechanism of the body.

But it can jeopardize a person’s recovery.

When the body has an infection, it responds by removing iron from the bloodstream. This protects us from potentially lethal bacteria that capture the iron in the bloodstream and grow rapidly. It’s an evolutionary response that redistributes iron in the body, and the blood plasma becomes an iron desert,” University of Oxford professor Hal Drakesmith said in a press release. “However, if this goes on for a long time, there is less iron for red blood cells, so oxygen is transported less efficiently affecting metabolism and energy production, and for white blood cells, which need iron to work properly. The protective mechanism ends up becoming a problem.”

The research team believes that consistently low iron levels could explain why individuals with long COVID continue to experience fatigue and difficulty exercising. As such, the researchers suggested iron supplementation to help regulate and prevent the often debilitating symptoms associated with long COVID.

It isn’t necessarily the case that individuals don’t have enough iron in their body, it’s just that it’s trapped in the wrong place,” Aimee Hanson, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge who worked on the study, said in the press release. “What we need is a way to remobilize the iron and pull it back into the bloodstream, where it becomes more useful to the red blood cells.”

The research team pointed out that iron supplementation isn’t always straightforward. Achieving the right level of iron varies from person to person. Too much iron can cause stomach issues, ranging from constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain to gastritis and gastric lesions.

1 in 5 Still Affected by Long COVID

COVID-19 has affected nearly 40 percent of Americans, with one in five of those still suffering from symptoms of long COVID, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Long COVID is marked by health issues that continue at least four weeks after an individual was initially diagnosed with COVID-19. Symptoms can last for days, weeks, months, or years and may include fatigue, cough or chest pain, headache, brain fog, depression or anxiety, digestive issues, and joint or muscle pain.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 12:50

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending