Connect with us

Spread & Containment

“Weak Links” Are Being Exposed – Jeff Gundlach Warns “The Period Of Abundance Is Over”

"Weak Links" Are Being Exposed – Jeff Gundlach Warns "The Period Of Abundance Is Over"

Authored by Christoph Gisiger via TheMarket.ch,

Jeffrey…

Published

on

"Weak Links" Are Being Exposed - Jeff Gundlach Warns "The Period Of Abundance Is Over"

Authored by Christoph Gisiger via TheMarket.ch,

Jeffrey Gundlach, CEO of DoubleLine, worries that the Federal Reserve is overreacting in the fight against inflation. He expects a severe slowdown of the economy and says how investors can navigate today’s challenging market environment. A conversation with the Bond King.

When Jeffrey Gundlach speaks, financial markets around the globe listen carefully. The founder and CEO of DoubleLine, a Los Angeles based investment boutique mainly specializing in bonds, ranks among America’s highest-profile investors. On Wall Street, he is known for speaking his mind.

According to his view, one of the biggest risks right now is that the Federal Reserve is doing considerable damage to the economy with its aggressive rate hikes:

«The next shock is that we’re having to put in a big overreaction to the inflation problem which we created from our initial reaction of excess stimulus,» Mr. Gundlach says.

«My guess is that we will end up creating momentum that’s more deflationary than a lot of people believe is even possible.»

In this in-depth interview with The Market NZZ, the market maven explains why he expects a severe economic downturn in the coming months, where he sees the weak links in the system, and where he spots opportunities for prudent investments in today’s volatile market environment.

Mr. Gundlach, financial markets are in a fragile state. Inflation is the highest in more than four decades, and stocks as well as bonds suffered significant losses this year. What’s on your mind in light of this environment?

The Federal Reserve is very keen on preserving what is left of its credibility and reputation because they have not been able to execute on their interest rate plans for many years. Every time they try to tighten monetary policy, it doesn’t take long for the economy to get weak, and they get embarrassed. In the past, the Fed was able to pivot like it did at the end of 2018 when it completely reversed its course in just six weeks because the stock market collapsed. It was able to do that because the inflation rate was still below 2%, so it didn’t seem to have much of a near-term consequence.

And how about today?

This time, the inflation rate is 500+ basis points higher than the yield on any Treasury bond, and the Fed has said forcefully and repeatedly that they are going to bring it down. Therefore, they are not in a position to do a quick pivot.

What do you think happens next?

Weirdly, the market consensus thinks that the Fed is going to raise rates somewhat more, maybe even 125 or 150 basis points, and then, around six or seven months from now, the market expects that they mysteriously are going to start easing. Basically, the idea is that they are going to hike interest rates significantly more, and then they are going to drop them back down. To me, that’s a strange thing to predict because why bother with anything then? If you’re taking rates up and then back down, why bother taking them up? Why not just do nothing? It’s like a six-foot-tall man who’s in shape and weighs 185 pounds saying: «I’m going to put on 100 pounds this holiday season, and then I’ll take it off with a crash diet by Easter.» What’s the point of that? That’s not healthy, it’s very bad.

But isn’t the idea here to give the economy a quick hit so that inflationary pressures subside and the system can recalibrate on a more balanced basis?

Sure, but what you’re implying here is that the inflation rate goes down from 9% to 2% which is the Fed’s goal within a year or by the end of next year. That’s sort of the hope. But if this would be really possible, if the inflation rate were to fall so quickly and so sharply, why do you think it would stop at 2%? Why wouldn’t you think it goes negative? Why wouldn’t you think so much momentum towards a slowing economy might overshoot on the deflation side?

How serious is the risk of deflation, in your view?

Due to the pandemic, we did this huge amount of radical economic policy. The idea was that it was going to be free money and free growth with no bad consequences. But of course, we’ve had bad consequences. Now, people are thinking we can just do this reactionary shock to the economy by taking the federal funds rate up to 3.5% or 4%. But if that’s enough to weaken the economy to take 7 percentage points off the inflation rate, why wouldn’t it be 15 points? So maybe, we are going to get a delayed reaction that’s deflationary, just like we had a delayed reaction that was highly inflationary.

What would that mean for financial markets?

These shock-and-awe tactics work with a delay, and if you overdo them, you end up getting tremendous incremental volatility. We’ve had so much economic volatility in the past two and a half years compared with the preceding decade where the economy grew more or less steadily at 2% and the inflation rate never truly budged. Then, we introduced all these extraordinary policies that work with a lag. We just keep doing them until they kick in after the lag, and by then we’ve greatly overdone it. I think that’s the message of the bond market. Why else would we have interest rates so far below the inflation rate and such a flat yield curve?

Into this highly volatile situation, we have a Fed that is expected to do $1 trillion of quantitative tightening over the next twelve months. Will this become an additional burden for the economy?

Yes, that will add to economic weakness. The consumer is very weak as you can see with some of the upper middle-class oriented retail chains like Nordstrom. Nordstrom’s stock lost 25% just last month. All these things that are aspirational purchases rather than necessities have fallen off the cliff because people have to spend too much money on gasoline and food. In contrast, low-end retailers like Walmart had an explosion in new customers. Many of them used to shop at Whole Foods, now they shop at Walmart because the food there is about 30% cheaper. Walmart is also reporting a significant shift in their customers paying with credit cards, not debit cards. In other words, shoppers are borrowing to buy food.

However, the labor market is still performing quite robustly.

It’s highly suspicious. The labor market is screwed up because of all the dislocation. People still don’t know what the future is for office work, or for hybrid work. Looking ahead, it’s hard to figure out where the economic strength is supposed to come from. It’s pretty obvious that the consumer is not in good shape. Therefore, it’s not surprising that we’re seeing weakness in some of the former stock market darlings like Peloton. Peloton’s stock is down like 97% from its high, and it looks like it’s going to zero. Zoom and all the other darlings of the lockdown are collapsing as well. My guess is that a lot of them are going to go bankrupt.

 

In this context, where are the weak links investors should pay close attention to?

 

The large banks in Europe continue to perform very poorly. I see Credit Suisse is backing away from trying to be a Wall Street and United States titan. Their stock just seems to never go up. Deutsche Bank fared a little bit better, but interest rate suppression policies had made it impossible for European banks to make money. In the American economy, the weak links are producers and retailers of discretionary goods because the people don’t have the money to buy them. It’s like French President Macron recently said: The period of abundance is over. The weak links are those that benefit from abundance. We’re in an economy that doesn’t have the liquidity. There is no more funding for questionable ventures, for non-profitable businesses. Those are the weak links: The people that were living off of free money and cheap money and not making any money.

What is the probability of a more severe economic downturn in this regard?

Again, the overarching theme people are not fully appreciating is that we have become unhinged in terms of our economic parameters versus trying to manage the economy gradualisticly, as we did for quite a while. All of sudden, we’ve decided we had to respond in a way that is not all gradualistic. We had to damn the torpedoes and just go for it. That took us off balance, and we’re having a hard time finding our footing. It’s going to take a long time to find footing, but the next shock is that we’re having to put in a big overreaction to the inflation problem which we created from our initial reaction of excess stimulus. My guess is that we will end up creating momentum that’s more deflationary than a lot of people believe is even possible.

Do you think Fed Chair Powell has the stamina to resolutely continue his fight against inflation if the signs of an economic slowdown continue to pile up?

He has to. He’s not going to stop. He waffled too much in the past. He made policy pivots on small changes of data, and that put him in an unfortunate light. Now, he has made a pledge to bring inflation down, and he can’t break it without strong evidence that the reason for the pledge has passed. He can’t say «we have won the inflation battle» if the consumer price index stays above 6%. If Powell changes his rhetoric, he will go down in history as a joke. He has said unequivocally and repeatedly that he’s not going to stop just because we get one or two good inflation numbers or we get a little bit of economic weakness. I’m paraphrasing here because he doesn’t want to say it so directly, but essentially, he stated that the Fed doesn’t care if we have a mild recession.

 

But what happens if this turns out to be a severe downturn?

 

Powell is in an unstable place right now because it probably can’t last. He has a supposedly good employment market. While that’s suspicious, the unemployment rate is at 3.7%, and there are a lot of job openings, which gives the Fed cover to fight inflation. By a mild recession Powell means the unemployment rate goes up to 4%. If it rises to that level, I think he can continue with inflation fighting. But what if the unemployment rate goes up to 8%? Then what? We know exactly what’s going to happen: In the next recession, the US is going to go on a much more aggressive round of free money.

You’re referring to another money printing binge?

Much bigger. That’s their methodology: zero interest rates and money printing. It started back in the 2000s, and we’ve been at it ever since. And it always takes a bigger dose. Once you’re on a debt-financed scheme, you always have to borrow more.

What then, would you advise monetary policy makers to do right now?

I think Powell should slow down. The Fed should actually not raise the target rate by 75 basis points at the next meeting. They should do 25 basis points, and let a little time pass. Powell can keep playing the inflation fighter as long as he’s raising rates gradually. I wouldn’t even care if he skipped a meeting: A 25 basis point hike in September, and then pause at the next FOMC meeting in November. Let’s wait and see what happens because the bond market should be listened to: Every time the bond market is at odds with consensus economists, the bond market is right. And the bond market is saying that yields are peaking.

But wouldn’t waiting raise the risk of persistently high inflation?

We had this incredible shock of liquidity injected into the system in the second quarter of 2020, and the negative consequences really didn’t show up for over a year. The inflation rate didn’t start to go up significantly until the second half of last year. That’s why we should wait. We started raising rates meaningfully in May, so let these hikes percolate through and see what happens. But Powell can’t do that. He has stated so forcefully and repeatedly that he’s not going to let up until he sees inflation coming down in a «convincing» way. Satisfying these conditions is going to take some time. But I think he should slow down.

How can prudent investors navigate this challenging environment?

This has been a capital preservation situation for the past year. Beginning of this year or a year ago, stocks, by historical measures, were extremely overvalued in terms of P/E ratios, price-to-book, and all kinds of measures. Except for one thing: As overvalued stocks were versus historical measures, they were actually cheap to bonds. Bonds were even more overvalued, and it’s surprising to people that bonds are down as much as stocks this year. The only thing that’s up at all is commodities, and that ended too back in June. Nothing is really up since the Fed started raising interest rates in earnest in June. So it’s just a capital preservation market.

That doesn’t sound encouraging. Is there nothing investors can do?

The problem is that financial markets are entirely balanced upon zero interest rates and quantitative easing. The Fed pledged that was going away, and they are still speaking like they have the intention of further honoring that pledge. As a consequence, your financial assets are devaluing. If people really wanted to invest in something fundamentally, you probably want to invest in something like an energy company. You actually want to have the most old-school types of assets, things producing something that’s needed: farm land, food, energy, oil. Those are the places where you can protect yourself from inflation. These are also assets that are somewhat recession proof. People have to buy food and other necessities, but there is nothing left for all of this abundance spending.

What about bonds, DoubleLine’s core competence?

As I said, bond yields are probably in the process of peaking out. Parts of the yield curve have been inverted for a while, so it’s very reasonable to expect an economic downturn of significance within a year. We’re heading into the lean years, and that’s probably a situation where ultimately income becomes harder to come by. That’s why bond yields have been stuck at around 3% to 3.25% for about three or four months now. It sends the message that high-quality bonds might actually perform reasonably well as unattractive as they are versus inflation. In fact, they already have. The long bond got to 3.50%; it’s up in price the past few months. That’s why I think investors should own bonds instead of stocks; bonds are cheap to stocks.

 

Where do you see the most attractive opportunities for fixed-income investments?

 

Because of the illiquidity and the redemptions from the bond industry, spreads on non-government bonds were widening in a pretty powerful way until the middle of the summer. For instance, junk bonds started out this year with a yield of about 5%, and they got up to about 10%. Some emerging market bonds are yielding 15%, 18%. These are risky, but they are so much more attractive than stocks. Some bonds have yields of 10% to 12% and have prices of 75 cents on the dollar. Think about what the return potential is here: If you have a yield of 10-12%, and you have a 10% price gain, you could easily make 20-25%. It’s very unlikely that you make that from stocks. The bond market has gone from no value anywhere two years ago to abundant value relative to stocks.

A key question is also what the dollar is going to do after the recent strong rally. How do you view the outlook for the greenback?

The dollar is in the very late stages of its strength. The dollar will go up until the next recession, and then it will drop precipitously. I have been bullish on the dollar for over a year, but I’m extremely bearish on the dollar for the next ten years.

A weaker dollar should be good for emerging markets, shouldn’t it?

Yes, when the dollar tops out, you should own nothing but emerging markets if you’re an extremely aggressive investor. I wouldn’t do it personally because I’m a low-risk personality type, but emerging markets will do very, very well. They’re so cheap compared to developed markets, and their currencies will appreciate, I think, in the next recession. That means you could have a double win when you’re a US dollar-based investor. But I don’t think it’s going to happen this year. That might be a story for 2023.

China looms particularly large for many investors in emerging markets since it represents an outsize stake in many EM funds. How should one deal with that in times of rising geopolitical tensions?

I wouldn’t invest in China. I think there is just too much uncertainty. Tensions between China and the United States are high, and likely to get much worse. If you’re an American, you might not even be able to redeem your investment. So I would stay out of there, but Asia ex-China I would invest in.

Should investors rather buy bonds or shares when it comes to emerging markets?

I think you would buy both when we get to the next recession, after we have perhaps a Treasury rally. I think bonds broadly will do reasonably well, and in emerging markets they’re so much cheaper than in the United States. Right now, emerging market portfolios yield about 9.5%. So if the currency goes your way, and the yield goes your way, you make a lot of money off emerging markets.

 

How about Europe? Do you spot opportunities for investments in Europe?

 

We own European stocks. I think in the next recession they will do better, and they’re cheaper than US stocks. Europe doesn’t have the same sort of crazy zombie companies to the extent we do in the United States. It’s the zombie companies that are really going to have problems, and the US is loaded with zombie companies. And again, ultimately the dollar will depreciate, which is another reason we like European stocks. So far, this position hasn’t been a tremendous benefit to us, but it hasn’t hurt either. That’s actually a good sign. Europe was underperforming the United States almost all the time for a decade, and that stopped two years ago. When the trend stops, it takes a while for it to reverse, but once it stops, it tends to reverse.

You started your career in the investment industry in the early Eighties when the general environment was somewhat similar to today. Looking back on your experience in all kinds of markets, what is the most important thing in investing?

You have to buy when prices are low. I’m not making a joke, I mean it. Every time when there is a problem in the bond market, money pours out. There is greed and fear: Greed is powerful, but fear is more powerful. Yet, there is one thing that is even more powerful: need. When you need something, you have to have it. If people need to make a certain investment return, what they will do when opportunities go down is increase their risk because they need a higher return. They can’t live on a 3% return, they need 6%. So when there is no 6%, they try to manufacture a 6%. As a result, their risk goes up, up, up, up, up, and then they’re maximum exposed to risk. Next, prices collapse, and then they sell because their fear is so great. Instead, they should be buying. Right now, the bond market is very attractive, but no one is listening because everybody is selling. You’re supposed to be buying when people are selling, and that opportunity is still very strong today.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/08/2022 - 17:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

A Climate Of Fear

A Climate Of Fear

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

The medical, media, and political elites’ focus has shifted from facts…

Published

on

A Climate Of Fear

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

The medical, media, and political elites’ focus has shifted from facts to fomenting and magnifying fear.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first inaugural address in 1933, the new president told a nation in the depths of the Great Depression that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Those words were true and rightfully spoken at that time. Roosevelt knew that fear is a powerful emotion that limits our ability to reason, act wisely, and work together. It’s also an emotion that’s contagious and not easily diminished or dissipated.

The Power of Fear to Fragment Society

Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s words are even more applicable today.

On a personal level, decisions made under the emotional duress of fear are rarely the best ones and often the worst. Fear can bring out the best in us, but can often bring out the worst. That’s more likely to occur the more fragmented a society becomes. Fear among different groups of people creates an us-versus-them context in the minds of individuals, or even an “every-man-for-himself” attitude, which pits one group against another or even each of us against each other.

Now elevate that sense of fear to the level of the national electorate. A people or a nation that's paralyzed with fear makes rash decisions based on their fears of what could happen, not necessarily what the current situation truly is. When that happens, a society can quickly degenerate, where our base instincts determine our behavior in a law-of-the-jungle social environment.

Roosevelt knew this, as do our leaders today. The difference is that today, rather than seeking to dispel fear, our political and media elites create it, expand it, and revel in it. Rather than promote hope and strength of character in us, in a Roosevelt- or even a Reagan-like fashion, they traffic in fear and its fellow traveler social division in order to fragment our society.

It’s the old but effective divide-and-conquer strategy, and sadly, it works far too well. The mechanism for divide and conquer is the constant drumbeat of the Big Lie, which is also a tried and true method for controlling society. It was first practiced and perfected by Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany using the mass media, but has been successfully used by the USSR and every other communist and dictatorial regime in the world since the 1930s.

Social Media Is Magnitudes More Powerful Than Legacy Media

The difference today is the massive and pervasive presence of social media. Its reach and social saturation throughout society are magnitudes greater than have ever been possible before. What’s more, our political and media elites create and exaggerate fear without even mentioning the word. “Fear” is driven into our collective psyches under the guise of our government keeping us “safe,” while demonizing anyone who challenges that narrative.

The repetition by the media and the pharmaceutical industry of how to stay safe from COVID-19 always involves more drugs and less freedom. That’s by design. The elites that run society know that once enough of our friends, neighbors, coworkers, and others with whom we interact become more fearful than rational, they’re easily manipulated and divided into confrontational groups.

Does that sound like a conspiracy theory?

Yes, it probably does, but it’s also how the Stasi, the East German security agency, turned virtually every neighbor into an informant. The result was that people were fearful of doing anything that could be construed as being against the communist East German government. In light of what we’ve been through the last three years—and what looks to be on the horizon—the conspiracy theory accusation has lost its sting.

From Conspiracy Theory to Fact

Recall, for example, how those who received the COVID-19 vaccine turned against those who remained unvaccinated. The contrast and social division couldn’t have been clearer or more deliberate. Vaccinated people were characterized by the media and government agency spokespeople as selfless, smarter, and better human beings than those who refused the vaccine.

On the flip side, the “anti-vaxxers,” as they came to be called, were publicly derided by the medical, pharmaceutical, media, and government elites. They were accused of being low-intelligence conspiracy theory nuts who wouldn’t or couldn’t “follow the science,” even when they followed the science from experts such as Robert Malone, one of the inventors of the mRNA technology, and other medical doctors in Europe and Asia, including former Pfizer Vice President Dr. Michael Yeadon, all of whom were de-platformed from mainstream media and social media.

In fact, any “alternative” remedy to the experimental and highly dangerous mRNA vaccines, such as ivermectin, was summarily dismissed, even though nations that used ivermectin had the lowest mortality rates. As noted above, many media personalities and even medical experts with contrary opinions were silenced, shamed, and shunted into professional oblivion, being substituted by compliant replacements. That practice continues to this day, with Russell Brand being the latest example of being de-monetized by YouTube.

In light of vaccine injuries and deaths, and the staggering profits that vaccines have delivered to the pharmaceutical industry, the number of people who believe the mainstream media, the government, and in the vaccines, is much smaller today than three years ago.

Conspiracy theory narratives have become conspiracy facts.

The Endgame of Fear

So, what’s the endgame of promoting and enforcing a climate of fear throughout society?

It’s simple. Fearful people are far more compliant and, therefore, are easily controlled, pacified, monitored, and dehumanized. Next thing you know, we’ll all be eating bugs and liking it.

The antidote to fear, of course, is freedom and access to real and contrary information so that each person can make up his or her own mind. The encouragement, enablement, and empowerment of private individuals to exercise informed judgment about their health and their livelihoods are also part of the solution. A vibrant, thinking, and active society of informed individuals isn't nearly as vulnerable to the polarizing climate of fear our elites are foisting upon us.

In short, to live in fear is to live in bondage.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/30/2023 - 20:50

Read More

Continue Reading

International

COVID-19 Vaccine Found In The Hearts Of Dead People: Study

COVID-19 Vaccine Found In The Hearts Of Dead People: Study

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

COVID-19 vaccine…

Published

on

COVID-19 Vaccine Found In The Hearts Of Dead People: Study

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

COVID-19 vaccine was detected in patients who died within a month of vaccination, according to a new study.

COVID-19 vaccines in Massachusetts in a file image. (Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)

U.S. researchers analyzed tissue samples from the autopsies of 25 people, including 20 who were vaccinated.

Samples from the hearts of three patients, all of whom died within 30 days of a Pfizer shot, tested positive for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA).

Eight bilateral axillary lymph node samples, from people who died within 30 days of a Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, also tested positive. The companies' shots utilize mRNA.

The research shows "the vaccine can persist for up to 30 days, including in the heart," Dr. James Stone, with the departments of pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times via email.

The study was published by npj Vaccines. Authors declared no conflicts of interest. They said the research was supported by Massachusetts General Hospital, which is in Boston.

In testing of heart and bilateral axillary lymph node tissues from other vaccinated people who died, no vaccine was detected.

Additionally, no vaccine was detected in the liver, spleen, or mediastinal lymph nodes—vaccine was detected in the liver and spleen in preclinical rodent studies before—nor was any detected in tissues from the unvaccinated patients.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are known to cause myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation that can result in death.

The people who had mRNA detected in the heart did not have myocarditis, though they did have detectable heart injuries, researchers found.

The researchers said they believed the heart injuries stemmed from underlying diseases and not the vaccines.

"There is no indication as yet that the vaccine in the heart is causing any problems in these patients; neither the causes of death nor the causes of the myocardial injury were linked to the vaccines in that study," said Dr. Stone, one of the authors of the paper.

A health care worker prepares a dose Pfizer/BioNTEch COVID-19 vaccine at The Michener Institute, in Toronto, Canada, on Dec.14, 2020. (Carlos Osorio/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

That position was challenged by Dr. Clare Craig, a British pathologist who reviewed the research.

"The vaccine should not have been there. There was evidence of heart damage. Those three people are now dead," Dr. Craig told The Epoch Times in a message.

She said the researchers were setting too high of a bar for causality.

"At postmortem if there is significant narrowing of the coronary arteries then heart damage is attributed to it on the balance of probabilities. Here this is a clear cut association, an unusual picture of myocardial injury, and a failure to call it out for what it is," Dr. Craig said.

More on Research

The tissues were collected from autopsies performed between January 2021 and February 2022 at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Researchers excluded tissues from some dead people, including from patients who had no clear history of vaccination or non-vaccination and those who had a documented prior COVID-19 infection.

The researchers wanted to test the tissue for vaccine in light of research that has found both spike protein and mRNA persisting in axillary lymph nodes and blood for weeks or even months after vaccination. The testing would help "gain a better understanding of the biodistribution and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines," they said. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19.

Researchers ended up with tissues from 20 vaccinated patients, including six who received one dose, 12 who received two doses, and two who received three doses. They also formed a control group of five unvaccinated patients.

Six bilateral axillary lymph node samples were available for people vaccinated with Moderna's shot. Two tested positive for the vaccine. Thirteen were available for people vaccinated with Pfizer's shot. Six tested positive for the vaccine.

Overall, of the 11 bilateral axillary lymph node samples from patients who died within 30 days of a shot, eight tested positive. None of the samples from patients who died beyond 30 days of vaccination tested positive.

Researchers also examined samples from each of the vaccinated people from the cardiac left ventricle and cardiac right ventricle. Of those, four samples tested positive across three patients. These were the three who received Pfizer's shot within 30 days of dying. The samples also tested negative for COVID-19.

Vaccine was not detected in any of the unvaccinated people.

The vaccinated patients were on average older, with a mean age of 64 compared to 57. A higher percentage—55 percent to 20 percent—had recent heart injury.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/29/2023 - 18:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

T2 Biosystems (NASDAQ: TTOO) Breaks Ground: FDA Clearance, Market Trends, and Healthcare Impact

Shares of T2 Biosystems (NASDAQ:TTOO) are soaring up over 20% today on the heels of receiving a 510(k) clearance for its T2Biothreat from the FDA. This…

Published

on

Shares of T2 Biosystems (NASDAQ:TTOO) are soaring up over 20% today on the heels of receiving a 510(k) clearance for its T2Biothreat from the FDA. This unique test directly detects six biothreat pathogens from a blood sample.

Spotting Biothreats Faster:

T2Biothreat Panel is a game-changer, being the first and only FDA-approved product that can spot these critical biothreat pathogens simultaneously. T2 Biosystems proudly stands as the first U.S. company to achieve this milestone, reshaping the field of biothreat detection.

Big Investor Sells:

Interestingly while celebrating this achievement, a significant investor, CR Group (CRG), decided to sell off a substantial chunk of shares. This sell-off, totaling 24.81 million shares, took place between Sept. 20 and Sept. 26. The timing of this sell-off alongside the FDA clearance raises some eyebrows.

Subscribe to Microcapdaily.com Right Now by entering your Email in the box below.

Subscribe to Our 100% Free Penny Stock Newsletter. We Have Something Big Coming!

New CDC Guidelines:

Regardless of CR Group selling, there still appears to be a massive opportunity according to many retail investors. Following new CDC guidelines, the U.S. government now mandates that all hospitals in the country must adopt rapid testing protocols to combat the sepsis pandemic by 2026, or risk losing Medicare funding.

Buying opportunity of the year!!! Update
byu/den1183 inTTOOstock

T2 Biosystems stands as the exclusive FDA-cleared product capable of achieving 100% accurate sepsis detection within 3 to 5 hours. Anticipating widespread adoption of T2 instruments in hospitals, the CEO foresees significant revenue generation, potentially reaching $1.3 billion annually, given the mandate.

This development drastically alters the landscape, potentially influencing the stock’s trajectory positively. With the ongoing surge in manufacturing hires and likely acceleration in orders, coupled with potential government contracts or international sales, many beleive T2 Biosystems presents an undervalued opportunity for investors.

What Borrowing Costs Tell Us:

Another interesting indicator to look at is the cost to borrow (CTB) fee. In terms of TTOO’s case, the stock has seen a massive surge in CTB fees, indicating a high demand from short sellers. When compared to the average CTB fee for other stocks, it’s pretty drastic. While this is typically not a very positive sign, retail investors seem to be buzzing with interest, given there also could be a potential short squeeze if enough buying comes in to trap the shorts.

Better News for Patients:

But let’s not forget the real impact and that’s what TTOO can do for patients. @ChengKeki a user from Twitter also shared an article about Butler Memorial Hospital and their approach to Sepsis. The hospital came up with a 2 step approach to expedite patient care.  They’re utilizing the Beckman Coulter automation line to identify changes in a person’s blood cells that might indicate the development of sepsis. Which apparently has only been used in Europe and they’re the first in the US with the technology. Then shortly after, they use T2 Biosystems panels that as you know, quicken the process from 36 hours, to just 3-5 hours.

Catching sepsis quickly is crucial because it’s a life-threatening condition that rapidly progresses throughout your body and can lead to death if not promptly diagnosed and treated. Sepsis occurs when the body responds improperly to an infection, causing widespread inflammation and potentially damages multiple organ systems. Early detection allows for immediate medical intervention.

Conclusion:

T2 Biosystems is hitting major milestones, not only in the market but in improving critical healthcare processes. The company is also a major hit with retail investors and continues to trade an astronomical amount of shares daily, the current average is ~115M shares. The FDA approval and its implications, along with the positive shift in sepsis diagnosis, showcase T2 Biosystems’ growing role in healthcare. Keep an eye on how this progresses—it’s exciting for both investors and patients alike.

We will update you on TTOO when more details emerge, subscribe to Microcapdaily to follow along!

Subscribe to Our 100% Free Penny Stock Newsletter. We Have Something Big Coming!

Picture by jarmoluk from Pixabay

 

The post T2 Biosystems (NASDAQ: TTOO) Breaks Ground: FDA Clearance, Market Trends, and Healthcare Impact first appeared on Micro Cap Daily.

The post T2 Biosystems (NASDAQ: TTOO) Breaks Ground: FDA Clearance, Market Trends, and Healthcare Impact appeared first on Micro Cap Daily.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending