Connect with us

“Zombies” Are For Amateurs: The Negative EBITDA Vampires Are On A Rampage

"Zombies" Are For Amateurs: The Negative EBITDA Vampires Are On A Rampage

Tyler Durden

Thu, 12/03/2020 – 13:45

There are zombie companies – those undead US corporations which can’t even cover their interest expense with cash from…

Published

on

"Zombies" Are For Amateurs: The Negative EBITDA Vampires Are On A Rampage Tyler Durden Thu, 12/03/2020 - 13:45

There are zombie companies - those undead US corporations which can't even cover their interest expense with cash from operations, a list which has grown to 20% of all Russell 3000 corporations profiled last month

... and then there are those companies which, for lack of a better word, one can call vampires: not only do they not have enough cashflow to cover interest expense, but they don't have any cash flow period and burn cash outright as they have negative EBITDA.

These are the companies which Hyman Minsky would define as engaging in Ponzi Finance, which is the state of financialization right before the infamous Minsky Moment pushes the cycle into the Bust phase, and where companies have to rely on new debt merely to fund operations.

Of course, cash burn companies are nothing new and some of the most valuable companies in the US - such as Tesla - have negative EBITDA, but that is because they are growing so fast, they are scrambling to capture market share with no regard for profits. These are the companies that can access equity capital markets with ease and get new funding with one phone call.

However, when mature, formerly profitably companies with little to no growth and massive debt loads start burning cash, that's when things get ugly.

Unfortunately for the US economy, negative EBITDA companies are growing at a feverish pace. As Bloomberg reports, a growing number of junk-rated corporations including Delta Air Lines and Royal Caribbean Cruises are losing money even before they pay interest and other necessary expenses like taxes. They’re covering those costs with cash they still have and with more borrowing in the bond and loan markets, where investors are willing to bet that companies will recover relatively fast after Covid-19 vaccines arrive.

Just how fast are these vampires spreading? According to Bloomberg calculations, in the latest quarter, the number of junk-rated corporations with negative EBITDA reached an eye-popping 47, nearly double the level in the second quarter, out of a universe of about 600 borrowers.

Companies such as Delta, Royal Caribbean and United Airlines Holdings are among those that have seen trailing-twelve-month Ebitda turn negative in the third quarter. Many of these are in industries hit hard by Covid-19, including tourism and live entertainment.

The 47 companies in the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Bond index that posted negative adjusted Ebitda for the 12 months ended in September compares with just 26 in the second quarter. And they reflect only a portion of the firms currently burning cash, given that the analysis excludes most companies that aren’t public and corporations in the financial sector. By other, more stringent definitions, such as subtracting expenses including interest and capital expenditure from Ebitda, even more firms are turning in a less-than-zero performance.

As noted above, in a normal world corporations with negative EBITDA, with the exception of startups and rapidly growing firms, are on the road to bankruptcy, because they aren’t earning enough to make even partial debt payments. But in this downturn, most troubled companies have been able to raise billions in debt and some have even raised equity.

As with the "zombies", there is one simple reason for this stunning propagation of cash burning vampires: the Fed.

As Bloomberg notes, while the Federal Reserve is helping these companies limp along by keeping interest rates near zero and forcing investors that want decent returns to finance insolvent businesses, "money managers won’t be willing to lend to weak corporations forever" and yet it's unclear just what will change: the Fed will not hike rates for years and it continues to inject $120BN in liquidity every month indefinitely.

Yet while most investors are willing to use "other people's money" to keep this bubble going, some are getting worried such as Noel Hebert, director of credit research at Bloomberg Intelligence who said that debt markets may not be paying enough attention to the risk of cash and financing running out. He added that "even if the pandemic ends sometime next year, businesses will have to deal with their growing debt levels and an economy that may look very different after Covid-19." That's ok though: by then the Fed will likely push rates negative allowing bankrupt companies to issue 2%-yielding debt and stay alive.

"We’ve got companies where we don’t know if they’re functionally okay or not because we don’t know what the economy looks like on the other side of Covid," Hebert said. "You’ve got companies that need a fast solution to figure out how to make their debt levels work, and absent that, those are companies that over the course of the next year may need to file for bankruptcy."

The irony is that while the Fed directly feeds this debt bubble, it is at the same time warning about the pernicious consequences of too much debt. NY Fed economists wrote this week that companies that came out of the last big downturn with higher debt loads ended up performing worse than their peers (Fed researchers are not know for uncovering something most people don't already know). What the Fed also "found" is that in this cycle, firms in industries like tourism, travel and hospitality could grow as much as 10% slower than in ordinary times, based on figures seen after the financial crisis and companies’ debt levels coming into this downturn. And yet, instead of pulling the plug and allowing creative destruction to take place, the Fed continues to ease financial conditions, ensuring that these companies will have even more growth-crushing leverage in the near future.

Meanwhile, junk bonds financing these insolvent vampires have gained around 5.5% this year, after returning more than 14% last year, and with the world starved for returns, asset managers have no choice but to fund these cash-burning, ticking timebombs.

"Debt investors are willing to cross their fingers and go, ‘OK you’re not profitable, but we think someday you can be again,’ which is a tricky way to invest," Hebert said.

One company which took advantage of bond market desperation is Carnival, which last month borrowed $2 billion in unsecured corporate debt, paying an interest rate of just 7.625% on USD and euro-denominated notes. Bizarrely, this is far lower than the hefty 11.9% yield it had to pay on debt secured by its ships in April, when investors were less confident in the timing of a return to normality. They also weren't confident that the Fed's purchases of corporate debt would stabilize the market.

"What these companies are going through is temporary, that’s the bottom line,” said Kevin Mathews, global head of high yield at Aviva Investors, unless of course it isn't. "If they’ve raised enough money in the market to survive until their business comes back, then those default rates aren’t going to be as bad as we thought." This, as Minsky would explain to Kevin, is what Ponzy finance is all about.

While none of this should come as a surprise to anyone following the dismal dynamics in the bond market, where the more companies face insolvency if it weren't for the Fed, the lower yields are, there was one curious observation: in Q3 high-yield companies were able to cut their debt burden in the third quarter. Leverage, or the ratio of total debt to EBITDA on average for high-yield companies ticked down slightly to 5.27x in Q3 from the historic high of 5.57x in the three months ended June 30.

Yet a closer look reveals that this metric is misleading: the improvement is only because of quirks in how aggregate leverage is measured, as any company with negative Ebitda was removed from the figures because leverage becomes meaningless when that occurs, making the average look better. In other words, the more companies default, the prettier the aggregatie picture! OH, and also, several companies left the index in the third quarter after filing for bankruptcy.

The reason for the relentless surge in debt is that most companies who still have access to capital markets went on a borrowing spree in recent months while keeping the cash on their books as a back up in case their situation gets worse. While that money can be used to pay down debt in the future, it most likely won't as it will be used to fund ongoing operations first, with little to nothing left over for debt repayment.

It is these massive debt loads that will be a drag on the economy in the years to come and weigh on growth even further, said Michael Collins, senior multi-sector portfolio manager at PGIM Fixed Income. Companies hard-hit by the pandemic have been laying off workers and cutting back on investments to cut costs. "They really focus on survival rather than growth," Collins said.

Ironically while all of these companies would benefit from bankruptcy as it would wipe the debt-slate clean, that is not happening as the Fed's policies keep the equityholders in the game, even though they should have been wiped out long ago.

Of course, there is a silver lining: all of these companies will benefit if the global economy sees a rebound in the second half of 2021 as most analysts expect, but that won’t necessarily extend to businesses that might be facing long-term reductions in revenues as consumer habits change, according to Collins.

"If you thought the last decade coming out of the financial crisis was a poor or weak recovery, which it was by historic standards, I think the recovery this cycle is going to be worse than that because of all the debt overhang." Debt, which was only made possible because of the Fed... but don't expect to read a NY Fed research paper focusing on why the corporate debt crisis is now deeply embedded in the fabric of the economy and will ensure that GDP growth in the coming decade will remain deeply depressed.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former…

Published

on

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former Project Veritas & O’Keefe Media Group operative and Pfizer formulation analyst scientist Justin Leslie revealed previously unpublished recordings showing Pfizer’s top vaccine researchers discussing major concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. Leslie delivered these recordings to Veritas in late 2021, but they were never published:

Featured in Leslie’s footage is Kanwal Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. Gill was weary of MRNA technology given its long research history yet lack of approved commercial products. She called the vaccines “sneaky,” suggesting latent side effects could emerge in time.

Gill goes on to illustrate how the vaccine formulation process was dramatically rushed under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization and adds that profit incentives likely played a role:

"It’s going to affect my heart, and I’m going to die. And nobody’s talking about that."

Leslie recorded another colleague, Pfizer’s pharmaceutical formulation scientist Ramin Darvari, who raised the since-validated concern that repeat booster intake could damage the cardiovascular system:

None of these claims will be shocking to hear in 2024, but it is telling that high-level Pfizer researchers were discussing these topics in private while the company assured the public of “no serious safety concerns” upon the jab’s release:

Vaccine for Children is a Different Formulation

Leslie sent me a little-known FDA-Pfizer conference — a 7-hour Zoom meeting published in tandem with the approval of the vaccine for 5 – 11 year-olds — during which Pfizer’s vice presidents of vaccine research and development, Nicholas Warne and William Gruber, discussed a last-minute change to the vaccine’s “buffer” — from “PBS” to “Tris” — to improve its shelf life. For about 30 seconds of these 7 hours, Gruber acknowledged that the new formula was NOT the one used in clinical trials (emphasis mine):


“The studies were done using the same volume… but contained the PBS buffer. We obviously had extensive consultations with the FDA and it was determined that the clinical studies were not required because, again, the LNP and the MRNA are the same and the behavior — in terms of reactogenicity and efficacy — are expected to be the same.

According to Leslie, the tweaked “buffer” dramatically changed the temperature needed for storage: “Before they changed this last step of the formulation, the formula was to be kept at -80 degrees Celsius. After they changed the last step, we kept them at 2 to 8 degrees celsius,” Leslie told me.

The claims are backed up in the referenced video presentation:

I’m no vaccinologist but an 80-degree temperature delta — and a 5x shelf-life in a warmer climate — seems like a significant change that might warrant clinical trials before commercial release.

Despite this information technically being public, there has been virtually no media scrutiny or even coverage — and in fact, most were told the vaccine for children was the same formula but just a smaller dose — which is perhaps due to a combination of the information being buried within a 7-hour jargon-filled presentation and our media being totally dysfunctional.

Bohemian Grove?

Leslie’s 2-hour long documentary on his experience at both Pfizer and O’Keefe’s companies concludes on an interesting note: James O’Keefe attended an outing at the Bohemian Grove.

Leslie offers this photo of James’ Bohemian Grove “GATE” slip as evidence, left on his work desk atop a copy of his book, “American Muckraker”:

My thoughts on the Bohemian Grove: my good friend’s dad was its general manager for several decades. From what I have gathered through that connection, the Bohemian Grove is not some version of the Illuminati, at least not in the institutional sense.

Do powerful elites hangout there? Absolutely. Do they discuss their plans for the world while hanging out there? I’m sure it has happened. Do they have a weird ritual with a giant owl? Yep, Alex Jones showed that to the world.

My perspective is based on conversations with my friend and my belief that his father is not lying to him. I could be wrong and am open to evidence — like if boxer Ryan Garcia decides to produce evidence regarding his rape claims — and I do find it a bit strange the club would invite O’Keefe who is notorious for covertly filming, but Occam’s razor would lead me to believe the club is — as it was under my friend’s dad — run by boomer conservatives the extent of whose politics include disliking wokeness, immigration, and Biden (common subjects of O’Keefe’s work).

Therefore, I don’t find O’Keefe’s visit to the club indicative that he is some sort of Operation Mockingbird asset as Leslie tries to depict (however Mockingbird is a 100% legitimate conspiracy). I have also met James several times and even came close to joining OMG. While I disagreed with James on the significance of many of his stories — finding some to be overhyped and showy — I never doubted his conviction in them.

As for why Leslie’s story was squashed… all my sources told me it was to avoid jail time for Veritas executives.

Feel free to watch Leslie’s full documentary here and decide for yourself.

Fun fact — Justin Leslie was also the operative behind this mega-viral Project Veritas story where Pfizer’s director of R&D claimed the company was privately mutating COVID-19 behind closed doors:

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/12/2024 - 13:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Association of prenatal vitamins and metals with epigenetic aging at birth and in childhood

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging…

Published

on

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

Credit: 2024 Bozack et al.

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

BUFFALO, NY- March 12, 2024 – A new research paper was published in Aging (listed by MEDLINE/PubMed as “Aging (Albany NY)” and “Aging-US” by Web of Science) Volume 16, Issue 4, entitled, “Associations of prenatal one-carbon metabolism nutrients and metals with epigenetic aging biomarkers at birth and in childhood in a US cohort.”

Epigenetic gestational age acceleration (EGAA) at birth and epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) in childhood may be biomarkers of the intrauterine environment. In this new study, researchers Anne K. Bozack, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, Andrea A. Baccarelli, Robert O. Wright, Diane R. Gold, Emily Oken, Marie-France Hivert, and Andres Cardenas from Stanford University School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai investigated the extent to which first-trimester folate, B12, 5 essential and 7 non-essential metals in maternal circulation are associated with EGAA and EAA in early life. 

“[…] we hypothesized that OCM [one-carbon metabolism] nutrients and essential metals would be positively associated with EGAA and non-essential metals would be negatively associated with EGAA. We also investigated nonlinear associations and associations with mixtures of micronutrients and metals.”

Bohlin EGAA and Horvath pan-tissue and skin and blood EAA were calculated using DNA methylation measured in cord blood (N=351) and mid-childhood blood (N=326; median age = 7.7 years) in the Project Viva pre-birth cohort. A one standard deviation increase in individual essential metals (copper, manganese, and zinc) was associated with 0.94-1.2 weeks lower Horvath EAA at birth, and patterns of exposures identified by exploratory factor analysis suggested that a common source of essential metals was associated with Horvath EAA. The researchers also observed evidence of nonlinear associations of zinc with Bohlin EGAA, magnesium and lead with Horvath EAA, and cesium with skin and blood EAA at birth. Overall, associations at birth did not persist in mid-childhood; however, arsenic was associated with greater EAA at birth and in childhood. 

“Prenatal metals, including essential metals and arsenic, are associated with epigenetic aging in early life, which might be associated with future health.”

 

Read the full paper: DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.205602 

Corresponding Author: Andres Cardenas

Corresponding Email: andres.cardenas@stanford.edu 

Keywords: epigenetic age acceleration, metals, folate, B12, prenatal exposures

Click here to sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article.

 

About Aging:

Launched in 2009, Aging publishes papers of general interest and biological significance in all fields of aging research and age-related diseases, including cancer—and now, with a special focus on COVID-19 vulnerability as an age-dependent syndrome. Topics in Aging go beyond traditional gerontology, including, but not limited to, cellular and molecular biology, human age-related diseases, pathology in model organisms, signal transduction pathways (e.g., p53, sirtuins, and PI-3K/AKT/mTOR, among others), and approaches to modulating these signaling pathways.

Please visit our website at www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us:

  • Facebook
  • X, formerly Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Spotify, and available wherever you listen to podcasts

 

Click here to subscribe to Aging publication updates.

For media inquiries, please contact media@impactjournals.com.

 

Aging (Aging-US) Journal Office

6666 E. Quaker Str., Suite 1B

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 1

###


Read More

Continue Reading

International

A beginner’s guide to the taxes you’ll hear about this election season

Everything you need to know about income tax, national insurance and more.

Cast Of Thousands/Shutterstock

National insurance, income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax… it’s easy to get confused about the many different ways we contribute to the cost of running the country. The budget announcement is the key time each year when the government shares its financial plans with us all, and announces changes that may make a tangible difference to what you pay.

But you’ll likely be hearing a lot more about taxes in the coming months – promises to cut or raise them are an easy win (or lose) for politicians in an election year. We may even get at least one “mini-budget”.

If you’ve recently entered the workforce or the housing market, you may still be wrapping your mind around all of these terms. Here is what you need to know about the different types of taxes and how they affect you.

The UK broadly uses three ways to collect tax:

1. When you earn money

If you are an employee or own a business, taxes are deducted from your salary or profits you make. For most people, this happens in two ways: income tax, and national insurance contributions (or NICs).

If you are self-employed, you will have to pay your taxes via an annual tax return assessment. You might also have to pay taxes this way for interest you earn on savings, dividends (distribution of profits from a company or shares you own) received and most other forms of income not taxed before you get it.

Around two-thirds of taxes collected come from people’s or business’ incomes in the UK.

2. When you spend money

VAT and excise duties are taxes on most goods and services you buy, with some exceptions like books and children’s clothing. About 20% of the total tax collected is VAT.

3. Taxes on wealth and assets

These are mainly taxes on the money you earn if you sell assets (like property or stocks) for more than you bought them for, or when you pass on assets in an inheritance. In the latter case in the UK, the recipient doesn’t pay this, it is the estate paying it out that must cover this if due. These taxes contribute only about 3% to the total tax collected.

You also likely have to pay council tax, which is set by the council you live in based on the value of your house or flat. It is paid by the user of the property, no matter if you own or rent. If you are a full-time student or on some apprenticeship schemes, you may get a deduction or not have to pay council tax at all.


Quarter life, a series by The Conversation

This article is part of Quarter Life, a series about issues affecting those of us in our 20s and 30s. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.

You may be interested in:

If you get your financial advice on social media, watch out for misinformation

Future graduates will pay more in student loan repayments – and the poorest will be worst affected

Selling on Vinted, Etsy or eBay? Here’s what you need to know about paying tax


Put together, these totalled almost £790 billion in 2022-23, which the government spends on public services such as the NHS, schools and social care. The government collects taxes from all sources and sets its spending plans accordingly, borrowing to make up any difference between the two.

Income tax

The amount of income tax you pay is determined by where your income sits in a series of “bands” set by the government. Almost everyone is entitled to a “personal allowance”, currently £12,570, which you can earn without needing to pay any income tax.

You then pay 20% in tax on each pound of income you earn (across all sources) from £12,570-£50,270. You pay 40% on each extra pound up to £125,140 and 45% over this. If you earn more than £100,000, the personal allowance (amount of untaxed income) starts to decrease.

If you are self-employed, the same rates apply to you. You just don’t have an employer to take this off your salary each month. Instead, you have to make sure you have enough money at the end of the year to pay this directly to the government.


Read more: Taxes aren't just about money – they shape how we think about each other


The government can increase the threshold limits to adjust for inflation. This tries to ensure any wage rise you get in response to higher prices doesn’t lead to you having to pay a higher tax rate. However, the government announced in 2021 that they would freeze these thresholds until 2026 (extended now to 2028), arguing that it would help repay the costs of the pandemic.

Given wages are now rising for many to help with the cost of living crisis, this means many people will pay more income tax this coming year than they did before. This is sometimes referred to as “fiscal drag” – where lower earners are “dragged” into paying higher tax rates, or being taxed on more of their income.

National insurance

National insurance contributions (NICs) are a second “tax” you pay on your income – or to be precise, on your earned income (your salary). You don’t pay this on some forms of income, including savings or dividends, and you also don’t pay it once you reach state retirement age (currently 66).

While Jeremy Hunt, the current chancellor of the exchequer, didn’t adjust income tax meaningfully in this year’s budget, he did announce a cut to NICs. This was a surprise to many, as we had already seen rates fall from 12% to 10% on incomes higher than £242/week in January. It will now fall again to 8% from April.


Read more: Budget 2024: experts explain what it means for taxpayers, businesses, borrowers and the NHS


While this is charged separately to income tax, in reality it all just goes into one pot with other taxes. Some, including the chancellor, say it is time to merge these two deductions and make this simpler for everyone. In his budget speech this year, Hunt said he’d like to see this tax go entirely. He thinks this isn’t fair on those who have to pay it, as it is only charged on some forms of income and on some workers.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for this to happen however, and even if it did, there are huge sums linked to NICs (nearly £180bn last year) so it would almost certainly have to be collected from elsewhere (such as via an increase in income taxes, or a lot more borrowing) to make sure the government could still balance its books.

A young black man sits at a home office desk with his feet up, looking at a mobile phone
Do you know how much tax you pay? Alex from the Rock/Shutterstock

Other taxes

There are likely to be further tweaks to the UK’s tax system soon, perhaps by the current government before the election – and almost certainly if there is a change of government.

Wealth taxes may be in line for a change. In the budget, the chancellor reduced capital gains taxes on sales of assets such as second properties (from 28% to 24%). These types of taxes provide only a limited amount of money to the government, as quite high thresholds apply for inheritance tax (up to £1 million if you are passing on a family home).

There are calls from many quarters though to look again at these types of taxes. Wealth inequality (the differences between total wealth held by the richest compared to the poorest) in the UK is very high (much higher than income inequality) and rising.

But how to do this effectively is a matter of much debate. A recent study suggested a one-off tax on total wealth held over a certain threshold might work. But wealth taxes are challenging to make work in practice, and both main political parties have already said this isn’t an option they are considering currently.

Andy Lymer and his colleagues at the Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing at Aston University currently or have recently received funding for their research work from a variety of funding bodies including the UK's Money and Pension Service, the Aviva Foundation, Fair4All Finance, NEST Insight, the Gambling Commission, Vivid Housing and the ESRC, amongst others.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending