KJP

Do standard (non-N95) masks aid healthy people avoid infection, prevent sick people from spreading, or both?

Approx every week cases double, and it takes about a week until people are hospitalized, so once you reach a large enough threshold of cases, each week gets progressively worse. Going from 1 case to 100 takes around the same amount of time as going from 100 to 100,000 (unmitigated), and the problems become much large in that 100 > 100,000 progression. If the estimates I've seen hold, that threshold is hitting right about now with around 20,000 estimated US cases as of a few days ago. Clusters will become large enough to impact large city health systems once you have a few thousand cases in the area, and I'd expect in less than 7 days you'll start seeing a crush of patients in Seattle and NYC, and the situation will likely get worse each week from there. NYC hospitals have started to become overwhelmed, as well as many cities in Europe. I have now revised my expectations that the US will have much worse spread outcomes than Italy, as the US has been much less proactive, and spread is likely continuing in an exponential way further along the curve. Italy was starting to slow by 100,000 cases, however the US is still traveling on an exponential path. Millions of cases, and incredibly high CFRs are likely. The economic damage will be much larger than I previously thought as well--depression is now my base case. I am also not convinced the plans currently being written by the GOP will pass, though my confidence is much lower reading the political tea leaves. I think the struggle to pass the small $8 billion bill indicates there will be a lot of fighting once the numbers get to the trillions. Moreover, I expect any industry bailouts to work similar to GM in 2008-2009, where within months, the bailed out company finds that it must still declare bankruptcy, as conditions will not become economic for some time, and they require re-structuring. I was about to go back the timeline you posted and note the first rumblings from NYC that ICUs are filling up. Unfortunately, I've found reliable reporting about this specific and very important issue (current status and capacity of hospitals/ICUs) very spotty. I wish we had comprehensive data consistently published about this, which I view as a much more objective marker than testing, which we know is very flawed.

Never let a good crisis go to waste right? This type of request has never been granted. Absolutely insane. The closes thing was the despicable handling of the Japanese during wwii. Katrina also had some similar stuff happen. Hundreds of law abiding citizens had their guns confiscated leaving their homes, businesses, vulnerable to looting. What exactly is the text of the request that you're saying has never been granted before? Many district courts, on their own authority, have already suspended all civil and criminal trials and have excluded that time from counting toward the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, with specific exceptions to be granted on a case-by-case basis. To my knowledge, however, no district court has suspended proceedings entirely, which would effectively suspend the writ of habeas corpus in that district (but query whether, in the event a federal district court was closed and thus there were no federal habeas venue, a state court could assume jurisdiction to grant a writ even to a federal prisoner, assuming Congress had not suspending the writ). The primary qualm is the request to detain individuals without due process indefinitely without trial. Yes, that would be disturbing, but I haven't seen the actual text. The references I have seen to such a request would authorize the Chief Judge in each district to close down. Under that scheme, it would be at the discretion of the judicial branch, not the executive. In my experience, they would be loathe to use such authority and would exhaust every other possibility first, such as phone and video conference.

Never let a good crisis go to waste right? This type of request has never been granted. Absolutely insane. The closes thing was the despicable handling of the Japanese during wwii. Katrina also had some similar stuff happen. Hundreds of law abiding citizens had their guns confiscated leaving their homes, businesses, vulnerable to looting. What exactly is the text of the request that you're saying has never been granted before? Many district courts, on their own authority, have already suspended all civil and criminal trials and have excluded that time from counting toward the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, with specific exceptions to be granted on a case-by-case basis. To my knowledge, however, no district court has suspended proceedings entirely, which would effectively suspend the writ of habeas corpus in that district (but query whether, in the event a federal district court was closed and thus there were no federal habeas venue, a state court could assume jurisdiction to grant a writ even to a federal prisoner, assuming Congress had not suspending the writ).

Let's take a real world example so we can understand your proposal: Employee A Works at business B Which rents space from Landlord C Who has a mortgage with, and pays interest to, Entity D Which pays out an income stream to Investor E Is your suggestion that the government give B whatever money is necessary for it to pay A and to pay C, which in turn can pay D, which in turn can continue to pay out to E? Or are you suggesting that the money should stop somewhere along this chain? If so, where does it stop? If it does not stop anywhere in this chain, who ultimately will foot the bill? If no one will foot the bill, how is such a free lunch possible?

I understand you're rolling duration, not holding your initial purchase for 30 years. But would you want to roll duration for the next 30 years starting from where 30-year treasuries are now?

We've had falling interest rates essentially that entire period. Can that happen again over the next 30-40 years? That would imply, what, -10% yield on the 30-year?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/opec-u-s-shale-producers-open-talks-amid-oil-rout-11584719936

Griffin Industrial Realty

If you're looking for a strong balance sheet and a resilient business model, look at NVR.

Here's another levered midstream CEF: https://kaynefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/KYN-20-02-29-NAV-Press-Release.pdf It's down about 80% so far in 2020. And another: https://www.leggmason.com/en-us/products/closed-end-funds/clearbridge-energy-midstream-opportunity-fund-inc.html It's down 90% YTD. And why not, here's one more: https://www.leggmason.com/content/dam/legg-mason/documents/en/product-literature/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-cbi-energy-mlp.pdf These funds are now selling at big discounts to NAV, which is no surprise given the recent performance.

No disputing that. However, the hospitalization rate is much higher than I expected. I thought for me (in the 20-44 group) - it was going to be a bad flu. I didn't think i'd have a 1/5 to 1/7 chance of going to the hospital. With n=705 for 20-44, I think you really need more information about the characteristics of the 100 that were hospitalized to know what the increased risk factors are and whether you have any. We think we know some (smoking, obesity), so assuming those don't apply to you, you're hospitalization rate ought to be lower. What it actually is though, remains unclear.

Thanks for sharing Kaegi. This is really important. It shows what I was saying weeks ago regarding the data out of China. The risk to younger people is lower, but after adjusting for triage, you will see that the risks for young people have been understated and the risk for older people are overstated if you exclude periods when the health system is overwhelmed. During periods when the healthcare systems have been overwhelmed, out comes for older people became horrific. This break point needs to be understood and new data regarding the experience in the USA will really help. Any details about potential attributes among the 20-44 group, e.g., higher percentage of smokers, etc.? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but here are a couple of quick comments. There is some very disturbing information in other sources about sudden death involving heart attacks that gives reason to be very concerned about obesity as a comorbidity in the USA. The point at which cardiac function becomes a concern seems to be primarily so late in the disease progression, that I am not sure it will end up being a major factor in the USA for younger age groups, but is likely a major factor with increasing age. Smoking is more likely to be an issue among the 20-44 age group. The people who say that vaping and marijuana are not dangerous typically are not focused on the impact of particulates in the lungs. The cilia is responsible for removing particulate matter from the lungs, and the health of cilia will be a very important factor for survival of a severe cases of COVID-19. Anyone who has subjected their lungs to a particulate burden should try to reduce exposure immediately if they have any concerns about developing a severe case of COVID-19. This includes any type of smoking, or pollution, and particulate matter from sanding, industrial processes, construction, demolition, etc. Yes, those are the types of things I was getting at. Given all the other measures we've taken, when will we temporarily ban the sale of cigarettes?

Thanks for sharing Kaegi. This is really important. It shows what I was saying weeks ago regarding the data out of China. The risk to younger people is lower, but after adjusting for triage, you will see that the risks for young people have been understated and the risk for older people are overstated if you exclude periods when the health system is overwhelmed. During periods when the healthcare systems have been overwhelmed, out comes for older people became horrific. This break point needs to be understood and new data regarding the experience in the USA will really help. Any details about potential attributes among the 20-44 group, e.g., higher percentage of smokers, etc.?

Yeah, I just saw this with mREITs today. Two UBS leveraged ETF's in mREITS were just liquidated! Most of these stocks were down 40 to 50%! HOLY SHIT! My gawd, man. I'm freaking the fuck out right now. I'm actually encouraged by this. It provides a plausible (though not necessarily complete or correct) explanation that had previously been lacking, at least on this thread. Also, midstream companies and mREITs are often levered up to their eyeballs. Is it wise to then lever your investment in them? I assume part of the answer is that these are retail yield vehicles whose buyers don't understand what they're getting into. You should read this paper: https://necsi.edu/the-stock-market-has-grown-unstable-since-february-2018 It basically says that the markets were primed for huge price swings. It didn't predict that swings would happen. It just said that if there is a crisis (like coronavirus and oil war), the markets will swing wildly like we see now. It doesn't provide an explanation, though. Although, maybe having more leveraged ETF's than before is likely causing this issue. Vehicles like 3x bull / bear ETF's weren't really around pre 2008. I took a look at the paper. As you note, it's hard to glean anything from it, but your hypothesis about one of the potential factors makes sense: The more leveraged investors are, the more forced selling there will be.

Yeah, I just saw this with mREITs today. Two UBS leveraged ETF's in mREITS were just liquidated! Most of these stocks were down 40 to 50%! HOLY SHIT! My gawd, man. I'm freaking the fuck out right now. I'm actually encouraged by this. It provides a plausible (though not necessarily complete or correct) explanation that had previously been lacking, at least on this thread. Also, midstream companies and mREITs are often levered up to their eyeballs. Is it wise to then lever your investment in them? I assume part of the answer is that these are retail yield vehicles whose buyers don't understand what they're getting into.

House Dems pandemic response plan: https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fsc_covid-19_legislative_package_-_03.18.20.pdf

Interesting post: https://catalyst-insights.com/the-virus-infecting-mlps/ Here are the fact sheets for the two levered MLP funds discussed in that post: https://cef.tortoiseadvisors.com/media/1762/tyg-fact-sheet_022920_retail.pdf https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/us/en/individual/products/cef-fund-finder/goldman-sachs-mlp-and-energy-renaissance-fund.html#activeTab=holdings They must have been selling at any price, though I doubt they have any assets left at this point. EDIT: They also hold shares of the publicly traded C-corps. See, e.g., this portfolio disclosure from the Tortoise Fund: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1268533/000114554920004137/xslFormNPORT-P_X01/primary_doc.xml

HireQuest

I was just responding to your specific question. I agree that all midstream appears to have collapsed, regardless of whether it directly or indirectly relies on domestic oil production. I don't believe we'll be shutting down power plants or no longer heating our homes in the winter. So, I expect natural gas to continue to flow, such as it did in the aftermath of the GFC. So, what's going on with natural gas pipelines? Perhaps try to invert this, what would have to be true if the market price is correct? That's what I'm trying to think through. Can't roll debt? Don't get paid even if pipes are used?

Which ones? A pipeline that transports Marcellus gas to a power plant in New York versus a gathering system geared to oil.

Perhaps after restructuring - have you looked at their balance sheet and cash flow statement? E-commerce is hard enough to begin with, let alone when you are trying to sell heavy, difficult to ship products at 20-25% gross margins. Also consider that a company that enjoys a negative working capital cycle when sales are expanding (and finances growth from that) will see that unwind, with declining sales causing a cash drain.

I agree with you. But I suspect that airline and cruise line shareholders, among others, will get one.

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking. It is true: accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks. The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species. In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do. Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react. Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting. I would have thought more people on this board would be fans of the margin of safety, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ By the way, I haven't been paying attention to the US election. Did Andrew Yang win? I hear the US Gov't is handing out cash now. Yes Andrew Young (UBI), Liz Warren (student loan interest rates forgiven) won, Bernie (Medicare for all) is next. It’s free for all, Airlines, Cruise lines are already fed in the soup line. Shale and Energy is begging. I guess the lobbyists for all the industries are working overtime. Clearly, we have an extraordinary economic situation, but it is still surprising to see much more government intervention than in countries that are called socialist here. I’d be more in favor of something that helps individuals, if we have learned anything from the GFC it should have been that. Probably the wrong thread for this comment, but I doubt Democrats will go along with handing money to shareholders. Warren has come out with an 8-point "litmus test" for "bailouts to corporations." I like Warren much more than most people on this board appear to, but even I think much of it is misguided, though I expect she's just layout out a bargaining position.

Approx every week cases double, and it takes about a week until people are hospitalized, so once you reach a large enough threshold of cases, each week gets progressively worse. Going from 1 case to 100 takes around the same amount of time as going from 100 to 100,000 (unmitigated), and the problems become much large in that 100 > 100,000 progression. If the estimates I've seen hold, that threshold is hitting right about now with around 20,000 estimated US cases as of a few days ago. Clusters will become large enough to impact large city health systems once you have a few thousand cases in the area, and I'd expect in less than 7 days you'll start seeing a crush of patients in Seattle and NYC, and the situation will likely get worse each week from there. Thanks for the quick and precise response. What contrary data over the next 7-21 days would cause you to change your opinion? Note that I'm using ICU overload in an attempt to find an objective measure in light of the lack of testing in the US (though I understand that an ICU visit could be 14-28 days days after infection, so if you see ICU overload, then you likely have even bigger problems in the near future unless significant containment measures were instituted weeks earlier.) If we don't start seeing deaths spike soon, I'd be surprised and would re-assess. Every country hit has been following similar trajectories, so it's within my 90% confidence interval that we will start to see an increase of cases along that trajectory (which is likely a significant undercount), and because the most serious cases will be the ones identified, I'd expect to see a high mortality rate. Thanks for the response. I suspect that for anyone following this debate it would be useful to write down now and as precisely as possible the data that would cause you to start to change your opinion so you can avoid thesis creep in the future. (A bit of Tetlock's methodology.)