ERICOPOLY

I haven't heard of that. Any sources? There are no sources, Eric. It's a back-handed accusation. Another post begins with "I know some people enjoy learning about finance through popular films"... It's just very condescending.

I wonder what the outcome would be like if the "shelter in place" orders only applied to households containing a person who is 65+ yrs of age, or has chronic health conditions. And focus the bail-out dollars on sustaining them and delivering food/care to them until a vaccine arrives. The rest of the population, after three months, would have developed "herd immunity" and normal life could largely resume.

I haven't heard of that. Any sources?

It isn't a theory. It is compounding. It would be fast.

This is what you happens when you try to combat a viral outbreak by listening to "nudge boy" behavioral economists and pseudoscientists. Rapidly achieving "herd immunity" sounds good on paper, but then you have to actually think about what will happen on the way to getting there... Some people still clearly have not learned the basic "flatten the curve" concept. Thank you for the inputs. Here's another perspective related to the UK situation and the "report": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-17/prolonged-social-distancing-would-curb-virus-but-at-a-high-cost FWIW, despite some reserves, I heavily support (indirectly and directly) the pro-active efforts deployed in my provincial jurisdiction which, for various reasons unrelated to the virus or the policies, has been relatively lucky, in terms of spread and impact, at least so far. I guess it is still relevant to ask questions, to adapt and to go for cost effective measures (definitions of "cost" and "effective" remaining open for debate). I just read that government officials announced that economic measures to be taken will prevent unemployment from rising to 20%. They are basically looking to flatten the curve. So a flurry of bailouts are coming and the emphasis has to be on the short term and I'm OK with that, at this point, although Bagehot, long ago, suggested that bailouts should balance the short term against the long term and moral hazard. As an avid follower of the GFC, I remember government officials suggesting then that another great depression could be avoided (although impossible to verify) with various monetary and fiscal bailouts. I would suggest that they tried to flatten the curve in a way but people ran out of will and perseverance and we've had the weakest recovery on record, a glaring absence of deleveraging and, in fact, developed economies have become very weak and compromised economic hosts and now a virus hits. It appears difficult to explain, at least from my humble perspective, why we should be surprised by the eventual course of economic events. I just worry about unintended consequences and wonder if, at least, we can base our decisions on solid data, analysis and rational reasoning that truly balances the short term with the long term? Can we think of (and implement) necessary reforms or do we just need that they become imposed on us the way natural selection can and simply hunker down? The downturn itself is essentially being ordered by the government. This thing would blow through quickly if there were no "social distancing". So given that they are effectively contributing to the severity of the downturn, we already have interference with free market principles before the first check is written. Under that environment, bailouts are fair game and they do not introduce moral hazard. It's very different situation from a financial crisis precipitated by extreme excess and rewarded with a bailout.

Thank you. It offers an answer to the challenge posed earlier with regards to possible Diamond Princess deaths that went uncounted. It basically suggests that the mortality rate of COVID-19 amongst the general population would still be lower than 1% because the population on that cruise ship was much older on average.

“Last week, SPY recorded a $9Bn increase in shares outstanding, as new ETF shares were created for the purpose of lending it out to investors looking to short,” wrote JPMorgan strategists including Marko Kolanovic. “Thus, what looks like an inflow to the fund actually represents new shorts, rather than buying by fundamental investors.” https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgan-sees-short-sellers-behind-134949596.html Huh? How could this not represent buying? How did the shorts manage to sell these new shares without finding buyers?

“I’d rate it a 10,” Trump said at a White House press briefing Monday when asked by a reporter how he would rate his response to the pandemic. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/487883-trump-gives-himself-10-out-of-10-on-coronavirus-response

50%? Not if we're all staying home like right now. We may not even reach 1% if we're all isolated at home, and thereby flattening the curve. The price of such success is that, at that point, who's going to have the confidence to go outside again without having a vaccine in hand? And if we've got to wait 12-18 months for a vaccine? Therefore, a bounce-back in the 2nd half of the year appears unlikely to occur.

He did hold one today. When he got to the part about staying this way until August, market took a dive. This late day volatility happens when Trump opens his mouth.

Obama should do that, except he has too much class/maturity.

I'm wondering whether WFC can actually fall LESS than SPY today. I've got SPY down 10% and WFC down 9% at present.

I think most definitely a recession has already begun and the market knows it.

WFC at-the-money calls (slightly out of, actually)

All the schools around Sacramento shut down today for 3 weeks, my kids' school included. Even my step-son's ONLINE school shut down. You've got to be kidding!!! It's a friggin' online school!

The signs point to Nicki Haley being Trump’s running mate. It was speculated back in November. Then set up to fail and be replaced. If the market recovers by the election, it would be really hard for Trump to let Pence go since he's now the guy "in charge" of the virus fight. It would also hurt his evangelical support. I don't see that happening unless virus gets worse and Trump needs a fall guy. He'll choose Haley to recruit the vote of suburban moms. Pence is holding the coronavirus bag. Trump is NEVER responsible for his failures. Never. He was raised spoiled and cannot handle blame because of it.

The signs point to Nicki Haley being Trump’s running mate. It was speculated back in November. Then set up to fail and be replaced.

What is your address?

Reports are that Trump still won't talk with Pelosi. His personal wounds are paramount. https://theweek.com/speedreads/901409/trump-reportedly-wont-meet-pelosi-coronavirus-bill-reason-because-hes-mad "You know, Bill Clinton built part of his political narrative by saying 'I feel your pain,'" former Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.) told Wallace on Tuesday. "Donald Trump is asking the nation to feel his, and it is a weird leadership quality in a moment of crisis."

S&P500 is down 25% now since Feb 19th.

Fascinating. Do Americans even eat that shit? If you have Covid-19, do you want to spend 45 minute boiling chickpeas, or do you want to throw a frozen lasagna or frozen pizza into the oven? Brown rice, lol. SJ I cook channa masala in my crockpot — need dried chickpeas for it so they draw in the flavor as they rehydrate. I don’t eat dairy so no frozen lasagna/pizza. I always eat brown rice — prefer the texture and flavor.

Was at Costco in Roseville, CA today. No paper towels, no toilet paper, no pasta, no rice, no canned tomatoes/sauce. Went to Walmart next and grabbed the last bag of lentils off the shelf and a few of the last remaining bags of brown rice. They had lots of canned tomatoes. All of the TopRamen was gone, so I went to the asian foods aisle and stocked up on Sapporo Ichiban. Walmart still had pasta. Walmart was completely out of dried chickpeas, dried pinto beans, dried kidney beans. The trouble with telling everyone to keep two weeks' of food on hand is that the stores don't have it on the shelves when everyone wants it all at once.

While that is a good point, as presumably the go forward economic effects are similar, I think the starting valuation matters as well. The US markets were considerably more euphoric than the Italian ones, so a larger fall doesn't necessarily seem disproportionate. I thought of that, but then which economy is more tolerant of shocks? I thought the US had a stronger economy and that should count for something.

Oh come on, you're just saying that because you don't want Trump to be reelected. This is just another Impeachment hoax. What, you mean that didn't make you optimistic? What's wrong with you?

Have you looked at the Chinese and Italian stock markets to see how much of a dive they have taken since November when nobody had heard of COVAD-19? Italy's market is down 25% over the past month which covers their history, and China's is down by far less since early December. Unless I am getting it very wrong due to exchange rates or something.