LOL, Moderna's surprise quarterly profit plunged 97% per share amid collapsing vaccine demand, comes from Covid shot revenue deferred from 2022, first quarter sales tank 69%, CNBC says 30%

CNBC, here:

Moderna on Thursday blew past estimates for first-quarter earnings and revenue, posting a surprise quarterly profit, despite lower demand for Covid vaccines, its only marketable product.

The biotech company generated first-quarter sales of $1.9 billion, driven by Covid shot revenue deferred from 2022. That’s down more than 30% from the $6.1 billion it recorded in the same period a year ago amid a resurgence of Covid cases.

Moderna posted net income of $79 million, or 19 cents per share, for the quarter. That’s compared with $3.66 billion in net income, or $8.58 per share, reported during the same quarter last year.

Seeking Alpha got it right, noting the inventory write-downs of "excess and obsolete COVID-19 products" nobody wants:

 

I'll just put this here for the record in the event CNBC later corrects their reporting without saying so:

Median household income now buys about 17% of the median sales price of a house, a new low: Joe Biden is the Barack Obama of unaffordable housing, only worse

 Housing affordability has never been so bad.

The median sales price in 1Q2022 climbed to $428,700.

Median household income in January 2022 is estimated at $74,099, which buys 17.3% of the median house sold in the United States.

Official annual figures through 2020 are indicated in this chart.

 

 

Remember all those stupid ads on conservative talk radio a few months ago about a breakout for silver?

There was even this story about it in April, "Silver On The Verge Of A Breakout".

Silver's down about 15% since April 19th when the story was published.

What they didn't tell you was the expected breakout was to the downside, and "it would be really nice of you to buy all this silver I need to unload".

Silver soared to 48.70 in April 2011, but it's been all downhill from there.

The boom goes bust: "Investment activity is grinding to a full stop for the first time in China's modern history"

Also, "weakest consumer spending since 2003".

And, 46 consecutive months of industrial production at or below 8%, "unprecedented for modern China".

Jeffrey Snider, here.

Sum Ting Wong: Low top marginal tax rates since 1986 have NOT delivered

Low top marginal tax rates have NOT delivered since 1986.

The average top marginal rate has been 38% for the last thirty years, 49% lower than the average rate of 75% which prevailed from 1956 until the Reagan tax reform of 1986.

After the reform, stocks have done little better than before, but gross public debt has increased at a rate 21% higher than before, growth of current dollar GDP has plunged by 66%, and growth of household net worth has slowed by 48%.

Where did the gains from the Reagan tax cuts go?

You know the answer. The number of US billionaires has exploded from just 41 in 1987 to 536 in 2015, up 1,207%. The money has gone into the pockets of the few, instead of into investment. From 1960 to 1986 net domestic investment grew 846% whereas in the 30 years since 1986 the metric has grown by only 117%, a contraction of 86% under the more favorable personal income tax regime.

The lesson seems clear.

Higher marginal income tax rates force the wealthy to invest in business and derive their income from investments taxed at the preferred lower long term capital rates. Lower marginal personal income tax rates, however, entice them away from going through all the trouble, in turn depriving the economy of growth, employees of growing incomes and wealth, and the government of revenue.

Like the formerly sound public policy which invented the 30-year mortgage to force people to save for the future in the housing piggy bank, the time has come to reincentivize business owners to invest more in their businesses by making the personal income option less attractive.

Neither Republican tax bill does this. 

  

Doug Short makes our point: Part-time surged because of the recession, not because of ObamaCare

Here:

"With regard to Obamacare and part-time employment, the surge in part-time employment was triggered by the recession, not by the Affordable Care Act, as the next chart clearly illustrates."

---------------------------------------------------------

After studying the issue since 2010 we first began to express doubts about the meme that ObamaCare part-timed the country in July of 2013, here.

In August 2013 here we realized a part-timing trend, to be real, would have to show up in the hours data and wasn't.

By September 2013 here we were calling the meme a myth, and here we identified the part-time statistics as incapable of capturing such a trend due to the high bar set by the government definition of part-time as less than 35 hours worked.

In October 2013 here we blamed the part-time explosion on the recession.

In February 2014 we noted here that The Atlantic had finally caught on.

Mish started to catch on in September 2014, here.

Now Doug Short joins the party.

Hooray.

I still want my Pulitzer.

Analyst says oil price plummet primarily driven by OPEC abandoning swing producer role

Dirk Leach, who also credits the rising dollar but not to the extent others have, here:

"Now that OPEC has abdicated their role as swing producer, the only mechanism to stabilize oil prices is the market itself based on supply and demand. As we are now seeing, the supply side of that balance has a lot of inertia. Despite some analysts' view that shale production can be turned on and off rather quickly, the time it takes to decrease production is measured in months or quarters while the crude oil price response is essentially immediate. Going forward, we appear to have a crude oil market pricing system with a very fast response time and a very slow feedback mechanism (supply adjustments). Generally, this type of system is not very stable and results in frequent large swings in market pricing. Going forward, it might be a more bumpy oil market than we have been used to."

The wisdom of Mingdong Wu: How to raise interest rates without raising them

The Fed owns in excess of $2.4 trillion in Treasury securities.

Mingdong Wu is a very smart guy, knowing that Treasury securities are in short supply because government spending has been flat to negative since 2009. That makes the price of existing securities go up. This means interest rates are low, because those move inversely to price. To make interest rates go up, increase the supply, as he tells us here:

"The Fed should gradually sell its Treasury holdings to rebalance supply and demand."

Simply brilliant. Of the $2.4+ trillion held by the Fed, $1.1 trillion are 1 to 5-year instruments.

Voila!

John Early's model predicts 4Q2014 GDP between -1.2% and +1.4%

See John Early's "5 Reasons GDP Growth in Q4 May be 0%" at Seeking Alpha, here.

Massive Central Bank Purchases Of Gold Boosted Price Over 30 Percent In Last Year

This baby weighs one metric ton

That's the upshot from this report in The Wall Street Journal, here, in early June:

Central banks increased their gold hoards by 400 metric tons — each equal to almost 2,205 pounds — in the 12 months through March 31, up from 156 tons during the prior year, according to recent World Gold Council data. ...

Central banks “will probably be continuous buyers of small volumes of gold for the foreseeable future,” says Jeff Christian, founder of New York–based commodities consulting firm CPM Group. By small volumes, he means 311 to 374 metric tons a year, or about 10% of the global supply. ...

He says that central bankers will avoid buying any quantity that dramatically affects the price. They know that the market is tiny, compared with the $4 trillion-a-day foreign-exchange market. Still, consistent buying of 10% of annual supply can’t but help keep the price elevated.

Up from 156 tons? That's a 156 percent increase in purchases by banks in the last year, March over March.

That's a remarkable development in the face of the enormous growth in central bank balance sheets to support weak economies at the same time that stiffer Basel III capital rules are imposed on the world's largest fiat money banks. Central banks are the banks of last resort and have been demonstrating rather vividly what they think counts as the capital of last resort.

Is it any wonder then that gold soared from $1,400 the ounce in March 2011 to $1,900 by September 2011? Gold has been above $1,750 as recently as March 2012. Clearly central bank demand has boosted price. 

Purchases of 400 metric tons at today's pull-back-price of $1,600 the ounce would imply $22.58 billion allocated to gold purchases by central banks during the one year period. Purchases of 156 tons at $1,400 the ounce at the top previously comes to at best only $7.7 billion allocated to gold purchases just prior to the period. That's a nearly three-fold increase, and a sign that central banks' confidence in sovereign support of fiat currencies has eroded to say the least. 

The implications for gold price going forward, however, are tricky.

The Wikipedia gold investing article, which also depends on figures from the World Gold Council, puts annual demand in 2005 at 3,754 tonnes and states annual production figures, for example, of as few as 2,500 tonnes as of 2010 to as many as 3,859 tonnes in 2005. Complicating matters is its assertion that 2,000 tons routinely gets allocated to jewellry and industrial production annually, making central bank acquisitions of 375 metric tons annually far more than 10 percent of the remaining supply on either accounting of the total.

It would seem that the very wide spread for annual production reported between 2,500 tons and nearly 3,900 tons (over 50 percent!) is part of a delicate balancing act by the industry, which attempts to pay its respects to all sides concerned in the gold business, both those who profit from production and those who profit from consumption.

Jeff Christian, cited in The Wall Street Journal article above, hints perhaps at how to split the difference. If his low end estimate for bank purchases of 311 metric tons is really 10 percent of annual supply, that means annual supply is probably closer to 3,100 metric tons. Sans jewelry of 2,000 metric tons, bank consumption of 350 metric tons or so going forward would be nearly a third of remaining production if sustained at that level.

In response to this surging demand by banks in the last year, however, production has probably run up against a new and unsustainable level, which is why the price of gold has softened roughly 15 percent off the high in recent months. Add to this that significant fresh inputs from consumers are unlikely in view of declining wages and the increased demand for return on investment which gold cannot give. Few have significant resources left to mop up increased supply of gold.

Oversupply of gold has been noted as recently as mid-July, here, by Dominic Schnider, an analyst at UBS Wealth Management in Singapore:


"The market is in oversupply -- production growth is solid and we simply don't see incremental gold purchases," he said.


That suggests banks continue to buy at levels consistent with the recent past, but are restraining themselves a little bit. This coheres with an observed supply glut and softened prices.

An attempt at a non-partisan evaluation of supply here suggests that already mined gold "above ground" historically totals 170,000 metric tons, with another 100,000 metric tons in the ground, less than half of which is profitable to mine under current conditions. In other words, you could devalue the above ground supply with the below ground supply over time, but only by another 28 percent at the extremes, not counting such factors as the small amounts of above ground gold lost to industrial production, the long time required for mines to become profitable, the changing costs of extraction, and the like.

My take is that bank purchases of gold at higher levels in recent times signals that the pendulum has started to swing against endlessly devaluing fiat currencies and against the elite consensus which created them. Official gold reserves around the world already approach 31,000 metric tons, and I expect they will only increase from here, if but gradually. The effect, however, may be to shore up existing currencies rather than to replace them, which would augur for a stabilization of gold prices near present levels and improved conditions for the world's economies.

With Deposit Guarantee Schemes in PIIGS Flat on Their Backs, ELA Stands Ready

Bloomberg here had the awful truth buried in an article at the end of May:

Spain has dipped into its guarantee fund, which stood at 6.6 billion euros in October, to cover loan losses for buyers of failed banks. It used the facility to inject 5.25 billion euros into Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo when it agreed to sell it to Banco Sabadell SA in December. The deposit-guarantee program will also reimburse the bank-rescue fund for the 953 million euros it paid for a stake in Unnim Banc, which was sold to Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA. (BBVA) The country had 931.2 billion euros of deposits at the end of March, according to ECB data.

In other words, in October 2011 Spain had at best only 7 billion euros guaranteeing roughly 931 billion euros in deposits. After covering the losses mentioned, Spain is down to 0.4 billion euros covering 931 billion euros.

As if that's not bad enough:

Italy’s deposit-insurance program is still unfunded, with banks pledging to contribute if and when necessary. Silvia Lazzarino De Lorenzo, a spokeswoman for Roberto Moretti, chairman of the Interbank Deposit Protection Fund, declined to comment. The country had 1.1 trillion euros of deposits at the end of March, ECB data show.

Compared to Italy which can cover nothing, and Spain which can't cover one tenth of one percent, Portugal looks like a veritable paragon of prudent planning with 0.85 percent of deposits covered:

Portugal has a deposit fund of 1.4 billion euros collected from banks through annual contributions, according to Barclays. The country’s total deposits stood at 164.7 billion euros at the end of March, according to the central bank.

John Mauldin, depending on David Kotok, here, must think that all that is really quite beside the point since the ECB funnels liquidity to the various European national banks through secretive ELA, "emergency liquidity assistance". These transfers then become debts on the books of the sovereigns, which only make their borrowing problems, and their euro area spending compliance problems, that much worse.

Notice the dramatic explosion in ELA funding by the ECB in May 2012.

Obviously, the ECB was getting ready for today's big event.

Between Greece with about 150 billion euros left in the banks and Portugal with a like amount, and Spain and Italy with about 2 trillion euros between them, the ELA backstop for the banks of those four countries represents at best about 10 percent of deposits.

It's a stop-gap measure which might work, but the euro area's problems will only continue to fester and worsen no matter what happens today in Greece.

Who knows, maybe that spat between Merkel and Hollande was just for show so that Hollande gets what he needs today in his own elections in France, after which they'll work it on out.

Hope springs eternal. 

The S&P500 Still Has A Date With 950

So says James Kostohryz, here:

Europe will be back to square one and descend toward a terminal crisis – ostensibly the same crisis -- within a matter of weeks or months. Global equity markets will collapse, and the S and P 500 will test and possibly penetrate recent lows of around 1,075 on the way to a date with 950-1,020.

Corporate Cash Reaches New Record Yet Corporate Borrowing is at Staggering Levels

Corporate cash reached a new record of $1.9 trillion in Q1 according to the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds report. The figure is referenced in discussions here and here, among other places.

But what rarely seems to get mentioned in these sorts of discussions is the debt side of the equation involving all this corporate cash. To cite the growth in cash as evidence that corporations don't need a tax cut and aren't investing simply misses the larger reality which helps explain the phenomenon.

John Carney here points out among many other important considerations that corporations are behaving out of fear just like individuals had when they increased their savings in the wake of the recent financial crisis. Many businesses experienced first hand just how difficult times can be without sufficient liquidity in a situation where no one is lending. Increasing cash should be viewed in part as insuring against a repetition of a similar lending lock up in future. 

Other more extenuating circumstances should also be considered when evaluating the issue of corporate cash. One is Federal Reserve induced low interest rates.

David Zeiler calls attention here to the fact that the current low cost of borrowing is too attractive for corporations not to lock in before QEII ends and the cost of borrowing inevitably rises:

The amount of debt companies have issued this year is staggering. As of May 18, companies with investment-grade ratings had issued $392 billion of bonds, an increase of 30% over the same period last year.

Another consideration is related also to formal government policy, namely that much corporate cash may simply be too unattractive to use for tax reasons:

"Many tech companies have looked to raise capital in the [U.S. debt] market over the past year, for a multiple of reasons, including acquisitions, the maturing of businesses and the inability to tap offshore cash without tax consequences," Keith Harman, a managing director in debt capital markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch told Reuters.

The issue of offshore cash is a significant one. For many companies, offshore money accounts for the bulk of their cash. About 46% of Google's cash is overseas; 90% of Cisco's and virtually all of Microsoft's.

Because of a reluctance to pay the 35% U.S. corporate tax on that money, that cash remains offshore and unavailable for many uses, such as stock buybacks and infrastructure investment. (Microsoft used some of its offshore cash to buy Luxembourg-based Skype earlier this month.)

This suggests that repatriating corporate cash should be a fundamental goal of tax reform in the US. That would mean making it more attractive to keep it here by reducing corporate tax rates.

Come to think of it, why stop there? Why not patriate everyone's cash in the world to America as a matter of formal government policy?

The more cash, the better.