Author: admin

While Mexico scored a dramatic, if mostly symbolic, victory in its “Mexican standoff” with Saudi Arabia over the weekend, when the oil producer who famously hedges its output every year in preparation for the worst received an exemption from the uniform 23% production cut, its economy sadly remains in shambles as it enters a deep recession, the Mexican peso recently plunged to all time lows (and is headed in that direction again), the coronavirus epidemic is ravaging its population, its industrial base is frozen with its biggest client – the US – on indefinite hiatus, and generally things are going from bad to worse. None of that has escaped Fitch, which moments ago downgrade Mexico from BBB to BBB-, the lowest rating above junk (outlook stable) because as the rating agency writes, “the economic shock represented by the coronavirus pandemic will lead to a severe recession in Mexico in 2020.”

The Mexican peso tumbled in kneejerk reaction, with the USDMXN spiking as much as 0.8% on the downgrade that sets the stage for Mexico to be kicked out of all non-junk mandates.

The full report is below:

Fitch Downgrades Mexico to ‘BBB-‘; Outlook Stable

Fitch Ratings – New York – 15 Apr 2020: Fitch Ratings has downgraded Mexico’s Long-Term Foreign Currency Issuer Default Rating (IDR) to ‘BBB-‘ from ‘BBB’. The Rating Outlook is Stable.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The economic shock represented by the coronavirus pandemic will lead to a severe recession in Mexico in 2020. A recovery starting in 2H20 will likely be held back by the same factors that have hampered recent economic performance, which has lagged rating and income level peers. These include a previously noted deterioration in the business climate in certain sectors – notwithstanding examples of cooperation with the private sector in areas such as developing infrastructure – and a perceived erosion of institutional strength in the regulatory framework. Even in the absence of a debt-financed fiscal response to the economic recession, general government debt/GDP is likely to jump by at least 6pp of GDP to almost 50%, the highest since the 1980s. Consolidating public finances once the crisis is over and returning debt/GDP to a sustainable path will prove challenging in Fitch’s view. At the same time, the credible monetary policy framework built around a flexible exchange rate and inflation targeting remains a rating strength and will help the economy absorb the external shock, while minimizing current account external imbalances.

In line with its April 2nd Global Economic Outlook update, Fitch expects the economy to contract by at least 4% in 2020, with a steep fall in 1H followed by the start of a sequential recovery in 2H, but given the nature of the crisis there is a higher than usual level of uncertainty around our forecasts, and the balance of risks is firmly to the downside. Underlining the depth of the shock, which has yet to be fully reflected in published economic data, Mexico lost 130,500 formal sector jobs in March, equivalent to more than one-third of jobs created in 2019, while automotive output contracted 24.6% yoy. Trade will be highly disrupted and will contract steeply in 2020, although net trade is likely to make a positive contribution as imports fall more heavily than exports.

The extent of the economic contraction and scope for recovery starting 2H20 will be dictated by prospects in the U.S., Mexico’s main trading partner, as well as the duration of the virus shock domestically. Mexico’s official projections are based on a domestic lockdown lasting until early May, but this may be extended, or relaxed more gradually. The absence to date of a sizeable fiscal response to support consumption, by comparison with other rating peers in the region, reflects a desire to minimize fiscal imbalances but may delay the recovery. A recovery to full year 2.1% growth in 2021 would imply real output levels remaining well below current GDP.

Moreover, the factors that held back investment prior to the crisis, which in Fitch’s view include relatively weak governance and ad hoc government policy interventions, are likely to persist. While the macro policy framework remains intact, microeconomic policy interventions in a range of sectors have damaged the investment climate. Real GDP contracted by 0.1% in 2019, driven by a 5% fall in gross fixed investment, with no discernible recovery in 1Q20 before the crisis hit, as investment declined further.

On the positive side, Fitch would expect trade to help the economy recover, based on Mexico’s openness and strategic place in the North American supply chain. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is scheduled to come into force at mid-year, relieving uncertainty which had prevailed since late 2016. Outcomes from the coronavirus pandemic that lead to U.S. businesses reducing dependence on China, which was already an administration policy goal, could support investment prospects over the medium term. Additionally, the treaty itself represents a long-term commitment on the Mexican side to maintain a market-oriented economic stance and work constructively with foreign investors in a way that limits downside risks to policy orientation.

The outlook for the public finances is much less favorable than at the time of the last rating review in December 2019. Fitch expects the general government deficit to widen by around 2.5pp of GDP to 4.4% of GDP, higher than implied by the most recent budget review, with little scope for consolidation in 2021. Sensitivity of revenues to changes in the growth rate is comparatively limited given the low non-oil tax take but more serious damage to the tax base is possible if the current one month lockdown is prolonged or subsequently re-imposed.

In keeping with the spirit of fiscal rules that have sought to avoid increasing borrowing at the federal level, and which have kept general government debt/GDP relatively stable, the government plans to fund higher deficits in 2020 without extra borrowing, by tapping the FEIP (budget revenue stabilization fund), although this would deplete the fund to approximately 20% of its current value. A presidential decree also allowed the government to tap a range of other trust funds for financing, which hold up to 3% of GDP. Most federal government oil income is hedged at the budget assumption price of USD49/b for the Mexican mix, cushioning federal finances from the direct impact of lower oil prices. Oil income, which makes up around 10% of federal budget income, will likely remain under pressure in 2021, according to Fitch’s oil price assumption. Long-standing strengths of Mexico’s public finances, including deep and developed domestic capital markets, continue to support the ratings.

However, there are downside risks to our fiscal forecasts, as Mexico may increase spending by more than budgeted to counteract the effect of the coronavirus and public health measures on the economy, which in Fitch’s view is likely to contract by more than the 2.9% assumed in the government’s April budget revision. Leaving aside measures to bring forward spending, the direct fiscal policy response has been relatively limited compared with other countries in the region. In April, the finance ministry re-allocated spending and unveiled around 0.2% of GDP in lending by development banks and funding for guarantees. Congress has voted to set up a fund worth up to 0.7% of GDP to finance health spending.

The contingent liability represented by the debt of state oil company Pemex, which totals USD105 billion or 9% of GDP, remains a key risk factor, particularly in view of the sharp fall in oil prices and the widening discount of prices to global benchmarks, but the impact of Pemex’s worsening financial position on the sovereign credit profile was largely anticipated in our previous (June 2019) sovereign rating action on Mexico. While the company’s income will decline, it will continue to invest in new development capacity and in priority projects, increasing its financing needs. The government plans to bring forward a tax rate cut scheduled for 2021 that would lower the federal government tax take by around MXN65 billion or 0.25% of GDP. Pemex production was unchanged yoy in February after sustained declines, but Mexico recently agreed with the OPEC+ group to temporarily cut output by 100,000b/d from a baseline of 1.75mb/d, above current production. Extended over a year, this would represent a loss of federal government income equivalent to 0.2% of GDP compared with the assumptions in the 2020 budget.

The Banco de Mexico rapidly cut interest rates (and is likely to cut further through 2020) as well as injecting liquidity in both foreign and local currency into the banking system. The peso has depreciated sharply in line with other major EM currencies since the onset of the crisis. Deflationary impacts of the fall in oil prices and shock to demand are likely to counteract upward pressure on prices from exchange rate depreciation. Portfolio capital outflows have risen sharply, but the policy framework has absorbed a rise in demand for foreign currency. A swap line from the Federal Reserve enables the Banco de Mexico to offer three-month foreign currency loans to banks. Reserves remain intact and sizeable at USD185 billion, or more than twice Mexico’s gross external financing needs including short-term external debt. Mexico’s current account will remain close to balance. Mexico renewed access in November to the IMF Flexible Credit Line worth USD61 billion, which can be used for balance of payments support.

ESG – Governance: Mexico has an ESG Relevance Score (RS) of 5 for both Political Stability and Rights and for the Rule of Law, Institutional and Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption, as is the case for all sovereigns. These scores reflect the high weight that the World Bank Governance Indicators (WBGI) have in our proprietary Sovereign Rating Model. Mexico has a medium WBGI ranking at 38th, reflecting a recent track record of peaceful political transitions, a moderate level of rights for participation in the political process, moderate institutional capacity, and established rule of law. Corruption is relatively high, as measured by the WBGI, and has been on an increasing trend, although the present administration has introduced measures focused on combating corruption.

If one listened to the US president, or any other member of OPEC+ in the past few days, this weekend’s history production cut deal (which we said was not nearly enough to offset the plunge in global demand), would have been sufficient to push the price of oil by $10/per barrel or more. Instead, after spiking last Thursday as high as $36 as triggerhappy algos were fooled by OPEC+ jawboning, Brent is down as much as 25% in the past 4 days.

Meanwhile, realizing that the US has become ground zero for excess oil production, and is unwilling – or unable – to cut output, thus shooting itself in the foot, on Tuesday Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, argued that Texas can lead in producing a “real” U.S. oil production cut to save the shale industry, and called for the state to take action to force companies to hold back their production for the first time since 1973.

Alas, with billions of junk bonds at stake and a lot of private equity vested interests assuring that the “spice flows” that is unlikely to happen. So on Wednesday, with US producers seemingly at an impasse and with Trump terrified that a wave of Texas defaults could doom his reelection chances as millions of shale workers are out of a job, Bloomberg reported that the Trump administration was considering paying U.S. oil producers to leave crude in the ground to help alleviate a glut that has caused prices to plummet and pushed some drillers into bankruptcy.

According to the report, the Energy Department has drafted a plan to compensate companies for sitting on as much as 365 million barrels worth of oil reserves and counting it as part of the U.S. government’s emergency stockpile. West Texas Intermediate crude oil futures rose fractionally, about 20 cents to $20.42, on the news.

Unlike previous ideas float by the administration which included ordering forced production shutdowns, this plan is actually workable as federal law gives the Energy Department authority to set aside as much as 1 billion barrels of oil for emergencies – without dictating where they should go. That creates a legal opening for storing crude outside the government’s existing reserve and even blocking its extraction in the first place, according to Bloomberg.

There is just one problem: money, lots of it, and it will have to be paid to shale companies which are already on the verge of default which means that this would be seen as yet another industry bailout. Indeed, as Bloomberg explains, the keep-it-in-the-ground plan, which would require billions of dollars in appropriations from Congress, could be unprecedented and reflects a Trump administration push to help domestic drillers battered by a surge of oil production.

Of course, since “billions of dollars” would be headed to the shale sector, we doubt democrats would be excited unless of course similar billions of dollars were directed at illegal aliens or some other progressive ideal.

The effort comes after President Donald Trump helped broker a deal to cut global crude production and help rescue oil markets from a pandemic-fueled collapse. However oil demand has sunk even further, as lockdowns around the world paralyze air and ground travel. While the U.S. government doesn’t control oil production, Trump has said domestic output will automatically shrink due to market forces.

* * *

Meanwhile, with every day of delays a historic day of reckoning comes closer: the moment when storage runs out. Analysts expect storage tanks to fill by summer, with some predicting as soon as May. Whenever that happens, oil producers with no place to put their crude would be forced to halt production and lay offworkers. Some are already idling drilling rigs and stowing excess supplies in rail cars, while pipeline operators are reversing flows to transport crude to underused storage sites. President Donald Trump on April 3 asked his energy secretary to “check out other areas where you can store oil,” and look for places “bigger than what we have now.”

To delay the moment storage tanks are full, the Energy Department is discussing other ideas, including stashing oil in floating tankers, unused refinery storage tanks and underground salt caverns, the officials said. But those approaches might take too long to help as U.S. crude inventories build toward a crisis point.

The quicker solution would be to effectively reward drillers for taking a timeout. Under the approach being developed by the Energy Department, the agency would contract with companies to delay production of proven oil reserves for several years, if not indefinitely. When that crude is finally extracted and sold, the proceeds would go to the Treasury. Companies would be selected through an auction, with the government picking the lowest-price bidders.

And, as Bloomberg notes, Energy Department officials developed the plan after affirming they had legal authority for the move and studying alternatives. According to senior administration officials the effort would benefit independent oil companies across the U.S., and it would be focused on sites that are either producing today or those with infrastructure in place so they could quickly yield oil.

The Energy Department already moved to sop up some excess crude by renting out space in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve for private storage. The agency said Tuesday it is in negotiations with nine companies to store some 23 million barrels of crude in the underground salt caverns that make up the emergency stockpile. And it expects to offer more space in the reserve in coming weeks.

That said, the probability of this plan passing Congress is slim to none: an earlier administration proposal to spend $3 billion buying U.S. oil for the strategic reserve was blocked in Congress, as Democrats sought to offset the purchase with investments on clean energy. Similar opposition will likely derail the Trump administration’s new plan too. Democratic leaders have said they oppose anything that smacks of a “big oil bailout”, although what they really mean is that they want a mirror-image bailout for their own causes. Worse, while environmentalists have favored a “keep-it-in-the-ground” approach to phasing out fossil fuel production, Trump’s venture is aimed at sustaining the industry – not ending it.

The price tag? With some 635 million barrels already socked away inside underground salt caverns in Texas and Louisiana, the government has authority to snap up 365 million more as long as Congress doles out money for the transaction. At current prices it could cost at least $7 billion.

Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said in an interview on Bloomberg TV this week that he would “be working closely with Congress” on a possible storage expansion, adding that “It’s something that the Congress should consider. They will of course make the ultimate decision as to whether or not they want to pursue that. But we’re going to make some I think very strong and credible arguments why additional storage capacity is important to the country.”

At today’s low prices, the U.S. government could fare well on the deal. Buying 365 million barrels at the current price of $19.87 a barrel – and selling at the 2019 average price of $57.04 would yield more than $13 billion profit. Even selling at just $30 a barrel could net nearly $4 billion, minus any transport and holding costs. It’s an idea not lost on Trump, who in an April 3 meeting with oil executives wondered why everyone wasn’t socking away cheap crude to sell later.

“At these prices,” Trump mused, “you would think you’d want to fill up every cavity that we have in this country.”

Authored by Jon Rappoport via LewRockwell.com,

It’s a con as old as the hills.

The ancient chieftain of a little territory looks out across his domain and says to his top aide,

“You know, we have these clusters of people worshiping different gods. That’s not good for business. Our business is CONTROL, so we need UNITY. Make up the name of some god, and go out there and sell it. Take down those little shrines and tell all the people they have to believe in the new deity. Use force and censorship when necessary. Later on, I may decide I’M really the name you chose for the new god. We’ll see. If you have any trouble right away, call me on my cell. I’ll be out sunning by the pool.”

Unity of thought. That’s what controllers are after.

In the case of this fake epidemic, the population must view WHAT IT IS in the way public officials and the press are describing it. Dissenting analysis must be pushed into the background.

Here is a 4/9 Bloomberg News headline: “5G Conspiracy Theory Fueled by Coordinated Effort.” [1] A sub-headline states, “Researchers identify disinformation campaign but not source.” The article begins: “A conspiracy theory linking 5G technology to the outbreak of the coronavirus is quickly gaining momentum…”

Obviously, such wayward thinking has to be stopped. And down further in the Bloomberg article, we have chilling news:

“Some social media companies have taken action to limit the spread of coronavirus conspiracy theories on their platforms. On Tuesday, Google’s YouTube said that it would ban all videos linking 5G technology to coronavirus, saying that ‘any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19’ would now be in violation of YouTube policies.”

“In the U.K., a parliamentary committee on Monday called on the British government to do more to ‘stamp out’ coronavirus conspiracy theories, and said it was planning to hold a hearing later this year at which representatives from U.S. technology giants will be asked about how they have handled the spread of disinformation on their platforms.”

Independent analysis of the “epidemic” hangs in the balance. The masters of control want to maintain an information monopoly.

It goes without saying that, in order to achieve this monopoly, detailed surveillance of Internet content is necessary.

Another type of surveillance is also part of the squeeze play. Apple.com has the story (press release, 4/10):

“Across the world, governments and health authorities are working together to find solutions to the COVID-19 pandemic, to protect people… Since COVID-19 can be transmitted through close proximity to affected individuals, public health officials have identified contact tracing as a valuable tool to help contain its spread. A number of leading public health authorities, universities, and NGOs around the world have been doing important work to develop opt-in contact tracing technology.”

“To further this cause, Apple and Google will be launching a comprehensive solution that includes application programming interfaces (APIs) and operating system-level technology to assist in enabling contact tracing. Given the urgent need, the plan is to implement this solution in two steps while maintaining strong protections around user privacy.”

“First, in May, both companies will release APIs that enable interoperability between Android and iOS devices using apps from public health authorities. These official apps will be available for users to download via their respective app stores.”

“Second, in the coming months, Apple and Google will work to enable a broader Bluetooth-based contact tracing platform by building this functionality into the underlying platforms. This is a more robust solution than an API and would allow more individuals to participate, if they choose to opt in, as well as enable interaction with a broader ecosystem of apps and government health authorities. Privacy, transparency, and consent are of utmost importance in this effort, and we look forward to building this functionality in consultation with interested stakeholders. We will openly publish information about our work for others to analyze.”

“All of us at Apple and Google believe there has never been a more important moment to work together to solve one of the world’s most pressing problems. Through close cooperation and collaboration with developers, governments and public health providers, we hope to harness the power of technology to help countries around the world slow the spread of COVID-19 and accelerate the return of everyday life.”

If you believe citizen privacy is an utmost concern in the minds of Google and Apple, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.

The tracing tools appear to involve a very rapid expansion of Snitch Culture. What else are “opt-in users” going to communicate about? The weather? Lunch?

“Dear Relevant Users and Public Health Officials: Yes, I know Marty. Sad to hear he’s been diagnosed with COVID-19. I did have a brief meeting with him just prior to the lockdown. I suppose I might be infected. I should get tested right away. Let’s see, who else was at the meeting? Marty’s brother, Felix, and Carrie, who is Felix’ on and off girlfriend. Six months ago she was tested for an STD, I don’t know the results—Sandy, the broker at Wilson and Wise was also at the meeting—OMG, that could mean the whole company is infected—and Sandy’s dog Tootsie—can animals spread the virus?—then there was a janitor who came into the room, I think his name is Al. He lives down near the docks. He has a brother who I hear is a drug dealer and a compulsive gambler. He owes money to some nasty people, I think…Anything I can do to stop the spread of the virus, let me know…”

Enlist the citizenry to act as spies on each other. A useful tactic.

It rips the fabric of social trust.

It blows apart privacy.

It exposes people to government intervention.

It cements the UNITY DICTUM: the epidemic has only one portrait, and the population must bow before it.

An answer? A counter? More citizens must become independent reporters and publish their findings. More citizens must set up blogs and sites that act as old-fashioned street newsstands, posting the work of independent journalists and investigators.

For every ten they censor, a hundred must spring up.

Nothing is riding on this except the immediate future – freedom, slavery, medical dictatorship, a borderless planet operated as one super-corporation, the individual vs. the collective, the energy of the individual soul.

Or people can say doom is upon us and nothing can be done about it.

Or people can sit at home and suck on the lockdown lollipop.

The last few days have exhibited some of the most intense sniping between President Trump and the American media, as the media – via reports in WaPo and NYT – goes all-in on the “Trump screwed up” narrative, while President Trump hews to the “it was a perfect response” counternarrative.

In reality, the truth is somewhere in the middle. But increasingly, more and more evidence being reported in the western press – by mainstream outlets like the AP, as well as the newspapers mentioned above – appears to suggest that suspicions about China’s deceptions have proven true. The notion that Chinese officials ‘reacted slowly’ or ‘dragged their feet’ isn’t accurate. It looks more like Beijing knew what they were dealing with right away, but decided to withhold that information from the Chinese people and the international community because – because, why, exactly?

It’s not exactly clear. By failing to act right away, Beijing passed on a chance to cut the global case total by as much as two-thirds, according to some models cited in an AP report. As for why Beijing might have purposefully allowed a pandemic to blossom, well…that should be abundantly clear by now.

In a bombshell report that exposes not just Beijing’s lies, but the WHO’s complicity in those lies, the AP obtained documents allegedly proving that President Xi and the leadership were aware of human-to-human transmission and the potential for a pandemic six days earlier than previously believed.

And instead of acting, they chose to sit on their hands, allowing the virus to continue spreading freely in Wuhan until Jan. 20, when President Xi delivered his first warning to the public.

“This is tremendous,” said Zuo-Feng Zhang, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “If they took action six days earlier, there would have been much fewer patients and medical facilities would have been sufficient. We might have avoided the collapse of Wuhan’s medical system.”

That’s not all. Some experts believe that the CPC leadership did act during the six day lag, taking subtler steps to erect more mitigation efforts, while waiting to inform the public to avoid “mass hysteria.”

Given the fact that Beijing managed to leverage the Red Army and close down half of the largest country on Earth, something tells us the public reaction to news of the virus – and the government’s heavy handed efforts to contain it – wasn’t high up on the Party’s list of concerns.

What’s more, the report suggests that the government essentially bullied doctors into silence, something that Beijing has vehemently denied, despite the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, a doctor who was punished for warning about the virus, then died fighting it, becoming a symbol of Beijing’s mishandling of the outbreak.

“Doctors in Wuhan were afraid,” said Dali Yang, a professor of Chinese politics at the University of Chicago. “It was truly intimidation of an entire profession.”

And they might have waited longer, even, if the first international confirmed case, found in Thailand on Jan. 13, didn’t force the Chinese government to act.

Still, the fact that China lied – and continues to lie – can no longer be disputed, even as Beijing assured the AP that they reported the outbreak to the WHO as soon as they were aware.

The meat of the documents, which were provided to the AP by an anonymous source, involves proof of a call involving President Xi, Premier Li Keqiang and Vice Premier Sun Chunlan – three of the most senior party leaders – and the leader of the NHC. During the call, the director shared evidence of H2H transmission (this is nearly a week before it was publicly confirmed) while discussing other topics that weren’t recorded in the document.

In the end, who knows what was said. What we do know is that the Chinese government took more steps to prepare for the outbreak, while continuing to play the risks down in public.

The documents show that the head of China’s National Health Commission, Ma Xiaowei, laid out a grim assessment of the situation on Jan. 14 in a confidential teleconference with provincial health officials. A memo states that the teleconference was held to convey instructions on the coronavirus from President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Keqiang and Vice Premier Sun Chunlan, but does not specify what those instructions were.

“The epidemic situation is still severe and complex, the most severe challenge since SARS in 2003, and is likely to develop into a major public health event,” the memo cites Ma as saying.

The National Health Commission is the top medical agency in the country. In a faxed statement, the Commission said it had organized the teleconference because of the case reported in Thailand and the possibility of the virus spreading during New Year travel. It added that China had published information on the outbreak in an “open, transparent, responsible and timely manner,” in accordance with “important instructions” repeatedly issued by President Xi.

The documents come from an anonymous source in the medical field who did not want to be named for fear of retribution. The AP confirmed the contents with two other sources in public health familiar with the teleconference. Some of the memo’s contents also appeared in a public notice about the teleconference, stripped of key details and published in February.

Under a section titled “sober understanding of the situation,” the memo said that “clustered cases suggest that human-to-human transmission is possible.” It singled out the case in Thailand, saying that the situation had “changed significantly” because of the possible spread of the virus abroad.

“With the coming of the Spring Festival, many people will be traveling, and the risk of transmission and spread is high,” the memo continued. “All localities must prepare for and respond to a pandemic.”

In the memo, Ma demanded officials unite around Xi and made clear that political considerations and social stability were key priorities during the long lead-up to China’s two biggest political meetings of the year in March. While the documents do not spell out why Chinese leaders waited six days to make their concerns public, the meetings may be one reason.

“The imperatives for social stability, for not rocking the boat before these important Party congresses is pretty strong,” says Daniel Mattingly, a scholar of Chinese politics at Yale. “My guess is, they wanted to let it play out a little more and see what happened.”

According to the AP, the documents and testimonials from Chinese insiders help support President Trump’s assertion that China is truly to blame for the outbreak, and that officials in Beijing should be held responsible, and perhaps even owe compensation. Looking further down the line, we can envision a scenario where differing ‘interpretations’ of these critical first weeks of the outbreak could lead to an all-out military war between the world’s two largest economies as both Washington and Beijing demand compensation from the other.

The delay may support accusations by President Donald Trump that the Chinese government’s secrecy held back the world’s response to the virus. However, even the public announcement on Jan. 20 left the U.S. nearly two months to prepare for the pandemic.

Of course, everything we said above is pure conjecture: nobody really has any idea what life will be like after this, whether things will be extremely different from the ‘before time’, or whether we’ll easily slip back into our old routines, and look back two years from now with the benefit of hindsight and ensure we’re better prepared for future outbreaks. Or future ‘accidental leaks’ from a biosafety level 4 laboratory.

Update (1705ET): As we wait for the meeting to begin, we’d like to highlight this Bloomberg report from earlier claiming that the president has abandoned the idea of forming a second task force to focus on reopening the economy – a trial balloon that elicited a pretty tepid response from both insiders and the public – and has instead held a “marathon” series of calls with business leaders on Wednesday.

As the outbreak shows signs of plateauing in the country, corporate executives are being asked to advise Trump on how to resume something approaching normal business and social life. Trump was scheduled to speak with more than 200 leaders from nearly every corner of the U.S. economy in four calls.

Several of the companies and other participants said they found out they were invited only after Trump announced their names in a Rose Garden news conference on Tuesday or from a subsequent White House statement. They said they didn’t know the format or the purpose of the calls, and some expressed doubt the exercise would be productive.

The calls began Wednesday morning in Washington. The White House said the discussions would include chief executive officers of some of the country’s largest and most prominent companies, including Tim Cook of Apple Inc., Doug McMillon of Walmart Inc. and Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase & Co.

We suspect we’ll be hearing more about the contents of these calls tonight.

*     *     *

Wednesday night’s press briefing is slated to begin at 5pmET, but when the show will actually start is anybody’s guess.

Watch it live below: