The FDA Could Double COVID-19 Vaccine Availability Immediately

JohnsonCovidVaccineSimonLehmanDreamstime

Here’s a thought-experiment. What if the results of Johnson & Johnson Phase 3 clinical trial of the company’s one-shot adenovirus-vector vaccine finds in January that it is safe and, say, 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 infections? Surely, the regulators at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for that vaccine. After all, the agency in June set the efficacy threshold for a COVID-19 vaccine that it would prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50 percent of people who are vaccinated.

For comparison, the latest pneumonia vaccines protects 50 to 85 percent of relatively healthy adult recipients against invasive pneumococcal disease. With respect to seasonal influenza vaccinations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that vaccine effectiveness has generally ranged between 40 percent to 60 percent. “This means that people who get vaccinated may still get sick, but they are about half as likely to get sick as someone who was not vaccinated,” observes the agency. “Another important thing to remember is that vaccination may make illness less severe in people who get vaccinated and still get sick.”

Keeping firmly in mind that clinical trials can report disappointing results, the initial data from the Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials in October for Johnson & Johnson’s adenovirus-vector vaccine are quite promising. Those trials found that 97 percent of participants inoculated with the vaccine developed significant levels of antibodies against the COVID-19 virus.

Meanwhile, clinical trial results find that both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are around 95 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 after two doses. But here’s where it gets interesting: Preliminary data finds that both vaccines are around 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 after just the first dose.

So back to the thought-experiment. If the FDA would issue an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine that is 90 percent effective (or possibly even lower), then why continue to require a two-dose regimen for the already approved vaccines? I suspect the reason is bureaucratic lack of imagination and courage. Because the clinical trials were set up to evaluate two-dose regimens, hyper-cautious FDA regulators will only ratify what’s put in front of them. Apparently, the pandemic “emergency” is not urgent enough for the FDA to authorize the use of effective one-dose of inoculations of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

Assuming no big distribution and manufacturing snafus, Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson reportedly aim to deliver some 300 million doses of their vaccines before the end of the first quarter of 2021. If Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were authorized to switch their 200 million doses to a one-shot regimen, that would be more than enough vaccine to inoculate the vast majority of Americans by the end of March. If it turns out that one-shot immunity to the COVID-19 virus wanes, there would still be plenty of time to administer booster shots later as vaccine production ramps up.

Given that a 90 percent effective or even a 70 percent effective COVID-19 vaccine would receive an EUA from the FDA, the agency should urgently consider authorizing a one-shot inoculation of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines now. Such an action would essentially double the amount of vaccine available, save thousands of lives, and bring the end of the pandemic that much closer.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nPPhrD
via IFTTT

And We Should Trust You Now, Dr. Fauci, Because …?

From the New York Times (Donald G. McNeil Jr.):

At what point does a country achieve herd immunity? What portion of the population must acquire resistance to the coronavirus, either through infection or vaccination, for the disease to fade away …?

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks….. [H]e believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt ….

Dr. Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed unsure about vaccines …. Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.

Errors happen; scientists’ understanding changes; but Dr. Fauci’s statements here aren’t just about changed medical understanding, right?

Thanks to Randy Barnett for pointing this out, in a post on a discussion list that I’m on.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hhX2Em
via IFTTT

BABA Battered, Brexit Breakthrough, & Bailout Busted – Buck & Bond Yields Drop

BABA Battered, Brexit Breakthrough, & Bailout Busted – Buck & Bond Yields Drop

Jack Ma might be (or have been) the richest man in China, but right now he is learning the hard way, you don’t mess with the gods. Since his criticism of China’s financial regulations during an appearance at a high-profile industry conference in October, he has seen his Ant Group IPO cancelled, regulatory crackdowns on lending (the company’s main business), and last night saw further action by Chinese officials investigating anti-trust violations. These actions have clubbed the giant Chinese tech firm (and Ma’s wealth) like a baby seal…its worst day ever!

Of course, in response, this happened…

Perhaps more is to come, as hedge fund manager Kyle Bass, a prominent China critic, speculated that Ma isn’t actually retiring – rather, his carefully choreographed decision to step down is the result of being “forcibly removed from his position, stripped of his shareholdings (transferred to “five unnamed individuals” with the same address), and will likely be jailed or ‘disappeared’ within the next year.”

We guess Emperor-for-life trumps ‘untouchable’ oligarch. Still , could be worse… you could be stuck in a truck in Dover for Xmas…

A lack of COVID Relief (after Trump poked the hornet’s nest of pork… to mix metaphors), sent stocks lower on the day, pushing S&P, Dow, and Nasdaq red for the week (and erasing some of Small Caps’ gains). Late-day ramp pushed Nasdaq and Dow back into the green…

Financials and Tech led on the week (and were the only sectors green on the week) while Energy lagged

Source: Bloomberg

VIX plunged to a 21 handle today, back at quad-witch spike lows…

Bonds were bid today, erasing yesterday’s spike and ending the week lower by 1-3bps…

Source: Bloomberg

Once again, it seems the invisible hand of ‘someone’ stepped in to hold yields back from breaking out…

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar slipped lower on the day, but higher on the shortened week…

Source: Bloomberg

As Cable rallied up to recent high stops on Brexit deal headlines…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin was flatish this week, oscillating around the $23k-$24k mark…

Source: Bloomberg

But XRP was monkeyhammered after the SEC probe headlines, erasing all the year’s gains…

Source: Bloomberg

Commodities were mixed with PMs flat on the week but Copper and Crude lower as COVID-Lockdown Relief faded away and lockdowns spread around the world…

Source: Bloomberg

Gold managed to get back above its 50DMA…

Source: Bloomberg

But WTI managed to scramble back above $48 again…

Finally, have no fear… there’s no inflation (except in what you eat!!)…

Source: Bloomberg

And as real yields plunge back near record lows, gold is due to catch up (and has risen 16 of the last 20 years over the next week)…

Source: Bloomberg

And as if it matters, US economic data has been collapsing recently…

Source: Bloomberg

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/24/2020 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2M7X0n5 Tyler Durden

And We Should Trust You Now, Dr. Fauci, Because …?

From the New York Times (Donald G. McNeil Jr.):

At what point does a country achieve herd immunity? What portion of the population must acquire resistance to the coronavirus, either through infection or vaccination, for the disease to fade away …?

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks….. [H]e believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt ….

Dr. Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed unsure about vaccines …. Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.

Errors happen; scientists’ understanding changes; but Dr. Fauci’s statements here aren’t just about changed medical understanding, right?

Thanks to Randy Barnett for pointing this out, in a post on a discussion list that I’m on.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hhX2Em
via IFTTT

ARK Funds Could “Take In More Cash Than Blackrock” In December, ETF Expert Balchunas Says

ARK Funds Could “Take In More Cash Than Blackrock” In December, ETF Expert Balchunas Says

The market distortions created by an engineered gamma squeeze of the NASDAQ know no bounds.

Yesterday we published a report highlighting Bloomberg’s ETF expert Eric Balchunas’ take on how ARK Funds could wind up becoming victims of their own success. 

Many of Balchunas’ assumptions relied on sustained massive inflows into the ARK family of ETFs – notably its ARKK ETF – which we noted yesterday is currently seeing inflows of about $400 million per day.

And heading into the end of the holiday week, it doesn’t look like those inflows are going to let up in the slightest. Balchunas took to Twitter on Thursday morning to note that ARKK had another record inflow of $380 million yesterday and that ARK Funds as a whole took in $814 million, lifting the family’s AUM to $36.2 billion. 

In fact, that haul was so massive that Balchunas noted that ARK has a chance of taking in more cash than Blackrock in December. The funds are on pace to bring in $11 billion, he said.

As we said, the continued flows are notable because Balchunas put out a great piece on Wednesday describing how the ARKK ETF could actually become a victim of its own success if cash continues to come in at the rate with which it has stacked up the last few years. 

Balchunas noted the ETF could have capacity issues due to it taking “in more in the past two weeks than in its first five years”. ETFs don’t have the option of closing, like mutual funds do, if they become to big. He notes that ARKK’s $18 billion could “make it difficult to move in and out of smaller stocks”.

“This one ETF has more in assets than the other 240 actively managed equity ETFs combined,” he pointed out.

He also noted that the fund is naturally going to have to morph into a large-cap fund. “ARKK has shown a notable shift away from smaller companies and toward larger ones this year,” he wrote, claiming the firm’s “bulging assets” are likely the reason.

ARK’s large cap exposure has jumped 10% to 77% of its portfolio this year, while small cap exposure has gone to “almost nothing” from its previous 13%. The number of small cap investments has also been cut in half, coinciding with the firms “massive” inflows. 

The company now owns substantial portions of other companies, as noted above. It holds 10% of the float of 15 companies – including 12% of PagerDuty – which it only owned 3% of at the beginning of the year. 

“At $50 billion in assets, a 2% allocation to a typical small-cap company would translate to about 40% ownership,” Balchunas said. 

Balchunas predicted that unless there is a market correction, inflows will continue – just as we are seeing this week.

The ETF, which traded $2 billion in volume earlier this week, is trading about 44x more than it averaged this spring. He called ARKK the “biggest craze” since the DXJ – the currency hedged ETF that saw its outperformance turn to underperformance before losing “almost all of its $19 billion in assets”. 

The note also pointed out that ARKK charges about 3x the average ETF at 75 bps. It also says that the ETF is 6th in potential fee revenue versus being 69th in assets. 

Recall, last week we noted that Cathie Wood would likely maintain control of ARK. Last month, the news broke that she was at risk of losing control due to Resolute Investment Managers exercising a call option from years prior that would make it majority owner of the business. 

We noted that back in November, ARK was delivered notice from Resolute Management Investors that they would be taking control of her firm due to an option in a deal Wood had negotiated back in 2016. The power shift, which Pensions & Investments noted last month wasn’t especially amicable, came due to a 2016 agreement between Resolute and ARK, where RIM acquired a minority stake in the investment manager – with a call option “to purchase a controlling voting and equity interest in (ARK) that is exercisable in 2021.”

At the time the intent to exercise was announced, Wood had said: “On behalf of the employee-owners of ARK, we are disappointed that Resolute Investment Managers and its private equity owner, Kelso & Co., have chosen to issue this unwelcome notice that they intend to seize control of our business.”

In speaking to Bloomberg last week about the potential power shift, Wood said: “That has quieted down and we are in negotiations, We wanted to be fair and square with our partner, and I think things will work out.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/24/2020 – 12:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KY1tIw Tyler Durden

Trump’s Pattern of Self-Serving Pardons Continues

Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump has been more stingy and self-serving in his use of the Pardon Power. He has provided pardons or clemency less often than his predecessors, and he has been more likely to issue pardons in ways that serve his self-interest, such as by pardoning political and personal allies and celebrities, including Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner’s father.

The pattern has continued through Trump’s pre-Christmas Pardon-palooza. As analysis by Harvard Law’s Jack Goldsmith and Matthew Gluck shows, Trump continues to use the power to serve his own self interest. Their data, collected here, finds the following (as of 12/24):

  • Trump has issued 94 pardons and commutations;
  • 68 of the 94 advance his political agenda;
  • 40 of 94 recipients had a personal connection to the President;
  • 20 of the 94 had some sort of celebrity status;
  • 86 of the 94 had some sort of personal or political connection to the President;
  • Only 7 of the 94 appear to have been recommended by the DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney.

Even though these pardons are self-serving, and some even appear to be rewards to those who refused to provide evidence against the President in various investigations, these are all lawful uses of the power. Even pardons granted for corrupt purposes are valid (though actions taken to secure a pardon may be unlawful). Yet while Trump may issue pardons to protect himself, he cannot issue a self-pardon, for reasons I explained here.

UPDATE: For a different take on the data, see this thread.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38vLnhj
via IFTTT

FedEx, UPS Take Different Routes On New Parcel Surcharges

FedEx, UPS Take Different Routes On New Parcel Surcharges

By Mark Solomon of FreightWaves,

For decades, an immutable law of business has been that whenever FedEx changed its pricing or related terms and conditions, rival UPS would soon follow suit. Or vice versa. However, a few changes to peak-season delivery surcharges that the two carriers announced within a week of each other signal that the long-held duopoly bond continues to fray.

There are still similarities: Both carriers will reduce their levies to $3 per package to cover the “additional handling” of shipments that are difficult to manage. UPS will reduce its per-package charge on oversize shipments to $31.45 per piece from $50, not far from FedEx’s revised charge to $30 from $52.50. The effective date of the new UPS levies is Jan. 17, just one day before the revised FedEx surcharges kick in. All the revised charges will stay in effect until further notice, both carriers have said.

But there are differences. For example, UPS, which disclosed its surcharges in a website post yesterday, will maintain its U.S. ground residential surcharge but cut it to 30 cents per piece from surcharge tiers of $1 to $3 per package that expire Jan. 16. FedEx’s residential delivery surcharges, which ranged from $1 to $5 a parcel and were imposed Nov. 2, will disappear entirely on Jan. 17.

UPS wilI reduce surcharges on its SurePost parcel-induction service offered in conjunction with the U.S. Postal Service to 30 cents per package from the $1- to $3-per-piece surcharge thresholds that expire Jan. 16. FedEx, by contrast, will drop a similar surcharge by just 25 cents per parcel to 75 cents from $1.

The revised parcel-induction surcharges indicate a clear divergence between the two. While UPS will cut its levies by at least 70 cents a parcel, UPS is a regular user of the Postal Service and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. FedEx, by contrast, has nearly finished a multiyear process to move all its former Postal Service traffic into its own residential delivery network. FedEx’s lower surcharge cut may be designed to recoup the costs of migrating and operating the service, or it may be a way to embed profitable surcharges into what is now an in-house offering. FedEx’s objective in moving the volumes in-house is to add more parcel density to its ground-delivery network.

UPS, along with other high-volume providers, dumps massive parcel volumes deep into the Postal Service’s shipping network for last-mile deliveries to residences. UPS remains a heavy user of the Postal Service’s last-mile delivery service. 

UPS will set volume thresholds to determine who will get slapped with surcharges. The levy on standard-size parcel shipments will apply only to customers whose combined volume of ground residential and SurePost traffic exceeded 25,000 packages during any week following February 2020. The move is designed to shield small to midsize businesses, a coveted customer segment, from the effects of the surcharges.

UPS’ surcharges on shipments requiring special handling will apply to customers who have shipped more than 1,000 total domestic and U.S. export packages, or more than 10 of the specialized pieces, during any week after the end of February. The special-handling levies are believed to be relatively easy for shippers to exceed.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/24/2020 – 12:24

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aG2uzJ Tyler Durden

Fast-Moving Wildfire Threatens Major Marine Corps Base Near San Diego

Fast-Moving Wildfire Threatens Major Marine Corps Base Near San Diego

A major Marine Corps base in southern California is under emergency evacuation orders as a wildfire has grown out of control and is now encroaching on the area. 

Marine base Camp Pendleton, which is home to the 1st Marine Division, Marine Expeditionary Force, infantry training schools and many other key units, is under threat by the Creek Fire.

The fast-moving brush fire resulted in the overnight emergency evacuation of about 7,000 residents. The fire is said to be burning entirely on Camp Pendleton, which given its vast mountainous training areas includes a lot of brush areas.

The fire has scorched some 3,000 acres of the base’s about 125,000 total acres. The base lies along the coastline in northwestern San Diego County.

The fire is said to be at least 35% contained as of Thursday morning.

A number of grids on the county map identified by local North County Fire personnel were designated for a mandatory evacuation notice early Thursday.

“We have a lot of populated areas both on and off base, so we’re still very concerned,” Cal Fire Capt. Thomas Shoots said.

One local news report described conditions as follows: “Crews are battling the fire under critical conditions fueled by Santa Ana winds bringing 30-50 mph wind gusts over the county. A Red Flag Warning has been called for the inland and mountain areas until 12 p.m. Christmas Eve. Gusty winds and low humidity levels between 5 and 15% will create critical fire danger.”

High winds are now said to be pushing the blaze further into the base.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/24/2020 – 12:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38AustQ Tyler Durden

Trump’s Pattern of Self-Serving Pardons Continues

Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump has been more stingy and self-serving in his use of the Pardon Power. He has provided pardons or clemency less often than his predecessors, and he has been more likely to issue pardons in ways that serve his self-interest, such as by pardoning political and personal allies and celebrities, including Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner’s father.

The pattern has continued through Trump’s pre-Christmas Pardon-palooza. As analysis by Harvard Law’s Jack Goldsmith and Matthew Gluck shows, Trump continues to use the power to serve his own self interest. Their data, collected here, finds the following (as of 12/24):

  • Trump has issued 94 pardons and commutations;
  • 68 of the 94 advance his political agenda;
  • 40 of 94 recipients had a personal connection to the President;
  • 20 of the 94 had some sort of celebrity status;
  • 86 of the 94 had some sort of personal or political connection to the President;
  • Only 7 of the 94 appear to have been recommended by the DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney.

Even though these pardons are self-serving, and some even appear to be rewards to those who refused to provide evidence against the President in various investigations, these are all lawful uses of the power. Even pardons granted for corrupt purposes are valid (though actions taken to secure a pardon may be unlawful). Yet while Trump may issue pardons to protect himself, he cannot issue a self-pardon, for reasons I explained here.

UPDATE: For a different take on the data, see this thread.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38vLnhj
via IFTTT

Emerging Market Vulnerability Heatmap

Emerging Market Vulnerability Heatmap

By Wouter van Eijkelenburg of Rabobank

Summary

  • We have updated our emerging markets heatmap which provides a comprehensive overview of the relative vulnerability of 18 emerging markets
  • Asian countries are in relatively good shape, while Latin American countries are most vulnerable, with Argentina ‘topping’ the ranking
  • Emerging markets are recovering at different speeds, ranging from single digit growth (China, Vietnam) to double digit contractions (Chile, the Philippines) in Q3
  • Public debt levels are surging in all economies, limiting future fiscal space
  • In terms of currencies, Philippine Peso, Hungarian Forint and Chilean Peso are outperforming while the Russian Rouble and Indian Rupee are underperforming relative to their vulnerability
  • Going forward we expect EM currencies to be relatively strong on the back of a weak dollar and global economic recovery
  • But if downside risks materialize, the local currencies of countries that are vulnerable according to our heatmap will be most heavily impacted

The vulnerability of EMs after rollercoaster 2020

Concluding that 2020 was a turbulent year would be an understatement. In light of all recent developments we have updated our emerging market vulnerability heatmap (Table 1) to provide guidance on a range of economic indicators and present the relative performance of emerging markets in an intuitive manner.

Diverging economic recovery

Amid the reverberations of the global pandemic we observe different speeds of recovery among emerging markets. Countries like China and Vietnam showed positive growth figures while countries like the Philippines and Chile are still showing a double digit contraction y/y. Figure 1 presents the fastest growing economy in Q3 on the left and the slowest on the right. The difference in speed of recovery can be attributed to a number of factors. First and foremost, the level of containment of the virus, which, for example, explains why China is doing well (it has been relatively successful in containing the virus). But other factors also play into these developments. For example, countries like the Philippines and Thailand are very dependent on tourism and are hit hard by closed borders. Other countries like Malaysia and China are exporting medical or electronic equipment and could benefit from a rise in demand for these products rose as a result of the pandemic and lockdowns. On the flipside, this implies that countries suffering from closed borders in recent months can expect to rebound quickly whenever vaccines are widely available and international travel returns to pre-pandemic levels.

Rising debt levels

In order to limit the impact of the pandemic, governments reacted with large stimulus packages. In an earlier publication we elaborated in depth on COVID-19 monetary and fiscal stimulus packages among developed and developing countries. The additional fiscal stimulus has resulted in large increases of public debt. In Figure 2 we see the countries with the largest public debt as a % of GDP, ordered from left to right. Countries that stand out are Argentina, Brazil and India. These countries have increased their public debt as a result of large fiscal deficits in order to finance COVID-19 support packages: Argentina 6% of GDP, Brazil 8.4% of GDP and India 8.5% of GDP. Going forward, limiting large budget deficits helps governments to keep the public debt level sustainable and retain fiscal headroom to stimulate the economy if needed. High debt levels are a constraint to future economic growth. They limit future fiscal spending for a number of reasons: i) A higher share of the government budget needs to be allocated towards debt repayments and cannot be used to stimulate the economy ii) higher debts lead to higher default risks and iii) higher debt levels could increase interest rates on future government bond issuance.

Another important measure is how much of the debt is denominated in a foreign currency. Large shares of foreign-currency denominated debt increase the vulnerability to currency volatility. In Figure 3 we observe that Argentina, Turkey and Indonesia have the largest share of their debt denominated in foreign currency, which makes them the most sensitive to currency movements within their region. This dependence on foreign capital constrains the set of monetary or fiscal mechanisms that can be used to stimulate the economy. For example, cutting central bank interest rates depreciates the local currency, indirectly increasing government debt levels in terms of the local currency. On the other side of the spectrum we see that mainly Asian countries (Thailand, China, South Korea) are in good shape with regard to foreign currency-denominated debt.

Overall rankings

In Table 2 we show the aggregated rankings. The countries shown at the top are the most vulnerable according to our framework while countries at the bottom are least vulnerable. In general, we observe that Asian countries are performing quite well, while countries in Latin America are showing a higher degree of vulnerability. We already showed (Figures 2 & 3) that countries like Argentina, Turkey and Chile are relatively vulnerable with regard to their debt levels. At the same time, the Philippines, Chile, Colombia and Mexico are struggling to rebound from the economic dip caused by the pandemic. Alongside economic performance, institutional quality is another driver.

Zooming in on institutional indicators like political risk we note that Latin American countries are more vulnerable than countries in, for example, Asia (Figure 4). However, these are all relatively low with the highest score being around 3 on a 0-10 scale.

Finally, trade figures provide another important economic indicator. Figure 5 shows which countries have the largest trade surplus left to right and the vulnerability with regard to FX export cover, which indicates how many months of imports can be covered by current foreign reserves. The figures point out that a relatively solid trade position supports to a country’s relatively good position in the overall rankings, especially in the case of Thailand, South Korea and Russia.

Vulnerability heatmap vs. performance of local currencies

In figure 6 we compare the vulnerability rankings to the performance ranking of the local currencies since the start of 2020. Overall, we observe that the vulnerability is a good gauge of the relative performance of the local currencies. There is a decent fit between the vulnerability and depreciation of currencies. Currencies above the 45 degree line are relatively underperforming based on the relative vulnerability ranking, while currencies under the 45 degree line are relatively outperforming their relative vulnerability ranking. Although these indicators provide a comparison based on fundamentals, other very important factors must be considered when evaluating the value of these currencies, for instance current local economic circumstances, global events and global investor sentiment. In this way, the Philippine Peso’s strength can be attributed to the increase in remittances and collapsed imports during the pandemic and recovery from strong typhoons in November. The Rouble’s weakness could be attributed to foreign policy risks and associated risks for investors, constraining them from investing in Rouble-denominated assets.

The year ahead

The vulnerability heatmap provides an intuitive framework to assess the fundamental performance of emerging markets and their relative performance on a range of indicators. But we should not look at these in isolation. Next year the individual performance will be driven by economic recovery, virus containment, political stability, budget prudence and central bank policy as well as global investor sentiment.

In general, emerging market currencies have the opportunity to appreciate on the back of a weak dollar, as a result of ample liquidity provided by the FED and ECB. In turn, this provides governments and central banks of EMs to loosen their policy in order to stimulate their economies. The divergence in monetary and fiscal policies will be one of the main drivers in relative performance of the EM local currencies.

The economic recovery, spurred by the implementation of vaccines is another important factor. EMs will benefit from developed markets opening up, increasing the global demand for products and commodities, which will benefit production countries like China and Malaysia and commodity exporters like Indonesia and Brazil. Likewise, opening borders to tourism will benefit countries like the Philippines and Thailand.

On the flipside, downside risks like new outbreaks or a shift towards risk-averse investor sentiment will have a more severe impact on currencies of countries that are most vulnerable according to our vulnerability heatmap. Countries that are least vulnerable according to the heatmap will be less impacted by negative events and a risk-averse investor environment.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/24/2020 – 11:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2M7AIBR Tyler Durden