Can an Epidemic Justify Temporarily Forbidding Abortions (Except to Protect Life or Health of the Woman)?

Ohio and Texas seem to be including abortion clinics as parts of their general shutdown of “non-essential or elective surgeries and procedures” (to quote the Ohio Deputy Attorney General’s letter to a Planned Parenthood affiliate), defined as those “that can be delayed without undue risk to the current or future health of a patient.”

This likely is at least a temporary ban on most abortions, for which delay likely doesn’t create undue risk to health as such. (All delay creates some risk, but probably not enough to qualify as “undue,” and the Texas order allows procedures only to avoid death or “risk for serious adverse medical consequences.”) And the restriction may thus completely preclude abortions for those women who are far enough along in their pregnancies that the delay will push them past the currently effective legal deadline, which is viability. Nor would nonsurgical medical abortion be an alternative for such women whose pregnancies are getting close to viability; as I understand it, it is generally not allowed, at least in Ohio, past a relatively early stage in the pregnancy.

The main justification given by both states for this temporary ban is not the risk that the interaction between patients and clinic personnel will risk spreading coronavirus. Rather, it is that the pandemic “has created a shortage of personal protective equipment needed to protect health care professionals and stop transmission of the virus,” and that this equipment should be saved for only the essential procedures.

Of course, under normal circumstances such a restriction would be unconstitutional. Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional for the government to create substantial obstacles to women’s ability to get an abortion before viability. Even milder regulations have been struck down under this test, because they tended to markedly reduce the number of available clinics and increase travel time and other delays. Perhaps the Court will reverse itself on this, but for now lower courts are bound by the law as the Court has set forth.

But, as I’ve discussed before, I think public health emergencies can justify many restrictions on constitutional rights (and important statutory rights), especially when those restrictions are parts of across-the-board restraints, rather than targeting the right for special constraint. That is true, for instance, of:

  • The right to assemble, when the government bans all large or even modestly-sized public gatherings.
  • The right to religious exemptions from generally applicable laws (for instance, claimed by those who want to worship together despite such a gathering ban), in the about 2/3 of the states that recognize such a right under a state RFRA statute or a state supreme court’s interpretation of the state constitution.
  • The right to live with one’s spouse or children, or the right to have sex with one’s lover, when one is quarantined and separated from them for some time.

Yet I think these restrictions are permissible in an epidemic because

  1. they leave substantial substitutes for the right (for instance, online communication in place of physical assembly), or briefly delay its exercise in a way that’s burdensome but not immense, and
  2. the restrictions closely target behavior that especially risks transmission of disease—activities that tend to bring people close together, in contexts where they tend to interact closely with each other, a habit that can be very hard to completely break.

(For religious worship, some religious believers might believe that they must gather in person, so item 1 might be absent, but item 2 generally would still apply.)

Here, at least for some women, the Ohio and Texas rules wouldn’t just substantially burden the right to abortion, but would completely foreclose its exercise. (Likewise, I tend to think that a law that completely shuts down all ways to buy a gun would completely foreclose the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms for those who don’t already own guns.)

And I think that for such abortions, as for gun purchases, mechanisms would be available to preserve the core of the right while minimizing the risk of communicating illnesses (or the competition for personal protective equipment). For instance, there can be requirements that the clinic sharply limit the number of people physically present at any one time, even when that causes delays. There can be rules delaying abortions, especially if it is thought that the protective equipment shortage will ease in the weeks to come, so long as the rules apply only to relatively early abortions, where delay will not mean denial. A total ban on all non-life/health-preserving abortions, even as part of a general ban on all non-life/health-preserving surgical proceedings, is therefore not strictly necessary, and should thus be seen as unconstitutional even as a means of combating an epidemic.

Of course, the less restrictive alternatives that I describe might well create considerable burdens on people who want to exercise the right. But such burdens may well be justifiable, and thus not “undue burdens”: As the Court has held, courts must consider countervailing “medical benefits” “when considering whether a regulation of abortion constitutes an undue [and therefore unconstitutional] burden”; I think that should include medical benefits in helping control a deadly epidemic and not just medical benefits to the woman.

So abortion rights, like many of our other rights, can be significantly burdened in order to help control the effects of coronavirus. But when we go from a significant burden to outright prohibition, especially of behavior that doesn’t involve large-group gatherings of the sort that are particularly likely to spread disease, the prohibitions strike me as no longer constitutional, whether as to the right to get an abortion or the right to get a gun.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2UzE94W
via IFTTT

Ring’s Expanding Public-Private Panopticon Doesn’t Actually Stop Crime

As America moves further into the COVID-19 era, a concerned citizen might start worrying: Hmm, everything is shut down, most people can’t legally earn a living, is property crime going to see a huge upswing? Americans may even begin yearning for a world where the authorities see and record everything. Some business owners might fear looting, depending on how long their storefronts must be left unattended.

In light of those worries, it’s worth examining what the internet-connected Ring video doorbell, owned by Amazon, which video records the space in front of your door, saves the footage, and allows you to remotely speak to whoever is at your door, has done to curb crime.

Not much, turns out, though Ring and its users are sharing footage with local police in over 1,000 towns now. Ring claims it has “millions” of customers but otherwise does not release hard user counts.

As NBC reported last month, even though Ring hyped their relationship with the cops in Winter Park, Florida, in a promotional video, police there admit not a single arrest has resulted from Ring footage. NBC interviewed over 40 law enforcement agencies spread over eight states and found “little concrete evidence” to support any claim that sharing your doorbell footage with police helps solve or lessen crime.

Indeed, police griped that the connection between Ring-enabled worrywarts and the police led more often to them wasting time “reviewing clips of non-criminal issues such as raccoons and petty disagreements between neighbors. Others noted that the flood of footage generated by Ring cameras rarely led to positive identifications of suspects, let alone arrests.”

Thirteen agencies did say arrests have resulted from their access to Ring videos, although “large cities like Phoenix, Miami, and Kansas City, Missouri, said that they don’t know how many arrests had been made as a result of their relationship with Ring—and therefore could not evaluate its effectiveness—even though they had been working with the company for well over a year.”

Residential burglary and other property crimes have already been on the decline preceding the rise of Ring, and no one seems to have any hard research indicating that the doorbell monitor has played a role. Ring itself also doesn’t know, and isn’t trying to learn, the facts about its effectiveness in crime deterrence or arrests, even though, as CNET reported in a new analysis of Ring and crime, Amazon’s hardware chief Dave Limp said at a public event in September that “We continue to believe that when you add Ring to a neighborhood, crime is reduced.”

CNET, however, found when they analyzed property crime stats from:

three of Ring’s earliest police partners, examining the monthly theft rates from the 12 months before those partners signed up to work with the company, and the 12 months after the relationships began, and found minimal impact from the technology.

The data shows that crime continued to fluctuate, and analysts said that while many factors affect crime rates, such as demographics, median income and weather, Ring’s technology likely wasn’t one of them.

Police who’ve partnered with Ring drew the same conclusion.

Ring continues to hope, despite this lack of evidence that it does much good, that every law enforcement agency in America will sign on to its Neighbors Portal app program. (Ring had made huge claims about their crime-cutting powers in Los Angeles, claims an MIT Technology Review study debunked.) CNET’s surveys of crime stats in cities where police allied with Ring found fluctuating crime rates and continuations of previous crime trends before Ring entered the picture. Some cities without Ring-police partnerships showed crime rate cuts comparable to cities in which Ring had allied with the cops. They found no police agencies willing to say they knew for sure that Ring’s partnership was an effective crime-cutting tool.

CBS reported on that Neighbors program last month, whereby Ring users who sign up share their doorbell footage with both local police and their Ring-using neighbors who also signed up. This little system allows police to, as CBS reports, create “a so-called ‘geofence’ around a crime location and [to request] video footage captured on home security cameras filmed at specific times.”

As Vice reported last year, “Video posts on Neighbors disproportionately depict people of color, and descriptions often use racist language or make racist assumptions about the people shown…with a Ring camera, users can frame neighbors as a threat.” They even found that, of a small survey of 100 posts, “between December 6 and February 5, and the majority of people reported as ‘suspicious’ were people of color.”

Declan McCullagh reported for Reason in our December 2019 issue on this unholy cop/Big Tech alliance, noting the “arrangement…creat[es] a massive surveillance network. In cities dotted by many Ring cameras…law enforcement can probably reconstruct a pedestrian’s movements from the time he enters a neighborhood until he exits” and that, alas for those hoping for legal defense from this, “Lower courts have said that you enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street, let alone on your neighbor’s doorstep.”

While we may not have seen much evidence it helps prevent actual property crime, it is easy to see how a network of Ring videos connected to the police could be a tool to help police identify an easier-to-catch variety of criminal: any citizen daring to violate shelter-in-place orders either now or to come. Ring plus facial recognition technology could be a powerful tool for compliance, if not for halting actual property crime. This could become increasingly relevant in an age of coronavirus-related restrictions on people’s ability to freely leave their houses.

Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.) sounded almost prescient about such potential abuse, when he said after an investigation of Ring last year, “Amazon Ring’s policies are an open door for privacy and civil liberty violations. If you’re an adult walking your dog or a child playing on the sidewalk, you shouldn’t have to worry that Ring’s products are amassing footage of you and that law enforcement may hold that footage indefinitely or share that footage with any third parties.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39kpUX1
via IFTTT

Coronavirus Bill May Suffer Further Delay After GOP Senators Demand Fix For “Massive Drafting Error”

Coronavirus Bill May Suffer Further Delay After GOP Senators Demand Fix For “Massive Drafting Error”

First it was Nancy Pelosi ‘rode into town from her extended vacation’ to kill the GOP coronavirus bill.

Now, despite what we were told was a done dea, three Republican Senators have demanded an “immediate fix” to a drafting error in the bill which may delay its passage.

Sens. Scott (SC), Sasse(NE) and Graham (SC) wrote in a Wednesday letter:

“A massive drafting error in the current version of the coronavirus relief legislation could have devastating consequences: Unless this bill is fixed, there is a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work. This isn’t an abstract, philosophical point — it’s an immediate, real-world problem.”

According to the Senators, “If the federal government accidentally incentivizes layoffs, we risk life-threatening shortages in sectors were doctors, nurses and cooks are trying to get food to families’ tables.

Developing…


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/25/2020 – 13:37

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ds3OoE Tyler Durden

Pompeo Urges Saudi Crown Prince To “Rise To Occasion”, Help Lift The Price Of Oil

Pompeo Urges Saudi Crown Prince To “Rise To Occasion”, Help Lift The Price Of Oil

With the world obsessing over every daily update of new cases in Lombardy or New York to gauge if we have “peaked the curve”, many appear to be forgetting that there is another, just as pressing problem facing global capital markets: the ongoing crash in oil prices which threatens to not only leave millions of Texans unemployed indefinitely – and not just for 1-2 months as a result of the coronavirus pandemic – but unleash unprecedented defaults among US shale firms most of which are financed by junk bonds which will never be rolled over if current conditions persist.

One person who has not forgotten, however, is Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who held a phone call with the de facto leader of OPEC, or at least what’s left of it, Saudi crown prince MbS, in which the two discussed “the need to maintain stability in global energy markets” in what Bloomberg said amounted to “the U.S.’s most direct intervention in the price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia.”

“The secretary stressed that as a leader of the G20 and an important energy leader, Saudi Arabia has a real opportunity to rise to the occasion and reassure global energy and financial markets when the world faces serious economic uncertainty,” the State Department said on Wednesday.

Predictably, the two leaders also discussed their “deep concern” about the coronavirus outbreak and the need to contain the pandemic, which we can only imagine is code for something much more sinister, especially with Iran coronavirus cases now above 27K and virtually none in Saudi Arabia.

But going back to the point at hand, US shale producers have been reeling in the past three weeks, not so much due to the coronavirus, but as a result of depressed oil prices which crashed in the aftermath of  the Russian-Saudi battle; of course the unprecedented hit to consumption from the global pandemic has not helped .

The price war was unleashed after Saudi Arabia failed to convince Russia to join the OPEC+ alliance to cut production, and as Bloomberg notes, for now the thinking in Riyadh remains that only a collective output cut, rather than unilateral action by the Saudis, can turn the market around.

The magnitude of the oversupply is such that Russia and Saudi Arabia would need to completely stop all their output to balance the market. Top oil trading house Vitol Group puts the glut at 20 million barrels a day.

Pompeo’s call comes amid failed attempts to push the price of oil higher, which has defied policymaker interventions seeking to inject trillions of dollars to offset the harm from the pandemic. Brent has been trading around $26, about half where it was a trading at just the start of the month.

Meanwhile, as large parts of the global economy shut down to stop the spread of the virus, neither Saudi Arabia nor Russia are showing any sign of backing down on threats to pump more oil to gain market share, which means that the real hit to shale may persist long after the covid shutdown is gone.

U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said on Monday that the possibility of a joint U.S.-Saudi oil alliance is one idea under consideration to stabilize prices after the worst crash in a generation.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/25/2020 – 13:32

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

5Y Auction Treasury Prices At Lowest Yield Ever Despite Sharp Foreign Buyer Pullback

5Y Auction Treasury Prices At Lowest Yield Ever Despite Sharp Foreign Buyer Pullback

If yesterday’s tailing 2Y auction was more of a shot in the dark, with an avalanche of new issuance coming down the pipe and was hardly indicative of what future demand will look like, the same can be said for today’s 5Y auction, even though unlike the 2Y, there was little one can say to criticize today’s sale of $41 billion in 5Y paper.

Let’s start at the top: the yield on today’s auction, which was 0.535%, was not only sharply below the February 1.15%, but was also below the lowest on record, which was recorded in July 2012 when it hit 0.58%. The auction also stopped through the When Issued by 1.5bps, showing demand coming into the auction was quite high despite today’s torrid risk rally.

The bid to cover was also impressive, jumping from 2.46 to 2.53, the highest since July 2018.

That said, the internals left a bit to be desired, with the Indirect takedown down from 61.5% to 52.1%, which was the lowest since August of 2015. And with foreign buyers stepping away, and Directs taking down 12.6%, slightly above last month’s 9.8% if below the 6-auction average of 13.2%, it meant that Primary Dealers had to jump, and took down 35.3%, the most since Dec 2018.

Yet even despite the reshuffling in the buyer composition, the auction was clearly very strong and helped push the yield curve in parallel notably lower even as today’s risk rally continues without missing a beat.

 


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/25/2020 – 13:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QIPj60 Tyler Durden

Poll: 100% Of Americans Expect To Get COVID-19

Poll: 100% Of Americans Expect To Get COVID-19

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

A new survey has discovered that every single American is convinced they will get the coronavirus, highlighting just how entrenched the message about the crisis has become in the US.

The poll by Survey USA finds that 100 percent of respondents said yes to the question “Based on what you know at this hour, what would you say that the chances are that you, yourself, will get sick from the Coronavirus?”

The survey was conducted last week, just as the peak of the panic was hitting. It also found that 21 percent of Americans say their daily life has “been turned upside down” by the virus, which originated in China.

A further 42 percent say it has “changed noticeably”, while 31 percent say it has “been impacted only slightly”.

Six percent say life has “not been impacted at all,” although that has probably changed by now.

Interestingly, only five percent of respondents said that they personally know someone who has been officially diagnosed with the virus, while an overwhelming 92 percent say they don’t.

When asked how concerned they are about the virus, and whether they will be able to get adequate medical care if they catch it, sixty-six percent of respondents over the age of 50 said that they are “extremely concerned” or “concerned”.

Seventy-one percent responded that think the worst is “still ahead,” while just 8 percent believe it is “behind us.”

Asked when they think thinks will return to “normal”, 17 percent pointed to June 2020, while ten percent said they expect the entire year to be lost to coronavirus, and are looking to 2021 for normal life to return.

This is in stark contrast to President Trump’s comments yesterday when he said he’d like to see things get back on track by Easter.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/25/2020 – 13:16

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2wtf4AJ Tyler Durden

Half of United Kingdom Already Infected With Coronavirus, Says Oxford Model.

Lots of media reports are citing the results of an epidemiological model developed by researchers at Oxford University that suggests that half the population of the United Kingdom may already have been infected by the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. If this is true, that would be great news! Why? Because it would mean that the coronavirus is vastly less lethal than many researchers fear that it is and that lockdowns can be lifted soon. But let’s take a look at what the model is actually saying before you rush out into the streets to hug strangers in celebration of the impending end of quarantine.

There are two big assumptions in the model that basically determine its projections of the percentage of the population who will eventually die of the infection. The first is the basic reproduction number (R0), that is, the average number of people to which an infected person will pass along the disease. The other crucial assumption is that the fraction of the population who are vulnerable to severe disease and death is small.

The researchers explain, “Our overall approach rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitalisable illness.” How small? In one scenario, only 1 in 1,000. In two others, 1 in 100 are susceptible to severe disease.

The researchers run three scenarios based on the assumption that the first reported death occurred one month after the infection began spreading unnoticed throughout the U.K. They fit their model to the data on deaths from the disease reported after the first 15 days following the first recorded death. They argue that this is a way to avoid any potential effects of control strategies in slowing death rates.

Combining an assumed susceptibility to severe disease rate of 1 in 100 with R0s 2.25 and 2.75, the researchers project respectively that 36 and 40 percent of the U.K.’s population was already infected by March 19. If the susceptibility risk is only 1 in 1,000, then 68 percent of Britons must have been infected by March 19. If these infection rates are true, then the U.K. is approaching herd immunity, making the spread of this disease from person to person less and less likely, thus providing protection for even the more vulnerable segments of the population.

The researchers do acknowledge that “these results underscore the dependence of the inferred epidemic curve on the assumed fraction of the population vulnerable to severe disease.” Well, yes.

This is basically a circular argument: If the disease is not particularly severe then that means a larger percentage of the population must have already have been infected to yield the observed number of deaths. On the other hand, if the disease risk is severe then the observed deaths suggest that very few people must currently be infected.

Of course, all models, including those projecting epidemiological doom, are only as good as their assumptions and data that drive them.

The researchers suggest that the way to test their model is to begin an immediate campaign of population screening using serology tests for coronavirus antibodies. If a significant proportion of people tested positive for exposure to the virus, that would confirm their model’s projections. This would mean that the disease is relatively mild for the vast majority of people and substantial herd immunity has already been established. If few people test positive, then that would mean the worst of the epidemic still lies ahead.

As it stands, the public, policy makers and public health officials don’t have the data that can tell them which course of the epidemic is more likely—the Imperial College model’s dire coronavirus projection or the Oxford model’s rosier one? The Oxford researchers are right that massive testing would resolve this vital issue, so let’s get started sooner rather than later.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QH305y
via IFTTT

Half of United Kingdom Already Infected With Coronavirus, Says Oxford Model.

Lots of media reports are citing the results of an epidemiological model developed by researchers at Oxford University that suggests that half the population of the United Kingdom may already have been infected by the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. If this is true, that would be great news! Why? Because it would mean that the coronavirus is vastly less lethal than many researchers fear that it is and that lockdowns can be lifted soon. But let’s take a look at what the model is actually saying before you rush out into the streets to hug strangers in celebration of the impending end of quarantine.

There are two big assumptions in the model that basically determine its projections of the percentage of the population who will eventually die of the infection. The first is the basic reproduction number (R0), that is, the average number of people to which an infected person will pass along the disease. The other crucial assumption is that the fraction of the population who are vulnerable to severe disease and death is small.

The researchers explain, “Our overall approach rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitalisable illness.” How small? In one scenario, only 1 in 1,000. In two others, 1 in 100 are susceptible to severe disease.

The researchers run three scenarios based on the assumption that the first reported death occurred one month after the infection began spreading unnoticed throughout the U.K. They fit their model to the data on deaths from the disease reported after the first 15 days following the first recorded death. They argue that this is a way to avoid any potential effects of control strategies in slowing death rates.

Combining an assumed susceptibility to severe disease rate of 1 in 100 with R0s 2.25 and 2.75, the researchers project respectively that 36 and 40 percent of the U.K.’s population was already infected by March 19. If the susceptibility risk is only 1 in 1,000, then 68 percent of Britons must have been infected by March 19. If these infection rates are true, then the U.K. is approaching herd immunity, making the spread of this disease from person to person less and less likely, thus providing protection for even the more vulnerable segments of the population.

The researchers do acknowledge that “these results underscore the dependence of the inferred epidemic curve on the assumed fraction of the population vulnerable to severe disease.” Well, yes.

This is basically a circular argument: If the disease is not particularly severe then that means a larger percentage of the population must have already have been infected to yield the observed number of deaths. On the other hand, if the disease risk is severe then the observed deaths suggest that very few people must currently be infected.

Of course, all models, including those projecting epidemiological doom, are only as good as their assumptions and data that drive them.

The researchers suggest that the way to test their model is to begin an immediate campaign of population screening using serology tests for coronavirus antibodies. If a significant proportion of people tested positive for exposure to the virus, that would confirm their model’s projections. This would mean that the disease is relatively mild for the vast majority of people and substantial herd immunity has already been established. If few people test positive, then that would mean the worst of the epidemic still lies ahead.

As it stands, the public, policy makers and public health officials don’t have the data that can tell them which course of the epidemic is more likely—the Imperial College model’s dire coronavirus projection or the Oxford model’s rosier one? The Oxford researchers are right that massive testing would resolve this vital issue, so let’s get started sooner rather than later.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QH305y
via IFTTT

Stocks Roar, Dow Up 1,000 After More Clarity Emerges On Buyback Ban

Stocks Roar, Dow Up 1,000 After More Clarity Emerges On Buyback Ban

Earlier today we reported that one of the reasons why futures slumped after rising as high as 2,500 in the overnight session following the announcement that a fiscal stimulus deal had been reached between the White House and Congress, is that according to CHuck Schumer, the bill would “ban stock buybacks for the term of the government assistance plus 1 year on any company receiving a government loan from the bill.”

This spooked investors, who were afraid that the buyback backlash would affect more companies than just those on “government assistance.”

However, just a few hours later, the exact same news was seen as positive, because stocks blasted off to session highs, and the Dow was up more than 1,000 points, when CNBC’s Kayla Taushe reported basically what we said 5 hours earlier, namely that “Per text circulated among lawmakers before a call with Sec. Mnuchin, a company that takes a government loan cannot buy back its stock until 1yr after the loan is paid…”

And that “While the loan is outstanding? No dividends.”

While there was no actual news in that report vs what we – and others – had reported earlier, it appears that sentiment had flexed so much that what was earlier seen as bad news, was now viewed as good as there was no incremental “punishment” aimed at companies repurchasing their stock. And since most companies would be allowed to continue splurging on buybacks, and with trillions injected in the economy everyone would benefit from the Fed’s liquidity not just those companies directly receiving a government loan, this meant that once the crisis is over, the record number of buyback observed in the past two years will explode higher as virtually every company will do everything in their power to recover the pre-crisis price levels only this time it will have the explicit backstop of the Fed.

The result: this.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/25/2020 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2wD74gf Tyler Durden

Bill Ackman’s Spectacular Trade: How Pershing Square Made $2.6 Billion – A 100x Return – In Just Three Weeks

Bill Ackman’s Spectacular Trade: How Pershing Square Made $2.6 Billion – A 100x Return – In Just Three Weeks

Over the past week, an at-times manic Bill Ackman made headlines when he appeared, on several occasions, on CNBC and Bloomberg, urging viewers (and certainly his LPs) to remain invested in the market which until yesterday’s torrid rally had plunged by 35% from its all time highs less than a month ago.

Ackman’s euphoria hit a fever pitch on Monday, when speaking to Bloomberg he said that he is basically all in, something he called “the most bullish thing we’ve done. We are all long, no shorts, you know, ‘betting on the country.”

While it is unclear if Ackman is right or wrong and stocks rebound to their prior levels, he certainly traded the recent crash flawlessly, because as we reported a few weeks ago, heading into the coronacrisis the Pershing Square founder had put on a substantial amount of short hedges at the start of the month. Today we learned the full details of Ackman’s trade, and it was a doozy: in a nutshell, Ackman bought $27 million in marketwide puts “in the form of purchases of credit protection on various global investment grade and high yield credit indices” and sold them on Monday, March 23 for the nice sum of $2.6 billion. 

Here is the key excerpt from Pershing Square’s latest letter to investors:

On March 23rd, we completed the exit of our hedges generating proceeds of $2.6 billion for the Pershing Square funds ($2.1 billion for PSH), compared with premiums paid and commissions totaling $27 million, which offset the mark-to-market losses in our equity portfolio. Our hedges were in the form of purchases of credit protection on various global investment grade and high yield credit indices. Because we were able to purchase these instruments at near-all-time tight levels of credit spreads, the risk of loss from this investment was minimal at the time of purchase.

And while one does tangentially wonder who was on the other side of Ackman’s spectacular hedge, it must be said: Kudos to Ackman, who has in the past been ridiculed for being a highly concentrated permabull, for anticipating and trading the coronacrisis like a champ.

The only question one may have is whether, after this blockbuster trade, Ackman – who is convinced the worst is now behind us – isn’t making a mistake by doubling down on his longs…

We have redeployed substantially all of the net proceeds from our hedges by adding to our investments in Agilent, Berkshire Hathaway, Hilton, Lowe’s, and Restaurant Brands. We have also purchased several new investments including reestablishing our investment in Starbucks which we sold in January. The proceeds of the hedges have enabled us to become a substantially larger shareholder of a number of our portfolio companies, and to add some new investments, all at deeply discounted prices. Even after these additional investments, we maintain a cash position of about 17% of the portfolio.

… with both the economic and market still a long way from normal, and this time Pershing is without any hedges.

His full letter is below (link):

Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. today released the following letter to investors:

Dear Pershing Square Investor,

On March 3, 2020, we disclosed that we had acquired large notional hedges which have asymmetric payoff characteristics; that is, the risk of loss from these hedges was limited, while their potential upside was many multiples of our capital at risk. We did so because of our concern about the negative effect of the coronavirus on the U.S. and global economies, and on equity and credit markets. Below, we summarize the events that have taken place since the initiation of the hedges that have led us to unwind them using the proceeds to increase our exposure to existing and new investments.

Since our purchase of the hedges, U.S. and global equity and credit markets have declined dramatically while our hedges have increased substantially in value. Furthermore, beginning last week various U.S. state governments have aggressively confronted the health and economic risks of the coronavirus through unprecedented state-led, non-essential business closures and shelter-in-place/stay-at-home implementations or “lockdowns,” (a word we don’t love, but we haven’t found a better one).

As the virus has worked its way west, the only method that has proven successful to stop the rise in infections, sickness, and death is a strong-form lockdown, first implemented in Wuhan, on Monday night in the U.K., and Tuesday in India. In the United States, California and New York went into lockdown first, and were followed by Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, with more likely to come soon. Others like Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Texas have initiated weaker-form lockdowns in parts of their states.

We believe it is inevitable that in order to halt the advance of the virus and preserve the ability of local, city, and state healthcare systems to deal with the volume of critical care patients, nearly all states will eventually initiate strong-form, non-essential business closures and stay-at-home regulations.

Some have argued that we should fully reopen the economy now, as the coronavirus kills mostly the old and immune-compromised, and a relatively small percentage of those infected. Beyond the ethical considerations of such an approach, it has become increasingly clear that the high percentage of younger U.S. citizens with co-morbidities – including obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, as well as those who take medications for other conditions that reduce immunity, and/or who smoke or vape – will have a substantially higher death rate than has been experienced in other countries. Furthermore, overwhelming the healthcare system will not only increase the death rate from the coronavirus, it will also magnify the loss of life from heart attacks, strokes, and automobile accidents as these trauma patients also lose access to overcrowded ICU beds and emergency rooms.

Because states cannot close their borders, a rolling program of state-led lockdowns is highly suboptimal as states in lockdown can be re-infected by visitors, and their exiting residents can infect other states when they depart in advance of the lockdown. When the Chinese government announced the lockdown of Wuhan, millions of Wuhan residents left in advance of the curfew, spreading the virus throughout China and the rest of the world. As each U.S. state has announced its own lockdown, many of its residents have left, spreading the virus around the country.

Even though California and New York went first, they will not be able to safely reopen their states for business until approximately three to four weeks after the last state initiates its shutdown, as they would risk reinfection by residents entering from non-lockdown states. For this reason, we believe that the federal government will soon initiate a total-US shutdown with a defined reopening date about 30 days later. If the federal government does not impose such a lockdown, we believe it is likely that effectively all fifty states will do so eventually, with the additional delay costing many thousands of more lives, and much greater economic destruction.

You don’t need to be a virologist, immunologist, or epidemiologist to understand why a 30-day nationwide lockdown makes sense. The coronavirus cannot live outside its host, the human body, for more than four or five days, and then, only if the virus is on plastic or metal. If we minimize human interaction for two weeks or so beyond the infection and viral shedding period of approximately two weeks, we can, therefore, vastly reduce, and eventually cap the growth in cases.

A 30-day, countrywide lockdown will have the additional benefit of helping the healthcare system and its supply chain catch up to the growing case load in order to meet the immediate needs of our hospitals and their patients. State governors like NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, with the support of the federal government, are heroically working to address this problem on behalf of our citizens. As New Yorkers, we are incredibly grateful for Governor Cuomo’s leadership which will save many lives.

It is critical to have a defined lockdown period for the entire country. Most businesses can afford to, and will choose to retain their employees if they know that their business can reopen in a short, defined period of time as it is extremely time consuming, expensive and difficult to rehire high quality, trusted talent. This is even more true when the federal government provides financial support to these businesses during the lockdown. Unfortunately, the large job losses that we are seeing today are due to the indeterminate nature of the shutdowns that have been announced. It is the rare business that can afford to pay its employees for months without a date certain that they can reopen.

Upon completion of an enforced lockdown, the country can be reopened carefully as China has so far successfully done. The key to a successful reopening beyond the maintenance of social distancing, hand washing, mask use and other related practices is a broad-based testing regime and tracing program. This will enable the inevitable viral breakouts to be identified early and minimized with localized quarantines, reducing the impact on the overall U.S. economy and the need for future shutdowns. Until there is a vaccine, however, seniors and other at-risk members of the population will need to exercise a high-level of caution.

It has been extraordinarily challenging to fight the invisible enemy. We can fix this by using antibody blood tests to determine (1) who has been infected, is thereby immune and can return to work, (2) who is actively infected and needs to be quarantined, and (3) who is uninfected. Broad-based antibody-based screening will also give us an accurate estimate of what percentage of the population is actually infected allowing us to better estimate the percentage who become critically ill from the virus, who have limited if any symptoms, and a more accurate estimate of the death rate. Antibody blood screening tests have the advantage of being able to accurately and rapidly identify not only infected patients, but also those who have previously been exposed to the virus, but were not known to be infected, either because they never developed symptoms, or had symptoms that were never correctly diagnosed.

Antibody tests can be deployed in a much more cost-effective manner to detect community spread, and with much greater accuracy and scalability than the current drive-thru, nasal swab PCR test. They require only a simple blood test and can yield results in hours rather than days and can be administered by Quest Diagnostics or Labcorp much like a traditional blood test. Imagine how differently and effectively we could have managed this crisis if we actually knew who was infected.

The Pershing Square Foundation just invested capital to help scale the manufacture of antibody testing kits produced by Covaxx, a newly formed subsidiary of United Biomedical Inc., a company with decades of experience in the development, registration, manufacture and distribution of viral testing kits and vaccines. Covaxx has already deployed over 100,000 COVID-19 antibody tests across China (Hubei, Beijing, Shanghai) and in the U.S. Covaxx is currently deploying its COVID-19 tests across San Miguel County, Colorado (article link.) Covaxx believes it can scale its COVID-19 test to hundreds of millions of tests in relative short order. To learn more, please contact Mei Mei Hu at mhu@unitedbiomedical.com

The federal government and the U.S. Treasury have intervened in financial markets in an unprecedented fashion, and the Congress is on the brink of passing legislation which will help bridge the economy and our country’s workforce and citizens during what we believe to be a temporary but massive economic shock. We are encouraged by the Treasury Secretary’s and Administration’s all-in approach to mitigating the damage to the capital markets, and for keeping financial markets functioning and open, which are critical for our economy and capitalism to work.

For all of the above reasons, we became increasingly positive on equity and credit markets last week, and began the process of unwinding our hedges and redeploying our capital in companies we love at bargain prices that are built to withstand this crisis, and which we believe will flourish long term.

On March 23rd, we completed the exit of our hedges generating proceeds of $2.6 billion for the Pershing Square funds ($2.1 billion for PSH), compared with premiums paid and commissions totaling $27 million, which offset the mark-to-market losses in our equity portfolio. Our hedges were in the form of purchases of credit protection on various global investment grade and high yield credit indices. Because we were able to purchase these instruments at near-all-time tight levels of credit spreads, the risk of loss from this investment was minimal at the time of purchase.

We have redeployed substantially all of the net proceeds from our hedges by adding to our investments in Agilent, Berkshire Hathaway, Hilton, Lowe’s, and Restaurant Brands. We have also purchased several new investments including reestablishing our investment in Starbucks which we sold in January. The proceeds of the hedges have enabled us to become a substantially larger shareholder of a number of our portfolio companies, and to add some new investments, all at deeply discounted prices. Even after these additional investments, we maintain a cash position of about 17% of the portfolio.

We continue to expect that markets (and our performance) will remain volatile, and therefore, new opportunities may present themselves that are superior to investments we currently own. This may lead us to sell certain of our existing holdings including investments we recently purchased. We may also choose to reestablish similar or different forms of hedges or raise more cash based on developments with the coronavirus and other market factors. In other words, we are more likely to have higher portfolio turnover in this environment.

We are in one of the most challenging periods of time for our country, and for the world. Thousands of people have or will soon become severely sick, and many will die. This is a tragedy that could have been prevented with better long-term planning, which should have begun more than a decade ago. I have always said that experience is making mistakes and learning from them. And learn from this we must.

Sincerely,

William A. Ackman


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/25/2020 – 12:49

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QKSo5U Tyler Durden