PTSD Study Finds Dramatic Improvement With MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy

A newly published study of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for people diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder illustrates the striking results that led federal regulators to expedite the process for approving the drug, which has been banned since 1985, as a prescription medicine. One year after the last of three MDMA sessions, three-quarters of the 25 subjects who completed the study, reported today in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, no longer qualified for a PTSD diagnosis.

The subjects were randomly assigned to receive 40, 100, or 125 milligrams of MDMA, with the lowest dose serving as a placebo. At the beginning of the study, which was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) and conducted in Boulder, Colorado, under the supervision of licensed professional counselor Marcela Ot’alora, the mean scores of the three subject groups on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) were 84.8, 94.4, and 93.5, respectively. After the first two sessions, those scores fell by an average of 11.5, 24.4, and 26.3 points, or by 14 percent, 26 percent, and 28 percent.

The subjects who received the low dose in the first two sessions were later given an opportunity to take active doses, after which their mean CAPS score fell by another 47 percent. All three groups of subjects showed continued improvement at the one-year followup, when the average CAPS score was 31, down from 92 at baseline. That’s a drop of 66 percent. The highest possible CAPS score is 136, and the cutoff for a PTSD diagnosis is 50. By the end of the study, 19 of the 25 subjects (76 percent) were below that threshold.

Previous research sponsored by MAPS found similarly dramatic improvements. In a study overseen by Charleston, South Carolina, psychiatrist Michael Mithoefer that was reported last May in The Lancet Psychiatry, mean CAPS scores fell by 58 points in the medium-dose group and 43 points in the high-dose group, compared to 11 points in the low-dose group. After the first two sessions, 68 percent of the medium- and high-dose subjects no longer met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, compared to 29 percent of the low-dose subjects. (Those differences, unlike the ones noted by Ot’alora and her colleagues, were statistically significant.) At the one-year follow-up, after all three groups had received active doses, the mean CAPS score had fallen by 55 percent, from 87.1 to 38.8.

“Our study demonstrated that different therapy teams were able to get similarly robust results, further strengthening the case for MDMA-assisted psychotherapy as a promising option for the treatment of PTSD,” Ot’alora said in a MAPS press release. “Plus, the results of the study indicate that this treatment has the potential to greatly improve the lives of people suffering from PTSD, regardless of the source of their trauma. After treatment, a great majority of our participants have reported feeling more connected to themselves and to others, more joy, more compassion, and with new skills for facing life’s challenges.”

The Mithoefer and Ot’alora studies were both Phase 2 clinical trials. Phase 3 trials, which began last month, will involve 200 to 300 subjects at 16 sites in the United States, Canada, and Israel. If those trials are successful, MAPS says, the FDA, which last year deemed MDMA a “breakthrough therapy,” could approve it as a medicine as soon as 2021.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2OczbFZ
via IFTTT

Four Shots Fired Into Florida GOP Headquarters 

Police in South Daytona Florida are investigating after someone fired four bullets through the windows of the Volusia County Republican Headquarters, according to local ABC affiliate WFTV9Nobody was injured in the incident. 

Photo: Daytona Beach News-Journal

Shattered glass and fallen campaign posters littered the sidewalk outside Republican party headquarters. Inside, volunteers pointed to bullet holes in the walls and ceiling.

“We have never had any kind of vandalism before at a Republican Headquarters,” Tony Ledbetter, the chairman of Volusia County’s Republican Party, said in an email Monday morning. “It’s a small strip center and no other business was vandalized, so it was obviously politically motivated.” –Daytona Beach News-Journal

Ledbetter tells the News-Journal that he was the last person to leave the GOP headquarters on Sunday at 4 p.m., while employees at nearby businesses – including an e-cigarette store, a restaurant and a massage parlor had closed by 10 p.m. Nobody heard the shots fired. 

South Daytona police captain Mark Cheatham said “We are working to see if we can get video from nearby businesses but so far we have no witnesses.”

The shooting follows a spate of suspected explosive devices sent from a South Florida man to several prominent Democrats, as well as the Saturday massacre at a Pittsburgh synagogue in which eleven people were killed and six injured including police officers. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2qfSjZZ Tyler Durden

How the government uses its giant facial recognition database

In July 1996, flight TWA 800 exploded in mid-air, 12 minutes after taking off from JFK International Airport in New York. All 230 passengers on board were killed.

It would be four years before an investigation concluded the likely cause of the explosion was a short circuit in the plane’s fuel tank.

But at the time, President Clinton felt the overwhelming need to do something.

People suspected terrorism. So Clinton issued new airport security rules.

From then on, identification was required to board an airplane.

Before that, you just needed a ticket.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, airport security escalated.

The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) were born.

Screening procedures intensified. Agents could now feel you up and down. Then came naked body scanners and the Real ID requirement.

Real ID standards were part of the post-9/11 security hysteria. But they are just now coming into full effect.

The federal guidelines require states to issue IDs that meet certain federal standards, or else the ID cannot be used for flying.

One of these standards is that the photo on the ID has to work with facial recognition systems.

CBP (Customs and Border Protection) has now completed a pilot program for using biometric data for boarding flights exiting the country. Biometric data includes unique identity markers like fingerprints, iris scans, and facial recognition.

The DHS audited the pilot program, and found that it was a success. They caught 1,300 people who had overstayed their visas.

Wait, what? I thought this was supposed to be about national security?

But that’s not what you get from the propaganda piece on the CBP’s website.

One of their “success stories” involved a Polish couple leaving the country. They were using fake documents. But the biometric data revealed they were ordered deported and hadn’t left.

Now they were leaving. So the CBP let them leave. But first they warned them, with official documentation, that if they returned again they could face felony charges.

How is that a success story, worth the cost of tens of billions of dollars?

CBP makes it seem as if the entire purpose of this technology is to find foreigners who are entering (or living) in the country illegally.

Except that it isn’t just the foreigners that are being targeted.

The CBP, TSA, and DHS are building facial recognition databases for everyone– US citizens included.

These pilot programs scoop up whatever official pictures the US government has of you.

This includes passport photos, ID photos, and photos taken upon reentering the United States after international travel.

Delta Airlines has even started testing a new program that scans your face prior to boarding your flight and matches it against this government database.

(One of our members of team Sovereign Man recently suffered the indignity of this procedures at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.)

JetBlue has a similar program, and claims that “The customers are really delighted by it. . . they think it’s cool and they’re having fun.”

I’m not sure who these dairy cows are who think that it’s cool and fun for the government to have a giant database of biometric data.

Even if you could trust the government with this info, you absolutely cannot rely on them to keep it private. Or secure.

The Department of Homeland Security knows this well.

In 2014, over 25,000 DHS employees had their personal details stolen from a database managed by a contractor that performed background checks.

If you think hackers stealing your Social Security Number is bad, just imagine them gaining access to your biometric data.

But, hey, nobody cares.

Americans long ago gave up freedom for security.

Now they are delighted to give up even more freedom. Not even for security… for convenience. If they can shave a few minutes off of their boarding procedure, they’re “delighted,” regardless of the cost.

It’s really shocking when you think about it.

Explosions and terrorist attacks were all the excuse needed to deprive Americans of privacy while traveling.

Now Americans trade their most intimate personal details to save three minutes boarding a plane.

It wasn’t that long ago that you didn’t even need an ID to fly.

Right now Americans can still opt out of facial recognition. But it is only a matter of time until it isn’t optional.

And with Real ID deadlines coming to a close, there is no denying the federal government access to your biometric data.

They don’t have to ask, “Papers please.” They already know.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/2qh7BOd
via IFTTT

Voters Want More Liberty than Major Parties Offer: New at Reason

Listening to the media, one would be forgiven for thinking that the “Libertarian Moment” has passed. After all, few candidates are running on a platform of limited government, individual liberty, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Instead, both parties push expansions of government power, whether nationalized health care, increased surveillance, or tariffs. And for all the partisan invective coming out of D.C., both parties are more than willing to work together to increase spending and debt.

However, a poll from last month conducted by Liberty Government Affairs and Gravis Marketing, shows that liberty is still popular. It also shows that a growing number of Americans are rejecting the D.C. consensus on many issues.

Former Republican congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul sees encouraging support in that poll across party lines for a less aggressive foreign policy, a less expensive and intrusive government, and ending the federal war on marijuana.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2SsrmPR
via IFTTT

Trump Is Right: The Fed Is A Big Problem

Authored by Thorstein Polleit via The Mises Institute,

President Donald J. Trump has taken on the Federal Reserve (Fed), saying that Fed chairman Jerome H. Powell is threatening US economic growth by further raising interest rates. Mainstream economists, the financial press and even some politicians react with indignation: the president’s comments undermine the Fed’s political independence, potentially endangering the confidence in the US dollar. Such a public reaction is, at first glance, understandable – as mainstream economists have declared the political independence of the central bank a “golden calf” issue.

Monetary theorists argue that a politically independent central bank is best for the currency and the economy. As a result, most central banks around the world, including the Fed, have been made politically independent. But is this so? Well, if the economy thrives, politicians leave the Fed alone. If the economy stumbles, or if the Fed pursues unpopular measures, it runs the risk that Congress or the president may revise the Federal Reserve At of 1913, stripping it of its power. In fact, the Fed’s monetary policy cannot deviate too much from the Congress’ and the president’s political agenda.

Granted: In good times, the Fed is more or less protected from the demands of political parties. But what about the influence from ‘special interest groups’ such as the banking industry on Fed policymaking? There should hardly be any doubt that the Fed caters, first and foremost, to the needs of commercial and investment banks. As the monopoly producer of the US dollar, it creates – in close cooperation with the banking community – new Greenbacks mostly via credit expansion out of thin air. In this sense, the Fed and private banks represents a cartel.

This cartel produces inflation, leading to increases not only of consumer prices but also of the prices of assets such as stocks, housing and real estate. This, in turn, debases the purchasing power of the US dollar and benefits some at the expense of many. The Fed-banker cartel, which keeps issuing ever more quantities of US dollar, also causes economic disturbances, speculative bubbles, and boom-and-bust cycles; and it tempts consumers, firms, and the government to run into ever more debt. Especially so as the Fed sets the interest rate for bank credit, and in doing so basically controls all interest rates in credit markets.

As the Fed-banker cartel expands the money supply via credit extension, the market interest rate gets artificially suppressed: It is pushed to a level that is lower compared to a situation in which the Fed does not expand the credit and money supply out of thin air. As a result of the lowered market interest rate, savings decline, while consumption and investment go up – setting into motion an economic boom. However, this boom will turn into bust if and when the market interest rate rises – which inevitably happens once no more new credit and money is pumped into the system; if the Fed raises interest rates after having lowered them beforehand.

It might be frightening to hear, but the Fed does not know where the “right” interest rate level is. In terms of interest rate policy, it purses a ‘trial and error’ approach. As history shows all too well, the Fed lowers interest rates sharply in times of financial and economic crisis. If incoming data suggests that the economy is returning to growth, the Fed starts raising the interest rate and keeps raising it until the interest rate becomes ‘too high’, turning the boom into yet another bust. It would not be surprising if the Fed’s current interest hiking cycle were going to trigger yet another debacle.

Viewed from this perspective, President Trump certainly has a point in criticizing the Fed’s latest series of interest rate increases. However, forcing the Fed to keep interest rates at artificially lowered levels for longer does not solve the real problem. It would only lead to more distortions in the financial and economic system, foreseeably increasing the costs of the inevitable crisis even further. In other words: The truth is that Fed policy is not the solution to the problem, it is the most significant part of the problem.

If shutting down the Fed right away is not an option, one path that is open to the president is to end the Fed’s money monopoly. This could be done by, first and foremost, ending all taxes and regulatory requirements standing in the way of using means of exchange such as precious metals, gold and silver in particular, and cyber currencies for monetary purposes. In fact, it would open up a free market in money. People would be getting a greater choice and thus could easily diversify away from the US dollar if they wished without incurring undue costs.

The Fed-banker cartel’s scope of maneuvering would be significantly reduced because they could no longer keep inflating the credit and money supply as before. For if they do, the US dollar will depreciate against alternative monies for all eyes to see, making the Greenback less competitive, potentially driving the US dollar out of the market altogether.

In the early stage of a free market in money, people would presumably divert part of their US dollar savings and time deposits into gold and silver as a store of value. Later, businesses that provide not only storage and safekeeping services but also offer payment and settlement services would emerge, finally opening up the possibility to make daily payments with ‘digitised’ gold and silver money.

If the US administration truly wishes to “To Make America Great Again”, there is no way around addressing the US dollar fiat currency problem at some point. The president’s latest criticism of the Fed’s interest rate policy no doubt points in the right direction. To underpin his criticism with the unquestionably right reasons, it should be accompanied by manifest efforts to set up a free market in money. Fortunately, a good number of US states has already been moving in this direction. President Trump would arguably have the best reasons to follow up – and push for a free market in money on a federal level.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Q9swyg Tyler Durden

Alleged Synagogue Shooter May Be a Monster, but He Shouldn’t Be Executed

It’s looking increasingly likely that Robert Bowers—who’s accused of murdering 11 people at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue on Saturday—could face the death penalty.

In the hours after the massacre, President Donald Trump was the most prominent public figure to call for the suspected shooter’s execution. “When people do this, they should get the death penalty,” Trump told reporters. “Anybody that does a thing like this to innocent people that are in temple or in church…they should be suffering the ultimate price, they should pay the ultimate price.”

Prosecutors appear to be in agreement. Earlier today, Justice Department spokesperson Marc Raimondi told Fox News that Scott Brady, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, has begun the process of seeking the death penalty for Bowers. Brady still needs the approval of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Capital punishment is currently legal under federal law, thanks to the 1976 Supreme Court ruling in Gregg v. Georgia. It’s also allowed in the majority of states, though some (most recently Washington state) have outlawed state-sponsored executions.

In Pennsylvania, capital punishment is legal in certain circumstances. Bowers is facing federal as well as state charges, since he was allegedly motivated by anti-Semitic sentiments. It’s a problematic issue in and of itself that his fate could be decided in a federal court rather than a state one. As Reason‘s Jacob Sullum observed following the 2015 Charleston church shooting, the feds were able to charge Dylan Roof under the federal hate crime statute since Roof was motivated by racism. “It is an unconstitutional attempt to federalize a crime that South Carolina’s courts are perfectly capable of handling, for the sake of sending a message that the criminal law should not be used to send,” Sullum wrote. Similarly, Bowers now faces federal charges due to his anti-Semitism.

But whether Bowers is sentenced by a federal or state court doesn’t change the fact that he shouldn’t be executed. To be clear, his alleged crime was nothing short of heinous. To gun down 11 people, some of them elderly, while they were worshiping is despicable. If found guilty, he should spend the rest of his life behind bars.

That being said, the government should not be in the business of executions. Civil libertarians and classical liberals have long argued against capital punishment. “The death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice,” the ACLU argues. “Well-publicized problems with the death penalty process—wrongful convictions, arbitrary application, and high costs—have convinced many libertarians that capital punishment is just one more failed government program that should be scrapped,” Ben Jones writes at Libertarianism.org.

For one thing, there are numerous questions over the death penalty drugs administered to death row inmates. As Reason has documented in the past, states often operate in the shadows when it comes to these drugs. In one instance, Texas even sought to procure banned drugs from a shady company overseas. There have also been questions regarding how humane death by lethal injection really is.

From a practical standpoint, the death penalty is simply too expensive. Studies from various states suggest it’s more expensive for the government to put someone to death than it is to keep them behind bars for life, according to Amnesty International.

But the main reason Bowers shouldn’t be put to death is simple: It’s not the government’s job to put its own citizens to death. As Reason‘s Nick Gillespie wrote in 2014:

The state’s first role—and arguably its only one—is protecting the lives and property of its citizens. In everything it does—from collecting taxes to seizing property for public works to incentivizing “good” behaviors and habits—it should use the least violence or coercion possible.

No matter how despicable murderers can be, the state can make sure we’re safe by locking them up behind bars for the rest of their—and our—lives. That’s not only a cheaper answer than state-sanctioned murder, it’s a more moral one, too.

Again, all the evidence suggests Bowers is a monster. But killing him won’t bring back the 11 people whose lives he’s allegedly responsible for ending. Revenge is not the same thing as justice, and in this case, justice is best served by imprisonment, not more death.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2yGXQ0u
via IFTTT

“Extreme Portfolio Pain” Ahead: Morgan Stanley Expects A “Cyclical Bear Market” Slamming The S&P To 2,400

One day after Goldman reiterated its optimistic outlook on the market, stating that traders appear to have over-reacted to the slowdown signs emerging from both the economy and earnings, despite warning that “risks are rising to the downside” and listing various reasons why the bank’s 2,850 year-end price target may not be hit, Morgan Stanley’s far more bearish equity strategist, Mike Wilson, is out with his latest bearish piece, in which he pours cold water on the “cautiously optimistic” views proposed by his Wall Street peers, and reiterated that “rallies should be sold until the liquidity picture improves, valuations compress further or 2019 earnings estimates are reduced.

Readers will recall, that just one week ago, Wilson warned that his preferred explanation of recent market moves, namely the “rolling bear market” had “unfinished business with the S&P” and two weeks after “the rolling bear market made its latest and loudest statement yet by attacking this bull market’s darlings – Growth stocks, concentrated in the US Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors” it was going for the overall market itself.

As we further showed, as of two weeks ago, “the rolling bear has now hit virtually every major asset class and the S&P 500 was the final holdout, beating the CPI year to date.”

 

Fast forward to today, when Wilson writes that the “rolling bear market” continues to make progress – having now focused on the S&P directly – and notes that “there is growing evidence that it is morphing into a proper cyclical bear market in the context of a secular bull.”

According to the Morgan Stanley strategist, “it doesn’t take heavy analysis to recognize this market is now approaching bear territory,” and although the S&P 500 is only down 10% from its highs, “40% of US Stocks and almost every sector have fallen 20% at some point from their 52 week highs.

As a result, he believes that “the evidence is building and the message from Mr. Market is clear- The consensus outlook for earnings growth is too rosy next year.

To be sure, market professionals have heard this message loud and clear, and it’s not just the violent market move.

While for the month of October, the S&P 500 is down 8.8% and gave up all of its YTD gains in just 3 weeks, after being up close to 11%, far more importantly for portfolio managers is that these losses were concentrated in the areas of the market where they are most exposed: Tech, Consumer Discretionary, Energy and Industrials; while the best performers were in the generally avoided defensive sectors–Utilities, Staples, and REITs.

While we already know that hedge fund performance in 2018 has been abysmal, this is the latest confirmation of “extreme portfolio pain” leaving most active managers down on the year as well.

Unfortunately for these long-suffering portfolio managers, there is no hope in sight according to Wilson, who writes that the rolling bear market is quickly moving to complete its job with growth stocks (Tech, Health Care and Discretionary) catching up on the  downside and “it won’t be over until this gap is completely closed.”

We showed in last week’s note that growth cyclicals, namely Tech and Consumer Discretionary stocks, have seen their forward P/Es correct by only half as much as the S&P 500 Year to Date. That closed a little more last week but there is still another 5-6 percent to go on a relative basis even if the broader market valuation stabilizes.

But wait, there’s more. Because while traders have been hit with various “rolling bear markets”, Wilson is confident that when looking at the broader market, “this rolling bear is quickly turning into a cyclical bear”, highlighting what he showed in the second chart above that nearly half of all the stocks in the MSCI US Equity Index have now fallen at least 20% from their 52 week high. While this isn’t as bad as 2015 or 2011, the last time the S&P fell close to 20%, “the momentum suggests we may be on our way to those levels if things don’t stabilize soon.

Wilson then shows another was in which the recent drawdown is different from the other corrections we have experienced since 2015, namely that “the 200 day moving average has completely broken for the S&P and most of the sectors and stocks within the S&P 500 are also below their respective 200 day moving averages.”

This tells Morgan Stanley two things:

  1. The Cyclical Uptrend that began in early 2016 has been broken, and
  2. The collapse in the breadth of the market suggests this is more fundamentally driven than most market participants and commentators have acknowledged.

It also tells Wilson that he has been right: in lieu of a victory dance, the strategist writes that “this break is overdue and reflects our primary concerns we have discussed all year”, the same one that most market skeptics have highlighted, namely that “the Fed and other central banks have tightening more than the market (and possibly the economy) can handle and company earnings growth is destined to slow significantly next year thanks to the very difficult comparisons, rising operating costs and a temporary return to fiscal austerity by both companies and the government.”

Commenting further, and referencing the chart above, Wilson says that all year he has been most concerned with the shrinking liquidity conditions as the Fed and other central banks have been tightening monetary policy, and while others may be focused on the neutral interest rate (r*) or the shape of the yield curve, “we have focused on the Global Central Bank balance sheets growth.”

From January’s very healthy 15% y/y rate, these balance sheets’ growth has been plummeting and will go negative by January if the Fed, ECB and BOJ do not change course. Historically, whenever this has happened, we ended up with a financial crisis, a recession or both.

And just in case Wilson wasn’t gloomy enough, he writes that while he has not yet modeled an outright earnings recession next year, he does think that the risk of one is “rising significantly.

* * *

Putting the above together, Wilson repeats that his “bear case target” for this year has always been 2400 – a far cry from Goldman’s 2,850 PT – and assumes a full blown earnings recession next year which is looking more likely.

Meanwhile, with the Fed having to respond to still strong economic data and the desire to remain apolitical, Wilson thinks it could take another 200 S&P points making 2450 a reasonable downside target.

We expect violent rallies along the way but with market liquidity about as bad as we have seen in our careers, trying to capture them will be difficult.

Morgan Stanley’s target also lines up perfect with the 200 WEEK moving average which the bank views as an absolute floor for the S&P at any time during a secular bull market, although if the S&P indeed hits 2,400, expect panic selling to kick in and drag the S&P far lower as every systematic trader bails.

That said, not even Wilson is a permabear and clarifies that its 2400 bear case target should hold throughout this correction which is taking place inside a secular bull market that began in 2011 and this year “represents a cyclical bear within that secular bull.”

We think this cyclical bear is taking the course of a consolidation that will keep the S&P 500 in a wide range of 2400-3000 for up to two years. This was our call back in January and we think there is now ample evidence both technically and fundamentally to support it. Furthermore, our rolling Bear market narrative seems to have captured this outlook quite well.

While the S&P appears to indeed be on its way to 2,400, the only question outstanding is whether the Fed will step in when this support is breached – in line with market expectations of where the “Fed Put” is found

… or if Powell will let the market slide beyond, and instead of a cyclical bear market in a secular bull, the current correction is exposed as the long-overdue breach of what has always been a secular bear market, that was only delayed by 10 years thanks to $15 trillion in central bank liquidity.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Psl57V Tyler Durden

IBM Bond Yields, Default Risk Spike After Red Hat Deal

While IBM’s stock is bouncing back modestly from an ugly open, bond market participants remain gravely concerned at what damage the Red Hat acquisition could do to IBM’s balance sheet.

As it takes on the second-largest technology deal of all time, IBM will likely incur at least $20 billion in additional debt, and as a result IBM’s already shaky A+/A1 rating could soon be downgraded to BBB.

For now the stock seems to be shrugging it off…

But the bond market most definitely is not…

As Bloomberg notes, IBM wants to eschew the route taken by many companies which sacrificed strong credit ratings to pursue large scale mergers and acquisitions that left them with lower, triple B rankings, according to S&P analyst David Tsui.

“The ratings are very important to them — their competitors in IT services are all rated A or higher,” Tsui said. Debt issuance will be “substantial” but with more than $6 billion in projected free cash flow, the company won’t have to go as close to funding the whole deal with debt, according to Tsui.

Short-dated bond yields have burst above 4%…

And more notably with regard the investment-grade credit rating, IBM bond risk is now dramatically higher than its peers in the IG Technology sector…

A spokesman for IBM pointed to the firm’s strong free cash flow and that the deal is accretive from the first year. He acknowledged the ratings agency moves adding that IBM remains in “solid investment grade territory.”

Bloomberg Intelligence analysts said in a report Monday that IBM may issue at least $20 billion of debt to fund the acquisition:

“The purchase of Red Hat for an enterprise value of about $34 billion, brings credit default swap and bondholder fears to fruition,” the BI analysts said.

“We have consistently highlighted enhanced event risk as IBM’s revenue growth remains stymied and its stock continues to fall.”

And that seems to be sparking a surge in demand for credit protection against IBM…

Moody’s placed IBM’s A1 rating on review for downgrade, projecting that gross debt to Ebitda, or earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, will exceed three times upon the transaction closing in the second half of next year.

Higher credit risk or not, IBM needed to do something, as we noted, revenues have continued the shrink and after a brief rebound, sales dipped once again this quarter, after an unprecedented period of 22 consecutive declines starting in 2012, when Rometty took over as CEO.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2St7ITF Tyler Durden