Written by Jim Welsh
Macro Tides Monthly Report 01 June 2020
Will COVID-19 Be Seasonal?
The wide disconnect between the stock market and real economy is much larger in 2020 than in 2009 when the prospect of a recovery was fairly certain. The only question in 2009 was how long it would take for zero interest rates to turn green shoots into an economic expansion. Although the unemployment rate would continue to climb until early 2010 and reach 10%, the 90% of Americans who had a job could live their life normally. They could go out to dinner, take in a movie, and had no reservation in flying in an airplane.
Please share this article – Go to very top of page, right hand side, for social media buttons.
In 2020 the unemployment rate is likely to peak near 20% and may still be above 10% at the end of the year. Many Americans will be reluctant to go to their favorite restaurant in coming months and will plan on a driving vacation rather than flying.
There is no question that economic data will get less bad in coming months and economists will make references to the green shoots of 2009 with the presumption that a solid recovery will be in place by early 2021. It is this expectation (hope?) and the fixation on monetary and fiscal stimulus that has kept the stock market elevated. Since March the correlation between the improvement in financial conditions and the rally in the S&P 500 has been extraordinarily high, even as economic data (Fed W.E. Index) has remained pinned to the floor.
As the data goes from terrible to simply bad that may be enough for the stock market to avoid a large correction. The pattern for the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic (Swine Flu) may provide a road map for the economy and the stock market through the end of 2020.
The Swine Flu (H1N1 Pandemic) was a coronavirus and in 2009 the number of infections didn’t peak until mid June. The good news is that the number of Swine Flu cases fell by more than 60% after peaking in mid June through the end of August. This indicates that it was seasonally sensitive and suggests there is a good chance COVID-19 may behave similarly.
If COVID-19 follows the same pattern, the economy could get a big lift as even reluctant consumers feel comfortable enough to return to a semblance of normal activity. The bad news in the next few weeks is that the number of COVID-19 cases may surge going into mid June, after every state relaxed their shelter in place rules in the last half of May.
If the number of COVID-19 cases spike higher it will likely delay when the majority of Americans are comfortable in going to public places like shopping malls, restaurants, hair salons, traveling by plane or 2 mass transit, and every other daily behavior most people took for granted just a few months ago. Although more Americans are getting comfortable with going out in public, the majority are still avoiding it, according to members of Gallup’s probabilitybased online panel who were interviewed between May 11 and May 17.
The percent of the panel who believe the best course is for healthy people to stay home has fallen from 87% to 71%. Those avoiding the use of public transportation or flying on an airplane has dropped from 89% in mid April to 76%, while simply going out into public places is down to 65% from 78% on April 12.
Understandably, people are more comfortable participating in a small gathering which has experienced the largest decline falling from 84% to 63% on May 17. With the majority of states opening up each of these percentages have likely fallen more, but successfully opening up the economy will depend on the discomfort level falling far more.
Getting the majority of Americans comfortable in going into public places is going to be a challenge since COVID-19 preys on those over 55. Based on data from the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) more than 92% of COVID-19 fatalities have been people who are 55 years and older, so older Americans definitely have something to worry about when they consider going into public areas.
However, less than 8% of COVID-19 deaths have been people who were 54 years old and younger. One would never get the impression that younger Americans aren’t really at risk from tuning into the national news, which seems more interested in spreading fear than providing data. Armed with this data, those under 34 years old would know that the risk of dying from COVID-19 is less than the odds of perishing in a car crash. According to the National Safety Council the risk of dying in a car crash in 2018 was 0.94%.
Conversely, those over the age of 74 have represented more than half of all deaths with most of those occurring in nursing homes. Clearly extreme measures are called for to protect older Americans. The real risk for older Americans is being near younger people who are out and about that could infect those over 74. Ultimately, it comes down to personal responsibility.
The debate over whether colleges should reopen seems absurd when the data indicates that only 0.1% of the deaths have been kids under the age of 24. My best friend is an elementary school teacher in Encinitas California, who is on the committee attempting to craft guidelines for opening his school district in August. Nothing has been decided but the potential game plan is for half of each class to attend school on Monday and Tuesday, with the other half coming to school on Wednesday and Thursday.
According to CDC data children under the age of 14 have represented less than 0.1% of COVID-19 deaths. The quality of education young children receive is going to deteriorate if this is how the State of California proceeds. In every class there are children who need more direct attention from their teacher who motivates them to become a better student. Under the proposed arrangement my friend says this isn’t going to happen and he’s been a dedicated teacher for 32 years. Simplistic solutions to COVID-19 are not appropriate, but neither is an overreaction that is not guided by the intelligent use of the data already collected on COVID-19.
California’s approach to education is a metaphor for the challenge the country faces as it tries to reopen. We MUST attempt to reopen the economy and we MUST do anything and everything necessary to limit the spread of infections, acting as if a vaccine won’t be available for at least 18 months. As the country moves forward those who favor reopening the economy and those who oppose it must accept one overriding fact – The choice between economic demise or more suffering is a no-win situation.
The dispersion of deaths by age group in the table above was likely effected by the imposed shutdown. Going forward if the elderly are effectively protected as the economy is reopened, while those under the age of 44 are allowed to go back to work irrespective of their occupations, and restaurants and bars (and other sectors) are allowed to serve a greater portion of those in this age group, the economy could recover more quickly. Instead of limiting the capacity to 25% or 50% for businesses like restaurants and bars, allow them to open up more, as long as their customers are under the age of 44.
The howls of age discrimination would be loud, so where possible, a separate section for those over 65 could be established that do limit capacity to 25%. We know more about COVID-19 and who is more susceptible and that knowledge should be put to use in an intelligent manner, rather than any discussion disintegrating into another us versus them debate.
The level of divisiveness is high, as a recent survey by POLITICO and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health poll showed. As Robert Blendon, a Harvard professor of health policy and political analysis who helped design the poll put it, “What we have here is a very real partisan split that you don’t expect to find in a public health epidemic”. It is somewhat interesting that Independents, who are not strongly bound by political ideology, modestly favor reopening the economy 52% to 44%.
One reason the recovery is likely to be slower than expected is that those over 55 contribute 40% to GDP, up from 30% 15 years ago. Many in this group are people who loved Elvis and Boomers who may have gone to Woodstock or wished they had. As a group they not go to throw caution to the wind.
This means fewer people in this vital demographic are going to spend at the same pace before COVID-19 made them shelter in place, until they feel safe. GDP could be 4% lower if this group spends 90% of their Before Covid-19 (BC) spending. Until there is a vaccine this might prove optimistic especially in the next few months.
Any increase toward 90% might be delayed if deaths increase in the next few weeks, as Americans returned to malls, beaches, and attended a barbeque during the Memorial Day weekend. The media would likely run with the story line that it was a mistake to open up the economy, since that has been a common theme, even before a number of governors felt compelled to implement a multi-phase opening. Unfortunately, the health crisis has become a political divide, with the media playing both sides against each other.
The Silver Bullet is a vaccine and the Administration has been let’s say supportive of advancing the possibility that real progress is being made. As discussed in the May 4 Weekly Technical Review the results of Gilead Science’s Phase 3 trial of Remdesivir were announced ahead of schedule:
“On April 29 the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) announced that GDP contracted by -4.8% in the first quarter and far more than forecast. Within seconds Gilead Sciences announced that its Phase 3 trial had shown promise which more than offset the terrible economic news. What makes the timing of Gilead’s announcement interesting was that it was originally scheduled for late May. The net result was the ugly GDP report was completely buried by the wonderful news about Remdesivir.”
On May 18 the biotech firm Moderna announced that in its Phase 1 trial of 45 patients ages 18-55, that 8 of those patients were doing well. The problem was that Moderna provided no supporting data to buttress its claim. This lack of documentation was noted by Former Harvard Medical School professor and founder of the university’s cancer and HIV/AIDS research departments, Dr. William Haseltine in a CNBC interview on May 20:
“The announcement was premature. Only 8 people had been studied. It was not impressive and it was opaque. If a CFO had tried to get away with such an opaque and data-less statement it would have been treated with derision and possibly an investigation.”
In regards to Remdesivir Dr. Haseltine noted that it had been 3 weeks since Gilead Science’s announcement but there was no data yet published. When asked by a CNBC anchor if he was questioning Dr. Fauci, who attended Gilead’s press announcement and as the head of the Administration’s science team added credibility, Dr. Haseltine noted that he regarded Dr. Fauci as a close friend, but also made an interesting comment:
“Whether Dr. Fauci shaded what should have been done, I think is an important question. He’s obviously under enormous pressure for positive results but it was not the right thing to do if you can’t see the data.”
On May 27 Dr. Fauci was interviewed on CNN and addressed the potential of a vaccine being developed before the end of 2020:
“We have a good chance – if all the things fall in the right place – that we might have a vaccine that would be deployable by the end of the year, by November-December.”
When asked about Dr. Fauci’s time table in a CNBC interview, former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb said that a widely available vaccine is
“probably a 2021 event. We’ll have to have one more cycle of this virus in the fall, heading into the winter, before we get to a vaccine.”
Dr. Fauci’s comment on CNN was interesting since during his testimony before the Senate on May 12, Fauci said that Moderna’s vaccine candidate
“would take about one year to 18 months if we were successful in developing a vaccine.”
Similarly, Merck CEO Ken Frazier called vaccine timelines within 12 to 18 months “very aggressive,” telling the Financial Times on May 26 that he would not hold his own company, which has two Covid-19 vaccine candidates, to this timeline.
Dr. Fauci was also asked in the May 27 CNN interview about the potential of a second wave of COVID-19 in the fall:
“It could happen, but it is not inevitable.”
His comments on May 27 were one of the reasons why the DJIA rallied more than 500 points and more than 900 points on May 18 on the Moderna news. The stock market has enjoyed a big rally any day some tantalizing vaccine news has been announced. I have no doubt that Dr. Fauci has been under incredible pressure from the Administration to publicize any potential good news about a possible vaccine candidate since the Administration knows how the stock market will react.
Vaccines usually take much longer than a year to go from development to mass market. The fastest entirely new vaccine developed in the United States took four years for Mumps in the 1960’s. The use of super computers and incredible technology available in 2020 is likely to accelerate the development of a vaccine, but the odds of one being available before the end of 2020 are low.
Consumer spending represents 70% of GDP and the collapse in the Employment to population ratio underscores the importance of Unemployment benefits, the federal government’s Weekly Bonus payment of $600, and the onetime payment of $1,200 for those earning less than certain limits. The flow of funds is helping millions of Americans keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Small businesses have been particularly hard hit and to its credit the government has launched programs that have provided loans to small businesses and the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) to help employers keep employees on their payroll.
A recent survey found that 58% of employers said that PPP had helped them retain employees. If this program was not in place the number of workers who would now be unemployed would be even larger.
Given the circumstance of an impose shutdown of the economy, Congress recognized the need to move quickly to help the 40 million Americans who have lost their job in the last 10 weeks. In its rush to pass a program, the Weekly Unemployment Bonus check was intended to make sure workers received enough in unemployment benefits to replace their lost income. Worthy goal but it may have created an unintended consequence that will impede or at least slow progress in lowering the unemployment rate.
A new analysis by economists at the University of Chicago found that 68% of those currently unemployed can now bring home more money than when they were actually employed:
“Since the $600 UI payment was targeted to generate 100% earnings replacement based on mean earnings, this $600 payment tends to imply greater than 100% earnings replacement for those with less than mean earnings.”
The study found that the average (median) replacement rate was 134% meaning the median unemployed person is making 134% of their prior pay for not working. In 37 states the average (median) worker will make at least 41% more not working. The report summarizes the impact of this unintended consequence as only an economist can:
“Labor supply disincentives from high replacement rates are likely to become more important as the public health threat diminishes and businesses again look to hire.”
As small businesses begin to open, employers will be forced to compete with the government to entice former employees to forego extra income to return to work. Some workers will be glad to go back to work if the difference is small, and some workers will choose to remain unemployed. I was told of a local restaurant owner who called 10 former servers and every one of them told him they couldn’t return for various reasons, i.e. worried about getting sick, inability to secure child care with schools closed, and caring for older relatives.
The easiest way to help small businesses to hire back former employees is to eliminate the disincentive. Tell employees they will continue to receive the $600 a week even if they go back to work. The $600 weekly boost expires July 31, but Democrats are pushing to extend it through January. Hopefully they will agree that a blanket $600 weekly payment is a headwind for reengaging unemployed workers and accept a more effective solution.
Facebook recently surveyed 86,000 small and medium-sized business owners and found that about a third of small businesses forced to close due to the coronavirus pandemic say they won’t be able to reopen due to an inability to pay bills or rent. The survey discovered that just 45% of all small and medium-sized business owners plan to rehire the same number of employees that they previously had.
Of the 30 million workers who had filed for unemployment at the time of the April employment report, 18 million, or 78% said their layoff was temporary. The Beige Book released on May 27 reported that the Cleveland and St. Louis districts found that employers in those districts planned on rehiring 60% to 65% of laid off or furloughed workers.
A recent white paper from the Becker Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago, entitled COVID-19 Is Also a Reallocation Shock, estimates that many of the laid off workers who expect their unemployment status to be temporary will actually become permanent. According to Nicholas Bloom, an economics professor at Stanford University and one of the co-authors of the white paper:
“Looking through history at previous recessions, often these temporary layoffs unfortunately turn out to be permanent. Our best guess is something like 60% of the employment reduction is going to be temporary, and 40% is going to be permanent.”
These findings suggest that 10 million workers or more won’t be rehired in a timely manner. The unemployment rate could remain above 10% at the end of 2020. This is another reason why a strong recovery in the second half of this year is unlikely. It is also why Congress will pass another bill that extends the $600 a week Bonus unemployment payment beyond July 31, but hopefully include a provision that the payment will end if employers offer a worker their job back.
The first wave of job losses hit those at the bottom end of the income levels the hardest, since many of those jobs require personal interaction with customers. Workers in the bottom quintile of the wage distribution experienced a 35% employment decline, while those in the top quintile experienced only a 9% decline.
Of the 20.5 million jobs lost in April, leisure and hospitality lost 7.7 million jobs and 2.1 retail workers were laid off. Many higher paying workers are able to work from home and were not caught up in the first wave of layoffs. That may change in coming months if the economy doesn’t rebound as hoped.
The major airlines agreed to keep their workforces intact through the end of September as a condition for receiving billions of dollars in government aid. They agreed there would be no layoffs, furloughs or reductions in pay rates allowed until then. The number of airline passengers’ passing through TSA checkpoints is down 85% from a year ago and are will probably be down by more than 40% at the end of September.
This is probably too optimistic since the airline industry has promised that it will keep the middle seat vacant on most flights and assumes the number of planes in the air is back to 2019 levels. The decline in passengers will lead to a wave of layoffs taking effect on October 1 that could wipe out 20% of the 750,000 people employed as pilots, flight attendants, baggage handlers, mechanics, and other support staff.
United Airlines Holdings Inc. announced plans to cut 30% of its 11,500 management and nonunion jobs on October 1. On May 29 American Airlines said it too would be slashing its management staff by 30% and Delta told its workers that layoffs are coming due to the precipitous decline in flights.
On May 27 Boeing Co. said it was letting 6,770 U.S. employees go, while another 5,520 had been approved for voluntary severance packages. Although the airlines effectively have an artificial date to wait for to enact job cuts, there are certainly many other large employers across a range of industries that will also lower their costs by reducing the number of management workers they employ. The coming job losses will affect workers whose income is well above the bottom quintile and will thus have a meaningful negative drag on consumer spending in the second half of 2020.
In the wake of the financial crisis Congress passed a stimulus bill that paid, depending on income levels, individuals between $300 and $600 and couples between $600 and $1,200 and $300 per child. According to the American Economic Association consumers spent 50% to 90% of their stimulus money on durable goods purchases like refrigerators, washers, dryers, and cars, and just 12% to 30% on non durables like clothing, food, and services in the three months after receiving payments.
In sharp contrast to 2008, economists at Columbia University, Northwestern University, the University of Chicago and the University of Southern Denmark have found that Americans are spending the much larger stimulus checks in 2020 differently.
In the wake of the financial crisis Congress passed a stimulus bill that paid depending on income levels individuals between $300 and $600 and couples between $600 and $1,200 and $300 per child. According to the American Economic Association consumers spent 50% to 90% of their stimulus money on durable goods purchases like refrigerators, washers, dryers, and cars, and just 12% to 30% on non durables like clothing, food, and services in the three months after receiving payments. In sharp contrast to 2008, economists at Columbia University, Northwestern University, the University of Chicago and the University of Southern Denmark have found that Americans are spending the much larger stimulus checks in 2020 differently:
“Given the size of the 2020 stimulus checks, we might have expected large impacts on categories like automobile spending, electronics, appliances, and home furnishings. Instead, it seems that individuals are catching up with rent and bill payments as well as engaging in spending on food, personal care, and nondurables. What we can tell for fact is consumer behavior is different compared to their 2008 stimulus spending habits.”
A survey by UBS revealed a similar finding with about 80% of the stimulus being spent on savings, everyday expenses, and paying down debt. Only about 5% of respondents said they would make a large purchase on a TV or car:
“Given the size of the 2020 stimulus checks, we might have expected large impacts on categories like automobile spending, electronics, appliances, and home furnishings. Instead, it seems that individuals are catching up with rent and bill payments as well as engaging in spending on food, personal care, and nondurables. What we can tell for fact is consumer behavior is different compared to their 2008 stimulus spending habits.”
A survey by UBS revealed a similar finding with about 80% of the stimulus being spent on savings, everyday expenses, and paying down debt. Only about 5% of respondents said they would make a large purchase on a TV or car.
The primary reason Americans are reacting differently in 2020 than in 2008 is that the nature of this recession is very different. Even when the unemployment rate reached 10.0% in 2010, the vast majority (90%) of American workers were still working, and comfortable enough to continue to spend, even on large durable goods purchases, which certainly limited the length of the economic contraction.
The Great Recession was caused by a financial crisis, which is very different than a health crisis. In 2020, the U.S. economy is experiencing a demand shock, so even those with a job were for a time precluded from going out to a restaurant, catching a movie, attending a family gathering to celebrate a birthday, rooting for the home team at a sporting event, shopping at a mall, or going out for a drink with friends.
Even though the economy is beginning to open, a majority of consumers are not yet comfortable going out, even if they are employed. With so much uncertainty it should not come as a surprise that most people want to play it safe, by saving, reducing debt, and limiting their spending to essentials. This has been further magnified by the fact that those at the bottom of the earnings scale have been most adversely affected, since they had little in savings going into the Pandemic crisis.
The Personal income and spending report for April reflected the most bizarre numbers in history. On one hand spending fell by -13.6%. This was a record and steepest decline going back to 1959 when records were first kept, and driven in large part by an -8.0% plunge in wages and salaries.
Perversely, personal income soared by +10.5% fueled by payments from federal rescue programs and household stimulus payments of $1,200. Since most consumers couldn’t go out to spend their government windfall, the amount in savings soared. Once consumers feel comfortable they will spend some of the increase in their savings.
The sharp decline in revenue since February is causing many companies to look for ways to lower expenses. Business investment is a prime candidate since the majority of firms have plenty of excess capacity, so they have no need to invest to a add capacity. Business investment slumped in 2015 and 2016 after oil prices plunged, and that pattern will be repeated in 2020 and probably 2021.
In 2017 and 2018 business investment contributed to GDP growth, but it could be until late 2021 before business investment adds to GDP growth. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, business investment represented 18.0% of GDP, so the weakness in business investment is another reason why it is unlikely a strong recovery will take hold in the second half of 2020.
In the first quarter U.S. banks tightened their lending standards significantly, which has been overshadowed by all the liquidity the Federal Reserve has injected to stabilize various financial markets and back stopping a number of the Treasury department’s programs to support consumers and small and medium sized firms. These actions are important but the tightening in lending standards shouldn’t be dismissed, since the increase exceeded 20% (red line left scale).
The Federal Reserve is like the spigot and the liquidity the Fed adds to the financial system flows through a hose to banks, which act as the nozzle at the end of the hose. In the first quarter banks effectively offset some of the liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve by reducing the amount of liquidity flowing out the nozzle into the economy.
Historically, this has not been good for the economy or the stock market. As lending standards were tightened in 2001 and 2002, the S&P 500 fell, as it did in 2008 and 2009 when lending standards were increased. I have no doubt that standards have been increased in the second quarter, which will be confirmed when the data is released in early July.
Certainly we are in uncharted waters in terms of what the Fed has done and will likely do in coming months, if the economic recovery doesn’t meet expectations. But the increase in lending standards is certainly another headwind that will weigh on growth in coming months.
The Federal Reserve of Chicago’s National Activity Index is a composite of 85 separate economic indicators, so saying it is comprehensive would be an understatement. The decline it has experienced makes the Great Recession in 2008-2009 look like a mere dip in activity. The hole the economy is climbing out of is the deepest since the Great Depression.
Since it is the result of a health crisis, rather than a financial crisis, the recovery will be more labored, until consumers are truly comfortable going out and an effective vaccine has been developed.
The economic recoveries in the past 30 years have been progressively weaker, which suggests there are macro headwinds at work. If anything, some of the negative macro trends are likely to intensify in coming years.
The debt to GDP ratio for the U.S. is rising at an unsustainable pace, our population is gradually growing older, the ratio of workers to enrollees in the social security program is falling, and the number of annual births is the lowest in many decades. These factors are not going to have much of an impact on growth in the remainder of 2020 but they will in coming years.
Irrespective of one’s political affiliation the upcoming election will only intensify the growing divisiveness that is readily apparent. Almost every issue has become a political football with neither side actually committed to solving any problem.
We are in the middle of a Pandemic and are still unable to come together, truly sad and a big disappointment. The election uncertainly, and the level of vitriol does not seem conducive in creating more confidence and optimism that will inspire a surge in spending before November. Congress will pass another stimulus spending bill and the Fed may have a few more tricks up its sleeve that will boost the stock market, but may not be as effective in spurring economic growth.
Stocks
Consumer confidence has plunged a record amount in a very short period of time. Normally the stock market and the trends in consumer confidence move together. This makes sense since confidence rises as the economy grows and stock prices trend up. Conversely, a recession causes confidence to fall and the stock market trends lower as earnings drop due to the recession.
However, the gap between consumer confidence and the stock market has never been wider in the 35 years of consumer confidence data.
Given the economic outlook for the second half of 2020, especially against the prevalence of optimistic estimates for second half GDP growth, it is easy to expect stock prices to fall. However, in the current environment, the seasonality of COVID-19 may outweigh every other factor and rational analysis.
Since bottoming on March 23 the S&P 500 has rallied significantly even though the economy has experienced its largest decline since the Great Depression, the unemployment rate has likely increased fivefold or more from the 3.5% level in February, and valuations are exceedingly high.
This is simply not rational.
What changed though is psychology which is often more powerful than rational economic analysis. The unprecedented and historic actions by the Federal Reserve changed psychology, with the Fed indicating that it would begin buying high yield and municipal bonds, and allow the Treasury to leverage its Fed’s balance sheet as the Treasury funded a number of programs.
The speedy action by Congress to supplement the lost wages of 40 million unemployed workers was a necessary safety net that allowed those most affected to keep food on the table and a roof over their head. The timing of the Fed actions came at critical moments when devastating economic news could have elicited another wave of selling in the stock market.
Announcements by Gilead Sciences and Moderna raised the specter that a vaccine was possible keeping Hope alive. The premature announcements succeeded, even though there were a miniscule number of patients involved in the trials, and the companies provided no data to substantiate the news.
These announcements fall into the category of Manipulation, no doubt spurred by enormous pressure from the White House on Dr. Fauci. Economic data will improve in the next few months as the economy reopens, but the rebound is certainly not going to exceed expectations. Therefore, we should expect more of the same from the Federal Reserve, Congress, and optimistic projections of a medical solution.
If COVID-19 follows the same pattern as the H1N1 coronavirus in 2009, COVID-19 infections will drop significantly in July and August, after a brief ramp higher in the next few weeks. If infections subsequently fall during July and August and Congress does pass another stimulus bill as discussed, the stock market could rally to a new all time high before Labor Day.
In the short term the stock market is overbought and bullish sentiment is high as measured by the Call / Put ratio (Chart below). An increase in infections may provide a good excuse for a pullback in the stock market during June. Ideally, the S&P 500 will decline enough to bring the Call / Put ratio down to near 1.0. The S&P 500 fell to an intra-day low 2767 on May 14, so a test of that support is likely. A drop to 2750 – 2800 may be sufficient to dampen bullish sentiment and provide a buying opportunity. A close below 2767 would open the door for a decline to 2650. The key will be how quickly bullish sentiment evaporates during the correction, irrespective of its depth.
I hope your family and you are healthy and remain so in coming months.
Reference links of interest:
More Americans Venturing Out in Public; Most Still Isolating
40% of Laid off Employees Won’t Be Re-hired. What Will You Do If You’re One of Them?
COVID-19 Is Also a Reallocation Shock
POLITICO-Harvard poll: Stark partisan divide on reopening America
American Airlines to Cut 30% of Management and Administrative Staff
Consumer Spending and the Economic Stimulus Payments of 2008
.