C-Suite Caroline, Who is She?

Image: Caroline Ellison (Twitter)

Caroline Ellison Now Enters a New Stage of Her Young Life

Caroline Ellison, the 28-year-old former CEO of Alameda Research, pleaded guilty to seven criminal charges, including wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud, according to her plea agreement, signed Monday. Caroline, the former chief executive of Alameda Research, a trading firm with close ties to FTX, is said to face up to 115 years in prison. Her admitted role in allowing customer funds to flow through an electronic “backdoor” to be used by Sam Bankman Fried (SBF) of FTX tells us a little bit about her recent past, but who is Ms. Ellison, and how did she get to be CEO of Alameda?

What is Alameda Research?

SBF’s portfolio of crypto companies started with his founding of Alameda research in 2017.  Alameda Research was, until very recently, a cryptocurrency trading firm known to specialize in quantitative research and providing liquidity to cryptocurrency and digital assets markets.

Ellison joined the Alameda team as a trader in 2018 and became its co-CEO in 2021.

Bankman-Fried had started Alameda Research as a high-risk, high-reward crypto trading firm using high-risk tactics. He has admitted he included “research” in the name to give it a better vibe. In an NPR podcast in 2017, he was shown to be aggressively taking advantage of the “wild west” crypto playing field. SBF grew his crypto-related business into more complex cryptocurrency trading, accessible to the masses, with his founding of FTX, a crypto exchange, in 2019. He did this by leveraging his image as highly experienced in crypto, which helped him to raise money from firms like BlackRock.

Who Is Caroline Ellison?

In a now-removed YouTube video and podcast, Caroline discussed her background and upbringing in an FTX public relations-type interview dated July 2020.

The 28-year-old Ellison grew up outside of Boston in a town called Newton. Her parents are professors, Glenn Ellison, her father, is a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Sara Fischer Ellison lectures at the prestigious school.

Ellison said in the podcast that she inherited a natural aptitude for math and entered math competitions at a young age. She further would demonstrate that she was some kind of prodigy by telling people that by age five, she read a Harry Potter book by herself. “I refused to wait for my parents to read it [to me],” she said.  

She went on to major in math at Stanford. After applying for trading internships, a field that is very competitive for new graduates, she landed at Jane Street Capital, a well-respected firm on Wall Street. After her internship, she worked there for a year and a half.  

Is Caroline Elliman or was Caroline Elliman Sam Bankman Fried’s girlfriend? There are sources that say that Ellison met Bankman-Fried at Jane Street. He worked there from June 2014 to September 2017, according to his LinkedIn, which is still live and has 28,250 followers.  

Ellison said she learned about Alameda over coffee with then-CEO Bankman-Fried while visiting the Bay Area and decided “it seemed like too cool of an opportunity to pass up.” She joined the company in 2018.

Bankman-Fried would then resign as CEO of Alameda but retained his role as CEO of FTX. In October 2021, Ellison became co-CEO with Sam Trabucco, a former trader at Susquehanna International Group.

Trabucco resigned in August 2022 to “spend a lot of time traveling,” according to one of his tweets, saying he “bought a boat.”

Was There Romance Between Ellison and SBF?  

When a book about this is written, and the movie is out, it will include sex.

There have been rumors of polyamory. This is a relationship behavior that involves connections with more than one person. According to a Coindesk article from November, among the FTX executives, in the Bahamas,  “All 10 are, or used to be, paired up in romantic relationships with each other.”  There have also been suggestions that FTX employees and Bankman-Fried spent lavishly on the island, from yachts to thousands of dollars a day on catering.

Take Away

Financial fraud comes in many forms. Often it starts out innocently when a bad trade happens, someone tries to cover it up, and the markets don’t cooperate to bail out the bad trade, then more illegal actions are taken to cover that up. There have also been situations where unqualified, not experienced persons are in charge and either unaware of the magnitude of their deceptive actions or are following orders, perhaps just going along because others are doing it too. Then there are those that enjoy the attention they get by being out front and sharing wealth and buying fame. Another more common deceit is someone who is just plain old greedy. All are criminal.

I am not sure what the driver was in the Alameda/FTX, SBF Caroline Ellison (and others) case, but I am sure we will hear much more about this. As we do, remember the importance of trusting those you conduct business with and questioning them anyway.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sam-bankman-fried-8367a346/?originalSubdomain=bs

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1137054976

https://cointelegraph.com/news/alameda-ex-ceo-caroline-ellison-spotted-in-new-york-twitter-users-claim

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/13/sam-bankman-frieds-alameda-quietly-used-ftx-customer-funds-without-raising-alarm-bells-say-sources.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alameda-ftx-executives-are-said-to-have-known-ftx-was-using-customer-funds-11668264238?mod=article_inline

The Math Behind (Winning) the Gift Stealing Game

Image Credit: Marco Verch (Flickr)

How to Play and Win the Gift-Stealing Game Bad Santa, According to a Mathematician

Christmas comes but once a year – as do Christmas party games. With such little practice it’s hard to get good at any of them.

Let me help. I’m going to share with you some expert tips, tested through mathematical modelling, on how to win one of the most popular games: Bad Santa – also known as Dirty Santa, White Elephant, Grab Bag, Yankee Swap, Thieving Secret Santa, or simply “that present-stealing game”.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of Joel Gilmore, Associate Professor, Griffith University.

This isn’t advice on being a bad sport. It’s about being a good Bad Santa – which is the name of the game. You might even come away with a good gift and bragging rights.

How Bad Santa Works

Bad Santa is a variation of the classic Kris Kringle (or Secret Santa) game, in which each guest receives an anonymous gift bought by another guest. Part of the fun (for others) is the unwrapping of silly and useless gifts, which is done one by one.

Bad Santa spices things up. All the gifts are pooled. Guests take turns to choose one to unwrap. Or they can choose to “steal” a gift already opened by someone else. The person losing their gift then gets the same choice: open a wrapped present or steal someone else’s.

It’s a good alternative to buying a gift for everyone, and a great way to ruin friendships.

The order of players is usually determined by drawing numbers from a hat. This is important, because you’ve probably already noted the disadvantage of going first and the benefit of going last. The right rules can mitigate this. There are at least a dozen different versions of this game published online, and some are much less fair than others.

How I Tested Bad Santa

The best way to test Bad Santa rule variations and playing strategies would be to observe games in real life – say, by attending 1,000 Christmas parties (funding bodies please call me).

I did the next best thing, deploying the same type of computer modelling (known as agent-based modelling) used to understand everything from bidding in electricity markets to how the human immune system works.

In my model there are 16 virtual guests and 16 gifts. Each has different present preferences, rating opened gifts on a scale of 1 to 10. They will steal a gift they rate better than a 5. To make it interesting, three gifts are rated highly by everyone and there are three no one really wants – probably a novelty mug or something.

Christmas comes but once a year – as do Christmas party games. With such little practice it’s hard to get good at any of them. Let me help. I’m going to share with you some expert tips, tested through mathematical modelling, on how to win one of the most popular games: Bad Santa – also known as Dirty Santa, White Elephant, Grab Bag, Yankee Swap, Thieving Secret Santa, or simply “that present-stealing game”.
Image Credit Jernej Furman (Flickr)

After simulating 50,000 games with different rules, I’ve found a set of rules that seems the most fair, no matter what number you draw from the hat.

Choosing the Fairest Rules

The following graph shows the results for four different game variations.

The higher the line, the greater the overall satisfaction. The flatter the lines, the fairer the result. (If gifts were chosen randomly with no stealing, every player’s average satisfaction score would be 5).

The most unfair result comes from the “dark blue rules”, which stipulate that any gift can only be stolen once in any round. This mean if you’re the last person, you’ve got the biggest choice and get to keep what you steal. If you go first, you’re bound to lose out.

Fairest and Best Bad Santa Rules

The most fair outcomes come from the “red rules”:

  • A gift can be stolen multiple times each turn. This keeps presents moving between guests, which adds to the fun.
  • Once a person holds the same gift three times it becomes “locked”, and can no longer be stolen. This evens the game out a lot. Later players still see more gifts, but earlier players have more chance to lock the gift they want. It also ensures games don’t go on for hours.
  • After the last player’s turn, there is one more round of stealing, starting with the very first player. This also gives them a chance to steal at least once – and a slight advantage. But overall, these rules provide the most even outcomes.

Like most games, the rules are’t perfect. But the maths shows they are better than the alternatives. If you want to test other scenarios using my model, you can download my source code here.

On your turn you can either steal an open gift or open a new one If you’re stolen from, you can steal from someone else or open a gift. If you hold a gift three times, it is locked. First person gets a final steal.

Three Tips on Game Strategy

The right rules help level the playing field. They don’t eliminate the need for strategic thinking to maximise your chance to get a gift you want.

As in real life, seemingly fair rules can be manipulated.

One thing you could do is team up with other players to manipulate the “three holds and locked” rule. To do this, you’ll need at least two co-conspirators.

Say your friends Donner and Blitzen have their preferred gifts, and now it’s your turn. You steal Blitzen’s gift. Blitzen in turn steals Donner’s, who steals yours, and so on. Donner and Blitzen end up holding their chosen gifts a second time, then a third. You helped them out, and then can choose another gift.

Image Credit:Steve Jurvetson (Flickr)

In competitive markets this type of co-operation is usually know as collusion – and it’s illegal. In sport, it would simply be called cheating. So I’m not saying you should do this; I am merely explaining how the strategy works. If you do this and end up on the naughty list, don’t blame me.

I haven’t yet tested rules variations in my model to see how this collusion can best be eliminated or minimised. Maybe by next Christmas. (Or maybe not – for me, cheating through maths is half the fun of the game.)

So let me leave you with two perfectly legitimate strategies.

First, and most obviously, you must steal gifts!

My modelling quantifies how necessary this is. I simulated a game in which four guests will never steal a gift. Those guests are 75% less satisfied with their final gifts than the players who do steal. They’re also much less fun at parties.

New Economic Numbers Point to a Turnaround in 2023

Image Credit: Pixabay (Pexels)

What Consumers are Expecting Now and Through Mid-2023

The markets just got a solid sign that it may be a prosperous new year. The Consumer Confidence Index is one of the better leading indicators of future economic activity and the number came out well above expectations. This report shows consumer attitudes, buying intentions, vacation plans, and expectations for inflation, stock values, and interest rates are now, overall, very positive. These attitudes should play out in spending, and that spending should eventually show up in company earnings.

How Good Was the Report?

After back-to-back monthly declines in the index, which stood at 101.4 in November (1985=100), the December post came out at 108.3. This is an eight-month high, and stands in contrast to economists expected decline to 101.2. The break down shows fewer concerns over inflation and more optimism about the economy, job conditions, and even inflation.

Refining the Reports Components

Overall confidence was shown in the two separate underlying measures, including the Present Situation Index, which is derived from a survey of consumers’ thoughts of current business and labor market conditions. This increased to 147.2 from 138.3 last month. The Expectations Index is based on consumers’ short-term outlook for income, business, and labor market conditions, this subset of data improved to 82.4 from 76.7.  As a note, 82.4 is a vast improvement, but economists generally associate 80 with a possible recession.

Present Situation – Consumers’ assessment of current business conditions improved in December.

19.0% of consumers said business conditions were “good,” up from 17.8%.

20.1% said business conditions were “bad,” down from 23.6%.

47.8% of consumers said jobs were “plentiful,” up from 45.2%.

12.0% of consumers said jobs were “hard to get,” down from 13.7%.

Expectations Index (Six Months forward) – Consumers’ Assessment of future business conditions improved in December.

20.4% of consumers expect business conditions to improve, up from 19.8%.

20.3% expect business conditions to worsen, down from 21.0%.

19.5% of consumers expect more jobs to be available, up from 18.5%.

18.3% anticipate fewer jobs, down from 21.2%.

16.7% of consumers expect their incomes to increase, down slightly from 17.1%.

13.3% expect their incomes will decrease, down from 15.8%.

The monthly Consumer Confidence Survey® had a data cutoff date of December 15. This makes the forward-looking attitudes fresh, and useable.

The one question that many investors are asking themselves after the worst equity markets in 15 years is if it is time to deploy some capital into the beaten-down market. The confidence numbers suggest that individuals are more likely to open up their wallets now than they have been in two quarters. This could bolster earnings later next year.

If the worst is behind us, this could be reflected at some point in the next six months in companies that are supported by consumer spending (based on these numbers) and not business spending.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.conference-board.org/topics/consumer-confidence

Battery Power From EV to the Grid Could Open a Fast Lane to a Net-Zero Future.

Source: MIT News

Reversing the Charge – Energy Storage on Wheels

Leda Zimmerman | MIT Energy Initiative

Owners of electric vehicles (EVs) are accustomed to plugging into charging stations at home and at work and filling up their batteries with electricity from the power grid. But someday soon, when these drivers plug in, their cars will also have the capacity to reverse the flow and send electrons back to the grid. As the number of EVs climbs, the fleet’s batteries could serve as a cost-effective, large-scale energy source, with potentially dramatic impacts on the energy transition, according to a new paper published by an MIT team in the journal Energy Advances.

“At scale, vehicle-to-grid (V2G) can boost renewable energy growth, displacing the need for stationary energy storage and decreasing reliance on firm [always-on] generators, such as natural gas, that are traditionally used to balance wind and solar intermittency,” says Jim Owens, lead author and a doctoral student in the MIT Department of Chemical Engineering. Additional authors include Emre Gençer, a principal research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), and Ian Miller, a research specialist for MITEI at the time of the study.

The group’s work is the first comprehensive, systems-based analysis of future power systems, drawing on a novel mix of computational models integrating such factors as carbon emission goals, variable renewable energy (VRE) generation, and costs of building energy storage, production, and transmission infrastructure.

“We explored not just how EVs could provide service back to the grid — thinking of these vehicles almost like energy storage on wheels — but also the value of V2G applications to the entire energy system and if EVs could reduce the cost of decarbonizing the power system,” says Gençer. “The results were surprising; I personally didn’t believe we’d have so much potential here.”

Displacing New Infrastructure

As the United States and other nations pursue stringent goals to limit carbon emissions, electrification of transportation has taken off, with the rate of EV adoption rapidly accelerating. (Some projections show EVs supplanting internal combustion vehicles over the next 30 years.) With the rise of emission-free driving, though, there will be increased demand for energy. “The challenge is ensuring both that there’s enough electricity to charge the vehicles and that this electricity is coming from renewable sources,” says Gençer.

But solar and wind energy is intermittent. Without adequate backup for these sources, such as stationary energy storage facilities using lithium-ion batteries, for instance, or large-scale, natural gas- or hydrogen-fueled power plants, achieving clean energy goals will prove elusive. More vexing, costs for building the necessary new energy infrastructure runs to the hundreds of billions.

This is precisely where V2G can play a critical, and welcome, role, the researchers reported. In their case study of a theoretical New England power system meeting strict carbon constraints, for instance, the team found that participation from just 13.9 percent of the region’s 8 million light-duty (passenger) EVs displaced 14.7 gigawatts of stationary energy storage. This added up to $700 million in savings — the anticipated costs of building new storage capacity.

Their paper also described the role EV batteries could play at times of peak demand, such as hot summer days. “V2G technology has the ability to inject electricity back into the system to cover these episodes, so we don’t need to install or invest in additional natural gas turbines,” says Owens. “The way that EVs and V2G can influence the future of our power systems is one of the most exciting and novel aspects of our study.”

Modeling Power

To investigate the impacts of V2G on their hypothetical New England power system, the researchers integrated their EV travel and V2G service models with two of MITEI’s existing modeling tools: the Sustainable Energy System Analysis Modeling Environment (SESAME) to project vehicle fleet and electricity demand growth, and GenX, which models the investment and operation costs of electricity generation, storage, and transmission systems. They incorporated such inputs as different EV participation rates, costs of generation for conventional and renewable power suppliers, charging infrastructure upgrades, travel demand for vehicles, changes in electricity demand, and EV battery costs.

Their analysis found benefits from V2G applications in power systems (in terms of displacing energy storage and firm generation) at all levels of carbon emission restrictions, including one with no emissions caps at all. However, their models suggest that V2G delivers the greatest value to the power system when carbon constraints are most aggressive — at 10 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour load. Total system savings from V2G ranged from $183 million to $1,326 million, reflecting EV participation rates between 5 percent and 80 percent.

“Our study has begun to uncover the inherent value V2G has for a future power system, demonstrating that there is a lot of money we can save that would otherwise be spent on storage and firm generation,” says Owens.

Harnessing V2G

For scientists seeking ways to decarbonize the economy, the vision of millions of EVs parked in garages or in office spaces and plugged into the grid for 90 percent of their operating lives proves an irresistible provocation. “There is all this storage sitting right there, a huge available capacity that will only grow, and it is wasted unless we take full advantage of it,” says Gençer.

This is not a distant prospect. Startup companies are currently testing software that would allow two-way communication between EVs and grid operators or other entities. With the right algorithms, EVs would charge from and dispatch energy to the grid according to profiles tailored to each car owner’s needs, never depleting the battery and endangering a commute.

“We don’t assume all vehicles will be available to send energy back to the grid at the same time, at 6 p.m. for instance, when most commuters return home in the early evening,” says Gençer. He believes that the vastly varied schedules of EV drivers will make enough battery power available to cover spikes in electricity use over an average 24-hour period. And there are other potential sources of battery power down the road, such as electric school buses that are employed only for short stints during the day and then sit idle.

The MIT team acknowledges the challenges of V2G consumer buy-in. While EV owners relish a clean, green drive, they may not be as enthusiastic handing over access to their car’s battery to a utility or an aggregator working with power system operators. Policies and incentives would help.

“Since you’re providing a service to the grid, much as solar panel users do, you could be paid for your participation, and paid at a premium when electricity prices are very high,” says Gençer.

“People may not be willing to participate ’round the clock, but if we have blackout scenarios like in Texas last year, or hot-day congestion on transmission lines, maybe we can turn on these vehicles for 24 to 48 hours, sending energy back to the system,” adds Owens. “If there’s a power outage and people wave a bunch of money at you, you might be willing to talk.”

“Basically, I think this comes back to all of us being in this together, right?” says Gençer. “As you contribute to society by giving this service to the grid, you will get the full benefit of reducing system costs, and also help to decarbonize the system faster and to a greater extent.”

Actionable Insights

Owens, who is building his dissertation on V2G research, is now investigating the potential impact of heavy-duty electric vehicles in decarbonizing the power system. “The last-mile delivery trucks of companies like Amazon and FedEx are likely to be the earliest adopters of EVs,” Owen says. “They are appealing because they have regularly scheduled routes during the day and go back to the depot at night, which makes them very useful for providing electricity and balancing services in the power system.”

Owens is committed to “providing insights that are actionable by system planners, operators, and to a certain extent, investors,” he says. His work might come into play in determining what kind of charging infrastructure should be built, and where.

“Our analysis is really timely because the EV market has not yet been developed,” says Gençer. “This means we can share our insights with vehicle manufacturers and system operators — potentially influencing them to invest in V2G technologies, avoiding the costs of building utility-scale storage, and enabling the transition to a cleaner future. It’s a huge win, within our grasp.”

The research for this study was funded by MITEI’s Future Energy Systems Center.

Reprinted with permission of MIT News” (http://news.mit.edu/)

Would it Be Possible at This Point to Ban Non-CBDC Crypto?

Image Credit: ByBit (Flickr)

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Could Support Difficult Crypto Ban

Most new and revolutionary innovations go through growing pains – and at times fraud and deceit. Cryptocurrency and all the ancillary services are no different. One common reaction to some crypto problems is for legislators or regulators to swoop in and show they are protecting citizens from the newly discovered dangers. The cryptocurrency market is now 13 years young and not yet mature. This is evidenced by the meltdown of crypto exchange FTX, which has just placed the entire crypto industry in the crosshairs of the head of the Senate Banking Committee as well as others in Washington. Will crypto survive?

Killing Crypto?

With swirling allegations of fraud, misuse of customer funds, and negligence, the bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX has caused lawmakers to try to take action to protect US citizens from activity that largely takes place outside of the States. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee went as far as to suggest a total ban on cryptocurrencies.

When asked on NBC’s Meet the Press this past weekend whether regulation only gives legitimacy to crypto, rather than a ban, Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown said that an immediate course of action is to have the Treasury Department embolden federal agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

 “We want them to do what they need to do,” the Senator said, “at the same time, maybe banning it—although banning it is very difficult because it will go offshore, and who knows how that will work.”  

Banning crypto would be difficult. Most transactions in the world’s digital currencies and tokens take place outside of the US, including major platforms such as Binance and Deribit.

Does Regulation Help?

While crypto is becoming a topic of scrutiny among lawmakers, the push to regulate digital assets has in some ways served as a safer opening for institutional investors to involve themselves in the asset class. A ban would seem catastrophic to publicly traded, US based Coinbase (COIN), and also halt some investment but could be largely ineffective, chasing transactions offshore. “One in six American households own crypto, a domestic ban at this stage would only lead to more FTX-like situations where Americans are forced to interact with off-shore exchanges that have no regulatory oversight,” a Coinbase spokesperson told investment publication Barron’s, adding, “Congress should focus on passing workable, comprehensive federal crypto legislation that protects consumers, enables innovation, and bolsters American competitiveness.”

A ban in place since 2021 on mining or trading cryptocurrencies in China has not prevented the country from being number two worldwide in crypto mining with 20% of the market share. The country also is ranked 10th in terms of transactions.

Take Away

New investment products have ups and downs. Regulations are clearly on their way in the crypto asset class, but an outright ban would seem to be more lip service from the Senate Banking Committee chair than something that may be implemented. The asset class has now become so entrenched in portfolios of so many in the US, including retirees, and so available outside US jurisdictions that it would seem that any measure to protect investors would be regulatory and implemented slowly.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.barrons.com/articles/bitcoin-prices-crypto-markets-today-51670584352?mod=article_inline

https://www.barrons.com/articles/sherrod-brown-cryptocurrency-ban-ftx-sec-51671471539

Meet the Press

https://www.deribit.com/

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Why Central Banks Will Choose Recession Over Inflation

Image Credit: Focal Foto (Flickr)

The Difficult Reality of Rising Core and Super-Core Inflation

While many market participants are concerned about rate increases, they appear to be ignoring the largest risk: the potential for a massive liquidity drain in 2023.

Even though December is here, central banks’ balance sheets have hardly, if at all, decreased. Rather than real sales, a weaker currency and the price of the accumulated bonds account for the majority of the fall in the balance sheets of the major central banks.

In the context of governments deficits that are hardly declining and, in some cases, increasing, investors must take into account the danger of a significant reduction in the balance sheets of central banks. Both the quantitative tightening of central banks and the refinancing of government deficits, albeit at higher costs, will drain liquidity from the markets. This inevitably causes the global liquidity spectrum to contract far more than the headline amount.

Liquidity drains have a dividing effect in the same way that liquidity injections have an obvious multiplier effect in the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. A central bank’s balance sheet increased by one unit of currency in assets multiplies at least five times in the transmission mechanism. Do the calculations now on the way out, but keep in mind that government expenditure will be financed.

Our tendency is to take liquidity for granted. Due to the FOMO (fear of missing out) mentality, investors have increased their risk and added illiquid assets over the years of monetary expansion. In periods of monetary excess, multiple expansion and rising valuations are the norm.

Since we could always count on rising liquidity, when asset prices corrected over the past two decades, the best course of action was to “buy the dip” and double down. This was because central banks would keep growing their balance sheets and adding liquidity, saving us from almost any bad investment decision, and inflation would stay low.

Twenty years of a dangerous bet: monetary expansion without inflation. How do we handle a situation where central banks must cut at least $5 trillion off their balance sheets? Do not believe I am exaggerating; the $20 trillion bubble generated since 2008 cannot be solved with $5 trillion. A tightening of $5 trillion in US dollars is mild, even dovish. To return to pre-2020 levels, the Fed would need to decrease its balance sheet by that much on its own.

Keep in mind that the central banks of developed economies need to tighten monetary policy by $5 trillion, which is added to over $2.50 trillion in public deficit financing in the same countries.

The effects of contraction are difficult to forecast because traders for at least two generations have only experienced expansionary policies, but they are undoubtedly unpleasant. Liquidity is already dwindling in the riskiest sectors of the economy, from high yield to crypto assets. By 2023, when the tightening truly begins, it will probably have reached the supposedly safer assets.

In a recent interview, Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel said that the ECB will begin to reduce its balance sheet in 2023 and added that “a recession may be insufficient to get inflation back on target.” This suggests that the “anti-fragmentation tool” currently in use to mask risk in periphery bonds may begin to lose its placebo impact on sovereign assets. Additionally, the cost of equity and weighted average cost of capital increases as soon as sovereign bond spreads begin to rise.

Capital can only be made or destroyed; it never remains constant. And if central banks are to effectively fight inflation, capital destruction is unavoidable.

The prevalent bullish claim is that because central banks have learned from 2008, they will not dare to allow the market to crash. Although a correct analysis, it is not enough to justify market multiples. The fact that governments continue to finance themselves, which they will, is ultimately what counts to central banks. The crowding out effect of government spending over private sector credit access has never been a major concern for a central bank. Keep in mind that I am only estimating a $5 trillion unwind, which is quite generous given the excess produced between 2008 and 2021 and the magnitude of the balance sheet increase in 2020–21.

Central banks are also aware of the worst-case scenario, which is elevated inflation and a recession that could have a prolonged impact on citizens, with rising discontent and generalized impoverishment. They know they cannot keep inflation high just to satisfy market expectations of rising valuations. The same central banks that assert that the wealth effect multiplies positively are aware of the disastrous consequences of ignoring inflation. Back to the 1970s.

The “energy excuse” in inflation estimates will likely evaporate, and that will be the key test for central banks. The “supply chain excuse” has disappeared, the “temporary excuse” has gotten stale, and the “energy excuse” has lost some of its credibility since June. The unattractive reality of rising core and super-core inflation has been exposed by the recent commodity slump.

Central banks cannot accept sustained inflation because it means they would have failed in their mandate. Few can accurately foresee how quantitative tightening will affect asset prices and credit availability, even though it is necessary. What we know is that quantitative tightening, with a minimal decrease in central bank balance sheets, is expected to compress multiples and valuations of risky assets more than it has thus far. Given that capital destruction appears to be only getting started, the dividing effect is probably more than anticipated. And the real economy is always impacted by capital destruction

About the Author

Daniel Lacalle, PhD, economist and fund manager, is the author of the bestselling books Freedom or Equality (2020),Escape from the Central Bank Trap (2017), The Energy World Is Flat (2015), and Life in the Financial Markets (2014).

Daniel Lacalle is a professor of global economy at IE Business School in Madrid.

Russia-Related Supply Issues Delay Gates/Buffett Nuclear Plant

Image: Rendering of Natrium Reactor (TerraPower)

Nuclear Power Plant Start Will be Delayed as Reliable US Fuel Production Needs to Improve

The energy and fuel shortages stemming from the Russia/Ukraine war extend beyond oil and gas. A sharp impact is also being felt in the nuclear energy world as uranium is less available for new and existing plants. In the US, TerraPower’s natrium reactor completion date is now estimated at least two years beyond the original plan. This is because of problems securing the proper fuel. TerraPower is a start-up co-founded by Bill Gates with support from Warren Buffett to revolutionize nuclear reactor design and methods. The natrium reactor being built as a test of the technology is being built in  Kemmerer, Wyoming, which is considered a coal town. The original completion date was 2028.

 What is Now Expected

The company expects the natrium demonstration reactor operation to be delayed by at least two years because there will not be sufficient commercial capacity to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel to test come the original 2028 in-service date.

TerraPower’s CEO and President Chris Levesque said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine earlier this year caused “the only commercial source of HALEU fuel” to no longer be a viable part of the supply chain. The company is now working with the US Department of Energy (DOE), Congress, and project stakeholders to explore potential alternative sources. Levesque said, “while we are working now with Congress to urge the inclusion of $2.1 billion to support HALEU in the end-of-year government funding package, it has become clear that domestic and allied HALEU manufacturing options will not reach commercial capacity in time to meet the proposed 2028 in-service date for the Natrium demonstration plant.”

The company has not provided a new schedule but expects to in 2023, when there may be more clarity of what will be available and when. “But given the lack of fuel availability now and that there has been no construction started on new fuel enrichment facilities, TerraPower is anticipating a minimum of a two-year delay to being able to bring the Natrium reactor into operation,” Levesque warned.

About the Plant and its Fuel

Kemmerer in Wyoming was selected in 2021 as the preferred site for the Natrium demonstration project, featuring a 345 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system. TerraPower remains fully committed to the project and is “moving full steam ahead” on the construction of the plant, licensing applications and engineering and design work, Levesque added. Work scheduled to begin in Spring 2023 on the large sodium facility will continue as planned, and TerraPower expects “minimal disruption” to the current projected start-of-construction date.

HALEU fuel is enriched to between 5% and 20% uranium-235, and is the fuel type which will fuel most of the next-generation reactor designs. The DOE has projected a national need for more than 40 tonnes of HALEU before the end of the decade to support the current administration’s goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035.

Funding the Construction

Gates helped found TerraPower in 2006 and has been the company’s chairman. TerraPower’s goal is to provide more affordable, secure, and environmentally friendly nuclear energy globally. The plant is expected to cost $4 billion. To date, $1.6 billion has been appropriated by Congress, and private funding of $830 has been raised by TerraPower.

Wyoming US Senator John Barrasso responded to the announcement saying the US  ” must reestablish itself as the global leader in nuclear energy. Instead of relying on our adversaries like Russia for uranium, the United States must produce its own supply of advanced nuclear fuel.” He said he has sent a letter to Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Joe Manchin requesting an oversight hearing early next year to ensure that DOE is “working aggressively” to make HALEU available for the USA’s first advanced reactors. He also said he has written to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm today “blasting DOE for not moving fast enough to ensure a domestic supply of HALEU”.

Take Away

The Natrium project by Bill Gate’s company, with support from US tax dollars and Warren Buffett, is being constructed as a test. One thing the test bore out is that securing a reliable fuel supply needs a good deal more work.

Natrium plants are smaller and use current technology. These plants are expected to be built faster and cheaper than a traditional large-scale nuclear power plant. When first announced last year, Gates and Buffett said that once successfully demonstrated, the plant could be quickly expanded or replicated elsewhere.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://natriumpower.com/

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/HALEU-fuel-availability-delays-Natrium-reactor-pro

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds-its-first-nuclear-reactor-in-a-coal-town.html

The Week Ahead – Window Dressing, FedEx Earnings, and Consumer Confidence

The Holiday Weeks Ahead are Likely to Include Lighter Trading Volumes

End-of-year window dressing occurs when mutual funds and other managed money sell their losing stocks before December 31 to avoid sitting in front of trustees early in the new year and having these stocks still listed as holdings. This often has the effect of concentrating end-of-year selling in stocks that are already the worst performers over the ending year. These same stocks are then favored early in the new year. Keep in mind some of this money may temporarily move to the fixed-income markets. Volume for the next two holiday weeks is typically lighter than usual.

Speaking of bad-performing stocks, FedEx reports earnings on Tuesday, December 20 (4:30). If you recall, they last reported on September 15 and missed expected earnings. That earnings call caused the stock to move from $204 to $161 during the following trading session. FedEx earnings will be of particular interest for this reason and because it’s an early indicator of this holiday shopping season.

It’s a light week for economic numbers; those that have the strongest possibility of moving markets occur on Wednesday’s Consumer Confidence and Friday’s Durable Goods data. Friday is a regular trading day for the stock exchanges, the bond markets enjoy an early 2 PM close.

Monday 12/19

• 10:00 AM ET, the Housing Market Index is expected to show a 34, according to Econoday’s consensus numbers. This would halt the downward spiral of this measure. Last month the reading was 33.

Tuesday 12/20

• 8:30 AM ET, Housing Starts and Permits are expected to be 1.4 million from the previous 1.425 million. Residential construction has been slowing and slowing significantly.

Wednesday 12/21

• 8:30 AM ET, The third-quarter current account deficit is expected to narrow to $225.0 versus the $251.1 billion reported in the second quarter. The current account is a quarterly measure of the U.S. international balance in goods and services trade as well as unilateral transfers.

• 10:00 AM ET, Consumer Confidence is expected to edge higher to a marginally less depressed 101.0 versus November’s 100.2. Trends in consumer attitudes and spending can be one of the most impactful influences on the stock market. This is because strong economic growth translates to healthy corporate profits and higher stock prices.

Thursday 12/22

• 8:30 AM ET, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) third estimate for the third quarter is not expected to change at all from the previous estimate of 2.9%. This is the final read from the third quarter, it indicates we were not in a recession and instead had better growth than the first two quarters.

Friday 12/23

• 8:30 AM ET, Forecasters expect Durable Goods Orders to fall 0.7 percent in November following a 1.1 percent rise in October. This is a true leading indicator as orders for durable goods show how active factories will be in the months to come as manufacturers fill those orders. The data not only provide insight to demand items such as refrigerators and cars but also business investments such as industrial machinery, electrical machinery, and computers. So it may also indicate how confident the industry is for a period into the future.

What Else

Were you able to watch the equity analysts from Noble Capital Markets discuss stocks within their areas of expertise on Wall Street Wish List aired last Thursday through Channelchek? A replay may become available this week for those that wish to rewatch or those that prefer to digest all the information in smaller bites. Those signed up for emails from Channelchek will be given a heads-up when this replay happens.

Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and peace to all from the entire content team at Channelchek!

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Has Trading in Carbon Credits Been Profitable in 2022?

Image Credit: IPCC (Flickr)

Carbon Credit Market Performance, the Other, Other Market

Has trading in carbon credits increased?

Carbon credits, also known as carbon offsets, are permits developed in 1997 by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They allow the owner to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. One credit permits the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide or the equivalent in other greenhouse gases. They exist to create a monetary incentive for companies to reduce their carbon emissions. Those that cannot easily reduce emissions can still operate, however, at a higher financial cost.

As the carbon credit market matured another year, transactions for carbon credits are averaging at the same pace as 2021. But higher prices have been received on projects that are seen as more effective in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Some say this is a sign that the market has become more accepted and is functioning with increased comfort and understanding.

Transaction and Price Data

Nearly 172 million credits were purchased and retired by final buyers through Dec. 9th. Exchange-traded volumes were steady at 108 million credits through November, near the same level of 112 million during the same period last year, according to data from Xpansiv, an exchange for carbon offsets.

The price for credits rose to $7.50 during 2022, up from $6.10 last year. However, they are off their highs of the year. This is the result of carbon-credit prices having fallen in sympathy with other markets after traders sold credits in March as rising inflation and energy prices squeezed corporate profits.

The market was valued at $2 billion in 2021, substantially up from about $520 million in 2020. Each credit is equivalent to a ton of carbon dioxide prevented from being released into the atmosphere. Credits can change hands several times before being retired, which means they are removed from circulation and counted against companies’ emissions.

Carbon Neutrality Standards

There was some criticism hurting the market based on the knowledge that the transfer of credits doesn’t reduce carbon emissions because the projects they fund are not effective. This is because it was found that some buyers of the credits could then claim to be carbon neutral despite emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases. While this is how the transfer of carbon credits is intended to prevent excessive greenhouse gases, the understanding still does not sit well with some.

Concerns about standards continue to cloud the unregulated market. This has prompted U.S. regulators and lawmakers to investigate. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed in March of this year designed to make the market more transparent. In October, seven U.S. senators urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to “develop qualifying standards for carbon offsets that effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

What is Impacting Carbon Credit Market and Sectors?

Governments of countries with some of the largest projects halted credit production during 2022. The reduction of supply added to the markets has caused some traders to pause as they determine how events impact their market.

As quoted in The Wall Street Journal, “There’s a perfect storm of activities,” according to Saskia Feast, managing director of global climate solutions at Climate Impact Partners, a carbon consulting and finance firm. “Ultimately, if these initiatives are successful, it will help deliver scale and confidence in the market. But the risk is delaying action and delaying finance because all these things are coming into the market and creating paralysis.”

Some Climate Impact Partners clients have adjusted their offsetting approach and now focus on credits that are created by projects protecting and replenishing forests and newer credits produced in the past few years, according to Ms. Feast.

This is reflected in the data. Average prices for forestry and land-use projects trading on exchanges jumped 55% to nearly $9. Trading volumes for credits created since 2020 jumped while they declined for most older credits, which are viewed as being less rigorous. Nature-based carbon credits, which include those from projects preventing deforestation and reforesting, trade at premiums.

Take Away

Carbon credit trading, while around since 1997, is still discovering itself. It is not yet regulated, and value and price discovery is less effective than other more mature markets.

The early stages of any market is where speculative investors either do extremely well, or more statistically likely, tie up money for long periods of time. If the volume of trading (liquidity) increases, there could be strong upward price momentum.

Carbon-credit issuance seems to value newer and presumably greener projects higher than older, less strict credits. For investors that are not trading credits for business reasons, this would seem to have a decaying effect on credits, even if the overall market is up.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.wsj.com/articles/carbon-credit-investors-start-to-pay-up-for-quality-11671155725?mod=hp_lead_pos11

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon_credit.asp

https://trove-research.com/webinar/demystifying-the-use-of-carbon-credits-for-corporate-climate-targets/

Ecosystems Marketplace

xpansiv

The SEC’s Summary of Charges in New Online Stock Manipulation Fraud

Image Credit: Clem Onojeghuo (Pexels)

Social Media and Stock Message Boards Again Help Amplify Market Manipulators

There is an ongoing government investigation after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged seven podcasters and social media influencers with stock market manipulation. The benefit to those charged totals near $114 million as they allegedly ran a pump while they were dumping scheme. According to the SEC, the charges are against eight Twitter users that also used stock trading message boards on Discord, and a podcast to promote specific stocks to “hundreds of thousands of followers.” Meanwhile, they are said to have quietly sold into the run-up they helped create in the stocks’ prices.

The fraud they are being charged with began at the dawn of the pandemic in January 2020 and involved participants from various locations, including defendants from Texas, California, New Jersey, and Florida.

The main podcaster named in the case (Knight) is suspected of and also charged in the illicit trading scheme as having used influence to promote the others as expert traders, according to the SEC. Among the most called upon stocks used in the alleged scheme were Gamestop (GME), and AMC Theaters (AMC) – two  darlings of newer investors that saw a rise in popularity beginning during the stimulus check, lockdown period in 2020. This period in market history helped usher in many brand new investors with time to listen to podcasts, follow social media posts, enjoy market-related memes, and benefit from a rising overall market.

Source: SEC.gov

The criminal charges include conspiracy to commit securities fraud and, for several of the defendants, multiple counts of securities fraud. Each of the charges carries a maximum possible sentence of 25 years in prison. The Justice Department simultaneously filed separate criminal fraud charges against the defendants, the SEC said.

The SEC’s complaint calls for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas to impose fines and to require that the defendants give up their allegedly ill-gotten gains, along with a ban on future misconduct.

The SEC’s Summary of the Scheme

From the SECs court filing:

The Defendants engaged in a long-running fraudulent scheme to manipulate

securities by publishing false and misleading information in online stock-trading forums, on

podcasts, and through their Twitter accounts. The Primary Defendants, aided and abetted by

Knight, engaged in a pattern of conduct, sometimes referred to as “scalping,” in which they

recommended the purchase of a particular stock without disclosing their intent to sell that stock.

They generally executed their scheme in three phases. First, one or more of the Primary

Defendants identified a security to manipulate (the “Selected Stock”) and purchased shares of

that particular security. By sharing the name of the Selected Stock among some or all of the

group, the Defendants provided each other with the opportunity to purchase shares at lower

prices prior to the manipulation. Next, they promoted the stock to their followers on podcasts

and/or social media platforms in order to generate demand and inflate the share price. Typically,

the Primary Defendants announced price targets, teased upcoming news about the company,

and/or stated their intention to buy shares or hold their current positions for longer periods.

Finally, after promoting the stock to their followers in these ways, the Primary Defendants sold

their shares into the demand generated by their recommendations. When the scheme succeeded,

the Primary Defendants were able to sell their shares at higher prices and make profits. In order

to cover up their scheme and continue perpetrating it, the Primary Defendants at various points

deleted old tweets and Discord chats, and lied to their followers about the reasons why particular

stock picks were followed by declines in the prices of those stocks, obscuring their own roles in

causing losses among their followers and other retail investors.

None of the Primary Defendants disclosed that they were either planning to sell,

or were actively selling, a Selected Stock while recommending that their followers buy it. Nor

did any of the Primary Defendants disclose that they were coordinating with each other to

manipulate the price and volume of trading in the stocks they were promoting. Moreover, the

Primary Defendants’ deception extended beyond their omissions and outright lies about their

intentions regarding, and views about, the securities they were promoting. For instance,

sometimes they peddled false or misleading news about particular stocks through social media or

podcast interviews. On some occasions, the Primary Defendants lied about losing money on a

particular stock when in reality they had profited handsomely, in order to generate trust among

their followers—trust that was necessary to perpetuate the scheme and ensure that their followers

would continue to purchase shares based on their future recommendations. Indeed, in private

chats and surreptitiously recorded conversations, they bragged and laughed about making profits

at the expense of their followers.

Defendants’ specific roles in the fraudulent scheme varied depending on the

timeframe and the specific security at issue. Typically, only a subset of the Primary Defendants

participated in the manipulation of a particular stock. Those Primary Defendants would agree on

a Selected Stock in which they would each establish a position (i.e., “load” or “load up” on the

stock). After loading up on the Selected Stock, most, if not all, of the Primary Defendants who

had established positions in that stock would recommend it to their followers. The Primary

Defendants often referred to “swinging” or taking a “swing” position in the stock, by which they

conveyed to their followers that they intended to hold onto the stock for at least a day and likely

longer. As the primary defendants involved in the deceptive heralding of a particular stock

often informed other defendants of their plans, those not directly promoting the stock could,

and many times did, take advantage of the advanced knowledge by purchasing the Selected Security, in

advance of the promotion, and selling the Selected Security at inflated prices that resulted from

the promotion. Over the course of the ongoing scheme, all of the primary defendants, aided and

abetted by Knight, engaged in this conduct, participating directly in scalping and other deceptive

conduct, and all of the Defendants profited from the knowledge that others were doing so.

The Primary Defendants deceptively promoted stocks through three channels:

stock-trading forums on Discord; podcasts; and Twitter.

Take Away

Fraud in the securities market is almost as old as the markets themselves. While the SEC exists to protect investors, the best person to protect oneself is yourself. When consuming investment advice, ask yourself how well you know where the advice is coming from. What is the persons background, for example, are they credentialed with a CFA or guided by the responsibilities that FINRA registrations enforce. Are they ranked by a third-party entity as to their stature?

The alleged pump and dump scheme being investigated and prosecuted by the SEC only exists because people tend to follow the crowd, after-all crowds seem safe. Successful long-term investing often involves more thought than following others into a trade. There are true stock analysts that can help investors sort through all the opportunities, but in the end, the individual investor still needs top ask if it makes sense, does it feel right, and it is likely to match investment goals.

On December 15, Channelchek along with veteran stock analysts, provided registered users of Channelchek their thoughts on a select few companies they cover. If you were not able to attend live, register for Channelchek emails (no cost) now to learn when these extremely insightful presentations will be available online. At a minimum, I promise one will immediately see the difference between a stock market social media influencer and how they make recommendations (tout stocks), and professional equity analysts that ignores hype and instead drills down to best assess the future prospects of a company. Sign up for Channelchek notifications here.

Paul Hofffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/O46ED3A/SECURITIES__EXCHANGE_COMMISION__txsdce-22-04306__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE3TEOA

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-221

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/role-sec#:~:text=The%20U.%20S.%20Securities%20and%20Exchange,Facilitate%20capital%20formation

Synthetic Biology Creating T Cells to Destroy Cancers

Image: Killer T Cells Surround Cancer Cell – NICHD (Flickr)

Anti-Cancer CAR-T Therapy Reengineers T-cells to Kill Tumors – and Researchers are Expanding the Limited Types of Cancer it Can Target

Teaching the body’s immune cells to recognize and fight cancer is one of the holy grails in medicine. Over the past two decades, researchers have developed new immunotherapy drugs that stimulate a patient’s immune cells to significantly shrink or even eliminate tumors. These treatments often focus on increasing the cancer-killing ability of cytotoxic T cells. However, these treatments appear to only work for the small group of patients who already have T cells within their tumors. One 2019 study estimated that under 13% of cancer patients responded to immunotherapy.

To bring the benefits of immunotherapy to more patients, scientists have turned to synthetic biology, a new field of study that seeks to redesign nature with new and more useful functions. Researchers have been developing a novel type of therapy that directly gives patients a new set of T cells engineered to attack tumors: chimeric antigen receptor T cells, or CAR-T cells for short.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, Gregory Allen, Assistant Professor of Medicine, the University of California, San Francisco.

As an oncology physician and researcher, I believe that CAR-T cell therapy has the potential to transform cancer treatment. It’s already being used to treat lymphoma and multiple myeloma, and has shown remarkable response rates where other treatments have failed.

However, similar success against certain types of tumors such as lung or pancreatic cancer has been slower to develop because of the unique obstacles they put up against T cells. In our newly published research, my colleagues and I have found that adding a synthetic circuit to CAR-T cells could potentially help them bypass the barriers that tumors put up and enhance their ability to eliminate more types of cancer.

How Does CAR-T Cell Therapy Work?

CAR-T cell therapy starts with doctors isolating a patient’s T cells from a sample of their blood. These T cells are then taken back to the lab, where they are genetically engineered to produce a chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR.

CARs are synthetic receptors specifically designed to redirect T cells from their usual targets have them recognize and hone in on tumor cells. On the outside of a CAR is a binder that allows the T cell to stick to tumor cells. Binding to a tumor cell activates the engineered T cell to kill and produce inflammatory cytokines proteins that support T cell growth and function and boost their cancer-killing

CAR-T therapy involves engineering a patient’s own T cells to attack their cancer. National Cancer Institute (NCI)

These CAR-T cells are then stimulated to divide into large numbers over seven to 10 days, then given back to the patient via infusion. The infusion process usually takes place at a hospital where clinicians can monitor for signs of an overactive immune response against tumors, which can be deadly for the patient.

Driving T Cells Into Solid Tumors

While CAR-T cell therapy has seen success in blood cancers, it has faced hurdles when fighting what are called solid tumor cancers like pancreatic cancer and melanoma. Unlike cancers that begin in the blood, these types of cancers grow into a solid mass that produces a microenvironment of molecules, cells and structures that prevent T cells from entering into the tumor and triggering an immune response. Here, even CAR-T cells engineered to specifically target a patient’s unique tumor are unable to access it, suppressing their ability to kill tumor cells.

For the synthetic biology community, the failures of the first generation of CAR-T cell therapy was a call to action to develop a new family of synthetic receptors to tackle the unique challenges solid tumors posed. In 2016, my colleagues in the Lim Lab at the University of California, San Francisco developed a new synthetic receptor that could complement the first CAR design. This receptor, called synthetic Notch receptor, or synNotch, is based on the natural form of Notch in the body, which plays an important role in organ development across many species.

Similar to CARs, the outside of synNotch has a binder that allows T cells to stick to tumor cells. Unlike CARs, the inside of synNotch has a protein that is released when a T cell binds to the tumor. This protein, or transcription factor, allows researchers to better control the T cell by inducing it to produce a specific protein.

For example, one of the most useful applications of synNotch thus far has been to use it to ensure that engineered T cells are only activated when bound to a tumor cell and not healthy cells. Because a CAR may bind to both tumor and healthy cells and induce T cells to kill both, my colleagues engineered T cells that are only activated when both synNotch and CAR are bound to the tumor cell. Because T cells now require both CAR and synNotch receptors to recognize tumors, this increases the precision of T cell killing.

We wondered if we could use synNotch to improve CAR-T cell activity against solid tumors by inducing them to produce more of the inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-2, that enable them to kill tumor cells. Researchers have made many attempts to provide extra IL-2 to help CAR-T cells clear tumors. But because these cytokines are highly toxic, there is a limit to how much IL-2 a patient can safely tolerate, limiting their use as a drug.

So we designed CAR-T cells to produce IL-2 using synNotch. Now, when a CAR-T cell encounters a tumor, it produces IL-2 within the tumor instead of outside it, avoiding causing harm to surrounding healthy cells. Because synNotch is able to bypass the barriers tumors put up, it is able to help T cells amp up and maintain the amount of IL-2 they can make, allowing the T cells to keep functioning even in a hostile microenvironment.

We tested our CAR-T cells modified with synNotch on mice with pancreatic cancer and melanoma. We found that CAR-T cells with synNotch-induced IL-2 were able to produce enough extra IL-2 to overcome the tumors’ defensive barriers and fully activate, completely eliminating the tumors. While all of the mice receiving synNotch modified CAR-T cells survived, none of the CAR-T-only mice did.

Furthermore, our synNotch modified CAR-T cells were able to trigger IL-2 production without causing toxicity to healthy cells in the rest of the body. This suggests that our method of engineering T cells to produce this toxic cytokine only where it is needed can help improve the effectiveness of CAR-T cells against cancer while reducing side effects.

Next Steps

Fundamental questions remain on how this work in mice will translate to people. Our group is currently conducting more studies on using CAR-T cells with synNotch to produce IL-2, with the goal of entering early stage clinical trials to examine its safety and efficacy in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Our findings are one example of how advances in synthetic biology make it possible to engineer solutions to the most fundamental challenges in medicine.

The Markets Seem to Just Keep Saying “NO!” to Fed Chair Powell

Image Credit: Seinfeld Season (Flickr)

Fed Chairman Powell is Being Ignored by the Markets – What Next?

Is Fed Chairman Powell getting the George Costanza treatment from the bond market? I asked myself this as I listened to the Chair double down on his hawkishness yesterday while at the same time watching the bond market yawn. Rates were effectively unchanged out in the periods. It reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where George tells his girlfriend, point blank, I’m breaking up with you.” She simply replies, “No.” Similar to George, Powell’s wishes are not being recognized by the market which would be hurt by them. Today mortgage rates dropped along with treasury yields, this all makes Powell’s job tricky.

The FOMCs final episode of the 2022 season ended as expected with a 50 bp increase, and the Fed Chairman addressing reporters and trying to be taken seriously by the markets. Afterall, he can say he’s raising rates all he wants to slow growth, if lending rates don’t rise, the Fed doesn’t achieve its goal. Since October 24, the Fed has raised overnight rates 1.25%. As seen below in the chart, despite the increase from a 3% target to a 4.25% target (which is a 42% increase in bank lending rates), the ten year which is a benchmark for consumer lending rates, declined by 0.75% (which is an 18% decline).  

U.S. 10- Yr. Treasury Note Market Rates

Source: Yahoo Finance

What’s Going On?

Markets are forward looking. Currently they seem to be, more farsighted than usual. As Chairman Powell repeats after each increase that officials anticipate that “ongoing increases” in the Fed Funds rate will be “appropriate,” this would be expected by someone of Powell’s experience to cause the market to look toward rate increases and shift the yield curve higher. The Fed has done more than this. The official one-year-out Fed forecast is for the Fed funds rate to end 2023 at 5.1% and 4.1% for 2024. These were 4.6% and 3.9% previously. Mortgage rates today hit recent lows.

Meanwhile overnight interest rates this year have increased by 50 times from where they started (.08% to 4.00%). By comparison the benchmark Treasury was trading at 1.73% at the start of the year, so its level has gone up by two times.

But the current market has been so forward-looking in 2022, that each time the Fed puts on its hawkish face, the bond markets take it as more assurance that the U.S. will fall into a recession. They trade on the reassurance that the Fed will need to ease, and it effectively eases borrowing rates as benchmark yields decline. The bond and even stock markets expect the tightening to be transitory. They also only half listen to the Fed Chair because they know how wrong he was when he suggested inflation was transitory just one year ago.

CPI is also causing markets to be optimistic. Two consecutive consensus misses of inflation have led the participants to believe we are getting very close to the peak for interest rates, and rate cuts will soon be on the agenda. The Fed has been doing everything it can to change people’s minds.

The Fed’s View

While the market may be saying “no” and not allowing Powell to impose higher rates along the curve, the Fed certainly is going to keep trying. A 2% inflation target with inflation running approximately three times this won’t allow for an easing of policy. Even if overnight Fed Funds are so high that they are near historical norms.

For the Fed to accept what the market is pricing for, it will want to see substantial evidence that inflation is slowing. This will take more than just one or two months, where core inflation has come in less than the market was expecting. It isn’t an exact science to bring down inflation, but mathematically to get inflation to 2% YoY, over time, we need to see month-on-month readings averaging 0.17% MoM. We are not close, considering it is the core PCE deflator that the Fed pays the most attention to. In fact, the Fed just revised its inflation forecast upward because the core PCE deflator is likely to be stickier than core CPI. The revision has its core PCE estimate at 3.5% for the end of 2023 versus 3.1% previously, with 2024 revised up to 2.5% from 2.3%.

Take Away

What happens when monetary policy throws us huge increases in Fed Funds in seven out of its eight meetings, and late in the year, the interest rate markets decides, “No?”

It seems the Fed is working on its ability to jawbone rates higher. We saw this after the FOMC meeting with Powell doubling down on his rhetoric. We can expect more Fed addresses trying to move rates in a way that direct action concerning overnights has failed to accomplish. In the end, it’s the markets that set levels; if the bond market and stock market participants keep taking this hawkish language as recessionary, the hawkish stance could continue to backfire on the Fed.

Comments from Fed Chair Powell emphasized that the FOMC  wants financial conditions to “reflect the policy restraint that we’re putting in place”. After all, inflation is indeed still running well above target, the jobs market and wage pressure remain hot, and activity data is pointing to a decent fourth-quarter GDP report after a healthy 2.9% growth rate in the third quarter. Will he succeed? If my memory serves me correctly, in the Seinfeld episode George wound up engaged to the woman he was breaking up with.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

December’s FOMC Meeting – Will January 2023 be Different?

Image Credit: Federal Reserve (Flickr)

The FOMC Votes at Eighth 2022 Meeting to Raise Rates for Seventh Time

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted to raise overnight interest rates from a target of 3.75%-4.00% to the new target of 4.25% – 4.50%. This was announced at the conclusion of the Committee’s final scheduled meeting of 2022. The monetary policy shift in bank lending rates was as expected by economists and the markets as Fed Chair Powell had recently spoke about less aggressive increases while maintaining a vigilance that would prefer to err on the side of being too hawkish.

The recent market focus has been on how inflation has been reported with lower price increases than before. While lower increases may suggest that inflation is successfully being wrung out of the system, Powell and other FOMC members have wondered aloud whether demand-driven inflation will take many more months to dampen.

There were few clues given in the statement about the size of any next move. While this can’t be known at this point, Powell generally shares during a press conference beginning at 2:30 his general perceptions and expectations. However, the median projection by members of where Fed Funds will stand this time next year is 5.10%, with seven out of the nineteen members expecting it to be higher. It is clear from the statement that the Fed expects ongoing increases.

Below are notable excerpts from the announcement of today’s change in monetary policy:

Fed Release December 14, 2022

Recent indicators point to modest growth in spending and production. Job gains have been robust in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low. Inflation remains elevated, reflecting supply and demand imbalances related to the pandemic, higher food and energy prices, and broader price pressures.

Russia’s war against Ukraine is causing tremendous human and economic hardship. The war and related events are contributing to upward pressure on inflation and are weighing on global economic activity. The Committee is highly attentive to inflation risks.

The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. In support of these goals, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 4-1/4 to 4-1/2 percent. The Committee anticipates that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate in order to attain a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2 percent over time. In determining the pace of future increases in the target range, the Committee will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, and economic and financial developments. In addition, the Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities, as described in the Plans for Reducing the Size of the Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet that was issued in May. The Committee is strongly committed to returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.

In assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. The Committee would be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals. The Committee’s assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on public health, labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.

Take-Away

Higher interest rates can weigh on stocks as companies that rely on borrowing may find their cost of capital has increased. The risk of inflation also weighs on the markets. Additionally, investors find that alternative investments that pay a known yield may, at some point, be preferred to equities. For these reasons, higher interest rates are of concern to the stock market investor. However, an unhealthy, highly inflationary economy also comes at a cost to the economy, businesses, and households.

The market has been bringing rates down across the curve as the Fed has been working to increase them. The ten-year treasury note had traded near 4.25% in late October; it now hovers around 3.50%, or 50 bp below the bottom of the Fed’s overnight range. Is this sustainable? It certainly isn’t desirable for what the Fed is trying to accomplish. In these cases, the Fed tends to eventually win.