Powell’s Testimony to Congress Revealed A Lot

Image Credit: C-Span (YouTube)

Is the Fed Doing Too Much, Not Enough, or Just Right?

The Fed Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has an ongoing credibility problem. The problem is that markets, economists, and now Congress find him extremely credible. So credible that they have already declared him a winner fighting inflation, or of more pertinence, the economy a loser because Powell and the Fed policymakers have been so resolute in their fight against the rising cost of goods and services that soon there will be an abundance of newly unemployed, businesses will falter, and the stock market will be left in tatters. This view that he has already done too much and that the economy has been overkilled, even while it shows remarkable strength, was echoed many times during his visit to Capital Hill for his twice a year testimony.

“As of the end of December, there were 1.9 job openings for each unemployed individual, close to the all-time peak recorded last March, while unemployment insurance claims have remained near historic lows.” – Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell (March 8, 2023).

Powell’s Address

Perhaps the most influential individual on financial markets in the U.S. and around the world, Fed Chair Powell continued his hawkish (inflation fighter, interest rate hiker) tone at his Senate and House testimonies. The overall message was; inflation is bad, inflation has been persistent, we will continue on the path to bring it down, also employment is incredibly strong, the employment situation is such that we can do more, we will do more to protect the U.S. economy from the ravages of inflation.

Powell began, “My colleagues and I are acutely aware that high inflation is causing significant hardship, and we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2 percent goal.” Powell discussed the forceful actions taken to date and added, “we have more work to do. Our policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of labor market conditions that benefit all.”

Powell discussed the slowed growth last year; there were two periods of negative GDP growth reported during the first two quarters. He mentioned how the once red-hot housing sector is weakening under higher interest rates and that “Higher interest rates and slower output growth also appear to be weighing on business fixed investment.” He then discussed the impact on labor markets, “Despite the slowdown in growth, the labor market remains extremely tight. The unemployment rate was 3.4 percent in January, its lowest level since 1969. Job gains remained very strong in January, while the supply of labor has continued to lag.1 As of the end of December, there were 1.9 job openings for each unemployed individual, close to the all-time peak recorded last March, while unemployment insurance claims have remained near historic lows.”

On the subject of monetary policy, the head of the Federal Reserve mentioned that the target of 2% inflation has not been met and that recent numbers have it moving in the wrong direction. Powell also discussed that the Fed had raised short-term interest rates by adding 4.50%. He suggested that recent economic numbers require that an increase to where the sufficient height of fed funds peaks is likely higher than previously thought. All the while, he added, “we are continuing the process of significantly reducing the size of our balance sheet.”

Powell acknowledged some headway, “We are seeing the effects of our policy actions on demand in the most interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. It will take time, however, for the full effects of monetary restraint to be realized, especially on inflation. In light of the cumulative tightening of monetary policy and the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, the Committee slowed the pace of interest rate increases over its past two meetings.” Powell added, “We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting, taking into account the totality of incoming data and their implications for the outlook for economic activity and inflation.”

Questions and Answers

Congressmen both in the Senate and the House use the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress (formerly known as Humphrey Hawkins Testimony) to ask questions of the person with the most economic insight in Washington. Often their questions have already been covered in the Chair’s opening address, but Congresspeople will ask anyway to show their constituents at home that they are looking after them.

Elizabeth Warren is on the Senate Banking Committee; her math concluded the result of even a 1% increase in unemployment is a two million-worker job loss. Warren asked Powell, “Do you call laying off two million people this year not a sharp increase in unemployment?” “Explain that to the two million families who are going to be out of work.” In his response, Powell went back to historical numbers and reminded the Senator that an increase in unemployment would still rank the current economy above what Americans have lived through in most of our lifetimes, “We’re not, again, we’re not targeting any of that. But I would say even 4.5 percent unemployment is well better than most of the time for the last, you know, 75 years,” Chair Powell answered.

U.S. House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday heard Congressman Frank Lucas concerned about the pressure for the Fed to include climate concerns as an additional Fed mandate. Lucas from Oklahoma asked,  “How careful are you in ensuring that the Fed does not place itself into the climate debate, and how can Congress ensure that the Fed’s regulatory tool kit is not warped into creating policy outcomes?” Powell answered that the Fed has a narrow but real role involving bank supervision. It’s important that individual banks understand and can manage over time their risks from any climate change and it’s impact on business and the economy. He wants to make sure the Fed never assumes a role where they are becoming a climate policymaker.

Other non-policy questions included Central Bank Digital Currencies. House Congressman Steven Lynch showed concerns that the Fed was experimenting with digital currencies. His question concerned receiving a public update on where they are with their partnership with MIT, their testing, and what they are trying to accomplish. Powell’s response seemed to satisfy the Congressman. “we engage with the public on an ongoing basis, we are also doing research on policy, and also technology,” said Powell. Follow-up questions on the architecture of a CBDC, were met with responses that indicated that the Fed, they are not at the stage of making decisions, instead, they are experimenting and learning. “How would this work, does it work, what is the best technology, what’s the most efficient.” Powell emphasized that the U.S. Federal Reserve is at an early stage, but making technological progress. They have not decided from a policy perspective if this is something that the country needs or desires.

Issues at Stake

As it relates to the stock and bond markets, the Fed has been holding overnight interest rates at a level that is more than one percentage point below the rate of inflation. The reality of this situation is that investors and savers that are earning near the Fed Funds rate on their deposits are losing buying power to the erosive effects of inflation. Those that are investing farther out on the yield curve are earning even less than overnight money. The impact here could be worse if inflation remains at current levels or higher, or better if the locked-in yields out longer on the curve are met with inflation coming down early on.

The Fed Chair indicated at the two testimony before both Houses of Congress that inflation has been surprisingly sticky. He also indicated that they might increase their expected stopping point on tightening credit. Interest rates out in the periods are actually lower than they had been in recent days and as much as 0.25% lower than they were last Fall. The lower market rates and inverted yield curve suggest the market thinks the Fed has already won and has likely gone too far. This thought process has made it difficult for the Fed Chair and others at the Fed that discuss a further need to throw cold water on an overheated economy. Fed Tightening has not led to an equal amount of upward movement out on the yield curve. This trust or expectation that the Fed has inflation under control would seem to be undermining the Fed’s efforts. With this, the Fed is likely to have to move even further to get the reaction it desires. The risk of an unwanted negative impact on the economy is heightened by the trust the bond market gives to Powell that he has this under control and may have already won.

Powell’s words are that the Fed has lost ground and has much more work to do.

Take Away

At his semiannual testimony to Congress, an important message was sent to the markets. The Fed has the right tools to do the job of bringing inflation down to the 2% range, but those tools operate on the demand side. In the U.S. we are fortunate to have two jobs open for every person seeking employment. While this is inflationary, it provides policy with more options.

As of the reporting of January economic numbers, a trend may be beginning indicating the Fed is losing its fight against inflation. It is likely that it will have to do more, but the Fed stands willing to do what it takes. Powell ended his prepared address by saying, “Everything we do is in service to our public mission. We at the Federal Reserve will do everything we can to achieve our maximum-employment and price-stability goals.”

Paul Hoffman

Managing Director, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony.htm

Three Regulators Provide Direction to Banks on Crypto

Image Credit: QuoteInspector.com (Flickr)

The Statement on Crypto Vulnerabilities by Regulators

A joint statement to banking organizations on “crypto-asset vulnerabilities” was just released by three bank regulatory agencies. Most banks in the U.S. fall under these three federal institutions overseeing them in a regulatory capacity. So when a statement regarding the health and stability of banks is made, it is often a joint statement from the three. At a minimum, statements include the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

About the Statement

Issued on February 23rd, the multiple agencies felt a need to highlight liquidity risks presented by some “sources of funding” from crypto-asset-related entities, and practices they should be using to manage the risks.

The regulators remind banks that they are neither prohibited nor discouraged from offering banking services to this class of customer, but if they do, much of the existing risk management principles should be applied.

Related Liquidity Risks

Highlighted in the statement by the three bank regulatory bodies are key liquidity risks associated with crypto asset participants and crypto-asset organizations involved in banking and what they should be aware of.

This includes some sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities that may pose heightened liquidity risks to those involved in banking due to the unpredictability of the scale and timing of deposit inflows and outflows, including, for example:

  • Deposits placed by a crypto-asset-related entity that is for the benefit of thecrypto-asset-related entity’s customers. The stability of the deposits, according to the statement, may be driven by the behavior of the end customer or asset sector dynamics, and not solely by the crypto-asset-related entity itself, which is the banking organization’s direct counterparty. The concern is the stability of the deposits may be influenced by, for example, periods of stress, market volatility, and related vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector, which may or may not be specific to the crypto-asset-related entity. Such deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid inflows as well as outflows when end customers react to crypto-asset-sector-related market events, media reports, and uncertainty. This uncertainty and resulting deposit volatility can be exacerbated by end customer confusion related to inaccurate or misleading representations of deposit insurance by a crypto-assetrelated entity.
  • Deposits that constitute stablecoin-related reserves. The stability of this type of  deposit may be linked to demand for stablecoins according to the agencies, along with the confidence of stablecoin holders in the coin arrangement, and the stablecoin issuer’s reserve management practices. These deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid outflows stemming from, for unanticipated stablecoin redemptions or dislocations in crypto-asset markets.

More broadly, when a banking organization’s deposit funding base is concentrated in crypto-asset-related entities that are highly interconnected or share similar risk profiles, deposit fluctuations may also be correlated, and liquidity risk therefore may be further heightened, according to the statement.

Effective Risk Management Practices

In light of these hightened risks, agencies think it is critical for banks that use certain sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities, as described earlier, to actively monitor the liquidity risks inherent in these sources of funding and to establish and maintain effective risk management and controls commensurate with the level of liquidity risks from these funding sources. Effective practices for these banking organizations could include:

  • Understanding the direct and indirect drivers of the potential behavior of deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the extent to which those deposits are susceptible to unpredictible vulnerability.
  • Assessing potential concentration or interconnectedness across deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the associated liquidity risks.
  • Incorporating the liquidity risks or funding volatility associated with crypto-asset-related deposits into contingency funding planning, including liquidity stress testing and, as appropriate, other asset-liability governance and risk management processes.
  • Performing significant due diligence and monitoring of crypto-related-entities that establish deposit accounts, including assessing the representations made by those crypto-asset-related entities to their end customers about the accounts – if innaccurate they could lead to to unexpected or rapid outflows.

Additionally, banks and banking organizations are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations.  For FDIC insured institutions, this includes compliance with rules related to brokered deposits and Call Report filing requirements.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20230223a1.pdf

Do Some Money Measurements Double Count?

Image Credit: John (Flickr)

Can Correlations Help Define Money?

According to popular thinking, the government’s definition of money is of a flexible nature. Sometimes it could be M1, and at other times it could be M2 or some other M money supply. M1 includes currency and demand deposits. M2 includes all of M1, plus savings deposits, time deposits, and money market funds. By popular thinking what determines whether M1, M2, or some other M is considered money is whether it has high correlation with key economic data such as the gross domestic product (GDP).

However, since the early 1980s, correlations between various definitions of money and the GDP have broken down. The reason for this breakdown, many economists believe, is that financial deregulation has made the demand for money unstable. Consequently, the usefulness of money as a predictor of economic activity has significantly diminished.

Some economists believe that the relationship between money supply and the GDP could be strengthened by assigning weights to money supply components. The Divisia indicator, named after the French economist François Divisia, adjusts for differences in the degree to which various components of the monetary aggregate serve as money. This, in turn, supposedly offers a more accurate picture of what is happening to money supply.

The primary Divisia monetary indicator for the US is M4. It is a broad aggregate that includes negotiable money market securities, such as commercial paper, negotiable CDs, and T-bills. By assigning suitable weights, which are estimated by means of quantitative methods, it is held that one is likely to improve the correlation between the weighted monetary gauge and economic indicators.

Consequently, one could employ this monetary measure to ascertain the future course of key economic indicators. However, does it make sense?

Defining Money

No definition of money can be established by means of a correlation. A definition is supposed to present the essence of the subject being identified.

To establish the definition of money, we must determine how a money-using economy came about. Money emerged because barter could not support the market economy. A butcher who wanted to exchange his meat for fruit would have difficulty finding a fruit farmer who wanted his meat, while the fruit farmer who wanted to exchange his fruit for shoes might not have been able to find a shoemaker who wanted his fruit.

The distinguishing characteristic of money is that it is the general medium of exchange. It has evolved from the most marketable commodity. According to Murray Rothbard:

Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media—in almost all exchanges—and these are called money.

With money, the butcher can exchange his meat for money and then exchange money for fruits. Likewise, the fruit farmer could exchange his fruit for money. With the obtained money, the fruit farmer can now exchange it for shoes. The reason why all these transactions become possible is because money is the most marketable commodity (i.e., the most accepted commodity).

According to Rothbard:

Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a “claim on society”; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.

It follows then that all other goods and services are traded for money. This fundamental characteristic of money is contrasted with other goods. For instance, food supplies the necessary energy to human beings. Capital goods permit the expansion of the infrastructure that, in turn, permits the production of a larger quantity of goods and services. Contrary to the mainstream thinking, the essence of money has nothing to do with financial deregulation as this essence will remain intact in the most deregulated of markets.

Some commentators maintain that money’s main function is to fulfill the role of a means of savings. Others argue that its main role is to be a unit of account and a store of value. While all these roles are important, they are not fundamental. The basic role of money is to be a medium of exchange, with other functions such as unit of account, a store of value, and a means of savings arising from that role.

Through an ongoing selection process over thousands of years, individuals have settled on gold as money. In today’s monetary system, the money supply is no longer gold, but metal coins and paper notes issued by the government and the central bank. Consequently, coins and notes constitute money, known as cash, that is employed in transactions.

Distinction between Claim and Credit Transactions

At any point in time, an individual can keep money in a wallet or somewhere at home or deposit the money with a bank. In depositing money, an individual never relinquishes ownership over the money having an absolute claim over it.

This contrasts with a credit transaction, in which the lender of money relinquishes a claim over one’s money for the duration of the loan. As a result, in a credit transaction, money is transferred from a lender to a borrower. Credit transactions do not alter the amount of money. If Bob lends $1,000 to Joe, the money is transferred from Bob’s demand deposit or from Bob’s wallet to Joe’s possession.

Why Are Various Popular Definitions of Money Misleading?

Consider the money M2 definition, which includes money market securities, mutual funds, and other time deposits. However, investing in a mutual fund is, in fact, an investment in various money market instruments. The quantity of money is not altered because of this investment; only the ownership of money has temporarily changed. Hence, including mutual funds as part of money results in double counting.

The Divisia monetary gauge is of little help in establishing what money is. Because this indicator was designed to strengthen the correlation between monetary aggregates such as M4 and other Ms with an economic activity indicator, the Divisia gauge can better be seen as an exercise in curve fitting.

The Divisia of various Ms, such as the Divisia M4, does not address the double counting of money. The M4 is a broad aggregate and includes a mixture of claim and credit transactions (i.e., a double counting of money). This generates a misleading picture of what money is.

Applying various weights to the components of money cannot make the definition of money valid if it is created from erroneous components. Furthermore, even if the components were valid, one does not improve the money definition by assigning weights to components.

The introduction of electronic money has supposedly introduced another confusion regarding the definition of money. It is believed that electronic money is likely to make the cash redundant. We hold that electronic money is not new money, but rather a new way of employing existing monetary transactions. Regardless of these new ways of employing money, definitions and the role of money do not change.

Conclusion

The attempt to strengthen the correlation between various monetary aggregates and economic activity by using variable weighting of money supply components defeats the definition of money. The essence of money cannot be established by means of a statistical correlation, but rather by understanding what money is about.

About the Author

Frank Shostak is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, his master’s degree from Witwatersrand University, and his PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University.  

FDA Says Congress Needs to Act on Cannabidiol (CBD) Before it Can

Image Credit: Elsa Olofsson (Flickr)

Cannabidiol (CBD) not Covered Under any Existing FDA Regulatory Framework – Ball Now In the Hands of Congress

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) called on Congress to set a new regulatory pathway for cannabidiol, or CBD, the non-psychoactive ingredient in cannabis plants. The FDA said it is willing to work with Congress to create one. The regulatory body said the same is true for CBD in animal products. CBD has been in a form of regulatory limbo since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp, the base ingredient to make CBD. The extract is now found in many wellness products and is widely used in all 50 states. The FDA says it is not a food or a supplement, it may now be up to Congress to define its niche.  

According to an FDA press release, the use of CBD raises safety concerns, in particular regarding its long-term use. It cited the potential harm to the liver, interactions with some medications and possible harm to the male reproductive system.

The FDA’s Reasoning

A high-level FDA working group that was to decide which FDA framework CBD products fall under, and related regulatory pathways, announced that it doesn’t easily fit within a regulatory framework that exists at the agency. On January 26 the FDA announced, “that after careful review, the FDA has concluded that a new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks.” They said the FDA is prepared to work with Congress to create a legal, workable framework.

At the same time the FDA also denied three citizen petitions that had asked the agency to conduct rulemaking to allow the marketing of CBD products as dietary supplements. 

The FDA listed safety concerns surrounding CBD use. “The use of CBD raises various safety concerns, especially with long-term use. Studies have shown the potential for harm to the liver, interactions with certain medications and possible harm to the male reproductive system.” They were also concerned about children and CBD exposure, and women who are pregnant.

The reason for a new regulatory pathway, according to the FDA, is that it would “benefit consumers by providing safeguards and oversight to manage and minimize risks related to CBD products.” The FDA said these may include clear labels, prevention of contaminants, CBD content limits, and measures, such as minimum purchase age. “In addition, a new pathway could provide access and oversight for certain CBD-containing products for animals,” the FDA said.

According to the FDA, existing foods and dietary supplement authorities provide only limited tools for managing risks associated with CBD products. Under the law, any substance, including CBD, must meet specific safety standards to be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement or food additive.  The FDA said “we have not found adequate evidence to determine how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm. Therefore, we do not intend to pursue rulemaking allowing the use of CBD in dietary supplements or conventional foods.”

The FDA said CBD also poses risks to animals, and people could be unknowingly exposed to CBD through meat, milk and eggs from animals fed CBD. Therefore, it is not apparent how CBD products could meet the safety standard for substances in animal food.  “A new regulatory pathway could provide access and oversight for certain CBD-containing products for animals,” according to the release.

The FDA said it “will remain diligent in monitoring the marketplace, identifying products that pose risks and acting within our authorities. The FDA looks forward to working with Congress to develop a cross-agency strategy for the regulation of these products to protect the public’s health and safety.”

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fda-says-it-will-not-regulate-cbd-and-calls-on-congress-to-act-11674759895

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-concludes-existing-regulatory-frameworks-foods-and-supplements-are-not-appropriate-cannabidiol

Are Naked Shorts Depressing Your Investment Portfolio?

Image Replicated from Twitter (1/23/2023)

Small-Cap Companies are Punching Back on Naked Shorts in Growing Numbers

The hashtag #NakedShorts has been trending on Twitter for over a week. To save Channelchek readers any embarrassment that may occur from Googling this term, especially at work, below are specifics on this market jargon. Also included below are specifics on why this has been trending and how it may impact self-directed retail traders and even small publicly traded companies that have the potential to be impacted by an illegal practice that apparently is not uncommon.

What are Naked Shorts?

Naked short selling of stocks is the illegal practice of short-selling shares that have not been allocated and verified to exist. Most shorting of stock occurs only after the trader borrows the security or determines that it can be borrowed before they sell it short (without owning). So naked shorting refers to short pressure on a stock that may actually be larger than the tradable shares in the market. This can place downward pressure on shares as they are sold, at times in excess of their existence.

Despite being made illegal after the 2008–09 financial crisis, naked shorting continues in practice because of loopholes in rules and discrepancies between physical and electronic trading systems.

Small Caps Revenge

Empowered by the activities of Gamestop (GME) and others, a growing number of small-cap companies are devising plans to go after naked short sellers.  This could help their companies trade at a fairer value rather than be artificially depressed by illegal trading practices.

Companies involved in heightening integrity in the markets for their stock are companies like Verb Technology Co. Inc. (VERB), a provider of interactive video-based sales apps with operations in Newport, California, and Lehi, Utah. Verb said this week it was joining education company Genius Group Ltd. (GNS), e-scooter and e-bike maker Helbiz (HLBZ), and Creatd Inc. (CRTD) designed for creators in coming up with measures to ensure “greater integrity in the capital markets” as Verb Chief Executive Rory J. Cutai said in a statement.

The move gained impetus last week as Genius Group said it had appointed a former F.B.I. director to lead a task force investigating alleged illegal trading in its stock, first disclosed a few weeks ago. Genius CEO believes there has been a measurable cost to the company. “We want this to stop,” he said. “They’re taking value away from our shareholders. They’re predators. They’re doing something illegal, and we want it to stop, whether that means getting regulators to enforce existing regulations or put new ones in place,” he said.

Legality of Naked Short Selling

In regular (legal) short trading, an investor borrows shares from someone else and pays an interest rate or “rebate rate.” They then sell them in anticipation of the stock price falling. The trade is a winner if the price falls and the seller buys them back at a lower price (netting out rebate rate) to close out the open short sale.

In naked short selling, investors don’t borrow the stock. They skip right to selling unowned with a promise to deliver them at a later date. If that promise is not fulfilled, it’s a failure to deliver.

Recently, companies such as AMC have paid a special dividend to determine, and frankly hurt, those short sellers that have not abided by the rules by first borrowing the security it sold.

Image: Elon Musk has been very vocal, Tesla is a company that hedge fund managers have routinely shorted (Twitter)

What Some Companies are Doing

Last week Helbiz said it was going to punch back at naked short positions. Creatd CEO Jeremy Frommer, meanwhile, is behind Ceobloc, a website that aims to end the practice of naked short selling. “Illegal naked short selling is the biggest risk to the health of today’s public markets” is how the site introduces its mission.

Genius just set guidance for 2023, saying it expects revenue of $48 million to $52 million, up 37% from its 2022 pro forma guidance. Last Thursday, the stock rose a record 290% in volume of about 270 million shares traded. That crushed the daily average of about 634,000. The CEO says this is another indicator of wrongdoing, given that the company’s float is just 10.9 million shares. “Clearly, that’s far more shares than we created,” the founder, Roger Hamilton points out.

Take Away

It is unclear what the task force of the small-cap companies intends to do. Companies like AMC Theaters (AMC) waged war by declaring a dividend that was a different class of stock. Shareholders would have to verify their ownership of a registered share in order to receive the dividend. This went a long way to verify what is in the float that is legitimate and that which is not.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/small-cap-companies-are-going-after-naked-short-sellers-in-growing-numbers-its-the-biggest-risk-to-the-health-of-todays-public-markets-11674480805?mod=newsviewer_click

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp

When Could the Fast-Tracked Alzheimer’s Drug Reach Patients Who Could Benefit?

Image credit: National Human Genome research (Flickr)

What the FDA’s Accelerated Approval of a New Alzheimer’s Drug Could Mean for Those with the Disease – 5 Questions Answered about Lecanemab

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the medication Lecanemab, sold under the brand name Leqembi, on Jan. 6, 2023, through an “accelerated approval pathway” that fast-tracks promising clinical treatments for diseases in which there are no other currently effective options.

James E. Galvin, a neurologist from the University of Miami School of Medicine, specializes in the study of Alzheimer’s disease and Lewy body dementia. Below he explains the drug’s clinical potential to help ease the suffering of the roughly 6.5 million Americans who live with Alzheimer’s.

How Does Lecanemab Work, Biologically Speaking?

Lecanemab is a monoclonal antibody that targets beta-amyloid, a naturally occurring protein that becomes toxic when it clumps together to form the characteristic plaques that accumulate in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease. The drug is given through intravenous infusions every two weeks.

Antibodies are Y-shaped proteins circulating in the blood that recognize and neutralize substances in the body that they see as foreign, such as bacteria and viruses. A monoclonal antibody is produced by cloning, or making a copy of, a single white blood cell so that all the offshoot antibodies are derived from the same cell and bind to one specific target. In this case, lecanemab binds only to beta-amyloid proteins.

Lecanemab binds to a particular form of beta-amyloid as it clumps, called a protofibril. Studies suggest this is the species of beta-amyloid that is both most likely to aggregate into plaques that disrupt cell functioning and to play a role in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

Earlier trials of other monoclonal antibodies failed to demonstrate a benefit and had more side effects, possibly because they targeted forms of beta-amyloid either too early or too late in the aggregation process.

Image:  Misfolded beta-amyloid proteins aggegrate into clumps, called plaques, that form in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s

Could Lecanemab be a Game Changer for Alzheimer’s Treatment?

Potentially, yes, for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Medications such as lecanemab have the potential to interfere with the progression of Alzheimer’s disease by removing beta-amyloid from the brains of people who are suffering with it.

Two recent publications describe results from two different phases of clinical trials.

One study, published in early January 2023, reported the results of a phase 3 clinical trial that included 1,795 participants, half of whom received lecanemab and another half who didn’t. In that trial, treatment with lecanemab not only met all its clinical outcomes and safety requirements, but it also reduced the amounts of beta-amyloid measured in imaging tests and in the blood.

Researchers also saw reductions in the levels of tau – the protein responsible for the neurofibrillary tangles that accumulate inside the neurons in patient’s with Alzheimer’s. And they found reduced levels of other proteins that measure brain injury and degeneration. This suggests that lecanemab could potentially address the disease by targeting it through both direct and indirect pathways.

A separate study published in December 2022 reported the results of a phase 2 study with 856 participants. Lecanemab treatment also led to significant reductions in amyloid plaques on brain imaging tests, reductions in blood measurements of amyloid and tau protein and slowing of disease progression. These findings provide independent confirmation of the phase 3 findings and support the potential of lecanemab in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.

What Were the Results?

After 18 months of treatment in the phase 3 study, lecanemab slowed disease progression by 27% compared with the control group. Compared with those who didn’t receive the treatment, participants treated with lecanemab also showed 26% less decline on cognitive testing and a 36% slower loss of function in everyday activities. The study also found a marked reduction in the amount of beta-amyloid deposits in the brains of those who received the treatment.

These outcomes are the some of the largest effects yet seen in any Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial. While not cures, they provide hope that by significantly slowing physical, cognitive and functional decline while also removing amyloid, the course of disease might be altered in a way to give patients improved quality of life.

It is important to remember that the trial was only carried out over 18 months, so we do not fully know the long-term benefits of lecanemab. Ongoing long-term studies will hopefully bring additional insights. However, some recent simulation models have suggested that lecanemab treatment may provide long-term benefits and improve overall quality of life.

While lecanemab has shown clear benefits, it also comes with some notable potential adverse effects that need to be considered. In this case, the concerns are very specific to treatment with amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

In the phase 3 clinical trial, of the 1,795 participants, 12.6% taking lecanemab experienced swelling of the brain on MRI scans compared to 1.7% of those who received the placebo. Overall, only 2.8% of participants experienced any symptoms – mostly headaches.

In addition, 17.3% of those who received lecanemab had small hemorrhages, or bleeds, of the brain on MRI scans compared to 9% in the placebo group. While few participants experienced complications, at least three deaths due to brain hemorrhage have been reported in individuals enrolled in an ongoing long-term study. But notably, each of these people appear to have had additional risk factors.

How is Lecanemab Different from Other Treatments?

The currently available Alzheimer’s treatments – which include donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine – primarily treat symptoms. They do not address the underlying disease processes, and they have modest clinical benefits.

One medication that does treat the disease, aducanumab, sold under the brand name Aduhelm, was approved by the FDA in 2021 under the same accelerated process as lecanemab. But it has not become widely used due to controversy about its efficacy and pricing.

So lecanemab could offer the first disease-modifying medication with undisputed results for people living with the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. It is important to note that lecanemab was not studied in and was not approved for individuals with moderate or severe stages of Alzheimer’s disease.

When Could Lecanemab Reach Patients Who Could Benefit?

Although lecanemab has received approval from the FDA, it will likely be several months before it is available for clinical use.

Eisai and Biogen, the pharmaceutical companies that developed lecanemab, recently published guidelines on their pricing policy and roll-out plans for the drug. However, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has said that for now, therapies targeting beta-amyloid will not be covered by insurance except for those individuals who are enrolled in clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. And commercial insurance companies generally follow Medicare guidance.

Lecanemab will have an estimated out-of-pocket cost of $26,500 per year. The drugmaker has already filed a supplemental application for traditional FDA approval. If that approval is granted, it is more likely that Medicare and commercial insurance payers will cover most of the cost of lecanemab, which would make the drug much more widely accessible to those living with Alzheimer’s disease.

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, James E. Galvin, Professor of Neurology, University of Miami.

The Current Debt Ceiling Austerity Plan

World Bank Photo Collection (Flickr)

Extraordinary Measures as Outlined by US Treasurer Janet Yellen

There’s no doubt, the US Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, has been working overtime to provide an austerity plan as the US debt ceiling has just been reached. In the absence of the legal ability to sell debt in excess of the current outstanding, going to the bond markets and issuing Treasury Bills/Notes/Bonds is off-limits to the US government. So what’s a Treasury Secretary to do? The government has bills and other liabilities that are coming due, and today’s higher interest rates create a larger discount and nets less for the Treasury when rolling over some securities. This can be very problematic if the US stops paying bills on time or if there is a risk of default on debt; the US dollar can tumble, interest rates can skyrocket, and faith in our economic engine can unravel. You can imagine what this has the potential to do to equity markets.

In a letter, Yellen wrote to Congress dated January 19, she outlines the Treasury Department’s contingency plan, while Congress is expected to develop its own more permanent financial solution.

In the letter, she says the Treasury will cease adding to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) for those values not currently required to pay beneficiaries. Under ongoing business practices the CSRDF invests in special-issue Treasury securities specifically for its use. These securities count against the debt limit.

Similarly, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 provides that investments in the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) are made in the same manner as investments for the CSRDF. The treasury will suspend additional investments of amounts credited to the PSRHBF.

It is expected that the CSRDF and the  PSRHBF will be made whole as part of the eventual solution.

She ends the letter by urging Congress to act swiftly as her measures will not provide a solution beyond late Spring.

Letter Dated January 19, 2023

Take Away

When the US bumps up against its debt limit it creates many problems. From a macro approach, if they raise the debt limit automatically may only serve to kick the spending can down the road. To have no upper limit long term can come back to hurt the US dollar and those that use it for purchases. Creating a strict upper limit serves to provide fiscal restraint but may stand in the way of economic stimulation. A government with its spending hands tied may find it problematic in times of war or other crises.

As the Secretary of the Treasury postpones payments or debt issuance, this has in the past not saved money, it has only delayed acquiring it through borrowing.

Depending on how intense the game of chicken becomes in the halls of Congress, the debt, equity, and Forex markets could become tumultuous.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Powell Just Insisted, “We are not, and will not be, a climate policymaker”

Source: Riksbank Sweden (Bloomberg)

Fed Chair Jerome Powell made three strong points during the panel on “Central Bank Independence and the Mandate—Evolving Views,” which just took place in Stockholm. These points include the role of elected representatives and unelected agency officials, the transparency of a central bank’s intents and actions while remaining independent of political agendas, and not becoming sidetracked from the established mandates.

Continued Independence and Transparency

Powell reminded the international audience, which included central bankers, that the purpose of monetary policy independence is the benefits allowed the policymakers. This independence can insulate policy decisions from short-term political considerations. “Price stability is the bedrock of a healthy economy and provides the public with immeasurable benefits over time. But restoring price stability when inflation is high can require measures that are not popular in the short term as we raise interest rates to slow the economy,” said Powell. The head of the US central bank then explained the absence of politics over central bank decisions provides for less conflicted decision-making in light of short-lived political considerations.

While speaking from a US point of view, Powell said that in a “well-functioning democracy, important public policy decisions should be made, in almost all cases, by the elected branches of government.”  He explained that agencies trusted to act independently, such as the Federal Reserve, should have a narrow and explicitly defined mission that protects the agency from fleeting political considerations.

Within this kind of independence in a representative democracy, including transparency that allows for oversight, the Fed and other agencies find legitimacy. Powell said about of the current makeup of the Fed, “We are tightly focused on achieving our statutory mandate and on providing useful and appropriate transparency.”

Focus on Mandates

Climate change is not part of the US central bank’s statutory goals and authority. On the subject of climate, Powell added, “we resist the temptation to broaden our scope to address other important social issues of the day. Taking on new goals, however worthy, without a clear statutory mandate would undermine the case for our independence.”

In the area of bank regulation, Powell told the audience that independence helps ensure that the public can be confident that the overseer’s supervisory decisions are not influenced by political considerations. In response to his own hypothetical question about whether it is wise to incorporate into bank supervision the perceived risks associated with climate change, consistent with existing mandates, Powell sounded strongly opposed. “Addressing climate change seems likely to require policies that would have significant distributional and other effects on companies, industries, regions, and nations. Decisions about policies to directly address climate change should be made by the elected branches of government and thus reflect the public’s will as expressed through elections.”

He did, however, share his view that any climate-related financial risks that pose material risks to the banking system are the Fed’s responsibility and under their supervision. “But without explicit congressional legislation, it would be inappropriate for us to use our monetary policy or supervisory tools to promote a greener economy or to achieve other climate-based goals. We are not, and will not be, a “climate policymaker.”

Take Away

On January 10th, the head of the US central bank participated in an international symposium to mark the end of Stefan Ingves’ time as governor of Sweden’s central bank. Senior central bank officials and prominent academics participate in four panels that address central bank independence from various angles – climate, payments, mandates, and global policy coordination. Fed Chair Powell stood determined and resolute that the Fed’s mandate is narrow, well-defined, and should not be clouded with short-term political goals.

There has been pressure on the Fed to adopt additional mandates that include social reforms and climate concerns. His talk before a world audience may be the first time Jerome Powell has publicly addressed this pressure. The US House of Representatives has just shifted its balance to a more conservative power base; this may have had an empowering impact on Powell’s open remarks.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20230110a.htm

https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/konferenser/2022/riksbank-organises-international-symposium-on-central-bank-independence.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/powell-fed-needs-independence-fight-inflation-should-avoid-climate-policy-2023-01-10/

The Pros, Cons, and Many Definitions of ‘Gig’ Work

Image Credit: Stock Catalog

What’s a ‘Gig’ Job? How it’s Legally Defined Affects Workers’ Rights and Protections

The “gig” economy has captured the attention of technology futurists, journalists, academics and policymakers.

“Future of work” discussions tend toward two extremes: breathless excitement at the brave new world that provides greater flexibility, mobility and entrepreneurial energy, or dire accounts of its immiserating impacts on the workers who labor beneath the gig economy’s yoke.

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 David Weil, Visiting Senior Faculty Fellow, Ash Center for Democracy Harvard Kennedy School / Professor, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.

These widely diverging views may be partly due to the many definitions of what constitutes “gig work” and the resulting difficulties in measuring its prevalence. As an academic who has studied workplace laws for decades and ran the federal agency that enforces workplace protections during the Obama administration, I know the way we define, measure and treat gig workers under the law has significant consequences for workers. That’s particularly true for those lacking leverage in the labor market.

While there are benefits for workers for this emerging model of employment, there are pitfalls as well. Confusion over the meaning and size of the gig workforce – at times the intentional work of companies with a vested economic interest – can obscure the problems gig status can have on workers’ earnings, workplace conditions and opportunities.

Defining Gig Work

Many trace the phrase “gig economy” to a 2009 essay in which editor and author Tina Brown proclaimed: “No one I know has a job anymore. They’ve got Gigs.”

Although Brown focused on professional and semiprofessional workers chasing short-term work, the term soon applied to a variety of jobs in low-paid occupations and industries. Several years later, the rapid ascent of Uber, Lyft and DoorDash led the term gig to be associated with platform and digital business models. More recently, the pandemic linked gig work to a broader set of jobs associated with high turnover, limited career prospects, volatile wages and exposure to COVID-19 uncertainties.

The imprecision of gig, therefore, connotes different things: Some uses focus on the temporary or “contingent” nature of the work, such as jobs that may be terminated at any time, usually at the discretion of the employer. Other definitions focus on the unpredictability of work in terms of earnings, scheduling, hours provided in a workweek or location. Still other depictions focus on the business structure through which work is engaged – a staffing agency, digital platform, contractor or other intermediary. Further complicating the definition of gig is whether the focus is on a worker’s primary source of income or on side work meant to supplement income.

Measuring Gig Work

These differing definitions of gig work have led to widely varying estimates of its prevalence.

A conservative estimate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics household-based survey of “alternative work arrangements” suggests that gig workers “in non-standard categories” account for about 10% of employment. Alternatively, other researchers estimate the prevalence as three times as common, or 32.5%, using a Federal Reserve survey that broadly defines gig work to include any work that is temporary and variable in nature as either a primary or secondary source of earnings. And when freelancing platform Upworks and consulting firm McKinsey & Co. use a broader concept of “independent work,” they report rates as high as 36% of employed respondents.

No consensus definition or measurement approach has emerged, despite many attempts, including a 2020 panel report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Various estimates do suggest several common themes, however: Gig work is sizable, present in both traditional and digital workplaces, and draws upon workers across the age, education, demographic and skill spectrum.

Why it Matters

As the above indicates, gig workers can range from high-paid professionals working on a project-to-project basis to low-wage workers whose earnings are highly variable, who work in nonprofessional or semiprofessional occupations and who accept – by choice or necessity – volatile hours and a short-term time commitment from the organization paying for that work.

Regardless of their professional status, many workers operating in gig arrangements are classified as independent contractors rather than employees. As independent contractors, workers lose rights to a minimum wage, overtime and a safe and healthy work environment as well as protections against discrimination and harassment. Independent contractors also lose access to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation and paid sick leave now required in many states.

Federal and state laws differ in the factors they draw on to make that call. A key concept underlying that determination is how “economically dependent” the worker is on the employer or contracting party. Greater economic independence – for example, the ability to determine price of service, how and where tasks are done and opportunities for expanding or contracting that work based on the individual’s own skills, abilities and enterprise – suggest a role as an independent contractor.

In contrast, if the hiring party basically calls the shots – for example, controlling what the individual does, how they do their work and when they do it, what they are permitted to do and not do, and what performance is deemed acceptable – this suggests employee status. That’s because workplace laws are generally geared toward employees and seek to protect workers who have unequal bargaining leverage in the labor market, a concept based on long-standing Supreme Court precedent.

Making Work More Precarious

Over the past few decades, a growing number of low-wage workers find themselves in gig work situations – everything from platform drivers and delivery personnel to construction laborers, distribution workers, short-haul truck drivers and home health aides. Taken together, the grouping could easily exceed 20 million workers.

Many companies have incentives to classify these workers as independent contractors in order to reduce costs and risks, not because of a truly transformed nature of work where those so classified are real entrepreneurs or self-standing businesses.

Since gig work tends to be volatile and contingent, losing employment protections amplifies the precariousness of work. A business using misclassified workers can gain cost advantages over competitors who treat their workers as employees as required by the law. This competitive dynamic can spread misclassification to new companies, industries and occupations – a problem we addressed directly, for example, in construction cases when I led the Wage and Hour Division and more recently in several health care cases.

The future of work is not governed by immutable technological forces but involves volitional private and public choices. Navigating to that future requires weighing the benefits gig work can provide some workers with greater economic independence against the continuing need to protect and bestow rights for the many workers who will continue to play on a very uneven playing field in the labor market.

Robinhood Stockholder’s Concern if SBF’s Holdings are Being Seized

Image Credit: Matt (Flickr)

Could There be an Impact on Robinhood Shareholders with the SBF Share Seizure

Creditors and customers of FTX may be able to reclaim some assets that were wiped out as the feds have been seizing the 7.50% stake in Robinhood (HOOD) stock held by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF). SBF faces charges of fraud and a myriad of financial crimes after the collapse of FTX in November. The impact of the collapse is having an effect on other areas of finance, including assets that had been controlled by SBF. The Robinhood shares are valued near $450 million, and while this may bring some hope or relief to those that will receive a distribution, there is a risk to HOOD investors.

Background

The FTX bankruptcy has left a line of claimants to recapture what they can from the cryptocurrency giant. Bankruptcies are seldom easy; those that could involve layers of fraud become tied up in even larger disputes and legal battles. For example, the large Robinhood holding is tied up in a dispute between FTX and bankrupt crypto lender BlockFi. The company alleges that SBF put up the shares as collateral for a loan to Alameda Research, a company he also owned.

The HOOD stake was purchased in 2022 through a holding company SBF controlled, Robinhood of course is the innovative broker specializing in self-directed individual investors. Through the DOJ, authorities are going after the shares of HOOD and accounts that are held at the bank Silvergate Capital (SI) which is a banker for the crypto industry.

Separately, court filings on January 4th brought awareness to a NY federal judge ordered last month requiring the seizure of some $93 million that an FTX arm held in accounts at Silvergate. As it relates to this seizure. The Justice Department says it believes the assets seized are not the property of the bankruptcy estate, while a lawyer for FTX maintains that the seizures were from accounts not directly controlled by the company. They were ordered in connection with the criminal case involving SBF.  

 FTX investors’ asset claims in the exchange, which was once valued at $32 billion, come after creditors and other rightful claimants.

How This Could Impact Robinhood Shareholders

Asset seizures and later distribution to those hurt by fraud involve liquidation of the assets seized. In the case of stocks, they will be sold and turned into cash. Imagine a sudden effort to sell 7.50% of any company. That is a large percentage to move. The stake, worth between $400 and $500 million, may serve as a dark cloud depressing share prices and slowing any planned growth of the company. It may eventually culminate in liquidation at a pace not conducive to retaining a level stock price.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.theblock.co/post/199271/doj-seizing-millions-in-robinhood-shares-linked-to-ftx-lawyer-says

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-ordered-seizure-of-money-from-ftx-digital-markets-accounts-at-silvergate-11672866368

https://www.barrons.com/articles/ftx-robinhood-doj-assets-51672932192?mod=hp_LATEST

Will Three Bank Regulators Kill Cryptocurrency in 2023?

Image Credit: Fredrik Klintberg (Flickr)

Lack of Crypto Governance, Oversight, Standards, and Risk Management Frightens Feds

Three Federal Agencies have warned banks about the dangers of dealing with digital assets. On the first banking day of the new year, the Federal Reserve (Fed), the FDIC, and the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), the three banking regulators in the US, issued a three-page joint warning to banks. It points to eight risks that banking organizations should not let migrate to the US banking system. And highlights processes to mitigate these risks while the three agencies develop frameworks to oversee the ever-changing asset class.

The Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations is for the consumption of banks of all types and sizes through the US that have or may adopt policies. It warns the events of 2022 have “been marked by significant volatility,” and that vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector have surfaced.

The joint statement explains that banking organizations that have in the past seeked to engage in activities that involve crypto-assets. Have been taken on a case-by-case basis. “The agencies continue to build knowledge, expertise, and understanding of the risks crypto-assets may pose to banking organizations, their customers, and the broader U.S. financial system.”  The statement says that the  significant risks “highlighted by recent failures of several large crypto-asset companies,” will cause the three agencies to take a careful and cautious approach.

The agencies highlighted eight risks that they wanted banking organizations engaged in crypto-assets to understand may not be in accordance with safe and sound banking practices:

  • Risk of fraud and scams among crypto-asset sector participants.
  • Legal uncertainties related to custody practices, redemptions, and ownership rights, some of which are currently the subject of legal processes and proceedings.
  • Inaccurate or misleading representations and disclosures by crypto-asset companies, including misrepresentations regarding federal deposit insurance, and other practices that may be unfair, deceptive, or abusive, contributing to significant harm to retail and institutional investors, customers, and counterparties.
  • Significant volatility in crypto-asset markets, the effects of which include potential impacts on deposit flows associated with crypto-asset companies.
  • Susceptibility of stablecoins to run risk, creating potential deposit outflows for banking organizations that hold stablecoin reserves.
  • Contagion risk within the crypto-assetsector resulting from interconnections among certain crypto-asset participants, including through opaque lending, investing, funding, service, and operational arrangements. These interconnections may also present concentration risks for banking organizations with exposures to the crypto-asset sector.
  • Risk management and governance practices in the crypto-asset sector exhibiting a lack of maturity and robustness.
  • Heightened risks associated with open, public, and/or decentralized networks, or similar systems, including, but not limited to, the lack of governance mechanisms establishing oversight of the system; the absence of contracts or standards to clearly establish roles, responsibilities, and liabilities; and vulnerabilities related to cyber-attacks, outages, lost or trapped assets, and illicit finance.

Take Away

In 2022 the young crypto asset class took a beating similar to high-tech stocks. There is a reason banks are limited to their stock market activity. It seems that these three federal agencies, which do not include work being done by the SEC (or CFTC), are now working hard to regulate what banks can do involving these assets; in the meantime, they want to let banking organizations know that crypto-assets need to be dealt with extreme caution, perhaps moderation, and know that as far as the regulators are concerned, if they still want to serve crypto customers, they should discuss all planned activities with the appropriate regulator prior to filing an application and should ensure that risk management, including board oversight, policies, procedures, risk assessments, controls, gates and guardrails, and monitoring, are in place to effectively identify and manage risks.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations

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 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