Long Term COVID-19 Risks To The Economy And The Resulting Need To Recalculate One's Financial Security

The 'bloodbath' in the stock market yesterday may only be a harbinger of what is to come, not that Captain Dotard T. Bonespurs and his crew of idiots and lackeys would know.  They have continued to flaunt their utter incompetence in not only dealing with the novel coronavirus but with the economy as well. 

Meanwhile, the market shock yesterday (DOW plunging by 2, 013 pts.) , based also partly on the oil prices bottoming out to $31 a barrel, shows how unprepared too many are for the year - hell years- ahead.  Oil-energy specialist Dan Dickers -interviewed by Chris Hayes last night on 'All In' conceded the coming recession could be as bad or worse than the credit collapse 'great 'recession 10 years ago.

A lot of this has to do with the U.S. shale oil business being over-leveraged for the past five years at least. Thus, "tons of debt" (Dickers' parlance) has been issued with some $600 b "in triple B bonds or B minus bonds".    Given this, it's little wonder U.S. shale drillers can't beg, borrow or steal any credit now - say from the banks - to support their activities. (See e.g. 'Shale Drillers Face Fight For Survival As Prices Plummet', WSJ, today, p. B1).  Indeed Scott Sheffield (Pioneer Natural Resources CEO) estimates (ibid.):  "50 percent of public E&Ps will go bankrupt over the next two years."

Dickers estimates as much as $2 trillion could be out there with U.S. banks holding a lot of it (one reason the bank stocks were "murdered" in the bloodbath yesterday).   All of which points to mammoth liquidity problems in many ways analogous to what presaged the credit crisis 10 years ago.   Worse, "the Fed is now out of quivers".  

Trump has been able to hold up his fake economy - and overextend the life of the Bull (which Dickers insists is 3 years beyond terminal) -  by gimmicks such as tax cuts, deregulation and getting Jerome Powell's Fed to cut interest rates. But this is  about to end because of the COVID-19 pandemic (a term I use even if the WHO still refuses to).  As Dickers put it to Hayes:

"The coronavirus will be the straw that broke the camel's back of the global economy."

Here it is well to grasp the risks of this virus to the U.S. economy and indeed to the global economy which Ian Bremmer (TIME) even predicted would see the end of globalization.  These risks are mainly to the supply side and include:

- Cessation of commercial air travel in major areas as well as layoffs, hiring freezes, unpaid leave and reduction of flight schedules  (United has already asked a number of workers to take at least 6 months of unpaid leave, cf WSJ today, 'Fear of Flying Spawns Fresh Crisis For Airlines'', p. A1)

- Closures of restaurants, entertainment and sports centers as a result of lack of attendance.   Many of these rely on discretionary spending and foot traffic which will be at risk in the event of mass quarantines such as implemented in Italy. (As companies retrench, it affects workers and suppliers, which then have to tighten their own belts.Layoffs rise; wages decline. Consumers spend less. More businesses shutter.  A vicious circle.)

-  Collapse of energy-oil prices  leading to  bankruptcies and further mass layoffs in that sector. Especially major losses in shale fracking - which has been propelled in large measure by leveraging debt to continue flooding a world already glutted by oversupply  (Crude prices notched the largest one day decline since the great recession yesterday when Saudi Arabia went 'nuclear' by producing more oil after Russia failed to agree to cut production)

All the above aspects factor in what we call "network effects".  The scale of this - still underappreciated- is determined mainly by the virus' R-nought value. If then, as many Americans catch COVID-19 as caught the H1N1 Swine flu in 2009, the death toll could exceed 440,000 by the time it's over.  As Niall Ferguson points out in his WSJ column yesterday (p.A17):

"Network effects are the reason it is anything but dumb to worry about this novel coronavirus.  Not only is it spreading much faster than most Americans realize, it is also disrupting global manufacturing supply chains as well as all the economic activities that depend on travel and proximity."

The even more somber specter hanging over the markets is the degree of  ordinary leverage, beyond the already referenced over-leveraged oil markets.  This is the degree to which disproportionate debt underlies the purchase of ordinary stocks, shares. One pundit on CNBCs  'Squawk Box' yesterday morning observed that currently for every $1-2  an investor uses to purchase a share -  say for $10  - the balance is appropriated via leverage or going into hock.  Hence, a paper $6 trillion loss in a major sellout could actually turn out to be $50 trillion. 

This warning is not new. Two years ago, we read in the April 17, 2018 Financial Times ('IMF Sounds Alarm On Excessive Global Borrowing') :

"The world's $164 trillion debt pile is bigger than at the height of the financial crisis a decade ago, the IMF has warned, sounding the alarm on excessive global borrowing.  The fund said the private and public sectors urgently need to cut debt levels to improve the resilience of the global economy, and provide greater firefighting ability it things go wrong."

Much of this arose from leveraging debt to purchase stocks,  the new game in town since the recession as played by the Street's  'wise guys' and 'masters of the universe'.   The FT piece went on to point out:

"World borrowing is more than twice the size of the value of goods and services produced and 225% of global gross domestic product. This is 12 percentage points higher than the peak of the previous financial crisis in 2009." 

This is incomprehensible but much of it can be blamed on the Fed with its idiotic and inappropriate rate cuts which have only fed the leveraging fever and yen for ever more derivatives (incorporating this debt).   Adding:

"Vitor Gaspar, the director of fiscal affairs at the  IMF, singled out the U.S. for criticism, saying that it was the only advanced country that was not planning to reduce its debt pile - with the recent tax cuts keeping public borrowing high.z'

Indeed, as a share of gross domestic product , and because of Trump's tax cuts and deregulation  "the deficit will be at least 4.3%  every year through 2030.  That would be the longest stretch of  budget deficits exceeding 4% of GDP since the last century."  (WSJ, 'Trillion Dollar Deficits Seen For Years', January 29, p. A3)

So how might this affect the average bloke saving for retirement or trying to?  First, forget the "4% rule" regarding spending down your nest egg, say over a 30-year timeline.  Incredibly, WSJ finance columnist Anne Tergesen, (March 9, p. B8), was still citing this now antiquated rule in her latest piece,  as if we're in totally normal financial times.  

Now, for some clarity for those not au fait with financial terms, or approaches for retirement saving.  The 4% rule was developed to give investors, prospective retirees a sense of how much they needed to save.  Hence, a person who managed to sock away $1 million would anticipate withdrawing no more than $40,000 a year, say to pay for things his Social Security won't cover.   One landmark study, I believe by T. Rowe Price, found that investors who applied it had a 95% chance their savings would last for 30 years.

But given that the 10 year Treasury note yield dipped to 0.4 % yesterday at the close, and that the U.S. Treasury yield was much higher (5-6%) when the study was conducted (1990s) this no longer applies.  Even before the stock crash yesterday, and in the wake of the Fed's earlier rate cuts, the yield had dropped below 1 % for the first time.   A rate that low (and bound to go even lower if the Fed goes to negative interest rates)  means that anyone following the 4 % rule would have a 1 in 3 chance of running out of money, say over the same 30-year horizon.  

 According to Wayne Pfau - a professor at the American College of Financial Services - quoted in a recent TIME essay ('Low rates are changing the rules for retirement', March 16-23, p. 34) you should expect to withdraw no more than 3% a year in retirement.   For the guy with the $1m nest egg that means no more than $30,00 a year withdrawn, for those like wifey and me, no more than $13,500 a year. (That is easily met given we are not big spenders and live well below our means.)

What about when this virus threat is finally over, say in 18 months, Dotard is finally out of the WH -and people find they're falling behind and fear not catching up?   There are a number of options but none are easy, or very comforting.  One could, for example, work longer, adding more earning income to what the 401(k) or IRA doesn't currently deliver.   Or - wow! - they can spend less, like Janice and I do.  Last, they can seek out higher returns via riskier assets (e.g. exchange traded funds, or emerging market funds) which I do not recommend. 

One thing nearly all proper financial advisers, from Suze Orman  to "McMillion" recommend, is keeping 12-18 months worth of expenses in cash.  (Janice and I have roughly five years' worth).   In addition, both Ms. Orman (see latest AARP Bulletin) and Prof. Pfau advise supplementing investment income with guaranteed, steady income via a fixed income annuity.  However, you have to be prepared to hand over a large cash stash to purchase the steady income, which alas, too many Americans are unwilling to do. They'd rather risk their future in the stock market casino - which as we've seen the past few weeks is not for the faint of heart. Or those who wish to know what they have coming in each month, say to buy groceries,  pay the utilities, the doctor or(and) the dentist. 

See also:

Donald Trump | Economic Policy

Donald Trump and the Great Recession of 2020

And:

Coronavirus | Social Security | Taxes

Trump Is Using the Coronavirus to Launch a Trojan Horse Attack on Social Security

And:

Coronavirus | Healthcare Policy | Worker's Rights

Coronavirus Could Wreak Havoc on the Working Class

And:

• Know-nothing president tweets photo of himself fiddling while coronavirus churns 

And:

Coronavirus | Economic Policy

How to Respond to the National Emergency

And:

Coronavirus | Healthcare Policy

America’s Homeless Are Among Most Susceptible to COVID-19. We Cannot Forget Them.

And:

Immediate Fixed Annuity Rates | Free Online Annuity Calculator‎

Yield Curve Inversion Occurs - But Is Anyone Paying Attention?

Fed chief Jerome Powell and yield curve for March 25, 2019 (from T. Rowe Price Investor Bulletin, December, 2018)

For some time now, over the past 4 months, I've warned of potential yield curve inversion and how it's often signaled recession or massive downturn  I noted recessions tend to occur once the "flat" yield curve becomes "inverted" - with short term (e.g. 2 -year)  bond rates higher than long term (e.g. 10 year) rates. As a recent T. Rowe Price Investor Bulletin warned (p. 4) this condition has transpired before each of the past nine recessions dating back to 1955.  Hence, while it isn't a 100% absolute predictor, it is a significant historical marker..

The T. Rowe warning - assuming one can take it as such - is (ibid.):

"The yield curve is not flat yet ...but it could be by next March if the Fed maintains its 0.25 percent per quarter pace of rate hikes and the 10-year Treasury continues to meet resistance above the 3.0 percent level.  Starting the historical average 16-month clock from the spring of 2019 would raise the specter of a major downturn by 2020."


Interestingly, last Thursday we learned (WSJ, 'Treasury Yields Tumble After Fed Restraint', p. B12)  that "the yield on the two year Treasury notesettled at 2.402% on the day before compared with 2.471 % Tuesday. This marked the biggest one day slide since the start of the year, according to Dow Jones Market data."

 Given what happened March 21st, it shouldn't have been totally surprising the yield curve might actually have inverted on Friday - March 22nd - which it did.   One of my favorite go-to financial forecast sources, James Mackintosh in the Wall Street Journal wrote:   

"The market’s most reliable recession indicator is finally flashing red. With the Treasury yield curve inverting on Friday—the 10-year yield fell sharply to be lower than the three-month for the first time since 2007—is it finally time to prepare for an economic downturn?”

Good question! I believe so, as I've written before given I suspect the correlations over time (see graphic are almost as reliable as sunspot activity curves in predicting large flares.   It is therefore of interest to inspect the yield curve for March 25th, with Treasury bills designated along the abscissa, e.g. with bond terms from less than five years to 30.  Note also the curve behavior and how it changes with the specific bonds.


Look carefully and you will see the evidence for yield curve inversion, rates, hence the freak out for may. Subsequently economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote the following in a tweet:


Mackintosh, for his part, has always been somewhat agnostic on the value of the yield curve as forecaster of recession. He writes, for example:

The yield curve might be less reliable than its recent U.S. history suggests. It has a terrible record internationally, for instance. It flat-out hasn’t worked in Japan, also has a poor record in the U.K. and in Germany provided no advance warning of the 2008 recession, the worst since reunification. At the moment the curve isn’t inverted in any of them thanks to superlow or negative interest rates, even though all are struggling with greater economic troubles than the U.S.


In other words, one needs to bring to bear skepticism as to the historical evidence.

But then in subsequent text  we behold some very crucial points:

“Previous inversions took place at much higher short rates — 5 or 6 percent, versus 2.5 percent now.”

He continued: “So this inversion actually reflects a worse outlook for the economy than the number itself suggests. Again, it’s not a direct read on the economy; it’s a read on what the average bond investor thinks is happening to the economy. But still not encouraging.”

We should also bear in mind what Mackintosh wrote back on July 3, 2017, as regards the assumption that bear markets only come with recessions, i.e.:

"Investors believe that bear markets only come with recessions, and so reassure themselves that there is no sign a recession is imminent, repeating the mantra that 'economic cycles don't die of old age'. Unfortunately, this is both wrong and useless.

First, 20 percent drops happen outside recessions, as in 1987 and 1966. Second, economic cycles can be killed by a financial crash, and as the late Hyman Minsky pointed out, the longer a financial cycle goes on, the more likely it is to turn to excess and end badly. Worse, there is no reliable method of forecasting a recession, so even if it were true that only a recession can end a bull market, that isn't a lot of use to investors."

Put aside yield curve inversion, as yields fell and the curve merely flattened, "investors punished bank stocks ... A flatter yield curve hurts banks stocks because it narrows the gap between what lenders pay on deposits and lend on loans- a spread known as the net interest margin."  (WSJ, Mar. 22,  p. B10 ).  What especially bothered me even earlier (than seeing the yield curve inversion) was reading WSJ columnist Greg Ip's March 21  warning piece:

The Fed's New 'Normal' Looks Worrisome - WSJ

https://www.wsj.com › Economy › U.S. Economy

And how we needed to be wary of the Fed's sudden dovish inclination. Quoting Mr. Ip, which I believe is important to get the context:

"The Federal Reserve now believes its monetary policy is back to normal. That should worry you.  If this is normal then the Fed has precious little ammunition for when economic conditions again turn abnormal."

Ip then goes on to note that since 2005 the Fed had been 'normalizing' monetary policy by raising interest rates and shrinking its bond holdings."  (From the quantitative easing or QE policy.)

But:   "This week it declared the process all but done"  Adding to this,  the Fed big wigs see "no more rate increases this year"  and "they will stop shrinking the balance sheet".   This is nothing short of mind boggling, given almost $4 trillion of toxic bond assets remains on its balance sheets.   Even by September the bond balance will only be down to $3.5 trillion or 17 % of GDP.

Also, ceasing to increase interest rates puts the screws to millions of senior savers - who'd been saddled with pathetic low rates for over a decade. As one of the few segments of the ordinary citizen financial demographic with money to spend, this is not a sound move.   Ip also warns  (ibid., this is all from the original print version, not the digital update):

"Should the economy stumble again, the Fed won't have much ammunition with which to respond."

Well, unless it resorts to the "negative interest rate'"  route which the Swiss also attempted with adverse results, and millions actually stuffing money (cash) under their mattresses. I mean, who the hell wants to keep it in the bank and lose $$?

But perhaps there is method to the Fed's madness. As James Piereson writes ('How Debt Makes The Markets Volatile',  Feb. 28, p. A17):  "Stocks are becoming more sensitive to interest rate hikes because the global economy is over-leveraged."

Something I've also addressed before, in conjunction with IMF warnings and : 

"Vitor Gaspar, the director of fiscal affairs at the  IMF, singled out the U.S. for criticism, saying that it was the only advanced country that was not planning to reduce its debt pile - with the recent tax cuts keeping public borrowing high.  

The fund urged policymakers to stop 'providing unnecessary stimulus when economic activity is already pacing up' and called on the U.S. to 'recalibrate' its fiscal policy and increase taxes to start cutting its debt." 

So no, the GOP-Trump tax cuts - which effects are driving millions crazy now in terms of low or  no tax refunds -  did not help the situation. Assorted experts have estimated $1.5- 2 trillion in added deficits. And as the WSJ's Gerald Seib put it (Feb. 19, p. A4): "As the accumulated debt rises, the bill to pay the interest on the debt rises too."   See e.g.

Brane Space: IMF Debt Warning Ought To Send Chills Through Every ...

brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/04/imf-debt-warning-ought-to-send-chills.html

As 

When Will 'Muricans Grasp The Next Stock Crash Is Around The Corner?

Examining the prime financial news of the last three weeks it's clear we're headed for another crash. The only question is 'when?' When it comes to irrational exuberance, it’s never if there will be a bust but when. Examples:

Automated Trades Seen Worsening Swings (Sept. 5)

"The growing influence on markets of algorithmic traders and trend-following funds - which use automatic directives - potentially makes markets more vulnerable to sharp swings if everyone starts to sell at once."

Is Indonesia the Next Emerging-Market Domino to Fall? - WSJ   (Sept. 11)

"Investors who gorged themselves on Turkish delight and Argentine beef have had a rude awakening in 2018—the two countries are at the heart of a broadening crisis that has sent emerging-market currencies tumbling.

In Asia, one name keeps coming up: Indonesia, which also has a growing trade deficit—and lots of foreign debt."

The Bear Mauls Another Market -- WSJ - Morningstar (Sept. 12)

"Hong Kong's stocks fell into a bear market Tuesday, another casualty of an international selloff driven by trade tensions, a stronger dollar and worries about the resilience of developing economies.It is the latest sign that stocks around the world are feeling the pressure of the trade fight, exposing the global market's fragility to the sparring between the U.S. and major trading partners in Europe and Asia."

And perhaps most worrisome:

Retiring Soon? Plan for Market Downturns - WSJ

Wherein we read:

"For each year in which a bull market persists, workers become likelier to retire. But those who leave the workforce now—the ninth year of the longest U.S. bull market—are potentially setting themselves up for a tough stretch that could test their portfolio’s long-term resilience.

Why? When the stock market becomes historically expensive, as some metrics suggest it is today, research shows it’s often a harbinger of below-average future returns."

All of these (and more) are screaming alarm - but who's paying attention? Anyone? Perhaps not because too ,many are drowning in irrational exuberance. Trump, always exuberant when talking about himself and his putative accomplishments, loves to boast about how well the American economy is chugging along. The stock market reached its all-time high at the end of August. In its second quarter this year, U.S. economic growth was 4.1 percent. Unemployment remains below 4 percent, and inflation remains moderate. Even wages are going up.

Irrationality enters the picture because there’s little if any connection between Dotard's spurious  policies and the outcomes he lauds (since these trends began before he took office). Also, the prosperity that has resulted from this economic expansion has largely been enjoyed by the wealthier sectors of society. Finally, Trump’s economic fever dream is fueled by an enormous and growing amount of debt.

This is an issue I've warned about in many previous posts. For example, citing a Financial Times report  dated April 17, ('IMF Sounds Alarm On Excessive Global Borrowing') :

"The world's $164 trillion debt pile is bigger than at the height of the financial crisis a decade ago, the IMF has warned, sounding the alarm on excessive global borrowing.  The fund said the private and public sectors urgently need to cut debt levels to improve the resilience of the global economy, and provide greater firefighting ability it things go wrong.

Fiscal stimulus to support demand  is no longer the priority the IMF said Wednesday in a report published at its spring meetings in Washington. "

To fix ideas, let's note here that "support demand" refers to support of  "aggregate demand", i.e. getting citizens to spend more - which was the basis for the Trump-GOP tax cuts. This was an incredibly bad play given how much they will add to the debt, and deficits going forward, and how little they will contribute in terms of a job picture already near full employment. 

The IMF warning goes on noting what is most worrisome:

"World borrowing is more than twice the size of the value of goods and services produced and 225% of global gross domestic product. This is 12 percentage points higher than the peak of the previous financial crisis in 2009."

And the U.S. is singled out as a debt offender, e.g.

"Vitor Gaspar, the director of fiscal affairs at the  IMF, singled out the U.S. for criticism, saying that it was the only advanced country that was not planning to reduce its debt pile - with the recent tax cuts keeping public borrowing high."

In the above context, although Trump promised to balance the books if he became president, he’s done the opposite. The deficit for this year will rise to $890 billion (it was about $660 billion when Obama left office). The shortfall in government expenditures will rise above $1 trillion next year. Deficit spending makes sense during a recession. But what Trump is doing now is essentially allowing the rich to siphon the cream off the top, providing the middle class with some skim milk, and leaving the sour dregs for everyone else. 

And to the point of Vitor Gaspar,  government revenues are actually falling, which is what small-government advocates are secretly cheering: less money, less government.  But they are perversely courting disaster.   Further, it’s not just the government that’s in hock. Total household debt reached a new high in August: $13.3 trillion. That includes a record amount of student debt ($1.5 trillion), an ever-growing amount of mortgage debt ($9 trillion, which is perilously close to the $10.5 trillion it reached during the mortgage crisis in 2008), and an overall credit card debt that just surpassed $1 trillion for the first time.

Then there’s corporate debt which is now set to be on rocket power given the corporate tax cuts.  Companies have taken advantage of low interest rates to borrow like crazy. This summer, corporate debt hit a new high of $6.3 trillion. Worse, the cash-to-debt ratio, which was 14 percent in 2008, has dropped to 12 percent: that’s $1 in cash for every $8 of debt.

Economists are quick to reassure the public that all of this debt is not catastrophic. After all, the economy is humming along. America doesn’t look like Greece. But in fact debt is like a hidden hive of termites eating away at the foundation of your house. You don’t see anything wrong except a bit of sawdust and the faint sounds of consumption. And then one day, you’re sitting at your kitchen table and, boom! You’re sprawled out in your basement with the wreckage of your house around you.

Currently,  as I noted in my previous post on the Reep tax cuts,  the U.S. government owes $21 trillion, which is slightly more than the household and corporate debt combined. The owners of U.S. debt include federal agencies like Social Security (which currently runs a surplus that it uses to buy Treasury bonds), the Federal Reserve (which bought a lot of debt during the financial crisis to lower interest rates), mutual funds, and banks.

 

Foreign countries also hold about a third of the debt. China and Japan own a little more than a trillion dollars each, followed by Brazil, Ireland, the UK, and Switzerland.In ordinary times, foreign ownership of U.S debt is uncontroversial. Countries with revenue surpluses need a safe place to park their money. And the United States has never defaulted on its sovereign debt, unlike Greece or Argentina.

But these are not ordinary times. With the sharp downturn in U.S.-Russian relations, Moscow decided this spring to unload 84 percent of its holdings of Treasury bonds. That amounts to about $87 billion, a considerable sum.  In addition,  Japan got rid of $18.4 billion in Treasury bonds in the spring. In the first half of 2018, Turkey unloaded 42 percent of its holdings in U.S. debt. Both countries currently have trade disputes with Washington.

The big player, however, is China, and right now the Trump administration is escalating its trade war with China. Trump just announced tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese imports after targeting $50 billion of goods in the first round. China retaliating with more tariffs of its own is one thing but another possibility  is  devaluing its currency. An even more potentially devastating action would be to follow Russia’s example and sell its stake in Treasury bonds.

Each of these bond selloffs is akin to a gambler cashing in his chips. If the house lacks the money to pay the guy, then all hell will break loose- and that casino - like a Trump casino - wil be a loser and not last long.  In the U.S. case, each selloff of Treasury bonds creates even more instability in the markets and all that is then needed is a trigger to incite a shitstorm and crash, such as the Utility Forecaster predicted at the beginning of the year.

An even more somber warning: Americans (1 in 3 homeowners who earn less than $30,000/yr.) are now using home equity loans to cover their day to day expenses.  ('Americans leveraging their homes to pay bills', Denver Post, Business, p. 5K, Sept. 23)

My hypothesis is the trigger will likely arrive via algorithmic trades (see topmost header), and a massive lockstep selloff - leading to a crash of 50 to 60 percent.   In other words, a lockstep in asset prices - subject to algorithmic trading-  could lead to a "multiplier" sell-off effect that would overshadow a normal correction, So if 10 percent is a normal correction and the DOW was initially at 25,000 or so, that would mean a loss (total) of 2500 points.  If this is a multiplier effect at work, we could instead be looking at a  50 percent correction, or a 12, 500 point drop    If you have $100,000 parked in your company's 401(k) you might be lucky to see $50,000 in it at the end of the trading day.

Then there is the not wholly unrelated surmise of economist Martin  Feldstein (WSJ,  Save Interest For Rainy Day', July 27th)  who wrote:

 

"The downturn is almost certainly on its way. The likeliest cause would be a collapse in the high asset prices that have been created in the exceptionally relaxed monetary policy of  the last decade. It's too late to avoid an asset bubble. Equity prices have already risen far above their historical trend.  The price -earnings ratio of the S&P 500 is now more than 50 percent higher than the all time average, sitting at a level reached only three times in the past century.

The inevitable return of these asset prices to their historical norms is likely to cause a sharp decline in household wealth and in the rate of investment in commercial real estate. If the P/E ratio returns to its historical average, the fall in share prices will amount to a $9 trillion loss across all U.S. households."

 

Feldstein basically is predicting a   $10 trillion drop in U.S. household assets, warning:. “When the next recession comes, it is going to be deeper and last longer than in the past,”

Again, is anyone paying attention? I somehow doubt it. Too many are enamored of and trapped in Dotard's  asset bubble of irrational  exuberance.