btq96r

All things being equal, I'd like to see a way for companies to keep a reserve fund at some level of their revenue/earnings. For reasons in my reply to Erik, that's not plausible in the current operating environment, but it could be a first step if we change the way things are currently done. As for choosing who gets a bailout...it's not the bailouts themselves I have a problem with, it's bailouts sans strings. Boeing is the perfect example of a company that I'm very uncomfortable with right now, because their company's failures are in some level of blame right now as COVID-19. Mark Cuban hits the 10 ring in this clip telling Boeing no way should they get a bailout free and clear. If we're gonna bailout Boeing, it needs to be with some heavy conditions, or after a bankruptcy where we can put a better company to the old name. So, a huge part of the problem is we incentivize share buybacks, and debt supported balance sheets. Between the tax code and corporate culture where folks get compensated on performance of earnings to share, publicly traded companies really have no choice but to do what's best fiscally, because doing the right thing for other reasons leaves you at a competitive disadvantage, puts your job in jeopardy, or worse, makes you a takeover target for activist investors. We're getting the behavior we reward, and we shouldn't be surprised by it.

I can see that take away. From my perspective, I watch the Fed a lot. What they do is mostly wonky, but it's without interference from Congress or the President, so they tend to be more proactive, and in larger force. What they're doing is telling me we're not going to be as good as we hope when CoronaMania passes as people think. Our economy had some serious warts that easy money was covering up...now we're seeing just how restrictive cash flow has been for businesses, along with how easy it's been for Uncle Sugar to come to the rescue. If this is sustainable, someone needs to show me the reasoning, because I don't see it. It's a bit of a stark contrast to 2008. At least then we had conversations about which businesses should be allowed to fold completely, which ones we'd let fall than raise up, and which ones would get support before bankruptcy. That debate was completely absent this time, and most folks in government are seemingly fine with it because the arguments over the bailouts were not focused on market ethics or moral hazard.

This piece is a bit long, but well worth the time to read. It focuses on the long term financial horizon, but has some very astute political analysis to go alongside it as people try to theorize how governments and their actions will have to be accounted for with regards to financial market planning. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4337018-covidminus-19-will-accelerate-preexisting-trends

The really annoying thing about AOC is she as often as not identifies a real problem. It's the solutions she proposes that go off the rails. Of course minorities are at higher risk and infection rates for COVID-19. As a demographic, they're more likely to be in jobs that can't be done from home which increases their exposure to the virus. They also as a group have lesser health overall from lack of access to quality healthcare because they may or may not have benefits; often having to defer medical treatment that isn't an emergency anyway because of cost whether even when they have insurance. I'm not trying to start a big thing, but I think we can all realize that by whatever reasons, minorities are at greater risk, and not belittle that fact, even if it came from an imperfect messenger.

If the Fed is doing the things described in the article below, and running up their balance sheet into the ionosphere as shown above, they're worried to a degree that means we're still in danger of a big time economic crash. We should also be ready to consider we won't just bounce back like some think, but instead could have a long hard slug upcoming. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/04/09/the-fed-will-pump-another-23-trillion-into-the-economy/#2ecc84db2f28

I would hope as CoronaMania eventually starts to pass, people can realize their pantry is still full of all the just in case stuff they bought. From there, should be easy to donate at least some of it to organizations that will be doing what they can to help those who need some time to let a job market come back so that can get a new pair of bootstraps to pull themselves up by.

Someone tell the President those pills are the Coronavirus cure. Let's see him talk about that from the podium.

This poll is not scientific; that number is soft!

I've joked we'll be getting back to normal when people argue over whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine for them and their kids. I'm taking the shot as soon as the FDA says it's safe and folks more at risk have had a chance for it first (assuming supply will need some time to catch up for population en masse).

I'm sure there's some level of shock value going on, if for no other reason than so the powers that be aren't accused of being wrong in the less desirable way. There has also been some level of trying to downplay fears on the supply side so individuals don't purchase things that are essential to hospitals (masks come to mind). Terms like "we think" or "we hope" don't inspire confidence, so people in government tend to try and be declarative in a realm where variability can eat away your credibility real quick. But even a model built on some understandable guesses with assumptions can give you something to go with since imperfect plans are better than no plans to get people and resources in gear. Starting with the most conservative/restrictive formulation usually gives you the most flexibility as needs are found to be exaggerated, and assets can stretch further. But sometimes that's the wrong answer if you're trying to optimize asset use or the goal is fiscal conservatism where you can live with delays/inefficiencies instead of paying to overcome them. Just depends on the needs and priorities of the moment. I do think folks who are just told what the model says then sent to brief it are pretty useless. We live in a world where challenging assumptions should be expected. But that's also incumbent on analytical types to be able to explain things in a way that can be understood. You don't always need someone who can do the math, but you need someone who understands the broad strokes of the inputs, and can explain it to a room full of people, then in front of the camera for a wider audience. If we have someone who can do the math, understand it all, and explain it to the average citizen...that person is clearly a threat to elected officials and must be keep away from the public eye.

I've found that the best purpose of models/projecting isn't to think you know the answer, but to force deliberate thought and planning. In my organization, almost all of the models I present make us go in the direction of "what if" on an idea looking at the model brings out.

I'm in agreement that we need to be thinking of ways to get back to work, even nickle and dime plans are better than nothing. It's just identifying where the line of acceptable risk is. Are we seeing evidence that those who are past exposure/sickness aren't still carriers somehow? To me that's the key where we could get on with reopening the country once we're over the peaks. Those folks can get back to it while those at risk can continue to shelter and work from home for a bit. Once we have a vaccine, COVID-19 will become manageable as seasonal flu from a prevention & critical care standpoint. Hopefully the vaccine will be ready and widespread before a possible 2nd wave later in the year, so we don't have a repeat of 1918. I'd hate to go through all this again, and I'm sure the economy at large, nor the health system can't take it; both from a patient management standpoint, and financially as hospitals are already in a cash crunch. This whole thing came at a very interesting time for my company. We were in the middle of trying to negotiate a sq ft reduction at our current spot after we outsourced our revenue cycle department, and got their footprint torn down. When thinking through a smaller office, we'd come up with the idea hot desks where folks who had similar jobs could alternate days in the office/work from home days by everyone having laptops, and the "hot desks" having docking stations for them to plug into. I don't think my organization has the desire or ability to completely shut down an office (IT has to have a workspace and storage site somewhere, and as fun as these virtual meetings are, they don't fully replicate in person ones), but we could possibly trim down even further than we thought if we can share one desk space between two or three people who only really need to be in once or twice a week to use a physical resource like the copier/fax or have a role in maintaining hardware.

Kind of a perfect time to do it if their military isn't secretly overcoming COVID-19. We're not exactly well postured with our bases in South Korea on medical lockdown and the Pentagon lethargically compensating for the aircraft carrier USS Coronavirus docked in Guam and relieved of its commanding officer.

If anyone is in doubt as to the power of government in an emergency situation, just take a look at history. We're very good at realizing something was wrong, or a step too far, but only a generation later when the danger of that moment has long past. Not so much on prospects for your rights in the moment, however. I think he knows. Even through osmosis, he has to know that at least that much. He is just using them as a very convenient punching bag, because attacking 3M in those simplistic terms will work with the intended audience. It'll even be magnified if someone in the media tries to explain it like you did, since he's done a marvelous job over the last 3 years of making them a punching bag as well. It's a win-win for him with anyone that doesn't understand the fundamental basics of a global economy.

I get companies are worried monthly bills won't be paid in the COVID-19 era. But a pox on AT&T for this alteration to my billing cycle. You may wish to consider turning off autopay if it's not tied to a discount on your account. I'm going to do so across the board, not just at AT&T. The kicker is, I always use the first weekend of each month to pay bills; I was going to run the same payment they took today in a day or two. Complete violation of trust as I've paid my bill without fail for years now. See if you can spot the change in my cycle and wonder why I'm pissed off (disclosure: I couldn't find February) The date/time stamp at the top of each one is when I received the notification that my bill was ready for review and payment. Tue 12/3/2019 3:17 AM Payment due: 12/18/2019 Thu 1/2/2020 3:23 AM Payment due: 01/18/2020 Wed 3/4/2020 5:58 AM Payment due: 03/18/2020 Thu 4/2/2020 2:29 AM Payment due: 04/03/2020

Our system isn't configured to enable the V-shaped recovery you mention for all working classes. Everything about our markets and the financial system behind them is geared towards capital recovery through locking in reductions, automation/AI doing more, and businesses somehow just using inertia from growth periods instead of a good operating rhythm.

That's the budget version. I got a to-go order from Pharmacy Burger in East Nashville and added a side of beer cheese with my tots. Trust me, it's some rocket fuel grade social distancing enforcement.

No, but I can totally see companies getting away with it for lack of laws preventing the move. I get that companies are looking at some abhorrent income statements now and for a while to come, but this is just the wrong side of clever.

I said from the beginning, it won't take too many truck drivers being pulled off the road for medical reasons to feel the pinch. They enjoy a bit of isolation in their jobs, but by design, have to interact with a lot of folks in different areas. It's also a good coincidence that gas prices are keeping low enough to let the industry have some relief on that fixed cost for a bit during this crisis.

I'd say more likely than possible. They're already upset their perfect government society is being shown as overwhelmed in handling this as all the rest of us. They're in full damage control mode to save face.

Did that even include self-employed like contractors and "gig economy" types who are 1099's? They're going to be walloped in all this. There are probably backlogs of people waiting to apply on top of that, and those who still have part of a paycheck coming at the end of the month before they face their first month without one and turn to unemployment insurance.

This on steroids.

That number includes what the fed is pumping into the system though their magic tricks. So $6 Trillion isn't what's being authorized by Congress through deficit spending we'll have to eventually pay back in future budgets, *only* $2 Trillion or so comes from there.

I get that at some point, we have to get the economy in gear again, and I understand once the risk level falls below a certain level, we're going to be rolling the dice for those most vulnerable whether they like it or not. That line is a philosophical question, fraught with moral complications...and it will almost certainly be against medical advice. But I'm still waiting to hear how we "get back to normal" if we haven't contained the spread of the virus. Lifting measures currently in place before that happens could just reset to where we were a few weeks ago, and we'd be right back to where we are now (or worse if we try to push through it) once contagion reasserts itself.