Corona Virus--- How scared are you (West, Howe: restaurants, statistics, bars)

[san11]

Originally Posted by sanz7887

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5yVGmfivAk

Hopefully the sun shines strong in Texas to wipe out the virus

Very true. Vitamin D-3 is very critical.
It definitely helps the immunity.

[jiping]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Why would a dollar of earnings suddenly be worth more than it has been in the last two decades if we are heading into a low-growth period?

I guess you have zero equity and just talk out of your @ss? Current SPY P/E ratio is 20, pretty much the median value for the last two decades. P/E was 50 in 2000 and 100 in 2008.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by jiping

I guess you have zero equity and just talk out of your @ss? Current SPY P/E ratio is 20, pretty much the median value for the last two decades. P/E was 50 in 2000 and 100 in 2008.

You can't look at current, quarter-by-quarter PE ratios. You have to look at cyclically-adjusted ratios. https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe

The reason PE ratios spike in recessions (like 2008) is that earnings drop significantly. Those 70-100 PE ratios were not in the boom days of 2007-2008. They were in the bust days of 2008-2009, while the market was tanking but earnings were dropping even faster (PEs peaked in Feb 2009, long after the bust had begun). When that's taken into account, stocks were a good bit more expensive over the last year than they were in 2008 (and still are).

[elan]

Per the NBC report - "A seventh person who was in close contact" - so, how many are there? Perhaps they meant to say a third person?

[CDContribuitor]

Total number of people infected in Frisco is 3 - Father who came back from a business trip to California, his wife and one of his kids who is a 3 year old. All of the 3 other family members (kids I presume) and a seventh person who was in close contact are not infected.

Originally Posted by elan

Per the NBC report - "A seventh person who was in close contact" - so, how many are there? Perhaps they meant to say three?

[cityfolk89]

Originally Posted by jiping

I guess you have zero equity and just talk out of your @ss? Current SPY P/E ratio is 20, pretty much the median value for the last two decades. P/E was 50 in 2000 and 100 in 2008.

You sound misinformed and foolish. I have accumulated a massive portfolio across equities/real estate/bonds/my own company so I study this very actively.

The Shiller PE is an arguably better way to assess valuations at any given point in time. All PE indicators are a bad short term indicator and a strong long term indicator - e.g. short term, stocks can continue going up like a rocket but on a 10 year view, the return is fairly flat at the shiller PEs we just hit (31+ before this correct). It is still only at 26.31 now. The mean is 16.

The PE of 100 in 2008 you are referring to is due to earnings revisions downwards causing a temporary dramatic rise in PE. Valuations from 2007-2010 (outside of the PE anomaly from earnings revisions) were lower than now. PE's were def. higher in the dot com bubble but this cycle has had the 2nd highest valuations in US history based on Shiller PE. Third is 1929.

If you look at PE/Shiller PE for just this 20 year period, there have been some nasty bubbles that took a while to unwind and thus skew the data a bit.

Now, let's look past PE. Price to Book Value was the 2nd highest in recorded history on Dec 31st 2019. Price to Sales was at the highest in recorded history on Dec 31st 2019.

Let's look past that. REAL corporate earnings have been relatively flat for years now. A lot of EPS is financial engineering via cheap debt funneled into buybacks. Or, in the last 2 years, the tax cut certainly artificially lifted earnings at the expense of our national debt. No real, significant earnings growth to be seen the last few years.

Let's look even further. This virus is going to impact bottom lines, even if just temporarily. When those earnings come out, earnings will be revised downwards and thus PE will be higher than it sits right now. Lower earnings have not even been priced in yet. When those are priced in, expect another leg down.

[BigDGeek]

Originally Posted by Rakin

That is the case even in normal flu season.

Correct, but there's at least a semi-effective flu vaccine available.

[Capitalprophets]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

Correct, but there's at least a semi-effective flu vaccine available.

True, biggest problem with corona is fear of the unknown. The virus itself is affecting only 3% of the population that are immunocompromised.

[cityfolk89]

Originally Posted by Capitalprophets

True, biggest problem with corona is fear of the unknown. The virus itself is affecting only 3% of the population that are immunocompromised.

That is wrong.

A certain decent % (healthy or not) end up needing partial ICU or full ICU care for supplemental oxygen to recover. The number is 15% but I think it's probably a bit lower, even at 5% that is far more intense than the flu.

There are many ~30 year olds now that have needed partial ICU or full ICU care. Sure, you recover with care... but what happens if all the hospital beds are full? Dramatic increase in mortality.

It just so happens that the US has less beds than Italy, China, Japan, South Korea, etc. The goal should be to slow down infection rates so we care for people as needed.

[Sunbather]

Originally Posted by Capitalprophets

True, biggest problem with corona is fear of the unknown. The virus itself is affecting only 3% of the population that are immunocompromised.

Your statement is misleading at best, not clearly defined, and mostly is just incorrect. Statements like that [u]contribute [/U ]to the fear of the unknown. First, the # of data points is still relatively low, so the %s are hard to nail down. But beyond that, are your defining "affecting" as "killing" or showing symptoms? Or being hospitalized? And your statement implies that only 3% of immunocompromised people are being affected...only 3% that come into contact with it? Only 3% of the world's immunocompromised population? And again, define "affected"

You're not really stating any clear information there and none of it lines up with the way professionals and experts are discussing this issue.

Statements that might be more helpful:


The last stats I saw from the Chinese CDC (however much their information can be trusted for various reasons) stated that the the fatality rate was 14.8% in people 80 or older, likely reflecting the presence of other diseases, a weaker immune system, or simply worse overall health. Similarly, this information was updated today for China:

"In the group of 44,672 cases discussed, the highest fatality rates were among those aged 60 and above. People aged 60 to 69 had a fatality rate of 3.6 percent. The 70 to 79 age group had a fatality rate of about 8 percent, and those 80 or older had a fatality rate of nearly 15 percent.

Additionally, the researchers had information about other health conditions for 20,812 of the 44,672 patients. Of those with additional medical information available, 15,536 said they had no underlying health conditions. The fatality rate among that group was 0.9 percent.

The fatality rates were much higher among the remaining 5,279 patients who reported some underlying health conditions. Those who reported cardiovascular disease had a fatality rate of 10.5 percent. For patients with diabetes, the fatality rate was 7.3 percent. Patients with chronic respiratory disease had a rate of 6.3 percent. Patients with high blood pressure had a fatality rate of 6.0 percent and cancer patients had a rate of 5.6 percent.

Puzzlingly, men had a higher fatality rate than women. In the study, 2.8 percent of adult male patients died compared with a 1.7 percent fatality rate among female patients.
"

But even more helpful is referring to or linking to non-alarmist sites that are being regularly updated, as this information is changing every day.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...xOihHP0JlSAqwc

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...e-coronavirus/