investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--Stock trading by U.S. senators alongside the S&P 500

You can see on the graph a few negative bars before the market dropped in early 2020 .
These bars are represented in part by Senator Richard Burr ’ s big sell off of stocks after a private COVID-19 briefing that resulted in the FBI seizing his cellphone and opening an insider trading investigation .
According to the financial disclosures I ’ ve scraped , Burr sold 29 publicly traded assets on February 13th in amounts that varied between $ 1,000- $ 250,000 .
This was his most active day of trading in our dataset , and it came approximately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 % slide .
Lastly , Burr is one of 3 senators who regularly files disclosures by hand instead of electronically .
There isn ’ t anything illegal about this , but hand-filed documents are much harder to scrape data from as they ’ re essentially just a picture of a handwritten filing .
I ’ m still working on entering data from hand-filed reports , but hope to have them up to date on the site by the end of the week .
One thing which will likely stand out to you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This bar corresponds to a couple senators selling off their stock holdings under public pressure from the news coverage surrounding Burr ’ s shady dealing .
Aside from the selloff before the coronavirus , the selloff right before the drop of January 2018 also stood out to me .
This selloff was carried by David Perdue ( R ) , Pat Toomey ( R ) , and Shelley Moore Capito ( R ) all shedding large amounts of stock .

by pdwp90
Analysis
You can see on the graph a few negative bars before the market dropped in early 2020. These bars are represented in part by Senator Richard Burr’s big sell off of stocks after a private COVID-19 briefing that resulted in the FBI seizing his cellphone and opening an insider trading investigation. According to the financial disclosures I’ve scraped, Burr sold 29 publicly traded assets on February 13th in amounts that varied between $1,000-$250,000. This was his most active day of trading in our dataset, and it came approximately a week before the market began its 30% slide.
Lastly, Burr is one of 3 senators who regularly files disclosures by hand instead of electronically. There isn’t anything illegal about this, but hand-filed documents are much harder to scrape data from as they’re essentially just a picture of a handwritten filing. I’m still working on entering data from hand-filed reports, but hope to have them up to date on the site by the end of the week.
One thing which will likely stand out to you is the massive negative bar in mid-April. This bar corresponds to a couple senators selling off their stock holdings under public pressure from the news coverage surrounding Burr’s shady dealing.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Aside from the selloff before the coronavirus, the selloff right before the drop of January 2018 also stood out to me.
This selloff was carried by David Perdue (R), Pat Toomey (R), and Shelley Moore Capito (R) all shedding large amounts of stock.
Tools
Data Source: United States Senate Financial Disclosures
Tools: Python


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--WallStreetBets is Reddit’s largest stock trading subreddit. I parsed over a million comments from th

WallStreetBets is Reddit’s largest stock trading subreddit. I parsed over a million comments from the community over the past three years to track their sentiment. Here it is, displayed alongside the S&P 500.

/r/WallStreetBets ( WSB ) is a community on Reddit where participants discuss stock and option trading .
Every day , WallStreetBets has a “ Tomorrow ’ s Moves ” where community members talk about what trades they are planning on making the next trading day .
I wrote a Python script to collect a sample of around 3,000 comments from every “ Tomorrow ’ s Moves ” thread I could find , which gave me data going back to August 2018 .
I then used Python to count the number of uses of the words “ puts ” , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ call ” .
These counts were normalized by user , in order to control for people spamming words .
If you ’ re not familiar , “ call options ” are generally associated a bullish mentality ( you think the market will go up ) , whereas “ put options ” are generally associated a bearish mentality .
This is a massive simplification , but the general idea is that by comparing the number of mentions of “ calls ” with the number of mentions of “ puts ” we could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the subreddit .

by pdwp90
Background
/r/WallStreetBets (WSB) is a community on Reddit where participants discuss stock and option trading. Every day, WallStreetBets has a “Tomorrow’s Moves” where community members talk about what trades they are planning on making the next trading day.
Methodology
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
I wrote a Python script to collect a sample of around 3,000 comments from every “Tomorrow’s Moves” thread I could find, which gave me data going back to August 2018. I then used Python to count the number of uses of the words “puts”, “put”, “calls”, and “call”. These counts were normalized by user, in order to control for people spamming words. If you’re not familiar, “call options” are generally associated a bullish mentality (you think the market will go up), whereas “put options” are generally associated a bearish mentality. This is a massive simplification, but the general idea is that by comparing the number of mentions of “calls” with the number of mentions of “puts” we could create a proxy measure for the sentiment of the subreddit.
Data Source: /r/WallStreetBets comments
Tools: Python


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--Consumer Confidence Was Impacted By This Coming Event

There was a modest decline in the 2nd week in September in flights and consumer spending .
You can ’ t look too much into non-seasonally adjusted data because the first week of the month was helped by the Labor Day holiday .
Some people flew more in early September ; then the yearly growth went back to its prior range .
That ’ s to be expected until fast testing becomes universally available later this fall .
As you can see from the chart below , Chase card spending was down 6.5 % in the week of September 13th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior week .
Usually , we don ’ t look at this type of data because it ’ s noisy .
Noise becomes less important when there are massive shifts in spending like we saw after the virus hit .
At that point , data from the prior month was too late in detecting changes .
We might be transitioning back to business as usual soon ( in terms of what data we look at ) .
That being said , as long as you know seasonality isn ’ t included in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look at .
We think some investment banks are biased towards coming up with a negative narrative on the economy when they say the data is rolling over .
They want to come up with a reason why the stock market is falling .
We can tell you for sure that the stock market didn ’ t fall because people spent less money in the week after Labor Day like they always do .
This chart includes yearly growth , but Labor Day was 5 days later this year than last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and supporting the solid Bloomberg consumer comfort reading , the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index rose from 74.1 to 78.1 which is still a 15.3 % decline from last year .
Yearly declines are still to be expected .
It ’ s interesting how much lower confidence is in relation to retail sales which has more than fully recovered its recession losses .
That differential is related to the fiscal stimulus .
Getting money from the government doesn ’ t inspire as much confidence as jobs coming back and businesses reopening do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chart below , the current conditions index rose from 82.9 to 87.5 .
That ’ s important because the expectations index was impacted by politics with the election in a couple months .
The expectations index rose from 68.5 to 73.3 as it is only down 12.1 % yearly .
Interestingly , Democrats became more confident because they see the possibility of Trump leaving office .
Republicans became less confident because Trump might lose .
It ’ s not that consumers think he will lose .
As you can see from the chart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between who they think will win .
It ’ s that there was no chance of him leaving 6 months ago ( other than impeachment ) and now there is hope/fear that he can be voted out .
If the Dems and the GOP cancel out in this survey , it ’ s a good thing because it means confidence improved .
It should have improved given the decline in continued jobless claims and in COVID-19 deaths per day in the past month .
We don ’ t think the stock market is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it usually does .
That ’ s based on the weak confidence in the summer despite the rise in stocks .
If you talk to consumers , they think the stock market doesn ’ t reflect the current economy since so many people are still in trouble .
That ’ s anecdotal evidence , but it ’ s logical .
Corporate profits aren ’ t in tune with small businesses .
In fact , as small businesses close , big corporations gobble up the market share .
The chart above also shows , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and finances .
That ’ s a good sign for Trump because the economy is usually an important issue .
On average , Biden is winning in battle ground states by 3.9 % in the polls .
There is no point in us giving any commentary on the race until the debates occur .
Value Does Well Finally If you follow the stock market vaguely , you might think it ’ s obvious value stocks were due for a major reversal versus growth .
If you follow the market every day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value to outperform growth because there have been a few head fakes this year .
As you can see from the chart below , September has been significant as the Russell value index is outperforming the Russell growth index by more than 5 % for the first time since the tech bubble crash in 2000 .
This chart mimics the bubble quiet well .
It ’ s amazing how badly tech has done versus value when you consider the fact that the 10 year yield is still only at 70 basis points .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates actually rose .
Secondly , the market isn ’ t yet pricing in the economy going back to normal .
You can see with Zoom stock ’ s rally that traders see the COVID-19 economy lasting a few more months or maybe forever if they think working from home will stick even when it ’ s safe to go back to the office .
Why Is Software Down ?
Why tech is selling off if investors don ’ t think COVID-19 is on the precipice of going away and rates haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off because it was dramatically overvalued .
Better scenarios than were possible were priced in .
As you an see from the chart below , the global software forward PE ratio is about 180 % above the market ’ s forward PE .
That ’ s way above the average bubble and approaches the 2000 peak .
The Snowflake IPO and others are helping to push software lower because of the added supply .
The frantic demand for tech stocks can ’ t soak up this much supply .
Card spending growth fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the same with air travel which is back to about 1/3rd of where it was last year .
Consumer sentiment improved in September .
Consumers are looking forward to the election .
We don ’ t like when consumers change their opinions on the economy based on the election because that ’ s a partisan opinion rather than telling us what they actually think of their job prospects .
Value is doing well in September .
Software stocks were priced to the moon in August .
It didn ’ t even take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates to cause them to correct .

by UPFINA
There was a modest decline in the 2nd week in September in flights and consumer spending. You can’t look too much into non-seasonally adjusted data because the first week of the month was helped by the Labor Day holiday. Some people flew more in early September; then the yearly growth went back to its prior range. That’s to be expected until fast testing becomes universally available later this fall.
As you can see from the chart below, Chase card spending was down 6.5% in the week of September 13th which is a little worse than the prior week. Usually, we don’t look at this type of data because it’s noisy. Noise becomes less important when there are massive shifts in spending like we saw after the virus hit. At that point, data from the prior month was too late in detecting changes. We might be transitioning back to business as usual soon (in terms of what data we look at). That being said, as long as you know seasonality isn’t included in the chart below, it’s fine to look at.
We think some investment banks are biased towards coming up with a negative narrative on the economy when they say the data is rolling over. They want to come up with a reason why the stock market is falling. We can tell you for sure that the stock market didn’t fall because people spent less money in the week after Labor Day like they always do. This chart includes yearly growth, but Labor Day was 5 days later this year than last year.
Consumer Confidence Improves
Going against the chase spending data and supporting the solid Bloomberg consumer comfort reading, the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index rose from 74.1 to 78.1 which is still a 15.3% decline from last year. Yearly declines are still to be expected. It’s interesting how much lower confidence is in relation to retail sales which has more than fully recovered its recession losses. That differential is related to the fiscal stimulus. Getting money from the government doesn’t inspire as much confidence as jobs coming back and businesses reopening do. As you can see from the chart below, the current conditions index rose from 82.9 to 87.5. That’s important because the expectations index was impacted by politics with the election in a couple months.
U.S. consumer sentiment increased more than expected in early September to a six-month high t.co/wlVDdaLT7M pic.twitter.com/ncYRVaAiK8 — Bloomberg Markets (@markets) September 18, 2020
The expectations index rose from 68.5 to 73.3 as it is only down 12.1% yearly. Interestingly, Democrats became more confident because they see the possibility of Trump leaving office. Republicans became less confident because Trump might lose. It’s not that consumers think he will lose. As you can see from the chart below, it’s a tie between who they think will win. It’s that there was no chance of him leaving 6 months ago (other than impeachment) and now there is hope/fear that he can be voted out. If the Dems and the GOP cancel out in this survey, it’s a good thing because it means confidence improved. It should have improved given the decline in continued jobless claims and in COVID-19 deaths per day in the past month.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
We don’t think the stock market is having a major impact on confidence like it usually does. That’s based on the weak confidence in the summer despite the rise in stocks. If you talk to consumers, they think the stock market doesn’t reflect the current economy since so many people are still in trouble. That’s anecdotal evidence, but it’s logical. Corporate profits aren’t in tune with small businesses. In fact, as small businesses close, big corporations gobble up the market share.
The chart above also shows, consumers think Trump is better for the economy and finances. That’s a good sign for Trump because the economy is usually an important issue. On average, Biden is winning in battle ground states by 3.9% in the polls. There is no point in us giving any commentary on the race until the debates occur.
Value Does Well Finally
If you follow the stock market vaguely, you might think it’s obvious value stocks were due for a major reversal versus growth. If you follow the market every day, it’s painstaking to call for value to outperform growth because there have been a few head fakes this year. As you can see from the chart below, September has been significant as the Russell value index is outperforming the Russell growth index by more than 5% for the first time since the tech bubble crash in 2000. This chart mimics the bubble quiet well.
US Value is outperforming US Growth by more than 7% so far this year. Monthly outperformances of more than 5% are rare. ht @Convertbond pic.twitter.com/rvNB7tMfxs — jeroen blokland (@jsblokland) September 18, 2020
It’s amazing how badly tech has done versus value when you consider the fact that the 10 year yield is still only at 70 basis points. Imagine how much growth would fall if rates actually rose. Secondly, the market isn’t yet pricing in the economy going back to normal. You can see with Zoom stock’s rally that traders see the COVID-19 economy lasting a few more months or maybe forever if they think working from home will stick even when it’s safe to go back to the office.
Why Is Software Down?
Why tech is selling off if investors don’t think COVID-19 is on the precipice of going away and rates haven’t increased? It’s selling off because it was dramatically overvalued. Better scenarios than were possible were priced in. As you an see from the chart below, the global software forward PE ratio is about 180% above the market’s forward PE. That’s way above the average bubble and approaches the 2000 peak. The Snowflake IPO and others are helping to push software lower because of the added supply. The frantic demand for tech stocks can’t soak up this much supply.
Conclusion
Card spending growth fell because of Labor Day. That’s the same with air travel which is back to about 1/3rd of where it was last year. Consumer sentiment improved in September. Consumers are looking forward to the election. We don’t like when consumers change their opinions on the economy based on the election because that’s a partisan opinion rather than telling us what they actually think of their job prospects. Value is doing well in September. Software stocks were priced to the moon in August. It didn’t even take a reopening of the economy and higher rates to cause them to correct.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--Jobless Claims Need To Fall Before This Happens

The jobless claims report from the week of September 12th was important for a few reasons .
Firstly , it was the BLS survey week for the September report .
Secondly , non-seasonally adjusted claims were up 2 straight weeks , so the trend needed to change .
Thirdly , unemployment claims need to fall in the next 5 weeks before benefits given to the initial batch of people who lost their jobs in March start to run out .
Many will move to a pandemic related benefits program which could be a mess .
We ’ ve seen such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost everyone who lost their jobs in this recession did so in March and April .
Even now , continued claims are about double the previous cycle high even though the unemployment rate is 8.4 % which is lower than the previous cycle ’ s peak of 10 % .
Obviously , the unemployment rate is impacted by changes to the labor participation rate .
We ’ re just showing how many people are on continued claims .
This was a very strong report .
The less important , seasonally adjusted initial claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seasonal adjusted number became less important after the pandemic because seasonality is basically irrelevant in such a situation with massive influx in the labor market .
With the change to the seasonal factor last month , it became even less important .
As you can see from the chart below , NSA claims fell sharply from 866,000 to 790,000 which is a new cycle low .
That ended the 2 week increase streak .
This number is much closer to normal than continued claims because like we mentioned , most people lose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t been nearly as many job losses in the past few months .
PUAs fell sharply too .
In previous articles , we stated that you shouldn ’ t worry about PUAs because they were artificially manipulated by the results in California , which has dealt with fraud , and Arizona .
As you can see above , PUAs fell massively from 868,000 to 659,000 .
That pushed the total , including normal NSA initial claims , near the trough of the cycle .
The table below shows , PUAs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributed to over 100 % of the decline .
Notice the massive 592,000 decline in PUA continued claims too .
Arizona ’ s data is still suspect as there was a 64,284 increase in PUAs .
That doesn ’ t make sense .
How can Arizona have over 100 times the PUAs Colorado has when it has 7.3 million and Colorado has 5.8 million people ?
You shouldn ’ t be bearish on the economy just because of the pandemic claims data .
You also shouldn ’ t heavily rely on it on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes no sense .
Continued claims in the week prior fell from 13.544 million to 12.628 million which is a new cycle low .
That ’ the 6th decline in 7 weeks .
The average decline is 618,000 .
If that rate of change continues , claims will fall below 10 million by the week of October 10th .
That ’ s a lot of claims that run the risk of falling out of the program .
This process is going to be hotly discussed in October .
If continued claims were to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ d be at 3 million .
That ’ s basically impossible because of the timing of people leaving the program or going on pandemic help .
Plus , it will get harder to recover temporary job losses each week they stay on temporary leave .
There could be a better than expected improvement if the rapid antigen tests allow the economy to go back to normal this fall .
Abbot ’ s tests are going to be sent to the state governors within the next 1-2 weeks .
The August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take into account the $ 600 decline in weekly unemployment benefits .
If you don ’ t consider that , this wasn ’ t a great report .
Headline monthly growth was 0.6 % which missed estimates for 1 % and fell from 0.9 % .
The worst part of the report was the control group which had -0.2 % growth which missed estimates for 0.5 % and fell from 1 % growth .
Yearly headline growth rose from 2.4 % to 2.5 % and yearly control group growth fell from 7.5 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more interesting than they usually are because there has been a massive shift in spending .
As you can see from the chart below , sales are 2 % above the February peak .
Retail sales had a V-shaped recovery because of the strong and timely fiscal stimulus .
Online sales are 21 % above where they were in February .
On the other hand , monthly growth was 0 % and yearly growth fell from 23.4 % to 22.4 % .
If online sales growth was below the headline reading , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of as the economy reopens .
The biggest winner from this report was food services and drinking which is restaurants and bars in layman ’ s terms .
It had 4.7 % monthly growth and -15.4 % yearly growth which was up 4 points from July .
The problem for NYC restaurants is currently they can only have 25 % capacity for indoor dining .
Once it gets colder out , dining outside isn ’ t an option .
Many small restaurants have gone out of business .
Some commentators wonder why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money while small businesses are forced to struggle .
It would help the economy if it was easier to start a business ( more access to cheap capital ) .
The jobless claims report in the BLS survey week was good which implies the September BLS report will be strong .
We are still awaiting the fast COVID-19 tests that allow the economy to fully reopen .
Don ’ t get too bogged down on the pandemic jobless benefits data because it is lumpy and unreliable .
The August retail sales report was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 600 decline in weekly benefits .
It ’ s surprising sending didn ’ t drop sharply .
Online retail lost market share and restaurants improved .
Many restaurants are going out of business especially in areas where indoor dining is restricted such as NYC .

by UPFINA
The jobless claims report from the week of September 12th was important for a few reasons. Firstly, it was the BLS survey week for the September report. Secondly, non-seasonally adjusted claims were up 2 straight weeks, so the trend needed to change. Thirdly, unemployment claims need to fall in the next 5 weeks before benefits given to the initial batch of people who lost their jobs in March start to run out. Many will move to a pandemic related benefits program which could be a mess.
We’ve seen such a huge number of continued claims because almost everyone who lost their jobs in this recession did so in March and April. Even now, continued claims are about double the previous cycle high even though the unemployment rate is 8.4% which is lower than the previous cycle’s peak of 10%. Obviously, the unemployment rate is impacted by changes to the labor participation rate. We’re just showing how many people are on continued claims.
Very Good Claims Report
This was a very strong report. The less important, seasonally adjusted initial claims fell from 893,000 to 860,000. The seasonal adjusted number became less important after the pandemic because seasonality is basically irrelevant in such a situation with massive influx in the labor market. With the change to the seasonal factor last month, it became even less important. As you can see from the chart below, NSA claims fell sharply from 866,000 to 790,000 which is a new cycle low. That ended the 2 week increase streak. This number is much closer to normal than continued claims because like we mentioned, most people lose their jobs in March and April. There haven’t been nearly as many job losses in the past few months.
Last wk, workers filed 790K UI initial claims + 659K PUA claims = another 1.4 million NSA claims. This reverses an increase in #joblessclaims over the last few weeks, as Labor Day mutes claims & some PUA fraud issues appear to be decreasing. 1/ pic.twitter.com/ECiEH5ev2a — Daniel Zhao (@DanielBZhao) September 17, 2020
PUAs fell sharply too. In previous articles, we stated that you shouldn’t worry about PUAs because they were artificially manipulated by the results in California, which has dealt with fraud, and Arizona. As you can see above, PUAs fell massively from 868,000 to 659,000. That pushed the total, including normal NSA initial claims, near the trough of the cycle. The table below shows, PUAs in California fell 236,000. That means they contributed to over 100% of the decline. Notice the massive 592,000 decline in PUA continued claims too.
Arizona’s data is still suspect as there was a 64,284 increase in PUAs. That doesn’t make sense. How can Arizona have over 100 times the PUAs Colorado has when it has 7.3 million and Colorado has 5.8 million people? You shouldn’t be bearish on the economy just because of the pandemic claims data. You also shouldn’t heavily rely on it on a week to week basis if it makes no sense.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Huge drop in PUA claims largely driven by California, where there has been a surge in fraudulent claims over the last few weeks. The drop is an encouraging sign that CA is catching these cases. But PUA is still unusually elevated & even increasing in AZ#joblessclaims 3/ pic.twitter.com/MG6ilstuFk — Daniel Zhao (@DanielBZhao) September 17, 2020
Continued Claims Continue Their Descent
Continued claims in the week prior fell from 13.544 million to 12.628 million which is a new cycle low. That’ the 6th decline in 7 weeks. The average decline is 618,000. If that rate of change continues, claims will fall below 10 million by the week of October 10th. That’s a lot of claims that run the risk of falling out of the program. This process is going to be hotly discussed in October.
If continued claims were to fall at the recent rate until Christmas, they’d be at 3 million. That’s basically impossible because of the timing of people leaving the program or going on pandemic help. Plus, it will get harder to recover temporary job losses each week they stay on temporary leave. There could be a better than expected improvement if the rapid antigen tests allow the economy to go back to normal this fall. Abbot’s tests are going to be sent to the state governors within the next 1-2 weeks.
Retail Sales Report Was Okay
The August retail sales report was impressive if you take into account the $600 decline in weekly unemployment benefits. If you don’t consider that, this wasn’t a great report. Headline monthly growth was 0.6% which missed estimates for 1% and fell from 0.9%. The worst part of the report was the control group which had -0.2% growth which missed estimates for 0.5% and fell from 1% growth. Yearly headline growth rose from 2.4% to 2.5% and yearly control group growth fell from 7.5% to 7.2%.
US #retail sales modest +0.6% in August but core sales -0.1%. Slower momentum:
– clothing +2.9%
– furniture +2.1%
– build mat +2.0%
– elect +0.8%
– autos +0.2%
– online flat > Restaurants +4.7%: gradual rebound at summer end
> Consumers used savings w/ federal UI top-up halved pic.twitter.com/06ZZ5PWgky — Gregory Daco (@GregDaco) September 16, 2020
These reports are more interesting than they usually are because there has been a massive shift in spending. As you can see from the chart below, sales are 2% above the February peak. Retail sales had a V-shaped recovery because of the strong and timely fiscal stimulus. Online sales are 21% above where they were in February. On the other hand, monthly growth was 0% and yearly growth fell from 23.4% to 22.4%. If online sales growth was below the headline reading, it lost share which is what we expect more of as the economy reopens.
The biggest winner from this report was food services and drinking which is restaurants and bars in layman’s terms. It had 4.7% monthly growth and -15.4% yearly growth which was up 4 points from July. The problem for NYC restaurants is currently they can only have 25% capacity for indoor dining. Once it gets colder out, dining outside isn’t an option. Many small restaurants have gone out of business. Some commentators wonder why big businesses have unlimited access to free money while small businesses are forced to struggle. It would help the economy if it was easier to start a business (more access to cheap capital).
Conclusion
The jobless claims report in the BLS survey week was good which implies the September BLS report will be strong. We are still awaiting the fast COVID-19 tests that allow the economy to fully reopen. Don’t get too bogged down on the pandemic jobless benefits data because it is lumpy and unreliable. The August retail sales report was great if you take into account the $600 decline in weekly benefits. It’s surprising sending didn’t drop sharply. Online retail lost market share and restaurants improved. Many restaurants are going out of business especially in areas where indoor dining is restricted such as NYC.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--Trevor Milton resigns as CEO of Nikola Motors

He still holds 20 % of the company shares .
Put holders might make bank tomorrow .
The official Nikola @ @ @ @ @ shambles and banning even more people .

An interesting turn of events:
www.freightwaves.com/news/breaking-news-trevor-milton-out-of-nikola
He still holds 20% of the company shares. Put holders might make bank tomorrow.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
The official Nikola sub going to be in shambles and banning even more people.
h/t suckfail


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--A Deep Dive into Nikola’s FCEV Design and Price Model

Hey everyone .
I ’ m a mechanical engineering student with a hobby interest in finance .
I ’ ve spent the last few days figuring out if Nikola ’ s leasing model is actually possible .
There ’ s some really wacky stuff going on in Nikola ’ s presentations and financial projections , and I wanted to share my findings .
This is an absolute wall of words , and I wouldn ’ t be offended if you didn ’ t want to read it all .
In the first half , I try to tease out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cell Electric Vehicle ( FCEV ) given the specification Nikola lists .
Next there is a portion where I look at the discrepancies between their Financial Projections and their Lease breakdown .
Then a quick little peanut gallery where I look at their unrealistic assumptions and the hypocrisy of their comparisons .
Finally , a more serious portion where I discuss the design , efficiency , and utility implications of Nikola ’ s chosen power output and battery capacity .
Hope you guys enjoy !
Nikola claims that they have the industry first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel , and use of the vehicle .
They plan on leasing for $ .95 per mile @ 30 % margin .
This implies an expense of $ .67 per mile to Nikola .
According to the DoE , it currently costs $ 5.10/kg to produce , compress , and dispense hydrogen .
Nikola claims they can do this for $ 2.47/kg .
I highly doubt their estimate , and will elaborate on that later .
Hydrogen has a specific energy 33.3 kWh/kg .
A Fuel cell Electric Vehicle ( FCEV ) has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A diesel semi tractor , which easily compares to Nikola ’ s offerings , consumes about 1.25 kWh of work per km ( or 2.125 per mile ) of useful work loaded .
This implies the Nikola truck will use 3.86 kWh of hydrogen per mile , at a cost of $ 0.59 per mile , or $ .29 using their estimates .
The DoE estimate could be pretty rosy as well , Hindenburg cited a practical price of $ 16 per kg for hydrogen in their report .
Nikola ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miles per kg of hydrogen @ $ 2.47 per kg .
That works out to $ .33/mile .
Our estimates are pretty close , excluding hydrogen costs .
It looks like , in a surprising twist , they actually overestimated the energy consumption of a tractor .
Or maybe not .
We ’ ll get to that Why do I doubt their hydrogen cost estimates ?
$ 2.5 per kg implies $ .075 per kWh of hydrogen produced The average price for Industrial electricity in Arizona , the state they are headquartered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cheapest in the US .
Of course , there isn ’ t a 1:1 conversion of electricity to hydrogen : an electrolyzer uses about 50 kWh per kg of hydrogen ( specific energy of 33.3kWh/kg ) , making the electricity expense alone in excess of $ .10 per kWh of hydrogen .
Electricity must also be used to compress the hydrogen .
This would take another ~4 kWh , though we ’ re already over budget .
God forbid they use California electricity at an average cost of $ .15 per kWh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone exceeds their estimates , much less depreciation expense , cost of capital , maintenance expense , salary expense , etc .
Clearly a bogus number .
I suppose they can use renewable excess during off-hours for cheap , but the rapidly decreasing costs of energy storage will likely level out those low prices rather quickly .
This also only works in Arizona and a select few other states ; California not included .
There is the issue of a startup paying to build huge electrolyzers that might have a utilization factor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storage will be needed .
The abhorrent upfront capex needed to try and drive down operating costs is not viable for them .
NREL H2 cost analysis from 2011 .
This is just about the most recent research I can find .
The abject lack of new material tells me it ’ s not exactly a hoppin ’ field : www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/production-cost-analysis.html # fn3 Part of the reason there are currently so few FCVs on the road today is the limited service life of a fuel cell .
Fuel cells are precision manufactured components @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too violently .
This is not good when combined with the rock-hard suspensions of semi tractors .
The DoE targets a useful life of 150,000 miles for a fuel cell .
Currently , there is no information confirming this target has been met .
A Toyota Murai comes with a 100,000 mile warranty on its FC .
For the sake of argument , I will assume Nikola FCs can meet this target .
The DoE targets a cost of $ 40/kW for fuel cell production in 2020 , provided mass hits 500,000 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I will again assume this to give Nikola the best chance .
As an aside : Nikola ’ s decision to use exclusively GM FC technology in their Badger pickup indicates to me they have nothing “ up their sleeve ” to make the technology more viable , despite my optimistic assumptions .
I ’ ll assume the Nikola Two ’ s Fuel cell is 500 kW , less than the 750 kW claimed output .
I think it likely their horsepower claim will be a peak power figure only achievable when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FC .
I can not confirm this , because Nikola does not list the output of their motors and FC separately ( along with myriad other questionable , or lack of , claims ) .
I think this is reasonable , considering FC thermal efficiency is maximized between 20 % and 30 % load , and a semi will average ~90 kW of useful work required on the highway , translating to ~170 kW of FC usage .
This is near the peak efficiency band of a PEMFC .
This assumption also allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ rated ” output .
This implies an upfront cost of $ 20,000 .
A targeted useful life of 150,000 miles implies a depreciation expense of $ .13 per mile .
Using BNEF 2023 battery cost estimates of $ 100/kWh , that equates to $ 25,000 of battery expense .
Assuming a useful life of .25M miles , more than any existing warranty currently covers , that results in a depreciation expense of $ .125 per mile .
Lastly , I extrapolated an FCEV COGS of $ 175,000 per truck from their Financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment already listed , and a 15 % scrap value I pulled out of my ass to try and help nikola here , leaves $ 104,000 depreciated over 700k miles , or a $ .15 depreciation expense per mile .
Nikola assumed a $ .061/mile maintenance cost .
Any engineer should be able to see such a claim and immediately question it .
Tires alone should account for $ .03 per mile .
That leaves… .
$ .031 for brakes , air lines , HVAC , wiring , electrical equipment , motors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I already calculated , sensors , etc .
They make no additional provisions for the battery/FC in their leasing breakdown .
Pure , unadulterated bullshit .
The ICCT puts BEV per mile maintenance at ~ $ .19/mile .
How they squeezed 70 % of those costs out , as an unproven startup , by going for a more complex FC-BEV hybrid is beyond me .
Adding their laughably low per mile maintenance expense of .061 + .15 + .125 + .13 +.59 gives us an aggregate $ 1.06 per mile expense for Nikola @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ .29 , this equates to $ .76 ; still more than their projected gross expenses .
The first estimate is 50 % over they need for their claimed 30 % gross margin at $ .95 per mile .
Note : I used a projected battery expense , projected FC service life target , and projected FC production expense .
None of these have been met .
I used the average resitive forces acting on a US tractor-trailer , which appear to be lower than the number Nikola uses .
I did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Additionally , these are EXPENSES , and includes 0 profit for the suppliers of these parts .
The GM-Nikola deal clearly shows there will be little vertical integration in their production , and such allowances would have to be made .
A more reasonable estimate , including a still optimistic 3 % interest expense for truck capex , a .4 % annual warranty expense ( corresponding to their presented 3 % estimated reserve ) .
That reserve , btw , is very optimistic : Tesla used a higher reserve on the S for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a warranty length/distance a literal order of magnitude lower than the Nikola truck .
A *STILL* low maintenance expense of $ .12 , and a 10 % margin for battery & FC production , we end up with an $ .92 per mile expense , or more than Nikola can afford , even when using their untenable $ 2.5 per kg hydrogen estimate .
This is before G & A expenses .
Their leasing business model is not possible .
It ’ s possible some of the folks at Nikola have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nikola says they have plans to Lease their trucks .
They ’ ve had presentation slides including the idea , and their truck descriptions on their website include a leasing plan .
In their most recent presentation at the DB Global Auto Industry Conference in June , however , the Leasing cost breakdown slide was conspicuously missing .
Their Financial projections slide showed 2,000 FCEV trucks being produced in 2023 , and 470 million in revenue from FCEV sales .
This represents $ 235,000 per truck , and their FCEV revenue scales exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no room for residual from the 2023 trucks .
They ’ re projecting to sell them !
Revenue from maintenance and Hydrogen sales are also listed separately .
Their Financial projections clearly show the upfront sale of trucks with additional Hydrogen fueling and maintenance revenue , and the leasing model slide has disappeared .
It ’ s easy to see why .
Their projected combined expenses and capex exceeds $ 7.5 billion through 2024 , significantly more than their current $ 1 Billion in assets and a couple of lease payments would allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share dilution ( not something I think Trevor would be on board with ) or extremely expensive leverage .
It ’ s not like they ’ re going to get cheap loans secured against their proprietary trucks , requiring their proprietary stations , to run only their customers ’ preset routes .
A bank wouldn ’ t want that kind of collateral .
The leasing idea is a real mess .
Nikla DB presentation , projections are 2nd to last page : d32st474bx6q5f.cloudfront.net/nikolamotor/uploads/investor/presentation/presentation_file/7/Nikola_and_VectoIQ_Conference_Presentation_DB_Global_Auto_Conference__6.10.2020_.pdf One can claim that the lease model is still in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so are battery and fuel cell specifications for the Nikola one .
The Nikola one was , ostensibly , never actually powered by hydrogen , and development has since been abandoned .
It looks like their leasing Idea may have been abandoned as well .
I ’ ll also point out that an expected 2024 FCEV maintenance revenue of 56 million on 7000 trucks sold , assuming an average of 50,000 miles per truck sold in 2024 ( the average mileage if the trucks are sold at a constant rate through the FY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , equates to 12.4 cents per mile , more than double the $ .061 projected maintenance costs in the april lease presentation .
Either they plan on making a killing from maintenance , or there was some aggressive re-shuffling of numbers when maintenance went from an expense to revenue stream , or vice versa .
The same analysis of hydrogen expenses puts their per kg revenue at $ 4.08 .
Still low , but a hefty sum above their $ 2.47 cost average on the leasing slide .
If we use their projected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 4.08 per kg H2 revenue , and $ 235,000 truck price depreciated over 7 years w/no interest expense , the cost of ownership , according to their income projections , is $ 1 per mile for a 100,000 mile year .
More than they say a diesel will cost .
OOPS !
That ’ s most of what I wanted to talk about .
It ’ s pretty clear that Nikola can not possibly make a profit with their lease model , and Nikola ’ s finance department has indirectly acknowledged this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many years away .
Nikola ’ s move fast and break things approach ( though I ’ m not convinced we ’ ve seen much moving outside of gravity assists ) will end up a “ move fast and bankrupt things ” strategy .
I now want to take a few moments to look at some of the sillier things I found in my research : In a laughably exuberant turn of events , Nikola projects 25 % gross margins during their first year of production .
That ’ s downright cute !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ GM FCs & batteries on IVECO platforms , and beating the margins of all publicly traded auto companies sans Ferrari within a few months of production start .
It ’ s that easy .
Get your shit together , Ford !
On Nikola ’ s website under their trucks , they have a comparison of FCs , BEVs , and Diesel where they seem to forget their trucks have hundreds of kWhs of battery storage onboard .
They claim “ Hydrogen acts as a buffer and grid balance , ” while “ batteries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You heard it hear first , folks , batteries can ’ t be used as a grid buffer , only a grid drain .
They also claim H2 is the “ most abundant element on the planet , ” while “ Batteries [ are ] made of non-renewable resources ; dangerous/costly to mine.
” Makes me wonder why they chose to put so many on their trucks .
Also hilariously hypocritical , considering Platinum -required for PEMFCs- is one of the rarest metals on earth .
I want to take a moment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Nikola ’ s set power parameters .
And I want to start with a quote from Elon Musk during the Tesla Semi reveal : “ We designed the Tesla truck like a bullet , ” Musk said .
“ A normal diesel truck is designed like a barn wall.
” The Tesla Semi is more aerodynamic than a $ 2 million Bugatti Chiron sports car , he said .
A bold claim , but I believe this to be correct .
Cheesy , but correct .
Why ?
Cooling requirements .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less favorable aerodynamics you ’ ll have .
In the simple representation of an engine , there is a fuel input , a work output , and a heat output .
A gas engine -especially one not designed with fuel efficiency in mind like the Chiron ’ s- will likely only output ~20-25 % of its fuel input as a work output .
The Chiron makes 1,500 hp , and needs to reject 4,500-6,000 hp of heat at full throttle .
The goal of a Chiron isn ’ t to slip through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s designed suck in as much air as possible for cooling and brute it ’ s way to 270 mph through raw horsepower .
Most modern sedans have more favorable aerodynamics than a Bugatti .
On the other hand , about 90 % of the inputs from an EV charger make it to the wheels — a major factor that makes EVs so efficient .
This means Elon can put , for example , 1000 hp of motors in his truck and only worry about rejecting 100 hp of heat at full load @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s less cooling than a Prius needs , and the truck can be designed with virtually zero air input constraints .
He can swing his “ 3x the acceleration ” dick around , and the only tradeoff is beefier driveline bits for the extra torque and bigger motors .
C_D lists on wikipedia : Note almost every production car below Cd=.24 is either a small displacement diesel or electric .
No supercars in sight .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient The Chiron ’ s standard Cd is .38 .
A 1995 ford windstar minivan has a standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prestigious club , haha : Hydrogen is a different story .
The thermal efficiency of a FCEV -above 50 % load- will dip down into the 40-50 % range .
The average efficiency of a diesel truck is ~45 % , and it will dip to ~35 % at max rpm , full load .
‘ Ever seen the video where Trevor says the production trucks won ’ t need as much cooling as their current prototypes ?
He ’ s lying through his teeth .
A 1000 hp FC would need more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much if not more than a 500hp diesel .
It ’ s also important to note that less heat is lost in exhaust from a PEMFC , and lower operating temps mean that actual cooling airflow required is significantly more than an equivalent diesel would require .
500 hp diesels are already built like a brick with a front aftercooler & radiator the size of a football field .
Trevor ’ s dick swinging has major consequences .
More cooling means more drag , more weight in heat sinks/radiators , and more power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create positive feedback loops , e.g .
more air requirements mean less favorable aerodynamics & more drag , which means more power draw at speed , which means more cooling , which means more air requirements… It ’ s not all fun and games like the pure BEV Tesla is making .
Daimler ’ s recently announced H2 semi offering only has 300 kW , and they can recycle their waste heat to warm up incoming liquid hydrogen , Nikola uses compressed hydrogen and won ’ t have the same luxury .
Running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scratcher ; one would think their head of R & D ’ s only experience was pouring concrete or something .
It ’ s also important to note US tractor-trailers are hard capped at 80,000 lbs .
This means that every pound of tractor weight is a pound taken from potential cargo .
Y ’ know… the part that actually makes money .
One has to wonder why Nikola is keeping ~5000 lbs of batteries on the tractor ; their website showed they aren ’ t fans of the stuff .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two full hours on battery alone , more than a regenerative braking system would require or power peaking during a hill climb .
It ’ s dumb ; 100 kWh would be more than enough when an on-demand primemover like a hydrogen cell is also onboard .
It ’ s an expensive and opulent display to the vexation of customers , who would , in all likelihood , much prefer an extra 2 tons of cargo capacity .
Features like 1000 hp and 250 kWh of battery appeal more to retail investors than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that I pretty conclusively showed that : • Nikola ’ s hydrogen cost projections are bogus .
There isn ’ t even enough money there to pay for the electrolysis and compression , much less maintenance , depreciation , or labor .
• Nikola ’ s leasing costs undercutting diesel is bogus .
One can disprove that with their own financial projections , much less the real costs of FCs and H2 electrolysis .
• Nikola ’ s plan to lease the trucks is totally divorced from reality , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s projected per mile operating & maintenance expenses are beyond indefensible .
• A myriad of odd , marketing focused design choices limit the trucks on-road efficiency and utility to potential customers .
If you made it this far , congrats !
Disclaimer : This information is only for educational purposes .
Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article .
Do you own due diligence or consult your financial professional before making any investment decision .

by thri54
Hey everyone. I’m a mechanical engineering student with a hobby interest in finance. I’ve spent the last few days figuring out if Nikola’s leasing model is actually possible. There’s some really wacky stuff going on in Nikola’s presentations and financial projections, and I wanted to share my findings.

This is an absolute wall of words, and I wouldn’t be offended if you didn’t want to read it all. In the first half, I try to tease out the cost per mile of an actual Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) given the specification Nikola lists. Next there is a portion where I look at the discrepancies between their Financial Projections and their Lease breakdown. Then a quick little peanut gallery where I look at their unrealistic assumptions and the hypocrisy of their comparisons. Finally, a more serious portion where I discuss the design, efficiency, and utility implications of Nikola’s chosen power output and battery capacity. Hope you guys enjoy!

Let’s get started:
Nikola claims that they have the industry first holistic leasing program, including maintenance, fuel, and use of the vehicle. They plan on leasing for $.95 per mile @ 30% margin. This implies an expense of $.73 $.67 per mile to Nikola.
Hydrogen costs:
According to the DoE, it currently costs $5.10/kg to produce, compress, and dispense hydrogen. Nikola claims they can do this for $2.47/kg. I highly doubt their estimate, and will elaborate on that later. Hydrogen has a specific energy 33.3 kWh/kg. A Fuel cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) has an average thermal efficiency of 55%. A diesel semi tractor, which easily compares to Nikola’s offerings, consumes about 1.25 kWh of work per km (or 2.125 per mile) of useful work loaded.
This implies the Nikola truck will use 3.86 kWh of hydrogen per mile, at a cost of $0.59 per mile, or $.29 using their estimates. The DoE estimate could be pretty rosy as well, Hindenburg cited a practical price of $16 per kg for hydrogen in their report. Nikola’s estimate in the leasing breakdown is 7.5 miles per kg of hydrogen @ $2.47 per kg. That works out to $.33/mile. Our estimates are pretty close, excluding hydrogen costs. It looks like, in a surprising twist, they actually overestimated the energy consumption of a tractor. Or maybe not. We’ll get to that
ICCT Tractor-Trailer Fuel Consumption: theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EU_HDV_Testing_BriefingPaper_20180515a.pdf
Why do I doubt their hydrogen cost estimates? $2.5 per kg implies $.075 per kWh of hydrogen produced The average price for Industrial electricity in Arizona, the state they are headquartered in, was $.068/kWh, some of the cheapest in the US. Of course, there isn’t a 1:1 conversion of electricity to hydrogen: an electrolyzer uses about 50 kWh per kg of hydrogen ( specific energy of 33.3kWh/kg), making the electricity expense alone in excess of $.10 per kWh of hydrogen. Electricity must also be used to compress the hydrogen. This would take another ~4 kWh, though we’re already over budget. God forbid they use California electricity at an average cost of $.15 per kWh. The electricity expense for the Electrolyzers alone exceeds their estimates, much less depreciation expense, cost of capital, maintenance expense, salary expense, etc. Clearly a bogus number.
I suppose they can use renewable excess during off-hours for cheap, but the rapidly decreasing costs of energy storage will likely level out those low prices rather quickly. This also only works in Arizona and a select few other states; California not included. There is the issue of a startup paying to build huge electrolyzers that might have a utilization factor of ~30%, and additional high pressure storage will be needed. The abhorrent upfront capex needed to try and drive down operating costs is not viable for them.
EIA electricity prices nationwide: www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_3
NREL H2 cost analysis from 2011. This is just about the most recent research I can find. The abject lack of new material tells me it’s not exactly a hoppin’ field: www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/production-cost-analysis.html#fn3
Fuel Cell costs:
Part of the reason there are currently so few FCVs on the road today is the limited service life of a fuel cell. Fuel cells are precision manufactured components that degrade quickly when jostled & vibrated too violently. This is not good when combined with the rock-hard suspensions of semi tractors.
The DoE targets a useful life of 150,000 miles for a fuel cell. Currently, there is no information confirming this target has been met. A Toyota Murai comes with a 100,000 mile warranty on its FC. For the sake of argument, I will assume Nikola FCs can meet this target. The DoE targets a cost of $40/kW for fuel cell production in 2020, provided mass hits 500,000. This hasn’t happened yet, but I will again assume this to give Nikola the best chance. As an aside: Nikola’s decision to use exclusively GM FC technology in their Badger pickup indicates to me they have nothing “up their sleeve” to make the technology more viable, despite my optimistic assumptions.
I’ll assume the Nikola Two’s Fuel cell is 500 kW, less than the 750 kW claimed output. I think it likely their horsepower claim will be a peak power figure only achievable when the motors draw on the battery & FC. I cannot confirm this, because Nikola does not list the output of their motors and FC separately (along with myriad other questionable, or lack of, claims). I think this is reasonable, considering FC thermal efficiency is maximized between 20% and 30% load, and a semi will average ~90 kW of useful work required on the highway, translating to ~170 kW of FC usage. This is near the peak efficiency band of a PEMFC. This assumption also allows steady-state operation at 66% of the “rated” output. This implies an upfront cost of $20,000. A targeted useful life of 150,000 miles implies a depreciation expense of $.13 per mile.
NREL Stack Durability and Performance vs load chart: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73011.pdf
Battery costs:
Using BNEF 2023 battery cost estimates of $100/kWh, that equates to $25,000 of battery expense. Assuming a useful life of .25M miles, more than any existing warranty currently covers, that results in a depreciation expense of $.125 per mile.
Chassis and the rest:
Lastly, I extrapolated an FCEV COGS of $175,000 per truck from their Financial projections, minus the $45,000 of equipment already listed, and a 15% scrap value I pulled out of my ass to try and help nikola here, leaves $104,000 depreciated over 700k miles, or a $.15 depreciation expense per mile.
Maintenance costs:
Nikola assumed a $.061/mile maintenance cost. Any engineer should be able to see such a claim and immediately question it. Tires alone should account for $.03 per mile. That leaves…. $.031 for brakes, air lines, HVAC, wiring, electrical equipment, motors, inverters, those battery and FC expenses I already calculated, sensors, etc. They make no additional provisions for the battery/FC in their leasing breakdown. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. The ICCT puts BEV per mile maintenance at ~$.19/mile. How they squeezed 70% of those costs out, as an unproven startup, by going for a more complex FC-BEV hybrid is beyond me.
Cost of trucking: www.thetruckersreport.com/infographics/cost-of-trucking/
Nikola Leasing cost breakdown, p19: d32st474bx6q5f.cloudfront.net/nikolamotor/uploads/investor/presentation/presentation_file/5/NikolaInvestorRoadShowPresentation042720.pdf
Leasing Conclusions:
Adding their laughably low per mile maintenance expense of .061 + .15 + .125 + .13 +.59 gives us an aggregate $1.06 per mile expense for Nikola. Using their fuel expense estimate of $.29, this equates to $.76; still more than their projected gross expenses. The first estimate is 50% over they need for their claimed 30% gross margin at $.95 per mile. Note: I used a projected battery expense, projected FC service life target, and projected FC production expense. None of these have been met. I used the average resitive forces acting on a US tractor-trailer, which appear to be lower than the number Nikola uses. I did not include warranty expenses in my estimate. Additionally, these are EXPENSES, and includes 0 profit for the suppliers of these parts. The GM-Nikola deal clearly shows there will be little vertical integration in their production, and such allowances would have to be made.
A more reasonable estimate, including a still optimistic 3% interest expense for truck capex, a .4% annual warranty expense (corresponding to their presented 3% estimated reserve). That reserve, btw, is very optimistic: Tesla used a higher reserve on the S for years, while building a simpler product with a warranty length/distance a literal order of magnitude lower than the Nikola truck. A *STILL* low maintenance expense of $.12, and a 10% margin for battery & FC production, we end up with an $.92 per mile expense, or more than Nikola can afford, even when using their untenable $2.5 per kg hydrogen estimate. This is before G&A expenses. Their leasing business model is not possible.
Lease Projections v. Income Projections: Internal Chaos or Outright Fraud?
It’s possible some of the folks at Nikola have already found those problems out, though. Nikola says they have plans to Lease their trucks. They’ve had presentation slides including the idea, and their truck descriptions on their website include a leasing plan. In their most recent presentation at the DB Global Auto Industry Conference in June, however, the Leasing cost breakdown slide was conspicuously missing. Their Financial projections slide showed 2,000 FCEV trucks being produced in 2023, and 470 million in revenue from FCEV sales. This represents $235,000 per truck, and their FCEV revenue scales exactly linearly into their 2024 projected sales; no room for residual from the 2023 trucks. They’re projecting to sell them! Revenue from maintenance and Hydrogen sales are also listed separately. Their Financial projections clearly show the upfront sale of trucks with additional Hydrogen fueling and maintenance revenue, and the leasing model slide has disappeared. It’s easy to see why. Their projected combined expenses and capex exceeds $7.5 billion through 2024, significantly more than their current $1 Billion in assets and a couple of lease payments would allow for. This would take some intense share dilution (not something I think Trevor would be on board with) or extremely expensive leverage.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
It’s not like they’re going to get cheap loans secured against their proprietary trucks, requiring their proprietary stations, to run only their customers’ preset routes. A bank wouldn’t want that kind of collateral. The leasing idea is a real mess.
Nikla DB presentation, projections are 2nd to last page: d32st474bx6q5f.cloudfront.net/nikolamotor/uploads/investor/presentation/presentation_file/7/Nikola_and_VectoIQ_Conference_Presentation_DB_Global_Auto_Conference__6.10.2020_.pdf
One can claim that the lease model is still in the description of the trucks, but so are battery and fuel cell specifications for the Nikola one. The Nikola one was, ostensibly, never actually powered by hydrogen, and development has since been abandoned. It looks like their leasing Idea may have been abandoned as well.
I’ll also point out that an expected 2024 FCEV maintenance revenue of 56 million on 7000 trucks sold, assuming an average of 50,000 miles per truck sold in 2024 (the average mileage if the trucks are sold at a constant rate through the FY) and 100,000 per truck in 2023, equates to 12.4 cents per mile, more than double the $.061 projected maintenance costs in the april lease presentation. Either they plan on making a killing from maintenance, or there was some aggressive re-shuffling of numbers when maintenance went from an expense to revenue stream, or vice versa.
The same analysis of hydrogen expenses puts their per kg revenue at $4.08. Still low, but a hefty sum above their $2.47 cost average on the leasing slide.
If we use their projected FCEV maintenance revenue of $.124, $4.08 per kg H2 revenue, and $235,000 truck price depreciated over 7 years w/no interest expense, the cost of ownership, according to their income projections, is $1 per mile for a 100,000 mile year. More than they say a diesel will cost. OOPS!
That’s most of what I wanted to talk about. It’s pretty clear that Nikola cannot possibly make a profit with their lease model, and Nikola’s finance department has indirectly acknowledged this. Hydrogen tech is still many, many years away. Nikola’s move fast and break things approach (though I’m not convinced we’ve seen much moving outside of gravity assists) will end up a “move fast and bankrupt things” strategy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I now want to take a few moments to look at some of the sillier things I found in my research:
In a laughably exuberant turn of events, Nikola projects 25% gross margins during their first year of production. That’s downright cute! They plan on, ostensibly, slapping GM FCs & batteries on IVECO platforms, and beating the margins of all publicly traded auto companies sans Ferrari within a few months of production start. It’s that easy. Get your shit together, Ford!
On Nikola’s website under their trucks, they have a comparison of FCs, BEVs, and Diesel where they seem to forget their trucks have hundreds of kWhs of battery storage onboard. They claim “Hydrogen acts as a buffer and grid balance,” while “batteries are a drain on the grid.” You heard it hear first, folks, batteries can’t be used as a grid buffer, only a grid drain. They also claim H2 is the “most abundant element on the planet,” while “Batteries [are] made of non-renewable resources; dangerous/costly to mine.” Makes me wonder why they chose to put so many on their trucks. Also hilariously hypocritical, considering Platinum -required for PEMFCs- is one of the rarest metals on earth.
Design considerations and odd choices:
I want to take a moment to talk about chassis design and the implications of Nikola’s set power parameters. And I want to start with a quote from Elon Musk during the Tesla Semi reveal:
“We designed the Tesla truck like a bullet,” Musk said. “A normal diesel truck is designed like a barn wall.” The Tesla Semi is more aerodynamic than a $2 million Bugatti Chiron sports car, he said.
A bold claim, but I believe this to be correct. Cheesy, but correct. Why? Cooling requirements. The more cooling air you need, the less favorable aerodynamics you’ll have. In the simple representation of an engine, there is a fuel input, a work output, and a heat output. A gas engine -especially one not designed with fuel efficiency in mind like the Chiron’s- will likely only output ~20-25% of its fuel input as a work output. The Chiron makes 1,500 hp, and needs to reject 4,500-6,000 hp of heat at full throttle. The goal of a Chiron isn’t to slip through the air, au contraire. It’s designed suck in as much air as possible for cooling and brute it’s way to 270 mph through raw horsepower. Most modern sedans have more favorable aerodynamics than a Bugatti.

On the other hand, about 90% of the inputs from an EV charger make it to the wheels — a major factor that makes EVs so efficient. This means Elon can put, for example, 1000 hp of motors in his truck and only worry about rejecting 100 hp of heat at full load, an easy task. That’s less cooling than a Prius needs, and the truck can be designed with virtually zero air input constraints. He can swing his “3x the acceleration” dick around, and the only tradeoff is beefier driveline bits for the extra torque and bigger motors.
C_D lists on wikipedia: Note almost every production car below Cd=.24 is either a small displacement diesel or electric. No supercars in sight. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
The Chiron’s standard Cd is .38. A 1995 ford windstar minivan has a standard Cd of .35. Not exactly a prestigious club, haha:
www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a32329/these-rare-development-photos-tell-the-full-bugatti-chiron-story/
Hydrogen is a different story. The thermal efficiency of a FCEV -above 50% load- will dip down into the 40-50% range. The average efficiency of a diesel truck is ~45%, and it will dip to ~35% at max rpm, full load. ‘Ever seen the video where Trevor says the production trucks won’t need as much cooling as their current prototypes? He’s lying through his teeth. A 1000 hp FC would need more than 1000 hp of cooling; as much if not more than a 500hp diesel. It’s also important to note that less heat is lost in exhaust from a PEMFC, and lower operating temps mean that actual cooling airflow required is significantly more than an equivalent diesel would require. 500 hp diesels are already built like a brick with a front aftercooler & radiator the size of a football field. Trevor’s dick swinging has major consequences. More cooling means more drag, more weight in heat sinks/radiators, and more power draw to move coolant. These all create positive feedback loops, e.g. more air requirements mean less favorable aerodynamics & more drag, which means more power draw at speed, which means more cooling, which means more air requirements… It’s not all fun and games like the pure BEV Tesla is making.

Daimler’s recently announced H2 semi offering only has 300 kW, and they can recycle their waste heat to warm up incoming liquid hydrogen, Nikola uses compressed hydrogen and won’t have the same luxury. Running so much horsepower is a real head scratcher; one would think their head of R&D’s only experience was pouring concrete or something.

It’s also important to note US tractor-trailers are hard capped at 80,000 lbs. This means that every pound of tractor weight is a pound taken from potential cargo. Y’know… the part that actually makes money. One has to wonder why Nikola is keeping ~5000 lbs of batteries on the tractor; their website showed they aren’t fans of the stuff. It’s enough to run a loaded tractor two full hours on battery alone, more than a regenerative braking system would require or power peaking during a hill climb. It’s dumb; 100 kWh would be more than enough when an on-demand primemover like a hydrogen cell is also onboard. It’s an expensive and opulent display to the vexation of customers, who would, in all likelihood, much prefer an extra 2 tons of cargo capacity.
Features like 1000 hp and 250 kWh of battery appeal more to retail investors than trucking companies.

Actual conclusion time: I think that I pretty conclusively showed that:
Nikola’s hydrogen cost projections are bogus. There isn’t even enough money there to pay for the electrolysis and compression, much less maintenance, depreciation, or labor. Nikola’s leasing costs undercutting diesel is bogus. One can disprove that with their own financial projections, much less the real costs of FCs and H2 electrolysis. Nikola’s plan to lease the trucks is totally divorced from reality, according to their own financial projections. Nikola’s projected per mile operating & maintenance expenses are beyond indefensible. A myriad of odd, marketing focused design choices limit the trucks on-road efficiency and utility to potential customers.
If you made it this far, congrats!
Disclaimer: This information is only for educational purposes. Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article. Do you own due diligence or consult your financial professional before making any investment decision.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--The Fed Has Been Buying ETFs, Heres a List

Here ’ s how the big numbers break down .
There have been flows of $ 150.1 billion into bond @ @ @ @ @ about $ 132 billion of that is U.S. funds ) .
As of the end @ @ @ @ @ the Fed had only bought $ 8.7 billion worth of such funds .

Here’s how the big numbers break down. There have been flows of $150.1 billion into bond ETFs through August 31 (about $132 billion of that is U.S. funds). As of the end of August, however, the Fed had only bought $8.7 billion worth of such funds.
www.marketwatch.com/story/the-fed-has-been-buying-etfs-what-does-it-mean-11600704182


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--Traders are the most bearish on Nasdaq 100 futures in 12 years.

Morgan Stanley Turns Bearish , Sees Tech Plunge Accelerating As Investors Dump Most QQQs In 20 Years Back in March , just after the Fed nationalized the bond market , Morgan Stanley ’ s Michael Wilson quickly emerged as the biggest cheerleader for risk assets , correctly predicting that stocks would soar on the back of the biggest surge in global fiscal and monetary stimulus which according to BofA estimates is now well over $ 20 trillion .
Well , the party is now over .
As Wilson writes this morning , over the past few weeks US equity markets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new bull market began , and according to Morgan Stanley – which still sees the bull market continuing albeit at a slower pace – not only is this “ correction due to the rally simply exhausting itself into long-term resistance ” but the second leg of the correction has arrived .
Strategists ’ Mood Darkens on U.S. Stocks as Headwinds Swirl As investors fret over the presidential election , a Congress deadlocked over the next stimulus package and extended lockdowns around the world , S & P stock futures are extending three weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus Impact ‘ More Fundamental and Long Run ’ Than 9/11 , 2008 Crisis The COVID-19 crisis “ is going to have a more fundamental and long-run impact on the structure ” of the economy , Randall Kroszner explained .
US Banks Trim Expectations in Era of Low Interest Rates US banks are preparing investors for a prolonged period in which low interest rates are a drag on their profits .

Traders are the most bearish on Nasdaq 100 futures in 12 years. Chart via @gregorhunter @theterminal pic.twitter.com/NPv4U2Nih9 — Lisa Abramowicz (@lisaabramowicz1) September 21, 2020
JPMORGAN: "The odds of no stimulus pre-election continue to increase. If the package fails to materialize, it is unclear what would happen during the lame duck session. Dems are said to be anchored around $2T, Trump $1.5T, Senate
Republicans in the $500bn – $700bn range." — James Pethokoukis (@JimPethokoukis) September 21, 2020
MORGAN STANLEY: Ginsburg’s death “adds another element of risk .. and could weigh on the market overall in the near term. .. We believe the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 remain vulnerable to a test of their 200-day moving averages, which are 7% and 14% lower, respectively.” [Wilson] pic.twitter.com/DytFpBt7jB — Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) September 21, 2020
“Fiscal Cliff +Peak Fed = Second Leg of Correction” Morgan Stanley
Back in March, just after the Fed nationalized the bond market, Morgan Stanley’s Michael Wilson quickly emerged as the biggest cheerleader for risk assets, correctly predicting that stocks would soar on the back of the biggest surge in global fiscal and monetary stimulus which according to BofA estimates is now well over $20 trillion.
Well, the party is now over.
As Wilson writes this morning, over the past few weeks US equity markets have experienced their largest correction since the new bull market began, and according to Morgan Stanley – which still sees the bull market continuing albeit at a slower pace – not only is this “correction due to the rally simply exhausting itself into long-term resistance” but the second leg of the correction has arrived.
As investors fret over the presidential election, a Congress deadlocked over the next stimulus package and extended lockdowns around the world, S&P stock futures are extending three weeks of losses.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
The COVID-19 crisis “is going to have a more fundamental and long-run impact on the structure” of the economy, Randall Kroszner explained.
US banks are preparing investors for a prolonged period in which low interest rates are a drag on their profits.
What’s going on? Only 1% of all mortgage backed securities that the Fed has been buying are commercial. If the residential market “booming”, why does it need so much hand holding? They just bought another $50B of MBS this past week. 2nd largest purchase since June. pic.twitter.com/T2FbKvj2Tl — Otavio (Tavi) Costa (@TaviCosta) September 20, 2020
twitter.com/paranoidbull/status/1307754389306826755


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--Sea Of Red! Gold, Banks, Tech Plunge On Monday Opening (US Covid Deaths Reach 200K)

Banks are being investigated ( a new investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists says JPMorgan , Deutsche Bank @ @ @ @ @ were among the global banks who “ kept profiting from powerful and dangerous players ” @ @ @ @ @ even after the U.S. imposed penalties on these financial institutions ) and Covid deaths hit @ @ @ @ @ like Joe Biden stated ) .
It ’ s a sea of red out there @ @ @ @ @ .
The US Center for Disease and Control Prevention ( CDC ) estimated that 150 @ @ @ @ @ died from ( H1N1 ) pandemic virus infection in the first year of the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ the virus-related deaths were estimated to occur in those < 65 years of age .
@ @ @ @ @ elderly killer , is near the lower end of the CDC ’ s range on @ @ @

by confoundedinterest17
What a morning!
Banks are being investigated (a new investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists says JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank AG and HSBC Holdings Plc were among the global banks who “kept profiting from powerful and dangerous players” in the past two decades even after the U.S. imposed penalties on these financial institutions) and Covid deaths hit 200K (not 200 MILLION like Joe Biden stated).
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
It’s a sea of red out there.
A note on Covid. The US Center for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) estimated that 150, 000 to 575,000 people died from (H1N1) pandemic virus infection in the first year of the outbreak.
80% of the virus-related deaths were estimated to occur in those < 65 years of age.
So, Covid, the elderly killer, is near the lower end of the CDC’s range on US deaths.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--What’s Behind the USDX Breakout?

What’s Behind the USDX Breakout?

So far , 2020 has been an incredible and challenging year for the many markets , and that does not exclude gold , arguably one of the most important and most valuable commodities in the world .
The yellow metal ’ s price is influenced by a myriad of obvious and non-obvious short and long-term factors , such as the long-term turning point and its self-similar pattern .
In recent months , we ’ ve already discussed the presence of gold ’ s long-term turning point in broad detail .
Furthermore , only a couple of weeks ago , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pattern in gold , making sense of similarly shaped patterns in the marketplace over different periods .
In today ’ s analysis , we ’ ll discuss both , starting with the former .
Let ’ s take a look at gold ’ s long-term chart .
We used the purple lines to mark the previous price moves that followed gold ’ s long-term turning points , and we copied them to the current situation .
We copied both the rallies and declines , which is why it seems that some moves would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – the point is to show how important the turning point is in general .
The big change here is that due to gold ’ s big rally , we moved our downside target for it higher .
Based on the information that we have available right now , it seems likely that gold will bottom close to the $ 1,700 level .
That ’ s very much in tune with how much gold moved after the previous long-term turning points .
Having said that , let ’ s take a look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is already after the breakdown below the rising red support line , which makes the short-term outlook bearish , especially that this breakdown was confirmed .
And what about the likely target ?
Please note that the if gold declines to the 61.8 % Fibonacci retracement based on the most recent rally , it would also decline – approximately – to the April – June lows… Making this support very strong .
And – guess what – this price target is in tune with what we already wrote above based on the long-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s not the most important thing about the above chart .
The most important thing about this charts starts with the reply to one important question : Do you get the feeling that you have already seen gold perform this way before ?
Because you did .
The history rhymes , but this time , the similarity is quite shocking .
We copied the short-term chart and pasted it on the long-term chart above and next to the 2011 top .
We pasted it twice , so that you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both cases in terms of both : price and time .
They are very similar to say the least .
Yes , these patterns happened over different periods , but this doesn ’ t matter .
Markets are self-similar , which is why you can see similar short-term trends and long-term trends ( with regard to their shapes ) .
Consequently , comparing patterns of similar shape makes sense even if they form over different timeframes .
After a sharp rally , gold declined quickly .
Then we saw a rebound , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then , after a bit longer time , gold moved close to the most recent high and started its final decline .
This decline was less volatile than the initial slide .
That ’ s what happened when gold topped in 2011 ( and in the following years ) , and that ’ s what happened also this year .
Ok , after the initial decline from the 2011 top , we saw two initial reactive rallies and in 2020 there was just one , but it didn ’ t change the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patterns of this level of similarity are rare , and when they do finally take place , they tend to be remarkably precise with regard to the follow-up action .
What is likely to follow based on this pattern , is that we ’ re likely to see the end of the slower decline , which will be followed by a big and sharp decline – similarly to what we saw in 2013 .
How low could gold slide based on this similarity ?
Back in 2013 , gold declined approximately to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preceding rally ( the one that started in 2008 ) , so that ’ s the natural target also this time .
And we already wrote about this particular retracement – it ’ s approximately at the $ 1,700 level .
This has been our downside target for weeks , and it was just confirmed by this precise self-similar technique .
Another interesting point is that gold made an interim low close to the 50 % retracement and the previous lows .
Applying this to the current situation suggests that we could see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about $ 1,760 – $ 1,800 .
Thank you for reading our free analysis today .
Please note that the following is just a small fraction of today ’ s all-encompassing Gold & Silver Trading Alert .
The latter includes multiple premium details such as the interim target for gold that could be reached in the next few weeks .
If you ’ d like to read those premium details , we have good news for you .
As soon as you sign up for our free gold newsletter , you ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our premium Gold & Silver Trading Alerts .
It ’ s really free – sign up today .
All essays , research and information found above represent analyses and opinions of Przemyslaw Radomski , CFA and Sunshine Profits ’ associates only .
As such , it may prove wrong and be subject to change without notice .
Opinions and analyses are based on data available to authors of respective essays at the time of writing .
Although the information provided above is based on careful research and sources that are deemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his associates do not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the data or information reported .
The opinions published above are neither an offer nor a recommendation to purchase or sell any securities .
Mr. Radomski is not a Registered Securities Advisor .
By reading Przemyslaw Radomski ’ s , CFA reports you fully agree that he will not be held responsible or liable for any decisions you make regarding any information provided in these reports .
Investing , trading and speculation in any financial markets may involve high risk of loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Profits ’ employees and affiliates as well as members of their families may have a short or long position in any securities , including those mentioned in any of the reports or essays , and may make additional purchases and/or sales of those securities without notice .

by Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA
So far, 2020 has been an incredible and challenging year for the many markets, and that does not exclude gold, arguably one of the most important and most valuable commodities in the world.
The yellow metal’s price is influenced by a myriad of obvious and non-obvious short and long-term factors, such as the long-term turning point and its self-similar pattern. In recent months, we’ve already discussed the presence of gold’s long-term turning point in broad detail. Furthermore, only a couple of weeks ago, we’ve learned about the powerful self-similarity pattern in gold, making sense of similarly shaped patterns in the marketplace over different periods.
In today’s analysis, we’ll discuss both, starting with the former. Let’s take a look at gold’s long-term chart.
We used the purple lines to mark the previous price moves that followed gold’s long-term turning points, and we copied them to the current situation. We copied both the rallies and declines, which is why it seems that some moves would suggest that gold moves back in time – the point is to show how important the turning point is in general.
The big change here is that due to gold’s big rally, we moved our downside target for it higher. Based on the information that we have available right now, it seems likely that gold will bottom close to the $1,700 level. That’s very much in tune with how much gold moved after the previous long-term turning points.
Having said that, let’s take a look at gold’s short-term chart.
Gold is already after the breakdown below the rising red support line, which makes the short-term outlook bearish, especially that this breakdown was confirmed.
And what about the likely target? Please note that the if gold declines to the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement based on the most recent rally, it would also decline – approximately – to the April – June lows… Making this support very strong. And – guess what – this price target is in tune with what we already wrote above based on the long-term turning point’s consequences.
Moreover, that’s not the most important thing about the above chart. The most important thing about this charts starts with the reply to one important question:
Do you get the feeling that you have already seen gold perform this way before?
Because you did.
The history rhymes, but this time, the similarity is quite shocking.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
We copied the short-term chart and pasted it on the long-term chart above and next to the 2011 top. We pasted it twice, so that you can easily compare gold’s performance in both cases in terms of both: price and time.
They are very similar to say the least. Yes, these patterns happened over different periods, but this doesn’t matter. Markets are self-similar, which is why you can see similar short-term trends and long-term trends (with regard to their shapes). Consequently, comparing patterns of similar shape makes sense even if they form over different timeframes.
After a sharp rally, gold declined quickly. Then we saw a rebound, and a move back to the previous low. Then, after a bit longer time, gold moved close to the most recent high and started its final decline. This decline was less volatile than the initial slide. That’s what happened when gold topped in 2011 (and in the following years), and that’s what happened also this year. Ok, after the initial decline from the 2011 top, we saw two initial reactive rallies and in 2020 there was just one, but it didn’t change the similarity with regard to time.
The patterns of this level of similarity are rare, and when they do finally take place, they tend to be remarkably precise with regard to the follow-up action.
What is likely to follow based on this pattern, is that we’re likely to see the end of the slower decline, which will be followed by a big and sharp decline – similarly to what we saw in 2013.
How low could gold slide based on this similarity? Back in 2013, gold declined approximately to the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement based on the preceding rally (the one that started in 2008), so that’s the natural target also this time.
And we already wrote about this particular retracement – it’s approximately at the $1,700 level. This has been our downside target for weeks, and it was just confirmed by this precise self-similar technique.
Another interesting point is that gold made an interim low close to the 50% retracement and the previous lows. Applying this to the current situation suggests that we could see a smaller rebound when gold moves to about $1,760 – $1,800.
Thank you for reading our free analysis today. Please note that the following is just a small fraction of today’s all-encompassing Gold & Silver Trading Alert. The latter includes multiple premium details such as the interim target for gold that could be reached in the next few weeks.
If you’d like to read those premium details, we have good news for you. As soon as you sign up for our free gold newsletter, you’ll get a free 7-day no-obligation trial access to our premium Gold & Silver Trading Alerts. It’s really free – sign up today.
Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA
Editor-in-chief, Gold & Silver Fund Manager
Sunshine Profits: Analysis. Care. Profits.
* * * * *
All essays, research and information found above represent analyses and opinions of Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA and Sunshine Profits’ associates only. As such, it may prove wrong and be subject to change without notice. Opinions and analyses are based on data available to authors of respective essays at the time of writing. Although the information provided above is based on careful research and sources that are deemed to be accurate, Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA and his associates do not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the data or information reported. The opinions published above are neither an offer nor a recommendation to purchase or sell any securities. Mr. Radomski is not a Registered Securities Advisor. By reading Przemyslaw Radomski’s, CFA reports you fully agree that he will not be held responsible or liable for any decisions you make regarding any information provided in these reports. Investing, trading and speculation in any financial markets may involve high risk of loss. Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA, Sunshine Profits’ employees and affiliates as well as members of their families may have a short or long position in any securities, including those mentioned in any of the reports or essays, and may make additional purchases and/or sales of those securities without notice.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--You think they’re panicking over #RBG ? Just wait till Roberts resigns soon…

What people do not know…yet , is that Roberts was on the phone ( speaker ) in the Oval Office @ @ @ @ @ Rice , Comey discussing how to stop Trump ’ s inauguration .
It was one @ @ @ @ @ was part of the coup .

What people do not know…yet, is that Roberts was on the phone (speaker) in the Oval Office with Obama, Biden, Rice, Comey discussing how to stop Trump’s inauguration. It was one of TWO calls. He was part of the coup.
— Fight4Freedom2 (@4EverAPatriot2) September 21, 2020


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--This reaction isn’t at all eyebrow raising. Apparently there’s someone so powerful his name must nev

This reaction isn’t at all eyebrow raising. Apparently there’s someone so powerful his name must never be mentioned on air.

Guest on Fox News brings up Soros .
One of the Fox News on-air talent calls the guest a liar @ @ @ @ @ then the segment is cut off .

Guest on Fox News brings up Soros. One of the Fox News on-air talent calls the guest a liar, the other sits frozen then the segment is cut off.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
h/t JacoDaDon


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-21--Patriot Nurse: Left Say “Armageddon” Coming Ahead of Election

Patriot Nurse goes over the Drudge Article and more .

Patriot Nurse goes over the Drudge Article and more.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
AO