Search This Blog

Saturday, January 29, 2022

After huge pandemic losses, governments see rapid rebound

 State and local governments lost at least $117 billion of expected revenue early in the pandemic, according to an Associated Press analysis, but many are now awash in record amounts of money, boosted partly by federal aid.

In response to the dramatic turnaround, governors, lawmakers and local officials have proposed a surge in spending as well as a new wave of tax cuts.

“The ultimate effect of the pandemic was a net positive,” said Stephen Parker, assistant city manager for the Los Angeles suburb of Upland, where sales tax revenues are soaring. “Isn’t that unbelievable? It’s just crazy to think of that.”

Upland, a city of 79,000, was representative of many cities at the outset of the pandemic. It reported an estimated loss of nearly $6.1 million in 2020 — the result of a steep but short-lived national recession and what Parker describes as a “generous” Treasury Department method for calculating losses. That figure was the median amount among more than 900 cities that reported their revenues to the department under the American Rescue Plan Act.

Upland’s financial situation turned around even before the end of 2020, Parker said. Federal COVID-19 stimulus checks played a role. So did a shift in consumer spending to goods instead of services. That lifted city revenues, Parker said, because services often are exempt from sales taxes, while goods are not.

The pandemic relief law championed by Democrats and signed by President Joe Biden last March included $350 billion in aid to states and local governments. The Treasury Department required states, counties and larger cities to file reports last year detailing their initial plans for the money. Those governments also were asked to estimate their losses for 2020 by comparing actual revenue to expected revenue under a Treasury formula.

Though revenue figures were left blank by nearly one-quarter of the roughly 3,700 governments that filed reports, the data nonetheless provides the most comprehensive picture yet of the financial strain on governments during the pandemic’s first year.

More than two-thirds of state and local governments reported at least some losses, ranging from a few thousand dollars in some rural counties to more than $12 billion for the state of Texas, according to the AP’s analysis. The total was $117.5 billion.

The Treasury Department last October declined an AP request to release the revenue-loss data under the federal Freedom of Information Act, saying it would be publicly available later. It recently posted the data on its website. The next reports are due Monday for some governments and April 30 for others.

The department used lost revenue to determine how much flexibility to give governments in spending the aid. Under guidelines issued last May, governments that showed a loss were free to spend an equal amount on almost any government services, including roads and other projects not otherwise allowed under the rules.

A final rule released earlier this month expanded that flexibility by allowing governments to claim up to $10 million of revenue losses, even if actual losses were less.

Upland, which is getting $15 million, plans to use part of its flexible spending to repave parking lots and repair hundreds of sections of sidewalks that might not otherwise have been eligible.

Federal assistance was not the only factor that helped governments bounce back.

Financial analysts also cite inflation, which pushed up prices and bolstered sales tax collections. Many consumers also had more to spend because of the stimulus checks. A strong stock market drove up capital gains taxes. And an early pandemic rise in unemployment spared many higher earners, who shifted to working from home while continuing to pay income taxes.

In many places, the revenue rebound exceeded pre-pandemic levels. Total state tax revenues from last April through November rose 20% compared to the same period in 2019, according to an Urban Institute report released earlier this month.

For governments that already were financially strained, the pandemic deepened their losses but also resulted in a cash windfall.

The Hudson River Valley city of Poughkeepsie was rated by the New York comptroller as the state’s most financially stressed community in 2020. With a pre-pandemic deficit around $7 million and no reserves, the city quickly cut spending, sold property, froze hiring and instituted an early retirement program “in a desperate effort to close the gap” when the pandemic began, City Administrator Marc Nelson said.

The city reported a 2020 revenue loss of nearly $4.5 million under the Treasury Department’s formula. It’s getting more than $20 million from the American Rescue Plan. Though the relief money cannot be used to wipe out the deficit, the city plans to make major improvements to parks and swimming pools, including a complete rebuild of a run-down bathhouse that has been relying on portable toilets.

“These are things that would not have been within the city’s ability to take on were it not for the COVID relief money,” Nelson said.

Though they’re spending the federal aid, some Republican officials insist it was unnecessary in light of the rapidly rebounding tax revenues.

Missouri reported an estimated $900 million loss for 2020 but ended its 2021 fiscal year with a record cash balance. Republican Gov. Mike Parson recently proposed a $47 billion budget that is up nearly one-third over the current year because of surging federal and state revenues. He wants to spend more on infrastructure and public employee salaries while also saving more.

“When other states will be using federal dollars to fill spending gaps and budget shortfalls, we will be making investments in the future,” he said in his State of the State address.

In some cases, government losses weren’t as severe as the Treasury numbers might suggest.

Greer County in rural southwest Oklahoma reported a 2020 revenue loss of $363,630 — around the national median for counties reporting their revenues. That comprised 10% of the county’s expected revenue under the Treasury Department formula, but it didn’t prompt budget cuts, County Clerk Tiffany Buchanan said.

“The county didn’t feel that much of a loss,” Buchanan said, explaining: “We live on a very tight, strict budget as it is.”

The county plans to use some of its $1.1 million from the American Rescue Plan to help fund the sheriff’s office and pay emergency medical personnel.

Some states, including California and Texas, projected large revenue losses at the outset of the pandemic but have since posted big gains.

When it passed a budget early in the pandemic, California had expected the recession to cause a $54 billion deficit. That led officials to defer payments to schools and community colleges and to reduce state employee pay, according to the state’s Treasury report.

Now California is projecting a nearly $46 billion surplus spurred by record tax collections, leaving officials searching for ways to use the money. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently proposed a budget that would expand health coverage to all low-income adults living in the state illegally while simultaneously cutting taxes. The Democratic governor also said a substantial tax rebate was likely in order.

“I will be holding the governor’s feet to the fire and keep him at his word to refund surplus dollars to the taxpayers,” GOP state Sen. Melissa Melendez said.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-pandemics-personal-taxes-42637f997178a1de4911bf16dbc3f60b

Judge sides with Treasury in tribes’ coronavirus relief case

 A federal judge has sided with the Treasury Department in a case that challenged the distribution of coronavirus relief aid to Native American governments.

Tribal governments had received $4.8 billion from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act based on federal housing population data that some said was badly skewed.

Three tribes in Oklahoma, Florida and Kansas sued over the methodology that relied on population data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The tribes alleged they were shortchanged by millions because tribal enrollment figures were higher than those reflected in federal data.

The figure for the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, for example, was zero in federal data.

The Treasury Department revised the methodology to correct the most substantial disparities after a federal appeals court said the methodology likely was arbitrary and capricious, and sent additional payments to some tribes.

The Shawnee Tribe was satisfied and dropped its legal challenge. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians in Florida and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation in Kansas argued the new amounts didn’t make sense when broken down to a per-person figure and continued their fight in court.

U.S. District Court Judge Ahmit Mehta ruled Friday that the Treasury Department’s revised methodology was reasonable, “even if some tribes ended up worse off than if Treasury had simply used better data in 2020.”

Congress gave the department discretion in how to dole out the funding.

Carol Heckman, an attorney for the Prairie Band, said Friday the tribe hasn’t decided whether to appeal the decision. But she pointed to what she saw as a number of wins in the case.

Prairie Band received an additional $864,000 because of its legal pursuit, Heckman said. The case influenced the way the federal government distributed money to tribes under the American Rescue Plan Act by not relying on outdated HUD figures.

And, a federal appeals court ruled Mehta had to consider the tribes’ claims on the merits after initially ruling the Treasury Department’s methodology wasn’t subject to court review.

“On balance, it’s been very successful litigation despite this decision,” Heckman said. “I’m really kind of happy.”

Attorneys for the Miccosukee did not respond to email and phone requests for comment Friday. The tribe received an additional payment of nearly $825,000 because of the lawsuit.

The Shawnee Tribe received another $5.2 million.

It’s unclear which other tribes received additional payments last spring based on the revised methodology. The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The agency had said it would look at the difference between the federal data and enrollment figures provided by tribes and rank them, so the top 15% of tribes would receive more money to correct the most substantial disparities.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-native-americans-tribal-governments-fee474bcb40afe8417446d1d6652e51f

Judge refuses to limit jury pool based on vaccination status

People who are not “up to date” on their COVID-19 vaccines cannot be excluded from the jury pool for a criminal trial starting next week, a judge ruled Friday, rejecting a request by federal prosecutors in Delaware who had sought to keep out those potential jurors.

Judge Joshua Wolson ruled that the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury drawn from diverse segments of the population, and that the pandemic cannot be used as an excuse to weaken that right.

Prosecutors argued that limiting the jury pool to those who have received a booster shot or a recent initial vaccine would help ensure the safety of trial participants, reduce the risk of a disruption in the proceedings, and prevent jurors from having to automatically quarantine based on mere exposure.

The judge said the request carries “several potential pitfalls.”

“While it is easy to invoke the trope of ‘health’ to justify intrusions on liberty, such as limits on jury trials or the eligible members of a jury pool, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Constitution provides a bulwark against those intrusions,” Wolson wrote. The judge pointed specifically to a 2020 ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court said ”Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

Wolson also noted that, under federal law, “no person or class of persons shall be disqualified, excluded, excused, or exempt from service as jurors,” and that the government’s request could make it more difficult to assembly a jury.

Prosecutors argued that people who choose not to get vaccinated or not to stay “up to date” by getting a booster shot are not a “distinctive group” in terms of being able to serve on a jury. Instead, according to prosecutors, they “come from a broad spectrum of races, ethnicities, and political beliefs, and have, at most, a “shared attitude.”.

According to the state’s COVID-19 website, only 35% of Delawareans 18 or older have received a booster shot. While two-thirds of people 65 and older have receive a booster shot, Wolson noted that many of those senior citizens are not part of the jury pool because of their age.

“But in any event, the numbers suggest that a vaccine requirement along the lines the government proposes would exclude nearly 2/3 of potential jurors from the jury pool,” he wrote, adding that his concerns were not only for the defendants’ rights, but for members of the public as well.

“Thomas Jefferson viewed the opportunity to serve on a jury as more important than the opportunity to vote,” Wolson noted, adding that depriving someone of that civic duty “requires a weighty showing.”

“For other proposed limits on the jury pool, courts, lawyers, and social scientists can draw on their experience to make reasonable conclusions about the effect of a proposed change,” he added. “But when it comes to this pandemic, and the way rules might ripple through society, everyone is flying blind.”

The judge also noted that attorneys for Michael Pritchett and Dion Oliver have offered statistical evidence suggesting that the vaccine restriction could have a disparate impact on minority participation in the jury pool.

“The court will assume that that showing is enough to demonstrate that the restriction is a proxy for race — though to be clear, the court does not think that the government proposed this restriction with a racial motive,” he said.

While refusing the prosecution request to limit the jury pool, the judge did not rule out the inclusion of vaccination status in questions posed to potential jurors during the jury selection process.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s office declined to comment on the ruling.

Pritchett and Oliver are charged with conspiracy, stalking, kidnapping and gun crimes for their alleged roles in a feud involving several Delaware men in 2017 that resulted in the kidnapping and murder of the girlfriend of a man who had been targeted for killing, according to prosecutor. The feud also resulted in a 6-year-old being left permanently disabled after he was hit in the head by a stray bullet while sitting in the back seat of his mother’s vehicle.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-delaware-dover-b6cd58e8ff1f79e72101b4500d62bc70 

NY Nurses Arrested After Selling $1.5 Million In Fake Vaccine Cards

 Two New York nurses were busted after having made a reported $1.5 million selling fake Covid-19 vaccination cards.

Two Long Island nurses, 49-year-old Julie Devuono and 44-year-old Marissa Urraro, had forged vaccine cards between November 2021 and January 2022.

Law enforcement officers seized around $900,000 during a search of DeVuono's home, and a ledger showing more than $1.5 million from the scheme, according to NBC4NY.

"I hope this sends a message to others who are considering gaming the system that they will get caught and that we will enforce the law to the fullest extent," said Suffolk County DA Raymond Tierney.

The pair reportedly charged between $220 and $440 for adults and $85 for children. After selling the cards, the women would then allegedly add the information to the NY State Immunization Information System (NYSIIS).

According to prosecutors, the pair - who worked at Wild Child Pediatric Healthcare in Amityville (owned by DeVuono) - forged vaccine cards for undercover detectives.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/ny-nurses-arrested-after-selling-15-million-fake-vaccine-cards

New York COVID cases drop by half in one week, positivity rate lowest in NYC

 The number of new COVID-19 cases in New York has fallen by more than half in a week, the latest state numbers show.

There were 12,332 positive test results reported statewide Friday, down from 27,643 a week earlier, according to stats released Saturday by Gov. Kathy Hochul.

The statewide positivity rate dropped to 5.73 percent Friday and was 7.3 percent when measured on a seven-day average. The seven-day average in New York City on Friday was 5.21 percent, the lowest in the state.

Hospitalizations dropped to 7,675 Friday with 1,183 COVID-19 patients being treated in intensive care units. A week ago, more than 10,000 people were hospitalized with the virus.

There were 125 coronavirus deaths Friday, including 54 among New York City residents.

https://nypost.com/2022/01/29/new-york-state-covid-19-cases-cut-in-half-in-one-week-to-12332/

Is Bristol Myers Squibb Stock A Better Pick Over This Vaccine Company?

 We think that Bristol Myers Squibb stock (NYSE: BMY) currently is a better pick compared to Pfizer stock (NYSE: PFE), given its better growth prospects and comparatively lower valuation of 3.0x trailing revenues, compared to 4.7x for Pfizer. This gap in valuation can be attributed to Pfizer’s stellar sales growth since the beginning of the pandemic, driven by a very high demand for its Covid-19 vaccine. However, looking forward, Bristol Myers Squibb is likely to outperform Pfizer, as we discuss in the sections below. We compare a slew of factors such as historical revenue growth, returns, and valuation multiple in an interactive dashboard analysis Bristol Myers Squibb vs Pfizer: Which Stock Is A Better Bet? Parts of the analysis are summarized below. We compare these two companies given that they have similar revenue bases.

1. Pfizer’s Recent Revenue Growth Is Much Stronger

  • Both companies managed to see sales growth over the recent quarters, but Pfizer has witnessed much faster revenue growth since the beginning of the pandemic. Looking at a longer time frame, Bristol Myers Squibb’s sales have jumped from $19.4 billion in 2016 to $45.5 billion over the last twelve months, while Pfizer’s revenues have risen from $52.8 billion to $69.3 billion over the same period.
  • Note that Bristol Myers Squibb’s revenue growth has been driven by its Celgene CELG 0.0% acquisition in 2019, while Pfizer’s revenue growth is adversely impacted by divestiture of its consumer healthcare business in 2019, as well as generic drugs business in 2020.
  • The recent rise in Pfizer’s revenue can be attributed to an increase in sales of the Covid-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s sales from its Covid-19 vaccine is expected to be around $36 billion in 2021, but slow over the subsequent years. Pfizer has also seen a rebound in other pharmaceutical products, including Ibrance, Xtandi, Inlyta, and Eliquis (alliance revenue).
  • Looking at Bristol Myers Squibb, it doesn’t have any Covid-19 product, but its revenue growth over the recent quarters has been led by a rebound in demand post pandemic induced lockdowns. Its anticoagulant – Eliquis – continues to gain market share and bolster the company’s overall top-line growth. Our Bristol Myers Squibb Revenues and Pfizer Revenues dashboards provides more details on the company’s segments.
  • Now, Bristol Myers Squibb’s revenue growth of 15% over the last twelve month period is much lower than a massive 114% growth for Pfizer, owing to the impact of the Covid-19 vaccine sales. Looking at a slightly longer time frame, Bristol Myers Squibb has outperformed Pfizer with its last three-year revenue CAGR of 29%, compared to -7% for Pfizer. But like we mentioned above, there were acquisitions and divestitures impacting these numbers.
  • Looking forward, Pfizer is expected to see a decline in sales of its Covid-19 vaccine, given the rising vaccination rate across the globe, though its Covid-19 antiviral pill sales may offset some of the revenue loss from its Covid-19 vaccine. For Bristol Myers Squibb, its top-selling drug - Revlimid - will lose its market exclusivity this year.
  • That said, Bristol Myers Squibb’s revenue is expected to grow at a faster pace compared to Pfizer. The table below summarizes our revenue expectation for BMY and PFE over the next three years, and points to a CAGR of 9.5% for Bristol Myers Squibb, compared to a CAGR of just 1.6% for Pfizer.
  • Note that we have different methodologies for companies negatively impacted by Covid, and for companies not impacted or positively impacted by Covid while forecasting future revenues. For companies negatively impacted by Covid, we consider the quarterly revenue recovery trajectory to forecast recovery to pre-Covid revenue run rate, and beyond the recovery point, we apply average annual growth observed in the three years prior to Covid to simulate return to normal conditions. For companies registering positive revenue growth during Covid, we consider average annual growth prior to Covid with certain weight to growth during Covid and the last twelve months.

2. Pfizer Is More Profitable

  • Bristol Myers Squibb’s operating margin of -16% over the last twelve month period is far worse than 25% for Pfizer.
  • Even if we were to look at the recent margin growth, Pfizer stands ahead, with last twelve month vs last three year margin change at 1.5%, compared to -23.6% for Bristol Myers Squibb.
  • It should be noted that Bristol Myers Squibb’s margins are adversely impacted due to a one-off in-process R&D charge of $11.4 billion recorded in Q4 2020. This has significantly skewed the reported margins. If we were to look at operating margin for the nine months period ending September 2021, it stands at 18.1%. This compares with around 22% operating margin in 2019, before the pandemic. Pfizer’s operating margin stood at 36% in 2019.

3. The Net of It All

  • We see that the revenue growth over the recent quarters has been better for Pfizer and it is also more profitable. However, Bristol Myers Squibb is trading at a comparatively lower valuation.
  • Looking at future prospects, using P/S as a base, due to high fluctuations in P/E and P/EBIT, we believe BMY is currently the better choice of the two. The table below summarizes our revenue and return expectation for BMY and PFE over the next three years, and points to an expected return of 30% for BMY over this period vs. just 2% expected returns for PFE, implying that investors are better off buying BMY over PFE, based on our dashboard – Bristol Myers Squibb vs Pfizer – which also provides more details on how we arrive at these numbers.
  • Note that Covid-19 is proving more difficult to contain than initially thought, due to the spread of more contagious virus variants, and infections in many geographies, including the U.S. and Europe, are higher than what they were a few months back. The concerns around Omicron have spooked the markets at large. If this recent large spike in Covid-19 cases from the new variant that we are witnessing now, results in a requirement of booster shots for all, it will result in a continued uptick in Pfizer’s revenue growth from Covid-19 vaccine in 2022 as well.
  • We estimate Pfizer’s valuation to be around $58 per share which is in-line with the current market price of $57, implying that PFE stock is fully valued at its current levels. On the other hand, our Bristol Myers Squibb Valuation of $79 reflects an upside potential of 22% from its current levels.

Ivermectin as Potential COVID-19 Treatment Gets Studied at Duke University

 Doctors at Duke University are leading a national study to test whether three drugs could effectively treat COVID-19 — including ivermectin — according to  The News & Observer.

The study, which began last summer, is attempting to provide a comprehensive assessment of the controversial treatment. Ivermectin has been celebrated by some as a potential COVID-19 treatment and ridiculed by others who say there's no proof that the drug works against the coronavirus, and in fact, could be harmful to patients.

"There were some early studies that showed that it could potentially be helpful with COVID-19, but they were not large enough to be definitive," Adrian Hernandez, MD, one of the study leaders and a cardiologist at Duke University, told the newspaper.

"So we want to know either way, is it potentially beneficial or not," he said.

Ivermectin is typically used to kill parasites in animals, including heartworm in dogs and gastrointestinal worms in horses and cows. Since the late 1980s, the drug has been used in humans to treat parasitic infections and other illnesses.

However, it's not approved to treat COVID-19, and the FDA has warned that using the drug, especially formulations made for animals, can be dangerous. The FDA has received multiple reports of people who needed medical attention and hospitalization after taking ivermectin meant for livestock.

At the same time, people have been trying the drug in hopes that it will treat COVID-19. That's why it's important to answer the major questions around it, Hernandez said.

"We should understand if there are any benefits," he told the newspaper. "And if not, we should be able to report that back out to the public clearly and note what shouldn't be done."

The Duke study is testing three drugs under ACTIV-6, which is one of a series of studies of potential COVID-19 treatments and vaccines launched by the National Institutes of Health. The goal is to find treatments and vaccines that could make COVID-19 as manageable as the seasonal flu.

The two other drugs in the study are fluvoxamine, a medicine often prescribed for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, and fluticasone furoate, a steroid medication prescribed through an inhaler for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

All three drugs are approved for use in humans, are proven to be safe, and are easy to use at home, the newspaper reported. They also rarely interact with other medications, which could make them good options to treat mild to moderate cases of COVID-19.

"Just like we're trying to do testing at home, we're looking at how can you conveniently do treatment at home," Hernandez said.

About 2,500 people from across the U.S. have taken part in the ACTIV-6 study so far. To qualify, study participants must be 30 or older, have tested positive for the coronavirus within the previous 10 days, and have at least two symptoms. They receive an overnight package with one of the drugs or a placebo, and report how they're feeling each day by phone or online.

Researchers at Duke are looking for evidence that the drugs either shorten the time that people feel sick or prevent them from getting worse and needing hospitalization, the newspaper reported.

With the recent surge in new COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, enrollment in the study has picked up in recent weeks, the newspaper reported. Hernandez said the study team may have enough data to release initial results within in a month or so.

More information is available on the ACTIV-6 study website.

Sources:

The News & Observer: "Ivermectin's potential to treat COVID gets a serious look in Duke University study."

FDA: "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19."

ACTIV-6: "Welcome to the ACTIV-6 study."

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/967101