Short sellers have been raking it in over the last 30 days as receding bets of an early interest rate cut by the U.S. Federal Reserve triggered a selloff in the equity market.
Traders have made a mark-to-market profit of more than $25 billion up to Thursday from covering their short positions, said Ihor Dusaniwsky, managing director of predictive analytics at S3 Partners, more than erasing their $14.8 billion in losses so far this year.
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT
Short sellers were in a bind for most of last year as a raging bull market, partly powered by enthusiasm around AI as well as hopes of an early rate cut, forced them to book nearly $190 billion in losses for 2023.
The current weakness in the market allows them to cover a portion of those heavy losses. The benchmark S&P 500 index is down about 5% so far in April and off by a similar margin from its record high hit last month.
THE NUMBERS
Overall U.S. & Canadian equity short exposure fell by $50 billion to $1.08 trillion in the last 30 days, largely due to a fall in the mark-to-market value of short positions and short covering.
Mark-to-market change is the method of measuring the value of assets that can fluctuate over time, adjusting the asset's value to reflect its current market price.
THE DETAILS
Bets against bitcoin-focussed MicroStrategy and chip stocks such as Advanced Micro Devices and Super Micro Computer were profitable for traders during the period in dollar terms.
That was despite those stocks witnessing the largest mark-to-market decrease in short positions.
However, short positions on oil giant Exxon Mobil, Google-parent Alphabet and e-commerce company Amazon.com turned out to be least profitable for traders.
U.S. airlines have enjoyed a travel boom for the past three years, but until this past quarter, big-spending corporate travelers had been largely missing.
Those customers are now back in full force, boosting profits for carriers in what is normally a weak quarter for results. The U.S. airlines that have so far released results - including Delta, United and Alaska Air - all reported a sharp rebound in flying for business purposes.
On Thursday, Alaska Air said increased spending by technology companies like Amazon.com and Microsoft in the March quarter increased revenue from corporate travel to pre-pandemic levels. For most of the last year, the carrier's business bookings were stuck around 75% of the 2019 levels.
The corporate travel increase helped the Seattle-based carrier post a strong performance in the March quarter, traditionally its weakest period of the year.
In an interview, Alaska's chief financial officer, Shane Tackett, said demand would keep growing, as spending by technology companies has not fully recovered.
"Technology companies on the West Coast are the most valuable companies in the world," he said. "They are going to travel to see their customers and to sell software."
Similarly, United said it recorded some of the biggest corporate bookings in its history this year, thanks to demand from professional services, tech and industrial companies.
Business trips generated as much as half of passenger revenue at U.S. airlines before the global health crisis, according to industry group Airlines for America.
But the sluggish recovery forced carriers dependent on business traffic to rework their network and chase vacationers. Pricing power fell due to excess industry capacity in key leisure markets.
United shifted more seats to markets like Florida and Las Vegas in the first quarter following losses in the same quarter last year, while American Airlines reset the terms of its contract with big corporate customers.
While the pickup in business travel is largely linked to people returning to offices, airline executives say corporate clients are loosening their purse strings due to the improved economic outlook.
Delta last week said 90% of its corporate customers are planning to either maintain or increase travel volumes in the current quarter. The Atlanta-based airline, which saw a double-digit year-on-year increase in corporate sales in the first quarter, expects to deliver record corporate revenue in the second half of this year.
Alaska raised its 2024 earnings forecast as it expects profit from business travelers to offset higher fuel costs.
Earth Day is Monday, and once againPresident Joe Bidenis putting the American people last and environmentalists first with Friday’s actions making swaths of Alaska off limits to the development of oil, natural gas, and critical minerals.
America’s air is getting cleaner every year, and carbon emissions have declined by 1,000 million metric tons over the past 16 years. Even if America were to abandon all fossil fuels, global temperatures would only decline by two-tenths of 1 degree Celsius by 2100, according to government models.
Oil prices are more than $80 per barrel, and Americans are frustrated that gasoline prices are rising. Why, then, in an election year, is his Interior Department banning oil development on 13 million acres in Alaska, including 40% of the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve?
Oil prices are set by expectations of future production, and Biden’s actions are signaling that less oil and gas will be produced on his watch.
White House senior adviser for climate policy John Podesta said in a statement, “Today’s historic actions to protect lands and waters in the western Arctic will ensure continued subsistence use by Alaska Native communities while conserving these special places for future generations. With these new announcements, the Biden-Harris administration has now protected more than 41 million acres of lands and waters … .”
Podesta is a former president of the Center for American Progress, which has a goal of “an equitable and just path to a 100 percent clean economy with net-zero climate pollution, protection of 30 percent of lands and waters.” CAP’s donors are undoubtedly praising Podesta for the White House actions.
This comes at a time when America, Russia, and China are in a race for valuable deep-sea minerals to power their electric vehicle batteries. America has some of the largest offshore Arctic deposits, but will cede them to foreign adversaries if American companies are not permitted to mine them.
The Interior Department also failed to approve the 211-mile Ambler Road project, which would link the Dalton Highway to the Ambler River and open new areas to copper mining and other resource development.
Similarly, Biden has utilized the Antiquities Act to create five national monuments, collectively spanning more than 1.5 million acres of federal land. While these proclamations are ostensibly aimed at preserving areas of historical or archaeological importance, they often come at the expense of resource development.
People reliant on logging, mining, and energy extraction have felt the brunt of the damage inflicted by Biden’s regulations.
Biden recently designated nearly 1 million acres of land in Arizona to create the Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. Just as Alaska has copper deposits, now off limits, Arizona has some of the America’s richest uranium deposits, making future uranium-mining operations impossible.
Biden’s executive branch overreach makes America weaker and more dependent on China for critical minerals. It takes away local communities’ ability to provide economic stability for themselves and the nation.
American oil companies and refineries have watched Biden take step after step to destroy their industry so as to appease environmentalists, all the while blaming these same producers for fuel shortages and lack of critical minerals.
As well as cutting off supplies of oil, gas, and minerals, Biden has placed climate czars at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. These officials discourage companies from investing in pipeline and fossil fuel equipment and banks from lending to companies to provide financing.
At current usage rates, the nation’s recoverable reserves are large enough for at least two centuries of petroleum supply. Moreover, we are always finding more reserves or improving technology to access oil more efficiently.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration sees no prospect of global oil demand decreasing between now and 2050. Ninety percent of Americans’ transportation needs are met with petroleum, and electric vehicles sales are slowing.
Petroleum products are used for much more than transportation. Oil is used as a feedstock for everything from pharmaceuticals and plastics to clothing. America has an abundance of energy and critical minerals, if politicians would just allow access.
Biden is playing politics with domestic and global energy markets. Average Americans don’t want to buy costly electric vehicles and are collateral damage, stuck with soaring electricity and fuel costs. It’s no gift for Earth Day.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth is director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
Clearer communication between primary care clinicians and hospice providers may decrease the number of denied Medicare approvals for end-of-life treatment, according to a small study presented on April 18 at the American College of Physicians Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.
Tyler Haussler, MD, acting medical director at Brookestone Home Health & Hospice in Carney, Nebraska, said he conducted the study to find out how many denials of coverage by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) were attributable to poor documentation by physicians.
"As a medical director, I wanted to make sure I was capturing every aspect of this person's terminal illness to make sure the documentation didn't create any red flags for Medicare," Haussler said.
CMS requires a "face-to-face encounter" between a physician and hospice caregiver to communicate clinical findings and determine the patient's terminal status. Missing or incomplete documentation of a patient's medical condition remains one of the main reasons the agency denies hospice coverage.
"A lot of physicians just do a records review to do a hospice referral, and we might get something from their oncologist, but we never have a conversation as a medical director with the primary care physician," Haussler said.
Haussler presented his work as part of the ACP Early Career Physician presentations. His study received a Certificate in Physician Leadership at the annual meeting.
For the study, administrators at Brookestone Health reviewed the hospice certification documentation for 10 patients who were randomly assigned to one of two group: Five patients received a "handoff conversation" between the referring physician and the hospice medical director, and the other five did not. The administrators assessed the quality of the communication between physicians and the medical director using a 5-point Likert scale that Haussler developed. The scale rated the medical director's understanding of the patient's history, the progression of their disease, why hospice would be appropriate, and the chances that Medicare would approve coverage of hospice care in the case.
Hospice administrators found that a handoff discussion between the referring physician and the medical director improved the quality of documentation of the patient's disease progression. A handoff discussion also offered a clearer understanding of why hospice is appropriate for the patient, Haussler told attendees.
"There's two questions when somebody comes into hospice: why hospice, and why now," Haussler said.
Unlike a record review, "the handoff from the primary care physician gives us more context and nuance in the situation," Haussler said.
During the 2023 study period, Brookstone Health had no Medicare denials, Haussler told attendees.
The findings may also help patient's loved ones also get a clearer understanding of disease progression, quality and quantity of life, according to Ankita Sagar, MD,associate clinical professor of medicine at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.
"Smoother [physician] handoff may also offer some relief for caregivers as their loved one reaches end-of-life care," Sagar, who was not involved with the study, said.
Haussler agreed, telling attendees that future studies should examine whether physician to medical director handoffs improve patient care while on hospice.
Haussler and Sagar reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
Men with low-riskprostate cancerwho go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue.
Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years "suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed," said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. "These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy" of men in otherwise good health.
Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.
At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extending
The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL.
In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.
In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31%
The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers.
While Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%.
"These are non-negligible numbers," said Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.
Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.
The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered "safe."
Based on these data, "men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years," Palmstedt said.
Active Surveillance Now More Common
Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, a professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.
"The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide," Cooperberg said. Although many men "will never need treatment…long-term surveillance is definitely important" for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed.
"Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis," he explained.
Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health.
Imagine starting your day with a bowl of cereal that could be silently affecting your family’s health. Recent studies show that chlormequat, a pesticide linked to reproductive issues, has been found in popular breakfast cereals like Quaker Oats and Cheerios. As this substance infiltrates the American food supply, the potential risks to our health and future generations loom larger, raising urgent questions about the safety of our everyday food choices.
In a study published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology on Feb. 15, 2024, researchers revealed alarming findings regarding the prevalence of chlormequat.
Chlormequat was detected in the urine of 4 out of 5 people or 80 percent of Americans tested. Additionally, 92 percent of oat-based foods tested contained chlormequat, including Quaker Oats and Cheerios.
This study—the first to report urinary chlormequat measurements in adults living in the United States—highlights the possible widespread presence of chlormequat and the necessity for transparency and further investigation into potential health implications for consumers.
(Anna Hoychuk/Shutterstock)
What Is Chlormequat?
Chlormequat, widely known in the salt form as chlormequat chloride, is an agricultural chemical first registered in the United States in 1962 as a plant growth regulator. Plant growth regulators are chemical substances employed to control and regulate plant growth, flowering, and fruit yield, according to a 2006 study in the International Journal of Andrology.
Chlormequat application in grain crops results in reduced stem height, thereby minimizing the occurrence of lodging (bending over), which can reduce the efficiency of the harvesting process.
Chlormequat is the world’s most common plant growth regulator according to a 2020 study published in Toxicology. “Chlormequat is often the most detected pesticide residue in grains and cereals, as documented by monitoring surveys spanning several years,” according to the 2024 study. It is approved for use in Europe and parts of North America.
In the United States, chlormequat is permitted exclusively for use on ornamental plants and is prohibited for application on food crops grown within the country. Therefore, the presence of chlormequat in Cheerios and other oat-based foods sold in the United States raises questions regarding its introduction into the food supply chain.
How Did Chlormequat Enter the US Food Supply?
In April 2018 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowed chlormequat into the food supply by establishing acceptable food tolerance levels for chlormequat chloride in imported oats, wheat, barley, and select animal products. This action allowed for the importation and sale of those agricultural products even if treated with chlormequat.
Consequently, U.S. consumers may unknowingly be ingesting tainted imported foods—potentially exposing themselves to chlormequat or its residues.
In 2020, the allowable chlormequat levels were increased for oats. In April of 2023, the EPA proposed allowing the first-ever use of chlormequat on barley, oat, wheat, and triticale grown in the United States. If passed, exposure levels may increase, raising concerns about its implications on health and food safety.
Heath Concerns Surrounding Chlormequat
Chlormequat, while not as notorious as other pesticides, has long been linked to reproductive and developmental concerns in animal research.
In the 1980s, Danish pig farmers observed reproductive declines in pigs consuming chlormequat-treated grains, according to a 2006 article in the International Journal of Andrology.
The observation led to a controlled laboratory study, which confirmed impaired reproduction. Specifically, sows fed chlormequat-treated grain experienced impaired reproduction, primarily disruptions in oestrus cycling, and difficulty mating, as cited in the 2006 article.
These findings prompted the Danish pig industry to recommend restricting the use of crops treated with chlormequat and other growth regulators (up to a maximum of 30 percent of diet energy) due to potential reproductive issues.
Similar findings were observed in 1999 when male mice exposed to chlormequat through food or drinking water demonstrated “significantly diminished fertilization and cleavage rate” of sperm, indicating a decrease in sperm function, according to a study in Reproductive Toxicology.
Of significance, the estimated intake of chlormequat in the abovementioned pig (0.0023 milligrams (mg)/kilograms (kg) body weight (bw) per day) and mouse (0.024 mg/kg bw/day) experiments fell below the reference dose published by the EPA (0.05 mg/kg bw per day) and the acceptable daily intake published by the European Food Safety Authority (0.04 mg/kg bw/day), according to the 2024 study. These findings raise concerns regarding the current established limits set by regulatory authorities.
Recent studies further demonstrate chlormequat’s reproductive and developmental toxicity, including:
Delayed onset of puberty: According to a 2020 study in Toxicology Letters, male rats exposed to chlormequat from postnatal day 23 to 60 demonstrated reduced prostate weight and delayed onset of puberty.
Reduced sperm motility: Male rats exposed to chlormequat in utero demonstrated a delayed onset of puberty as well as decreased sperm motility, according to a 2021 study in Toxicology Letters.
Decreased testosterone: Male adult rats exposed to chlormequat by oral gavage (delivering substances directly to the stomach via a bulb-tipped needle) demonstrated lower testicular weight, decreased sperm motility, and decreased testicular testosterone, according to a 2018 study in Toxicology Letters.
Moreover, developmental toxicity studies suggest that chlormequat exposure during pregnancy can disrupt fetal growth and metabolism postnatally, indicating a lasting impact on offspring development in rats. For instance, a 2020 study published in Toxicology reported maternal exposure to chlormequat in rats led to adverse effects on postnatal health, including hypoglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and hyperproteinemia seven days after birth compared with controls.
A 2007 study in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry reported detectable levels of chlormequat in blood, as well as its transfer into milk, in pigs exposed to chlormequat. While these markers have not been thoroughly investigated in humans, they raise concerns regarding potential implications for fetal exposure during pregnancy and infants’ exposure through breastfeeding.
Some studies have failed to detect significant impacts of chlormequat on reproduction in female mice or male pigs, or the fertilization capacity in male mice exposed to chlormequat during development and postnatally. The equivocal findings in the toxicological literature concerning chlormequat could stem from variations in tested doses, outcome measures, and/or funding sources. According to a 2006 study in the International Journal of Andrology, “Reports from the industry do not show any effects at these low levels.”
Aim of New Ground-Breaking Study
Considering the health concerns underscored in the scientific literature, the goal of the 2024 study was to assess the impact of the EPA’s decision to permit chlormequat in the United States food supply.
Study Design
The 2024 study assessed chlormequat levels in the urine of individuals from three distinct geographic regions in the United States spanning from 2017 to 2023. Specifically, 21 urine samples were gathered in South Carolina in 2017, 25 samples were collected in Missouri from 2017 to 2022, and 50 samples were obtained in Florida in 2023.
The study also examined chlormequat levels in oat and wheat-based products acquired in the United States during 2022 and 2023. Specifically, 25 conventional oat-based food items were analyzed during this period, along with eight organic oat-based products and nine conventional wheat-based food products.
Study Results
Urine Analysis
Chlormequat was detected in 80 percent (77 out of 96) of urine samples.
The authors noted a rising trend in chlormequat exposure over time, with detection frequencies notably elevated in 2023 samples compared to those from 2017 and the years 2018 to 2022. Specifically, in 2017, 69 percent of samples tested positive, while from 2018 to 2022, 74 percent were positive. In stark contrast, 90 percent of samples in 2023 were positive, representing a significant increase compared to all previous years examined.
According to the researchers, “These data indicate likely continuous exposure given the short half-life of chlormequat [2–3 hours].”
To assess whether the rising concentrations detected in the urine samples reflected potential dietary exposure to chlormequat, the researchers analyzed chlormequat levels in oat and wheat-based food products purchased in the United States.
Food Exposure Analysis
The results of the food analysis were equally concerning: a high percentage of conventional oat-based products tested positive for chlormequat, with popular brands like Quaker Oats and Cheerios among those affected.
Specifically, 92 percent (23 out of 25) of conventional oat-based products tested positive for the presence of chlormequat, “indicating a high prevalence of chlormequat in oats,” according to the study. This highlights the potential risk posed to consumers, particularly children, who may consume these products regularly.
Chlormequat was detected in 12.5 percent (one out of eight) of organic oat-based products tested. Additionally, 22 percent (two out of nine) of conventional wheat-based products tested positive for chlormequat.
Collectively, the urinary and food exposure data “may reflect the likely recent introduction of chlormequat into the U.S. food supply due to EPA regulatory action changes involving chlormequat, including establishing a limit on chlormequat in food in 2018 and raising those limits for oats in 2020,” according to the study.
Conclusion
This groundbreaking study sheds light on the possible widespread prevalence of chlormequat in the United States food supply, as documented in both urinary and food exposure analyses. The findings reveal a concerning trend of increasing chlormequat exposure over time, with detection frequencies spiking notably in recent years.
Chlormequat’s documented toxicological properties, particularly its association with reproductive and developmental issues, raise significant concerns about its long-term effects on human health. Moreover, there is currently no monitoring of chlormequat in food products in the United States, leaving consumers vulnerable to potential risks.
With the EPA’s proposed expansion of chlormequat usage on domestically grown crops, the study’s findings serve as a crucial call to action for greater transparency in pesticide usage and monitoring, as well as consumer awareness so we can work toward a food supply that safeguards the well-being of the individual.
CNN analyst Mark Preston said he thinks if formerPresident Trump is jailed for violating the gag order in his hush money trial, there would be “civil unrest across the country” and it would help him in the polls.
Preston joined CNN’s Jim Acosta and others to discuss the possibility of Judge Juan Merchan putting the former president in a holding cell “for a few hours” after he has deliberately defied the gag order in the case, which was expanded to bar Trump from publicly attacking witnesses, prosecutors, court staff, jurors and the judge’s family.
“If that were to happen, first of all, I think you would probably see civil unrest across the country, certainly in some cities. That’s one,” he said, highlighted by Mediaite. “And two, politically, if I’m the Biden campaign, I don’t want to necessarily see him in jail, because that’s just going to get people more inflamed and more fired up.”
Preston and the other panelists pointed to the politicization in the case and particularly how Trump has capitalized on his ongoing legal battles. After surrendering at a Fulton Country Jail for his Georgia election interference case, Trump’s mug shot has become a symbol of resistance.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office sought to fine Trump on Monday for his inflammatory social media posts about the criminal hush money case, which made history as the first criminal trial of a former president. Assistant District Attorney Chris Conroy asked for Trump to be fined $1,000 for each social media post and to be reminded that he could be jailed for violating a gag order.
Merchan opted to hold an April 23 hearing, when he’ll hear arguments regarding the prosecution’s request.
Upon arriving at the courthouse Friday, Trump blasted the gag order, saying it “has to come off.”
“People are allowed to speak about me, and I have a gag order, just to show you how much more unfair it is,” he said.
Trump said the gag order has taken away his constitutional right to speak, and he has “a lot to say” to the press, although he has spoken to reporters in the courthouse each day of the trial since it began Monday.
As of Thursday, 12 jurors and one alternate had been selected, after nearly 100 people were dismissed for their inability to be impartial in the case about the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
