Market Briefing For Friday, Nov. 27

Perseverance - characterizes this stock market, without much 'harvesting' so far, of gains achieved in the most recent upside phase. Consolidation Friday, most likely, will be what we get for the structurally-typical half-session.

That's barring of course any drama, which generally wouldn't occur on Turkey Day itself. Yes there were political pressure in Pennsylvania, as the President chimed-in on a Hearing and urged Guiliani to serve him and save the Nation (they had a witness claiming hundreds of thousands of illegitimate ballots, but unless all this goes somewhere quickly, the market's unlikely to be impressed.

As I've contended for months, this market is interested in stability, and tended to prefer a Trump victory. Contrary to those who think otherwise, Republicans to a substantial degree were frustrated at some of the missteps, perhaps even related to non-COVID issues. Perhaps the states where Trump lost by just a bit but the Congressional Republicans won, reflected this fatigue some had felt.

So, with respect to the 'hail Mary' efforts to reverse the Election (technically as is still alive), while it's unlikely, from a stock market perspective, actually does not matter as much as some think. The market didn't crash with Trump's win in 2016, but soared as we were projecting it would. And here it rallied on Joe Bid's presumed victory, even though some thought it would tank. We're not in a tanking mode, and not going to be near-term, though big-cap value's behind generally (not entirely, some oil, telephony and industrials are still not juiced).

COVID fatigue . . . has permeated most aspects of public life globally. Not just in the USA either. It became essentially politicized between those arguing for stronger controls (perhaps the word 'control' should not be underestimated in a couple ways), which almost always are the same contenting vaccine safety.

We are not epidemiologists or infectious disease experts, but we recognized I would say very early-on in late January and early February how market risks were tremendously heightened at the time, and then on March 23rd (that's as I called it that day "The Inger Bottom") a time of max-fear. Since then, though we have talked a lot (too much at times) about the topic, you'll notice I've said it was 'less' of an impact on the markets, even as it became more politicized.

What matters now is opening the economy, ending lockdowns (and not panic by certain officials -often hypocritical- who think responsibility is for others but not for themselves), and putting vaccines in proper perspective. It's because I am 'not' fear-mongering, but an enthusiast for weeks and weeks about what I call the 'Roaring 20's' (not a Great Depression) that some perceived this as an endorsement of vaccines. Not really, although I hope they actually work.

My optimism has been based on 'a mixed approach' emphasizing availability of 'antibody therapeutics' (whether sourced form big pharma or independent typically smaller companies, so often not yet benefiting from Federal funding).

Those who know the history of vaccine 'promoters' (that includes Fauci, and Bill Gates) realize that vaccines have saved millions of lives primarily in very poor heavily-populated areas of the world, and some have been helpful for a slew of people in the United States & Western Europe. However, for perhaps other reasons (some suggest financial) they have resisted supporting funding for antiviral 'drug' research which actually kills the virus rather than building an immune response 'if' the human body is able to.

My view is influenced by the pressure on Government 'not' to develop drugs during the horrible HIV epidemic, with Fauci at the time pressing for vaccines only, which we still do not have. Back then groups like AMFAR (with Liz Taylor at the helm of raising money) backed research by David Ho (still at Columbia) and others to fund independent research on drugs, leading to drug cocktails that worked, but only later were embraced by Fauci and other Federal guys.

I think in this case (odd as this sounds) we should be thankful that President Trump (as I noted the other night) was treated with the Regeneron (REGN) version of an antibody therapeutic, and walked out of Walter Reed a couple days later. It was the President later naming that drug that compelled Fauci or even Gates to 'acknowledge the role' of antibody therapeutics. Role? Hell, perhaps ruling dominance in resolving this and taking fear off the table opening society.

In the case of Sorrento (SRNE), they 'promise' a low-dose (for-instance) 100 mg shot, versus the 4 grams (twice) that President Trump had of a Regeneron IV. In my thinking so far, although the market soared on the vaccine news, that's for probably mass protection and the concept of 'happy days are here again' has dominated (more so than Biden, Yellen or any of the rest, but a combination).

I think this weakened stocks like Sorrento, but that might reverse as a) people increasingly accept 'antibody treatments' as a preferable or back-up drug, or b) Sorrento actually succeeds (and we don't know if they will) thus allowing a treatment without hospitalization, or c) the eventual pill or nasal treatment, of course reducing anxiety broadly, even more so than basic drugs or vaccines.

In-essence, it is not that I have a particular fear of COVID (hard to characterize) but realizing even as many still squabble about what's the best approach, or if they'll take the vaccine vs. antibodies (or have both available).

The point is: even though mortality levels have thankfully improved, lingering after-effects in most patients, prove COVID recovery's no picnic. Best of all: not to get sick in the first place, which is why many of us disengaged a lot. Is that fear, or is that common-sense.. to minimize interactions until we know more.