Fragility has returned - beyond the debate of value vs. 'super-cap' leaders; primarily due to cracks in the global economic structure that are pending far beyond the initial rifts that have existed. So far this is more like 'road hazard' chips in a windshield that have yet to obscure forward-vision; but threaten to do just that. And that's what pointed us to consolidation expectations.

As that's ongoing at the moment, the debate is how tough the actions will be rather than the rhetoric. Our view has been that the noble resistance to hard scrabble tactics by China (on Hong Kong; their own people; Taiwan; even on their own citizens) is appropriate but carries risks of political moves shifting a bit further into a difficult environment where politicians (even Xi in a sense is a politician not merely head of a police state with commie-capitalism) control is eroded by 'events' and even my proclamations by their own military (a top Chinese General flat-out called for suppression of Hong Kong and invading of Taiwan, which of course in the case of the latter, would evoke US action).  

Should they do so, then the 'wheels come off' of the global relationships far beyond the mutual economic needs both parties recognize. The markets too would violently react; because political angina aside; a rapid realignment of supply chains really is not possible; and part of why I called for gradualism.  

At the same time I have called for an American Manufacturing Renaissance for not years; but decades; ever since my speeches in Boca & Palm Springs back in the 1970's forewarning (after Kissinger & Nixon opened up China), how this was already deconstructing American industry and risked becoming counterproductive; even as it was necessary to move China in the direction (the problem was too swift an embrace and no protection for our businesses while Americans were tantalized with cheap consumer goods). So here we are. Disengaging the China relationship totally, in a sort of draconian move 'now', would also be counterproductive for both nations going forward. Doing it over time is a strategy underway for 3 years already; and manageable. 

In-sum: it seems I'm calling for cooler heads to prevail; and leave rhetoric to one-side, while trade and maturer leadership prevail (being elderly does not always correlate with maturity). Probably applies to China and to protests. 

Extended benefits for workers runs out; there will be lots of impacts on small business (half or so expected to close permanently by some estimates), and perhaps we've gotten to the point (aside from restaurants) where wearing a mask 'must' be compulsory; but 'social distancing' otherwise be limited; thus allowing businesses, schools or more to basically reopen with facilities they have, rather than imaginary capacities. South Korea did this successfully. It won't be helped by strain and pressures that the social situation evokes; and I wouldn't be surprised if much of it is intentional by agitators not grievers. 

Everything is NOT entirely dependent on a rapid economic recovery; just the 'perception' of such a revival. New drug developments (Merck is one) have the ability to do what we view as key to reopening widely, without fear even as we still await vaccines: and that's to take death off the table. We are getting to that point; as even minimal efforts (like modest levels of D3 and Zinc) may help to fend-off serious infection from Covid. (Keep in mind Seniors living in nursing homes or assisted living may very well be vitamin-D deficient; just a prospect possibly tied to poor prognosis for anyone contracting Covid-19.)  

Bottom line: Many sectors or indexes have rallied to potential resistance as outlined (Russell is one of them); but it's a 'relay' marathon not a race, with a handful of 'grand dames' leading, and others trying to get in gear. Some did recently, which help mute the bifurcation; but only a bit. However it's clearly why I argued those calling for 'drastic' collapses were wrong; given that the majority of issues were still relatively trailing. So they can't move alone; lots of bad news for smaller companies isn't entirely priced-in; but more has than the analysts generally acknowledge, because Oil is firmer and that alone is a factor reducing pressure on Oils and Banks; hence fewer nonperforming loans; fending-off of defaults; and an absolutely mixed situation.