Great commentary, I think the "unknown" factor is the biggest problem. Pricing in a pandemic is not the easiest thing to do. Doesn't help to not be able to trust the Chinese data or the WHO. Interesting - not sure if you know about the 2017 Catastrophe Bond issued by the World Bank. $425 million for its Pandemic Emergency Fighting Facility. Wonder how that will influence the WHO...
Great article Chris and insightful commentary from Matt also. Thank you for the acknowledgement Chris, and I hope people read my article from earlier this week that you kindly reference. You have definitely demonstrated a sense of curiosity and a willingness to investigate and get up to speed on this important issue fast, which sets you apart from the average fund manager (going beyond the headlines). The coronavirus issue is the driving narrative of the market right now, and I expect will continue to be for a while yet.
The heavy market falls this week reflect the slow but growing realisation of a growing global pandemic and admission of such by some US and Japanese health officials last night. The market being "imminently coronered" was predictable (as I published on this early this week). It is not over yet. Further clustered outbreaks in other countries are likely to strike soon. Many governments are now likely to find containment of the coronavirus impossible. Some will likely move to a strategy of attempted mitigation, as will affected and frightened communities themselves. The economic impacts from the reactions to coronavirus - as the world's people and government move from denial there is a problem, to attempted containment to mitigation measures - are being underappreciated.
Thanks Chris - your comments on the markets reaction and the subsequent central bank reactions are the important factor that most are missing. I think on the mortality rate is also key. Its probably below 1% when controlled. Its probably 5%+ if it gets out of control. Now, governments have a decision. Lock down your economy and have 1% mortality rate. Ignore it and get a 5% rate. Choose.
The death number should be compared with the recovered number, not the infected number, to give a meaningful outcome.
A meaningful mortality rate must use death rates and recovered, not infections. Infection might last days or weeks anda then what, recovery or death, the outcome is the answer not the infection. Not sure I can work this thing to get a comment in. Russell King
Hi Russell, I see how what you're saying might be informative, but I think the assumption is if you don't die, you've recovered. In terms of risk management, you'd want the infected v death I guess. In terms of trading - those questions don't matter to a large degree. The price and human/algo emotion is what matters. It is still not panic in my opinion - whether that is right or wrong is another question.
Some new research from Los Alamos labs suggests a much higher R0 value than originally thought - rather than the "accepted" 2.2-2.7, the research suggests 4.7-6.6. This is important not only for considering how quickly the virus will spread, but how strongly the quarantine measures have to be for the virus to become "extinct".