The Zeitgeist – 3.13.2019

Every morning, we run The Narrative Machine on the past 24 hours worth of financial media to find the most on-narrative (i.e. interconnected and central) stories in financial media. It’s not a list of best articles or articles we think are most interesting … often far from it.

But for whatever reason these are articles that are representative of some sort of chord that has been struck in Narrative-world.


What is fentanyl? [Washington Post]

An opioid crisis piece? Why did this rise to the top of a query of financial media articles? What’s the connection? This:

Yet municipalities still have trouble accessing the drug, partly because of the cost. Narcan, the commercial name for naloxone as a nasal spray, can cost between $70 to $150. But the injectable version, known as Evzio, can cost around $4,000.

If you haven’t heard it from someone else already, then hear it here: drug prices will be a platform pillar for every single candidate in the 2020 elections. In the same way that it even finds its way into discussions of the opioid crisis, it is attached in some way to all three of the components of the changing Zeitgeist we have written about – deflation to inflation, cooperative games to competitive games, and capital markets transformed into political utilities.

“Drug prices are too high in the U.S. and that has to change” is now Common Knowledge.

It will be interesting to observe whether the “We are subsidizing the world’s drug costs” narrative that Trump will promote will carry the day over the “We need to expand and reform drug insurance” narrative that Democrat candidates will offer.

And yes, this is a high-attention topic for pharma.


Some CRE Investors Switch Up Strategies as They Weigh Risk [National Real Estate Investor]

Oh, well that clears things up.

It reminds me of the old Mitch Hedberg bit: “People either love me or hate me…or they think I’m okay.”


What if All the World’s Economic Woes Are Part of the Same Problem? [New York Times]

Our first two-time Daily Zeitgeist article appearance.

This isn’t news coverage, so I wouldn’t apply the Fiat News label here, but it takes about 10 paragraphs before the author figures out that the story all the research is telling about productivity and corporate investment, etc. is about interest rates, a story that Ben has been telling for quite some time. It IS the New York Times, however, so before we get to that, we have to properly frame everything in terms of the very powerful narrative of inequality as the root cause of all society’s ills.

Ben and I don’t disagree on whether the economy would be more productive with more hundred thousandaires and millionaires and fewer billionaires. We do disagree a bit on whether allowing the state to participate in steering a society toward that outcome is a desirable or morally defensible way to achieve that. Where we do agree is that inequality can be both symptom and cause, but in practice is more symptom than cause. And the cause is fiat everythingFiat World.


Forget No Fees. ETF Breaks Ground by Offering to Pay Investors [Bloomberg]

OK, let’s leave aside the meta-game observation about saying the quiet part out loud.

  • Yes, the scheme is manipulative and kind of dumb.
  • Despite all that, yes, the scheme will probably work…at first.
  • No, it’s not vastly dumber than the amount of articles written about ETFs going from 5 to 2 bp, or from 2bp to free.

We have firmly established our enthusiasm for low-cost product. But that’s a preference in the real world. In narrative-world, we think the financial media obsession with complete, utter irrelevancies like a couple basis points does investors a disservice. It also leads to ink being spilled on nonsense like this.


Why We Like Rallies Led By Semiconductors: Jim Cramer [The Street]

As The Cramer likes to say, there’s always a bull market somewhere. The most persistent bull markets I know are advice markets based on unbridled optimism OR on unbridled pessimism … perma-bulls and perma-bears are always in demand. But the job security is better for unbridled optimism. Plus you avoid the Grumpy Grandpa audience, which can be a real drag.

The biggest advantage for the optimist advice market is that there’s a clear mechanism for getting paid. If you’re up, you’re up … there’s more money in the pot than there was before, and some of that can easily go to the cheering squad. If you’re down, though, even if you’re down less than you would have been otherwise … you’re still down. Investors are thankful for less bad losses. But they don’t pay for them. This is as true for the largest institutional investor as it is for the smallest personal account.

Get Report!


Comments

  1. But why would anyone buy Evizo (an autojector connected to a mini-computer) when they can by a generic naloxone prefilled syringe at CVS for $30? The whole comparison is disingenuous. Who would pay $3970 to press a button to inject instead of pressing down on a plunger?

  2. Avatar for nick nick says:

    The Mitch Hedberg bit about doing LSD out in the woods because you’re less likely to run into an authority figure, but then running into a bear, is a parable all investors should meditate on!

  3. " It IS the New York Times, however, so before we get to that, we have to properly frame everything in terms of the very powerful narrative of inequality as the root cause of all society’s ills."

    Most religions open every prayer by paying respect to the deity or the core principals of the religion. For the NYT, that is moral superiority, which today takes the form of indignation at income inequality.

    Re, ETF fees. I almost think the industry - while hating the fee compression (life was easier when the client just shut up and paid you 1% to index) - would rather talk about the “benefit” of saving the client 2bps than the lack of outperformance, the complexities of truly managing to after-tax returns or the other hidden fees and costs it wants the client to not notice.

    Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if firms were intentionally slow-walking to the low-fee end state, not to capture the last dollar, but to be able to roll out the LOWER FEES! bread and circus several more times.

  4. I’m against picketing, but I don’t know how to show it.
    I’m against narrative, but I don’t know how to explain it.

  5. There is absolutely some shameful slow playing here!

  6. I’m not sure why they would buy it, but I’m pretty sure I know why they would include it as their example in a big feature piece in WaPo!

Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum

Participants

Avatar for rguinn Avatar for Mkahn22 Avatar for Landvermesser Avatar for nick Avatar for ewearne

The Daily Zeitgeist

ET Zeitgeist: Raccoons Never Sleep

By Ben Hunt | May 28, 2021 | 5 Comments

Lemonade (LMND) isn’t just an insurance company. No, no … they’re an AI Company! ™.

Plus Chamath is up to his old tricks.

I hate raccoons.

Inflation as Ad Campaign

By Ben Hunt | May 24, 2021 | 0 Comments

An ET Pack member sent me this. Anyone else come across ads that directly call out inflation expectations? Would love to collect more screenshots like…

Many People Are Saying … Bitcoin is Art

By Ben Hunt | May 24, 2021 | 0 Comments

The Bitcoin Is Art thesis that I put out back in 2015 (The Effete Rebellion of Bitcoin) and recently put forward again (In Praise of…

Going Gray

By Ben Hunt | May 23, 2019 | 2 Comments

Huawei Founder Says U.S. Won’t Disrupt Business As Analysts Warn Of Sales Slowdown [Forbes]

Narrator: The cause-and-effect was, in fact, that simple

By Ben Hunt | May 23, 2019 | 0 Comments

The Fed Is Likely to Make an ‘Insurance’ Rate Cut [Bloomberg]

The Zeitgeist – 5.22.2019

By Ben Hunt | May 22, 2019 | 5 Comments

Retirement plan menus are ground zero for what is delightfully referred to as “choice architecture” … steering and nudging you into making the “right” choice.

Ad men understand choice architecture. So do mob bosses. It’s all about creating a Hobson’s Choice … a choice that’s no choice at all.

It’s not a Wheel. It’s a Carousel.

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.