Wednesday, July 8, 2020

BIS Innovation Hub: The Gradual March To Central Bank Digital Currency Continues To Advance

This time last year when the Bank for International Settlements released their Annual Economic Report, it combined with the announcement of a new initiative called the ‘BIS Innovation Hub‘ (also known as ‘Innovation BIS 2025‘). The BIS refer to the Innovation Hub as a medium term project that comprises three main elements:
  • Identify and develop in-depth insights into critical trends in technology affecting central banking
  • Develop public goods in the technology space geared towards improving the functioning of the global financial system
  • Serve as a focal point for a network of central bank experts on innovation
As you can see, technological innovation is at the core of the Hub’s remit.
The initial phase of the project saw Hub’s opened up in Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore. An operational agreement was signed with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority in September 2019, followed by an agreement with the Swiss National Bank in October. The Hub in Singapore began operations in November. 
With phase one completed, the BIS have now moved into the second phase which they warned was going to happen when the Hub first launched. Accompanying the release of this year’s Annual Economic Report, the institution announced that the Hub is expanding to new locations in both Europe and North America.
Over the next two years, the Bank of England will be opening a centre, along with the Bank of Canada, the European Central Bank and four Nordic central banks (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland). A ‘strategic partnership‘ will also be formed with the Federal Reserve System.
East and West may appear divided in the geopolitical sphere, but in the world of central banking they are very much united behind the common goal of the Hub.
As the BIS outlined in a press release, the expansion will ‘allow Innovation Hub to spur central bank work across multiple fintech pillars‘. General Manager Agustin Carstens confirmed that the ‘new centres will expand our reach significantly and help create a global force for fintech innovation‘.
Most pointedly, however, the expansion, according to the Head of the Innovation Hub Benoit Coeure, will mean that it is ‘well placed to advance work on a broad range of issues of importance to the central banking community, including digital currency and digital payments‘. Coeure also cited distributed ledger technology as a key aspect of the Hub’s work.
In October 2019 I posted an article about the Hub (Innovation BIS 2025: A Stepping Stone Towards an Economic ‘New World Order’) and argued how the introduction of it tied directly into the agenda for implementing a network of central bank digital currencies over the next few years. I followed up this article with another which offered more detail on the Innovation Hub (BIS Announce New Appointments and Launch Singapore Hub Centre).
To add more weight to the idea that the Hub exists to help facilitate a CBDC future, Agustin Carstens mentioned on presenting the BIS Annual Economic Report that ‘if CBDCs are to fulfil their potential and promise as a new means of payment, their design and implications deserve close study and consideration. The BIS will continue supporting central banks in their CBDC research and design efforts, through the new BIS Innovation Hub, its committees, and broader analytical work.’
As the Hub gathers experience, a home-grown agenda will quickly be developed. A key question informing the BIS Innovation Hub’s work is whether money itself needs to be reinvented for a changing environment, or whether the emphasis should be on improving the way it is provided and used.
As I have written about previously, central banks have now begun to outline specific technical details on how a CBDC could be built (A Look at CBDC Developments at the Bank of England – Part One). This comes as global payment systems are being reformed so as to be compatible with blockchain and distributed ledger technology – a process that is earmarked for completion around 2024.
With the events of the past few months, it is impossible to discuss CBDC’s without factoring in the impact of Covid-19. This appears increasingly to be the major international crisis that global planners hope will catalyse the move into a fully digital economic system. And the BIS Innovation Hub is ideally placed to respond.
In remarks made in April, Benoit Coeure asked whether the pandemic would ‘accelerate the shift towards virtual banking‘. Musing on his own question, Coeure stated that ‘in the next months and years, the BIS Innovation Hub will remain busy scanning technological trends in finance and their consequences for central banks and financial regulators‘.
The importance of the Hub to the CBDC agenda is there to see, particularly with the onset of Covid-19. A line in the BIS Annual Economic Report supports what Coeure had to say:
The Covid-19 crisis, and the attendant rise of electronic payments, are likely to boost CBDC development across the globe.
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva recently told Italy’s National Consultation that ‘digital is a big winner in this crisis‘ and that the pandemic may have ‘accelerated the digital transformation by two or three years‘.
The BIS insist, however, that research on CBDC’s is ‘still in its early stages, and development efforts will take some time‘.
From my perspective, by 2025 CBDC’s will begin to be introduced, initially in conjunction with cash. But the long term objective is for the abolition of all tangible financial assets to be replaced with intangible wealth. The BIS attempted to convey in their annual report that a CBDC would prove as a ‘digital complement to physical cash‘. Perhaps to begin with, but nobody should deceive themselves into believing that cash has any sustainable future if and when CBDC’s are offered to the general public.
To reinforce this notion, this is what Agustin Carstens stated during a speech at the Central Bank of Ireland in March 2019:
Like cash, a CBDC could and would be available 24/7, 365 days a year. At first glance, not much changes for someone, say, stopping off at the supermarket on the way home from work. He or she would no longer have the option of paying cash. All purchases would be electronic.
What central banks (in line with state legislatures) are not going to do is simply outlaw cash when CBDC’s become available. I believe what they want is for banknotes to dwindle to a level where they can make the argument that the servicing costs of maintaining the cash infrastructure outweigh the amount of cash still in circulation and being used for payment.
An Access to Cash report published in the UK last year warned that because of bank branch closures and the decline of ATM’s, Britain’s cash network was at real risk of collapsing. Introduce a CBDC into the equation and you can see how cash will soon be deemed nonviable. Those who might opt to use cash over a digital currency would eventually have no other option than to transfer their money into a CBDC.
One of the main goals of global planners is to target what they call the ‘unbanked‘ or the ‘underbanked‘. In other words, those who exist largely outside of the financial system and trade anonymously. The BIS Annual Report declared that 1.7 billion adults and hundreds of millions of firms ‘are tied to cash as their only means of payment‘. That is one fifth of the world’s population that central banks are seeking to bring into their world – a digital only construct in which the only alternative is a life of destitution.
Essentially, the central banking fraternity will want to be able to pinpoint the abolition of cash on the advancement of technology and the changing payment habits of the consumer, thereby taking the emphasis off themselves.
With regards to changing consumer behaviour, the unproven fear perpetuated throughout the media that cash could transmit Covid-19 has successfully managed to undermine cash to the point where a large swathe of people have stopped using it. The latest statistics from Link show that in the UK transaction volume is down 47% on this time last year.
Over time, central banks will be able to use a sustained reduction in demand for cash to their advantage. As Yves Mersch of the European Central Bank mentioned in May, ‘if our customers, the people of Europe signalled a change in payments behaviour, we would want to preserve their direct link to the ultimate owner of our currency by maintaining their access to central bank liabilities‘.
The owner being the central bank, the liabilities being a CBDC.
The ideological agenda of central banks to digitise the entirety of the world’s financial system and to maintain their power base is being spearheaded by the Bank for International Settlements through their Innovation Hub. Unless people begin to recognise where the manipulation and growth in the CBDC narrative is coming from, and how there is a targeted agenda to guide the world into a cashless society, global planners will in the years to come get their way.

Hydroxychloroquine And Fake News

The anti-hydroxychloroquine media has been full of the supposed dangers of hydroxychloroquine and its failure as a treatment for the virus.
Does hydroxychloroquine work or does it not, is it safe or dangerous, and should we be using it as a treatment for the virus?
Here we examine the evidence for and against it.
A New York doctor Vladimir Zelenko looked at treatments being used in China and Korea and gave it to 405 patients over 60 or with high-risk problems such as diabetes, asthma, obesity, hypertension or shortness of breath. In this high risk group he claimed to have cut hospital admission and mortality rates compared to what could be expected without treatment by 80 to 90%. https://internetprotocol.co/hype-news/2020/04/14/a-detailed-coronavirus-treatment-plan-from-dr-zelenko/
Dr Zelenko sent a letter to President Trump urging him to issue an executive order to roll out the treatment which the FDA was blocking. Trump announced that hydroxychloroquine looked like it could be a “game-changer”, and thus the politicization of hydroxychloroquine began.
Dr Fauci the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who was supposed to be advising Trump disagreed with him and backed Gilead’s rival treatment Remdesivir. YouTube deleted a video of Dr. Zelenko talking about the treatment on his Rabbi’s channel and despite objections that there was nothing wrong with the video YouTube never reinstated it.
In this YouTube video interview with Rudy Giulliani from July 1, which hopefully will not be deleted by the time you read this, Dr. Zelenko claims 99,3% survival rate for the high-risk patients he has treatedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFwjY0qe7ro
Professor Didier Raoult of Marseilles used a similar protocol to Dr. Zelenko without the zinc. His study with a small group using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin showed a fifty-fold benefit. He then went on to get similar results with a much larger group of 1,061 patients. Contrary to the warnings the media had been running that hydroxychloroquine would cause heart problems, no cardiac toxicity was observed and he achieved a mortality rate of only 0.5%. http://covexit.com/professor-didier-raoult-releases-the-results-of-a-new-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-study-on-1061-patients/
The media quickly found critics who claimed that the only valid proof any treatment worked was a “gold-standard” double-blind clinical trial and dismissed Dr. Zelenko’s and Raoult’s results. Dr. Zelenko and Prof. Raoult both refused on ethical grounds to give placebos to half the patients in clinical trials and they defended their data as sufficient to show the treatment did work. They both stressed that the urgency of the situation made it necessary to act on available evidence, not clinical trials which would take months to produce results and be verified. There have subsequently been over a dozen studies which confirm that Dr. Zelenko’s and Prof. Raoult’s protocols do work.
A study from the New York University Grossman school of Medicine published in May found patients given hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin at an early stage had a lower need for hospitalization than those who were not. The addition of zinc improved the results even more. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1.full.pdf
I’ll tell you what. If this is me, and I am me, and I end up getting this thing, I am going to want Zinc plus Hydroxychloroquine plus Azithromycin. I would want that treatment.” commented Chris Martenson, PhD, in his video series about COVID-19 where he talks about this study. http://covexit.com/i-am-going-to-want-zinc-plus-hydroxychloroquine-plus-azithromycin-chris-masterson-phd/
Yale Professor Harvey Risch submitted a report of five trials and studies using hydroxychloroquine in the American Journal of Epistemology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1.
Prof. Risch agreed that, in an ideal world, randomized double-blinded controlled clinical trials would be preferable but in the meantime “for the great majority I conclude that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, preferably with zinc can be this outpatient treatment, at least until we find or add something better. It is our obligation not to stand by as the old and infirm are killed by this disease and our economy is destroyed by it and we have nothing to offer except high-mortality hospital treatment. Available evidence of efficacy of HCQ+AZ has been repeatedly described in the media as anecdotal, but most certainly is not” http://covexit.com/yale-epidemiology-professor-urges-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-early-therapy-for-covid-19/
A Brazilian study found 4.6 times less hospitalization in patients who took hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin within seven days of infection. Professor Paolo Zanotto reported that there were 41% of deaths among those who did not choose therapy and were hospitalized against 0% among those who chose by therapy.” http://covexit.com/new-brazilian-study-shows-telemedicine-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-reduce-need-for-hospitalization/
A retrospective study of 2,541 Detroit cases showed up to 71% reduction in mortality in early treatment with hydroxychloroquine azithromycin. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099
A retrospective study of 3,737 cases in Marseille showed a reduction of 50% in mortality without any adverse effects in the Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin group. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101791
A meta-analysis of 105,040 cases from 20 studies in 9 countries found a reduction in mortality by up to three times in groups treated early with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycinhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100709
A study of 6,493 patients with COVID-19 at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, showed that hydroxychloroquine helped to reduce mortality in hospitalized patients. . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05983-z
On July 3 a study by a Michigan team at Henry Ford Health System found that 13 percent of patients who were given the drug early on survived while 26 percent of patients who were not given the drug died. The study which included 2,541 patients was published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases and determined that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin provided a 71% hazard ratio reduction.
Our results do differ from some other studies. What we think was important in ours … is that patients were treated early. For hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to begin before the patients begin to suffer some of the severe immune reactions that patients can have with COVID” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System. https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
A statement from the Trump campaign hailed the study as fantastic news.
Fortunately, the Trump Administration secured a massive supply of hydroxychloroquine for the national stockpile months ago, yet this is the same drug that the media and the Biden campaign spent weeks trying to discredit and spread fear and doubt around because President Trump dared to mention it as a potential treatment for coronavirus. The new study from the Henry Ford Health System should be a clear message to the media and the Democrats: stop the bizarre attempts to discredit hydroxychloroquine to satisfy your own anti-Trump agenda. It may be costing lives.”
Also on July 3 results from another study by Dr. Takahisa Mikami and his team at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, was published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. The study analyzed the outcomes of 6,493 patients who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the New York City metropolitan area and found that hydroxychloroquine decreased mortality hazard ratio by 47% percent.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05983-z
Many more studies in addition to those above also show that treating early with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and preferably also zinc is the key to ending hospitalization and death.  https://c19study.com/
The trials that confirm Dr. Zelenko’s and Prof. Raoult’s finding have been mostly ignored or dismissed by the anti-hydroxychloroquine media.
The trials that they have given attention to are those that supposedly show that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help or even increases the death rate.
Statistics from the US Veterans hospital study (Magagnoli, 2020) showed patients who were given hydroxychloroquine died more frequently than those who did not. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v2
In this study hydroxychloroquine was only given to patients who were already seriously ill and those who were getting better without any treatment were not given it. Predictably those given hydroxychloroquine did worse than the untreated group but those conducting the study claimed it as proof that hydroxychloroquine did not work. Professor Raoult commented “In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The study by Magagnoli et al is an absolutely spectacular example of this,” http://covexit.com/the-definitive-guide-to-discrediting-hydroxychloroquine-based-treatments-to-covid-19-part-1/
One of the collaborators in the trial reportedly received a $260 million grant from Gilead Sciences Inc. which produces the rival treatment Remdesivir.
The US Secretary of Veteran Affairs Robert Wilkie, acknowledged that the drug was given to veterans at their last stages of life and added “We know the drug has been working on middle-age and young veterans … it is working in stopping the progression of the disease.”
Another study that supposedly showed that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous and didn’t work came from a group that claimed to have data on hydroxychloroquine use for Covid-19 from hospitals around the world  The study was published on 22 May in the Lancet medical journal. The results were immediately disputed by one of the Australian hospitals from which Surgisphere, the company which supplied the data claimed to have obtained it.
Following this a group of 140 scientists, researchers, and statisticians wrote an open letter to the Lancet and the authors of the study questioning the data used. A Guardian investigation revealed that Surgisphere was run by employees who lacked any scientific background. One was a science fiction author and fantasy artist and another was an “adult model and events hostess.” The Lancet conducted an independent investigation, retracted the study and in an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Richard Horton, the editor in chief admitted that the study should never have appeared in his journal.  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
On the basis of the flawed Lancet study the WHO suspended the hydroxychloroquine trials it was sponsoring. When the study was retracted they resumed them briefly but soon after suspended them again on the results of another faulty study, the Oxford University’s “RECOVERY Trial”.
The researchers in this trial gave patients massive doses of hydroxychloroquine without the necessary addition of azithromycin and they started treatment too late. That the RECOVERY Trial was never going to work was pointed out on the Covexit website two months before it started. http://covexit.com/uk-recovery-trial-inadequate-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-predictably-fails/
Prof. Raoult compared the Oxford academics who carried out the hydroxychloroquine section of the RECOVERY trial to the Marx Brothers in a video interview titled “The Marx Brothers are Doing Science – the Example of RECOVERY” http://covexit.com/professor-raoult-compares-the-oxford-recovery-trial-academics-to-the-marx-brothers/
Prof. Raoult sarcastically commented that the good news that came out of the trial was that hydroxychloroquine is not toxic. The RECOVERY trial used a 2,400 mg dose on the first day compared to Dr.Raoult’s 600 mg. Even with such high dosage there were no cardiac side effects with any of the participants. Prof. Raoult recalled that “two weeks ago one was told everybody was dying because of cardiac issuesAt least, this trial is good to assess the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine as they did not announce any toxicity, even at such high dosage”.
Although by now it should have been abundantly clear that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin only worked in combination and if given early, not to patients in hospital more than seven days after infection, in April the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) started hydroxychloroquine trials on hospitalized patients too late, some already in emergency wards, and then abandoned the trials with the conclusion that “hydroxychloroquine does no harm but provides no benefit”. The FDA cancelled its emergency use authorization and the NIH halted their clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine
The media hostile to hydroxychloroquine successfully whipped up hysteria about its supposed dangers although it has an excellent safety record and it is not even alongside aspirin on the WHO list of the 100 most dangerous drugs.  Specialists and doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lupus have confirmed that thousands of patients are being prescribed the same dose Dr. Zelenko is giving for five days for years on end without problems.
Were the failed studies faulty because of ignorance or by design?
Who gains from them?
The drug companies can’t make much money on a generic drug, and they found in the media and the scientific community willing accomplices to stop its use. Gilead Sciences Inc. gives grants in addition to those mentioned above to Oxford University and the WHO. Is it possible that people in these prestigious institutions may have their integrity compromised by money, or is it mere coincidence that Gilead with their rival treatment is funding them?
Some of the media will do anything to make Trump look like a fool and these faulty trials were the perfect opportunity. The media hostile to hydroxychloroquine downplayed or cast doubt on the many successful studies and trials with hydroxychloroquine and made the most of the faulty trials as proof that the drug Trump had touted didn’t work.
For the media it seems to have been more about scoring political points and increasing their audience ratings rather than investigative reporting which uncovers the truth. For those who are dying and their families and friends as a result of this treatment not being used because of media misinformation it is lives tragically lost, and for the rest of us it is our economies sinking, businesses failing, and unemployment, poverty and suffering rising.
Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved, and los,s ruin, suffering and devastation to our economies and societies avoided if we simply started using this safe, cheap and readily available treatment. It is a ludicrous and tragic farce that because of the massive misinformation on behalf of corporate greed and political point scoring that we are not.

HSBC Leads Markets Lower As White House Targets Hong Kong Dollar Peg

From Zero Hedge:

For the first time in 30 years, the Hong Kong dollar's peg to the greenback is facing a legitimate threat, and not - as Kyle Bass once articulated, and as we explained earlier this week - simply because a mass exodus from the city would likely drain the HKMA's FX reserves, making the maintenance of the peg impossible. For years, the flood of foreign capital into Hong Kong guaranteed the peg's security.
When Bloomberg reported last night that the Trump Administration was mulling a plan to deliberately break the peg and ratchet up pressure on Hong Kong as retribution for Beijing's adoption of a new National Security law that severely encroaches on the freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kongers in the British 'Basic Law', the reporter carefully noted that some in the administration are pushing back against the plan, for fear it would only hurt US banks and Hong Kongers, while doing little to dissuade Beijing.
Unsurprisingly, the news has undermined shares of global banks that derive sizable portions of their revenue from Hong Kong, leaving financials as the worst-performing stocks across Asian and European trading on Wednesday. HSBC led declines on the Stoxx Europe 600, as the bad news also drove Investec to cut its rating on HSBC.
The bank with the most to lose here is, of course, HSBC, which shed another 4.3% in London trading, its biggest daily drop since June 11, when officials in Beijing singled out the bank for not enthusiastically backing the HK security law. Having since offered the lip service that was due, the bank's shares have still considered to suffer, as the White House has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials over abuses tied to Xinjinag, while moving to eventually revoke Hong Kong's "special status" under US law.
HSBC's biggest UK-based regional rival operating in HK, StanChart, falls as much as 2.3%.

According to BBG, the US government is looking for a way to punish Hong Kong-based banks, and HSBC, which is suddenly caught in the middle of a geopolitical dispute, might find itself in Washington's crosshairs. Investec analyst Ian Gordon wrote that he was "running out of arguments" to hold HSBC. Even plans to fire 35,000 workers as part of a sweeping restructuring sadly just isn't enough.

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

"There's No Price-Discovery Mechanism" - Gundlach Warns Fed "Desperation" Has Removed All Signals From Markets

Billionaire bond investor Jeffrey Gundlach recently spoke with Yahoo Finance's Julia La Roche, and reiterated a similar message from his DoubleLine Total Return Bond Fund webcast in June, of how the Federal Reserve, through extraordinary measures, is propping up the economy - distorting market signals. 
Gundlach, the CEO of $135 billion DoubleLine Capital, told La Roche the Federal Reserve's "most incredible fiscal lending" is the largest policymakers have ever deployed, even dating back to the financial crisis of 2007–2008.

He said since the pandemic began, the central bank has printed trillions of dollars to prevent the economy from crashing further - by purchasing corporate bonds - which managed to suppress volatility. In the process, the Fed's balance sheet swelled to a mind-boggling $7 trillion. 
DoubleLine June webcast 
Gundlach said the Fed has "decided that they want to pull out all the stops to reduce market and economic volatility," via unprecedented money printing. "'What they're doing is really a bridge further than they have ever gone before."
He said the Fed was motivated to keep "throwing things" at the market to rein in volatility across multiple asset classes. In his 35-years of market experience, he said the disruptions in credit markets were "far worse" than the financial crisis a decade ago. 
"That led to what looked like was going to be some very substantial bankruptcies in some of the leveraged pools like mortgage-related REITs and other types of investments," he explained.
Similar to the latest DoubleLine webcast, Gundlach said the Fed's backstopping of the corporate debt markets is a violation of its charter. 
"The Fed figured desperate times...require desperate measures, and the went all the way into buying corporate bonds," Gundlach said.
In the next downturn, he said the Fed "could go even further" in its ability to unleash an arsenal of tools to provide liquidity to markets. 
Gundlach noted the weakest portion of the corporate bond market is low-tier investment-grade debt, commonly known as BBB, which, if re-rated to junk, could cause significant losses for investors who would have to dump into illiquid markets. 
"There's been so much issuance of corporate bonds. The prices have been propped up to levels where I think the owners that own them at these levels will end up losing principal on a basket of these assets," he said.
Gundlach said the Fed's money printing is "delaying the inevitable. In the meantime, they have a lot of wherewithal to continue delaying because they are spraying money all over the place and buying all these assets."
He said, "the price of corporate bonds isn't really real. There's no price discovery mechanism that's being pegged. There's no message; there's just a target price that the Fed has been doing, and that led to a pop-up in corporate bonds." 
He cautioned against buying LQD exchange-traded-fund:
"It's about the interest rate risk of the 10-year Treasury and the yield-to-no losses is about 2.25. There's not a lot of reward there, and there's a lot of risk if the bonds get downgraded because the yields on junk bonds are far higher today than the yields on BBB corporate," he said.
"So, if they get downgraded, we know the pricing is going to suffer very significantly." 
Watch the full interview

Gundlach's message over the last month has stayed about the same. He believes the Fed's easy money policies have only delayed the crisis, BBBs are the most significant risk in corporate debt markets and remains skeptical of the stock market rally.