CDC Update: 1,524 DEAD 31,079 Injured Following Experimental COVID MRNA ‘Vaccines’

 From Humansarefree

The CDC added more data today into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines.

The data goes through March 5, 2021, with 31,079 recorded adverse events, including 1,524 deaths following injections of the experimental COVID mRNA shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

Besides the recorded 1,524 deaths, there were 5,806 visits to Emergency Room doctors, 630 permanent disabilities, and 3,477 hospitalizations.

The CDC also updated their Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination page on March 9th this past week, and according to this report, VAERS has received 1,637 reports of death following COVID “vaccinations” – more than 100 deaths than are in the VAERS data dump released today.

The CDC continues to state that not one of these recorded deaths following experimental COVID injections are related to the shots.

“A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.” (Source)

AstraZeneca COVID Vaccine Inoculations Halted In Many Countries Due To Fatal Blood Clots

As we reported yesterday, many countries in Europe (and now also Thailand) have halted the vaccinating of people with the AstraZeneca experimental vaccine after reports of fatal blood clots following the injections.

And while the AstraZeneca COVID shots are not yet authorized for emergency use in the U.S., some have commented that the side effects for the mRNA “vaccines” currently issued EUAs in the U.S. for Pfizer and Moderna have just as many, if not more, adverse side effects, questioning whether any of these new experimental and non-FDA-approved COVID vaccines should be continued.

So we searched today’s CDC data on adverse reactions to the two COVID “vaccines” being used in the U.S. for “pulmonary embolism,” which is an “acute lung disease caused by a dislodged blood clot,” and the reason why the AstraZeneca COVID shot is now being halted in about a dozen countries worldwide after two fatalities and others injured.

The CDC is reporting 120 cases of pulmonary embolisms, including 12 DEATHS following injections of the two experimental COVID mRNA injections currently in the U.S.

Seven of the deaths followed the Moderna mRNA COVID shot, while five deaths followed the Pfizer mRNA COVID shot.

This number is obviously far greater than the two deaths reported so far from pulmonary embolism following the AstraZeneca COVID shots being distributed around the world right now.

Must-read: Up To 10 European Nations Reportedly Halt AstraZeneca Jabs On Reports Of ‘Serious’ Blood Clots

Can We Trust The CDC That NONE Of These 1,637 Recorded Deaths Are Caused By The Experimental COVID MRNA Shots?

The CDC has been caught many times since COVID-19 started elevating that death counts attributed to COVID by declaring that ALL deaths where there was a positive PCR test for COVID were assumed to be caused by COVID, even if the patient had pre-existing conditions, and even in some cases where the patient died due to an accident, such as a traffic accident.

Now it appears that they are doing the exact opposite, particularly with those over the age of 65 where the vast majority of recorded deaths have occurred following the experimental COVID injections, stating that pre-existing conditions are what caused the patient to die, and that in ZERO cases was the experimental COVID “vaccine” responsible.

However, there is probably a good reason why a majority of healthcare workers who work with seniors are refusing the experimental COVID shots, since they have a front row seat to see exactly how these patients react in the days and weeks following COVID injections.

One CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) has gone public with what he has seen with the residents he has worked with, and the video of his testimony has now been viewed over 280,000 times on our Rumble Channel, and over 88,000 times on our Bitchute Channel.

One viewer offered their own observations with their mother after she received a COVID injection in the comment section on the Rumble video:

My 90 year old mother HAD beginning stages of dementia. Nothing terribly serious. She forgot things a lot, and would often tell you the same things over again whenever you talked to her.

But her mind was still pretty good for being 90. She liked to do Sudoku puzzles and Jumbles.

She had eye issues that she was dealing with for about a year. She had gotten periodic shots in her eyes this past year to help her with her eye issues. She could still see things, but maybe not as clearly as she should.

But…then she took the vaccine, when she had told me previously that she no intention of taking the vaccine. She would further state that she had never even taken a flu vaccine.

Less than 1 month later, her health has spiraled downward since then. Now her speech is slurred (as if she had a stroke–but she has not); her vision has gone down so much this past month, such that all she sees is colors and shapes; and her dementia has spiraled to the point that she thinks it’s 1935 or 1945.

She recently fell in her home and knocked over the TV and either broke or bruised her ribs–I assume because she couldn’t see, though she may be having balance issues now, as well.

Doctors are preparing to send her to a rehab facility for 3-4 weeks.

I doubt I’ll ever see her alive again–especially if she gets the second shot.

I don’t expect to be allowed to visit her in a facility in KY, which is backwards when it comes to dealing with COVID restrictions and lockdowns.

So, when I see a reasonably healthy 90 year old exhibit stroke signs (without having had a stroke), almost totally lose their vision, and begin exhibiting signs of advanced dementia all within a month period after having taken the experimental mRNA COVID Vaccine, I don’t think I can blame this all on a brown recluse spider bite or vitamin deficiency.

I only hope that this post will give you pause if you or someone elderly you know is preparing for this shot.

My one question is if you are not elderly, and are in somewhat good health and you don’t feel that you are in any danger from taking this shot, is it possible that side effects will just show up at a later time with you, perhaps when you are already sick and your health is compromised.

I mean, it’s not like my Mom had immediate side effects. Stories I have read indicate that it has often taken 3-4 weeks.

Again, no way will I ever take this shot. But I sincerely wish those getting the shot the best of luck!

This kind of information is being censored by the corporate media and Big Tech, and now they have begun to call those of us who publish this kind of information “domestic terrorists” for even daring to say or publish anything negative about these experimental COVID shots.

Please make an effort to share your own experiences with these experimental shots. The lives of many people are now at stake, and truthful information is empowering.

Source: HealthImpactNews.com / Reference: MedAlerts.org; MedAlerts.org

Fentanyl Flowing Into United States At Record Volume

 Authored by Charlotte Cuthbertson via The Epoch Times,

The amount of fentanyl seized while coming through the southern border during the first 5 months of fiscal year 2021 is already higher than all of fiscal year 2020, according to the latest statistics from Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

CBP has seized more than 5,000 pounds of fentanyl since Oct. 1, 2020, said acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller during a March 10 media call.

“We are seeing a dramatic increase in fentanyl seizures this fiscal year, more than 360 percent higher than this time last year,” Miller said.

“Nationwide drug seizures increased 50 percent in February from January. Cocaine interceptions increased 13 percent, seizures of methamphetamine increased 40 percent, seizures of heroin went up 48 percent.”

Fentanyl is the synthetic opioid attributed to the escalating overdose death rate in the United States. It is most often manufactured in Mexico using chemicals supplied by China. It’s mixed with other narcotics to increase potency as well as pressed into counterfeit pain pills commonly known as “Mexican oxys.”

“The cartels are dominating the distribution of this poison and it’s really, really alarming,” Derek Maltz, former head of the DEA’s special operations division, told The Epoch Times.

“I do anticipate the crisis continuing on this escalating path. And to be honest with you, it’s really sad, because I’ve been communicating with a lot of parents who have lost their young kids, especially to the counterfeit pills. And it’s all coming from Mexico.”

Overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids (other than methadone) between 2005 and 2018. (DEA 2021 report)

The Rio Grande City Border Patrol station takes care of a 68-mile strip of international border in south Texas. It sits within the Rio Grande Valley Sector and in 2019 was the busiest of the nation’s 135 stations for drug seizures and the second busiest for illegal alien apprehensions.

Then-deputy chief Border Patrol agent for the Rio Grande Valley sector Raul Ortiz, said in March 2019 “we’re not even probably catching about 10 percent of it [drugs].”

Border experts have said it’s likely Border Patrol drug seizures will decrease as illegal immigration surges—agents will be tied up with large groups of people rather than interdicting drugs. Border Patrol highway checkpoints are also closing in many areas as agents are sent to the border to help with processing the increased numbers.

The Biden administration has said there’s no crisis on the border and urges potential migrants not to come in illegally. But the latest illegal crossing numbers show that February hit a 14-month high with more than 100,000 Border Patrol apprehensions.

Mexico’s president has expressed concern that President Joe Biden’s policies are encouraging illegal immigration and human trafficking along the border with the United States.

“They see him as the migrant president, and so many feel they’re going to reach the United States,” Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said of Biden the morning after a virtual meeting with his U.S. counterpart on March 1, according to Reuters.

Maltz said, “perception is reality. People around the world look at Biden as a softie on immigration.”

“The open border is a disaster. It just increases the [cartels’] ability to move drugs freely into America,” he said.

“Also, most importantly, it allows them to get their command and control operatives in the [United States] to establish the stash houses, the distribution outlets, the money collection points, so they have lots of people in America who are able to operate freely around the country.”

Areas of influence of major Mexican cartel within the United States. (DEA report 2021)

The cartels control the south side of the U.S.–Mexico border and anyone who crosses illegally has to pay them. Many can’t afford the smuggling fees and become indentured to the cartels once they reach the United States. Others realize it’s more lucrative to become involved in transnational crime rather than get a job at a fast food restaurant, for example, Maltz said.

“This didn’t start under Donald Trump. It didn’t start under Barack Obama. It didn’t start under George Bush. This drug crisis has been escalating for years,” he said.

“But they’re doing it at levels that we’ve never seen in the history of the country.”

San Francisco's Poop-Patrol Boss Made $380K, Didn't Do Crap, And Has Been Charged With Corruption

 Authored by Adam Andrzejewski via RealClearPolicy (emphasis ours)

In 2019, we highlighted a tripling in reported human waste in the public way. Citizens filed 10,644 complaints in 2014 and the number of complaints escalated to 30,996 cases by 2019.

Our auditors mapped 118,352 case reports of human waste on city streets – from 2011 to 2019.

Certainly, the poop was deep in San Francisco, but then things really hit the fan.

And the FBI stepped in.

Mohammed Nuru, the public works director and self-titled @MrCleanSF, was in charge of keeping city streets clean and oversaw a $500 million budget. He was indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2020. 

Nuru was charged with one count of alleged public corruption and is innocent until proven guilty. “The complaint describes a web of corruption involving bribery, kickbacks, and side deals by one of San Francisco’s highest-ranking city employees,” said U.S. Attorney David L. Anderson. “The public is entitled to honest work from public officials, free from manipulation for the official’s own personal benefit and profit.”

Nuru was well paid in his futile attempt to keep San Francisco streets clean. His total taxpayer-funded cash compensation in 2019 was $380,120, and his base salary had jumped by $65,000 over eight years. Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com compiled Nuru’s pay based on Freedom of Information Act requests filed with the City of San Francisco.

Currently, the federal investigation that snared Nuru has charged nine people with one already sentenced.

It seems the streets might not be the only thing dirty in the Bay Area.

The #WasteOfTheDay is presented by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com.

COVID-19 Origins To Be Found 'Within A Few Years' According To Wuhan Lab Affiliate Peter Daszak

 From Zero Hedge

In 2014, Peter Daszak, president of New York-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, received a grant from Dr. Anthony Fauci's National Institutes of Health (NIH) to work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and others to research how bat coronaviruses can 'evolve and jump into the human population.'

Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance

The grant's initial funding of $666,442 began in June 2014 with an end date of May 2019, and had paid annually to the tune of $3.7 million under the "Understanding The Risk Of Bat Coronavirus Emergence" project. Notably, the Obama administration cut funding for "gain-of-function" research in October, 2014, four months after Daszak's contract began, while the Wuhan Institute of Virology "had openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions" for years under the leadership of Dr. Shi 'Batwoman' Zhengli, according to the Washington Post's Josh Rogin.

After Rogin exposed diplomatic cables last April expressing grave concerns over safety at WIV, he says (in a new book): "many of the scientists who spoke out to defend the lab were Shi’s research partners and funders, like the head of the global public health nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak; their research was tied to hers, and if the Wuhan lab were implicated in the pandemic, they would have to answer a lot of tough questions."

Shi Zhengli (center) and Peter Daszak (far right). (Emerging Viruses Group photo)

In short, Daszak - who has insisted the 'lab escape' theory is impossible, and that random natural origin via intermediary animal species is the only answer - has a massive conflict of interest.

Last August, the NIH reportedly cut funding to Daszak amid the COVID-19 pandemic, only to reverse its termination of the grant while suspending funding until EcoHealth met several requirements - including an in-person inspection of the Wuhan Institute of Virology by an outside team.

(August 19): According to a Wall Street Journal report and a statement by EcoHealth Alliance, NIH reversed its termination of the grant but suspended funding until EcoHealth meets new requirements, including arranging an inspection of the Wuhan Institute of Virology by an outside team. “NIH’s letter does not represent a good faith effort to understand the nature of our ongoing research,” EcoHealth says in its statement, but “imposes on us a series of demands that the NIH is fully aware many governments and the World Health Organization alike have been unable to successfully satisfy.” -TheScientist

As it turns out, Daszak (who, again, insists SARS-CoV-2 couldn't have come from the lab he worked with) was the most prominent member of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s media blitz super legitimate 'inspection' of Wuhan and said now-infamous virology institute he'd been collaborating with for years. A trip which coincidentally checked Daszak's box to continue receiving his NIH funding.

Unsurprisingly, Daszak says the WHO team learned during their Wuhan trip that "meat from animals known to carry coronaviruses belonging to the same family as the pandemic virus were sold in the Hunan market," adding that the leading hypothesis is that "a bat or other wildlife species carrying a progenitor, or closely related virus, infected a farm animal or a person, who then carried it to the Huanan market," according to the Wall Street Journal.

Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans echoed Daszak's position, reiterating that the team considered it "extremely unlikely" that the virus may have escaped from a lab - because they don't have evidence of it doing so (which is somehow different from the lack of natural origin evidence).

"There was a conduit from Wuhan to the provinces in South China, where the closest relative viruses to SARS-CoV-2 are found in bats," Daszak claimed, adding "And that's a really important clue."

So now - with that bit of context - you'll forgive the audible laughter after Daszak on Wednesday said that 'it might be a few years' before we find out exactly where COVID-19 came from.

"I’m convinced we’re going to find out fairly soon," he said during a webinar organized by London think tank Chatham House - defining 'soon' as: "Within the next few years," when "we’ll have real significant data on where this came from and how it emerged" [ZH: and which, in a stroke of unimaginable coincidence, began on the doorstep of WIV - where they were experimenting on how to make bat coronaviruses more easily infect humans].

Daszak also noted that he didn't ask WIV researchers about a mysteriously missing bat virus database.

And before anyone goes having their own thoughts on the matter, bear in mind that you may be censored, throttled or canceled for expressing deviant opinions which run counter to Silicon Valley's uber-establishment doctrine. Of course, as top commenters frequently ask - why are you on social media in the first place?

One Bank Turn Apocalyptic: "The Fed Will Inevitably Move To YCC" As "Rates Are No Longer Anchored"

 From Zero Hedge:

Another week, another massive inflow into equity funds... just as the Nasdaq was about to get hammered with a painful 10% correction.

According to BofA Chief Investment Strategist Michael Hartnett's latest Flow Show note, $22.2Bn in new money flowed into equities last week, following the previous week's massive $46.2Bn inflow which was the 3rd biggest on record, bringing the total 16 week inflow to $436BN, a stunning outlier as shown in the chart below.

Addressing this massive tide of money, Wayne Wicker, chief investment officer at Vantagepoint Investment Advisers said that "Investors are looking at the market today and saying, ‘Wow, this is going to come back faster than I thought. I need to position myself accordingly. There’s a fear of missing out, of being under-invested."

“We’ve seen for many reasons that people have been trained to buy the dips,” Kim Forrest, chief investment officer of Bokeh Capital Partners, told Bloomberg. “Just about every economist out there thinks the U.S. GDP is going to be 6% or above and that says growth. And yes, there’s some specter of inflation that may bubble up,” but, she said, “people are not afraid of inflation because we haven’t had that horrible really life-changing inflation.”

“We would admit to still seeing some pockets of speculative excess out there,” said Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer at BNY Mellon Wealth Management. “When we reach levels of maximum bullishness, that is usually a better time to pare back,” he added. “Market pullbacks like we’ve had this week serve as wake-up calls for investors that buy first and ask questions later.”

And yet, it's very likely that next week this massive inflow won't be repeated. In fact, it's far more likely that next week we will see a massive outflow because as Hartnett notes, "the price is now right":  he points to the >100bps rise in 10Y TSY yields since Aug 4th low - as a reminder the plunge in 10Y prices since last March has been the 2nd worst bear market for bond in recent history... 

... with credit (LQD, EMB) and tech (NDX -11%, SOX -15% from highs) having been hammered. The result is a sharp drop in froth (TAN -32%, TSLA -33%) while at the same time inflation assets are increasing sharply (oil 37%, banks 33%). And pointing to the chart below, Hartnett says that his "investment clock" says once inflation visible = yield curve bear flattens = +ve volatility, dividend-yielders, defensives.

As an aside demonstrating the tremendous inflationary pressures which the Fed simply refuses to acknowledge as St Louis Fed Chair James Bullard idiotically commented on earlier when he said that " Commodity price inflation does not equal sustained inflation", Hartnett points out a price increase notification to CA real estate developer which said that

“Our worldwide supply chain, and ability to provide products and services to you, is being significantly impacted by increased prices resulting from labor and raw material shortages, escalating raw material prices, manufacturing delays and transit interruptions. Stated directly, our costs are increasing and are much more volatile than in the past.”

Someone please forward this to Bullard.

But going back to Hartnett, it's what he said next that was stunning. In the weekly note aptly titled "Throwing in the Powell"...

... Hartnett calmly lays it out that "debt deflation + 982 rate cuts and $21tn QE since Lehman = financial repression = low and stable interest rates = bull market in credit & stocks 2009-2021." But the epochal policy panic of past 12 months ($29tn global fiscal/monetary stimulus)

... has created an addictive Wall St-Fed dependency culture (everyone bullish) and beginning of Main St-Treasury dependency culture, which will spiral higher with $8tn US govt spending for stimulus checks, welfare, financed by $8tn Fed balance sheet.

This pernicious combination means that asset price inflation is mutating into Main Street inflation...

... and more importantly according to the rates strategist, means that rates are no longer “anchored”; Indeed, the best measure of interest rate uncertainty is 10-year Treasury term premium and it has surged by 120bps in the past 12 months...

... staring "a new era of volatility."

Which brings us to the punchline of the Hartnett report: what will the Fed do? As Hartnett notes, the 10-year Treasury yield low was just 0.51% on Aug 4th with bonds looking "big, fat & trendy." However this has changed and "the immediate outlook is excess fiscal stimulus + “boom” data (10% GDP, 30% EPS, 4% CPI in Q2) + subservient Fed + social/political desire for more inflation & less inequality."

As a result, BofA predicts that the bond bear is likely not over and that markets will now likely push the Fed via higher yields (i.e. 10Y rising above 2%) into Yield Curve Control policy announcement, something we have been pounding the table on for months...

... but first bond yields have to go even higher and stocks lower. Conveniently, Hartnett also lays out the key trigger to watch to determine if the current 10% tech correction will turn into a bear market:

XHB<$55, HYG<$80 could turn tech correction into deeper 10-20% correction of equities (SPX<3600, CCMP <12,000) which this time would likely include cyclicals (e.g. small cap, banks, energy, EM).

It's at this point that the Fed, facing the stark reality of being unable to let market drop as financial assets represents 600%+ of global GDP...

... will - in Hartnett's words - inevitably move to YCC. Some math:

• a 1% rise in US Treasury yields (as occurred past 6 months) increases deficit in 12 months (interest payments) by amount equivalent 2X budget for NASA;
• a 1% rise in yields above CBO baseline adds a remarkable $9.7tn to deficit between 2021-30 (10X the annual US defense budget of $0.9tn).

That's why the Fed's next step is clear.

So one Powell does launch YCC, BofA believes that it will trigger:

1. Asset Volatility - all historic government policies to fix asset prices end with hubris, leverage, abnormal valuations; YCC (as Australia is learning) is new ERM (Europe’s failed Exchange Rate Mechanism of 80s/90s); era of speculative assaults on central bank policy has begun. BofA's reco: "own volatility"
2. Dollar Debasement - while the US dollar may rally in advance of YCC (EM vulnerable short-term – see BRL), the YCC announcement "will likely trigger start of great bear market in US dollar."

Which all brings us to the conclusion, namely BofA's look at the regime shift between 2020 and the rest of the decade... and what to do ahead of the Fed's historic nationalization fo the entire bond market.

First, a look back at 2020:

Bigger picture secular low point for both inflation & interest rates; coming years will be marked by bigger government (public sector monopolistic), smaller world (globalization to localization), dollar debasement (inflation solves debt), a populist electorate (voting for UBI & MMT); all in an attempt to fight the War on Inequality (taxes, regulation, redistribution); "buy humiliation, sell hubris" = inflation assets to beat deflation in coming years.

And finally, Hartnett's views on the rest of the 2020s:

1. We expect low, volatile, clustered, 3-5% long-run returns, like 1970s;
2. We say optimal AA is 25/25/25/25in bond/stock/cash/commodities and/or in growth/yield/quality/inflation in 2020s;
3. While we worry in very short-term inflation overpriced, we still think AA need to raise inflation hedges as US dollar weakens medium-term (commodities, gold, real assets, TIPS, small cap value, volatility);
4. Tech leadership is over, but YCC should provide good entry point into small cap tech.

Unmasking The Science You Aren’t Hearing On TV | COVID-19 Facts from the Frontline

'Build Me An Ark': The Tsunami Of Risk Of Tesla-Bitcoin-Cathie Wood Is Coming

 Authored by Peter Garnry, head of Equity Strategy for Saxo Bank,

Summary:  

In today's equity update we are following up on our analysis of the Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark risk cluster showing an updated positions analysis, cross-correlations in the flagship Ark Innovation ETF, and an drawdown analysis. Yesterday, was another bad session for this risk cluster and Ark Invest had a day with outflows across all their ETFs highlighting that risk sentiment has changed. With the founder's bold move to increase the position in Tesla during the week the risk has gone up that this risk cluster could turn into an ugly forced selling dynamic causing pain in not only Tesla, Bitcoin, and Ark funds, but also US biotechnology stocks where Ark Invest is a major holder with high ownership in selected names.

A little over a month ago we first flagged the Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark risk cluster as something to take note off as short-term correlation between Tesla and Bitcoin was shooting up. A survey from Charles Schwab also confirmed our suspicion that there is a big overlap as these two instruments are among the top five holdings by millennials. Our analysis quickly led us to Ark Invest with its famous Ark Innovation ETF which had a big position in Tesla and its charismatic founder Cathie Wood is a big believer in the so-called disruptive innovation culture of Silicon Valley. This class of people believe firmly in technology as mainly good for society in all its aspects and that Bitcoin is a protection against future wealth confiscation which is most likely inevitable due to historically high wealth inequality.

This disruptive innovation culture is powerful. It is presented by some of the wealthiest people of this planet. Endless presentation about innovation and institutions like the Singularity University promote these views. Behind Bitcoin you find a huge online marketing machine sucking ordinary people into the game. Recently wealthy people such as Elon Musk has openly supported Bitcoin, first in writing and later in action adding $1.5bn to Tesla’s balance sheet and thereby significantly increasing its earnings volatility. The triangle of Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark and their respective momentum has reinforced each other creating a positive feedback loop luring more investors into these instruments. As we have seen this week the ‘tower of risk’ is beginning to show cracks.

Ark position update and Cathie Wood’s bold move and the risk to biotechnology

This week Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark all came under pressure from negative voices in governments over Bitcoin and beginning noise over real competition for Tesla in the coming years. The risk cluster was clearly moving together, and correlations started rising. On Tuesday, volatility picked up across the board and at one point Cathie Wood felt it was necessary to go public supporting her funds and said that she had increased their position in Tesla using big numbers in the future to justify increasing the risk. This is a bold move, but it increases the risk considerably. When you are at risk of seeing sizeable outflows, you should start reducing the most illiquid positions first while you can control the situation. Because if you are forced to do it by redemptions the game changes dramatically.

The tables below show updated Ark Invest positions as of yesterday’s close. There are still 26 stocks where Ark Invest holds more than 10% of the outstanding shares. This could become a serious problem if Ark Invest is suddenly caught in a negative feedback loop together with Tesla and Bitcoin. But also note how US biotechnology stocks are overrepresented in this list of stocks with high ownership in percentage of outstanding shares. If Ark Invest suddenly experience across the board outflows, like it did yesterday, then they can suddenly be the forced seller in US biotechnology stocks where they are the whale. This could cascade into the overall US biotechnology segment although the group is diverse.

Stocks held by Ark Invest funds with combined ownership above 10% of outstanding shares

Source: Ark Invest, Bloomberg, and Saxo Group

The table below shows the largest positions across all funds. Here Tesla has now jumped to 7% of AUM and the first five positions now account for 21.6% of AUM. The five biggest stocks are Tesla, Teladoc Health, Square, Roku, and Baidu. Square just recently reported disappointing Q4 earnings and announced the purchase of $170mn of Bitcoin increasing the risk and feedback loop further in this risk cluster. In the Ark Innovation ETF itself, Tesla is now 10.2% of assets and together with Roku (6%) and Square (5.4%) these three stocks represent 21.6% of assets. If you look at the 10 largest positions in the Ark Innovation ETF then the red thread is that they all come with very high equity valuations and thus low implied equity risk premiums. They are all also mostly equity financed, except for Tesla, which means that the WACC, cost of capital, predominantly come from the cost of equity. With low implied equity risk premiums, the risk-free rate dominates much more than for a company such as say Microsoft or Apple. This means that the rising interest rates could suddenly cause a huge shift in equity valuations. Not because the future is different but because the cost of capital has changed.

Top positions in terms of Ark Invest AUM across all funds

Source: Ark Invest, Bloomberg, and Saxo Group

Correlations on the rise and drawdown outlier

The best sign of risk going haywire is always fast rising cross-correlations whether it is on asset classes or single stocks. The chart below shows the 10-day moving cross-correlation in the Ark Innovation ETF since early 2020. It has recently moved to around 0.6 and while it is not a new record the direction is up and has been fast coming from only 0.2 from a few weeks ago. The next week will be critical for the Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark risk cluster as negative feedback loops can be violent and very unpredictable in their outcome.

Source: Bloomberg and Saxo Group

Another way of looking at risk is by plotting Ark Innovation ETF drawdowns against that of Nasdaq 100 since December 2015. The ETF has typically experienced a drawdown that is 1.22 times larger than that of Nasdaq 100. As of yesterday, the ratio stands at 2.44 and thus illustrates that something idiosyncratic is taking place at Ark Innovation ETF.

If outflows continue today and Tesla comes under pressure again then this indicator could very well hit a new record in terms of being an outlier signaling a negative feedback loop on risk has started.

*  *  *

See below for links to our research notes on the Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark risk cluster:

It is time to get cautious on the Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark connection – 22 January 2021

The Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark syndrome revisited – 9 February 2021

Tesla-Bitcoin-Ark positions have entered a dangerous tailspin scenario – 23 February 2021