What next for this market?

[zico]

Having made a big decision last week on reducing my exposure to this market (which so far has had a neutral effect) I'm now thinking that drip-feeding back into the market is the way to go, but given current volatility, doing this on a weekly (rather than monthly) basis, aiming to put everything back over the next 6-9 months.

Would be interested in views on my above plan, plus thoughts on my reasoning below about what might happen next.

Market is up 4% after yesterday's "whatever it takes" move by the Fed, plus expectations that the US stimulus package has to get approved soon (though Republican v Democrat wrangling still continuing). This wrangling is actually a lot more significant that normal party politics, as they're deciding between giving money to business (Republicans) or directly to workers (Democrats) and will have a big effect on spread of the virus & future of the economy.

I still don't think the world at large is fully prepared for how bad Covid-19 will be, particularly for USA, and in the coming weeks, we'll be seeing some shocking pictures of overrun hospitals in both USA and UK. (In Spain, medical staff account for 14% of Covid-19 infected patients, so things aren't getting better anytime soon). The question is - how much (if at all) will this affect the stock market? Likely to lead to increased fear, reduced buying, and increased absenteeism amongst key workers, which I'd have thought would spook the market.

Although I'm thinking that a very early partially-tested vaccine will be developed and rolled out, that's still probably around 6 months away before it even starts to be given to people. There's likely to be a jump in the market when that's announced (maybe a few "false dawn" jumps as the markets realise that things like anti-malaria drugs aren't a magic cure). Science can also help by finding how effective various existing drugs are for treating various stages of the condition, and business can help by ramping up protective equipment and ventilators for medical workers. I'm assuming these kinds of developments are anticipated and already in the market price. Politicians have also helped by imposing lockdown measures, but they either need to trace and eliminate the virus, or alternatively, suspend normal economic activity for 9-12 months to suppress the spread of the virus.

More widely, the FTSE has had an 11-year run, getting up to around the 7,600 mark, and is currently down at 5,200. There seemed to be a general consensus that something of a correction was due - so what might that be? For argument's sake, say that without Covid-19 that might have been around 6,700 but in the post-Covid future recovery, what do people think is a reasonable best case medium-term figure for the FTSE? I'd expect the higher government debt levels and higher taxation would depress profits, so maybe 6,300 for a post-Covid world? (It could be that Covid-19 is just a big temporary blip, but I can't really see how we can just go back to business exactly as normal after such a huge disruption to the economic system.

Alternatively, how bad can it get with Covid for the FTSE? A low of 3,500 doesn't seem out of the question to me, but I realise I'm more pessimistic than the markets generally.

Clearly I'm just making some big assumptions here to (hopefully) start the ball rolling and get views from others.

[gryffron]

Hard to guess isn't it. There could be a huge post-corvid boom, as all that pent up demand gets pumped into the market. Huge demand for holidays, clothes, all the things that people can't spend on right now. I guess it depends how many have cash, and how many are skint. If the demand boom happens it could be seriously inflationary, as much of the supply capacity has been taken out of the market.

Government debt levels aren't a disaster as long as the interest rate remains negligible. Good excuse for tax rises to help pay for it though!

Gryff

[zico]

There'll definitely be inflationary pressures post-Covid, which is why I'll want to be fully back in the market over 6-9 months.
As for pent-up demand, there'll be an awful lot of demand that is simply lost forever which must impact on profits. I tried to come up with a short list below.

Travel - can't see people spending twice their normal amount in 2021. (Though flights may cost twice as much if most airlines have gone bust!)
Restaurants - people won't eat twice as many meals.
Pubs - same
Personal Care/Grooming - Nail bars, hairdressers, gym/fitness.
Petrol sales
Clothing/Fashion - in 2020 it'll be difficult anyway to buy new clothes, and who's going to see you in them if you're not allowed out of the house?
Impulse buys of all descriptions.
Don't know how big a % of total GDP the above amounts to, but it'll be a fair bit.

[Itsallaguess]

Politicians have also helped by imposing lockdown measures, but they either need to trace and eliminate the virus, or alternatively, suspend normal economic activity for 9-12 months to suppress the spread of the virus.

I personally don't think you're giving enough credit to the lock-down measures here zico, and given that markets are forward-looking, then any sustained removal of the 'exponential growth' figures coming out of those areas that have introduced lock-downs will, I imagine, be taken in a very encouraging light by markets, governments, and the wider public which are being asked to enforce these really very stringent measures. I should add that whilst this is an investment site, I personally think that the biggest single benefit to us all would be from the public encouragement if this were to happen....

So, Italy are more or less two weeks ahead of the UK on both the infection curve and also now the lock-down processes, and here's what this virus growth-rate tracker has to say about the latest Italy figures (chart on top, but read the words underneath..) -



Source - http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/

Given that people still seem to be a little distrustful of the figures coming out of China, and given that Italy are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of time-scales, infection-rates, and also lock-down processes, then they are likely to be used as the bellwether for markets and governments as many other countries press on with their own similar lock-down processes.

I should add that what we don't really yet have a handle on, even if these curves continue to drop off from the countries introducing these stringent social controls, is how at some point we collectively then open the taps back up at a rate that doesn't produce a further exponential ramp-up of infections, but even with that risk ahead of us, I take a great deal of solace from the fact that even if we were to get to that point, where a series of further outbreaks might well develop, we'll have collectively got to that stage with all the data in hand that shows how we can press down on such issues with much more confidence from both governments and, perhaps more importantly, the general public too...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[EthicsGradient]

One thing that may be significant for UK figures, and probably others too, though I haven't found them - for the past week, UK testing has topped out at around 5,500 tests per day, but over that period, the positive results per day have increased from about 400 to 900 - figures from here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 01516.html (annoying video autoplays, I'm afraid).

If we've reached the limit of tests they have the capacity to perform/process, then decrease in new case growth may be an artefact of that - they're concentrating testing on health personnel and others it's important to know about, while the mildly suffering are sitting at home, with 111 telling them to wait and see if it gets bad.

[zico]

The answer to my original query was a 9% rise in the FTSE, but I'm sure that was obvious to everyone and came as no surprise!

Extraordinarily big daily rise, and even more extraordinary, it's based on no new news - not that I can see anyway. The US government is about to agree a stimulus package - we knew that yesterday. The Fed announced "whatever it takes" funding yesterday lunchtime.
However I'm still better off than I was last week, due to the rise in shares that I kept, and reducing volatility was a big part of my decision.

The market did go up 7% between last Thursday lunchtime and Friday morning.
What's next - three more 9% rises until we're back to where we started?

[zico]

I personally don't think you're giving enough credit to the lock-down measures here zico, and given that markets are forward-looking, then any sustained removal of the 'exponential growth' figures coming out of those areas that have introduced lock-downs will, I imagine, be taken in a very encouraging light by markets, governments, and the wider public which are being asked to enforce these really very stringent measures. I should add that whilst this is an investment site, I personally think that the biggest single benefit to us all would be from the public encouragement if this were to happen....

I should add that what we don't really yet have a handle on, even if these curves continue to drop off from the countries introducing these stringent social controls, is how at some point we collectively then open the taps back up at a rate that doesn't produce a further exponential ramp-up of infections, but even with that risk ahead of us, I take a great deal of solace from the fact that even if we were to get to that point, where a series of further outbreaks might well develop, we'll have collectively got to that stage with all the data in hand that shows how we can press down on such issues with much more confidence from both governments and, perhaps more importantly, the general public too...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Thanks for your reply.
From a humanitarian point of view, I also hope the world does recover from Covid-19 more quickly and easily than I'm expecting.

As far as the numbers go, China has already shown that the exponential curve can be flattened, but - and it's a very big but - only by putting the economy into suspended animation, and any attempts to reduce the lockdown have so far only led to a upsurge in new cases. Even a flattening of the curves in Europe will still lead to many weeks of overloaded hospitals and many thousands of deaths. (e.g. If Italy flatlines its cases, then it's still looking at around 20,000 deaths - per month).
Trump doesn't seem interested in flattening the curve, so Covid-19 is going to rip through USA in a big way. Whether this is a price worth paying will be a question for the USA.

I completely agree with you that the lockdown approach is vital in buying time to save lives. I'd expect countries to develop rigorous testing and tracing measures to eliminate Covid-19, otherwise there will just be more outbreaks when lockdowns are lifted, which will dent consumer confidence. There's a real danger that lockdowns will be effective in mucking up the economy, whilst being ineffective in preventing further spread.

[gryffron]

Travel - can't see people spending twice their normal amount in 2021. (Though flights may cost twice as much if most airlines have gone bust!)

Once restrictions are lifted, whenever that is, I can imagine a lot of people, with money in the bank because they haven't been able to spend it, thinking they need/deserve a "special" holiday to celebrate. And with supply constrained by redundancies and closures, there could a real boom, in both prices and volumes, for those that remain. So twice as much, maybe not, but I still see a significant boom in travel.

Gryff

[Walkeia]

Hi Zico,

I'm at the opposite end of the scale to you in terms of I have a fairly optimistic outlook as you'll be able to see if you click my username and see some of my recent posts. I've been buying, initially too early, but continue to buy and am close to fully invested now for the long term.

To sum up briefly - I feel last week we priced a lot of bad news purely from looking at historic statistics of draw downs from peak to trough - dotcom and '08 was 50% and we got into the mid 30% pullback territory. Some people counter about the Great Depression but this was a policy failing and brings me to my second reason for optimism is the policy response has been HUGE - trillions upon trillions of dollars/euros/pounds about to be printed and simultaneously fiscal stimulus heading to the economy (remember coming out of '08 was all monetary and little fiscal). Policy makers have given the the economy both barrels in the space of 4 weeks - so I feel there is a real risk that if the lock down works the other side could see real asset prices move higher very quickly.

Lastly and I tread carefully here. I feel the discussion will change in Europe and has already started to evolve in the US. Trump and Kudlow saying 'cure has to not be worse than the disease', Trump looking at perhaps lightening restrictions from next Monday, economy open by Easter - all headlines over the newswires in recent days. I feel the politics of this can change rapidly from two angles - the working populace see their wealth evaporate and huge amounts of debt taken on again therefore will not stomach prolonged lock down - arguing the vulnerable and older generation should self isolate and the rest to get back to work (of course after a period of lock down to dampen peak impact to the NHS). The other one is Trump - he has shown he is willing to take risk when order the strike on the Iranian commander and the above headlines make me wonder if the US government is considering their options re: the November election. Long lock down for too long and the economy is hurt badly and he loses; take the risk with a short lock down and it is less deadly than forecast and the economy holds up better and the gamble pays off... sad but I feel the POTUS is considering these options. The other aspect is that this been an election year - the US republicans are going to throw everything at it and keep going and going. The stimulus started in the hundreds of billions and now we're 2 trillion. QE started in the billions and a week later we're unlimited.

The last thing I'd say is that I feel a relatively lonely optimist at the moment between friends, family and even on the message boards which I would say is a bit more mixed.. but for fairness I think this is always my bias.

all the best,

[zico]

Hi Zico,

I'm at the opposite end of the scale to you in terms of I have a fairly optimistic outlook as you'll be able to see if you click my username and see some of my recent posts. I've been buying, initially too early, but continue to buy and am close to fully invested now for the long term.

To sum up briefly - I feel last week we priced a lot of bad news purely from looking at historic statistics of draw downs from peak to trough - dotcom and '08 was 50% and we got into the mid 30% pullback territory. Some people counter about the Great Depression but this was a policy failing and brings me to my second reason for optimism is the policy response has been HUGE - trillions upon trillions of dollars/euros/pounds about to be printed and simultaneously fiscal stimulus heading to the economy (remember coming out of '08 was all monetary and little fiscal). Policy makers have given the the economy both barrels in the space of 4 weeks - so I feel there is a real risk that if the lock down works the other side could see real asset prices move higher very quickly.

Thanks for an interesting reply, and of course, there wouldn't be any market without lots of people taking lots of different views! Yes, I agree there's an issue about "what's changed" to make the market keep tumbling. The fundamental point - that Covid-19 couldn't be contained in Europe & USA - was known last month, but the markets hardly reacted initially. (My "Long-Term Buy & Hold" approach had unfortunately turned into a "Long-Term Buy & Ignore" otherwise I'd have spotted the lack of market reaction at the time, and acted accordingly). But between 3rd March (FTSE 6,700) and 12th March (FTSE 5,300) the basic situation and outlook hadn't changed. I don't think governments had any choice but to act the way they have, and I don't think they have any ammunition left after firing their big bazookas, so if these measures don't work, what's left?

Lastly and I tread carefully here. I feel the discussion will change in Europe and has already started to evolve in the US. Trump and Kudlow saying 'cure has to not be worse than the disease', Trump looking at perhaps lightening restrictions from next Monday, economy open by Easter - all headlines over the newswires in recent days. I feel the politics of this can change rapidly from two angles - the working populace see their wealth evaporate and huge amounts of debt taken on again therefore will not stomach prolonged lock down - arguing the vulnerable and older generation should self isolate and the rest to get back to work (of course after a period of lock down to dampen peak impact to the NHS). The other one is Trump - he has shown he is willing to take risk when order the strike on the Iranian commander and the above headlines make me wonder if the US government is considering their options re: the November election. Long lock down for too long and the economy is hurt badly and he loses; take the risk with a short lock down and it is less deadly than forecast and the economy holds up better and the gamble pays off... sad but I feel the POTUS is considering these options. The other aspect is that this been an election year - the US republicans are going to throw everything at it and keep going and going. The stimulus started in the hundreds of billions and now we're 2 trillion. QE started in the billions and a week later we're unlimited.

The last thing I'd say is that I feel a relatively lonely optimist at the moment between friends, family and even on the message boards which I would say is a bit more mixed.. but for fairness I think this is always my bias.

all the best,

There's certainly an argument to be made for the greatest good of the greatest number. However, if people are dying due to a sluggish economy, they're very unlikely to be aware of that fact, whereas they certainly know if they die from Covid-19, so the political price of letting people die in hospital is much higher.

In civilized countries, I can't really see the "cure worse than the disease" approach being feasible, even Trump wasn't committing himself tonight at his press conference (He said "Open by Easter", his advisers said "we're very flexible on that date" or in other words, "don't be daft, lad"). Unless you shut down the media, there'll be massive reporting of overloaded hospitals, and mostly poor people and poorly-paid workers bearing the brunt of it all. Maybe the economic argument works, but in a situation where the virus is unconstrained, would people be willing to go to work (or to work in the hospitals) with a virus infecting most people? There was a Republican senator on Fox News confidently asserting that many old people would be willing to die of the disease to protect the USA economy, but I didn't see a long line of volunteers behind him.

You may well be completely right and I may be completely wrong, but do you have a decent fallback position if it all goes Pete Tong?

[Walkeia]

Hi Zico,

You may well be completely right and I may be completely wrong, but do you have a decent fallback position if it all goes Pete Tong?

HI Zico - agree a lot of this depends on an individuals situation and I nearly came back asking you on this. I'm in my early 30s - I have some emergency cash on the side for a rainy day and my hope will be continued employment income will allow me to continue to invest and keep averaging in if it does go more Pete Tong as you say.

Agreed on your points re: the evolving discussion I have more been watching it with interest rather than coming down on either side of that debate.

[Midsmartin]

I find it alarming how much my own personal feelings are influenced by the market's reaction on any given morning: market down - I'm convinced we're heading for a long depression & I should sell. market up - I'm certain things will be ok and I should be buying! This is only human psychology but it leads directly to buying high and selling low, which tends not to work out well. So I'm working really hard at trying not to do very much. The market in the last couple of days is telling me it's time to buy in again, but my head says there are many months ahead that may contain bad news.


Obviously some people are better at remaining dispassionate than others! I wish I was one of them.

[Itsallaguess]

I find it alarming how much my own personal feelings are influenced by the market's reaction on any given morning: market down - I'm convinced we're heading for a long depression I should sell. market up - I'm certain things will be ok and I should be buying!

This is only human psychology but it leads directly to buying high and selling low, which tends not to work out well. So I'm working really hard at trying not to do very much. The market in the last couple of days is telling me it's time to buy in again, but my head says there are many months ahead that may contain bad news.

Obviously some people are better at remaining dispassionate than others! I wish I was one of them.

We've all been there...

The single biggest 'switch' that turned for me many years ago was when I realised that I didn't have to be 100% 'I should sell' or 100% 'I should buy', and I found that allowing myself to 'think' like that would only ever mean I would go into 'rabbit-in-headlights' mode, and actually do nothing at all, and I also found that the 'rabbit-in-headlight' position was the one that stressed me out the most, in hindsight...

So I found that I was able to force myself (initially, as it's much easier now..) to take much smaller steps, away from those two opposing '100%' views...

Drip-feeding 'something' into these sorts of markets is unlikely to lead to financial loss over a 5 year horizon, and doing so whilst 'not selling' the rest of my portfolio does me the world of good mentally, knowing that I'm at least taking *some advantage* of these turbulent markets.

Doing things in much smaller steps is both mentally easier for me, and also moves me away from the 'rabbit-in-headlights' mode that I know actually stresses me out more than anything else...

I know myself well enough to know that I'm simply not a 'sell up, as I think we're going to burn' type of investor (and good-luck, by the way, to those that are, and were able to do so early enough with this particular market movement...), so I position myself now so that I've always got some level of cash, or near-cash funds available with which to allow myself to remain 'fully invested', but at the same time, take advantage of market drops when they do inevitably occur.

The thing I needed to do was to just discover what worked best for me, and to incorporate those processes that suited me into my investment strategy.

We all need to do that, I believe, and each 'solution' will be slightly different for each of us, and it's primarily that reason that I really do dislike strategies that don't properly allow for that more personal approach...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[zico]

We've all been there...

The single biggest 'switch' that turned for me many years ago was when I realised that I didn't have to be 100% 'I should sell' or 100% 'I should buy', and I found that allowing myself to 'think' like that would only ever mean I would go into 'rabbit-in-headlights' mode, and actually do nothing at all, and I also found that the 'rabbit-in-headlight' position was the one that stressed me out the most, in hindsight...

So I found that I was able to force myself (initially, as it's much easier now..) to take much smaller steps, away from those two opposing '100%' views...

Drip-feeding 'something' into these sorts of markets is unlikely to lead to financial loss over a 5 year horizon, and doing so whilst 'not selling' the rest of my portfolio does me the world of good mentally, knowing that I'm at least taking *some advantage* of these turbulent markets.

Doing things in much smaller steps is both mentally easier for me, and also moves me away from the 'rabbit-in-headlights' mode that I know actually stresses me out more than anything else...

.... each 'solution' will be slightly different for each of us, and it's primarily that reason that I really do dislike strategies that don't properly allow for that more personal approach...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Completely agree with all of the above. I would add that regular drip-feeding is by far the best way to overcome our "human nature" problem, because done over a long period of time, this approach automatically allows you to weight your stock buying towards times when the market is lower (simply because the same monthly amount buys more units when the market is lower). What's more, you don't even have to think about it, because it's done automatically for you. (Normally monthly drip-feeding is OK, but such is the volatility for this market I'm planning to drip-feed on a weekly basis.)

Every few years there will come a time when it's sensible to make a big decision about market levels - either cashing in a fair %age or committing lots of new funds, but this should only happen when you're very confident about which direction you want to go and/or if your personal circumstances and risk tolerance change.

I know I'm a "fad" investor, whereas I'll take a lot of enthusiastic interest in the market at certain times (like now!), then after a few months I get bored and ignore it for ages, assuming it's doing its job in finding roughly the right levels, which means that left to myself I miss out on sustained but significant changes, so regular drip-feeding allows me to overcome my short attention spans.

If you're the kind of investor who tends to spend time worrying and fretting about the market (rather than analysing), then I'd suggest avoiding single shares, and also keeping a fairly large percentage of "safe" investments, so you know that upsides and downsides are limited.

I'm disappointed at missing today's obvious strategy of buying Vanguard FTSE units at 8.00am and selling at 9.10am for a 4% profit (annualised at 35,000%) and I've just missed the chance to gain another 2% by buying at 11am and selling at 11.30am. This really is a market that doesn't have a clue about its correct level! Hardly surprising, because the correct level depend on estimating the economic effects of lots of stuff that has simply never happened before.

[dealtn]

The answer to my original query was a 9% rise in the FTSE, but I'm sure that was obvious to everyone and came as no surprise!

Extraordinarily big daily rise, and even more extraordinary, it's based on no new news - not that I can see anyway. The US government is about to agree a stimulus package - we knew that yesterday. The Fed announced "whatever it takes" funding yesterday lunchtime.
However I'm still better off than I was last week, due to the rise in shares that I kept, and reducing volatility was a big part of my decision.

The market did go up 7% between last Thursday lunchtime and Friday morning.
What's next - three more 9% rises until we're back to where we started?

Thank you for making me laugh. Your original post asked what others thought would be a...

"reasonable best case medium-term figure for the FTSE"

I think your time frame for medium term and mine are somewhat adrift!

[Wuffle]

It crosses my mind that while inflation has been low for the boring decade that we just had, it hasn't been zero.
Where would that 3500 low from the GFC be 10 years later?
3% inflation for 12 years is 4990 if I can work a calculator.
I found it thought provoking.
Could be a 'seek and thou shall find' thing though.

W.

[zico]

Some impressive predicting from ZeroHedge from the middle of February, which I found on the Global Coronavirus board (and wish I'd found last month!).

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/four-c ... nthinkable

Their summary from their "Ugly" scenario, which is what we're currently experiencing.

The Ugly

This ‘Ugly’ scenario would see the virus continue to rage in China, spread to ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand, and the cluster of cases in the US and Europe snowball at an exponential growth rate from their currently low base. In other words, developed economies would also be hit.

If the virus spreads in the West public panic would naturally be the immediate response. Just as seen in China today, people would stop going out and shopping to stay safe at home, or make panic purchases on fears of supply shortages and then stay at home. In short, the economy would largely grind to a halt.

Naturally, the services sector on which the West relies far more than China would be smashed: restaurants; pubs; bars; cinemas; concerts; conferences would all grind to a halt. International travel bans would be put in place. Supply chains would be broken. International trade would collapse along with domestic demand.

The government would immediately start to institute similar quarantine steps as seen in China. Regardless of the differences in political systems, quarantine is quarantine (and the word originates from Venice, after all). Presuming this was ineffective due to earlier symptom-free transmission then the quarantine would have to be expanded. We could expect a mirror of the Chinese villages building barriers around themselves to keep strangers out.

In this kind of scenario it is impossible to estimate the precise impact on the global economy – because there would be little *global* economy to speak of. Suffice to say, it would be a true depression: a sharp downturn like in 2008-09 that grinds on - and a recovery based on medical breakthroughs rather than monetary-policy ones.

Nonetheless, interest rates would obviously be slashed, where they can, and emergency government spending on anti-virus measures would be stepped up regardless of the size of fiscal deficits. At the same time banks would be told by central banks to keep supporting all firms, especially SMEs, that are facing bankruptcy as their revenues evaporate.

Yet would banks listen to their new orders to lend? Which staff would be doing this, if nobody is in the office? Banks haven’t done much real-economy lending under QE liquidity and no virus conditions, for example. Firms themselves would be told to keep paying their workers even if they can’t do any work – but as in China, would SMEs be able to afford to? And what about the gig economy and the huge number of self-employed?

As such, the state would be forced to expand its role markedly in order to stop a total economic collapse – once again, as in China. This would be akin to current populist arguments for a fiscal-QE-driven ‘Green New Deal’, but in this case wrapped up in biosecurity terms. However, our health and armed forces (which would be needed to keep control) are arguably over-stretched and under-resourced already in many countries, and are not something that can be turned on/off quickly like a switch.

[richfool]

Yes, that's where we are, ... but it doesn't say where we are going and what to do next!

[zico]

A big breakthrough as a test available next week for millions which gives instant results, and tells people whether they've previously had the virus.
Yesterday's big FTSE rise is now explained if big investors knew about this in advance.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... are_btn_tw

Thousands of 15-minute home tests for coronavirus will be delivered by Amazon to people self-isolating with symptoms or will go on sale on high street within days, according to Public Health England (PHE), in a move that could restore many people’s lives to a semblance of pre-lockdown normality.

Prof Sharon Peacock, the director of the national infection service at PHE, told MPs on the science and technology committee that mass testing in the UK would be possible by next week.

The UK government has bought 3.5m of the tests, which the health secretary, Matt Hancock, mentioned on Tuesday with no suggestion they would be available to the public so quickly, and is ordering millions more.

[redsturgeon]

A big breakthrough as a test available next week for millions which gives instant results, and tells people whether they've previously had the virus.
Yesterday's big FTSE rise is now explained if big investors knew about this in advance.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... are_btn_tw

Thousands of 15-minute home tests for coronavirus will be delivered by Amazon to people self-isolating with symptoms or will go on sale on high street within days, according to Public Health England (PHE), in a move that could restore many people’s lives to a semblance of pre-lockdown normality.

Prof Sharon Peacock, the director of the national infection service at PHE, told MPs on the science and technology committee that mass testing in the UK would be possible by next week.

The UK government has bought 3.5m of the tests, which the health secretary, Matt Hancock, mentioned on Tuesday with no suggestion they would be available to the public so quickly, and is ordering millions more.

This test has been available for some time. We ordered some last week should have them tomorrow.

John