Sep 16, 2020
Kodak stock surges after probe clears CEOs share purchases
This news has been received from: New York Post
All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.
Shares in the onetime photography giant surged as much as 83 percent to $11.40 in early trading following the Tuesday release of a report from the law firm Akin Gump, which Kodak’s board hired to review the stock transactions made around the time it snagged a $765 million federal loan to produce drug ingredients.
The probe concluded Kodak and its bosses did not break any laws or violate company policies with the transactions around the loan announcement, which reportedly sparked federal investigations and led the US International Development Finance Corporation to put the deal on hold until the allegations were cleared.
But the lawyers urged the Rochester, New York-based company to beef up its corporate governance practices to avoid another controversy.
“Kodak is committed to the highest levels of governance and transparency, and it is clear from the review’s findings that we need to take action to strengthen our practices, policies, and procedures,” Kodak CEO Jim Continenza said in a statement.
The probe examined Continenza’s purchase of roughly 46,000 Kodak shares about a month before the loan was disclosed — which netted him two-day profit of more than $200 million as the stock price surged — along with other transactions including Kodak’s award of stock options to senior executives a day before the July 28 announcement.see also
Kodak’s general counsel cleared Continenza and board member Philippe Katz to buy shares in June because the company’s application for the loan “was at a highly uncertain stage” at the time, the investigation found. They also provided explanations for the purchases that were unrelated to the loan bid, according to the report.
Additionally, the options Kodak granted its executives on July 27 had been discussed before the company sought the loan, the lawyers wrote. While it’s “controversial” to award options before announcing positive news, it was not illegal under federal or state rules, the report says.
But Kodak’s general counsel, or top lawyer, followed a flawed process that failed to alert Kodak’s board to concerns about the timing of the grants, the review found. The lawyer also said he sometimes felt “overwhelmed” by his workload and that the legal department had “thin” resources, according to the report.
The probe also faulted Kodak for inadvertently leaking the announcement to local news outlets a day early, finding “a general lack of sensitivity among certain Kodak employees regarding the need to carefully control the release” of potentially material non-public information.
Wednesday’s stock surge continued a wild ride for Kodak’s shares, which climbed as high as $60 on the day of the loan announcement but fell to $6.02 a month later.Filed under investigations , stocks , wall street , 9/16/20
News Source: New York Post
Investors could be overplaying the election as a lasting driver of the stock market, history shows
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters during a news conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, September 18, 2020.Kevin Lamarque | Reuters
The presidential election is the next known major event ahead of the Wall Street. Investment strategists are busy pushing out political playbooks, most of them starting with something like, "Clients continue to ask us about the implications of the election…" It's the top-of-mind risk factor cited, a universal excuse for predicting autumnal volatility.
In other words, everyone is likely overplaying the election as a crucial or lasting driver of the market.
But isn't this election a closely contested binary choice between too starkly different world views and economic philosophies, complicated by fears about election integrity and a delayed outcome.
Sure. But one reason to believe the election is overplayed as a decisive and exploitable market swing factor is that investors always overplay elections – and they rarely prove to be instrumental inflection points for economic or market cycles.
In order to treat an election as a specific catalyst for investment moves, one would have to handicap the result, anticipate the makeup of Congress, intuit the key policy priorities, evaluate the likelihood of them becoming law, estimate their economic impact and then determine how much of this decision tree has already been priced into financial markets. Sound doable?From Reagan to Trump
What about Ronald Reagan ushering in the greatest modern bull market? Stocks were weak after the November 1980 election and were underwater until liftoff in October 1982 when a recession was ending and the Fed easier.
The Clinton '90s nirvana for markets? The economy and stocks were already in recovery mode when he was elected in 1992 as the Fed kept rates low, and the big gains of the '90s started after 1994 as policymaking became gridlocked.
Think the prospect of capital-gains tax rate hikes under a President Biden would kneecap stocks? Maybe there would be a flurry of front-loaded selling. But cap-gains tax increases in 1986 and 2013 did not derail strong bull markets.
And, famously, Wall Street wisdom had it wrong in 2016, when a Donald Trump win was viewed as dangerous for stocks. Aside from a fleeting 7% overnight S&P futures drop as returns came in, this was dead wrong, as an already nervous and guarded equity market quickly repriced for higher nominal growth, lower taxes and less fiscal restraint.
Yet even if an investor knew the result beforehand, the agreed-upon ways to play it were quite wrong. Energy and financial stocks were viewed as the best bets under a deregulatory Trump administration; they've been the worst sectors since 2016. After about a month's rally in small-caps, oils and banks, the technology-led bull market resumed.Statistical significance?
One of the more identifiable patterns in markets is not how they react to elections but how they behave leading up to them. Ned Davis Research notes that from Sept. 15 through Election Day in presidential vote years dating back to 1900, markets have done better ahead of incumbent-party wins than losses. And the lead-up is best for stocks ahead of Republican incumbent wins.
But the difference is between a median 3% gain and a 0.6% loss, hardly a vast performance gulf. And with only a few dozen presidential elections since modern markets existed, does the market experience under the various outcomes and party arrangements even offer a level of statistical significance that should dictate investment strategy?
Republican-incumbent losses are the worst for stocks ahead of an election, but guess what? That's the very best of all the setups for market returns in the year after an election.Volatility expected
Market action in advance of this year's election seems especially pronounced in a couple of areas. The price of protection against election-timed volatility in the market for VIX futures has been persistently high for months. In normal markets, the cost of VIX futures rises the further out in time the maturity sits. But the October and November VIX futures, the ones that would capture election-related market tumult, are above 30, and then prices decline for subsequent months.
Bond-market strategists also note a similar bulge in market-based volatility expectations around Nov. 3 in Treasury and corporate-bond instruments.
Which raises the question, if institutions are already well-hedged and clenched-up in anticipation of the vote this far ahead of time, will a result, any result, not trigger a tension release?Unresolved result
But what about an unresolved or disputed result? It would make sense for this to keep market anxiety elevated for a time. Goldman Sachs last week noted, "The markets' expected one-day move on Nov. 4 [day after Election Day] has fallen from 3.2% in mid-August to 2.8% now, as investors assess the potential for it to take longer than usual to reach definitive election results."
But even when the 2000 election was undecided for more than a month, the market unease around the election is not even viewed in retrospect as particular central to the market path – in that case an unfolding bear market that began eight months earlier and would not bottom until late 2002.
Jessica Rabe, co-founder of DataTrek Research, notes that the S&P 500 slipped 4.2% in the five weeks from Election Day 2000 until the Supreme Court ruled George W. Bush the winner. Yet it came shortly after an already pressured Nasdaq absorbed major earnings warnings from Microsoft and a raft of other tech firms.
As Rabe says, "Long-lasting and significant volatility usually stems from an economic shock as opposed to politically related issues."
This isn't to suggest the coming election can't serve as a perfectly suitable excuse for further unsettled markets and rising investor risk aversion, now that the market leadership stocks have broken stride and the tape is in correction mode.
But of all the relevant factors – a resolutely supportive Federal Reserve, fitful economic recovery, strong housing demand, corporate profits rising from depressed levels, investors' willingness to pay up for secular-growth stocks – it's unlikely the election will be the thing to make or break this cycle.Related Tags
- Investment strategy
- Breaking News: Markets
- CBOE Volatility Index