AS Roma has expressed interest in signing Weston McKennie, despite his underwhelming loan spell at Leeds United last season.
Since Max Allegri’s return as manager at Juventus, McKennie has struggled to make an impact and is expected to depart the club before the transfer window closes.
Several reports suggest that McKennie has attracted the attention of multiple suitors, and Roma is one of them.
Jose Mourinho, the manager of Roma, considers McKennie to be a valuable addition to his team and may push the club to pursue the American midfielder.
However, any potential suitor for McKennie should be prepared to pay a significant amount for his signature.
According to Tuttojuve, Juventus is not willing to let McKennie leave for a reduced fee. The Bianconeri are demanding approximately €30 million for his transfer.
The report indicates that Roma or any other interested club will not receive a discount from Juventus, as they are determined to secure a fair valuation for the player.
Juve FC Says
McKennie has not looked suited to the current Juventus system. Since we do not plan to change our manager any time soon, the club should consider offloading the American.
This could mean selling him for below the price we believe he is worth because keeping him beyond this summer will further reduce his value.
The 5-year U.S. Treasury yield reached its highest level in 3 months, but the typical inverse correlation-based price action with Bitcoin might not work this time.
Market Analysis
Join us on social networks
United States Government bonds, or Treasurys, have a tremendous influence across all tradeable markets, including Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH). In that sense, risk calculation in finance is relative, so every loan, mortgage and even cryptocurrency derivatives depend on the cost of capital attributed to U.S. dollars.
Assuming the worst-case scenario of the U.S. government eventually defaulting on its own debt, what happens to the families, businesses and countries holding those bonds? The lack of interest debt payments would likely cause a global shortage of U.S. dollars, triggering a cascading effect.
But, even if that scenario comes to fruition, history shows us that cryptocurrencies may work as a hedge during periods of uncertainty. For instance, Bitcoin vastly outperformed traditional wealth preservation assets during the U.S.-China trade war in May 2021. Bitcoin gained 47% between May 5 and May 31, 2021, while the Nasdaq Composite shed 8.7%.
As the general public owns over $29 trillion in the U.S. Treasury, they are deemed the lowest risk in existence. Still, the price for each of those government bonds, or the yield traded, will vary depending on the contract maturity. Assuming there’s no counterparty risk for this asset class, the single most important pricing factor is the inflation expectation.
Let’s explore whether Bitcoin’s and Ether’s price will be impacted by the growing demand for U.S. Treasurys.
Higher demand for government bonds leads to lower yields
If one believes that inflation will not be restrained anytime soon, this investor is likely to seek a higher yield when trading the Treasury. On the other hand, if the U.S. government is actively devaluing its currency or there's an expectation for additional inflation, investors will tend to seek refuge in US Treasurys, causing a lower yield.
U.S. 5-year government bond yield. Source: TradingView
Notice how the 5-year Treasury yield reached 4.05% on June 22, the highest level in more than three months. This movement happened while the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) for May came in at 4.0% on a year-over-year basis, the lowest growth since March 2021.
A 4.05% yield indicates that investors are not expecting inflation to drop below the central bank's 2% target anytime soon, but it also shows confidence that the 9.1% peak CPI data from June 2022 is behind us. However, that’s not how Treasury pricing works because investors are willing to forego rewards in exchange for the security of owning the lowest-risk asset.
U.S. Treasury yields are a great tool for comparing other countries and corporate debt, but not in absolute terms. These government bonds will reflect inflation expectations, but they may be severely constrained if a global recession becomes more likely.
U.S. 5-year government bond yield vs. Bitcoin/USD (orange). Source: TradingView
The typical inverse correlation between Bitcoin and the U.S. Treasury yield has been invalidated in the past 10 days, most likely because investors are desperately buying government bonds for their safety regardless of the yield being lower than inflation expectations.
The S&P 500 index, which measures the U.S. stock market, hit 4,430 on June 16, just 7.6% below its all-time high, which also explains the higher yields. While investors typically seek scarce and inflation protected assets ahead of turbulent times, their appetite for excessive equity valuations is limited.
Recession risks could have distorted the yield data
The only certain thing at the moment is that investors’ expectations for a recession are becoming more evident. Aside from the Treasury's yield, the U.S. Conference Board's leading indicators declined for 14 consecutive months, as described by Charlie Bilello:
The Conference Board's Leading Economic Index declined in May for the 14th month in a row.
"We project that the US economy will contract over the Q3 2023 to Q1 2024 period. The recession likely will be due to continued tightness in monetary policy and lower government spending.”… pic.twitter.com/wQfy8a3DVq
Consequently, those betting that Bitcoin’s recent decoupling from the U.S. Treasury's yield inverse correlation will quickly revert might come out disappointed. Data confirms that government bond yields are higher than normal due to increased expectations of a recession and economic crisis ahead.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Inflation has been particularly high for food and non-alcoholic drinks and has hit households hard. (Getty Images)
The cost of living crisis has left the poorest households in the UK having to pay an extra £3,000 to £5,600 this year, as they struggle to afford everyday essentials.
Low-income families with more children have been disproportionately affected by spiralling inflation, according to research from Save the Children, with the charity saying the impact is "worse than we had imagined".
The new analysis shows that, on average, a single parent with one child needs to spend an additional £3,100 in 2023/24 to get the same basket of goods and services as they did in 2019/20.
In particular, food inflation has shot up dramatically, rising by 18.4% in the year to May, with some meat products and vegetables almost doubling in price.
Buying frozen instead of fresh food can be a good way to save money. (Getty Images)
On Tuesday, MPs are set to quiz senior executives from four major supermarkets on why prices of such essential goods have gone up at such an alarming rate.
The business and trade committee will question Morrisons chief executive David Potts and senior figures from Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda on profit margins, competition in the supply chain and when shoppers could start see prices coming down again.
This may make bleak reading, but there are some ways to save on your weekly shop. Yahoo News explains how.
How to save money at the supermarket
Buy frozen food instead of fresh
Buying frozen vegetables is usually a lot cheaper and reduces the likelihood of food waste.
Recent analysis by consumer website Which? found that frozen raspberries were between 42p and £1.07 per 100g, significantly cheaper than fresh raspberries, which ranged from £1.26 to £1.80 per 100g.
Pay attention use-by dates
Shoppers should keep an eye on use-by dates and only buy products that they know they are going to consume within the given timeframe.
Freezing items is another good way to ensure no food gets wasted. It's also important not to confuse use-by dates with best before dates, which are to do with the quality of a product rather than whether it is safe to eat.
Check out the reduce aisle
If you like finding yourself a bargain then be sure to stop by the reduced aisle on your weekly shop.
These are items, often adorned with yellow stickers, that have been discounted due to imminent use-by dates or minor damage.
Shop around
Prices can vary a lot depending on which supermarket you shop at, so it's worth exploring your options.
Being aware of use-by dates and checking out the reduced aisle can save you money on your weekly shop. (Getty Images)
Avoid smaller convenience stores
Obviously these shops have their place – they are called convenience stores for a reason – but relying on them for your regular food shops could cost you hundreds more per year.
Research by Which? shows shoppers could spend 10% more per year at Tesco Express stores compared to their larger supermarkets or online.
Consider joining a loyalty scheme
Many supermarkets have their own loyalty card schemes, and these days they offer exclusive discounts and rewards, rather than just letting you rack up points.
Keep tabs on what you already have at home
Take a look through your fridge and cupboard and check what you already have before heading to the supermarket.
This can prevent you unnecessarily buying items you've already bought. It also helps you figure out what you need to stock up on.
Try writing a list as you do this and sticking to it, avoiding impulse purchases as you pass through the supermarket aisles.
What are supermarkets doing to help?
Many supermarkets are trying to do their bit to help shoppers through the cost of living crisis, including regular rollbacks on prices.
For example, Iceland offers a 10% discount to customers aged 60 and over every Tuesday, with no minimum spend.
Morrisons offers free children's meals for any adult who spends over £4.49 in the cafe all day every day. Free jacket potato and beans are also available for any shopper who "asks for Henry".
Avoid avocado toast. Ditch the flat white. And turn your back on the lure of Instagrammable holidays. Over the past decade, millennials have been ordered to scrimp, save and toil to get on the property ladder. Cutting out small luxuries won’t have helped much in the pursuit of home ownership. But for those who managed to buy a home in recent years, there is a fresh insult.
In Britain’s exploding mortgage timebomb, young adults are paying the heaviest price – exposing yet again Britain’s widening generational gulf. As the Bank of England whacks up interest rates to save the nation from the highest inflation rates since the early 1980s, it is those who hadn’t even been born then who carry the heaviest burden for bringing it down.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the increase in monthly mortgage payments awaiting 20- to 40-year-olds will be about twice as large as the rise for those over the age of 60. For millions more who rent, the prospect of home ownership is drifting further from reach, as their (typically older) landlords either sell up, or inflate rents at the fastest rate on record.
As with each of the last three big economic shocks to hit Britain – from the 2008 financial crash to the Covid pandemic and cost of living crisis – the nation’s younger generations have been sold down the river, forced to endure stagnant wages, crumbling job opportunities, the rising cost of education, the dismantling of generous company pension schemes and housing penury. It is hardly any wonder that millennials – broadly defined as those aged 25 to 40 – believe the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
For all the headlines of the past fortnight about mortgage misery and financial pain, it’s worth remembering that a sizeable chunk of society will see little or no impact – having either already paid off their mortgage, or had the wealth or good fortune never to have had one.
More households in England and Wales are in this position than have a mortgage, with as many as 8.1m, or about a third of the total, being mortgage free. Instead, the full force of the Bank’s toughest rate-hiking cycle in decades is reserved for the 7.4m with a mortgage, alongside 5m private renters, and 4.2m social tenants.
In some parts of the country more than half of homes – largely in wealthier rural or suburban areas with older demographics – are owned outright. For north Norfolk, east Devon, the Staffordshire Moorlands and Castle Point in Essex, the exploding mortgage crisis is nowhere near as acute. By comparison, less than a quarter of homes are owned outright in cities such as Liverpool and Newcastle, with the smallest proportions in London, where property prices are highest.
This isn’t to say that older generations will escape entirely, nor that everyone born after 1982 is equally affected. The bank of mum and dad has become a more important route to home ownership than hard work for many, while most under-30s living away from their parents do so in private-rented homes.
However, past episodes of the central bank cranking up interest rates to crush inflation would have had a far more even impact across society. Today, entrenched and worsening inequalities have blunted the power of monetary policy.
Back in 1989, almost 40% of households owned a home with a mortgage, and were therefore exposed to rising costs, according to the Resolution Foundation. Today, as more older people own outright, and more younger adults rent, the share of households with a mortgage is below 30%.
Millennials are half as likely to own a home at the age of 30 as baby boomers were, after a more than tenfold increase in house prices since the early 1980s – leaving the average first-time buyer requiring a deposit 10 times larger than four decades ago.
Older generations might have faced considerably higher interest rates during the inflation-prone 1970s and 80s, when interest rates peaked as high as 17%. But their mortgage costs were still often more affordable than today. Homeowners then benefited from average house prices of below £60,000, about three times annual income, as well as from tax breaks on home loan payments through the government’s now defunct mortgage interest relief at source policy.
With house prices averaging £285,000 today, or about eight times the average income, smaller interest rate hikes than in the past will have a more painful impact. In the past decade alone house prices have risen by more than two-thirds, meaning more recent buyers are likely to have larger debts, leaving them severely squeezed.
The good news this time around is that mass home repossessions and the pain of negative equity for millions is unlikely, thanks in part to tougher mortgage regulations introduced since the 2008 financial crisis. However, higher interest rates will add almost £16bn to mortgage payments in aggregate, forcing borrowers to make vast cuts elsewhere to keep a roof over their heads.
For the economy at large, the scale of belt tightening required will probably tip the country into recession. In turn, should more businesses fail, job losses mount and wages stagnate, it will be the working-age population and those just entering the workforce for the first time who face the most hardship.
There is a clear political opportunity. After the parade of economic shocks borne mostly by younger generations, it is time for politicians of all parties to wake up and tackle the yawning divide. Britain’s worsening problem with generational inequality will persist without action.
Inflation has been particularly high for food and non-alcoholic drinks and has hit households hard. (Getty Images)
The cost of living crisis has left the poorest households in the UK having to pay an extra £3,000 to £5,600 this year, as they struggle to afford everyday essentials.
Low-income families with more children have been disproportionately affected by spiralling inflation, according to research from Save the Children, with the charity saying the impact is "worse than we had imagined".
The new analysis shows that, on average, a single parent with one child needs to spend an additional £3,100 in 2023/24 to get the same basket of goods and services as they did in 2019/20.
In particular, food inflation has shot up dramatically, rising by 18.4% in the year to May, with some meat products and vegetables almost doubling in price.
Buying frozen instead of fresh food can be a good way to save money. (Getty Images)
On Tuesday, MPs are set to quiz senior executives from four major supermarkets on why prices of such essential goods have gone up at such an alarming rate.
The business and trade committee will question Morrisons chief executive David Potts and senior figures from Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda on profit margins, competition in the supply chain and when shoppers could start see prices coming down again.
This may make bleak reading, but there are some ways to save on your weekly shop. Yahoo News explains how.
How to save money at the supermarket
Buy frozen food instead of fresh
Buying frozen vegetables is usually a lot cheaper and reduces the likelihood of food waste.
Recent analysis by consumer website Which? found that frozen raspberries were between 42p and £1.07 per 100g, significantly cheaper than fresh raspberries, which ranged from £1.26 to £1.80 per 100g.
Pay attention use-by dates
Shoppers should keep an eye on use-by dates and only buy products that they know they are going to consume within the given timeframe.
Freezing items is another good way to ensure no food gets wasted. It's also important not to confuse use-by dates with best before dates, which are to do with the quality of a product rather than whether it is safe to eat.
Check out the reduce aisle
If you like finding yourself a bargain then be sure to stop by the reduced aisle on your weekly shop.
These are items, often adorned with yellow stickers, that have been discounted due to imminent use-by dates or minor damage.
Shop around
Prices can vary a lot depending on which supermarket you shop at, so it's worth exploring your options.
Being aware of use-by dates and checking out the reduced aisle can save you money on your weekly shop. (Getty Images)
Avoid smaller convenience stores
Obviously these shops have their place – they are called convenience stores for a reason – but relying on them for your regular food shops could cost you hundreds more per year.
Research by Which? shows shoppers could spend 10% more per year at Tesco Express stores compared to their larger supermarkets or online.
Consider joining a loyalty scheme
Many supermarkets have their own loyalty card schemes, and these days they offer exclusive discounts and rewards, rather than just letting you rack up points.
Keep tabs on what you already have at home
Take a look through your fridge and cupboard and check what you already have before heading to the supermarket.
This can prevent you unnecessarily buying items you've already bought. It also helps you figure out what you need to stock up on.
Try writing a list as you do this and sticking to it, avoiding impulse purchases as you pass through the supermarket aisles.
What are supermarkets doing to help?
Many supermarkets are trying to do their bit to help shoppers through the cost of living crisis, including regular rollbacks on prices.
For example, Iceland offers a 10% discount to customers aged 60 and over every Tuesday, with no minimum spend.
Morrisons offers free children's meals for any adult who spends over £4.49 in the cafe all day every day. Free jacket potato and beans are also available for any shopper who "asks for Henry".
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
Jessi Stout, owner of the Table Rock Pharmacy fills a prescription on Friday, Jan. 6, 2023, in Morganton, N.C. Drugstore chains are still trying to find enough employees to put a stop to temporary pharmacy closures. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)
As the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) prepare to implement the Inflation Reduction Act’s price controls for prescription drugs, the agency has been hit with lawsuits from both Merck and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce alleging violation of their constitutional rights. While we cannot know whether these challenges will prevail, the effects of this law on patients are easily predictable: higher launch prices, fewer cures and worse health.
Merck’s lawsuit centers on two complaints: that the law is a violation of (1) the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause,” which prohibits government confiscation of property for public use without just compensation, and (2) the First Amendment’s “Free Speech Clause,” by compelling them to certify that they have negotiated a “fair price” and thus parrot the government’s preferred message, while at the same time gagging drug companies from disclosing details of their negotiations with CMS.
The Chamber of Commerce’s suit largely mirrors these arguments and adds two more: that the law’s failure to describe howCMS should set prices and how much weight should be afforded to the information it collects in price setting is a violation of separation of powers, and that the penalties for noncompliance are so draconian — up to 1,900 percent of the drug’s total revenues per day — as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
Regardless of the court’s ruling on these claims, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has already proven disastrous. Before CMS has even announced which drugs will be first to be negotiated, companies are terminating research programs to develop new treatments. Just last month, Novartis announced the termination of some early-stage cancer research programs, specifically citing the IRA. We can expect the pace of cancellations to become more severe as more drugs are added to the negotiation list each year. University of Chicago economist Tom Phillipson believes as many as 135 cures for diseases that cause untold suffering may be lost as a result of this law. The economics just don’t make sense, especially for small molecule drugs, which will enter negotiation more quickly than biologics.
Ultimately, the lawsuits expose the giant failure of the law: it is unconstitutional.
Even if Republicans manage to get a filibuster-proof Senate majority in the next election, as well as retain control of the House and win the White House, the IRA is unlikely to be repealed by Congress. The Congressional Budget Office scored savings from Medicare drug negotiation at $96 billion over 10 years, meaning that Congress would need to find at least this much money in offsets to avoid increasing the deficit under congressional scoring rules. Given the large score, repeal would be exceedingly difficult. Patients depend on the court striking down the IRA’s drug pricing provisions if we are to maintain the innovation ecosystem that the United States (and the World) depends on.
The IRA’s drug pricing provisions allow the government to dictate prices for the first time since World War II, and yes, and they may get struck down by the courts. But why, after spending more than 10 years battling constitutionality challenges caused by Obamacare’s sloppy drafting, would Democrats repeat the poor processes of Obamacare and jam through a far larger law that again causes major disruption in the healthcare system?
It might be because the law is yet another attempt to paper over Obamacare’s failings. It obliterates the carefully crafted consensus on incentives for drug innovation embodied in the bipartisan Hatch-Waxman Act and uses the savings to funnel more subsidies to the ruinously expensive Obamacare exchanges. Obamacare’s most ardent supporters simply can’t admit that the law continues to struggle and that even the $70 billion thrown into the exchanges by the IRA won’t fix Obamacare’s failings: narrow networks, high deductibles and noncoverage of specialty medications, to name just three. Democrats were so desperate to paper over Obamacare’s deficiencies that they took a hatchet to Hatch-Waxman, a law which has resulted not just in countless miracle drugs but also a prescription drug market that is over 90 percent filled by safe, inexpensive generics.
If Medicare’s Drug Price Negotiation Program is struck down, Democrats won’t have anyone to blame but themselves. If the courts do enjoin CMS from implementing the drug pricing provisions, it would behoove Republicans to advance sensible legislation that protects patients, taxpayers and the innovation ecosystem. Already, several policies have been mooted in Congress that attract broad bipartisan support, such as policies to crack down on patent thickets and evergreening, policies to boost generic competition, and policies to encourage additional value-based reimbursements for drugs, such as subscription models and outcomes-based arrangements.
We can achieve affordable drug prices without destroying innovation or shredding the Constitution. Hopefully, the courts will give Congress this second chance.
Joe Grogan is a visiting senior fellow at the USC Schaeffer Center and served as domestic policy adviser to former President Trump, 2019-20. He consults for the healthcare industry, including pharmaceutical companies.
