Tag Archives: Advice

NBA DFS, 2021: Top FanDuel, DraftKings tournament picks, advice for Feb. 20 from a daily Fantasy pro

Before setting your NBA DFS lineups on sites like DraftKings and FanDuel for Saturday, Feb. 20, you NEED to see what Mike McClure has to say. 

McClure is a DFS professional with nearly $2 million in career winnings. He’s also a predictive data engineer at SportsLine who uses a powerful prediction model that simulates every minute of every game 10,000 times, taking factors like matchups, statistical trends and injuries into account. 

This allows him to find the best NBA DFS values and create optimal lineups that he shares only over at SportsLine. They’re a must-see for any NBA DFS player.

We can tell you one of McClure’s top NBA DFS picks for his Saturday NBA daily Fantasy lineups is Blazers guard Damian Lillard at $10,600 on DraftKings and $9,900 on FanDuel. Part of McClure’s optimal NBA DFS strategy includes rostering Lakers forward LeBron James ($10,200 on DraftKings, $10,500 on FanDuel), who’s averaging 25.9 points, 7.9 rebounds and 8.2 assists per game this season. 

McClure is also targeting a player who could go off for MASSIVE numbers on Saturday! This pick could be the difference between winning your tournaments and cash games or going home with nothing! You ABSOLUTELY need to see who it is before locking in any lineups.

What are the top NBA DFS picks for Feb. 20? And which player is a MUST-ROSTER? … Join SportsLine now to see DFS pro Mike McClure’s top picks, stacks, and player pools for FanDuel and DraftKings, and cash in BIG on NBA DFS!

Read original article here

GameStop’s meteoric gains have almost entirely disappeared — here’s advice for those who didn’t get out in time

The author of the Cracked Market blog, Jani Ziedins, last week warned the traders piling into the videogames retailer GameStop not to get greedy — or more specifically, not to be a pig.

Well.

As the chart shows, that short squeeze worked until it didn’t. Momentum fizzled after Robinhood and other brokerages limited access to trading in GameStop
GME,
-42.11%
and other securities that were surging in popularity. As to why, there will be Congressional hearings to find out the culprit — hedge funds or good-old-fashioned margin requirements — but the end result is the same.

GameStop may still have its moments. “As for what comes next, GME will be insanely volatile for weeks and even months. That means 50% and 100% moves in both directions. But at this point, a 50% bounce only gets us back to $75. Maybe we get back to $100 or even $125, but waiting for anything higher is just wishful thinking,” Ziedins says.

Here’s Ziedins’ advice now. “For those that still have money left in the market, there is no reason to ride this all the way into the dirt. Cash in what you have left, learn from this lesson, and come back to the market better prepared next time,” says the Cracked Market blogger.

Cue, Frank Sinatra.

And those traders are inexperienced. Cardify, a consumer-data firm, did a survey of 1,600 self-directed investors in GameStop and cinema chain AMC Entertainment
AMC,
-20.96%
and found that most were inexperienced investors — 44% having less than 12 months of experience, and another quarter with one to two years’ experience. Nearly half made their biggest-ever do-it-yourself trading investment in the last four weeks, according to the survey that ended on Monday.

Why? Of these overwhelmingly young and male investors, 45% said for quick financial profits. Nearly 20% said it was part of a long-term investing strategy, and 16% said to spite big hedge funds and institutional investors, according to Cardify.

The buzz

The U.S. added 49,000 nonfarm payrolls jobs in January while the unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, according to the Labor Department.

The U.S. Senate in the early hours of the morning approved a budget resolution that will allow for a fast tracking of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan proposed by the Biden administration to be approved without Republican support. Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tiebreaking vote. Johnson & Johnson
JNJ,
+0.93%
meanwhile submitted its coronavirus vaccine for Food and Drug Administration approval.

Pinterest
PINS,
+0.91%
shares jumped 11% in premarket trade, as the art-sharing social-media service reported forecast-beating earnings on a 76% jump in revenue during the fourth quarter. Another social-media service, Snap
SNAP,
-1.60%,
also beat expectations. Besides using social media, people stuck at home were playing videogames, as Activision Blizzard
ATVI,
-0.10%
gained 8% after it reported stronger earnings and bookings than expected, increased its dividend by 15%, and authorized a $4 billion share buyback plan.

Ford Motor Co.
F,
+1.52%
reported a surprise profit and topped expectations.

Exercise-bike maker Peloton Interactive
PTON,
+7.04%
slumped 7% as it did beat on earnings but flagged a rise in shipping and other costs. T-Mobile US
TMUS,
+0.95%,
the mobile service operator, also beat earnings expectations but guided to a softer 2021 than expected.

Luckin Coffee, the U.S.-listed Chinese coffee retailer, filed for bankruptcy protection, less than a year after an accounting scandal.

The market

After the S&P 500
SPX,
+1.09%
ended Thursday at a record for the sixth time in 2021, U.S. stock futures
ES00,
+0.37%

NQ00,
+0.20%
pointed to another day of gains.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury
TMUBMUSD10Y,
1.158%
moved up to 1.16%, after ending Thursday at its highest in 11 months.

The chart

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Today’s technology giants are following a similar trajectory to the radio makers of the 1920s, as well as the dot-com era around the turn of the century. “So the point is that you can be a firm believer in tech’s ability to transform our lives but still think valuations might be in a bubble,” said Jim Reid, strategist at Deutsche Bank.

Random reads

This local government meeting over Zoom
ZM,
+2.50%
turned into a chaotic, internet sensation.

Chocolate sales were 40% to 50% higher in areas with an increased number of COVID-19 cases, according to confectioner Hershey
HSY,
+0.44%.

Need to Know starts early and is updated until the opening bell, but sign up here to get it delivered once to your email box. The emailed version will be sent out at about 7:30 a.m. Eastern.

Want more for the day ahead? Sign up for The Barron’s Daily, a morning briefing for investors, including exclusive commentary from Barron’s and MarketWatch

Read original article here

McKinsey Agrees to $573 Million Settlement Over Opioid Advice

Consulting giant McKinsey & Co. has reached a $573 million settlement with states over its work advising OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP and other drug manufacturers to aggressively market opioid painkillers, according to people familiar with the matter.

The deal, reached with 47 states and the District of Columbia and expected to be publicly announced Thursday, would avert civil lawsuits that attorneys general could bring against McKinsey, the people said. The majority of the money will be paid upfront, with the rest dispensed in four yearly payments starting in 2022.

McKinsey said last week it is cooperating with government agencies on matters related to its past work with opioid manufacturers, as state and local governments sue companies up and down the opioid supply chain. At least 400,000 people have died in the U.S. from overdoses of legal and illegal opioids since 1999, according to federal data.

The consulting firm stopped doing opioid-related work in 2019 and said in December its work for Purdue was intended to support the legal use of opioids and help patients with legitimate medical needs.

While some companies have reached deals with individual states to avoid trials, the McKinsey settlement marks the first nationwide opioid pact to come from the flood of litigation that began in 2017. A much larger, $26 billion deal with three drug distributors and Johnson & Johnson has been in the works for more than a year but is still being negotiated.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that McKinsey was close to a settlement with states and that a deal could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The negotiations occurred as hundreds of exhibits describing McKinsey’s work to boost OxyContin sales were made public in recent months during Purdue’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case in White Plains, N.Y.

Memos McKinsey sent Purdue executives in 2013 that have been made public in bankruptcy court filings included recommendations that the company’s sales team target health care providers it knew wrote the highest volumes of OxyContin prescriptions and shift away from lower-volume prescribers. McKinsey’s work became a Purdue initiative called “Evolve to Excellence,” which the U.S. Justice Department described in papers released last year in connection with a plea agreement with Purdue as an aggressive OxyContin marketing and sales campaign.

According to bankruptcy court records, McKinsey sent recommendations to Purdue in 2013 that consultants said would boost its annual sales by more than $100 million. McKinsey recommended ways Purdue could better target what it described as “higher value” prescribers and take other steps to “Turbocharge Purdue’s Sales Engine.”

Stamford, Conn.-based Purdue pleaded guilty in November to three felonies, including paying illegal kickbacks and deceiving drug-enforcement officials. The drugmaker filed for chapter 11 protection in 2019 to address thousands of opioid-related lawsuits brought against it. Purdue said in a lawsuit filed last week against its insurers that creditors have asserted hundreds of thousands of claims in the bankruptcy case and collectively seek trillions of dollars in damages.

McKinsey also advised other opioid makers on sales initiatives. The firm’s work for

Johnson & Johnson

came up in a 2019 trial in a case brought by Oklahoma against the drug company for contributing to the opioid crisis in the state through aggressive marketing of prescription painkillers. The trial ended with a $572 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson, which was later reduced to $465 million and is still on appeal.

The vast majority of the money McKinsey will pay in the settlement will be divided among the participating states, with $15 million going to the National Association of Attorneys General to reimburse it for costs incurred in the investigation, one of the people familiar with the deal said.

The settlement also includes some nonmonetary provisions, like requiring McKinsey to create a repository of documents related to its work for opioid makers, the person said.

The holdout states include Nevada, which said Wednesday night that its investigation into the consulting giant continues “and we are conversing with McKinsey about our concerns.”

Purdue has been negotiating with creditors, which include states, since filing for bankruptcy, but finalizing a deal has been slowed by demands from some states that the company’s owners, members of the Sackler family, contribute more than the $3 billion they have agreed to.

States have been keenly focused on ensuring any settlement money from the opioid litigation goes toward helping alleviate the impact of the crisis, including through beefing up treatment programs and helping overstretched law enforcement. The states are looking to avoid the outcome of the 1990s tobacco litigation, when a $206 billion settlement was often spent to fill state budget holes. The McKinsey settlement documents say the money is intended for abatement, the person familiar with the deal said, though state laws differ widely on how settlement funds can be earmarked.

Write to Sara Randazzo at sara.randazzo@wsj.com and Jonathan Randles at Jonathan.Randles@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Pregnant Women Get Conflicting Advice on Covid-19 Vaccines

Pregnant women looking for guidance on Covid-19 vaccines are facing the kind of confusion that has dogged the pandemic from the start: The world’s leading public health organizations — the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization — are offering contradictory advice.

Neither organization explicitly forbids or encourages immunizing pregnant women. But weighing the same limited studies, they provide different recommendations.

The C.D.C.’s advisory committee urged pregnant women to consult with their doctors before rolling up their sleeves — a decision applauded by several women’s health organizations because it kept decision making in the hands of the expectant mothers.

The W.H.O. recommended that pregnant women not receive the vaccine, unless they were at high risk for Covid because of work exposures or chronic conditions. It issued guidance on the Moderna vaccine on Tuesday, stirring uncertainty among women and doctors on social media. (Earlier this month, it published similar guidance on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.)

Several experts expressed dismay at the W.H.O.’s stance, saying the risks to pregnant women from Covid were far greater than any theoretical harm from the vaccines.

“There are no documented risks to the fetus, there’s no theoretical risks, there’s no risk in animal studies,” from the vaccines, said Dr. Anne Lyerly, a bioethicist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “The more that I think about it, the more disappointed and sad I feel about it.”

The difference of opinion between the C.D.C. and the W.H.O. is not rooted in scientific evidence, but the lack of it: Pregnant women have been barred from participating in clinical trials of the vaccines, a decision in line with a long tradition of excluding pregnant women from biomedical research, but one that is now being challenged.

While the rationale is ostensibly to protect women and their unborn children, barring pregnant women from studies pushes the risk out of the carefully controlled environment of a clinical trial and into the real world. The practice has forced patients and providers to weigh sensitive, worrisome issues with little hard data about safety or effectiveness.

Vaccines are generally considered to be safe, and pregnant women have been urged to be immunized for influenza and other diseases since the 1960s, even in the absence of rigorous clinical trials to test them.

“As obstetricians we are often faced with difficult decisions about using interventions in pregnancy that have not been properly tested in pregnancy,” said Dr. Denise Jamieson, an obstetrician at Emory University in Atlanta and a member of the Covid expert group at the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. The college strongly advocated including pregnant and breastfeeding women in the vaccine trials.

“What many people miss is that there are risks to doing nothing,” Dr. Jamieson said. “Not offering pregnant women the opportunity to be vaccinated and protect themselves, where there are known and severe risks of Covid amplified by pregnancy, is not a wise strategy.”

The uncertainty isn’t limited to Covid vaccines: Many if not most medications, including widely used drugs, have never been tested in pregnant women. It can take years or decades for adverse side effects to come to light in the absence of a study with a control group for comparison.

“This isn’t a story about the W.H.O. or other people advising against vaccination in pregnancy,” said Carleigh Krubiner, a policy fellow at the Center for Global Development and a principal investigator for the Pregnancy Research Ethics for Vaccines, Epidemics and New Technologies project (PREVENT). “It’s a story about the failure to timely and appropriately include pregnant women in vaccination studies.”

Saying she understood the commitment of the W.H.O. and other advisory bodies to rely on scientific studies, Dr. Krubiner added: “The reality is that we don’t yet have the data on these vaccinations in pregnancy, and it’s very difficult without that data to come out and give a full-throated recommendation in support.”

The C.D.C. and the W.H.O. have offered dissonant advice many times over the course of the pandemic — most notably on the usefulness of masks and the possibility of the virus traveling by air indoors.

In a statement, the C.D.C. said on Thursday that based on how the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines work, “they are unlikely to pose a specific risk for pregnant women.”

The C.D.C.’s recommendation may make sense for the United States, where women may easily be able to consult with their health care providers, said Joachim Hombach, a health adviser to the W.H.O. on immunizations. But the W.H.O. provides guidance to many low- and middle-income countries where women do not have access to doctors or nurses, he said.

The W.H.O.’s recommendation was also made “in the context of limited supply” of the vaccines, Dr. Hombach said. “I don’t think the language is discouraging, but the language is stating the facts.”

Pfizer did not include pregnant women in its initial clinical trials because it followed the policies outlined by the Food and Drug Administration to first conduct developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, said Jerica Pitts, a spokeswoman for the company. Pfizer and Moderna both provided results from toxicity studies in pregnant rats to the F.D.A. in December.

Pfizer plans to begin a clinical study in pregnant women in the first half of 2021, Ms. Pitts said. Moderna is establishing a registry to record outcomes in pregnant women who receive its vaccine, according to Colleen Hussey, a spokeswoman for the company.

Critics of the companies’ decisions to exclude pregnant women from trials say the reproductive toxicity studies could have been carried out much earlier — as soon as promising vaccine candidates were identified. The companies should have added a protocol to enroll pregnant women once it was clear the vaccines’ benefits outweighed potential harm, Dr. Krubiner said.

“It’s hard to understand why that delay is happening and why it wasn’t initiated sooner,” she said. “The bigger issue is, we’re going to have lost months by the time they start them.”

Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University who has advocated immunizations for pregnant women, questioned the underlying issue that prompted the W.H.O.’s decision.

“Whatever it is, I wish the W.H.O. would be more transparent in their reasons behind this recommendation,” she said. “Women’s lives depend on it.”

Covid-19 Vaccines ›

Answers to Your Vaccine Questions

Currently more than 150 million people — almost half the population — are eligible to be vaccinated. But each state makes the final decision about who goes first. The nation’s 21 million health care workers and three million residents of long-term care facilities were the first to qualify. In mid-January, federal officials urged all states to open up eligibility to everyone 65 and older and to adults of any age with medical conditions that put them at high risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid-19. Adults in the general population are at the back of the line. If federal and state health officials can clear up bottlenecks in vaccine distribution, everyone 16 and older will become eligible as early as this spring or early summer. The vaccine hasn’t been approved in children, although studies are underway. It may be months before a vaccine is available for anyone under the age of 16. Go to your state health website for up-to-date information on vaccination policies in your area

You should not have to pay anything out of pocket to get the vaccine, although you will be asked for insurance information. If you don’t have insurance, you should still be given the vaccine at no charge. Congress passed legislation this spring that bars insurers from applying any cost sharing, such as a co-payment or deductible. It layered on additional protections barring pharmacies, doctors and hospitals from billing patients, including those who are uninsured. Even so, health experts do worry that patients might stumble into loopholes that leave them vulnerable to surprise bills. This could happen to those who are charged a doctor visit fee along with their vaccine, or Americans who have certain types of health coverage that do not fall under the new rules. If you get your vaccine from a doctor’s office or urgent care clinic, talk to them about potential hidden charges. To be sure you won’t get a surprise bill, the best bet is to get your vaccine at a health department vaccination site or a local pharmacy once the shots become more widely available.

That is to be determined. It’s possible that Covid-19 vaccinations will become an annual event, just like the flu shot. Or it may be that the benefits of the vaccine last longer than a year. We have to wait to see how durable the protection from the vaccines is. To determine this, researchers are going to be tracking vaccinated people to look for “breakthrough cases” — those people who get sick with Covid-19 despite vaccination. That is a sign of weakening protection and will give researchers clues about how long the vaccine lasts. They will also be monitoring levels of antibodies and T cells in the blood of vaccinated people to determine whether and when a booster shot might be needed. It’s conceivable that people may need boosters every few months, once a year or only every few years. It’s just a matter of waiting for the data.

The toxicity data released by Pfizer and Moderna in December found no harmful effects from the vaccines to pregnant rats — evidence cited by the W.H.O. in its guidance.

One extreme consequence of a conservative approach to vaccines played out during the Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo, when health workers offered a vaccine for the disease to all frontline workers and contacts of people confirmed to have it — except if they were pregnant or breastfeeding. Without the vaccine, 98 percent of pregnant women who were infected with the Ebola virus died.

The rules were changed following a public outcry but, by then, many pregnant women had died, Dr. Lyerly said.

Covid-19 has also proved to be dangerous to pregnant women. A large C.D.C. study published in November found that pregnant women with Covid who were symptomatic were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or to die when compared with nonpregnant women who also had Covid symptoms.

The evidence prompted agency officials to add pregnancy to the list of conditions that heighten the risk of severe disease and death from Covid.

The C.D.C. has set up a smartphone application called v-safe to solicit reports of side effects from immunized people. About 15,000 pregnant women have enrolled in the registry so far, the agency’s immunization committee reported on Wednesday.

“I think that’s our best chance of getting safety data rapidly,” Dr. Jamieson said.

Britain initially starkly recommended against Covid vaccines for pregnant women, but has since revised its guidance to authorize inoculating pregnant women who are frontline workers or otherwise at high risk. “I’m hoping the W.H.O. will reconsider as well,” Dr. Jamieson said.

Some experts said the recommendations are not as divergent as they may appear at first glance. “The C.D.C. is more inclined to say that pregnant women should have access to the vaccine, but should discuss their circumstances with their providers,” said Dr. Ana Langer, a reproductive health expert who leads the Women and Health Initiative at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “The W.H.O.’s interim recommendation says that women who are at particularly high risk of exposure or getting Covid should get the vaccine. So where’s the big difference here?”

Denise Grady contributed reporting.

Read original article here