China trade negotiations were moving in a positive direction. That threshold was exceeded with the Phase I deal - March Comex copper closed last week at $2.81 per pound. Copper is negatively correlated with the Chinese yuan (3-month, -0.75) so as copper rallies, the yuan should strengthen below 7 USDCNY. This did occur at the announcement of the deal although it drifted slightly above that level Friday (7.0058 USDCNY).
Higher copper prices and a stronger yuan suggest the CGR and yields will continue to rise in the near-term as Mr. Gundlach predicts. Volatility of both should also increase per the above analysis. If the CGR enters the upper-right quadrant, a turn in the stability trajectory toward improving stability should signal a top for the CGR followed by a peak in yields.
Hats off again to the DoubleLine® team for discovering a metals indicator that does work “phenomenally well” in both “risk-on” and “risk-off” markets. Copper-gold stability analysis enhances the interpretation of this indicator for both high and low volatility situations. The market events since spring provide testament to the power of that dual relationship.
« Previous: Appendix F: SBA Administrative Ruling on Appeal of Cognetix, Inc.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G: Letter from Elias A. Zerhouni, Director, National Institutes of Health to Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, June 28, 2005." National Research Council. 2009. Venture Funding and the NIH SBIR Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12543.
I am writing to express concern that current Small Business Administration (SBA) limits on eligibility for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awards, in the context of biomedical and public health research, unduly restrict the ability of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund high quality, small companies that receive venture capital (VC) investment. As a result, NIH must turn away many deserving applicants, and the goals of the SBIR program are being undermined. I ask that you consider a waiver to enable NIH to remedy this problem and look forward to discussing it with you.
Except for the smallest service-oriented entities, majority ownership and control by natural persons or business concerns majority owned by natural persons is extremely unlikely for R&D companies with significant market potential.
Given that the landscape for small business entities in the public health and biotechnology sector presents unique challenges, NIH is concerned that SBA’s new eligibility rule, while opening the field somewhat, leaves out many small concerns, and, in turn, substantially damages the NIH’s SBIR program. By limiting eligibility to concerns that are owned at least 51 percent by natural persons, or another concern that is itself owned 51 percent by natural persons, the rule disqualifies many highly-deserving small entities. Perversely, this rule dries up Federal funding for early-stage ideas from small concerns that, by attracting, substantial VCC funding, show strong signs of likely success. Many of these concerns are the very entities that, with SBIR funding, offer significant promise for progress in improving public health. NIH believes that the current rule undermines the statutory purposes of the SBIR program to “stimulate technological innovation” and to “increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from Federal R/R&D, thereby increasing competition, productivity and economic growth.” Furthermore, it undermines NIH’s ability to award SBIR funds to those applicants whom we believe are most likely to improve human health, which is the mission of NIH.
A concern is owned and controlled, at least in part, by a single VCC or multiple VCCs, provided that at least 51 percent of the concern is owned by U.S. individuals and/or VCC(s) that are owned no more than 49 percent by foreign business entities or individuals, and, provided further, that applicable small business affiliation standards are satisfied.
While many details of this proposal remain to be discussed between our two agencies, and its precise formulation may change as we work together, please understand that NTH aims to ensure that small business concerns with substantial VCC support in the biotechnology and public health R/R&D arena are able to receive SBIR awards from NIH. We do not aim to include concerns that are owned and controlled by large companies and believe that adherence to existing affiliation rules will limit this risk.
types of biomedical R&D projects requiring time and dollars above the amounts specified in applicable Policy Directives.
In keeping with President Reagan’s directive, NIH believes that it must be able to make SBIR awards to many small biotechnology concerns currently excluded from participation. We look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Last night we had parent teacher conferences. The monsters are all doing well, although Middle Monster’s teacher had some very colorful stories to share about her. She hadn’t heard the one about MM trying to start a campfire at recess, though. She rubbed sticks together so hard, for so long, that she smelled smoke. It’s my fault — she got the idea from Survivor.
I didn’t write last night, but I did read several chapters in my next-to-last Eppie assignment. 85% done!
This morning, D&E once more, and another 1083 words in a Tara scene. I’m glad I decided to just write out her “thread” as far as possible instead of trying to write in true section order in the scope of the whole book. Maybe I’ll do the same for Quinn too — these two threads intersect very soon.
I’ve got several things on my mind, even beyond Return to Shanhasson for NaNoWriMo. I would like to write up a checklist for speed — for my own reference as much as yours. And I’d like to write a couple of short free giveaway stories. The problem is coming up with a real STORY in 2K or so with appropriate character growth, conflict, etc. I haven’t come across the right set up yet, so I’m treating this as a personal challenge. I WILL come up with something.
Eventually.
2 thoughts on “RX Day 19”
A campfire at recess!??!! Go, MM!! 😆 That is hysterical!
I’m interested in this ‘checklist for speed’… and good luck fitting something into 2K! Wow! I think that would kill me – the shortest thing I’ve ever managed was 15K… I’m just not very good at short (in spite of being short – go figure…).
Middle Monster is my new role model. 😎
2k? 😯 Why is it that big word counts give me a thrill and small ones scare the living hell out of me? Good luck with that!
And, like Bethanie, I’m also interested in the checklist for speed.Spam, Birth Rates, and The End Of The World As We Know It
I received some spam today. No, really! I have had my main internet-based email account for about, oh, 9 years or more so I get a lot of spam – this one just slipped by the filters. It warned of overpopulation and encouraged me to learn more about how to keep the world from being destroyed by people.
Now, I’ve seen Soylent Green and I thought it was cool. And I’ve visited overpopulation.com and thought it was lame. All in all, the ‘overpopulation issue’ leaves me either chuckling (at best) or angry at the gullibility of people (at worst) because there is no overpopulation issue on Earth. Never has been, never will be. As a matter of fact, I’m seriously worried about underpopulation. Here’s some quick numbers, many from the CIA factbook (you should go there) and overpopulation.com’s won website (check it out, too).
Let’s start by mentioning a minister named Malthus. He made a basic observation about animal populations in the wild. In a nutshell, he predicted that, in the absence of predation, creatures would grow to the limit of their food supply and then the relative scarcity of food would limit population. That’s it, really. Darwin was stimulated by this concepts and it helped him formulate his theories of the origin of species. And a lot of people think it means humans will reproduce until we all starve to death. Huh? No, really, since the writings of Malthus, such ‘malthusian’ predictions that there would be too many people to support have been going strong. They really hit their stride in the 1960’s and made a big splash in a number of science fiction stories, including the afore-mentioned Soylent Green. This has led to the creation of a number of studies, think-tnaks, and groups, all focused on limiting human reproduction before we all kill ourselves with our own children. Some of the big donors to the distribution of birth control to the Third World, legal and financial backers of the push to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible, and many environmental groups are mainly focused on overpopulation.
These people focus in the horrible sufferings of the victims of famine. They point to images of starving children and demand that we limit population so there will be enough food. The trouble is, of course, that in the modern world famine isn’t about lack of food, it is about a lack of power. There is more than enough food to feed everyone on Earth a rich, varied, and sufficient diet. But some people can’t get it because they lack money and/or guns.