"If left unchecked, the trend in income inequality in this country will continue to widen.
It will lead to an increasingly dysfunctional economy, heightened political polarization,
paralyses and a level of anger andmistrust that this nation has not seen since the Great Depression"

 

"Income Inequality: The Trend is Not Your Friend," Bill Schmick, Oct. 26, 2012

 

The country is divided. Immigration and the economy are leading election issues. Inflation has soured attitudes. Labor unions are on the rise. Students are demonstrating and demanding we divest U.S. holdings in Israel. If I said that all the above issues are related and have a common economic cause, would you believe me?

 

We have seen all of this before. Maybe not in the exact same way but in the 1930s and 1960s dissatisfaction, unrest, what's fair and what's not led to conflict, assassinations, changes in economic and social policies and ultimately to regime change. Political analysts call it populism "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

 

Gathering populism around the world indicates to me that regime changes are coming. In the latest New York Times/Siena polls of swing states, 69 percent of respondents said that both the economic and political systems in this country need major changes or should be entirely torn down. You might ask how did we get to this place and, more importantly, where are we going?

 

While history does not repeat itself, it can generally rhyme, and a look back to our founding fathers might help us gain perspective. The philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were popular back then and gained influence with those who drafted our constitution and form of government.

 

The natural state of mankind in short was a state of war of one man against another. Call it survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, or free market capitalism, the concept is the same. The way to escape this natural chaos is through a social contract to be agreed upon by the people to be governed and the government. It is where concepts such as fairness, equity, equality and community come together.  

 

Our political and economic system developed and succeeded because we melded the two ideas together in a system of checks and balance where free markets existed and flourished.

 

While not perfect, democracy thrived and functioned somewhat like a pendulum. When one or the other idea gained too much sway in the country, conflict arose. These crises triggered changes in laws, regulations and existing practices correcting abuses and extremes until the system gradually righted itself and swung back the other way.

 

These cycles are multi-year occurrences, and we have many of them in our history. At times, the pendulum bordered on the extreme, but thanks to our system of government these so-called regime changes have kept us in business. Some of our greatest breakthroughs as a country have come from these changes. The Civil War was one exception. We managed to survive even that bloody event, but it took several generations before that regime change was reconciled and repaired.

 

Our present problems are the result of a swing in the pendulum that has us so far in one direction that the nation is truly unbalanced. The "winner takes all" atmosphere of free markets and capitalism has over the past forty years reached an extreme. Income inequality among Americans has reached a point where even the Roman Empire had a lesser degree of income inequality.

 

I have been warning readers of the consequences of this condition as far back as 2010.   In a column entitled "Income Inequality: The Trend is Not Your Friend," I wrote "If left unchecked, the trend in income inequality in this country will continue to widen. It will lead to an increasingly dysfunctional economy, heightened political polarization, paralysis, and a level of anger and mistrust that this nation has not seen since the Great Depression."

 

That time has come to pass. Next week, I will explain how and why that inequality occurred with the full cooperation and urging of corporations and both political parties. We will also examine the role the Federal Reserve Bank played in this disaster and how we are still applying outdated 40-year-old policies to fix something that requires radical new approaches.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

Tariffs are a form of tax applied on imports from other countries. The costs of these tariffs are mostly passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for the targeted goods. In an inflationary environment, tariffs simply make things worse. Tell that to the candidates.

 

Historically, tariffs have been used to protect domestic industries like steel or aluminum manufacturers. They can and have often been used to strike back against other countries' unfair trade practices. They often lead to reduced trade, retaliation, and higher prices.

 

In today's political landscape, those economic findings have fallen on deaf ears. Both candidates for president are attempting to out-tariff each other. "Getting tough on China" seems to appeal to voters in swing states.

 

This week, President Biden said he plans to increase tariffs on Chinese EVs to 100 percent. He also doubled tariffs on Chinese-made solar cells and semiconductors to 50 percent. He also trebled existing tariffs on steel and aluminum products to 25 percent. Altogether, the new tariffs apply to $18 billion in Chinese products.

 

Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, who is credited with starting the tariff wars during his administration, fired back. "I will put a 200 percent tax on every car that comes from these plants," referring to Chinese vehicles that are attempting to find a back door for its exports by manufacturing in Mexico. Will we hear 300 percent by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?

 

The rhetoric on Chinese electric vehicles is just that. China does not sell EVs in America. Their export markets are in Asia and Europe where consumers can buy a vehicle from China at affordable price (under $25,000). That is a far cry from the sticker prices offered by Tesla and the Big Three auto companies. The Biden tariffs in other areas are meant to protect U.S. green industry companies, as well as to support investment initiatives in domestic semiconductors.  

 

After World War II, tariffs had fallen out of favor given the negative economic impact of that practice. Trump resurrected the practice because it played well among his constituency. For most of Trump's presidency, the threat and actual levying of tariffs became a hallmark of his administration. Markets rode up and down with every utterance of the word tariff.

 

To bring a wide swath of factory jobs back to the U.S., Trump imposed $360 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese products. He also levied tariffs on several export products from the European Union and other countries. By the end of his term, none of those manufacturing jobs appeared. Consumers ended up paying more for a whole lot of goods and farmers were decimated to the point where the government had to give billions in handouts to keep many from going under. In the end, the trade balance between China and the U.S. remained about the same.

 

This time around, never a man to choose facts over fiction, Trump has promised to redouble his efforts. He wants to erect barriers to investment between the U.S. and China along with complete bans on imports of steel, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. He has also proposed an additional 10 percent tariff on all imports to the U.S., not just those from China. Hello, higher inflation.

 

Don't look to Biden, however, for a more rational approach. Biden had initially promised to roll back Trump tariffs on China if elected. Instead, once in office, he kept those tariffs and imposed even more restrictions on trade between the two countries as well, effectively doubling down on what Trump started. While the White House spin is that their tariffs are more focused and targeted than Trump's efforts, I see little difference.

 

What I do see, however, is a country whose economy is becoming more and more like China's form of state capitalism. The myth of free-market capitalism where efficiency and profits determine the allocation of capital is fast disappearing in the United States. If they ever did, neither candidate believes in that concept today Maybe that is a good thing.

 

Both men have actively pulled all the levers of government, be it regulations, tariffs, taxes, subsidies, or rhetoric to force the U.S. economy to conform to their vision of national interest.

 

We have seen this in action. The banning or sale of TikTok, the refusal to allow U.S. Steel to be purchased by a Japanese company and giving away billions to companies like Intel to build semiconductor factories in the U.S., are just some of a long list of government interventions in the economy under Biden.

 

Trump did the same. He pressured companies to keep factories open here as opposed to going overseas. He defended Boeing by raising tariffs on Canadian competitor, Bombardier. Steel tariffs were imposed on foreign producers including our best trading partners to protect our industry. I could go on, but you get the picture.

 

Don't get me wrong, and don't confuse economics with a country's political system. U.S. state capitalism is not socialism and likely never will be. It does, however, change the playing field for companies and their management.

 

The expectations that the government is trying to change how business behaves has already had an impact in the boardroom. Pressuring investments for or against ESG, denying acquisitions, launching investigations, browbeating and more are levers that are moving investment choices from maximum return to focusing on political expedience. It becomes more about who you know in the corridors of power. It is also an atmosphere where crony capitalism can thrive and grow.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

A combination of anti-business government policies, worsening U.S.-Sino relations, and several draconian actions by Chinese authorities have cast a pall over foreign investment and the Chinese stock market. Chinese equities have lost $7 trillion since the market's peak in 2021. That interests me.

 

On Wall Street, the Chinese stock market is now considered "uninvestable." Main Street and the politicians who represent them are just as negative. Anti-China rhetoric and U.S. actions, from the attempt to force a sale of TikTok to forbidding Chinese nationals from buying land here, is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

It is as if we are already at war with China. In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, Rory Truex, an associate professor at Princeton University who focuses on Chinese authoritarianism, says it best.

 

"America's collective national body is suffering from a chronic case of China anxiety. Nearly anything with the word 'Chinese' in front of it now triggers a fear response in our political system, muddling our ability to properly gauge and contextualize threats."

 

That attitude usually spells opportunity in the investment world. I do not dispute the gravity or seriousness of that country's political and economic issues. Much of the malaise in China is of their own making. The zero-COVID policies gutted their economy. The government authorities, unlike those of the Western world, did little to help the country recover. The impact of the Trump trade wars lingers on with no resolution. The lifetime appointment of Xi Jinping created an even more rigid authoritarian government. I believe Xi's one-man rule felt threatened by the success of China's successful free-market-oriented companies. Policies were promulgated that stripped those companies of their entrepreneurial spirit, increased the government's control with management, trod on shareholder rights, and, as a result, sent their share prices to historic lows.

 

The Chinese support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine cemented the growing anti-China policies in Europe. In the U.S. these negative attitudes gathered even more steam as China grew closer to Russia. Is it any wonder that "uninvestable" became the new watchword for China?

 

However, what so many Americans forget is that hundreds of U.S. companies have huge investments in China. China revenues, for example, account for 19 percent of Apple's sales, while 44 percent of its suppliers' production sites are based in China. Caterpillar, Tesla, McDonald's, Nike, and Starbucks; I could go on, but you get the point.

 

Bank of America's manager survey recently noted that the most crowded trades in the global stock markets were to go long on U.S. technology, followed by shorting China technology. In January, the mainland and Hong Kong experienced a meltdown as even Chinese investors threw in the towel.

 

However, since Feb. 2, stocks began making a comeback. There were no big announcements of government stimulus but there was a visible relaxation of many of the policies that brought on the crisis of confidence in the first place. As a result, China technology is now beating both U.S. technology and U.S. large caps by more than 20 percent. The overall market has gained more than that. And yet most global investors remain underweight in the world's second-largest economy.

 

In international investing, I have learned to pay attention to what the locals are doing. Chinese investors are, without question, already buying Chinese stocks. The "National Team," i.e. investors associated with the country's sovereign wealth funds, are buying mega-cap Shanghai and Shenzhen-listed stocks. Mainland investors are buying Hong Kong-listed stocks as well.

 

American investors are only beginning to take notice. By types of investors, momentum traders like hedge funds and some individual investors that can move quickly are starting to dip their toes into these waters. If this rally persists, more institutions will begin to see this rebound as something more than a dead-cat bounce. In this case, institutional investment committees will meet to discuss changing their "underweight" positions and may up their investment stance to neutral.

 

But institutions move slowly, and this will take time. However, active fund managers that track their performance against world indexes are already behind the eight ball thanks to the recent rally and their underweight China stance. At some point, (likely when Chinese stocks experience a minor pullback), some of these funds will start buying.

 

In any case, we could be looking at the beginning of a longer-term reversal in the Chinese stock market. Now, Chinese equities are experiencing a sharp bout of profit-taking after ten up days in a row. This is normal and could be an opportunity to get in.

 

Granted, buying equities in China is not for the faint of heart. I would say it is about as risky as buying cryptocurrencies, maybe more. Since most emerging markets funds have some portion of their funds invested in China, that may be a less risky way to go if you decide to take a flyer on China, even if it is "uninvestable."

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

The number of U.S. workers who claimed union membership increased ever so slightly last year from 14.3 million in 2022 to 14.4 million. However, as a share of the American workforce, union membership hit a new low. Today only one in 10 workers in America wear the union badge.

 

Back in 1983, union membership was as high as 20.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yet, every day we hear of some effort to unionize workers across a wide spectrum of companies and industries. Starbucks, CVS, and Amazon come to mind. In 2023, the United Auto Workers (UAW) occupied headlines for months as they negotiated new contracts with General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis — and won.

 

It turned out that these hard-fought labor agreements marked the biggest win for the auto unions in 40 years. This was followed by wins by UPS workers and Hollywood writers in their labor contracts. These victories on the labor front have inspired and galvanized efforts to organize across the nation. Even the live performers at Disneyland are organizing a vote to join the Actor's Equity Association.

 

The UAW, emboldened by their victories last year, has set its sights on the South where unions have been a non-starter historically. This region of the country has opposed unions from legal, business, political, and cultural standpoints. But that has not deterred the UAW.

 

Last month the first crack in that southern wall of opposition appeared when Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tenn., voted to become the only non-Detroit automotive assembly plant to be unionized. This was the third time since 2014 that unions fought for the right to organize at that plant.

 

Also in April, the UAW reached a deal with Daimler Truck in North Carolina that averted a strike and gave workers a 25 percent increase in wages over the next four years. The agreement also included profit sharing, automatic cost-of-living increases, and equalized pay among workers at all of Daimler's North Carolina factories. Next month, the Mercedes-Benz plant in Tuscaloosa, Ala., will be voting to unionize as well.

 

Governors in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas are fighting back. They have been denouncing the UAW and its efforts. In most of these states, "right to work" laws do make it more difficult for unions to collect dues, but not impossible.

 

However, countering that pressure are the results of a Gallup Poll that indicates an overwhelming majority of Americans (7 out of 10) approve of labor unions. Another poll by the UAW last year indicated that 91 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents, and 52 percent of Republicans supported unions and their goals. And well they should, given that a study by the Center for American Progress indicated that there is a large wealth gap between workers in unions and those non-union workers across all education levels.

 

They found union workers make 10-15 percent more than their non-organized brethren. The median wealth of those in unions was $338,482 compared to $199,948 for nonunion workers. However, many other benefits accrue to union workers over time. Job security, defined benefit retirement plans, better health care, and even higher homeownership rates.

 

Unionized workers lacking a high school degree make more than three times the wealth of their nonunion peers. Those with some college education, like nurses or dental hygienists, earn 2.5 times more. Unionized teachers, college professors, journalists, and government employees also do better than their nonunionized peers.

 

While the overall number of union members is still tiny compared to the overall workforce, unions do tend to have an outsized influence on the fortunes of the workforce. Their battle for better pay and benefits has had a trickle-down effect. Their gains have been known to impact and influence the economic well-being of most U.S. workers over time.

 

Some point out that the union's success of late may have more to do with the tightness of the labor market than the prowess of unions. Companies, worried about attrition, may be more willing to negotiate rather than suffer employee departures or suffer strikes. Whatever the case, I will always be on the side of the worker and as such applaud the recent trend and hope it continues.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

It has been a month since the National Association of Realtors (NAR) was forced to scrap a system of broker fees that has been in place for a generation. A federal court still must approve the change in June or July, but if it does, it could alter the way Americans buy and sell homes for decades into the future.

 

The change was precipitated by a series of class action lawsuits from home sellers that accused Realtors and the Realtors Association of keeping agent compensation artificially high. In October 2023, a federal jury in Kansas City found the NAR and some of the largest brokers in the country guilty of colluding to inflate real estate commissions.

 

The damages of that suit were $1.78 billion, which will be paid to more than 260,000 homeowners in three states. More class action suits followed. Last month, the association settled the mounting lawsuits by agreeing to pay $418 million without admitting to any wrongdoing regarding compensation.

 

For those of us who have bought or sold a home through an agent who may have worked tirelessly in closing a deal, don't feel bad. That agent was paid handsomely for the effort. It is why there are 1,162,364 real estate sales and brokerages businesses in the U.S. This has been a great business for a long time. Until now, the home real estate market has been a tightly controlled market of fixed fees with no genuine competition.

 

Traditionally, the home seller pays a 5 percent to 6 percent commission on the sale price of the home. Typically, the seller's agent and the buyer's agent split that commission. In effect, the buyer's agent is working for the seller, which is a clear conflict of interest. Many home buyers are unaware of this fact.

 

Under NAR rules, sellers are required to advertise the buyer agent commission on the Multiple Listing Service, which is the database where real estate agents put homes for sale. There is even a specific box just for that number, but many homebuyers can't see that number, only their agents can.

 

Could an enterprising agent be tempted to focus their clients on houses with higher fee deals at the expense of lower fee homes that may be just as suitable? Raise your hand if that has happened to you. Sure, not all agents do this, but some certainly do. All this goes away if the courts approve this NAR settlement. Sellers could no longer promise a commission to buyers' agents and that little box would disappear.

 

We are talking big money here. Today, Americans pay out $100 billion in real estate commissions. The present commission structure could be reduced by between 20 percent and 50 percent if fixed fees go by the wayside, according to Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. The new agreement is expected to cut fees on the average home by $5,000 to $13,000.

 

For the 1.6 million Americans who are registered as real estate agents and for those companies that employ them, this is bad news. Commission rates would drop. Negotiated fees could be a viable alternative to fixed-rate fees. Online real estate companies that rely on partnerships with real estate agents, would also feel the heat and may pull back on their marketing efforts. Broker's commissions could fall to as low as 1 percent-1.5 percent per agent on each side, according to the Consumer Federation of America. The result, by some estimates, is that the number of real estate agents and companies could be reduced by half.

 

If the courts rule in favor of dismantling fixed commissions, existing homeowners would benefit immediately. They would no longer be faced with paying both their agent and the buyer's representative out of the sale proceeds. Sellers may get lower prices for their homes but keep more of the proceeds through reduced commissions. Buyers can save money by choosing a cut-rate broker, or none.

 

There will be a downside as well. Surviving agents and brokers might have to charge home buyers hourly rates. Sellers may have to pay higher fees to unload their homes. Agent services that are for now taken for granted could be drastically reduced. New ways of providing value will be a challenge for many brokers.

 

I know that most real estate agents bend over backward to satisfy their clients. Many provide weeks, months, and sometimes years of time, effort, and expense to move a home for you. Remember too that there is also a perk in paying the traditional fixed commission. Since the fees are baked into the higher home price, buyers can finance the fees with a mortgage.

 

Plenty of prospective home buyers may not be able to pay agents out of pocket. First-time home buyers and lower-income households, including minorities, have traditionally relied more heavily on agent services. In addition, the "let's go see what's out there" crowd will disappear once an agent begins charging for that privilege.

 

The end of fixed commissions is not rocket science. In so many industries, the practice of charging fixed fees for services is a thing of the past. In the financial services industry, for example, discount brokers and other new forms of competition effectively reduced commissions to zero. The industry did not disappear. It got bigger as participants figured out more and better ways to service their clients. Overall, economists expect the result in the real estate industry will be more homes bought and sold, and more liquidity in the real estate markets while making housing more affordable in the U.S.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.