If you still think that fundamental variables such as earnings results, price/earnings ratios, and future sales prospects determine where the equity markets are going, you are living in Lala land. Today, the flows into the options markets determine the future direction of stocks and indexes. At the pinnacle of this market trend lies the zero-date option.

 

But before we get into that subject, I think an option primer is in order.  For those who don't know, options give traders the right to buy or sell a particular stock or index at a specific price by a stated date. Leverage is involved, since one contract allows you to control 100 shares of a stock at a fraction of the price one would normally need to buy a similar number of shares. Instead of committing $13,500 to buy 100 shares of Alphabet, for example, the buyer of the option can control the gains (or losses) of that block of stock for a few hundred dollars. But you don't get to keep this option contract forever. The length of time a contract is in force varies. Some contracts go out for several years, but the more common options are in terms of months, weeks, and now, days.

 

The longer the contract, the more one pays. This premium is in addition to the price of risk or volatility the seller demands, granting you the contract since some stocks and indexes are riskier than others. In the old days, if I placed a bullish bet on the price of a stock that I expected would go up in price over the next few months, I could make several times my money. If on the other hand, the stock went down or simply did nothing, I would lose all my investment. In short, I am betting the price goes up (a call contract) or a bet that the stock will decline (a put contract).

 

Over the last 50 years, options trading has grown in influence until today it rivals the stock market in importance. Some say options have become the tail that wags the dog. While the popularity of options has increased, the trend toward shortening the length of time of option contracts has also grown. But it wasn't until COVID-19 that traders’ appetites for taking large risks came to the forefront. The sharp decline of the stock market over a short period during the initial phase of the pandemic set the stage. The government's response, which triggered a huge spike upward in financial markets, brought in an entirely new generation of market participants.

 

An influx of retail, stay-at-home traders sparked a desire for big risks and big returns. It was the era of meme stocks, of supply chain shocks, inflation, Fed interest rate increases, and AI. Over the last three years, all of these developments made trading 'events' such as macroeconomic data or Fed meetings a popular blood sport. Enter the idea of ODTE. 

 

ODTE is an acronym for zero-days-to-expiration options. Professional proprietary traders that normally hold billions of dollars in equities needed to hedge their risk around one day economic events such as a data release or monetary policy meeting. Traders used ODTE options to protect their stock positions against adverse moves in the overall markets.

 

An announcement by the Fed to hike interest rates could send the stock market down 2 percent in one day. A bad inflation number could do the same thing. This week's date release of the Consumer Price Index on Tuesday, the Producer Price Index, and the Fed's FOMC meeting on Wednesday would be examples of these one-off events.

 

Over time, that strategy worked so well that more and more traders decided that what worked for one-day events could work every day for everything from stocks to bonds to indexes and even commodities. Institutional investors, including hedge funds and asset managers, moved into certain indexes like the SPX (S&P 500 Index futures). As a result, ODTE accounted for more than 43 percent of SPX's daily volume in the first half of the year, according to the CBOE. After the FOMC meeting on Wednesday, for example, $3 trillion worth of the SPX traded in a few hours.

 

It didn't take long before retail traders followed the big boys into this ODTE arena. As a result, by the end of October 2023, the market share of option contracts expiring in less than five days was 59 percent, according to SpotGamma, which monitors and publishes metrics of the options market.

Buy-and-hold strategies, despite their long-term track record of success, have become passé among many millennials. Betting on whether the price of a stock will go up or down before the close of each day has nothing to do with investing. It creates an atmosphere where all stocks become meme stocks. It is the reason why some companies that announce dismal earnings in the morning and drop 15 percent at the open can be up by 5 percent by the end of the day.

 

Some critics claim that ODTE options cause needless volatility in the markets and among stocks. Overall, if daily volumes are evenly balanced between those who are buying and those who are selling these options then the impact on the overall market is somewhat benign. It is when everyone decides to move to one side of the boat at one time that problems could occur. JP Morgan earlier this year argued that under certain circumstances ODTE options could turn a 5 percent intraday market decline into a 25 percent rout.

 

Regardless of the risks, more and more brokers are jumping into this market attracted by the order flow and fees it offers. As such, it appears that the chances of volatility accidents should rise over time. One thing is for sure, the days when one could feel confident that investing in quality companies would be reflected in the price of their stocks is disappearing. 

 

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.

Beyond food, fuel, and maybe used car prices there are not a lot of areas where I see any relief on the inflation front. This is especially true when looking at leisure and entertainment activities.

 

As younger generations focus their spending habits on experiences rather than objects, tickets for live entertainment, sporting events, and movies are climbing. The Bureau of Economic Analysis is predicting that American consumers will spend a whopping $95 billion on live event tickets this year.

 

If you grew up as a fan of live concerts you are probably in sticker shock. An average ticket price for a live concert this summer stood at $120.11, according to Pollstar. That is a 7 percent increase compared to 2022, and 27 percent higher than in 2019. However, that doesn't account for the steep price increases to see the most popular entertainers.

 

Just last week my brother-in-law, Ron, posted this on Facebook: "Insanity! Stadium concerts for the Stones. Presale tickets in upper level, over $350!" Taylor Swift commanded an average face value ticket price of $254. An Eagles ticket averaged $239, while the "Boss" fetched $226 a ticket on average. Of course, those were prices if you were lucky enough to buy them directly and not in the resale market. Swift resales averaged $1,095, while Beyonce tickets were going for $380.

 

Visits to theme parks have also increased. If you took your family to one of Disney's themes parks this year you know how expensive that five-day vacation has become. On average, it costs a family of four $6,300 or more, and those prices are continually increasing.

 

The company is doing its best to get more money out of visitors by offering extras like features that allow paying guests to skip some lines. Other less obvious increases involve the higher prices of souvenirs, food, and parking.

 

Besides, these costs, there are also peripheral costs like higher prices for airline tickets, hotel rooms, and gas (if you are driving). Scott, a friend and colleague of mine, has taken his wife and daughter to Disney in Florida several times. Here is his take: "It depends how fancy you want to get. For the three of us, including flights, it can be $5,000 to $8,000."

 

I am not picking on Disney. Consumers who visited other theme parks, and even campgrounds, have had to shell out about 3.4 percent more this year than last, and more than 6 percent since 2019.

 

But price gouging seems rampant in other areas as well. As the holidays approach, retailers, big and small, both national and local are using the "experience" to up prices. Take live trees for example. Smelling that pine in your living room while you unwrap presents will cost you more again this year. Canadian wildfires and "labor costs" are the excuses given.

 

In Boston, for example, a 7-foot balsam is going for $170, while a Fraser fir of the same height is fetching $220. Of course, if you would like an 8-foot balsam fir delivered to your doorstep there are a couple of places on the internet that will charge you a mere $325-plus.

 

If you haven't noticed how crazy holiday prices have risen, just take a stroll around your local holiday gift fair. On my excursion, I was offered the chance to buy wooden cutting boards starting at $175 apiece. Locally made cheese could be had for $12 a slice and a one-ounce vial of herb-infused salt for $12. If that did not appeal to you there were always bars of scented soap for $33 each.

 

And while most of us complain about prices, we continue to pay for our experiences and luxuries. Of course, everyone experiences inflation differently. Your rate of inflation depends on where you live and what you buy. Lower-income Americans, for example, suffer the most from rampant price rises. They spend more of their income on necessities. For those who are barely making ends meet, the experience of rock concerts and excursions to Disney or Three Flags is not even contemplated. For them, about the best experience they could have is putting food on the table or having enough gas money to get to work.  

 

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.

On Thursday of this week, almost 200 nations are meeting in Dubai at the COP28 Climate Summit to discuss global warming. The COP28 the participants will focus on how to keep temperatures from climbing any higher. Thus far, the track record is less than encouraging.

 

Over the last eight years, despite pledges from both political and business leaders worldwide to reduce industrial emissions, temperatures have continued to rise. This is in the face of massive efforts both here and abroad to develop and expand solar, wind, and nuclear power alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

Despite these efforts, carbon dioxide emissions and temperatures continue to rise. With that background, the climate summit will be focusing on how to keep their stated goal of keeping world temperature gains below their 1.5-degree Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) target.

 

That number, established at the 2009 Copenhagen summit, was officially set as a temperature ceiling goal a year later by the United Nations.

 

In 2015, at the Paris Agreement, 195 countries agreed to hold temperatures below 2 degrees Centigrade, specifically to stay within that 1.5 centigrade level. The 1.5C level is akin to a speed limit for rising temperatures worldwide. Going above that level, scientists believe, would make some impacts of climate change irreversible.

 

It was not an arbitrary data point. Climate scientists arrived at the number by comparing the average global surface temperatures today with those that occurred in the late 1800s before industrialization. The difference between now and then is approximately 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit).

 

The bad news, according to Copernicus, a European climate service, is that we have already surpassed the 1.5-degree speed limit on at least 127 days this year. That may seem a tiny number to you and me, but when it is added to an overheated planet overall, the impact can be huge. As a result, it is almost a certainty that 2023 will be the hottest year on record.

 

Floods, heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires — take your pick — we all experienced the changes. Some more than others. 

 

More subtle changes are occurring as well like the change in farmers' growing seasons throughout the world. Fortunately, the ocean, which makes up 70 percent of the earth's surface, absorbed more than 90 percent of the excess heat (and 30 percent of excess carbon dioxide). However, even the oceans are succumbing to the extra heat. Coral reefs are bleaching and crumbling, the polar ice and snow caps are rapidly shrinking and so is marine life.

 

Here in the U.S., the heat is causing accelerated climate change. It is also creating more and more extreme weather events, according to the latest Federal National Climate Assessment. The cost of extreme weather events is at least $150 billion per year in direct damage alone. That total is projected to increase over the near term.  In addition, billion-dollar events are occurring at a far more rapid clip than they did in decades past, according to the report.

 

Today a billion-dollar disaster is occurring every three weeks, as compared to one every four months back in 1980.

 

Unless something changes, the 1.5C threshold will be broken permanently by the early 2030s, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That would create much worse climate effects and make 2023's weather issues look like child's play in comparison.

 

Do I think something radical will change during the COP28 this week? No, I don't. Both President Biden and Vice President Harris are not even attending. That is not to say that America is doing nothing. The president has allocated $6 billion to strengthen the electric grid, help deploy carbon-free energy, protect communities from the impacts of climate change, and improve water reliability. But given the dangers, the U.S. and other industrialized countries need to do more, a lot more.

 

Work on reducing emissions is so slow that additional greenhouse warming is almost a guarantee. The world's efforts to roll back climate change have been incremental when was is needed is a transformative approach. Redesigning the way buildings are built, rather than installing air conditioning, halting, rather than slowing, new development in floodplains, the kind and number of cars we drive, how we cool and heat our homes, and how business conducts business from the ground up.

 

Am I preaching to the choir? I don't think so. We are all sitting on our hands, complaining about the weather, the tick seasons, and the ice storms and doing little to nothing about the cause. Well, unless you plan to vacate this planet in the next seven or so years, our time of reckoning fast approaches. By then it will be too late.

 

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.

Baby Boomers are aging. As their health fails, an increasing number of the elderly are turning away from nursing homes and opting for home health care instead. The problem is finding enough trained caregivers to handle demand.

 

The demographics in the U.S. indicate two trends — an aging population as well as a declining birth rate. By 2034, there will be more adults over the age of 65 than children under the age of 18. Between 2018 and 2060, the population of seniors will double.

 

An overwhelming majority of Americans (88 percent) would rather receive long-term care services in their homes as they age, according to a recent study by the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs. Being cared for at home instead of in a clinical setting has many benefits according to studies. Daily routines in housekeeping, mealtimes, and things like prescription reminders seem to alleviate feelings of isolation and alleviate stress and depression while helping to improve memory and physical stability and fostering a sense of independence. And it is not just the elderly, individuals recovering from short-term surgery, rehab, or chronic illnesses prefer to recover at home as well.

 

About 12 million Americans are receiving some kind of home-care services at any given time and that number is increasing. There are 45 million seniors, based on Medicare statistics, of which 15 million will end up in the hospital every year. Of those, more than 3 million suffer from five or more chronic conditions and will be hospitalized several times a year. That is why home care is one of the fastest-growing segments of the health-care sector. 

 

The median costs of in-home care are different depending upon the state, but a survey by Genworth Financial believes the national average is approximately $4,000 per month. Private insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid foot some or most of that bill depending on the individual's circumstances.

 

The total home-care market was valued at $301.09 billion in 2021. It is expected to top $813.17 billion in the next five years. That is a compound annual growth rate of 15.25 percent. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the demand for home health care and personal care aides is expected to rise by 34 percent from 2019 to 2029, which would surpass the average growth rate of all other occupations. Last year, home care spending hit a historical high of $113.5 billion.

 

Unlike trends in other segments of health care that have seen high levels of corporate concentration, the home care industry is made up of more than 33,200 small businesses as of 2022. In total, there are an estimated 3.4 million home care workers providing health care support to older adults with disabilities in the U.S. Overall, roughly 78 percent of providers employ fewer than 50 workers. The facts are that there is a growing gap between the number of home care workers and patients. This is nothing new. Between 2013 and 2019, the number of available home care workers for every 100 patients has fallen by nearly 12 percent. The gap has widened since then. Some recent studies indicate that as many as 25 percent of referred patients have been turned away from home healthcare providers due to a lack of workers.

 

The physical, mental, and emotional stress required to care for these individuals is often overwhelming. It is not an easy job. More than half of these current home care workers have no formal education beyond a high school degree. Many are immigrants from various ethnic, economic, and cultural backgrounds.

 

Nationally, home health-care workers are paid an average of about $13.50 per hour. In some states such as Louisiana, West Virginia, Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma, workers make less than $12 an hour. Almost 43 percent of workers' income is below the poverty level. In addition to the low pay, poor communication, lack of recognition and challenging work hours conspire to discourage workers from continuing in this field. In 2022, the professional caregiver turnover rate was more than 77 percent.

 

But before we pin the blame on unscrupulous home care agencies, recognize that these companies face enormous challenges in financial, operational, and clinical areas. Providing health-care services is extremely complicated, beset by logistical challenges, system inefficiencies, complex payment systems, and lack of care coordination. Private insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, differing reimbursement policies, eligibility, and all sorts of differing care requirements must be included in the mix.

 

It is an industry that is difficult to apply economies of scale because no two agencies address these problems in the same way. Usually, the owners as well as their employees, are overrun with existing duties, and as such expanding is just not worth considering. Paying higher wages might increase the supply of workers, but training them to understand, communicate, and deliver quality services to an expanding patient base is just as important.

 

If ever there was an industry in need of data-driven technology, it is this one. The industry could benefit greatly from communication tools, such as data access and secure data information exchange. If workers were able to access easy-to-use technology that could connect them to experts while on the job, both the stress levels and the probability of making medical mistakes would be lessened considerably. Software that could improve care delivery, while reducing paperwork, as technology has done in countless other areas, is just begging to be developed and introduced to an important area looking for solutions. 

 

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 U.S. government has been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul for decades. That should come as no surprise to most, but the speed by which we are piling up debt to support our spending has become alarming.

 

The federal budget deficit is the difference between how much Washington spends and how much it receives in taxes. That concept should be familiar to all of us who count on our income to support our family's spending. Imagine if the amount you owed (your deficit) doubled from last year.

 

That is what happened to the nation's budget deficit over the last year, to the tune of $1.7 trillion.

 

If you look at the big picture, the U.S. total federal debt topped $33 trillion this year. That amounts to 121 percent of 2022's GDP. Usually, the U.S. deficit expands during hard times for the economy since tax receipts fall. The opposite occurs when the economy grows. However, that relationship has come apart.

 

The U.S. economy has been growing since the pandemic and yet tax receipts continue to fall. Much of the blame for this situation can be laid at the doorstep of various administrations and Congress. Tax cuts by George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and more recently Donald Trump have reduced the amount of taxes coming into the government's coffers.

 

In typical political fashion, the present White House under President Biden has pinned the blame for lower tax revenues on the former president. Trump indeed left the country in far worse shape than his predecessors. His more than generous corporate tax cuts failed to jump-start the economy. Instead of investing in capital formation, corporations used those savings to increase dividends and stock buybacks.

 

Federal spending now accounts for 25 percent of GDP. In defense of government spending, you might say the last few years have been unusual and you would be right. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a huge spending program to save the economy and voters. In addition, the need to do something about the country's deteriorating infrastructure was finally addressed after years of inaction. Since then, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the terrorist attack in Israel have added even more pressure to increase spending.

 

But the really big programs that have consumed so much of the government's spending commitments are Social Security and Medicare, which account for almost half of U.S. spending. As more Americans retire, the costs of these programs will continue to escalate. As such, deficits without tax increases are expected to climb.

 

Back in 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the fiscal deficit would average 1.8 percent of the economy in the ensuing decade. This past May, in the CBO's latest projections, that number has increased to 6.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Altogether, federal spending will account for almost 25 percent of the U.S. GDP over the next decade while tax receipts will account for 18 percent of GDP. If we continue this trend, Penn Wharton School researchers predict that the U.S. could default on its debt as soon as 20 years.

 

Up until now, the financial markets have largely ignored the deficit, and the endless debates and false promises by legislatures who talk a good game but simply move the deck chairs around on a sinking ship once they are in power. The bond market, however, is beginning to take notice.

 

As the nation's borrowing grows larger to finance a growing deficit, bond vigilantes are taking matters into their own hands. They are selling U.S. government bonds, which is pushing yields higher and higher on government debt. It is the private sector's response to Washington's profligate spending and irresponsible deficits. The result is that the credit markets are shifting long-term interest rates higher making it more and more expensive for Washington to continue spending and borrowing.

 

The government is now facing the reality of spending much more in interest payments on our ballooning debt than ever before. In the current fiscal year interest spending should surpass $800 billion, which is more than double 2021's $325 billion number.

 

By 2026 net interest expense should reach 3.3 percent of GDP. That would be the highest on record. If interest rates remain where they are, and fiscal policy continues its spending path. If unchecked, the cost of servicing this debt could be larger than defense spending by 2025, and top Medicare spending by 2026. 

 

I believe the present push by Republicans in Congress to cut spending is both necessary and urgent. It will be painful. It should also be accompanied by tax increases across the board, but that may be too much to ask for given elections next year, but one can always hope.

 

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.