In the 1950s, nuclear was deemed the energy of the future. Unfortunately, the world's ardor for replacing fossil fuels with clean atomic energy hit a brick wall in the 1970s. It is only recently, after decades of false hopes, that we may be entering a new age of U.S. nuclear power.

 

Today, nuclear power represents no more than 20 percent of U.S. electricity, and that may be an overstatement. The industry's brick wall occurred in March 1979 at Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pa. A partial meltdown of its Unit 2 reactor released a small amount of radioactivity.

 

I remember it well. The leak resulted from equipment malfunctions, design-related problems, and worker errors. At first, no one knew the extent of the problem. Fears that we were facing a major nuclear disaster only 75 miles from Philadelphia swept the country. Despite the initial panic, the accident had no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public. It didn't matter. It set in motion a deep and long-lasting distrust of nuclear energy among the population.

 

The public's fears seemed justified when just seven years later, the Chernobyl disaster of April 1986 in northern Ukraine created the costliest nuclear disaster in history. It is estimated that the cost was more than $700 billion and caused the evacuation of 70,000 people.

 

In the mid-2000s, there was an effort to revive the industry. A flood of proposals to restart nuclear energy in the U.S. was short-lived. A combination of the fracking boom, which brought in quantities of cheap natural gas, and yet another nuclear disaster sidetracked that effort.

 

In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami sparked a nuclear disaster in Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Three of the plant's six reactors sustained damage and released both hydrogen and radioactive materials. There were no deaths and no adverse effects among non-worker residents, but it is regarded as the worst nuclear incident since Chornobyl.

 

Construction of nuclear plants has been at a standstill in the U.S. for a generation until now aside from one huge project. The Southern Company's two new reactors in Georgia took two decades to complete and ran massively over budget.

 

What has changed? Electricity demand for one. U.S. electricity use is exploding after going nowhere for 15 years because of new factories, EVs, climate change, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

 

The AI revolution, for example, is being created on the backs of countless data centers throughout the country. Those data centers require enormous amounts of electricity. The Energy Department projects that almost 25 gigawatts of new data center electricity demand will hit the grids within the next six years. 

 

The major players in AI see the obvious choice to supply that power as the construction of new nuclear facilities. This future demand would be the equivalent of the output of roughly 29 average nuclear power plants.

 

Their idea is to place as many new AI data centers near start-up nuclear plants as possible. That way it saves companies billions of dollars in grid upgrades such as new transmission lines, rerouting power lines, etc.

 

This month, Open AI pitched a plan to the White House to build multiple, 5-gigawatt data centers across the U.S. Each would require the equivalent of five nuclear plants to fuel those centers. The Biden Administration was receptive to the idea given that it had just finished closing on a loan to resurrect the decommissioned Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan. That project will take two years to reopen.

 

Microsoft and Constellation Energy also announced a $1.6 billion power purchase deal to restart the Three Mile Island plant in 2028. And 14 of the world's largest banking institutions pledged to support tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050.

 

While all the above is commendable and maybe even doable, the facts are that nuclear energy is expensive. It is both costly to build and to operate. It doesn't have to remain that way. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, construction costs were declining rapidly. The more we built, the more we learned. Production increased and costs went down.

 

After Three Mile Island, safety became the primary objective and of paramount importance. The public demanded it and the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima reinforced those demands. As such, new and stringent rules were applied to plant construction.

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA  became far more concerned with the safety factors of the industry and much less about the economic viability of nuclear power generation. Regulations proliferated. Neither agency has any mandate to increase nuclear power generation, nor any goals based on its growth, nor do they benefit when power plants come online. The approval process now takes several years and costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

The Biden Administration is working on a plan to bring additional decommissioned nuclear power reactors back online. That is in addition to developing small modular reactors (SMRs) for certain applications and building advanced nuclear reactors.

 

The benefits of a revival of nuclear power generation are obvious. It is a scalable source of on-demand, emissions-free energy. It takes up little land, consumes a small amount of fuel, and produces little waste. It is a technology that could solve the world's need to beat back climate change and energy poverty. The question is will be willing to take the risk that future accidents in the industry are worth the benefits.

 

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. economy continues to grow, fueled by generous fiscal spending in an election year, robust corporate earnings, and a consumer willing to keep spending. The Federal Reserve Bank's loosening of monetary policy last month also promises to boost growth.

 

That dovetails with my expectations, at least in the short term. I expect economic growth will continue to show decent numbers when the third-quarter GDP data is released. At the same time, we should see additional modest progress in reducing inflation. September's CPI inflation data, however, could mark the low for this inflation cycle, in my opinion.

 

That is certainly not the consensus view. Wall Street is expecting the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates two more times this year and several more cuts next year. This week, Chairman Jerome Powell attempted to rein in some of those expectations in a speech before the National Association for Business Economics. He promised that the central bank would do whatever it takes to keep the economy in solid shape. However, he warned that markets should not automatically expect interest rate cuts at every Federal Open Market Committee meeting.

 

He said the committee will remain data-dependent and warned listeners that "this is not a committee that wants to cut rates quickly." My advice is to listen to the Fed. The risk I see is that we could see a bump in inflation beginning in the fourth quarter (probably December). I believe the Fed worries about that as well. They know that reducing interest rates is a risk, given the growth in the economy and the still-healthy wage level.

 

I have not mentioned the inflationary impact of the present stimulus efforts in China on materials and other commodities, the geopolitical risk of higher energy prices, nor the possibility of a long strike by union workers at the nation's ports on prices. The Fed, I believe, could be stuck between a rock (stubborn inflation) and a hard place ( avoiding further declines in employment).

 

At the same time, as I wrote in "My economic outlook for 2025" column last week  "I fear we could see declining economic growth — the result of the cumulative impact of the last two years of abnormally high interest rates. This lag effect will outweigh the Fed's interest rate cuts of September and maybe November. I am not predicting a recession, but only a slowdown, a "recalibration" to use the words of Fed Chairman Powell.

 

The plot thickens if you include the dollar and our national debt. A few weeks back (Aug. 29) I wrote a column "How the U.S. Can Manage Its Debt Load," in which I worried that at some point soon it would become necessary to do something about our rising debt load. Historically, the solution to that problem has always been to devalue the dollar. But we would pay the price for that action.

 

A weakening currency is inflationary. The dollar has already dropped 5 percent in as many months and currency traders expect this decline has only begun. It is, in my opinion, just a matter of time (possibly after the November elections), before the world and investors catch on that a devaluation of the dollar is a real possibility. 

 

If I am right, a combination of a declining currency, slowing growth, stubborn inflation, and the onset of easing monetary policy, would spark worries among economists and investors alike over the "S" word — stagflation. Stagflation is an economic situation where increasing inflation, rising unemployment and slower economic growth occur simultaneously. But just imagine how the market would react if inflation indicators like the CPI and PPI see upticks toward the end of the year, while jobs continue to fall.

 

It is not certain, and I know it is not conventional wisdom but that is what concerns me.  And no, I am not expecting a 1970s type of stagflation, but something much more mild.

 

I am not alone in my fears. Jame Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, is a man I respect and have followed for decades. He has been sounding the alarm over bullish economic expectations and remains highly critical of the Fed's restrictive policies, which he feels went on for far too long. As for the taming of inflation, as recently as last Friday, he said "I am a little more skeptical than other people. I give it lower odds."

 

So do I.

 

 As such, I looked at what areas do better in such an environment. Assets considered dollar equivalents like gold and silver and other precious metals do well. Some other commodities like copper outperform, as well as emerging markets and Bitcoin.

 

 In the equity arena, utilities, technology, energy, industrials, and consumer discretionary are standouts while financials, telecom, and consumer staples don't do nearly as well.

 

Investment styles such as secular growth, momentum, mid-cap stocks, low beta, and quality outperform, while small caps, dividend plays, value, and defensives underperform. Some fixed-income areas like Municipal bonds, long-dated bonds, and TIPS shine, but stay away from categories like preferred, convertible bonds, high-yield credit, and leveraged loans.

 

Predicting what the economy and inflation will do every year is difficult at best. Trying to call a change as early as December is not for the faint of heart. Right now, Wall Street is so focused on expectations of a steady stream of expected rate cuts and the outcome of the presidential elections that what happens in December seems a long, long way.

 

How long will the economy remain in this mild state of stagflation? Unless the demands of populism are somehow resolved quickly, the future economic environment might indicate more of the same.

 

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 the back of last week's half-point cut in interest rates by the Federal Reserve Bank, equities and many commodities rallied anticipating continued growth in the U.S. economy. Why, therefore, did bond prices plunge?

 

Normally, after the Federal Reserve Bank begins an interest rate-cutting cycle, bond prices rally, and yields fall. But not this time. Economists were scratching their heads all week looking for answers. The explanation is straightforward.

 

For weeks before the meeting, many traders were betting that the Fed would be too slow to cut interest rates. And when and if they did it would be a small cut. That delay increased the probability that the economy would dip into recession quite soon. As such, investors bought bonds, the go-to safety trade in anticipation of a hard landing. That had sent bond yields down dramatically.

 

The Fed's larger-than-expected 50 basis point cut surprised traders and reversed that trade. Suddenly, the possibility of a softer landing for the economy has been vastly improved, especially after the Fed clarified that it was ready to match that cut in November if necessary. Buy equities and sell bonds was the new order of the day.

 

Chairman Jerome Powell acknowledged that the Fed's focus has shifted from the inflation numbers to the health of the labor market and the economy. He went to great pains to convince market participants in his Q&A session after the meeting that the economy was still strong, the inflation battle was all but over, and just about everyone was going to live happily ever after.

 

That may be so, but I have a different take on the Fed's actions. We are in an election year. Workers are voters and losing your job can sour one's outlook when deciding which lever to pull in November. Those in government are keenly aware of this. If given a choice between employment or inflation, what would you choose if you were the Fed?

 

The market's reaction to the news is understandable but remember it will be at least two years before the impact of this week's interest rate cut has an impact on the overall economy. Sure, some areas might see a boost sooner but not much. In the meantime, what happens to the economy?

 

The equity market and most advisors will tell you it is up, up, and away. And they are right, at least in the short term. I expect economic growth to continue to show decent numbers and would not be surprised to see a better-than-expected growth rate for the third quarter of this year. I also expect to see additional modest progress in reducing inflation. September and October's inflation numbers, I believe will show a  cooler Consumer Price Index, Producer Price Index, and the Fed's favored index, the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index. That should bolster the Fed's confidence that they have inflation licked.

 

By December, however, I am concerned that things may change. I fear we could see declining economic growth. It will be the result of the cumulative impact of the last two years of abnormally high interest rates.  This lag effect will outweigh the interest rate cuts of September and maybe November.

 

I am not predicting a recession, but only a slowdown, a "recalibration" to use the words of Fed Chairman Powell. Wall Street's interpretation of the Fed's new recalibration policy amounts to lowering interest rates quickly (faster for shorter). If so, it will lessen the blow to growth and ease us into a soft landing. But a soft landing would still be a period of slower growth.

 

At the same time, while the rate of inflation is falling, inflation is still rising, just at a lower and slower rate. And in the background, while inflation still lingers, we have an enormous budget deficit and rising debt load that is now taking more than $1 trillion a year to service. If we add on the stated intentions of both presidential candidates to increase spending by many trillions of dollars over the next four years, we have the makings of both a rekindling of inflation and a coming debt crisis.

 

Next week, we will examine what this could mean for the economy, inflation, the dollar, and the stock market.

 

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.

Consumers have been bludgeoned for years by higher prices. In this era of inflation, discounts disappeared as prices of everyday items climbed higher and higher each year. It has been a long time, but value is finally returning in various consumer areas.

 

This summer could be called the season of markdowns as corporations across America have become concerned that price-sensitive consumers have been trading down to cheaper goods and services. Many companies have seen sales decline as discount stores and labels have taken market share.

 

While the Federal Reserve Bank and the Biden administration applaud the progress made on inflation, the truth for the consumer on Main Street is that inflation is still rising. Sure, the headline inflation rate has been falling, but inflation itself is rising just, at a slower rate.

 

After several years of benefiting what airlines called "revenge travel," consumers are balking at astronomic ticket prices for domestic travel. Airlines have reversed course dramatically which has triggered a race to the bottom on domestic ticket prices. Some readers may already know that some big retail chains have been hawking lower prices for several weeks.

 

Even the discounters are discounting prices. Walmart has cut prices on 7,200 products to compete with rivals. Big Lots, after a hit to sales in June, intends to "significantly grow" its close-out bargain business. Retailers like Ikea, Aldi, Walgreens, and Target have also announced price cuts.

 

Auto dealers, after years of jacking up prices for new vehicles, are suddenly seeing empty showrooms and stagnant sales. In July, discounts started popping up around the country and according to Kelley Blue Book, an average of $3,383 per vehicle was lopped off prices. That was the highest level of discounts in three years.

 

Fast-food restaurants, long the haven of low-priced fare, have had some of the sharpest price hikes since the pandemic. They had risen so much that even die-hard fans of places like McDonalds abandoned their burger for food at home. McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, and Starbucks to name a few, have since rolled out what they call "value meals" with great fanfare.

 

Eating at home, however, has not escaped the price crunch. Food prepared at home still saves you money with prices growing at  1.1 percent per year versus dining out at 4.1 percent annually. Yearly food inflation overall has fallen somewhat from a recent high in August 2022 to 2.2 percent in July 2024.

 

The most recent Consumer Price Index showed that the cost of food at home is up 26.9 percent over the last five years and almost 30 percent over the most recent four-year basis. The bottom line: the price level of groceries in aggregate is the highest on record. Sure, some prices are coming down, while others are still climbing.

 

In a sense, it pays to eat healthier today. Items such as apples, frozen fruits and vegetables, potatoes, rice, and pasta have seen price declines while prices for bacon, pork chops, hot dogs, juices and drinks, eggs, and butter are still rising.

 

I can tell you that after years of price increases in my local supermarkets, I automatically select store brands over name brands in most items because they are cheaper. I also have changed my habit of just shopping at one market. Instead, I frequent whatever grocery store offers the best weekly prices for protein, produce, etc.

 

Do I think price controls on food prices would work as some have suggested? Not really. Few realize that most states already have laws to restrict price gouging. They have been instituted for short times with success in times of emergencies such as floods, and other climate-related events, and even in the pandemic in some cases.

 

If inflation continues to fall as economists predict, even the most price-gouging of companies will have to relent and drop prices or lose market share to others. In the end, it is the customer and not the government who will dictate prices, and most consumers are fed up with paying for everything.

 

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 fertility rate in the United States has fallen by 3 percent since 2022. That is a historic low and marks the second yearly decline in a row. How will that impact the economy?

 

In the simplest terms, if you have lower population growth then you will have fewer people producing goods and services. That will result in slower economic growth. But it is not the only impact. A shrinking workforce will also mean there are fewer people paying taxes.

 

In a country like ours that has seen decades of increased spending and higher debt, the question becomes who will pay this growing obligation.

 

As our deficits expand at an increasing rate, while the birth rate continues to decline there will be fewer and fewer people to pay off the nation's debt burden. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the total amount of debt that a baby born in 2007 assumes was $30,500. That figure almost doubled to more than $59,000 just 13 years later.

 

From 2014 to 2020, the birth rate consistently declined by 2 percent per annum, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Last year the birth rate in the U.S. reached a record low. Just 3,591,328 babies were born, which indicates that the birthrate has now fallen below the replacement level needed for one generation to replace itself. This was not supposed to happen.

 

Experts in the field will tell you that the COVID-19 pandemic was supposed to jump-start an increase in the American birth rate. The argument was that the lockdowns were forcing couples to spend a lot more time together indoors. That would lead to many a romantic evening and an increase in babies nine months later. The exact opposite happened.

 

The year 2020 hit a record low in the fertility rate at 1.6, the sixth straight year with a decline in the number of births. The facts are that ever since the Financial Crisis of 2008, births have been declining.

 

Experts point to a variety of reasons for this trend. Changing social norms, demographics, immigration policies, and a decline in teenage pregnancies are some of the most important reasons. Chief among them is that  Americans are delaying, or foregoing marriage entirely. And if they do tie the knot, women are marrying later in life. As a result, couples are having fewer children compared to prior generations. 

 

The Pew Research Center, in tracking birth trends in the U.S., found that some groups were no longer making babies as fast as they used to. Historically, fertility among Hispanics far exceeded that of other groups. However, that is no longer the case. Researchers believe a drop-off in immigration from Mexico has reduced the birth rate among Hispanics to levels more in line with the national average. 

 

Teenage births have also plummeted. The number of births has dropped in half from 10 years ago in this age group. Why? The Pew Research Center cites a greater awareness and use of effective contraceptives, as well as an increase in the number of teenagers who report never having had sex.

 

Lower birth rates are not all bad, especially at the state level. Many school districts are experiencing declines in enrollment. The decline in teenage pregnancies has helped offset some of the rises in health-care expenditures as well. Fewer people will also mean less pressure on infrastructure as well.

 

Whether or not those benefits will offset the declines in income, sales, and other tax revenues will depend on the state. Western states are experiencing the worst declines. Decreasing birth rates in Arizona and Utah, for example, are double that of the 50-state average.

 

Migration trends and a state's tax structure will also be important in mitigating the impact of slowing birth rates. States that are recipients of an influx of new residents from other states or abroad are better positioned to weather the storm. It should come as no surprise that the Northeast has lower fertility rates and more residents migrating elsewhere.

 

It also depends on where each state derives its revenues. Those most dependent on individual income taxes face greater risks than those who generate substantial income from other sources such as extraction of natural resources or corporate income taxes. States such as Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington which rely heavily on sales taxes, will likely need to change course in how they generate revenues.

 

In addition to these threats to future revenue declines, states will need to worry about their access to federal funding. Many of the largest federal programs allocate money according to formulas that include a state's headcount. Those states that show greater declines in birth rates may see their funding reduced at a greater rate than in other states.

 

In any case, the impact of low fertility rates won't be felt for several decades when today's children reach an age where they will be spending more and paying significant income taxes. But many nations in Europe and Asia in a similar situation are not waiting for that to occur. They have already developed policies to encourage more babies, while in this country the focus has been more on individual choice and freedom. 

 

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.