If you were watching television this Thursday, you may have caught the launching of a low-orbit Spanish government-commissioned satellite launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The difference between today and 25 years ago is that it was a private company called Space X, rather than NASA, that made it happen.

 

For old guys like me, space exploration was a big deal while growing up. Americans my age cheered and cried as the U.S. raced for space from the tragic death of the crew of Apollo One in 1967, to the first moon walk in 1969 (and no, I don't mean Michael Jackson). The work day would be put on pause as everyone watched the latest rocket launch from Cape Canaveral.  If the launch was on the weekend, the family would gather around the television to applaud our latest leap into space.

 

But America's interest and commitment to space waned as the years went by. The space shuttle program was expensive and the government had other wars to fight. Building new space craft required lots of new technology with no guarantee of success. And there was a limited pool of people that had the expertise in space flight operations and even less who were capable of space flight operations.

 

Yet, there were some among us, call them entrepreneurs, visionaries or just good businessmen, that still believed in space. But in addition, they believed that there were economic possibilities in pursuing space. People like Elon Musk (the electric car guy) who was willing to go where others feared to tread. A flood of new private money began to flow into private space projects. Rather than construct the behemoth rockets and huge space ports of yesteryear, today companies such as the Musk-owned Space X make do with a few trailers and super-thin rockets topped by large payload capacities.

 

In a new approach to cost savings, rocket parts are designed to be reusable (like the old space shuttles). Space X, for example, tries to save the first stage of its rockets.  New technologies also allow for many of these modern rockets to land once their mission is over, which saves even more money.

 

Thursday's successful launch, for example, is the second time Falcon 9 is being used for space duty.  It is the same rocket that was launched in 2016 on a cargo resupply mission for NASA. Its payload this time is a satellite for the Spanish government.

 

Space X is reported to be charging $60 million for the service, plus launching costs. There have been other cargos that commanded even more (upwards of $160 million), depending upon the amount of cargo involved. The cost to make the Falcon 9 was roughly $60 million, plus $200,000 to fuel it.

 

These private efforts were spurred on last year by a series of actions by the federal government and a president who has long harbored a soft spot in his heart for space. The difference this time around is that President Trump, while rededicating the U.S. to the exploration and utilization of the moon, Mars, and space in general, will rely on private companies to achieve that goal. He wants to make the U.S. "the most attractive jurisdiction in the world for private-sector investment and innovation in outer space."

 

Space exploration is a goal that all of us can get excited about, something that could pull us together again and provide an enormous pay-off in ways we cannot even begin to imagine. I don't care how we get there, just as long as we do.  As one of my heroes once said "to infinity and beyond" – let's do it! 

 

Over the last few weeks, the threat of rising inflation has triggered a great deal of concern among investors. Given that inflation has been at a low level for a number of years, their concern may be justified.

 

Many market pundits were surprised by the wage data in the non-farm payroll report for December, which was released two weeks ago, Friday. In that report, wages jumped far more than most expected coming in at a 2.9 percent annualized growth rate.

 

Given that our central bank monitors wages as one of their key indicators to gauge future inflation, that number sent the bond and stock markets into a tizzy. Again this week, investors received another inflationary surprise when the most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) jumped 0.5 percent in January. The gains were broad-based in everything from energy to apparel.

 

This news was not taken too well in the bond market where the U.S. 10-year Treasury bond rose to above 2.9 percent, the highest level it has been in several years. Many economists believe that a further rise to 3 percent is inevitable. Yet, none of these numbers spell doom for the economy or even the stock market. From a historical perspective, both inflation and interest rates are still at incredibly low levels. But the markets tend to look ahead.

 

What, they ask, will the rate of inflation be by the end of this year or next year? Here, things get a bit dicey. You see these recent inflation numbers do not reflect the impact of the $1.5 trillion tax cut, nor the increase in the nation's deficit. Neither do they include this week's presidential announcement that an infrastructure package worth another $1 trillion is in the works.

 

If you add all of this spending up, in addition to an economy that is already growing at 3 percent while unemployment is at rock bottom levels, there is a danger that the economy might overheat. If this were to occur, the Fed would be forced to raise interest rates sharply. That would be bad news for stock and bond holders.

 

However, in a scenario where inflation expectations are rising, commodities do quite well, at least for a year or so before the Fed takes away the punch bowl by raising rates. When most investors fear inflation, they buy gold as a hedge. It has worked well through past cycles.

 

Looking at the price of gold over the past decade or so, gold's up cycle began back in 2002. It peaked in 2011 when the price per ounce touched $2,000. Since then, it has fallen by almost half, finally bottoming out in 2013 at around $1,200 an ounce. It has gradually creeped higher (by about $200 per ounce) in fits and starts until now. For the last year or so it has been in a trading range of $1,310-$1,370.

 

While we won't know whether those predicting higher inflation will prove to be correct, it might be a good idea to at least hedge your portfolio. A little gold exposure, via a precious metal fund, commodity fund, or a combination of the two, might not be a bad idea. Since

commodities are speculative, provide no interest or dividends, and are much more volatile than either stocks or bonds, buyers should beware. If you decide to hedge against inflation, I would limit exposure to no more than 2-5 percent of any portfolio.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

The stock market is in turmoil. Several hundred point swings in the Dow and other averages has investors on edge. The indexes are suffering 1-2 percent point swings per day. How are you dealing with it?

 

Over the last several months, I have written several columns preparing you for this day. I thought it might be useful to give readers a refresher course on coping. Here are some useful tips on avoiding that worst of all reactions—selling on the lows.

 

Number one: do not check your portfolio. The more often you do, the greater the probability that you will panic and sell. Every time you check your investments in a freefall decline like this one, you will feel terrible. The only way you can stop the pain (you will say to yourself) is to sell. Don't do it.

 

You see, we humans are really not built for investing. Our primal instinct when we face danger is to run. That fear and flee response has been saving our butts ever since the first sabre-tooth tiger chased us out of our caves. But putting some distance between you and that predator doesn't work very well when it comes to investing.

 

We are more comfortable thinking in the short term. No never mind that stocks may come back next month or next quarter, most of us can't take our eyes or our minds off what happened today and what may happen tomorrow. How many of you remember the back-to-back declines we had in the first quarter of 2016? Not many, I would wager.

 

For some, this is an opportunity. Given that many of us receive bonuses in the first quarter of the year, we may have some cash sitting on the sidelines. This is the kind of opportunity that most investors hope for. Baron Rothschild once said "buy when the blood is running in the streets." Now is your chance to put that money to work. Buy a little on every down draft and be patient.

 

But doing that takes courage and willpower. You have to fight that instinct to simply husband that cash and "wait until the market recovers," but by then it will be too late. Do it now when panicky traders are giving away stocks at great prices. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the markets or the economy. We are simply experiencing a long-overdue correction in stock prices.

 

But the markets have never experienced these kinds of declines, you might say. The headlines may scream "1,000 point drop on the Dow" but they fail to remind us that the Dow has gained much more than that over the last year. By the time the dust clears, we will have discovered that the total percentage loss of the main equity indexes will be no more or less than what we normally see in corrections.

 

As I have written many, many times before: this too shall pass. You trusted me then, so I am asking you to trust me now. You won't be sorry you did.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $200 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Earlier this week, three of the country's most influential corporate titans sounded a call to battle. Given the inaction of our government, these modern-day musketeers are preparing to storm the battlements of sky-rocketing health care costs.

 

Jeff Bezos of Amazon may not have the swash-buckling prowess of Athos, nor does JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon compare in physical strength to Porthos. And granted, Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway would be a stretch in playing Aramis, but make no mistake, they do bring a combination of strengths that could revolutionize what I believe is the single greatest threat to our nation's economy.

 

Back in May of last year, I wrote a column bemoaning the fact that while our politicians continue to bicker over the symptoms — health care insurance — they lack the courage and expertise to address the cause —rising health care costs.

 

Back when I wrote that "Mr. Buffet, a Democrat, in his recent shareholder meeting, took time to address what he called the real problem for American business, and it wasn't taxes. The cost of health care, he maintained, now represents about 17 percent of this country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That's up from just 5 percent of GDP fifty years ago." 

 

I also pointed out that other corporate giants, such as Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, had echoed Buffet's warnings in a TED Talk presentation as well. At the time, I believed my column had fallen on deaf ears, but lo and behold, here are these three champions announcing (in a deliberately vague press release) a partnership to address that very issue. 

 

The companies said they will develop ways to improve the health of their employees, with the goal of improving customer satisfaction and reducing costs. The statement said that "they were going to bring their expertise to bear in a long-term effort through an independent company that is free from profit-making incentives and constraints."

 

While Warren Buffet is revered for his investment prowess, he also knows quite a bit about insurance, since his Berkshire Hathaway owns Geico Insurance among other financial subsidiaries. Clearly managing health insurance is a large part of the cost of health care. Then there is Jamie Dimon, the chairman of one of the largest banking goliaths in the world. He has a legendary knowledge of the financial and payment systems. He understands the role of middle-men (of which the health care system abounds). He is also an advocate of more, not less, competition. Jeff Bezos of Amazon provides a proven ability to bring health care into the age of the internet and beyond.

 

Other business owners have tried in the past to tackle this problem, or have beseeched government to solve the problem. But this is the first time that three modern-day, Queen's Guards have drawn swords. They will be personally ramrodding this effort.

 

Some discount the effort as mere publicity or simply unimportant since the three will be focusing on building a better system for their own employees and not the nation. Altogether, the three companies have one million workers, a good sample to work with. However, in my opinion, if they are successful, the business community would jump at the chance to mimic a system that lowered costs and improved benefits.

 

How serious is this effort? If the stock market is any indication, readers should pay attention. The entire health care sector in the stock market swooned on this announcement. The sector lost $74.5 billion in value in one day simply at the thought that there could be a better way to tackle this problem.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $200 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

We humans have been using wool for thousands of years. It was the primary clothing material of the middle ages. But even today, new uses for wool are cropping up, driving prices to record highs.

 

The primary use for wool continues to be in clothing production. The newest demand for this natural material is coming from sport's companies such Nike, Puma and Adidas that are weaving it into sneakers. It appears that a new generation of consumers prefer natural over synthetic fibers. They want to know where their products come from and where they are going.

 

Even old codgers like me are not immune to this trend. Six months ago, I purchased my first pair of wool shoes. Not only are they the most comfortable shoes I have ever worn, but the wool is both warm in the winter and cool in the summer. A client reminded me that weavers are also using increasing amounts of wool in their products as well.

 

Actually, there are plenty of other uses for wool. Wool is the top choice for high-quality carpets, for example. You'll also likely find it in the padding underneath that rug as well. Furniture, such as seat upholstery, as well as stuffing and covers are also made from wool. Blinds, curtains, cushions, even wallpapers, are often made of wool, as are blankets and wool-filled duvets.

 

Wool is also coming into vogue in places like China. The growing affluence of its people and its manufacturing prowess make China an increasingly important market for wool. Australia is the world's largest supplier of apparel wool (90 percent market share). China consumes about 78 percent of their exports, but there are about 100 countries worldwide with at least some wool production.

 

New Zealand, Uruguay, the U.S. and China all contributed to the 1,161 million kilograms of wool produced in 2017, according to the International Wool Textile organization. That is a 70-year low.

 

The bad news is that wool is expensive to use and that situation won't be changing anytime soon. In Australia, wool production has been stable since 2010 and is forecasted to grow by a mere 4 percent this year to about 446,000 metric tons. Why?

 

Well, lamb chops explain part of the reason. Sheep production has been increasingly focused on meat production, rather than wool. Refocusing production to produce more wool and less meat is a multiyear process and cannot be accomplished over the short-term. The decision to switch may have more to do with demand here in the U.S. than anywhere else. Increased demand for wool in the United States represents the largest growth opportunity for Australia's wool products. An estimated 70 million sheep were shorn in the Down Under last year.

 

For that to increase, the Aussies want to see our consumption of wool on a per capita basis increase. Today we consume a mere 300 grams (11 ounces) per year. That compares with about one kilogram of consumption in China, Europe and Canada. I'm betting consumption will increase, but as it does, so will the price of wool, at least for the next year or two. So my advice is to buy those sneakers or that sweater now, because it is just going to get more expensive in the future.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $200 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.