"One's a dot, two's a line, three's a trend," is how the saying goes. When applied to the inflation data this week, it spelled bad news for the financial markets.

 

Over the last two months, inflation showed increases in both the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as well as the Producer Price Index (PPI). This week, the March CPI data came in warmer than investors had hoped (0.4 percent versus expectations of 0.3 percent). The PPI was slightly below forecasts, but the monthly core index matched expectations. Not good.

 

Economists might say the jury is still out on calling a backup in the inflation rate, but traders shoot first and ask questions later. Stocks fell on the CPI release. The U.S. Treasury Ten-year bond yield breached 4.58 percent and the dollar gained more than one percent. The data squashed any hopes that the Fed would cut interest rates in June.

 

Economists were forced to take a big step back from their rosy forecasts of an imminent loosening of monetary policy. It was a far cry from January when many thought we would see as many as seven interest rate cuts by the end of this year.

 

FOMC committee members have been giving speeches and interviews over the last two weeks. Some have been sounding the alarm. Their message was clear: fewer (if any) rate cuts could be expected unless there was further progress on the inflation front.

 

To be clear, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has not changed his tune quite yet. He still expects to cut interest rates sometime this year, but exactly when would be data dependent.

 

The bulls, however, have not given up on their rate-cut thesis. They have just pushed back the timing to July or maybe September. I must wonder whether the exact timing of this rate cut, if it occurs, really makes a big difference to the economy.  I will go a step further and question whether the Fed needs to cut interest rates at all given the growth in the economy and the strength in the labor force. By cutting rates too soon, the Fed would create what most fear — a resumption of inflation. Remember, inflation is still out there. It is only the rate of increase that has declined.

 

Some believe that the fix is in. In an election year, the incumbent usually does everything possible to boost the economy. Cutting interest rates would help the cause, so the pressure will mount for the Fed to do something soon. That seems too easy to me. I believe the Fed will do what the Fed's got to do and be damned if there is fallout from the politicians.

 

As for the markets, I have been pleased by the performance of the "catch-up" trade I had predicted at the beginning of the year. Precious metals, especially gold, have hit new highs. Silver has also performed well. Basic materials, especially copper, and some soft commodities such as coffee and cocoa have soared. Energy, Industrials, and financials have also done better than the S&P 500 Index.

 

We hit a high of 5,264 on the S&P 500 Index back on March 28 (about 20 points higher than my target) but since then the averages have drifted lower. I expect markets to continue to consolidate over the next week or so with a good chance of further pullbacks if we break 5,140 on the downside.

 

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.

Recently, several studies, combined with macroeconomic data in both the private and public sectors, have revealed that immigration has benefited the economy in recent years. In a politically charged election year, the facts are often ignored as hyperbole takes over. 

 

In my last column, I reminded readers that demonizing migrants is nothing new in American history. In a country that is constantly looking for someone to blame for their troubles, immigrants stand the test of time. One prominent candidate has even claimed that migrants are "not people in my opinion."

 

In a recent Wall Street Journal national poll in late February, 20 percent of voters ranked immigration as their top issue. That places immigration as the nation's No. 1 or 2 issue. But concern over an influx of immigrants predates 2024.

 

 Back before the onset of COVID-19 in 2020, the flow of immigrants into the U.S. was slowing. The ebb and flow of government policy changes had once again turned against immigration. It was fueled by the changing mood of a vocal minority of Americans and the executive actions of a former president that resulted in roughly 1.5 million fewer working-age immigrants entering the U.S.

 

At the outset of the pandemic, as the country closed its borders, the number of entries fell further creating a shortfall of well over 2 million immigrants. At the same time, the U.S. economy was in freefall, unemployment rose to double digits, and the stock market swooned. It was left to a new administration to pick up the pieces and handle the COVID crisis. Fortunately, aggressive fiscal stimulus policies, coupled with the development of vaccines, and central bank easing were enacted to jump-start the economy.

 

It worked. But the sudden spike in demand outpaced the economy's ability to respond. The failure of global supply chains contributed to that dilemma. The labor force was not up to the task either. Millions of Baby Boomers retired. In addition, many workers were forced to stay home to take care of children. Some simply avoided the workplace to avoid getting sick.

 

In times like this, the shortfall in labor would be normally filled with migrant workers but because of past policies, many entry-level jobs went unfilled. Inflation skyrocketed. The new administration did what it could by rolling back many of the former government's immigration restrictions. 

 

Now four years later, we have discovered from a variety of public and private sources both legal and illegal immigration not only boosted the growth of the U.S. economy but may well have played a hand in reducing the worst impacts of inflation.

 

March's nonfarm payrolls data released last week showed a huge gain in employment. Economists' estimates were for 200,000 jobs gain, but 303,000 jobs were reported instead. Most analysts attributed the difference to immigration hiring. At the same time wage growth slowed from 4.3 percent to 4.1 percent as many of those jobs were in entry-level positions.

 

This comes as no surprise to those looking at the facts. The U.S. foreign-born labor force has been growing so fast that it has practically filled the labor gap that was created by the pandemic, according to the Federal Reserve Bank. Economists at the central bank considered immigration as instrumental to the astounding growth rate of the economy. Over the last year, about half of the labor market's recent growth came from immigrants, according to federal data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute.

 

The Congressional Budget Office predicts the U.S. labor force will grow by 5.2 million people by 2033 due to net immigration. That surge will tack on another 2 percent of real GDP by 2034. Those immigrants will produce $7 trillion more wealth over the next decade than the country would gain without them. The data is so convincing that in a research note, Goldman Sachs recently upped its forecast for growth due to the increased number of immigrants in the labor force.

 

Goldman has raised its growth rate to 2.7 percent and argues that GDP was stronger in 2023 because immigration ran well above the historical average (by 1.5 million migrants) and will come in above trend in 2024 (by 1 million jobs). JP Morgan has also noticed the economic benefits of recent immigration claiming that immigration over the last two years accounted for a lot of the increase in U.S. consumption.

 

Of course, the benefit of immigration on the economy could reverse quickly, depending on the policies enacted after the elections in November. For example, many immigrants both legal and illegal are entering the country through an important loophole in the immigration laws. By asking for asylum, the U.S. is required to provide a form of legal protection for people who face prosecution in their home country.

 

There has been an enormous jump in asylum seekers since 2013 when only 76,000 migrants applied for asylum. Today, thanks to advice and instructions easily obtained through the internet and social media, more than half of the millions crossing our borders are asking for asylum. It is the migrant's "Pass Go" card into the country. Migrants are typically given the right to live and work in the country while going through the legal process of claiming persecution. The facts are that the U.S. is so swamped with applicants that a normal application could take four years to decide.

 

In the meantime, the migrant can work and even if his/her claim is denied, the chance of repatriation is low to non-existent. Sure, the migrant loses the right to work here but simply joins the underground economy that flourishes in every state. How is this rational?

 

I could go on and on. The point is that America has a long, long history of shameful and/or stupid immigration policies with a proven history of failure. From a historical perspective, when immigration policies were open, the nation prospered. When they were closed, we suffered.

 

What is worse, we never learn from our mistakes. So here we are once more, threatening mass repatriations, sealing borders, and building walls, with politicians on both sides of the aisle promising this century's version of eugenics to a populace looking for someone to blame.

 

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.

An important government inflation metric, the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (PCE), for February came in as expected on Good Friday. Since the markets were closed, as investors celebrate the three-day Easter holiday weekend, Monday, April 1, should be interesting.

 

Core PCE rose by 0.3 percent from the previous month. Year-over-year PCE prices rose by 2.8 percent, easing slightly from the 2.9 percent increase in January. The PCE is the Federal Reserve Bank's favorite inflation indicator. As such, it carries a lot more weight when determining whether the central bank will stand pat or decide to cut interest rates in the months ahead. The February numbers will likely not change the current stance of the Fed.

 

Given that both the Consumer Price Index and the Producer Price Index came in hotter than expected in both January and February, investors had worried that the PCE could do the same. It did, but so slightly that next week traders will need another reason to either push equities higher or continue the recent trend of selling large-cap tech and buying other areas like financials, industrials, small-cap, precious metals, and cyclicals.

 

The plot thickens when we consider the changes that have been going on all week behind the scenes. The stock market has just finished another strong quarter. The S&P 500 Index was 10 percent, the largest first-quarter gain in years. As is often the case, pension funds, money managers, and other investors at the end of a robust quarter are expected to adjust their asset allocations to account for the outperformance by equities. As such, pension funds, for example, were expected to sell as much as $32 billion in stocks that had outperformed the most during the quarter and invest the proceeds in the debt markets.

 

At the same time, a large hedged-equity fund, the $16 billion, JP Morgan Hedged equity Fund that holds a basket of S&P 500 Index stocks, along with options on that index, is expected to roll over its options positions on Friday. Given the low market liquidity on this holiday, that rollover could exacerbate or suppress stock market moves on Monday.

 

This week also saw Donald Trump's social media company begin trading on the NASDAQ. The Trump Media & Technology Group's main asset is Truth Social.  Readers may recall that the social media platform was established by Trump following the Jan. 6 insurrection. It was at that time when the former president was booted off social media's mainstream platforms, including Facebook and Twitter. Since then, he has been reinstated on both but has stuck with Truth Social as his main avenue of social communication with his followers.

 

The stock (symbol DJT) of which Trump is the dominant shareholder (58 percent), has exploded in price in its first week in trading and has been called the ultimate Meme stock. Like most such stocks, it is losing money and has little in the way of financials.

 

Theoretically, most shareholders have a lock-up period of at least six months before they can sell their shares. Given Trump's need for cash because of legal proceedings that have gone against him, the company's Trump-friendly board of directors could waive or shorten the lock-up period.

 

That could turn messy, however, because a sale by the majority shareholder would likely depress the stock price. That would allow shareholders to show injury and give standing to lawsuits on behalf of public shareholders. More should be revealed in the weeks ahead.

 

In any case, stocks overall have continued to rise and have traded higher than my best-case forecast of 5,240 on the S&P 500 Index. On Monday, because of all this rebalancing and the outcome of the PCE data, we could see the markets react strongly one way or the other. The best I can say is that April Fool's Day may be nothing to fool around with.

 

By the way, my cataract surgery on my left eye came off without a hitch, which was why there was no column last week. I get my right eye done on April 3, so unfortunately no columns next week either. 

 

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.

Immigration has become a dirty word among Americans. Illegal aliens take the brunt of the nation's animosity, for sure, and are vilified for a long list of crimes that few question. I am one of the few who see a positive side to migrants.

 

Politicians on both sides of the aisles are competing to keep as many immigrants as possible from entering the country. Campaign speeches by many radicals warn that the situation has reached cataclysmic proportions. The media stokes these fires with shots of dark-skinned refugees fording rivers, shivering in lines surrounded by barbed wire, and headlining any crimes that involve an immigrant. This is nothing new.

 

The country has a long history of failed immigration policies. Waves of immigration, followed by periods of no migration, or even expulsion, are part of our history. Migrants have settled vast areas of the country, built our railroads, and industrialized our cities. Attitudes toward these generations of newcomers have waxed and waned, blown by economic circumstances and the whims of our politicians. 

 

 Immigrants of different races, cultures, and religions have been subjected to enormous political backlash in the U.S. time and again. German, Irish, English, Italian, Canadian, French, Chinese, Jews, Japanese, South American, African — take your pick — they have all had their turn from the earliest days of this nation's existence.

 

Let's look at just a few examples. The Know Nothing Party in the 1850s hated Catholics and all foreigners. They wanted to increase the residency period for naturalization to 21 years. After the Civil War, the Naturalization Act of 1870 only granted naturalization rights to "aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent." Then there was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which blocked Chinese immigrants from entering the country.  

 

In 1924, the politically popular and widespread notions of eugenics, nationalism, and xenophobia culminated in the National Origins Act. It was crafted to eliminate the "parasites of Europe and elsewhere." The Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 halted all immigration from Asia, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe. Some believe that the lack of fresh immigration labor could have contributed to the economic downturn in the 1930s.

 

In 1933, the country entered the Great Depression. The secretary of labor at the time argued that repatriating foreigners would create additional jobs for Americans. As a result, the federal government deported more than one million Mexicans and persons of Mexican ancestry (60 percent of those were U.S. citizens). How did that work? The reverse happened. The unemployment rates for Americans spiked even higher. Sound familiar?

 

And what about the impact of our pre-World War II, immigration policies? You should know that our anti-refugee rules left thousands upon thousands of Jews stranded in Nazi-occupied Europe. We, along with many other countries, turned a blind eye to Hitler's Jewish pogroms despite knowing the systematic extinction of millions. How many more German Jews and others could have escaped the holocaust by fleeing to America, but no one cared? "Play it again, Sam."

 

In my next column, I will examine the controversy over immigration raging in the country today and how our present policies have impacted our economic growth, income, and inflation.

 

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.

February inflation data showed no progress on inflation. That follows the same kind of readings from the previous month. While two months does not make a trend, the disappointing numbers gave investors pause.

 

Both the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and its cousin, The Producer Price Index (PPI), came in warmer than economists had expected. Consumer prices rose 3.2 percent in February from a year earlier but were only slightly higher than economists' expectations of 3.1 percent. The PPI rose 1.6 percent year-over-year, which was the largest gain since last September. Month-over-month, the PPI at +0.6 percent was double the average forecast.

 

These data points should be taken with a grain of salt since a couple of higher numbers should be expected. Few, if any, macroeconomic trends travel in an uninterrupted straight line higher or lower.  Unfortunately, these results practically guarantee that the Federal Reserve will hold off on any plans to cut interest rates.

 

No one was expecting the Fed to cut in March anyway. In Chairman Powell's most recent statements, he indicated March was off the table. But now, the earliest the market can expect a cut will be in June, if then. Markets are now pricing in about a 59 percent chance of an interest rate cut in June. Given that economic growth and employment trends remain strong, some argue that the Fed need not reduce interest rates at all this year.

 

Any hint of no cuts ahead would not be taken kindly by the markets. That is because much of the gains in financial markets, whether in bonds, equities, precious metals, commodities, crypto, etc., have been fueled by investors' expectations that the Fed is planning on reducing interest rates at least three times this year.

 

As such, the FOMC meeting notes will be released on the afternoon of March 20, and I suspect every word will be analyzed with a microscope. Chairman Powell's Q&A session afterward will also be subject to the same scrutiny. I don't expect that Powell will deliver a nasty downside surprise. After all, this is an election year, and while the Fed is supposed to be "non-political," I doubt they would want to upset the economic apple cart and influence one side or the other.

 

As readers are aware, I believe the stock market is in the ninth inning of this rally. This week, the high on the S&P 500 Index was less than 44 points away from my top-of-the-range 5,220 target. I've noticed some changes in the market behavior while we made that new high. The momentum that has been driving stocks since the beginning of the year is beginning to wane and, in some areas, even reverse. The action of late has been wild and there are some signs of short-term topping patterns.

 

The technology sector, for example, which has led the market all year, is beginning to struggle. Semiconductors have been choppy. Nvidia, the quintessential AI stock, is no longer going up 2-3 percent per day. It is now down about 100 points from its all-time high. Some stalwarts of the market like Apple, Google, and Tesla (to varying degrees) seem to be rolling over. Some say that where Apple goes, so goes the market. 

 

In this risk-on environment, the declining dollar has been supporting commodities, especially gold and silver. However, the greenback, which is the world's safest trade, has flattened out and may be starting to bounce as traders worry that lower inflation is not quite in the bag. All of this tells me to be cautious and while we could still climb higher, I would have one eye on the exit.

 

Readers, please be aware that due to two upcoming medical procedures, there will be no columns next week, and again none during the week of April 1.

 

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.