Over the next three weeks, equities will likely trade in a wide range. The caveat to that forecast: if the Fed suddenly changes policy, or if a shooting war erupts in Ukraine. Those are two big ifs. Unfortunately, I can neither forecast when or what the next Fed head will say, nor predict Vladimir Putin's next move.

 

The next Federal Open Market Committee meeting occurs in mid-March. The latest CPI and PPI inflation data shows inflation accelerating at a rate much higher than economists and the Fed expected. It is all but certain, according to the bond market vigilantes, that the Federal Reserve Bank will raise interest rates at that time. As such, it is only a question of whether the rate increase will be a 25 or 50 basis point hike.

 

That will be only part of the equation. Investors will be expecting Chairman Jerome Powell to give them more insight as to how many rate hikes they can expect going forward, and what other monetary tightening the Fed will be planning as well. The risk will be that the equity market could swoon and test the lows if the Fed is perceived as more hawkish on tightening than expected.

 

That in the meantime, we have plenty to occupy our attention. This week the market's interest rate worries have been superseded by Russia's intentions toward Ukraine. Thus far, the conflict has been played out in the media in a "he said, she said" war of charges and counter charges.

 

War is never a good thing, suffice it to say. But besides the human costs of such a conflict, there would also be an economic price to pay. The sanctions that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to inflict on Russia in response to perceived aggression would inflict damage on the global economy and on the U.S. as well.

 

Russia supplies a great deal of the commodities that the rest of the world consumes. Sanctions could immediately cause substantial price spikes in commodities such as oil, gas, and coal. Russia is also a major exporter of rare earth minerals and heavy metals. One third of the world's supply of palladium (used in catalytic converters), for example, and titanium (think aircraft) is also mined and exported by Russia.

 

Ukraine is also a major source of neon, an essential input in the manufacturing of semiconductors. The Ukraine is one of the world's largest producers of wheat, as well as fertilizers (as is Russia). Hostilities could damage their ability to export or even harvest the nation's wheat supply.

 

I would expect price spikes in several food commodities as a result. That would add fuel to the inflation fire and could force the Fed to become even more aggressive in raising interest rates. It would not be a pretty picture for stock market investors.  

 

To be honest, no one knows whether Russia is bluffing or serious about invasion as a next step.  For me, a telltale sign of their intent would be any movement of medical facilities and supplies forward to the troop staging areas and border with Ukraine. This week, I have seen just that.

 

The risk is obvious. A shooting war would probably see the S&P 500 Index re-test the lows (4,222) of Jan. 24. Geopolitical events usually have a limited impact on the stock market, unless the hostilities are protracted and far-reaching.  If, on the other hand, a negotiated settlement was to occur, markets would likely fly higher. That "if" word is going to keep investors jumpy and prices in a box with every headline capable of moving markets 1-2 percent up or down.

 

You would think that the Americans would be feeling pretty good right now. Wages are increasing almost monthly. Workers have their pick of jobs in this tight labor market and the coronavirus seems to be peaking. So why are so many consumers unhappy?

 

Consumer sentiment numbers, as measured by the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey, fell in preliminary February 2022 numbers to its lowest level in more than a decade. Back then in October 2011, the unemployment rate was more than double the present 4 percent rate.

 

In a January 2022 Gallup Poll, 72 percent of those surveyed thought it was a great time to find a quality job. That was the highest reading since 2001. Historically, there is a strong correlation between consumer sentiment and rising employment but this time it is different. So, what has changed?

 

In one word: Inflation. To understand why, we need to recognize that economic society has two roles: the average worker is both a producer and a consumer. Essentially, most Americans receive a certain income in exchange for some level of production. In a perfect world, the more one produces, the higher the pay, or so the economists tell us.

 

The consumer side of us believes that in exchange for our production we receive money and access to buying products at reasonable prices. Today, that side of the equation is becoming increasingly problematic as the inflation rate climbs and supply chain problems continue to make some products scarce at any price. As such, we may feel that we are not getting a fair shake in this economy.

 

I also suspect that the Michigan survey's target audience had something to do with this decline in consumer sentiment. The survey was confined to those families that are making more than $100,000 annually. That demographic, more likely than not, earmarks some of their income annually toward retirement savings. In the stock market. As such, their attitude may be partially influenced by what is happening in the financial markets.

 

That brings me to the latest data from the American Association of Individual Investors (AAII), which surveys investors' sentiment toward the stock market. Over the last few weeks, the number of individuals that believe the stock markets are going to continue to fall is much higher than historical averages. In short, individuals are bearish on America. This negative sentiment, coupled with the shock of a higher rate of inflation, may explain the sour state of the consumer right now.

 

I count myself as one of these disgruntled consumers/producers. As my loyal readers know, the equity markets are going through one of the most volatile periods in recent memory. I warned readers almost two months ago to reduce risk and prepare for this outcome. But don't think the wild daily swings in the markets are a cake walk no matter how well prepared you may be.

 

The stress for those trading these markets frequently (like me) is extremely high. To relieve stress, I often resort to cooking (and exercise). Imagine my dismay, therefore, over the past few months when grocery shopping.

 

Aside from the risk of contracting the Omicron variant while standing in line, I increasingly discover that some of the most important ingredients for my dinner menu are nowhere to be found. Worse, even if they are available, the prices climb on a weekly basis. That package of London broil or lamb chops has doubled in price in just a few short months. "One package per customer" signs assault me at every turn.

 

This weekend, I noticed everything from a loaf of fresh-baked bread to a container of almond milk have shrunk seemingly overnight. Even the rotisserie chickens seem to have gone on a diet, despite hefty price increases.

 

My own reaction is to spend less, work harder, and try to quell the helpless anger I feel at this sudden turn of events. I am old enough to remember when inflation was a fact of life for Americans, but it is still a shock to me. I can just imagine how younger workers, who have never seen the devastating impact of inflation, could be somewhat grumpy with their lot in life at the moment.

 

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.

If they had their choice, most couples would want to get married on a Saturday. The problem is that there are just so many Saturdays in a year and tying the knot is a crowded trade this year.

 

Weddings, like so many other events that involve community gatherings, have suffered mightily during the pandemic. Postponements were about the best a couple could hope for during the worse of the COVID-19 crisis. Since then, bottlenecks, supply and labor shortages, not to mention the isolation required to safeguard against the coronavirus itself, have plagued wedding planners continuously. But, as virus fears begin to fade, there is suddenly a mad rush to get hitched.

 

A look at wedding statistics, according to WeddingWire, which follows nuptials data, shows the average cost of a wedding in 2021 was $22,500. That number is supposed to rise to $23,517 or more in 2022. Last year (2021), saw an increase in weddings from the dismal lockdown year of 2020. In 2022, more couples will be getting married than at any time since 1984 with estimates exceeding 2.5 million.

 

Underneath these figures is the story of a wedding industry that had suffered steep financial losses from the 2020 season. Many of this year's estimated 2.5 million weddings are simply "reschedules" from 2020-2021 postponements. During the last two years, the industry, like so many others, has had to cope with and then adjust to the costs of the pandemic. For example, increased safety precautions, such as temperature checks, sanitation stations, and spacing concerns has reduced the space available while increasing manpower and health safeguards. In addition, vendors and venues were hit with a vast array of higher costs for everything from caterers, personnel, flowers, paper products, and much more.

 

What this means for the average couple, who may have been waiting for a year or two, may be a severe case of sticker shock. Adding insult to injury, competition for popular locations, dates, photographers, DJs, and even wedding gowns, makes for a wedding planning nightmare. To just get married somewhere, at some time during the year is a win-win. Obviously, making key decisions now without delay, should be at the top of the list for engaged couples.

 

On the cost side, there are things couples can do to keep expenses down starting with hiring a competent wedding planner, who knows how to cut costs. You can also reduce guest count, share expenses with another couple who are getting married at the same venue, or in the local vicinity, who can share certain items like flowers. Finally, choose a venue that offers some flexibility on things — lower minimums on food, beverages, and smaller guest sizes. That venue may be harder to come by if you are planning a weekend wedding.

 

Weekday weddings, therefore, may be just the ticket to keep costs down, while also getting most of what couples want. That is why a lot more couples are seriously contemplating a weekday wedding. Weekday weddings are expected to rise by about 2 percent in 2022, according to a survey by TheKnot.com. In the destination wedding category, 13 percent of weddings took place on weekdays in 2021. Thursdays seem to stand out as the weekday most coveted by couples planning either local, or destination weddings. A Thursday allows for a long weekend of activities for guests.

 

A weekday wedding in general provides a lot more flexibility around dates, especially when it comes to booking a dream venue. It may also come with a discount on everything from the site itself, to the prices various suppliers normally charge. Most venues also offer added extras on weekdays, including things like reduced minimum spends and complimentary extras, such as arrival cocktails, upgraded beverage options, side dishes, etc.

 

There will also be much less competition for photographers, bands, make-up and hairdressers. If you are planning a destination wedding, hotels and airfares are less expensive as well. You can also expect a smaller guest list and therefore a more intimate affair.

 

But will your invited guests agree to come on a weekday? My guess is that more than you think will say "yes."

 

Who knows, a day off from work may be just what they need. After two years of remote work, they have probably built up a lot of paid time off, or annual leave. And after so much enforced isolation, many more than you might expect may be up for a wedding with friends they may not have seen for a year or two. Destination-wise, I would love a Thursday wedding in Costa Rico right now. How about you?

 

On Groundhog Day, Wednesday, Feb. 2, Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, predicting that there will be at least six weeks of winter weather ahead of us. Given the market action of the last few days, can we expect inclement weather ahead for market bulls as well?

 

Last week, I warned readers to expect the stock market to bounce. It did, retracing 50 percent of the market's decline in just about four days. I also warned that investors should not get comfortable with this bounce because after the bounce markets should go south once again. That prediction seems to be playing out.

 

It would be an understatement to say that markets remain volatile in both the stock and bond markets. Commodities, the currency and crypto markets are also gyrating like a championship bronco.

 

Part of the problem lies with the FANG stocks. These large-cap mega companies account for so much of the major averages and indexes, that when one or another of these stocks catch a cold, the markets catch pneumonia. Most recently Meta (formerly known as Facebook) missed earnings and gave poor guidance on Wednesday night. The stock dropped more than 22 percent overnight. It was the single largest loss of dollar value for a public company in U.S. history. All the major averages declined with it, with the NASDAQ falling 2.25 percent, while the S&P 599 Index fell almost 1.5 percent.

 

Just the day before, Alphabet (Google) did the opposite, gaining 20 percent on stellar earnings and took the indexes for a major rise upwards. On Thursday, Amazon surprised investors with what looked like a massive beat on earnings and gained 11 percent in overnight trading. At first the U.S. indexes traded more than a percentage point higher but gave that all back by the opening on Friday morning, and so did the markets.

 

Overall, corporate earnings have held up with roughly 75 percent beating numbers, but down from 82 percent last quarter. The size of the beats, compared to the last few quarters, have been anemic, while the number of revisions upward in future earnings have been few and far between. Obviously, none of this has been enough to hold up the stock market, let alone propel it higher. I warned investors that would turn out to be the case more than a month ago.

 

The omicron variant is evidently not taking its toll on the job market yet, according to the latest payroll numbers. Friday's employment numbers saw 467,000 job gains versus the forecasts of only 110,000 gains.

 

Investors, rather than celebrate the job gains, saw them as proof that inflation is still climbing. Wages, a key element of the inflation equation, continued to move higher. The Ten-year U.S. Treasury bond spiked higher on the news to more than 1.90 percent. My target, as I have advised investors in the past, is a 2 percent yield on the "Tens" in the short-term.

 

But let's get to the meat of this column — the markets, where now, given that my forecast that the markets would see a 10-20 percent correction between mid-January and February. That prediction has been accomplished at this point. I also signaled that we would bounce this week and we have. At its height the bounce retraced 61 percent of the losses on the S&P 500 Index. But I also warned that we should not get too comfortable with this bounce. The last two days brought this point home to those who doubted that warning. Now what?

 

The stock market took less than half the time to recoup 61 percent of its losses. Since then, the volatility has exploded both up and down. This volatility will continue. Next week, for example, we could see a similar pattern as last week — up for a few days, and then down.

 

 In situations like this, over the longer term, we can expect to see a large "W" pattern in the market's behavior. We are about halfway through this pattern. At a bare minimum, we should see the markets (S&P 500 Index) retest its recent lows of 4,222 (on January 24, 2022). But it doesn't have to stop there. As I wrote two weeks ago, we could see a decline to 4,070 if investors begin to panic. But we could also see a higher low as well. Right now, the markets are in a state of indecision.

 

Given this potential scenario, I don't believe it is time to be a hero. If we retest the recent lows, sure, put a little money to work, but don't bet the house. From there, if it goes lower, start averaging in. The same maneuver could be applied on the upside as well, if 4,222 is truly the bottom. How will you know? Keep reading my columns.

 

Fifty dollars may be an exaggeration, unless you frequent some high-priced restaurants in Manhattan. But consumers should be prepared. Beef prices, for the foreseeable future, will continue to climb.

 

Some cuts of meat are already up 25 percent from where they were six months ago. As the cook in the house, I usually buy a prime rib roast for New Year's dinner, but not this year. The cost for said morsel doubled in price since last year. I bought Australian lamb instead, which was much more reasonable, but just not the same.

 

I assumed that the price of beef, like almost every other food product, was going up due to supply shortages caused by the pandemic. I knew that as the number of COVID cases climbed and businesses started to shut down, there was a run on everything from toilet paper to steaks.

 

In my neighborhood (back at the start of the pandemic), consumers flocked to the wholesale stores and supermarkets to buy what meat they could and stock up their freezers. At one point, rationing became a commonplace tool in controlling the consumption of beef, pork, and chicken in a tight market.

 

One of the major bottlenecks was in the slaughtering and processing part of the business. More than 59,000 meatpacking workers were infected by coronavirus and 250 lost their lives, according to a government investigation. Since then, turnover has been high in this labor-tight market, where low wages and poor working conditions are prevalent. All of these issues have contributed to higher costs.

 

Climate change has also become a bigger factor in the production of beef. Drought, now a constant companion to ranchers and farmers, last year squeezed supplies of feed for cattle in the Northern Plains. It was so bad that some ranchers were forced to sell even breeding stock to slaughterhouses. This reduced the overall herd of beef by 2 percent, according to the Department of Agriculture.

 

Now, the southern part of the Plains is experiencing a deepening drought. It is here that most of the cattle in the U.S. is raised. That is expected to reduce the cattle stock even further, marking three straight years of declines and the smallest herd since 2016.

 

You might think that America's ranchers and farmers are in "hog heaven" as a result of these skyrocketing prices for beef at the supermarket, but you would be mistaken. Cattle ranchers receive about 37 cents on every dollar spent on beef, according to federal data.

 

As input costs for everything from gasoline to livestock feed keep rising, the ranchers' portion of profits drop even further. The sad fact is that drought is forcing more and more ranchers to reduce their herds, which has caused a glut of product at the slaughterhouses. That, in turn, causes the price the processors are willing to pay to plummet. But those price declines never show up at the grocery store. Why?

 

It can be summed up in four names — Tyson Foods, Cargill, National Beef Packing Co. and JBS — together, these conglomerates now dominate the meatpacking industry with an 85 percent market share. Over several decades, through mergers and acquisitions and a lax attitude toward competition by regulators, the meat-packing industry became an oligopoly. Once that was accomplished, these four remaining companies, in the name of efficiency, cut their capacity to process beef, closing slaughterhouses, and processing plants across the nation.

 

As a result, profit margins improved. Company stock prices improved, but ranchers and farmers were increasingly forced to accept whatever prices the processors were willing to pay for their product. Over time, this oligopoly was able to first influence prices and then dictate what they were willing to pay ranchers for their herds. It worked. The four meat packing companies identified above, for example, saw their profit margins jump 300 percent last year.

 

So, you might ask, who is making money from these steadily climbing meat prices? The government is asking the same question. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission opened an inquiry into how anticompetitive practices by major companies have contributed to supply chain problems.

 

As for the meatpackers, Senior White House economists Brian Deese, Sameera Fazili and Bharat Ramamurti, in a blog post in December 2021, explained it this way:

 

"Here is the bottom line: the meat price increases we are seeing are not just the natural consequences of supply and demand in a free market — they are also the result of corporate decisions to take advantage of their market power in an uncompetitive market, to the detriment of consumers, farmers, and ranchers, and our economy."