The one-two punch of a worldwide pandemic, plus the sudden sharp decline in energy prices have increased the odds that the U.S. economy could fall into a recession as early as this year. The fact that we still do not know the economic damage of the COVID-19, only increases the odds of a prolonged economic downturn.

 

At this writing, the number of cases and deaths attributed to the pandemic is growing, which is moving both consumers and businesses to dial back their spending on travel, conferences, large events and various work processes. As schools close, more and more parents are stuck at home instead of going into the office. This is also causing increased disruptions in productivity as companies begin to direct some of their work force to stay home. The recent government decision to bar travel from continental Europe doesn't help the economic situation either.

 

To be sure, none of the economic data so far reveals any impact from these actions. Unemployment still remains at a 30-year low. The economy is still growing moderately and, until recently, the stock market was celebrating record highs.  However, all of those statistics are backward-looking.

 

One way to suss out how bad things may get in the future is to check out the nation's seaports. After all, 90 percent of world shipping goes through their ports, which provides a good read on world trade. The story from the seaport side is not encouraging.

 

The Los Angeles port saw cargo fall 23 percent in February and officials there see first-quarter volumes dropping 17 percent or more. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey are expecting at least 10 out of 180 ship arrivals to cancel. That doesn't sound like much, but they are expecting far more cancellations than that. In Texas, the Port of Corpus Christi, which is the largest source of U.S. oil exports going overseas, is now expecting big cutbacks in their business thanks to the decline in oil prices.

 

The Federal Reserve Bank was worried enough last week to have instituted a 50-basis point cut in interest rates and has promised to do more if, and when, it is necessary. The threat of recession normally evokes a response from the Fed. It appears that next week, most market participants expect the Fed to initiate yet another interest rate cut and possibly a new round of quantitative easing.

 

A slower economy and declining energy prices also pose some risks to the nation's corporations. Thanks to low interest rates that have been readily available for corporate borrowers over the last several years, a number of American companies may have borrowed a little too often. The results are that today there are some heavily leveraged companies out there that are up to their eyeballs in debt. If a recession were to begin, investors worry that not all of these companies will have the financial resources to weather a long downturn.

 

Likewise, lower oil prices pose a risk for many energy companies (and the banks that lend to them). There are about $100 billion in outstanding bank loans to energy producers through lines of credit, which are based on the value of a company's oil and gas reserves. These credit lines are evaluated twice a year.

 

The last time this was done oil was at $50 a barrel. If oil remains where it is (below $35 a barrel), a lot of oil production, especially among shale producers, won't be worth extracting, which means companies will no longer be able to borrow against production and must immediately repay their loans to the banks.

 

While we are in the early days, and the dollar and cents hit from the pandemic might not be as serious as many predict, the economic signs from China, indicate the opposite. The early data is breathtakingly bad, even though China, unlike, our own country, responded to the virus threat with quarantines and massive amounts of both economic and monetary stimulus.

 

Despite more than two months of evidence from countries such as China, Iran, Italy, South Korea and more, Donald Trump chose to downplay the response to this national threat. Only this week, when it is now too late to stem the tide of infection and the subsequent impact on our economy and financial markets, has Trump seemed to realize how badly he has miscalculated. In my opinion, that miscalculation has upped the probability of an imminent recession to an almost certain bet. It is simply a question of how deep and long the recession will be.

 

The stock market has not only erased all the gains of this year but is now working on giving back last year's gains as well. Are we close to a bottom or is there more pain in store for investors?

 

Unless you are invested in gold, or U.S. Treasury bonds, there are few places that offer protection to investors right now. What may have spooked traders most this week is the freefall of interest rates as exemplified by the benchmark U.S. Ten-Year Treasury bond. It has done the unthinkable falling below one percent in yield. Some believe it is on its way to zero.

 

You might assume that all this selling is based on the fear that the United States will soon see thousands of new cases of the virus, while deaths skyrocket, and multiple cities become quarantined, but you would be wrong. It is not that nightmare that keeps traders trading all night, but the potential impact on the economy if even a mild outbreak occurs.

 

The fact that no one knows (and won't know for weeks to come) has investors hitting the sell button. Remember how I've said many times in the past that investors can deal with the good or bad but just hate the unknown? We now have "unknown" in spades.

 

There are two sides of this concern: the demand side impact and the supply-side effects of this economic virus-related blow. It started with a supply-side problem. China and other nations, such as South Korea, were hit first by COVID-19 causing a dramatic decline in parts the rest of the world needed to produce goods and services.

 

As people sickened, stayed home from work and stopped travelling, the demand side of the equation also started to become apparent. No one was going to the movies, eating out, using transportation, etc. As a result, spending also began to drop and then snowball as the virus spread out across the globe. When you put two and two together, market participants' major fear is that the pandemic could well usher in a global recession.

 

Compounding this situation was the record high levels of the world's stock markets when the virus began. Even today, with the U.S. stock markets down 13-14 percent, there could be a whole lot more to go if one looks at how far the markets have gained since 2016.

 

Here in the U.S., aggravating the anxiety, is that it appears the country was caught totally unprepared for this event. In 2018, the administration gutted the Center for Disease Control's ability to respond to a pandemic. The administration's response to the decline in the financial markets was to blame the Fed and the Democrats and to shut down all communication between government health officials and the public. President Trump demanded the Fed cut interest rates again.

 

None of those actions inspired confidence among investors, therefore when the Fed did cut one half point in an emergency move, the markets fell further. Both Trump and his economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, continue to dismiss concerns. They argue that Americans should simply ignore the pandemic, not worry about the economy and they continue to insist that the economy is strong.

 

It may be worth remembering that Kudlow has always been a "perma-bull." On the eve of the greatest recession since the Great Depression, he assured investors that there would be no recession in the U.S. and investors should not be concerned.

 

As for me, my prediction that we would have a rebound and then more volatility this week proved true, just far more violent that I had ever expected. I figure we continue down to 2,850 on the S&P 500 Index, which would be another 100 points or more before we attempt another rebound. If we hold that level, I would be constructive.

 

The bull case is that the Fed cuts another 50 basis points (1/2 percent) in the next two weeks, followed by an announcement that they would begin another round of quantitative easing. At the same time, the administration finally realizes that a large fiscal response (similar to what the Chinese government has done) is needed to combat the economic impact of the virus.

 

My own inclination would be to buy "when the blood is running in the streets." No one can call the bottom, but unless things really blow up, we should be getting close to one.

 

Super Tuesday surprised many investors. As the smoke cleared and the results came dribbling in, it became apparent that Joe Biden had risen from the dead. Wall Street celebrated by gaining over 4 percent in one day.

 

The market's performance says a lot about how investor's view the Democratic candidates. Taken as a group, Wall Street was not happy with where the Democratic candidates were heading. Last week, for example, I discussed Bernie Sander's election platform. The price tag alone ($50 trillion over 10 years) was enough to convince most Wall Streeters that the market and economy would be in for some really rough sledding if Bernie were to be elected.

 

Elizabeth Warren's ideas were in some ways even worse. Her pugilistic attitude surpassed even Sander's stance and has sent the financial markets into a tailspin, at least mentally. Therefore, the primary election results of the 14 states held on Tuesday heartened investors. Sanders trailed Biden overall, while Warren failed to capture a single state. And then, on Thursday, Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the race, leaving the field to just Biden and Sanders.

 

From a Wall Street perspective "Joe" appears to be the best of a bad bunch. Now, I am speaking in general terms, because there are plenty of investors who love Sanders, Warren, and the liberal cause. That's not to say Biden isn't liberal, he is, but he also is a moderate, and one who would be far more likely to compromise with his opponents across the aisle.

 

However, from a middle-class point of view, there is no question that Biden is seen as the "voice of the working man." In comparison to his fellow politicians, and especially someone like Donald Trump, he is by no means considered rich. He is also a fiscal conservative, unlike most members of Congress today, as well as the president. That appeals to many in the financial community.

 

Biden would prefer to work within the existing system, whether we are talking about taxes, health care, the middle-class, or child care. Rather than jettison the entire system and embrace a new vision of economics and finance, Biden simply wants to reorder capitalism without embarking on a fundamental shift into Democratic Socialism.

 

He opposes universal health care but wants to see Obamacare improved and extended. It was indicative that health care companies were one of the sectors that bounced the most in Tuesday's market. Financials also did well since his suggested capital gains tax and other tax proposals would raise $400 billion and not the trillions of dollars suggested by his rivals. He is no friend of the uber wealthy, but his tax plan would fall far short of Senator Warren's direct tax on the wealthy that she claims would raise $2.75 trillion.

 

Wall Street also likes his stance on free trade. After several years of bluster and bluff, tariffs and tantrums, Biden's track record on trade is appealing. He is not for or against free trade, he is for renegotiating trade deals, but without the hysterics.

 

Most of all, Biden represents compromise, rather than confrontation, and after four years of the latter, many investors, in my opinion, would at least given Biden a pass if he won the general election. And while most investors are still convinced that a Trump presidency would be good for their pocketbooks (if not for their sanity), a Biden win would not be the disaster that many feared if the Democrats turned out on top.

 

The COVID Crash of 2020 crushed the world's stock markets this week. The average decline in the United States topped 14 percent. How much further will they fall and, more importantly, what should you do about it?

 

My first bit of advice is to refrain from checking how much you lost in your retirement account. Why? Because it will only increase your angst and might trigger the emotional impulse to sell everything before you lose even more.

 

Next, lets look at the markets. There are two unknowns driving the markets lower. The first is the fear that the Coronavirus (COVID19) will get worse. Investors fear that self-imposed quarantines will be announced here in the U.S. and people will get sick and may even die. That could happen.

 

Whether our worst fears are realized or not, the damage done by this virus worldwide has already had an impact on global economies. We just don't know how much and for how long. That is the crux of the matter as far as stock and bond markets are concerned.

 

It is too early to predict the economic fallout from this calamity, but it doesn't stop Wall Street from guessing. Unfortunately, these guesstimates take on a life of their own. One analyst predicts that China, for example, will see zero growth in the first quarter of the year. The next strategist does one better and predicts negative growth. As time goes by, and the markets fall lower, the case for the worst-case scenario builds and builds.

 

By Friday, for example, the general sentiment among traders was that earnings for American companies would need to be drastically reduced for this year. And if that is the case, stocks just have to be too expensive at their present level. As the expectations for earnings drop, so do stock prices.

 

And it isn't just stocks that are falling. Commodities are plummeting as well. Oil has dropped below $45 a barrel. Gold, supposedly a safe haven, while initially rising, has reversed and is also falling toward $1,600 ounce. The dollar is gyrating as well. The only real safe haven so far appears to be U.S. Treasury bonds. Our government bond benchmark, the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond, is at its lowest yield ever recorded. Friday, it touched 1.17 percent and could drop to 1 percent before all is said and done.

 

In the past, whenever this kind of selling hit, the financial markets looked to the Federal Reserve Bank to come to the rescue. This time around, while the Fed may step in and cut rates, the impact would be largely symbolic. It would not hinder the spread of the virus and by the time the effects of an interest rate cut hit and worked their way through the economy, the COVID19 damage would already have been done.

 

So, what are my readers to do as the averages are once again in free-fall on a Friday? Last week, I suggested that if the S&P 500 Index broke a certain level, we could see a fairly steep decline. That happened, although the extent of the decline surprised everyone, including me. I expect we will see a bounce of some magnitude soon, possibly sometime next week. If so, it would likely signal a period of ups and downs as the markets attempt to find a floor.

 

My suspicion is that one should not expect a "V" shaped recovery in stocks this time around. There will be a bounce, then a re-test and then we will see. Until there is more and better information of how badly the global economy has been damaged by this COVID19, markets will remain unsettled. In the meantime, if you have any cash, pick your spots and begin to invest it.

 

On the eve of yet another Democratic primary, the policies and promises of the front runner, Bernie Sanders, haves suddenly come into focus for many voters. The price tag of his platform could be enormous -- as much as $60 trillion. Are these promises just waiting to be broken?

 

Last week, I focused on the promises Donald Trump has made and his track record on fulfilling them. He gets at least a "B," although things like his infrastructure projects and restoring manufacturing were big failures.

 

In Bernie's case, as a big picture guy, he is arguing for a new vision of America's future. His platform lists seven major spending programs (and a bunch of little ones). The price tag for a Green New Deal, universal pre-kindergarten and childcare, tuition-free public colleges and universities and public housing, is estimated to cost about $23 trillion. Universal health care would add anywhere from $22 to $34 trillion.

 

In addition, a proposal to increase Social Security benefits, an infrastructure program, a federally guaranteed jobs program, etc. could boost that total by several trillion dollars more. This money would be spent over a decade and would fundamentally change the direction and vision of our society.

 

Bernie's program would double the amount of government spending throughout the next decade and would increase the share of federal spending by 20 percent. It would make Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal look like peanuts, since the price tag of Roosevelt's efforts increased federal spending as a share of Gross Domestic Product by a mere 8 percent.

 

Of course, in the midst of partisan politics, the actual cost of these ideas could be far higher (or lower). How does Bernie intend to pay for it? Sanders has said $30 trillion in new taxes would come from businesses and the rich.  Another $12 trillion from revenue and savings, and a $1.2 trillion cut in defense spending.  He also argues that $6.4 trillion would be generated from earnings from his Green Deal program.

 

The director of the Progressive Policy Institute's Center for Funding, Ben Ritz, concluded that Sanders' numbers would only generate about $29 trillion in taxes and revenues. That would still leave a big short fall and would need to be made up by either borrowing or by taxing the middle class. To put that into perspective, the entire personal income tax over 10 years would amount to the same amount of money. So, what about borrowing the money?

 

Both bond investors and more and more economists are concluding that raising the money in the debt markets is entirely doable. In fact, it has never been cheaper for the U.S. government to borrow money. U.S. treasuries this week for at least the next few years.

 

For the last 40 years, interest rates have been in a broad decline, while the national debt has moved in the opposite direction. There was a time when Republicans were supposedly the watch dogs of the budget deficit and government spending, but that is no longer the case. Under Donald Trump, the GOP spends more money than a drunken sailor and no one cares. Democrats don't seem to care either. Deficits have grown and are approaching 5 percent of GDP and hit an all-time low with as little as 1.25 percent on the benchmark 10-year bond. It appears that this trend is here to stay federal debt owned by the public is above 80 percent of GDP this year.

 

It seems from this perspective that Bernie Sanders' programs could be accomplished simply by issuing U.S. Treasury 100-year bonds every year for the next decade. Of course, Sanders' knows this as well as anyone, but chooses (because the optics are better) to argue he can finance his program by a platform of taxes and revenues. That is nothing new. Every politician in modern history promised the same thing.

 

The question one must ask is not whether it is affordable, because most Americans tend to live above their means and have no problem going into debt to accomplish that, but whether or not you embrace Sanders' vision of America's future. It is not a question of socialism. That horse has left the barn. Corporate Socialism is the reality of our everyday lives, in my opinion. It is simply a question of what kind of socialism you want to embrace, his or Trump's?