The Federal Reserve Bank is the most powerful central bank in the world. It has a long history of successes and at times, failures in steering the U.S. economy through ups and downs. This is a story of how a well-intentioned policy has resulted in one of the worst disasters in American history.

 

After the stock market crash on Oct. 19, 1987, just two months after Alan Greenspan assumed the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve bank, he fired off a one-sentence statement before the start of trading on Oct. 20, "The Federal Reserve, consistent with its responsibilities as the nation's central bank, affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system." It was enough to turn markets around and kick off an economic expansion that lasted for 10 years.

 

The Fed soon realized that it might be able to smooth out the bumps in the business cycle and the economy by using monetary policy. They tried and succeeded in doing so in the early 1990s to combat a credit crunch, a Russian default on government securities, and the overheating of the U.S. labor market in 1994. As a result, the decade was marked by generally declining inflation and the longest peacetime economic expansion in our nation's history.

 

How exactly does the Fed work its magic? Think of monetary policy as a money spigot. When the Fed believes the economy is going to enter a slow patch, it turns on the money spigot. It turns the spigot off when it fears the economy is overheating, which could cause inflation. Simple, right?

 

It was a wonderful discovery. The government, through the Fed's actions and its fiscal spending, could minimize unemployment and ensure price stability by controlling the money supply if the dollar maintained its status as the world's preeminent currency.

 

However, money is distributed into the economy in a certain way — through the banking system in the form of lower interest rates. Interest rates are the cost of money when borrowed. The lower the rate, the cheaper the money. Banks offer loans to borrowers and these loans flow from the top down. Therein lies the problem.

 

Take a guess who gets to borrow the lion's share of this easy money?

 

Corporations, of course, are followed by the wealthy who own them. Corporations are profit-seeking entities that use capital most efficiently. The biggest, most profitable companies get to borrow the most at the lowest rates. The same top-down mentality pervades our fiscal policy efforts. Who, for example, will receive the $90 billion in new spending for Ukraine? It will not be soldiers on the front line. It will be defense companies, arms suppliers, munition distributors, etc.

 

From the government's and the Fed's point of view, this is the most efficient means available to inject monetary stimulus into the economy. The Fed also realized that with their top-down efficient capital approach, monetary loosening was not by itself inflationary. 

 

Remember last week's column concerning a swinging pendulum where on one side sits winner-takes-all capitalism versus fairness, equality, justice, and equity on the other. In this top-down situation, what happens to those who are at the bottom of the borrowing chain? Is this fair, and if so, how do they benefit?

 

Well, that is where trickle-down Reaganomics is supposed to come in. Corporations and other wealthy borrowers, according to supply-side economists, would invest in new plants and equipment, which would bring new jobs and higher pay to the masses. Economists used the same arguments for tax cuts as well. It may have worked in the 1980s, although many have their doubts, but it didn't work in the 1990s, or any time since then. Why?

 

Next week, I answer that question and give readers an understanding of how a swing in the country's economic pendulum isolated and decimated the lower and middle classes of this country.

 

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.

It had to happen at some point. Gold, silver, and copper prices experienced a steep downturn this week. Profit-taking set in as traders rung the cash register after weeks of gains. However, tech got a boost from Nvidia's earnings.

 

And while tech took the lead, keeping the S&P 500 and NASDAQ up, the rest of the market did not fare as well. The strength in the economy and the early estimates of the Purchasing Managers Index called the flash PMI, indicated that prices were still increasing. The publication of the Federal Open Market Committee notes from the last Fed meeting on Wednesday didn't help.

 

Here's what the Fed members wrote: "Participants observed that while inflation had eased over the past year, in recent months there had been a lack of further progress toward the Committee's 2 percent objective."

 

That was no surprise to the markets given that all week the members of that committee were giving interviews and making speeches arguing the same "higher for the longer" theme. What was new and concerned investors was this: "Various participants mentioned a willingness to tighten policy further should risks to inflation materialize in a way that such action became appropriate."

 

It was the first mention this year by the Fed that an interest rate hike might be on the table. That set investors back on their heels. Higher interest rates are like kryptonite to the markets and especially to commodities such as gold, silver, and copper. It would call into question the gold bull's narrative that we have entered a super cycle for commodities

 

But commodities weren't the only area of the markets that saw declines. China stocks, which have had a similar period of outperformance, succumbed to the same kind of selling. Overbought conditions gave traders here and in mainland China the excuse to take profits.

 

What I found interesting is that several large-cap Chinese companies that are also traded in the U.S., reported amazing earnings and sales. PDD, the parent company of Tumu (a Chinese rival of Amazon here and abroad), for example, announced revenues and earnings that were double the estimates of analysts. Trip.com. Group (travel), Bilibili, (social media), and NetEase (online gaming) are some other companies that had great earnings as well. Yet, their stock prices fell in this downturn.

 

As for the U.S. equity and bond markets, investors had pinned their hopes on the earnings announcement of Nvidia, the number one player in the artificial intelligence space. AI has supported stock prices all year and AI plays have expanded to many areas of the market from utilities to grocery stores.

 

Fortunately, the company delivered better-than-expected earnings, sales, and guidance for the third time in a row. It also announced a 10-to-1 stock split in which shareholders will receive 10 shares for every share of the company they own as of June 7.

 

The good news sent the price of Nvidia up more than 11 percent on Thursday and took the stock market up with it at first, but while Nvidia stayed strong, the averages gave back most of those gains by Thursday's close.

 

Last week, I wrote "I could see 5,340 on the S&P 500 Index," we did reach a new intraday high, of 5,341 on the S&P 500 Index and 16,996.39 on the NASDAQ. However, I also warned that "I expect to see a couple of days of profit-taking, especially in those areas that have seen outsized gains. That would be ideal, reduce overbought conditions and set up for another ramp higher in June."

 

The pullback in commodities and China stocks this week certainly qualifies as a pullback but one that I would buy. As for U.S. markets, I suspect next week we might see some minor profit-taking earlier in the week as traders eye next Friday's Personal Consumption Expenditures Index. The PCE is the Fed's No. 1 inflation indicator. If you are bullish on the stock market, you don't want to see an increase in that data point.

 

I wish all my readers a long weekend but do take the time to remember what the Memorial Day holiday is about. I know I will be remembering my fellow Marines who were left behind in the jungles of Vietnam. Semper Fi! 

 

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 left unchecked, the trend in income inequality in this country will continue to widen.
It will lead to an increasingly dysfunctional economy, heightened political polarization,
paralyses and a level of anger andmistrust that this nation has not seen since the Great Depression"

 

"Income Inequality: The Trend is Not Your Friend," Bill Schmick, Oct. 26, 2012

 

The country is divided. Immigration and the economy are leading election issues. Inflation has soured attitudes. Labor unions are on the rise. Students are demonstrating and demanding we divest U.S. holdings in Israel. If I said that all the above issues are related and have a common economic cause, would you believe me?

 

We have seen all of this before. Maybe not in the exact same way but in the 1930s and 1960s dissatisfaction, unrest, what's fair and what's not led to conflict, assassinations, changes in economic and social policies and ultimately to regime change. Political analysts call it populism "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

 

Gathering populism around the world indicates to me that regime changes are coming. In the latest New York Times/Siena polls of swing states, 69 percent of respondents said that both the economic and political systems in this country need major changes or should be entirely torn down. You might ask how did we get to this place and, more importantly, where are we going?

 

While history does not repeat itself, it can generally rhyme, and a look back to our founding fathers might help us gain perspective. The philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were popular back then and gained influence with those who drafted our constitution and form of government.

 

The natural state of mankind in short was a state of war of one man against another. Call it survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, or free market capitalism, the concept is the same. The way to escape this natural chaos is through a social contract to be agreed upon by the people to be governed and the government. It is where concepts such as fairness, equity, equality and community come together.  

 

Our political and economic system developed and succeeded because we melded the two ideas together in a system of checks and balance where free markets existed and flourished.

 

While not perfect, democracy thrived and functioned somewhat like a pendulum. When one or the other idea gained too much sway in the country, conflict arose. These crises triggered changes in laws, regulations and existing practices correcting abuses and extremes until the system gradually righted itself and swung back the other way.

 

These cycles are multi-year occurrences, and we have many of them in our history. At times, the pendulum bordered on the extreme, but thanks to our system of government these so-called regime changes have kept us in business. Some of our greatest breakthroughs as a country have come from these changes. The Civil War was one exception. We managed to survive even that bloody event, but it took several generations before that regime change was reconciled and repaired.

 

Our present problems are the result of a swing in the pendulum that has us so far in one direction that the nation is truly unbalanced. The "winner takes all" atmosphere of free markets and capitalism has over the past forty years reached an extreme. Income inequality among Americans has reached a point where even the Roman Empire had a lesser degree of income inequality.

 

I have been warning readers of the consequences of this condition as far back as 2010.   In a column entitled "Income Inequality: The Trend is Not Your Friend," I wrote "If left unchecked, the trend in income inequality in this country will continue to widen. It will lead to an increasingly dysfunctional economy, heightened political polarization, paralysis, and a level of anger and mistrust that this nation has not seen since the Great Depression."

 

That time has come to pass. Next week, I will explain how and why that inequality occurred with the full cooperation and urging of corporations and both political parties. We will also examine the role the Federal Reserve Bank played in this disaster and how we are still applying outdated 40-year-old policies to fix something that requires radical new approaches.

 

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.

This week's inflation data heartened investors. Equities and commodities rose while bond yields and the dollar fell. The question is whether the data will convince the Fed to relent on keeping interest rates higher for longer.

 

If we take a long-term view, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) change was minuscule. For April, inflation gains slowed from 3.5 percent to 3.4 percent, while core inflation increased over the last 12 months by 3.4 percent compared to 3.5 percent in March. That's no big deal, and yet, the numbers did break the trend of warmer CPIs over the last three months.

 

The cooler inflation announcement caught investors by surprise since most observers were convinced that inflation would continue the trend of hotter numbers. Readers may recall what I wrote in last week's column:

 

"The ramifications for the equity and bond markets could be serious. A weak inflation number in one or both indexes would be taken positively, I imagine with stocks climbing, possibly to new highs, and bond yields falling. It would also be beneficial for the commodity space and could push precious metals and copper higher. On the other hand, hotter numbers would have the opposite effect.

 

No one knows for sure, but readers aren't paying me for "on the other hand" opinions. So, I will come down on the side of cooler numbers next week. I base my guess on things like used car prices that have come down by about 30 percent thus far in 2024 and are accelerating to the downside. Insurance premium increases have been the major culprit in the hotter CPI data thus far and I am expecting at least a leveling out of price increases in car insurance this month.

 

That was exactly what happened. Stock indexes made record highs, yields fell, and commodities, especially gold, silver, and copper, soared. The question I am asking myself is now that we are above yearly highs on several indexes, are we jumping the gun here? Do you think the Fed is going to abruptly change its stance on one cooler inflation number?

 

I still don't think the data supports a change in Fed policy. The bond market disagrees. Traders are certainly upping their odds (again) for a cut in June, with more to follow. Sure, it could happen, but I won't hold my breath. Frankly, the Fed has already begun the easing process by reducing its Quantitative Tightening (QT). QT occurs when the Fed ups the amount of bonds they sell into financial markets from their balance sheet. That reduces the cash (liquidity) in the system.

 

At the beginning of May, the Fed announced it would slow down bond selling by over half from $60 billion per month to $25 billion. That is roughly equivalent to a 25-50 basis point cut in interest rates. At this point, I suspect the health of the labor market would influence the Fed more than one inflation reading. If unemployment increased suddenly (especially in an election year), the Fed might change its mind. Presently, while job gains have slowed, employment is still at almost historical lows.

 

As far as the markets are concerned, if markets continue to believe that the next move from the Fed will be an interest rate cut, risk assets will continue to gain, while the dollar and yields will decline further. I could see 5,340 on the S&P 500 Index, but I think Nvidia's earnings on May 22 will be crucial to where the market goes next. The entire AI rally and the gains in the technology sector for the year hinge on this AI chip producer. I believe it will set the stage for sentiment and earnings for the remainder of the month.

 

The markets have had a good run over the last two weeks. Is it time for a break? If so, I would call it a pause, where traders consolidate gains, catch their breath, and prepare for the summer. I expect to see a couple of days of profit-taking, especially in those areas that have seen outsized gains. That would be ideal, reduce overbought conditions and set up for another ramp higher in June.

 

June should be a period where markets grind higher. I am expecting a lot of rotation as well. Underperforming sectors will be squeezed higher, and favored areas will see bouts of profit-taking. By the end of August, we could see as high as 5,600 on the S&P 500 Index.

 

By the way, have you checked out the Chinese stock market since my column "China is on a tear?"

 

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.

Tariffs are a form of tax applied on imports from other countries. The costs of these tariffs are mostly passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for the targeted goods. In an inflationary environment, tariffs simply make things worse. Tell that to the candidates.

 

Historically, tariffs have been used to protect domestic industries like steel or aluminum manufacturers. They can and have often been used to strike back against other countries' unfair trade practices. They often lead to reduced trade, retaliation, and higher prices.

 

In today's political landscape, those economic findings have fallen on deaf ears. Both candidates for president are attempting to out-tariff each other. "Getting tough on China" seems to appeal to voters in swing states.

 

This week, President Biden said he plans to increase tariffs on Chinese EVs to 100 percent. He also doubled tariffs on Chinese-made solar cells and semiconductors to 50 percent. He also trebled existing tariffs on steel and aluminum products to 25 percent. Altogether, the new tariffs apply to $18 billion in Chinese products.

 

Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, who is credited with starting the tariff wars during his administration, fired back. "I will put a 200 percent tax on every car that comes from these plants," referring to Chinese vehicles that are attempting to find a back door for its exports by manufacturing in Mexico. Will we hear 300 percent by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?

 

The rhetoric on Chinese electric vehicles is just that. China does not sell EVs in America. Their export markets are in Asia and Europe where consumers can buy a vehicle from China at affordable price (under $25,000). That is a far cry from the sticker prices offered by Tesla and the Big Three auto companies. The Biden tariffs in other areas are meant to protect U.S. green industry companies, as well as to support investment initiatives in domestic semiconductors.  

 

After World War II, tariffs had fallen out of favor given the negative economic impact of that practice. Trump resurrected the practice because it played well among his constituency. For most of Trump's presidency, the threat and actual levying of tariffs became a hallmark of his administration. Markets rode up and down with every utterance of the word tariff.

 

To bring a wide swath of factory jobs back to the U.S., Trump imposed $360 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese products. He also levied tariffs on several export products from the European Union and other countries. By the end of his term, none of those manufacturing jobs appeared. Consumers ended up paying more for a whole lot of goods and farmers were decimated to the point where the government had to give billions in handouts to keep many from going under. In the end, the trade balance between China and the U.S. remained about the same.

 

This time around, never a man to choose facts over fiction, Trump has promised to redouble his efforts. He wants to erect barriers to investment between the U.S. and China along with complete bans on imports of steel, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. He has also proposed an additional 10 percent tariff on all imports to the U.S., not just those from China. Hello, higher inflation.

 

Don't look to Biden, however, for a more rational approach. Biden had initially promised to roll back Trump tariffs on China if elected. Instead, once in office, he kept those tariffs and imposed even more restrictions on trade between the two countries as well, effectively doubling down on what Trump started. While the White House spin is that their tariffs are more focused and targeted than Trump's efforts, I see little difference.

 

What I do see, however, is a country whose economy is becoming more and more like China's form of state capitalism. The myth of free-market capitalism where efficiency and profits determine the allocation of capital is fast disappearing in the United States. If they ever did, neither candidate believes in that concept today Maybe that is a good thing.

 

Both men have actively pulled all the levers of government, be it regulations, tariffs, taxes, subsidies, or rhetoric to force the U.S. economy to conform to their vision of national interest.

 

We have seen this in action. The banning or sale of TikTok, the refusal to allow U.S. Steel to be purchased by a Japanese company and giving away billions to companies like Intel to build semiconductor factories in the U.S., are just some of a long list of government interventions in the economy under Biden.

 

Trump did the same. He pressured companies to keep factories open here as opposed to going overseas. He defended Boeing by raising tariffs on Canadian competitor, Bombardier. Steel tariffs were imposed on foreign producers including our best trading partners to protect our industry. I could go on, but you get the picture.

 

Don't get me wrong, and don't confuse economics with a country's political system. U.S. state capitalism is not socialism and likely never will be. It does, however, change the playing field for companies and their management.

 

The expectations that the government is trying to change how business behaves has already had an impact in the boardroom. Pressuring investments for or against ESG, denying acquisitions, launching investigations, browbeating and more are levers that are moving investment choices from maximum return to focusing on political expedience. It becomes more about who you know in the corridors of power. It is also an atmosphere where crony capitalism can thrive and grow.

 

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.