U.S. first quarter Gross Domestic Product for 2023 was revised upward this week indicating that consumers are spending like drunken sailors. That's good for America as was the latest inflation data for May.

 

Between January and March of this year, the economy grew at a 2 percent annual pace. That caused the Commerce Department to sharply upgrade its previous yearly estimate of 1.3 percent. Although strong, it has continued to decelerate from a 3.2 percent growth rate in the third quarter of 2022 and a 2.6 percent increase in the last quarter of 2022.

 

Despite rising borrowing costs, the consumer continued to defy expectations. Consumer spending rose at a 4.2 percent annual rate in the first quarter. That is important, given that their spending accounts for 70 percent of the growth in the economy. And as long as the labor market continues to strengthen, workers will continue to spend. This week's unemployment claims declined, bolstering the view that employment is still quite healthy.

 

The Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, a gauge favored by the Fed, came in lower in May at 3.8 percent, which was the lowest level since April 2021. While inflation has halved over the last year, it is still high above the Fed's target of 2 percent. It is the reason Federal Reserve bankers continue to pound the table on maintaining their tight monetary policies. Market observers are now expecting another interest rate hike in July, and bets are fifty-fifty on one more hike after that.

 

Economists have continually pushed back the timing on exactly when the economy will dip into recession. Some think that this long-anticipated recession could begin in the third quarter but might well wait until the fourth quarter. There are some estimates it won't happen at all this year.

 

Liz Anne Sonders, the chief investment strategist for Charles Schwab, has argued that we have been in a rolling recession for the last two years plus. Housing and manufacturing, for example, have already suffered downturns. Other areas, such as the services sector, are still growing, but will likely be hit by a slowdown in the future. So rather than look for a formal traditional recession, investors should instead be on the lookout for the next areas to roll over. I think she has it right.

 

Good news on the banking front in the form of the successful stress test by the nation's 23 largest banks lifted the banking sector this week. Each year, the Federal Reserve Bank administers a severe recession scenario to identify if these banks can maintain the minimum capital levels while continuing to provide credit to the economy.  Given the worries sparked by the failure of three regional banks earlier this year, the results were a welcome sign in shoring up investors' worries over the U.S. financial system.

 

Last week, I wrote that I was watching the 4,350-4,320 level on the S&P 500 Index. I was also watching technology for a bottom. The QQQ, which is the symbol for the tech-heavy exchange-traded fund reflecting the NASDAQ Index, had a downside risk of 352. We hit an intraday low on Monday of 4,328 on the S&P 500, and 357 on the QQQs. We bounced from there as I expected, not too shabby for a guesstimate, but calling these levels is more about luck than anything else. So where to next?

 

It is the end of the quarter today, so market action on Friday was all about window dressing. Money managers want to close their books with a list of winners to show their clients so what stocks that worked over the last three months were bid up to dress up results.  I can see more gains into a holiday-shortened week and possibly further upside into the second week of July. We could see 4,600 or so before another bout of profit-taking sets in. Longer term, I am expecting 4,800 on the S&P 500 Index, but we have plenty of time to achieve that target.

 

Have a great Fourth of July; you've earned it.

 

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.

 

Last month, a new term for those stocks that have led the stock market higher this year surfaced on Wall Street. Investors have anointed Apply, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Nvidia and Tesla as the new leaders in the equity market.

 

It isn't the first time a group of stocks have captured the imagination and money of the investing community and it won't be the last. FANG, for example, an acronym that represented Facebook (now called Meta), Apple, Netflix, and Google have been a favorite investment group that has rewarded investors for buying and holding over the last decade or so.

 

Through the decades, there have been many such groups that provided outperformance and led to the market. My first experience with this groupthink type of investment was the Nifty Fifty. These stocks represented 50 large-cap stocks that were viewed as stable over long periods. Solid earnings growth was the key indicator to qualify for inclusion in this group. All of them were recommended as buy-and-hold equities.

 

Investors assigned high price/earnings ratios to these favored stocks and, in some cases, they were trading at fifty times earnings or more compared to the long-term market average of 15-20 times earnings. Investors would find it hard to believe some of the names in this list of darlings during the 1960s and 1970s. Dow Chemical, Gillette, JC Penney, Polaroid, Sears Roebuck & Co., Xerox and Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. were all in demand. The group propelled a bull market of the 1970s and was also credited with causing a decline in the markets, as most of these stocks crashed and burned in the early 1980s.

 

In the late 1990s, Oracle, Intel, Cisco, and Microsoft, dubbed the "Four Horsemen," were the favored group. In the mid-2000s, emerging markets were all the craze. The BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) could do no wrong and lead markets higher on a global basis. The performance of each of these groups outperformed the overall averages consistently before losing favor.

 

Over the last decade-plus, the FAANG stocks (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google) rewarded investors and continue to do so today. Since the beginning of the year, the gains in the stock market have been largely credited to the Magnificent Seven that are almost all up 90 percent thus far. Driving these incredible gains is their ability to generate huge profits and reward investors with generous dividends and share buybacks.

 

Investor fascination with artificial intelligence has also provided another reason to invest in these companies, since most of them are considered leaders in generative AI. However, a word of caution is warranted. Technically, the Magnificent Seven stocks are fast approaching price exhaustion. For those who might want to buy into this group, I would wait until prices come back to earth before pulling the trigger. 

 

The good news for equity investors is that in the periods where short-hand acronyms or labels identified a winning set of stocks, bull markets occurred and continued for several years. It could be a coincidence. There is no data to suggest any group's performance can dictate where the markets overall are going next.

 

At best, I would say that the labeling of a new group of winners does reflect a change in mood among the market participants. Investor sentiment seems to have shifted to the bullish side, despite fears of recession, prolonged inflation, and geopolitical risk. I expect it will continue.

 

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.

What goes up, must come down — at least in the stock market. That doesn't mean that the bull market is over. More upside ahead in equities is a strong possibility, but first, we need to bottom.

 

"Stocks are stretched at this point; the rubber band could stretch further, but not right now. I believe next week we might see some downside in the averages (maybe 100 points give or take on the S&P 500), but then up again too as high as 4,600."

 

That was my take on where stocks were going in last week's column. Thus far, we seem to be right on target. Artificial intelligence stocks are leading this bout of profit-taking. Many smaller AI stocks have given back almost half their recent gains. That is as it should be given the extraordinary gains investors have enjoyed in some of these names. The technology area in general led the market's decline, but few areas were safe from this round of profit-taking.

 

A bout of central bank hikes in interest rates around the world contributed to the malaise in stocks, at least according to the news media. The Bank of England increased rates by 50 basis points, and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and New Zealand joined in as well. Sweden is expected to do the same next week, and both Canada and Australia did so last week. Over the last six months, almost four dozen countries have done the same.

 

In addition, while the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank announced a pause last week in its rate hikes, this week Fed officials made it clear that their rate tightening regime is not over. Fed Chair Jerome Powell testified for two days before Congress this week. In his testimony before congressional lawmakers, he went to great pains to notify the financial markets that he fully expected at least two more rate hikes in the months ahead.

 

He maintained that inflation was still running too hot and that, yes, there was "certainly a possibility" of a recession. Achieving a "soft landing" in which policy tightens without severe economic circumstances such as a recession, will be difficult, he cautioned.

 

While his remarks were no different than his statements last week after the FOMC meeting, the markets reacted quite differently. Last week it was up, up, and away on Thursday and Friday. This week, it was the opposite. My own belief is that bullish momentum traders had hit their targets in the indexes by Friday (as did I), and central bankers merely gave them an excuse to lock in some great profits.

 

Since the NASDAQ 100 has led the markets higher and is leading them lower now, I would watch that index for clues on what will happen next. The QQQ, an exchange-traded fund, represents that index and is trading around 362. I see a downside risk to 352 on the QQQs, or another 2-3 percent pullback from here. At that point, we will determine if the profit-taking is over or not.

 

As for the S&P 500 Index, I am watching the 4,320-4,350 area. On Friday, the bulls were attempting to defend that 4,350 level. We are down 66 points from last Friday with possibly another 34 points to go for my expected 100-point decline. After that, we should see some upside.

 

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.

Summer jobs for teenagers are expected to rise this summer. Even better news, while the job openings are higher, so too are the wages young workers can command.

 

Teens have a long history of labor market participation in America. Between World War II and the end of the 20th century, at least half of the nation's teenagers were active participants in the labor force. 

 

Back in my day, getting a summer job in high school was a status symbol, a source of spending money, and a chance to show the world what I could accomplish given the chance. Back then, summer jobs provided real-world experience and helped street kids like me develop work-related skills, especially soft skills that apply to almost all career paths.

 

I credit summer and after-school jobs for keeping me on the right side of the law in a neighborhood where crime, gang fights, and booze on the corner were a nightly occurrence. Academic research indicates that summer employment still has positive effects on all of the above areas, plus teenagers' overall academic and career aspirations, work habits, and job readiness. 

 

Over the past three years, as readers know, the U.S. has been wrestling with a nationwide labor shortage. Blame the Pandemic, the retirement of Baby Boomers, the strong economy, or whatever. One silver lining in this woeful tale is that the demand for teen labor has increased dramatically.

 

The workforce of 16- to 19-year-olds was hit hard by the Pandemic. That made sense since teens usually work at the entry-level in the retail trade, leisure, and hospitality sectors. Those were the areas that were most impacted by Covid-19 and the subsequent lockdowns, etc.

 

As the labor market began to bounce back in 2020, teen employment improved as many older workers continued to remain out of the workforce. Demand for service jobs skyrocketed. By the end of the first quarter of 2023, the teen employment rate in the U.S. stood at 33.4 percent. That was the highest rate since 2009, according to "The 2023 Summer Job Outlook for American Teens," a research study by Rhode Island College.

 

Since 2019, the tight labor market, especially at the entry-level, caused hourly wages to rise sharply. Weekly pay for summer teen workers increased from $280 in 2019 to $300 by the summer of 2022. That 7 percent increase beat the 20-to-24 age group's 4 percent gain and the prime age group (ages 25-54) wage gain of 2 percent. Older workers (over 55) saw wages decline by 1 percent.

 

The national lifeguard shortage is a good example of this trend. For the third summer in a row, a lack of lifeguards is expected to keep about a third of the nation's 309,000 public pools closed or operating with reduced hours. This does not include beaches, water parks, and other venues, which are in a similar position. Teenage workers are nowhere to be found. To woo more young workers, cities, and states are raising wages and/or offering incentives including one-time bonuses.

 

The bad news for teens overall is that since the turn of the century, the participation of teens in the workforce has been on a steady decline. At the peak of the 1990s' labor market boom, 52 percent of teens were working. Teens held one out of every 20 jobs across the nation. By the Great Recession of 2008-2009, the teen participation rate in the labor force fell to 41 percent and remained in a range of between 34-35 percent from 2011 through 2019. At that point, one out of every 30 jobs were held by teens.

 

No other group experienced such a sharp decline in employment during those years. What is worse, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has forecasted that by 2031, the teen participation rate will fall to under 30 percent.

 

The reasons for this troubling demographic are varied. Substantial job deficits were a source of unemployment for most Americans during the period in question. At the bottom of the Great Recession, there were six unemployed workers for every job opening. Unemployed college grads found themselves working in the food services and retail trade. In addition, older workers and unskilled or undereducated foreign workers took many of the menial jobs usually reserved for youth. In sum, teens were crowded out of a scarce employment market.

 

The question remains. Will this renaissance in labor participation for today's teens continue, or is it simply a flash in the pan? I hope that the Labor Department is wrong, and America's youth will find their summer jobs as fulfilling as mine was.

 

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.

As the smoke from Canadian wildfires clears (literally) here in the Northeast, the awareness of climate change has risen. For the insurance industry, that knowledge has already precipitated some worrying policy changes.

 

Last month, the news that two major insurers were no longer going to sell homeowner's policies in California may have come as a surprise to some. But like me, I am sure that most readers simply dismissed the issue as a problem between a West Coast state's regulations and the insurance industry.

 

In California, which some think as the home of liberal politicians and crazy ideas, regulators have capped rates insurance companies can charge the public. On average, residents pay $1,300 per year in insurance rates, which has been artificially low for years when compared to other states. After years of losses, State Farm and Allstate Insurance companies called it quits.

 

Last month, State Farm stated that "due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure, and a challenging reinsurance market," they were done accepting new applications for property insurance from both homeowners and commercial property owners.

 

What to do? The easy answer would be for California to just remove the rate cap for insurance, the companies would relent, and the problem is solved. Sure, that works, if you are OK to see your insurance policy double, triple, or maybe quadruple in the years to come as wildfires continue to rage. And it is not just about wildfires.

 

Take Florida's issues for example. Hurricanes and flooding have devastated the state. As of right now, homes are still insurable in many areas, but at what cost?

 

In Florida average annual rates are forecasted to rise 43 percent to almost $6,000 this year. Experts believe that the annual cost to insure your home in Florida could top $10,000 a year in a few years. In some areas, it is already that high. Despite those rates, two dozen Florida insurers are on the state government's financial watchlist as rates are still not keeping up with underwriting losses.

 

In many areas of Florida, the only recourse for homeowners' insurance is the state-backed Citizens Property Insurance, which has become the largest insurer in the state with greater than 1.2 million customers. And like California, rate increases are restricted by regulators. Aside from the intensity and frequency of damage from climate change, home replacement costs have also gained by more than 50 percent since 2019 as wages and material costs have climbed.

 

As in other areas, reinsurance costs (insurer's insurance) have also skyrocketed, especially in areas that have been impacted the most by climate change. Today, insurance costs are the highest and/or most difficult to procure in California, Florida, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana and New York in that order.

 

Over half of the worst disasters (in dollar terms) in U.S. history have happened since 2010, according to the National Multifamily Housing Council. Unfortunately, as time goes by, climate change in the form of drought, tornados, hurricanes, wildfires, snowstorms and floods will increase and impact all 50 states. And those are only the most common catastrophes we face today. The spread of life-threatening insects and disease, dust storms, rising water levels, and permanent damage to shrinking coastlines and waterways is yet to come.

 

Insurance costs, where available, are going to continue to rise, in my opinion. Many homeowners in more and more locales might find that they cannot obtain insurance. As climate risks rise, certain regions of the country could become uninsurable, at least by the private sector. Without insurance, the chances of obtaining a mortgage would be difficult at best. In the end, it would make living in certain areas cost-prohibitive for all but the very wealthy. That would spark migration away from coastlines and further inland. Many climatologists believe that is the best and only solution.

 

The alternative would be to establish some form of government insurance based on the California or Florida model.  Homeowner insurance rates would need to be capped, but the taxpayer would ultimately be on the hook to cover losses. I am not sure how happy voters would be with that solution. All that would manage to do is continue to escalate the cost of climate change, chase insurers out of the business, and allow (encourage) those who live in danger zones to continue to do so. 

 

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.