The bankruptcies and financial contagion among regional banks have spotlighted a question point among many consumers. Why is it that banks are getting away with paying zero interest on billions of dollars in checking accounts?

 

The interest on savings accounts isn't much better. In a recent survey by Bankrate, a consumer financial services company, nearly 80 percent of U. S. savers say they earn less than 3 percent in their savings accounts. Today, with interest rates yielding between 4-5 percent (and inflation topping 7 percent), a mere 7 percent of Americans are getting the prevailing rates. What is worse, only a relative few are taking advantage of the opportunity to earn money on their money.  

 

The origin of this financial disconnect hearkens back to 1980. Before that date, banks were not allowed to pay interest on checking accounts. Non-bank institutions, such as thrifts and savings and loans, could not even offer checking accounts. The amount of interest banks were allowed to pay on deposits was limited by laws that were in effect since the Great Depression. These regulations were thought to preserve the health of the banking system at a time when interest rates were set by the Federal Reserve Bank.

 

The late 1970s revealed how detrimental this arrangement was for the consumer. It was a period of both double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. Savers were getting zero on their checking accounts, and only a regulated 5.25 percent on savings accounts. To lock in higher interest, beleaguered consumers bailed out of banks and moved their savings into unregulated entities such as mutual funds that were offering twice the rate of interest.

 

This all changed when Congress, during the Carter administration, passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act in 1980. The legislation deregulated institutions that accepted deposits and phased out restrictions (over six years) on how much interest they could offer on deposits.

 

This kicked off a period where banks competed aggressively to increase customer deposits by paying interest on checking accounts. The overall result was disastrous for banking's bottom line. Net interest margins (NET) are a major indicator of a bank's profitability and growth. NET is the amount of money that a bank is earning in interest loans, compared to the amount it is paying in interest on deposits. That margin shrank year after year, but banks continued to offer high-interest checking accounts to attract new customers.

 

The Financial Crisis of 2009 put an end to most interest-bearing checking in the U.S. In an atmosphere of the "too big to fail" banking bailouts, paying interest on checking accounts seemed almost irresponsible. In addition, to support the economy, the Federal Reserve Bank pushed interest rates to historic lows where they remained for years.

 

It wasn't until the pandemic that the financial landscape began to change. Inflation, higher interest rates, and ultimately the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) blowup, have conspired to refocus people’s attitudes toward money.

 

Why, therefore, haven't savers at least kept their cash in interest-bearing savings accounts? Theoretically, in a digital world, it is not difficult to move funds back and forth between savings and checking when needed. The simple answer is that up until a year ago interest rates were still too low to make much of a difference. In addition, few of us have been willing to take the time and effort to continually transfer funds, even if we are computer savvy. The banking sector has been counting on that.

 

The news that depositors of SVB were able to move funds electronically with a press of a button has encouraged commercial enterprises and institutions to do the same. In an economy where interest rates are climbing higher, moving cash deposits is now a priority among many corporate financial departments. As they do that, the retail public may start to realize that banks should be paying them interest on their money as well. It has already touched off a larger movement of deposits within the banking system than we have not seen in years.

 

Given the drain on deposits from less capitalized banks to larger banks, especially money center banks, the battle for retail customers has once again come to the forefront. You may have noticed a proliferation of checking account ads in the media lately. Banks are competing to pay you more for your deposits, but buyers should be aware of bait-and-switch tactics.

 

For decades, banks have used eye-popping interest rate offers to suck in new customers.  Shoppers should be attentive to just how long these great rates are in effect. Six months from now, you don't want to be told those deals no longer apply. Remember too that most banks try and avoid paying these same higher rates to existing customers.

 

In many cases, deals on interest rates by banks are marketed in areas where they have few customers but are not available to those in areas where they have a loyal customer base. What to do? A call to your bank might convince them to give you the advertised higher rate but don't count on it. Bottom line: to earn more on your money, you may need to open a new account and transfer money into it. That takes time and effort, but when interest rates are between 4-5 percent, it may be worth 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.

Pickleball is the fastest-growing sport in the U.S. for the third year in a row. It has taken the country by storm, thanks to its popularity among all ages. Industry experts expect to grow at an annual rate of 9 percent between 2023 and 2033.

 

The game was invented by three middle-aged fathers on vacation on Bainbridge Island in 1995 and named after the family dog, Pickles. Recently, my wife Barbara suggested we might find out what makes the game so popular. For those, like me, who have not played yet, the game is a cross between tennis, badminton, and ping pong. It is not difficult to learn and can be played almost anywhere. All you need is a paddle and a whiffle-like ball and someone to play with. What's more, it is a social game, usually played as doubles, with two players on each side volleying back and forth in close quarters.

 

Most of the game's core players (eight times a year or more) were over age 65. Retirees love it because it is easy on the body. But the demographics are changing. The fastest growing segment by age is now under 24. Players, 55 and older, are still in the majority, but that growth rate is slowing. Men are still the majority of players, but women represent 40 percent of those playing.

 

There are now more than 8.9 million players in the U.S. That is nearly double the number of players in 2021 and a 158 percent increase over 2020, according to the Sports and Fitness Industry Association.

 

As of 2023, there are two national professional tournaments. The sports organizers are now approaching corporate sponsors in earnest. They aim to grow the sport not only in this country but abroad as part of an effort to include it in future Olympics.

 

Pickleball is also growing in popularity in Europe, and enthusiasts believe the Asia Pacific market is ripe for the taking. The global pickleball equipment market was valued at $65.64 billion last year and is expected to grow to $155.4 billion over the next decade. Paddles account for nearly two-thirds of the equipment market, with wooden paddles running between $15 and $35. Composite varieties are more expensive ($40 and $100), while graphite paddles can cost upwards of $200.

 

Normally, you will want to buy six to 12 pickleballs at a time. Like paddles, some are more expensive than others. There are indoor and outdoor balls with the lifespan of outdoor balls shorter than those of indoor balls, as you might imagine. Outdoor balls, depending on the brand and price, last upward of 10 games. 

 

The demand for places to play, however, is outstripping supply. California, Florida and Texas lead the nation in the number of courts. There are roughly 44,000 pickleball courts in the U.S. as of 2022. Cost estimates for building courts can range from $300 for a temporary net, equipment, and tape to mark lines, to $30,000 for a permanent court.

 

In many cities, it is already difficult to find places to play. Municipalities are only now beginning to realize the popularity of the sport, so it is left to private developers to fill the gap. Former warehouses, vacant big-box stores, and even existing tennis, handball, and basketball courts are being utilized to satisfy demand. So far, this trend has had checkered results.

 

One bottom-line problem is that because a court can have only two or four players active at a time, the profitability per square foot is quite low in pickleball. As a result, entrepreneurs are adding entertainment, food, and drink to new facilities in hopes of expanding the business potential of the sport.

 

In any case, it appears the sport is here to stay. As for me, I agreed to give it a try at 74. and so, our next date night will be centered around a ball, paddle, and some physical exercise (but no dog). Wish me luck.

 

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, Bitcoin broke the $30,000 level. The cryptocurrency has doubled since its low in November 2022. Does this mean the crypto winter has finally passed and it is now safe to jump back in?

 

The short answer depends on how much risk you want to take. Cryptocurrencies, in general, suffered through a difficult 2022. The digital currency world lost much more than the stock market. Late in the year, most digital currencies were in freefall. Company after company in the sector collapsed. In the end, only those who were crypto die-hards remained faithful to the concept and Bitcoin in particular.

 

Bitcoin is the granddaddy of crypto currencies. It accounts for 45 percent of the total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies, which now hovers at around $1.29 trillion. That is down by more than half from its peak back in November of last year. The venture capital industry has also pulled the plug on investing in the area as well.

 

Some of the same combinations of events that sank the stock market spilled over into the crypto markets. The war in Ukraine, inflation, and higher interest rates drove crypto prices lower, which in turn, crippled many of the young company start-ups in the space. The Luna crypto network, for example, collapsed in May 2022, wiping out $60 billion in customer investments. This was followed by the TerraUSD stable coin failure. Both calamities caused a liquidity crunch throughout the industry.

 

 From a high of $69,000 in 2021, Bitcoin fell to below $20,000 by June 2022. That is when Celsius network, a major U.S. cryptocurrency lending company, froze withdrawals and transfers, citing extreme conditions. In subsequent months, several other exchanges and crypto lenders either filed for bankruptcy or paused customer withdrawals.

 

That created an atmosphere of fear, which fueled a further slump in the digital markets. Major cryptocurrencies experienced severe selloffs. That in turn decimated consumer confidence in the area and propelled the downward spiral further.

 

The industry's coup de grace occurred when a relatively new crypto exchange, FTX, founded by Sam Bankman-Fried, the so-called "Crypto Robin Hood" and CEO, filed for bankruptcy. The FTX collapse brought down even more crypto lenders along with it. At its peak, Wall Street valued the firm at $32 billion. Today, it is worthless. His arrest by the U.S. Justice Department on charges of wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering (among other civil and criminal charges) triggered calls throughout the nation for accelerated regulation of the industry.

 

And the fallout continues. The largest crypto exchange to survive, Binance, and its CEO Changpeng Zhao, was sued last month by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The CFTC alleges Binance offered derivatives to U.S. customers without a license. The lawsuit follows another enforcement action against the company as well as Paxos, a blockchain platform entity. Observers believe this may mean that government regulators are finally going after unregulated crypto service providers.

 

With all this financial carnage, you may wonder how the top 100 digital assets climbed 48 percent beating gold, stocks, high-yield bonds, and oil so far this year.

 

Two answers — the decline in the dollar, and the fear of financial contagion in the banking sector. The uncertainty generated by the collapse of several banks, and the bailout of others, has convinced some investors that digital assets might be a safer haven than their neighborhood banking institutions. That is a huge leap of faith, in my opinion, and extremely risky.

 

In addition, the decline in the U.S. dollar has also caused some to hedge their bets in the cryptocurrency markets. Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin seem to have an inverse correlation with the dollar as well as with interest rates — at least in the short term. However, those correlations could easily change.

 

Thus far, the bounce in Bitcoin seems to be the result of traders chasing price momentum. It may also be a function of diversification away from the dollar into other risk assets. As readers should know by now, cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile. It is a speculative asset that thrives best in bull markets, and we are not in a bull market. Regulatory risk is real, and it is debatable whether additional government regulations will help or hinder the future of Bitcoin.

 

On the positive side, the death of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies has been predicted more times than I can remember, but it is still alive and kicking.    

 

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.

Times are changing and, with them, many of the values Americans have held close and dear for generations. Money has become increasingly important, while traditional concepts such as patriotism, children, and religion are taking a backseat. 

 

A new poll I read over this weekend set me back on my heels. When asked about their values, 43 percent of Americans polled say money as a value is very important to them; more important in fact than traditional values such as having children, community involvement, religion, or patriotism.

 

The survey, conducted by a non-partisan research organization at the University of Chicago called NORC, and the conservative, Fox-owned, Wall Street Journal, revealed these eye-popping changes in the attitudes of Americans over the past 25 years.

 

For example, back in 1998, 70 percent of respondents said patriotism was important to them, while 62 percent felt religion was important. Those attitudes scores have plummeted with only 38 percent for patriotism, and 39 percent in favor of religion. The importance of community involvement dropped as well (from 47 percent to 27 percent), while the importance of having children and hard work has also fallen. The only area that saw an increase in the survey was the value of money.

 

If even some of these results are accurate (the margin of error was 4.1 percent), America is in trouble.

 

For many, that comes as no surprise. The division between Americans is wider than it has been in many decades. We have seemingly entered a period of hyper-polarization where people are becoming increasingly isolated. The pandemic contributed to that isolation severing our attachment and reliance on the community in many cases.

 

At the same time, trust in institutions is at all-time lows in the U.S., according to Gallup polling data. Corporate America, the media, the internet, Congress and the presidency, organized religion, hospitals, and even schools can no longer be relied upon when you need them. You are on your own, which makes money that much more important.

 

Over the last 25 years, several gut-wrenching events have assaulted our value system. The list is long: the World Trade Center terrorist attack, the 2008-2009 financial crisis, recession, several wars, the loss of U.S. jobs due to globalization, growing income inequality, ongoing religious scandals, the rise of American populism, the fracturing of political parties into divisive camps, rising civil disobedience, mass shootings, and of course the pandemic. 

 

Since then, supply chain disruptions, spiking inflation, higher interest rates, and a weakening banking system have rounded out the list of disruptions that have changed our lives forever.   

 

Is it any wonder that tolerance for others has fallen to 58 percent from 80 percent in just four years? Is it any surprise that community involvement has fallen off the cliff when the color of your skin or ethnicity is increasingly used to separate and segregate, rather than encourage what we have in common?

 

The very definition of some of our values is up for debate. Many are subject to new interpretations. Patriotism to the radical right means something altogether different from the patriotism that influenced my decision to join the Marine Corps and serve in Vietnam. I am sure organizations like Black Lives Matter, the Proud Boys, or Oath Keepers have very different views of what community involvement means to them.

 

And while all age groups including old fogies like me, saw their priorities and values change, younger Americans have even less attachment to the values that were (and still are) central to my life. I am sure that the rise of individualism and sense of entitlement that the media has fostered, and to some extent glorified, has impacted many of the values of younger generations. Patriotism, religion, having children, and community involvement scored much lower among young adults under 30 years of age compared to seniors, while the value attributed to money was higher.

 

The value of money is measured by what people are willing to exchange for it, and how much of it there is. Today, governments print money by boatloads, and yet demand keeps increasing. It seems more Americans than ever are willing to sell the soul of their nation in exchange for it.  One can only hope that sometime in the future Americans can be convinced to buy back into the traditional values that made America what it 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.

The present banking crisis has brought back memories of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. So far, the financial contagion has been corralled, thanks to swift government action. The winners and losers, however, have changed.

 

Most readers are familiar with the term "too big to fail." It refers to the financial theory that asserts that certain corporations, particularly banks, and some other financial institutions, are so large and so interconnected that their failure would be disastrous to the greater economic system. As such, these entities must be supported by governments when they face potential failure.

 

Back in the day, when Britain ruled the world, the government had a hands-off attitude toward failing banks.  Over time, Parliament began to realize that the cost of bank failures in the Commonwealth was far greater than supporting them. Through the years (and many successive financial crises later), more and more governments worldwide began to get involved earlier and with more aggressiveness to avert bank failures.

 

Here in the U.S., we learned our own lessons during the Great Depression when 9,000 banks failed taking with them $7 billion in depositors' assets. In the 1930s, remember, there was no such thing as a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC). The life savings of millions of Americans were wiped out by these bank failures. Years later, the New Deal legislation reformed and bolstered the framework of the financial sector in America.

 

While we still pride ourselves in believing in free markets and private capitalism, the reality is that a great many industries in the U.S. are private-public partnerships. A case in point is the banking industry. In the U.S., the government needs banks to create money and foster economic growth. The banks need the government to prevent bank runs and act as a lender of last resort. It is a symbiotic relationship.

 

The Great Financial Crisis almost tipped us into a second, worldwide depression.  The government's actions, or should I say reactions, to the crisis were ad hoc at best. Lehman Brothers went through a chaotic bankruptcy. JP Morgan was arm-twisted into buying a rival for an amount that kept its bondholders intact. Other institutions were kept alive through huge capital injections that left both shareholders and bondholders intact. 

 

None of these public actions truly solved the problems that got the banks into hot water in the first place. It required many years, and cost billions of extra dollars, before those issues were solved. At the same time, there was an enormous backlash by the tax-paying public against the bank bailouts and the government's actions to protect shareholders and bondholders. Since then, both banks and governments have learned several lessons.

 

The intervention in Europe to save Credit Suisse, and the U.S. actions in the case of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank were aimed at strengthening the overall financial system rather than leaving it weaker. Signature Bank was shut down. At Credit Suisse and SVB, senior executives were fired, while both bondholders and shareholders lost money.

 

On the other hand, the banks that acquired these troubled banks are ending up with hefty gains on their balance sheets. Both banks were effectively sold at a negative sale price, which was the difference between the amount that the acquiring bank is paying for its new assets and the book value of those assets.

 

It seems clear that the lessons learned from the Financial Crisis are that in the event of a bank failure, bond and shareholders' risk capital can, and in this case, did go to zero. Protecting depositors and the financial system has now become the top priority of the government and the banking system. And that is as it should be.

 

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.