After a year where the stock averages have declined anywhere from 7 percent to 30 percent, the last thing investors want is to see further downside. The problem is that a surging stock market is the last thing the Fed wants to see in its battle to reduce inflation.

 

It is common knowledge that the Fed does not want to see a robust equity market. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and his merry men have never said so explicitly, but they are monitoring the ups and downs of the market closely. When they perceive that price action is getting out of hand, one or more FOMC members step up and try to talk the markets down.

 

Several times this year when the animal spirits of traders and investors have pushed stocks up 10 percent or more, the Chairman has been able to squash the move effectively simply by jaw boning. These actions may be contrary to many investors' long-held belief that a stronger stock market is always good for the economy but that is not always the case.

 

The Fed has done a good job of explaining that inflation is their number one concern when it comes to the health of the economy. That sentiment has been echoed throughout the globe as central bankers everywhere are raising interest rates continuously. Readers should know that tightening monetary policy by raising interest rates and reducing liquidity in the credit markets by selling bonds are the main tools central bankers use to reduce demand.

 

The problem is that thus far, despite raising rates at a historical pace, the economy continues to grow. Employment remains stubbornly higher than expected as well. That combination continues to fuel consumer demand for goods and services. As a result, inflation remains substantially higher than the Fed's target of two percent.

 

But hasn't the stock market declined enough to warrant a more dovish Fed? Not really. Consider that the pre-pandemic low of the S&P 500 Index was 3,387 in February 2020. Since then, despite 2022 losses, the index is still 16 percent higher than that level. For the most part, meme stocks and other speculative assets are still alive and kicking. In every bear market rally thus far, investors have flocked back into these assets, despite the lack of earnings, profits, or even cash flow. In many of these companies.

 

It is only recently that highly speculative assets such as crypto have finally begun to fall substantially, but it took a major financial crisis and bankruptcy to trigger that event. None of this seems to have phased or altered the casino-like atmosphere of today's stock markets. In short, after years of buying the dip, it is taking much longer to convince traders that may not be the best investment strategy. It could require a recession to change that behavior.

 

Most financial professionals are expecting a recession in 2023 thanks to the Fed's tightening of monetary policy. A recession is one of the best ways to reduce economic demand and by doing so achieve the Fed's goal of lowering inflation. I'm hoping for a quick, couple of quarters of a moderate recession that will drive inflation lower without causing too much harm to the country's labor force.

 

So how would a substantial decline in the stock market help reduce inflation?

 

In the U.S., the stock market is normally the bailiwick of those considered well-off. They have enough money to both support their lifestyle and save for their eventual retirement.

 

When financial assets decline, there is less money in the system, so financial conditions automatically tighten.

 

At the same time, a sell-off in equities has a psychological effect on those who are invested. People feel poorer as their 401 (k) or IRA decline. Often, they tend to reduce spending on consumer goods and services, therefore reducing demand (and inflation). As prices decline substantially, savvy savers can also take advantage of fire sale prices. This is an especially good deal for younger retirement savers who can take advantage of a "buy low" period in order to beef up their retirement saving plans.

 

As for those living paycheck to paycheck, a plunge in the stock market means little to them, even if the selloff is caused by a recession. Hourly workers who are laid off will likely find another job quickly, especially if a recession is short and sharp in duration. 

 

Overall, a moderate recession and a cheaper stock market would hurt investors in the short term but help just about everyone in the long term. It would wring out speculative fever among investors, help the Fed accomplish its inflation goals sooner than later, and have comparatively little impact on both the long-term performance of one's retirement account and the stock market.

 

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.

Historically, mid-term election years are notoriously periods of underperformance in the stock market. The post-election year is a different story altogether. Will 2023 be one of those years?

 

The average return for the stock market in the 12 months after elections has been 16.3 percent.

 

2022 will qualify in history as one of those underperforming mid-term election years. To date, the benchmark S&P 500 Index, has lost roughly 20 percent thus far and may end the year even lower.

 

Historically, looking back to 1932, S&P 500 returns have averaged 14 percent in a split Congress and 13 percent in a Republican-held Congress under a Democratic president. The facts are that stock markets do well when there is gridlock in Congress. Neither new spending initiatives nor tax increases are likely to pass a divided Congress. In the aftermath of this election, if the House and or Senate flip to the GOP, the best that can be said is that additional business regulation will be limited and may even be rolled back somewhat in areas such as energy, pharmaceuticals, biotech, and the financial sectors.  

But a rebound in the markets next year is far from a sure thing given the global economic background. We are wrestling with the highest inflation rate in a generation, sky rocketing interest rates, the Ukrainian war, and a worldwide economic slowdown. The International Monetary Fund has cut its forecast for global growth from 3.2 percent in 2022 to 2.7 percent next year. That is the weakest growth rate since 2001.

 

As the global economic pie shrinks, I expect to see a rise in worldwide trading blocs as the world fights for a bigger piece of the shrinking pie. A North-South economic and political axis has been forming for more than a decade with China in the lead in expanding trade and investment in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

 

Russia has joined this bloc in response to Western economic sanctions, while nations such as India, Brazil, some of Eastern Europe as well as certain energy producers in the Middle East are strengthening economic ties with both Russia and China. Together, these countries represent more than one-third of the world's economic output and two-thirds of its population. As global growth slows, expect trade wars to accelerate between this bloc and a U.S.-led trading bloc. That trade group includes most of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and a host of other pro-democratic nations.   

 

A recession seems to be all but guaranteed in 2023 here in the U.S. In a recent CNBC CFO Council survey, more than 68 percent of chief financial officers (CFO) are convinced that a recession will unfold during the first half of 2023. No CFO surveyed believed the country will escape a recession. It is just a question of how severer the recession will be. I believe that will depend on how high the Fed must raise interest rates to bring inflation down.

 

Inflation was identified as the biggest risk facing the economy and businesses by the Federal Reserve Bank. Most Americans would agree with that position. Unfortunately, inflation, now over 8 percent, has been much stickier than most experts expected. As a result, the ongoing central bank tightening of monetary policy that began this year will continue into 2023.

 

The longer inflation remains elevated, the longer and higher interest rates must climb. The main debt instrument the Fed uses in raising interest rates is the Fed funds rate. All other debt instruments key off that rate. Bond investors expect the Fed will ultimately target a Fed Funds rate above 5 percent. The Fed's announced target rate is now between 3.75 percent-4 percent. Bond investors expect the Fed will ultimately target a rate above 5 percent before all is said and done. That means we still have a sizable amount of tightening yet to come.

 

The Fed is counting on higher interest rates to slow demand by reducing economic growth while increasing the unemployment rate. That would hopefully reduce the rate of inflation. Some economists could see inflation fall to 5-6 percent under this scenario.

 

I expect that rising interest rates will result in a slowing economy in the first half of 2023, resulting in a mild recession, and a decline in the headline inflation rate. The financial markets, I expect, will remain volatile as these economic developments unfold. Traders, witnessing a gradual decline in inflation, will jump the gun, bid markets higher, and expect the Fed to ease, only to be disappointed.

 

The Fed will remain steadfast for months, in my opinion, until they are sure their policies are working. This divergent behavior will whipsaw investors. It will likely create a series of vicious bear market rallies only to see chasers caught in nasty bull traps. I expect to see lower highs and lower lows as January and February progress.

 

At some point in the first quarter, fears that the Fed will "over tighten" and force the economy into an even deeper recession will make the rounds on Wall Street as well as in Washington. That will add fuel to the fires of uncertainty and likely make a life for Fed officials difficult, especially if the labor market weakens. We could also see increased stress in financial markets here and abroad, as credit markets grow tighter.

 

U.S. corporate earnings for the benchmark S&P 500 Index currently at $225 will probably take it on the chin. I expect at best, earnings will be flat versus 2022 and may decline to roughly $200 in a worst-case kind of scenario. If you slap a 15 times earnings ratio onto that number, you come up with a 3,000-price level on the Index, compared to the 3,900 level today.  

 

As such, I see a rather nasty first-quarter decline in the stock markets to fresh lows that could take the S&P 500 Index down another 10 percent-20 percent or so from here. I am forecasting a final capitulation in the stock market around the end of March 2023 with a tentative bottom of 3,200.

 

When do I see the Fed pivot or at least pause in tightening? That depends on inflation, but I do believe it will take several months before the Fed will be willing to relax its policies once inflation begins to fall. That hasn't happened yet. Let's say it does happen over the next six to nine months, sometime in the second quarter of 2023.

 

If so, I expect the markets will anticipate this change. The U.S. dollar will begin to retreat, interest rates start to decline, and we should see stocks and bonds bounce in the Spring and throughout the summer. For the year, my guesstimate, which will change for sure as the year progresses, is a target of 4,500 on the S&P 500 index.

 

I would expect to see assets that are negatively correlated to a declining dollar such as materials, commodities, energy, and maybe cryptocurrencies do well. Emerging markets would also benefit as would U.S. and foreign stocks in general. As interest rates decline, there would also be an upside in bond prices across the board as well as bond funds. High-yielding dividend stocks and value stocks would also do well.

 

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.

 

American workers are making more dollars per hour than they did before the pandemic. That's the good news. The bad news is that inflation is wiping away most of those gains and the rate of wage growth is slowing.

 

Most Americans look at their paychecks today and feel pretty good. However, they realize that after spending on essentials such as food, fuel, education, and health, they realize that their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. 

 

"Real wages on average are falling, not rising," says San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly, summing up the present state of wage growth.

 

To be sure, there was a one-time surge in salaries back in 2021, which spilled over into the early months of this year, but since then, wage growth has been slowing.

 

Real average hourly wages in the U.S. in the private sector rose at a 3.9 percent rate in the three months ended in October, which is down from a high of 6.3 percent at the end of 2021 and fell further to 5.9  percent as recently as the three months ended in July.

 

In general, the rate of change in wages has been falling for well over a year, while inflation at 7.8 percent remains close to its highest rate in decades. In dollars and cents terms, let's say you are an average worker making $30.06, which was the average wage back in March of 2021. Fast forward to August of this year and now you are making $32.36. Not bad, huh?

 

Now let's throw in the inflation rate during that period, which had risen by 11.81 percent. Let's say it costs you $5,000 per month to pay all your bills, after inflation that monthly nut had now climbed to $5,591.  

 

Over the past year, the Federal Reserve Bank has been doing its best to battle inflation back down to the 2 percent range, but they caution that this is a process that will take time. This week in a speech at the Economic Club of New York, John Williams, the New York Fed president, sees inflation falling to 5.0-5.5 percent by late 2023 as more interest rate hikes restore balance to the economy. How does raising interest rates to reduce inflation and restore economic balance?

 

For one thing, it reduces demand in the economy by reducing discretionary spending, which is an economic buzzword for making it harder to make ends meet if you are a typical worker. Higher interest rates spill over into borrowing rates, which make buying a home, or an automobile, or paying down your credit card more expensive to consumers. So, the tools that the Fed is using to reduce inflation are hurting the labor force, while wages are not keeping up with inflated expenses.

 

One way out of this dilemma for many workers is to job jump. After all, jobs are plentiful right now, so if you don't like the one you have, just get another one. As an added incentive, in this tight labor market, switching jobs frequently comes with another bump up in pay or at least a signing bonus. Some workers I know personally have moved positions two or three times in the last two to three years while upping their total compensation on every move.

 

However, those days may be coming to an end. Fed President Williams, while admitting that the job market remains remarkedly tight, expects the U.S. unemployment rate to rise from 3.7 percent today to 4.5 percent-5 percent by the end of next year. If so, job hopping to keep ahead of inflation might not be as easy to pull off.

 

If it makes any difference, you are not alone. European workers are experiencing a similar gap between wages and inflation even though they are represented by far more unions than here in the U.S.

 

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 nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SRP) has been reduced by more than 25 percent over the last year. That is the lowest level in 40 years. Oil had dropped below $80 a barrel mark this week, causing some critics to argue that it might be time to start building the SRP back up. I disagree.

 

My reasoning centers on a handful of geopolitical events that could send oil prices soaring in the first week of December. To understand how important the SRP might be in that case, one needs to know more about the Biden administration's use of the SRP since 2021.

 

A year ago this month, on Nov. 23, 2021, President Joe Biden announced the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to the Ukraine/Russian conflict, which caused o and gas prices to explode higher. The president's stated goal was to lower oil and gas prices while addressing the lack of energy supply worldwide.

 

Since then, Biden's activist intervention in global oil markets has succeeded in reducing U.S. gas prices at the pump, as well as contributing to the decline in oil prices to their lowest level in more than a year. So far, 160 million barrels of oil have been released with another 10 million barrels scheduled to be drained this month. Some say that is more than enough. Maybe, maybe not.

 

To gain some perspective, let's look at the history of the SRP. It was first created by Congress back in 1975 in response to the 1973 oil crisis. For those who are curious, the nation's emergency crude oil is stored in underground salt caverns at four major storage facilities on the Gulf Coast, two sites in Texas, and two sites in Louisiana.

 

The purpose of the SRP was to manage market disruptions such as a war in the Middle East, an oil embargo, or a natural catastrophe. Our energy stockpile has been used by several presidents, most notably during the Iraq/Kuwait War in 1990-1991, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the 2011 Arab Spring energy disruptions. The Ukraine War and the subsequent sanctions on Russian-produced oil certainly fit the bill for use of the SRP and thus the release of oil from the U.S. emergency energy storage.

 

Criticism of President Biden's move to employ the SRP as an energy weapon has been harsh and varied. Some Republicans have called his decision reckless because it endangers our energy security at a time when there is so much global conflict and uncertainty. Others accuse him of a blatantly political move.

 

They say his use of the SRP before the midterm elections was simply a ploy to win over voters. If so, it worked. Gasoline prices dropped from more than $5 a gallon to $3.80 a gallon today. Voters may have also been swayed by the decline in pump prices since the GOP failed to score the "red wave" they were expecting. 

 

But to be fair, several presidents besides Biden have released oil from our stockpile during political campaigns. Bill Clinton, for example, did so just before the 2000 presidential campaign between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

 

However, this is the first time a president went on the record in admitting that he was using our petroleum reserves to reduce prices, rather than to bolster supplies. Most economists would laugh at that distinction, since ordinarily if you increase the supply of something, its price will decline over time.

 

To me, the Biden administration's activist interference in the global oil markets may just be the beginning. Until recently, the global price of oil has been in the hands of a few volatile foreign governments and OPEC. But a lot has changed in the American oil patch since the 1970s. The U.S. is now one of the leading producers of oil and gas and a major energy exporter. Pricing power comes with that kind of production.

 

The willingness of the U.S. government to enter the fray and become a price setter instead of a taker via the SRP could become a geopolitical tool and an answer to the OPEC+ Cartel's domination and control of energy prices and supply. The bottom line: by focusing on price, President Biden may be putting the price-fixing cartel of OPEC+, and Russia on notice that there is a new boy on the block.

 

I also believe that the administration's announced intention to start rebuilding the SRP somewhere between $67-$72 a barrel of oil is an attempt at establishing a floor of price support for oil. That may be comforting news to U.S. energy companies. If the oil majors and shale producers believe that the U.S. government is willing to backstop their business at a certain oil price, would that give them added confidence and an incentive to increase U.S. energy supplies? I think so, but now is not the time to start building back our oil reserves.

 

On Dec. 5, 2022, the Group of Seven (G7) and the European Union (EU) are planning to embargo Russian oil. In addition, a G7 plan, intended as an add-on to the EU embargo, would allow shipping services providers to help export Russian oil, but only at enforced lower prices. An embargo like that could take as much as 2.4 million barrels per day of Russian oil off the market. That could increase oil prices dramatically. There is also an added risk that Russia retaliates and cuts off energy supplies to Europe in response.

 

Oil analysts worry that these plans could backfire, at a time when seasonal energy demand is at its highest. OPEC is worried as well. They are rumored (officially denied) to be debating a 500,000 barrel per day increase in production just in case.

 

If the worse happens and oil prices skyrocket higher into the first quarter of 2023, what will be the U.S. response? Will the president stand fast, or will he be forced to order another 90-100 million barrels, of oil, or more to be drained from the SRP? I am betting he would be forced to release more barrels because the alternative could be $120 barrel oil in the months ahead.

 

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 unemployment rate for veterans in the U.S. is 2.5 percent. That is a level that is 1.2 percentage points lower than the national unemployment rate. Much of this declining jobless trend can be attributed to the success of hiring, training, and education programs of businesses and the government.

 

Today, veterans account for 7 percent of the civilian population, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so that's good news for the overall economy. Granted, the tight labor market and demand for workers after the COVID-19 pandemic, have helped everyone seeking a job find one.

 

In the case of veterans, they have had some extra help from the U.S. military, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and various veterans' service organizations in preparing them to re-enter the U.S. labor force. In addition, American companies have launched initiatives of their own that have successfully hired hundreds of thousands of vets as well.

 

It wasn't always this way.

 

Much of the impetus for this combined effort was triggered by the Great Recession and the dearth of jobs that were available to returning service members who were damaged and stressed out by their service in Afghanistan and Iraq. Credit goes to President Barack Obama who established several service initiatives supported by a bipartisan Congress.

 

Today, among businesses, veterans are seen as an exceptional class of Americans. Thanks to government programs that provide tax breaks, salary subsidies, and regulatory benefits the risk of hiring vets has been diminished substantially. 

 

The gains in employment rates are good news for vets. Some readers might ask why these ex-members of an extremely capable fighting machine need all this extra help. This bleak batch of statistics concerning our nation's heroes might give you a few reasons:

 

Since 9/11, four times as many U.S. service members have died by their hands as have died in combat. Of all adults who are experiencing homelessness, 13 percent are veterans, and PTSD impacts 15 out of every 100 veterans daily.

 

I can commiserate. Back in the day, my job search suffered after my return from Vietnam. Part of that difficulty derived from the blowback I received from employers who equated my service with an unpopular, controversial war. I also know what it means to suffer from PTSD.

 

I count myself lucky because I benefited from the help I received from the psychology department of a local university I attended on the GI Bill. Still, many years later, while paddling up the Amazon River on vacation with my teenage daughter, I suffered constant flashbacks and nightmares in those jungles and afterward for days.

 

In any case, I can attest that many vets may feel isolated once they separate from their band of brothers. It is even worse for female veterans, who relied on sisterhood to navigate a male-dominated military. More than 70 percent of a national survey of 4,700 women veterans admitted adjusting to civilian life was difficult.

 

For many vets, it may take years to find a new identity, employment, and a new purpose in life. Employers say that vets do bring specific skills like leadership ability, and a strong sense of mission to the job. Companies eager to hire may sometimes be disappointed, however, because a job fit that seemed ideal on paper doesn't work out that way once the vet is hired.

 

A mistake many vets have made is accepting a job similar to what they did in the service, only to trigger unexpected reactions. A military convoy truck driver, for example, may discover that his new FedEx job simply aggravates negative feelings from his combat experience. It is one reason why more than 50 percent of vets returning to the workforce quit and find a second job within a year. 

 

Fortunately, both government and businesses are now aware of the unique pitfalls vets face and have developed all sorts of successful re-training programs that exist within companies, in various governmental organizations, and the non-profit sector.  

 

At my old alma mater, Forbes Magazine, a list of America's "Best Employers for Veterans," is now in its third year of publication. Forbes partnered with a market research company, Statista, to survey 7,000 U.S. veterans working for American-based companies employing 1,000 people or more. Two hundred companies received the highest score with aerospace and defense companies claiming the top three spots.

 

Government services occupied 24 spots in the list with NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Commerce leading the public sector pack. One reason the government is so heavily represented may be that veterans are given preference over other applicants for almost all federal government jobs.

 

All in all, veterans today have an enormous number of avenues available to them and, for the most part, most ex-military service members are willing and able to take advantage of them. That doesn't mean they won't need our help in the future. If a country is willing to go to war, in my opinion, the greater the obligation to care for those who fought.

 

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.