Home About Archives RSS Feed

The Retired Investor: Trump and the China trade

By Bill SchmickGuest Column
It was supposed to be Agamemnon. Sixty percent plus tariffs on all Chinese products imported into the U.S. levied on Day One. What happened? Nothing.
 
Investors are still waiting for the first shoe to drop on the world's second-largest economy and America's No. 1 enemy. China has been the nation's punching bag ever since Donald Trump first acted against that country in his first term.
 
His actions resounded favorably with most Americans. China-bashing took on a life of its own. Decades of losing U.S. jobs and investment to China took its toll on both Democrats and Republicans. President Biden took up the baton and in the name of national security slapped all sorts of restrictions on high-tech exports to China.
 
TikTok is just the most recognized company among hundreds that were restricted, delisted, or blackballed because of ties to the Chinese army, intelligence departments, or just because someone decided to round out a list. Some countries have jumped on the bandwagon at U.S. insistence and the once miracle of export growth became a piranha with ties to our most hated enemies in North Korea, Iran, and Russia.
 
As a result, geopolitics has reduced the allocation of funds to China to almost zero for both U.S. and global financial institutions. The boards and trustees that run these institutions (many with ties to the government) passed down the word that China was off-limits for the foreseeable future. Many of these stocks, former darlings of both the investing public and the media, with names like Alibaba, Baidu, and Pinduduo (owner of Temu), are at valuations that practically give these companies away.
 
At the same time, the Chinese economy never quite recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. Gross domestic product slowed, inflation rose and the country's main engine of domestic growth, the real estate market, succumbed to years of overbuilding. From a decade ago, annual growth rates of 10-12 percent per year, China's GDP is barely half that rate today.
 
The Chinese government finally began working to turn around their economy last year but rather than provide a bazooka of stimulus, both monetary and fiscal support has been applied at a more moderate but steady pace. After an initial spike in the stock market, when stimulus was first announced, stocks have since declined.
 
Donald Trump's campaign promise to slap 60 percent tariffs across the board on Chinese goods added further pressure to prices as investors prepared for the worst. It remains to be seen, however, if the worst fears of Wall Street will materialize.
 
In a column last year, I floated the possibility that Trump, if elected, might surprise us. Instead of continuing to punish China for wrongs real and imagined, we might work to settle some of our major differences with China. After all, who better to make peace than the man who started the tariff war in the first place?
 
I could be wrong but since his election, it appears that the president has gone out of his way to avoid the China-bashing that colored his first term. He even invited China's leader Xi Jinping to his inauguration. He rescued TikTok from a forced shutdown the day before his inauguration. He then suggested the government, along with another American buyer, could purchase half the company from its Chinese owners. 
 
Trump has said he could put a 10 percent tariff on certain Chinese products in February, such as solar panels and electric vehicles, but that is a far cry from his original intentions to tariff all goods.  I have also noticed that soybean prices have strengthened lately. Chinese authorities have notified Brazil that soybean import contracts may not be renewed this year. China switched its purchases to Brazil from the U.S. in retaliation for some of the tariffs levied on Chinese products in the past years.
 
The Chinese startup DeepSeek recently launched several artificial intelligence products, which experts say are on par or better than industry-leading models in the United States at a fraction of the cost. This could revolutionize the energy-intensive AI industry worldwide and allow the penetration of its usage to explode far faster than anyone imagined. It could also do so with significant savings in energy and investment.
 
DeepSeek could be a possible wild card in U.S./China relations since President Trump announced a $500 billion AI initiative only last week. He would also like to reduce the price of energy and this new addition to the AI world promises to do just that.
 
It would not surprise me to see a deal with China this year on a variety of fronts including their help in ending the war in Ukraine. I may be a cock-eyed optimist, but if so, we could see a thawing of relations on several fronts between the two nations. That could be a major positive for the Chinese 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.

Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.

 

     

The Retired Investor: Food Prices Are Climbing Again

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires columnist
Eggs, fruit, vegetables, chocolate, cereal, and all kinds of protein — wherever you look — prices are rising faster at grocery stores than anyone may have imagined. The bad news is that consumers can expect this trend to continue.
 
Food prices jumped by 1.8 percent year-over-year at the close of 2024. That was the fastest increase in over a year, according to the Labor Department. In the last two months of the year, grocery prices climbed by 0.4 percent in November and 0.3 percent in December. Expectations are that January will see another rise.
 
Most voters will immediately point to corporate greed, grocery gauging, or as a last resort, the outgoing Biden administration as reasons for accelerating food prices. But before you join the blame game consider that there is a far more insidious and dangerous trend that some of us are denying, while others are simply ignoring. Climate change is the main engine behind these price increases, and it is only going to get worse.
 
The weather changes are hitting the production of food from all sides. Bird flu was practically non-existent two decades ago. Today, waves of the disease are becoming a yearly occurrence. Avian flu is decimating egg supplies and forcing wholesale prices to go higher and higher. Prices are up 37 percent from last year with as much as a 14 percent increase in December alone.
 
Historic droughts, floods, and disease have already caused a major decline in the world's supply of meat, pork, and chicken. The Agriculture Department expects even higher prices for these areas in 2025.
 
Soft commodities have also been subject to massive carnage because of climate change. In this area, we can also throw in insect damage along with floods, frost, fire, and dry weather. Everything from grains, cocoa, sugar, coffee, and more has seen prices double rather than quadruple as supplies have plummeted. This translates into climbing prices for cereal, candy, ice cream, milk, and hundreds of other products.
 
The World Economic Forum recently polled over 900 experts across academia, business, government, international organizations, and civil society to determine what experts viewed as the most severe global risks over the next two and 10 years. Extreme weather ranked No. 2 over the next two years right behind misinformation and disinformation. Over the next decade, climate change ranked No. 1.
 
"It's climate change, what can you do," said an increasing number of my acquaintances with a shrug of their shoulders and a shake of their head. Gone are the days when people were actively concerned unless, of course, they became victims of a weather event. It is no longer even a voting issue as it was back in 2020. Despite increased and recent natural disasters, climate initiatives ranked lower than other major ballot issues, according to Pew Research Center data. 
 
One would think the growing cost alone of weather damage would sway American attitudes. Just two recent disasters, for example, Hurricane Helene and the Los Angeles fires will cost the country upwards of $500 billion. That is more than four times the outlay for Social Security last year, 60 percent of the Department of Defense budget and 32 percent of all the Medicare/Medicaid outlays for 2024.
 
During the presidential election, Kamala Harris proposed price controls on groceries, while Donald Trump promised to provide relief on the inflation front. He specifically singled out reducing grocery prices but never offered a strategy for pulling that off. He has recently backpedaled on that promise acknowledging that it will be difficult to stem rising grocery prices but has not explained why.
 
The answer is simple. In today's Populist America, there is little room for more sacrifice from a generation that has been left out. Answering the growing threat of climate change would require an enormous redirection of resources. That time has not yet arrived, but it will.
 
I believe that over the next five years, weather disasters will accelerate at an increasing rate and food production will continue to decline. The result will be higher and higher prices and fewer and fewer choices at the grocery store. At some point, the costs of doing nothing will become so great that we will be forced to act. One thing is clear. Making America great again will become more and more difficult in the face of a Mother Nature which has run increasingly amuck.
 

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.

Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.

 

     

The Retired Investor: Economic Growth Versus Government Efficiency

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Staff
We grew up with tales of $500 toilet seats and bridges to nowhere when describing the abuses of government spending. In a few days, Americans will get our first taste of what it will mean to make our government efficient once again.
 
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is not an official government department. That would require an act of Congress. Since members of that august body have been the major contributors to decades of inefficient use of government funds, it probably was a good idea to bypass a vote on making DOGE "official."
 
Instead, it will operate as an advisory body, run by two of President-elect Trump's closest allies with a direct line to the Oval Office. Billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will serve as volunteers and not federal employees or officials. They will assist the president in recruiting a team of professionals who will provide guidance to the White House on spending cuts and compile a list of regulations they believe are outside of various agencies' legal authority.
 
Both men floated the idea of saving the country $2 trillion in savings or around a third of annual federal government spending by slashing federal regulations, overseeing mass layoffs, and shutting down some agencies entirely. That played well to the populist wave of voter sentiment but has since been paired back by half after winning the election. Their job, even with the newly reduced target of $ 1 trillion in savings is still formidable.
 
Just about everyone is for more government efficiency, if it does not come out of their backyard. Reduce defense but don't touch Social Security. Get rid of the education department but keep consumer protection. Everyone's interests are supposedly represented by lawmakers in Congress. Given that the House is almost evenly split and rife with factions in both parties, consensus on the passage of spending cuts will surely test both the persuasive abilities of Trump and his unofficial volunteers.
 
Their success or failure will have far-reaching effects on the stock market and the economy. Over the last decade, government spending has gone through the roof. The U.S. spent $6.75 trillion, an increase of $617 billion over 2023. That spending was 23.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Some argue that if you include the 13 percent spent by states and local governments, plus annual compliance costs to comply with federal regulations, the total is far higher.
 
As a result, the country's deficit is expected to grow to $1.8 trillion last year and to total $2 trillion in 2025 unless something changes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total debt is now running at $6 trillion, or more than 125 percent debt to GDP ratio which means that the U.S. government has more debt than the size of the entire economy. We are fast becoming what is called a "banana republic country." It is one of the main reasons why the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury bond’s yield has exploded in the last few weeks.
 
Given this backdrop, reducing the size of government while increasing its efficiency generally leads to positive effects on economic growth, which is extremely important for reducing the deficit and debt. According to most economic theories, a smaller government with effective operations can often stimulate private investment and innovation. That should lead to faster economic expansion over time, more tax revenues, and less need to borrow. How that all plays out depends on how the government is scaled down and which programs are affected.
 
Few in the media are talking about what will happen to the economy in the event DOGE is successful in reducing spending. Sure, according to economic theory, a more efficient government will lead to higher growth but over what time frame? My own opinion is that in the short run (the next year or two) slashing government employment, programs, and agencies will hurt the economy more than it helps it.
 
Let's be conservative and guess that all-in, Musk and his men, succeed in pairing $800 billion from the government's 23.5 percent share of the economy. What happens to GDP? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we could see a substantial decline in economic growth. It would probably mean higher unemployment too since the federal government employs more than 3 million people or 1.87 percent of the civilian workforce.
 
This slower growth would hurt corporate revenues and profits and possibly translate into a lower stock market, all else being equal.
 
The upside would be a leveling off in interest rates, some relief on our mounting debt burden and deficit, and maybe less inflation. At the same time, other policy initiatives from the new administration such as tax cuts, tariffs, and immigrant efforts could contribute to even slower growth or achieve the opposite.
 
In any case, over the next two to three weeks, I would pay close attention to the balloons floated by the DOGE boys. See what initiatives create the most blowback and what ideas may stick. Deep cuts in Medicaid, for example, which represent 10 percent of the federal budget, would hurt blue states the most, as well as hospitals in general. That suggestion and many others would cause a great deal of outrage. It is a question of whether the country is willing to accept short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. 
 

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.

Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.

 

     

The Retired Investor: IRS Incentive Boosts for Savers Not Nearly Enough

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires columnist
Saving for retirement will get a little more attractive next year. Given the dire state of savings in this country, anything that convinces workers they need to save more will be beneficial.
 
The Secure Act 2.0, enacted in 2022, ushered in several additional improvements in retirement savings, including even higher 401(k) plan catch-up contributions. The object was to make it easier for older American workers facing a retirement savings shortfall to set aside more money quickly. 
 
The facts are that there is a widespread retirement savings shortfall in the U.S. that spans generations. Sixty-five percent of Baby Boomers (age 55-64) have less than $25,000 to $100,000 saved toward retirement. If we use $500,000 as a marker, less than 7 percent of boomers saved that much and only 5 percent of the GenX generation (45-54).
 
Younger generations like older millennials (35-43) are not much better off and 10 percent lack a 401(k) entirely. However, 65 percent of Gen Z and younger millennials (21-34) do have $25,000 to $100,000 saved but doubt whether they will ever reach $1 million by retirement. Overall, if one believes the benchmark total of $1 million is needed to retire, only 2 percent of 401(k) holders have achieved that. And over one-third of Americans today believe they will never reach that benchmark.
 
In 2025, the government will provide a few more incentives to bolster savings. Contributions for 401(k), 403(b), governmental 457 plans, and the federal government's Thrift Plan will inch higher. The new limit for all the above plans will increase by $500 to $23,500.That is not much, but every little bit helps. For older workers, aged 50 and up, additional savings are allowed under a catch-up plan. 
 
While the catch-up contribution limit for those 50 or older remains the same, bringing their total contribution to $31,000, those workers between 60 and 63 years old can save even more in the coming year. The catch-up limit for those in their early sixties increases by $11,250 annually. That is substantially higher than the $7,500 allowable now.
 
The contribution limits for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) will remain $7,000. The catch-up limit for individuals over 50 stays the same as well at $1,000.
 
For those who favor contributing to Roth IRAs, there is some good news. The income limit range for workers will increase to between $150,000 to $161,000. If you are married and file jointly, the range increases to between $236,000 and $246,000, which is up from $230,000 to $240,000. 
 
There are some additional incentives to at least jump-start savings for the 32 percent of working-age Americans (about 58 million people) without a retirement savings plan. The income limit for the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit, also known as the Saver's Credit, was increased. The Saver's Credit, available since 2001, is a tax credit worth up to $1,000 ($2,000 if married and filing jointly) for mid- and low-income taxpayers who contribute to a retirement account.
 
To qualify, you need to be over 18, not a full-time student, or a dependent on someone's tax return. Your adjusted gross income in 2025 needs to be below $79,000 for married couples and $59,250 if you head a household. If you are single or married but filing separately your income cannot exceed $39,500.
 
It baffles me why Americans aren't saving more in retirement accounts. Many say they just can't afford to max out their savings plans even when their companies offer to match some portion of their contributions. That may be true in many cases. Thus far, there is no other way to force Americans to save for retirement other than through the Social Security tax on income.
 
Given the worries over the deficit, funding, and continuing threats by some to cut Social Security benefits, why hasn't it happened already? The simple answer is if you cut Social Security, millions of people with no savings will end up destitute and on government life support in retirement. That would be an even more expensive proposition than the Social Security system.
 
Yet changes to the Social Security program seem inevitable at some point. If so, why not require the government to match retirement plan contributions while reducing Social Security benefits simultaneously for those under retirement age?
 
In the short term, it might be moving the chips from one side of the table to the other, but it need not be forever. The trick would be to incentivize workers to establish a savings habit. That wouldn't take too long. Once accomplished, especially with savings withdrawn from paychecks automatically (just like Social Security taxes), the match could be raised or lowered depending on circumstances.  
 

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.

Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.

 

     

The Retired Investor: The Billionaire Trump team

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires columnist
Last week, billionaire Stephen Feinberg of the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management was selected to fill the No. 2 spot at the Defense Department. That brings the number of billionaires who have agreed to join Donald Trump's second term to an even dozen. Should you be worried?
 
The wealth and business background of these individuals have sparked concerns that the next four years will favor business interests and those of the wealthy above all else. If we include Trump, Elon Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy, the total thus far would be 15. At last count, U.S. News and World Report estimated that the total net worth of these billionaires as of Dec. 10 was more than $382 billion. That would be equivalent to the Gross Domestic Product of 172 different countries.
 
The Departments of Treasury, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Defense will be run by these wealthy individuals as will the Small Business Administration and NASA. In the $100 million to megabillion-dollar net worth range, are another group of ambassadors, advisors, the energy secretary, and the head of the Social Security Commission.
 
The facts are that American politicians have always been wealthier than most Americans. That is true in other countries as well. For wealthy individuals serving one's country may truly be altruistic since government jobs are thankless and underpaid for the work required. Service is also a massive step down from what these people can and do make in the private sector. However, it is also true that wealthy lawmakers usually favor pro-business policies.
 
In the recent election, 150 billionaire families spent a total of $1.9 billion supporting both presidential and congressional candidates, according to a study by Americans for Tax Fairness. That was a 58 percent increase over what was spent in 2020. The lion's share of that money went to the Trump campaign ($568 million), compared to $127 million to Kamela Harris. Those figures underestimate the real totals since many donors conceal their identity when funding political causes. Elon Musk alone is thought to have contributed as much as $277 million to the Trump effort in 2024.
 
Some critics believe that the entire trend in political spending by the one percent is an effort to shape the terms and future of American democracy in their favor. They point to Trump's running mate, Senator and now Vice President-elect JD Vance, a protégé of billionaire Peter Thiel, as an example.
 
Last week's controversy over Musk, the head of the proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is a case in point. Musk, who holds no elected office, mounted an 11th-hour protest over the bipartisan congressional deal designed to fund the government for a few more months.
 
What had begun as a clean and simple piece of legislation two weeks ago, became a free-for-all by legislators on both sides to attach additional spending for pet projects. Musk pointed that out on social media and demanded the agreement be revised.
 
The political blowback from House members was immediate. Both Republicans and Democrats called press conferences. Some (mostly Democrats) accused "President Musk" of sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. The criticism continued, despite Trump's backing of Musk's arguments. How dare a civilian interfere with the work of elected officials! 
 
In any case, a compromise was put together quickly and the legislation passed, but much of the pork in the bill was dropped. The politicians claimed victory. Musk and Trump lost, according to the media but I have a different take. It seems to me that we, the people, won. Why?
 
We all know that this kind of wasteful spending happens all the time in Washington. It is hidden from the public and usually attached (and buried) in a bill of something important that both sides can defend such as disaster relief. Over time, this or that boondoggle or bridge to nowhere is revealed, and we shake our heads over the duplicity of it all. "Something must be done," we mutter in outrage, but nothing ever is. We shrug our shoulders and over time go on about our business. The politicians are counting on this. And yet, over the last few decades, we became increasingly less happy, than angry until today the entire political system is in doubt.
 
The difference this time was that one of these billionaires not only blew the whistle on the practice but had at his fingertips a vast avenue of communication called X to announce it to the world. Was it unorthodox? Absolutely. It may take similar actions and/or out-of-the-box thinking to change a fossilized system where we all talk about a good show but take no action.
 
I would counsel readers to avoid  jumping to conclusions because many of these appointees are wealthy and not from "acceptable" backgrounds in government. That does not mean I approve of all the former president's appointees no matter how much money they may have. Far from it. Nor did I approve of all of Biden's appointments.
 
But nothing says that a team of billionaires will automatically promote a business-as-usual attitude toward the problems facing this country. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a man from a wealthy family. He gave us the New Deal, shepherded us through the Great Depression, and led our country to victory through a World War.
 
To many, Michael Bloomberg, another billionaire Wall Streeter, did the impossible. He changed the face of New York City, straightened out its finances, and served three terms as mayor. Yes, some said he was arrogant and insensitive to the poor but there has never been a mayor like him to this day.
 
Many argue that these rich people lack experience in government service. That may be a good thing. They will make plenty of mistakes, but billionaires learn fast. In comparison, those public/private/ lobbyists/politicians who have spent their careers moving in and out of government service are the people who have brought the country to where it is today. These politicians often seem to have only one remedy for what ails us as a nation — more of the same.
 
 We face a crisis today and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Voters in this populist era are angry. They are demanding major changes in both our political and economic systems. A return to a time when robber barons exploited the government for their ends will last as long as an ice cream cone in July. The rank-and-file of Americans will not take kindly to getting shafted once again.
 
Remember that most of those billionaires boot-strapped their way to where and what they are today. They know what it takes to succeed in the private sector. Can they apply their tools to the public sector? That remains to be seen, but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
 

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.

Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.

 

     
Page 1 of 46 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 46  

Support Local News

We show up at hurricanes, budget meetings, high school games, accidents, fires and community events. We show up at celebrations and tragedies and everything in between. We show up so our readers can learn about pivotal events that affect their communities and their lives.

How important is local news to you? You can support independent, unbiased journalism and help iBerkshires grow for as a little as the cost of a cup of coffee a week.

News Headlines
Dalton Planners to Discuss Movable Tiny Homes Bylaw
Pittsfield School Committee to Vote on Administrators' Contract
1Berkshire Kicks Off 2025 with Winter Marketing
Pittsfield Council OKs Million-Dollar Borrowing for Airport Taxi Lane
Governor Files Bill to Modernize Public Higher Education Campuses
Susan B. Anthony Turns 205: Birthplace Museum Birthday Celebration
Pittsfield Subcommittee OKs ADU Ordinance
Boys & Girls Club of the Berkshires Free Homework Help Program
Guest Column: Finding Its Rightful Place
UNICO of Pittsfield Hosts Souper Bowl Food Drive
 


Categories:
@theMarket (518)
Independent Investor (452)
Retired Investor (226)
Archives:
January 2025 (8)
December 2024 (8)
November 2024 (8)
October 2024 (9)
September 2024 (7)
August 2024 (9)
July 2024 (8)
June 2024 (7)
May 2024 (10)
April 2024 (6)
March 2024 (7)
February 2024 (6)
Tags:
Qeii Stock Market Japan Oil Fiscal Cliff Bailout Markets Selloff Rally Taxes Recession Jobs Stocks Deficit Commodities Metals Euro Crisis Interest Rates Economy Debt Ceiling Congress Europe Unemployment Debt Energy Election Federal Reserve President Currency Retirement Pullback Stimulus Banks Greece
Popular Entries:
The Independent Investor: Don't Fight the Fed
Independent Investor: Europe's Banking Crisis
@theMarket: Let the Good Times Roll
The Independent Investor: Japan — The Sun Is Beginning to Rise
Independent Investor: Enough Already!
@theMarket: Let Silver Be A Lesson
Independent Investor: What To Expect After a Waterfall Decline
@theMarket: One Down, One to Go
@theMarket: 707 Days
The Independent Investor: And Now For That Deficit
Recent Entries:
@theMarket: A Roller-Coaster Week in the Markets
The Retired Investor: Trump and the China trade
@theMarket: Markets Head Toward New Highs in February
The Retired Investor: Food Prices Are Climbing Again
@theMarket: Markets Await the Inauguration
The Retired Investor: Economic Growth Versus Government Efficiency
@theMarket: Markets Falter to Start the Year
The Retired Investor: IRS Incentive Boosts for Savers Not Nearly Enough
@theMarket: Wall Street Sees Another Positive Year Ahead
The Retired Investor: The Billionaire Trump team