There was a time when the upstart scruffy purveyors of cryptocurrencies were a mere stepchild of the financial community. Those days are gone as the crypto industry becomes a growing force in influencing election outcomes nationally.

 

In 2024, the crypto industry has accounted for about half of all corporate contributions to political action committees, according to consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen. The donations are being funneled into congressional candidates of both parties and the candidate for president who is deemed to be friendly to the cryptocurrency space.

 

That is a big leap from the historical practice of industries that side with one political party over another. Fairshake, the industry's dominant PAC, endorses candidates on both sides of the aisle and cares little for issues outside its sphere.

 

While many corporations are studiously avoiding this year's elections and keeping a low profile, blockchain companies have contributed 48 percent of the $250 million thus far in corporate donations on the federal level. And yet the crypto spending thus far has carefully avoided making crypto currencies an issue in the elections.

 

Instead, the spending has centered around rebuilding the sector's image after the black eye Sam Bankman-Fried gave crypto after the fall of his firm FTX. And that may prove to be an uphill battle. A recent Federal Reserve survey found that only 7 percent of Americans owned or used cryptocurrencies and yet 59 percent of them polled in swing states held a negative view of the currency.

 

The industry's goals are also a top priority of the spending. Unlike many industries that want less regulation from the government, the powers to be in crypto want the opposite. They want the passage of FIT21, a bill that establishes a framework that would switch the regulation of digital assets out from under Gary Gensler of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commissions.

 

Gensler, considered an enemy of the crypto community, was appointed by President Biden, and has often voiced his skepticism of crypto. One of the SEC's biggest targets was Coinbase, the largest crypto exchange, and Ripple, the company behind a stablecoin called XRP. As such, it is no wonder both firms have been leading the charge in the cryptos battle with regulators.

 

The crypto industry PACs are singling out those politicians who are anti-crypto and are actively running ads against their candidacy without mentioning crypto. For example, in Ohio, they are supporting Republican Bernie Moreno for the Senate to defeat Senator Sherrod Brown, the chairman of the Banking Committee who is a crypto critic.

 

The companies have made headway in their strategy. In July, Former President Donald Trump headlined a Bitcoin conference in Nashville where he endorsed cryptocurrencies and vowed to champion their cause. He said he wanted America to become the world's Bitcoin superpower and promised to fire Gensler on day one. A Trump PAC raised about $7.5 million in crypto donations since early June.

 

 Trump followed up his endorsement in September by unveiling a new cryptocurrency business, World Liberty Financial, with his children. This week his token sale for this new project had less than a stellar opening. Multiple and lengthy outages plagued the release all day Tuesday.

 

However, true to their goals crypto donations are also finding their way into Democrat campaign war chests. Ripple co-found Chris Larsen, for example, gave the Harris campaign $1.9 million. Others have contributed as well. It seems to be working. Recently, Vice President Kamala Harris announced she would back a crypto regulatory framework where investors would be protected.

 

Corporations are watching the crypto industries' battle to influence federal elections closely. Critics say it is a brazen attempt to force politicians to adopt a sector's chosen policies or say goodbye to their political chances. If it works, you can bet that others will begin to emulate similar strategies. 

 

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.

Mixed inflation data, higher unemployment claims, steeper bond yields, the unresolved Israeli counterstrike against Iran, and jitters over the election kept the equity averages volatile throughout the week. Despite those worries, the S&P 500 Index and the Dow hit record highs.

 

A bullish stock market often climbs a wall of worry. This week certainly qualified. Investors had to contend with a continued rise in yields on the benchmark Ten-Year U.S. Treasury and poor results of a government auction for that bond. The yield this week hit a high of 4.09 percent and has gone straight up ever since the Fed's 50 basis point cut in the Fed funds rate last month. If the Fed is cutting interest rates shouldn't bond yields go down, not up?

 

The answer revolves around bond market expectations. After last month's interest rate cut, the bet that the Fed would give us even more cuts in the months ahead rose substantially. Many traders concluded that the Fed would follow up that first cut with two more half-point cuts in the next two months, and as much as four more the following year. By the time the Fed announced its first cut, bond yields had already plunged, discounting this rosy scenario.

 

In the meantime, the economy has continued to strengthen by more than most economists have expected. This, I suspect, is a result of increased federal spending, which almost always occurs during a presidential election year. Growth is great, but a stronger GDP  reduces the need for more monetary stimulus.

 

And let's not forget the inflation fight. September's inflation report, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) fell from plus-2.5 percent to plus-2.4 percent, but core inflation (ex-energy and food) increased from plus-3.2 percent to plus-3.3 percent. The Producer Price Index (PPI), however, came in cooler. The two together equated to a big nothing burger as far as the markets were concerned.

 

However, bond traders are growing concerned that stronger economic growth and additional rate cuts could be a recipe for a revival in inflation. They point to oil prices, a key component of inflation, and a lift in commodity prices, which could keep inflation sticky in the months ahead.

 

The spike in the oil price is based on fears that Israel may hit Iranian oil production, while China's new stimulus program is responsible for the spike in commodities. I believe the rise in oil could easily reverse if the geopolitical situation in the Middle East abates but my crystal ball is exceptionally cloudy in that arena. China's growth, however,  may be a more lasting development depending on how successful the government's fiscal stimulus may be.

 

I don't believe one or two more data points between now and the November FOMC meeting will impact the Fed's decision. But I do believe traders got over their skis in anticipating a series of large interest rate cuts through next year. The Fed certainly did not indicate such a plan was on the table. One voting FOMC member of the Fed recently suggested that he would be happy to skip a rate cut at the next meeting.

 

The bond market is still betting that rates will be reduced in November by another 25 basis points although a 50-basis point cut is now off the table. I expect that this month was the trough in inflation progress. Over the next few months, inflation data may show an uptick. If so, expectations for more cuts will rapidly diminish.

 

Despite these worries, equities continued to plough ahead grinding higher and higher as the week progressed. The third quarter earnings season began on Friday with large bank earnings. Investors seemed pleased with the results. Expectations going into the season are that the rate of gain in earnings overall will be lower than last quarter but will bounce back in the fourth quarter.

 

The Chinese stock market, after a nine-day streak of gains, finally succumbed to profit-taking earlier this week. Global investors were disappointed that further fiscal stimulus programs have not been announced. I think this pullback is healthy. Additional gains are in store for that market,  in my opinion, after a short period of consolidation. I also believe that emerging markets are interesting and cheap versus U.S. stocks.

 

As for U.S. stocks, the averages are extended given the spate of new highs. We are also entering the second week of October with the elections less than a month away. The race is too tight to call. My greatest fear is that we may face a protracted period in which the winners are in doubt. I don't think the markets would take kindly to that environment. 

 

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.

In the 1950s, nuclear was deemed the energy of the future. Unfortunately, the world's ardor for replacing fossil fuels with clean atomic energy hit a brick wall in the 1970s. It is only recently, after decades of false hopes, that we may be entering a new age of U.S. nuclear power.

 

Today, nuclear power represents no more than 20 percent of U.S. electricity, and that may be an overstatement. The industry's brick wall occurred in March 1979 at Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pa. A partial meltdown of its Unit 2 reactor released a small amount of radioactivity.

 

I remember it well. The leak resulted from equipment malfunctions, design-related problems, and worker errors. At first, no one knew the extent of the problem. Fears that we were facing a major nuclear disaster only 75 miles from Philadelphia swept the country. Despite the initial panic, the accident had no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public. It didn't matter. It set in motion a deep and long-lasting distrust of nuclear energy among the population.

 

The public's fears seemed justified when just seven years later, the Chernobyl disaster of April 1986 in northern Ukraine created the costliest nuclear disaster in history. It is estimated that the cost was more than $700 billion and caused the evacuation of 70,000 people.

 

In the mid-2000s, there was an effort to revive the industry. A flood of proposals to restart nuclear energy in the U.S. was short-lived. A combination of the fracking boom, which brought in quantities of cheap natural gas, and yet another nuclear disaster sidetracked that effort.

 

In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami sparked a nuclear disaster in Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Three of the plant's six reactors sustained damage and released both hydrogen and radioactive materials. There were no deaths and no adverse effects among non-worker residents, but it is regarded as the worst nuclear incident since Chornobyl.

 

Construction of nuclear plants has been at a standstill in the U.S. for a generation until now aside from one huge project. The Southern Company's two new reactors in Georgia took two decades to complete and ran massively over budget.

 

What has changed? Electricity demand for one. U.S. electricity use is exploding after going nowhere for 15 years because of new factories, EVs, climate change, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

 

The AI revolution, for example, is being created on the backs of countless data centers throughout the country. Those data centers require enormous amounts of electricity. The Energy Department projects that almost 25 gigawatts of new data center electricity demand will hit the grids within the next six years. 

 

The major players in AI see the obvious choice to supply that power as the construction of new nuclear facilities. This future demand would be the equivalent of the output of roughly 29 average nuclear power plants.

 

Their idea is to place as many new AI data centers near start-up nuclear plants as possible. That way it saves companies billions of dollars in grid upgrades such as new transmission lines, rerouting power lines, etc.

 

This month, Open AI pitched a plan to the White House to build multiple, 5-gigawatt data centers across the U.S. Each would require the equivalent of five nuclear plants to fuel those centers. The Biden Administration was receptive to the idea given that it had just finished closing on a loan to resurrect the decommissioned Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan. That project will take two years to reopen.

 

Microsoft and Constellation Energy also announced a $1.6 billion power purchase deal to restart the Three Mile Island plant in 2028. And 14 of the world's largest banking institutions pledged to support tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050.

 

While all the above is commendable and maybe even doable, the facts are that nuclear energy is expensive. It is both costly to build and to operate. It doesn't have to remain that way. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, construction costs were declining rapidly. The more we built, the more we learned. Production increased and costs went down.

 

After Three Mile Island, safety became the primary objective and of paramount importance. The public demanded it and the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima reinforced those demands. As such, new and stringent rules were applied to plant construction.

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA  became far more concerned with the safety factors of the industry and much less about the economic viability of nuclear power generation. Regulations proliferated. Neither agency has any mandate to increase nuclear power generation, nor any goals based on its growth, nor do they benefit when power plants come online. The approval process now takes several years and costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

The Biden Administration is working on a plan to bring additional decommissioned nuclear power reactors back online. That is in addition to developing small modular reactors (SMRs) for certain applications and building advanced nuclear reactors.

 

The benefits of a revival of nuclear power generation are obvious. It is a scalable source of on-demand, emissions-free energy. It takes up little land, consumes a small amount of fuel, and produces little waste. It is a technology that could solve the world's need to beat back climate change and energy poverty. The question is will be willing to take the risk that future accidents in the industry are worth the benefits.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

It was a week to remember in financial markets. Hurricane Helene, the longshoreman strike, Iran's ballistic missile attack against Israel, American drones shot down by Houthi rebels, and a massive gain in U.S. jobs — welcome to October.

 

All the above happened in just the first week of the month. The stock market has hung in there through all of it. However, the events of the week have given heartburn to investors and traders alike.

 

The massive flooding and rising death toll in Florida and North Carolina were tragic but also negative for overall future growth and employment. The price tag is estimated to be above $34 billion. Insurance stocks did not suffer simply because they no longer cover flood damages in much of those areas. The price tag will need to be absorbed by the nation's taxpayers.

 

The Longshoreman's strike encompasses a shutdown of half the ports in the U.S. from Maine to Texas. Harold Daggett, who leads the International Longshoremen's Association, was insisting on a 77 percent pay raise but settled for less and the strike was at least postponed until early next year. Estimates put the price tag of disrupted trade for the country at as much as $5 billion daily, so we dodged that bullet for now.

 

The geopolitical events that find Israel in an undeclared shooting war with the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and possibly Iran have also riled markets and sent the dollar and yields higher. It has also supported precious metals and the price of oil.

 

Market participants fear that if Israel were to respond to Iran's latest missile attack, by damaging Iran's energy production, oil prices could spike higher. If so, that would prove inflationary.

 

Those fears may be overblown. Iran currently supplies about 3 percent of the world's oil production. Global oil demand has been slowing as it is. This week, the Saudi oil minister warned Iraq and Kazakhstan that if they ignore their OPEC-directed output cuts, prices could fall to $50 a barrel. next year.

 

In this environment, Saudi Arabia could easily make up for any lost production brought on by an Iran/Israel conflict. Oil could go higher but there is a lot of technical resistance around the $77 a barrel mark.

 

The non-farm payroll for September crushed expectations. The U.S. economy added over 250,000 jobs while the unemployment rate dipped to 4.1 percent. That was more than the 150,000 job gains expected. Wage growth also increased by 0.4 percent. This followed a good report on the ISM services sector. Where does that leave the markets? Disappointed, as far as future rates cut by the Fed.

 

Stronger employment data means less need for sizable rate cuts. If you combine that with the possibility of higher energy prices and therefore more inflation, the bull's case for more rather than less loosening by the Fed becomes that much weaker.  

 

As you know by now, September through October are historically seasonably tough months for the markets. I was expecting September to have a more negative impact on the market. I was wrong. My mistake was in not accounting for presidential election years, which somewhat dilutes seasonal factors in those years.

 

Nonetheless, October has historically been 34 percent more volatile than the average of the remaining 11 months of the year. It has certainly started that way. Although many traders are expecting a decline in the next few weeks, there are plenty of bullish factors that are underpinning stocks.

 

Friday's jobs report is just one example. Next week, on Oct. 10, September's Consumer Price Index data will be reported. I believe that data will show cooler inflation. If so, lower inflation and declining unemployment are not a bad combination.

 

Market breath (advancers versus decliners) is still near the highs. Investor sentiment is about even, neither too bearish nor bullish. About 78 percent of stocks in the S&P 500 Index remain above their 200 Day Moving Average. If we do pull back in the days ahead, I see at most a mild sell-off (barring a full-scale shooting war in the Middle East). I would be a buyer of any dips.

 

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 U.S. economy continues to grow, fueled by generous fiscal spending in an election year, robust corporate earnings, and a consumer willing to keep spending. The Federal Reserve Bank's loosening of monetary policy last month also promises to boost growth.

 

That dovetails with my expectations, at least in the short term. I expect economic growth will continue to show decent numbers when the third-quarter GDP data is released. At the same time, we should see additional modest progress in reducing inflation. September's CPI inflation data, however, could mark the low for this inflation cycle, in my opinion.

 

That is certainly not the consensus view. Wall Street is expecting the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates two more times this year and several more cuts next year. This week, Chairman Jerome Powell attempted to rein in some of those expectations in a speech before the National Association for Business Economics. He promised that the central bank would do whatever it takes to keep the economy in solid shape. However, he warned that markets should not automatically expect interest rate cuts at every Federal Open Market Committee meeting.

 

He said the committee will remain data-dependent and warned listeners that "this is not a committee that wants to cut rates quickly." My advice is to listen to the Fed. The risk I see is that we could see a bump in inflation beginning in the fourth quarter (probably December). I believe the Fed worries about that as well. They know that reducing interest rates is a risk, given the growth in the economy and the still-healthy wage level.

 

I have not mentioned the inflationary impact of the present stimulus efforts in China on materials and other commodities, the geopolitical risk of higher energy prices, nor the possibility of a long strike by union workers at the nation's ports on prices. The Fed, I believe, could be stuck between a rock (stubborn inflation) and a hard place ( avoiding further declines in employment).

 

At the same time, as I wrote in "My economic outlook for 2025" column last week  "I fear we could see declining economic growth — the result of the cumulative impact of the last two years of abnormally high interest rates. This lag effect will outweigh the Fed's interest rate cuts of September and maybe November. I am not predicting a recession, but only a slowdown, a "recalibration" to use the words of Fed Chairman Powell.

 

The plot thickens if you include the dollar and our national debt. A few weeks back (Aug. 29) I wrote a column "How the U.S. Can Manage Its Debt Load," in which I worried that at some point soon it would become necessary to do something about our rising debt load. Historically, the solution to that problem has always been to devalue the dollar. But we would pay the price for that action.

 

A weakening currency is inflationary. The dollar has already dropped 5 percent in as many months and currency traders expect this decline has only begun. It is, in my opinion, just a matter of time (possibly after the November elections), before the world and investors catch on that a devaluation of the dollar is a real possibility. 

 

If I am right, a combination of a declining currency, slowing growth, stubborn inflation, and the onset of easing monetary policy, would spark worries among economists and investors alike over the "S" word — stagflation. Stagflation is an economic situation where increasing inflation, rising unemployment and slower economic growth occur simultaneously. But just imagine how the market would react if inflation indicators like the CPI and PPI see upticks toward the end of the year, while jobs continue to fall.

 

It is not certain, and I know it is not conventional wisdom but that is what concerns me.  And no, I am not expecting a 1970s type of stagflation, but something much more mild.

 

I am not alone in my fears. Jame Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, is a man I respect and have followed for decades. He has been sounding the alarm over bullish economic expectations and remains highly critical of the Fed's restrictive policies, which he feels went on for far too long. As for the taming of inflation, as recently as last Friday, he said "I am a little more skeptical than other people. I give it lower odds."

 

So do I.

 

 As such, I looked at what areas do better in such an environment. Assets considered dollar equivalents like gold and silver and other precious metals do well. Some other commodities like copper outperform, as well as emerging markets and Bitcoin.

 

 In the equity arena, utilities, technology, energy, industrials, and consumer discretionary are standouts while financials, telecom, and consumer staples don't do nearly as well.

 

Investment styles such as secular growth, momentum, mid-cap stocks, low beta, and quality outperform, while small caps, dividend plays, value, and defensives underperform. Some fixed-income areas like Municipal bonds, long-dated bonds, and TIPS shine, but stay away from categories like preferred, convertible bonds, high-yield credit, and leveraged loans.

 

Predicting what the economy and inflation will do every year is difficult at best. Trying to call a change as early as December is not for the faint of heart. Right now, Wall Street is so focused on expectations of a steady stream of expected rate cuts and the outcome of the presidential elections that what happens in December seems a long, long way.

 

How long will the economy remain in this mild state of stagflation? Unless the demands of populism are somehow resolved quickly, the future economic environment might indicate more of the same.

 

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.