The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank has been battling inflation for well over a year. A key variable in their efforts has been to slow the economy enough to reduce employment. The opposite is happening, thanks to the Baby Boomers.

 

Historically, the Fed has used interest rates successfully to manipulate employment. Their use harkens back to a theory John Maynard Keynes espoused in his 1936 treatise, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money." Keynes argued that there exists an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation and that governments should manipulate fiscal and economic policy to ensure a balance between the two. So far, it is not working too well in 2023.

 

The April 2023 payroll report was only the latest in a series of strong employment gains that flies in the face of the Fed's efforts. The U.S. is experiencing one of the strongest labor markets in decades, if not ever. The economy has added 666,000 jobs over the last three months, while the Fed continues to raise interest rates. The headline unemployment rate fell to 3.4 percent, its lowest level in 50 years. Wages are also growing again, up 0.5 percent, after declining steadily since November 2022. What is going on?

 

The short answer is that there are simply not enough workers to go around. The labor force participation rate among prime-age workers, those aged 25-53, is at 83.3 percent. That is higher than it was pre-COVID. The prime-age women's labor force participation rate hit 77 percent as well. I believe that demographics has thrown a monkey wrench into Keynes' theory.

 

Baby Boomers have always been a force to reckon with for both good and bad. The percentage of Americans aged 55 and over has doubled over the last twenty years and continues to grow. The fact is that more and more Americans are getting too old to work.

 

This trend is nothing new and has been in place for several years. COVID-19 and the subsequent Pandemic simply accelerated the pace of retirements. Moody's Investment Services estimates that 70 percent of the decline in the labor force since the end of 2019 was due to aging workers, like me. That comes to about 1.4 million Americans who have retired. In addition, declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancy are also contributing to this labor shortfall and we are not alone. G20 countries are all experiencing a decline in working-age populations. Korea, Germany, and the U.S. are expected to see the sharpest declines over the next 10 years.

 

How this will impact individual sectors of the economy varies. Industries that depend on knowledge and experience (human capital) will be hit hard. This brain drain will impact productivity for years as it did when boomers first entered the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

In industries where demographics create demand, such as an aging population for health care services, labor shortages could continue for many years. On the lower end of the pay scale, the scarcity of workers should accelerate the adoption of automation. That is already beginning to occur in the fast food and banking services areas. Finally, Artificial Intelligence (AI) over the next five years, is predicted to reduce the need for labor in some job areas.

 

However, not all is gloom and doom. Black Americans are benefiting from the imbalance in labor as their unemployment rate has fallen below 5 percent for the first time in history. The pre-pandemic all-time low was 5.3 percent in August 2019. Women have also benefited, although long-standing pay gaps and occupational segregation remain.

 

All-in-all, we Baby Boomers are still causing havoc--even in retirement. However, a simple solution to this labor shortage (and inflation) can be solved with a stroke of the pen. If we need more field workers, waiters, waitresses, babysitters, nurses, doctors, internet technicians, plumbers, electricians, technicians, bricklayers, etc., they are available and dying to enter this country. All Washington needs to do is jettison their immigration policies, but I wouldn't hold my breath. 

 

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 Federal Reserve Bank raised interest again, even as another regional bank saw its stock price collapse. Investors are asking when enough tightening is enough.

 

The key Fed funds interest rate was hiked by another 0.25  percent, which increased its benchmark rate to between 5 percent and 5.25 percent. That was the 10th hike in 14 months and has pushed interest rates to a 16-year high.

 

The stock market sold down after Chairman Jerome Powell made it clear (again) that fighting inflation is the Fed's number one objective. Powell did hold out some hope that this hike could be the last, although that decision, he said, would be data-dependent and be decided from meeting to meeting. Nothing he said was concrete enough for investors to truly believe that a pause in rate hikes is in the offing.

 

The bulls were hoping that the meeting would either result in no interest hike or be a one-and-done event. Neither occurred, which has ramifications for the economy, employment, and the ongoing regional banking crisis. The banks lead the market declines and well they should.

 

Beginning in March, with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the markets realized that the rapid rise in interest rates had created both a danger for many banks and an investment opportunity for the public. Main Street could now buy high-yielding U.S. Treasury bills and CDs instead of keeping their money in checking and saving accounts with little to no returns. I have written extensively on the subject in my columns over the last several weeks.

 

As the Fed continues to raise interest rates, the yield on these alternative investments also rises. The yield on a three-month U.S. Treasury bill, for example, rose from 5.10 percent to 5.25 percent the day after the Fed's interest rate hike. This has had a serious detrimental impact on banks overall and regional banks as more and more investors pull their deposits.

 

But that is not all. The $5.7 trillion commercial real estate sector (CRE) is also in trouble. Thanks to high-interest rates, the Pandemic, and the subsequent trend toward working from home, many urban centers are facing a historically high vacancy rate. It is so bad that many cities are considering converting empty office buildings into living spaces.  This trend is spreading across the nation.

 

Smaller regional banks hold 4.4 times more exposure to the U.S. CRE than larger banks, according to a recent report from JPMorgan Private Bank. Citigroup also found that banks represent 54 percent of the overall CRE market, with small lenders holding 70 percent of CRE loans. Between the drain on deposits, and now the risks in real estate, is it any wonder that the regional bank index has lost 34 percent of its value over the last month?

 

Within hours after the Fed hiked rates on Wednesday afternoon, the regional bank, PacWest, reported that it was considering strategic options including a sale. The bank's stock tumbled 60 percent on Thursday and took the regional bank index and the stock market down with it. Gold, silver, and Bitcoin (all areas I have featured in the last few months) spiked higher in a rush for safety with spot gold hitting a high of $2,085.

 

As I said last week, where the market would finish the week would depend on the Fed's decision on interest rates. In hindsight, Chairman Powell had it right. The non-farm payroll data released on Friday showed that 253,000 jobs were added in April. The unemployment rate dropped to 3.4 percent, while the expectation was that the rate would rise to 3.6 percent.  The Fed wants to see job gains fall, but they are going the other way.

 

The Fed needs to see the unemployment rate closer to 4-4.5  percent percent to reach its inflation target of 2 percent. We are nowhere near that level, so to me, the Fed's stance on monetary policy seems vindicated.

 

So where does all this bearishness indicate to me? For me, I think the markets will bounce back next week. We may even break the range we have been in for almost a month. That is a contrarian call, since most traders are what I called "beared up."

 

I believe we can still see my target on the S&P 500 Index of 4,325 give or take a few points. After that, likely in the second half of the month, I believe we will see a substantial pullback. Precious metals, on the other hand, are likely to now see a bout of profit-taking after a spectacular run.

 

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 capitalism has long applauded and rewarded economic efficiency. Faster turnaround times, producing the same results with fewer workers, and doing more with less are the name of the game. Most times it works but sometimes it doesn't.

 

Over the past few years, that mantra of efficiency and profit growth has worked well for big freight operators in the railroad business. Wall Street has rewarded their efforts with higher stock prices and rail companies have returned the favor with generous dividends and stock buybacks.

 

Truth be told, America has had a long-lasting love affair with railroads that dates back almost 200 years. For most of that time, railroads and those that owned them were a symbol of the "can do" spirit of the nation. For decades, railroads flourished as their steel highways penetrated more and more of the nation carrying passengers and freight throughout the land.

 

In the 1950s, that began to change. The expansion of the U.S. highway system triggered a resurgence in the trucking industry. Inroads by long-haul truckers posed a threat to an industry that had grown fat and happy for way too long. That ushered in a long period of consolidation with fewer and fewer competitors.

 

As rail operators entered the 21st century, company management began to pay much more attention to productivity and efficiency. The number of employees was reduced, costs came down and profits began to rise and so did their stock prices. Over the last six years, railroads outdid themselves vying to become the most efficient, lowest-cost operator in the business. Today, only a handful of major companies remain and most of them are publicly traded companies in North America. They remain darlings of Wall Street for the most part and have spent as much in stock buybacks and dividends as they have invested in their businesses.

 

One obvious way to improve efficiency was simply to make freight trains longer since the railroad industry makes its money by the weight and distance of the cargo it hauls. You would think that workers could just string together a couple miles of cars together and off we go from point A to point B. After all, a long train makes in one trip what a short train would make in several, but it is not as easy as that. Trains must be assembled to distribute weight and cargo risk. Another issue is the length of railroad sidings. Many were never built to accommodate longer trains.

 

In any case, none of this was an issue for me until Feb. 3. It was on that date that 38 cars of a Norfolk Southern freight train carrying hazardous materials derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. It is now three months later, since the fiery derailment, which caused about half the 5,000 residents of the town to be evacuated. At the time, officials decided to burn vinyl chloride from five tanker cars in the accident to prevent a catastrophic explosion.

 

Tens of thousands of tons of contaminated soil must now be excavated as well as the removal of toxic chemicals from two creeks. This will take months, leaving the inhabitants in limbo. The only thing positive that can be said about the disaster is that it has kicked off a national debate on rail safety.

 

In 2022, there were more than 1,164 train derailments in the U.S., according to the Federal Railroad Administration. That equates to roughly three derailments per day. That may sound like a lot, but most of these derailments occur within the confines of rail yards.

 

 If you listen to the railroad industry, it is the safest period in the history of train transportation. The numbers appear to be on their side. Only 16 people, for example, were injured by derailments last year. Compare that to how many people are injured in car accidents each year. Since the late 1970s, derailments have dropped by 75 percent. Consider that in 1978 alone, there were 8,763 derailments, which killed 41 people.

 

Where do long trains fit into this equation? To be sure, there have been plenty of long train derailments, some serious. Are long trains riskier than short ones? The industry claims that long trains have improved rail safety. The Association of American Railroads, the industry lobby, also notes that regulators have never cited length as the direct cause of an accident.

 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) does say it lacks evidence that long trains pose a particular risk. They do fail to mention that the FRA does not require companies to provide certain information after accidents and derailments such as the length of the train. I would guess that does make it difficult to assess the extent of the danger.

 

As for me, I walk our dog every night along a major railroad track. It is close enough to our condo that the trials and tribulations of the people of East Palestine are with me every night. It devils my footsteps as I witness the long procession of car after car groaning and squealing its way into the city. The line of faint lights floating by sometimes requires half an hour or more to pass by in the night.

 

I confess that I worry that a derailment could spew toxic gas or chemicals throughout my neighborhood with no warning. I am sure I am not alone. Long freight trains traverse the nation. They are bearing God knows what through our communities. Long trains block traffic crossings for long periods. They are delaying everything from fire trucks to first responders, school buses, foot traffic, and daily commutes.

 

It is bad enough when the train is moving, but a resting line of cars can be an enormous temptation. In this country where "do not cross" does not apply to one too busy or important, the risk of sneaking under or between cars is an accident waiting to happen.  

 

On the other hand, moving goods by rail is probably the safest way of moving cargo and people across the country. A single train with 100 cars of coal or grain would require hundreds of trucks to do the same job. It is much more fuel efficient and is therefore reducing our country's carbon emissions as more freight shifts from the trucking industry to rail.

 

I believe that somewhere there should be a balanced solution between the industry's need for 2-3-mile-long trains and the need for life-saving solutions for our communities. All we must do is find them.

 

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.

All eyes will be focused on May's Federal Open Market Committee meeting (FOMC) this week. Most investors are expecting another quarter-point interest rate increase, and there is an ongoing debate over the possibility of another one in June.

 

Some strategists believe that may be overkill. The fear is that the Fed could break something else if they do. Many already blame the Fed's rapid hiking of interest rates for the troubles within the regional bank area. The value of Silicon Valley Bank's U.S. Treasury bond holdings, for example, fell by billions of dollars as the Fed tightened monetary policy over the last year.

 

And the banking worries continue. This week, a large San Francisco-based bank, First Republic Bank, saw its stock lose 95 percent of its value. In announcing first-quarter earnings results, First Republic admitted that it had lost more than $100 billion in deposits in the first quarter.

 

The collapse of SVP and Signature Bank had prompted a run on its deposits as well. Last month, in a bid to stabilize the bank, a group of 11 big banks deposited $30 billion with the beleaguered institution hoping it would solve the problem. Those hopes have been dashed.

 

First Republic's main business is making large mortgages at low rates to well-heeled borrowers. As such, the bank is buried under a mountain of mispriced loans as interest rates have spiked higher over the last 12 months. To raise cash, they would have to sell off those loans to others at substantial losses, which would only hasten its collapse. U.S. officials are coordinating urgent talks with private-sector banks to come to the rescue. If a deal isn't struck soon the fate of First Republic seems dire at best.

 

In any case, it is not hard to understand why the fear of breaking something else is quite real right now. This week, the Fed will likely raise rates again. As interest rates continue to rise, no one knows how exposed other entities in the financial sector might be. It has put the Fed in between a rock and a hard place.

 

Inflation has not come down far enough to convince the Fed to ease its monetary stance. The most recent Personal Consumption Expenditures Index (PCE), which is the Fed's favorite inflation measure, came in as expected, just a bit cooler. In the past, the Fed has made the mistake of easing prematurely, only to raise rates again as inflation reversed and climbed higher. Better be sure, than sorry would about sum up the Fed's policy right now. 

 

But being sure raises the risks of breaking something, which could have a severe impact on the economy or parts of it like the financial sector. The U.S. economy grew at only a 1.1 percent rate in the first quarter. That was far below the consensus forecasts of 1.9 percent. In the previous two quarters, the economy grew at 2.9 percent and 3.2 percent respectively. It seems clear that the Fed's actions are having the desired effect but is it enough to even pause their rate hikes? That is the question investors are asking.

 

So far, the Fed has assured us that they have the tools to handle both the problems in the regional bank area, as well as the inflation threat. Some think that kind of thinking smacks of overconfidence. One additional issue that is raising its ugly head is the potential summer debt crisis in Washington.

 

The Republican-ruled House has passed a debt reduction package that, if passed, would make deep inroads into the Biden Administration's spending programs. That is their price for increasing the debt limit. The proposal is deemed dead on arrival by the Democrat-held Senate, however. As I have written in the past, in my opinion, the entire issue is simply political theater, with the fate of the nation's credit at risk.

 

If history is any guide, the closer we come to the cliff of default, the more both the bond and equity markets will come unglued. It might require actions by the Fed to calm markets and ensure orderly markets. That could disrupt the central bank’s tightening plans in the months ahead.

 

Marketwise, the volatility I expected last week has kept the indexes in a trading range. We ended the week a little above where we started. First quarter earnings results so far were better than expected. A handful of large-cap companies (Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Amazon) delivered more positive results than negative. The coming week will be all about the FOMC meeting on Wednesday and Apple results on Thursday. The chop should continue, but I am still looking for higher in the short term.

 

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.