Since 1928, the S&P 500 Index has lost ground in September more than 55 percent of the time. It looks like this year will be true to form.

 

It is called "The September Effect" and no one market or news event has been responsible for this anomaly. Some attribute the negative results to seasonal behavior bias. After a good summer of gains, like this summer’s bear market rally, investors make portfolio changes and cash in on their gains.

 

Since 1950, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has booked a decline of 0.8 percent on average. If we go back further in history (since 1928), the S&P 500 Index has averaged a 1 percent decline during September. However, over the last 25 years those losses have more than halved to only minus-0.4 percent.

 

Those declines seem almost laughable today in a market where stocks go up or down by that much in less than an hour.

 

You may have noticed that investors' attention has become laser-focused on the jobs data. Unemployment claims, continuing claims, job gains, non-farm payrolls and anything else that smacks of employment or the lack thereof is moving markets dramatically. As you might have guessed, this is the data the Federal Reserve Bank is carefully scanning in order to determine how far the monetary belt needs to be tightened.

 

Strong labor markets mean higher wage growth in a jobs market where supply and demand are out of balance. Wages are far stickier and therefore more important to the long-term rate of inflation than what gasoline or food prices happen to do this month or next. And since the Fed is data-driven, so are investors.

 

Of course, no single week or month's data point will move the Fed to cinch or uncinch their tightening belt — that is not the case with the stock and bond markets. From my point of view, it is ludicrous to move stocks up or down 2 or 3 percent a day based on a Thursday or a Fridays' report. The stock market prop desks and algo traders obviously disagree.

 

What's worse, the numbers are highly inaccurate, according to the federal government's own labor department, since data collection has been hit or miss ever since the pandemic. It is also subject to large revisions sometimes weeks and months afterwards, but no one ever trades on the revisions.

 

A case in point was the jobless claims for the week of Aug. 27. They came in at 232,000, which was below the estimates for 245,000. Therefore, fewer workers applied for unemployment insurance. That was great for the economy, but terrible for the stock market since it indicated a growing economy and more reason for the Fed to tighten.

 

Even worse, unit labor costs (think inflation) increased 9.3 percent over the last four quarters, the highest level since the first quarter of 1982. An hour later, stocks dropped more than 1 percent, interest rates spiked and so did the dollar.

 

On Friday, Sept. 2, at 8:30 a.m., the non-farm payrolls report beat estimates slightly (315,000 jobs gained in August), while the unemployment rate ticked up from 3.7 percent versus the expected 3.5 percent. Average hourly earnings month-over-month dropped, as did average hourly earnings, year-over-year came in at 5.2 percent versus 5.3 percent expected. Downward revisions from prior months labor gains helped improve the mood as well.

 

The markets deemed this a "goldilocks" report, so the algos bid up stocks and bonds, sold the U.S. dollar and interest rates fell; all in the pre-market. I wouldn't take any of these gyrations seriously. I put it down to traders looking for any excuse on a slow week before a major holiday to improve their trading profits.

 

As predicted, the S&P 500 Index hit 3,900 this week. That was the upper end of my target range. I was looking for a decline with a range of 3,800 to 3,900. I had been warning investors that the bear market rally we had enjoyed since June 2022 was ending. I expected that we would give back most, if not all, of that rally in the September into October timeframe. We are right on schedule. Now what?

 

Expect a bounce to as high as 4,030 in the first half of next week, and then a further decline to the low 3,800s. The stairstep of lower highs on rallies, and lower lows on declines is playing out just the way I expected. The question I have been asking myself is will stocks hold those levels, or are we destined to re-test or possibly break the June lows. Stay tuned for next week's columns, and in the meantime enjoy the three-day weekend that marks the unofficial end of summer.

 

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.

Over the past seven decades, the U.S. government has embraced business. Both political parties and their leaders have continued and expanded a broad, business-friendly agenda. However, the judiciary tops the list when it comes to ruling in favor of American business.

 

In fact, the current Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) appears to top the tape in handing down favorable decisions to corporations and small business, according to a research paper by the Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research. The authors, Lee Epstein of the University of Southern California, and Mitu Guli at the University of Virginia School of Law compared the last decade and a half of Justice John Roberts' court rulings. Businesses won a lot more cases than they lost. The authors concluded it may well be the most pro-business Supreme Court in the last century.

 

Historically, SCOTUS has only ruled in favor of businesses 41 percent of the time. In the Roberts Court, however, that number shot up to 83 percent  in 2020, and 63 percent  since John Roberts assumed the role of Chief Justice.

 

If you look at the makeup of the court right now, six justices with the best record for supporting businesses in their voting habits were nominated by Republican presidents. That list includes Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts.

 

However, that does not mean that Democrats' appointees are anti-business. Elena Kagan, for example, has a better pro-business record than Antonin Scalia. Sonia Sotomayor ranks last of the justices at 48 percent in favor of business but that is still above the historical averages. The areas in which the Court has actively ruled in favor of business are in the realm of upholding arbitration clauses and denying class-action suits in the securities sector.

 

The study found that there were several factors that may be influencing the justices' decisions in coming down on the side of business. Government, for example, has a strong influence on the court's decisions. When the Solicitor General, whose office represents the Federal government in front of the Supreme Court, takes an interest in a case, the court listens.  It just so happens that the Solicitor General has rarely (20 percent of the time) opposed business interest during the Roberts Court and neither has the Court.

 

Over the last few years, there has also been a change in who pleads the case of businesses in front of the Court.  A small, but savvy group of elite attorneys with extensive experience before the Court, are now representing business 77 percent of the time. That compares to just 25 percent of business attorneys during the Burger Court between 1969 and 1985, when voting in favor of business was much less common. And whether a justice was appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, they were more likely to vote in favor of businesses represented by a SCOTUS-experienced lawyer.

 

It is a common belief that through the years, SCOTUS had done a fairly good job tracking public sentiment. However, in the case of business, while public opinion toward business has soured, the courts' decisions have gone the other way since the 1960s. Recently, the Court seems to be willing to ignore, or in some cases, even go in the opposite direction of prevailing public sentiment.

 

In any case, given that the Republican-nominated justices represent a six to three majority on the court, businesses can continue to count on even more favorable rulings in the years 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.

Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Jerome Powell set investors straight at the Fed's annual Jackson Hole symposium. He said the job of lowering inflation is not done, and that the Fed will continue to raise interest rates in order to slow the economy.

 

"We must keep at it until the job is done," Powell said, during his speech.

 

That was enough to send stocks lower after a few days of gains. At the same time, the U.S. dollar fell, as did interest rate yields, which is somewhat counter intuitive given Powell's hawkish statement. The inflation data released on Friday morning showed a little progress on the fight against inflation. The Personal Consumption Expenditure Price Index, (PCE), a closely watched indicator, eased to 4.7 percent, slightly below forecasts of 4.8 percent.

 

Month-over-month, the PCE index increased by 0.2 percent in April, which was much lower than the 0.9 percent rise in March 2022. Lower inflation in investors' minds means the Fed does not need to tighten monetary policy as much. That would translate into less downward pressure on the economy and better corporate earnings. Powell said we are not at that stage quite yet.

 

On the economic front, the data continues to conflict.  U.S. second quarter GDP was revised upward this week from minus-0.08 percent to minus-0.06 percent. As readers may know, Gross Domestic Product measures the value of goods and services. Another data point the Fed follows closely is a subset of GDP called Global Domestic Income (GDI). GDI measures the progress of labor income. That number gained plus-1.4 percent in the second quarter of 2022.

 

Most economists tend to average these two variables together in order to get a better picture on how the economy is really fairing. If we do that, GDP in the first quarter 2022 would have been a gain of plus-0.1 percent and a positive 0.4 percent in the second quarter, instead of two negative quarters in a row, according to headline GDP. Granted, both quarters would still be below the long-term trend of GDP, but not quite recessionary just yet.

 

However, rising interest rates are impacting economic growth. The latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) report, for example, showed that job openings have fallen by 1.1 million between March and June 2022.

 

Indexes based on online job listings, compiled by two job search engines, Indeed and LinkUp, suggest that the trend in job openings continued to decline in July and August. Other economic data that shows a decline is pending home sales, that are now down 22.5 percent, versus last year, and durable goods orders are flat to down.  That data should encourage the Fed in their efforts to slow the growth in the economy.

 

The gains in the market this past week were expected.  Stocks lost 2.4 percent in three days and then bounced. Gains pushed the S&P 500 Index up to the 4,200 level before rolling over. The way things are set up right now, we should see the market bounce up somewhat for a day or so next week, but I expect a series of lower lows by the end of next week. The bounces we get will disappoint and fail to make higher highs. That is my best case. If things get out of hand, we could just continue to drop down to 3,900 on the S&P 500 Index. In any case, my playbook for September into October 2022 is down.

 

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.

 

Many consumers have changed their diets over the last two years consuming more chicken, pork, and fish and less beef. Driving this substitution have been the stratospheric increases in meat prices. The good news is that high-end beef cuts are now dropping in price.  

 

As readers are aware, prices for food have been rising for months. On a personal basis, my custom of grilling outside at least once or twice a week is just not the same. The prices of steak — sirloin, rib eye, New York strip and steak tips — forced me to switch to chicken kabobs, hamburgers, hot dogs and maybe a cut of London broil.

 

Beginning in August, however, I noticed that some supermarkets were running sales on some high-priced cuts of meat.  Checking prices nationwide, I discovered that prices for rib-eye and beef loin are down nearly 10 percent compared to a year ago. Beef brisket has dropped by more than 18 percent.

 

On the other hand, ground beef prices, usually the cheapest choice of beef for consumers, increased by 7 percent over the same period. That is understandable from my point of view. I began substituting ground beef for prime rib and other expensive cuts of meat well over a year ago, as have many other shoppers. I suspect my wife is getting sick of eating my meat loaf, and I don't blame her.

 

I would like to think that the economic concept of product substitution is at work here. The idea is that a customer will substitute a preferred product for another product with similar characteristics. Consumers are increasing demand for ground beef and reducing their demand for high-priced beef cuts.

 

In this case, substitution occurs due to the large price deferential between the two products. At some point, as supply becomes greater than demand, prices should fall and they have. Meat processors argue that bottle necks had caused the price declines and not price gouging.

 

The tight labor market and higher employee turnover and absenteeism due to COVID-19 has eased somewhat since last year due to higher wages and fringe benefits, although it is not yet back to pre-COVID levels.

 

Climate change is another reason for higher beef prices. Drought has forced ranchers to push more cattle into processing plants as drought, high heat, and the price of feed forces the size of herds to be reduced. For example, thousands of cattle in Kansas died in June as a result of excessive heat. Cattle prices are up 15 percent versus 2021, for ranchers, but so has other expenses like feed fertilizer and fuel, so producers are struggling to just break even.

 

I wish I could predict that meat prices will continue to decline but that doesn't seem to be the case. Prices may see a temporary decline, but only if ranchers continue to reduce their herds. Industry experts and the USDA are forecasting that U.S. beef production will decline once again in 2023, and possibly out into 2024. The law of economics would say, as beef supplies dwindle, processors will be paying (and passing on to you) higher prices once again.

 

The morale of this tale is to take advantage of cheaper prices while you can and maybe buy a bigger freezer in the process. In the meantime, any meat lover will tell you that the taste of London broil is a far cry from a juicy, rib-eye, but steak is steak when you're craving beef.

 

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.

Baseball continues to be one of the most popular youth sports in North America. More than 3 million kids in the U.S. play the game and about 10 million children play worldwide. They are not alone. In 2022, approximately 20 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 also play baseball, according to Statista. Every one of them do so with a baseball glove.

 

Prices have risen substantially since I was a kid. Today, the price of these baseball gloves can range from $20 to $400, depending on the kind of materials involved. Back in the day, most kids in my neighborhood kept their glove next to the bed. A typical summertime day started with pick-up games in the morning, followed by practice in the afternoon, and a little league game starting at 6.

 

In this age of the internet, children (ages 6 to 18) probably play less than we did, but they still spend four hours during the week in free play, another 6.5 hours in practice and training, and 4.5 hours at games, according to TeamSnap, a mobile and web service for managing recreational and competitive sports teams and groups.

 

Overall, the global baseball equipment market is valued at $13.3 billion in 2022 and is expected to top $16.6 billion by the end of 2027. Gloves account for a large share of those overall sales. COVID-19 dented sales, as well as the number of children who played baseball in 2020 and 2021. However, the long-term growth rate has turned back up. Analysts expect baseball equipment should return to its historical growth rate of 3.2 percent annually.

 

For those who do not play baseball, there are different types of gloves depending on what position is played, the size of the glove and dominant hand. Common glove types include outfield and infield gloves, first base and catcher's mitts, and pitcher's gloves. 

 

There are various types of gloves from the cheapest to the most expensive. There are plenty of lightweight and flexible gloves with enough padding constructed of all-synthetic fabrics. Many of these designs can resist moisture and absorb impact. These are normally the cheapest gloves (good for starters), but prone to breaking over time.

 

Full-grain, or cowhide leather gloves are more expensive ($30-$60), and are thicker, and more durable, but require time to break in. These are the gloves most familiar to players of my age. The problem is they require time, effort, and a lot of glove oil to break them in, molding them to your hand, and your play.

 

There are more expensive choices like steer hide leather gloves ($75-$300), that are even more durable and the choice of many amateurs, as well as professional players. Finally, another high-end product, the kidskin glove, is usually the favored choice of certain professionals and can fetch as much as $400 a glove. Infielders love these mitts. Light, smooth, and yet, durable, they balance comfort with ruggedness.   

 

The top brands in this market include Wilson, Rawlings, Easton, Akadema and Mizuno, among others. Many baseball manufacturers are based in the United States. However, many of these companies now outsource to other regions in order to reduce costs. In the 1960s, production shifted to Asia in places such as the Philippines, Vietnam and, of course, China.

 

Most of the wholesale baseball glove manufacturers are based in China. China boosts the factories, workforce, and training to deliver large orders in time. The quality is equal to most brand-name products, but at much lower prices. These are the gloves usually purchased by schools, clubs, sports centers, and youth leagues.

 

There is only one place in the U.S. that still manufactures baseball gloves from top to bottom. Based in Nocona, Texas, and founded in 1926, Nokona has been making baseball gloves in a small brick factory since the Great Depression era.

 

The process of making a glove requires about 40 steps and can take four hours to complete. Basic parts of a glove include the bridge, web, heel pad, hinge and the lacing. As a result, Nokona's gloves can run many times the price of a competitor's mitt that is produced on an assembly line. For example, a 9-inch kid's glove that you can pick up for $8 at your local big box store would cost $220 at Nokona for an equivalent-sized glove.

 

Surprisingly, most professionals have little interest in custom gloves. They usually purchase gloves from one of the many manufacturers. Rawling's and Wilson's gloves seem to be the manufacturer of choice for many pros. The good news, in my opinion, is that some things stay the same. Yes, the price has gone up by several multiples, but several generations can still relate to that feeling of slipping one's hand into a well-used glove as the game begins.

 

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.