Home About Archives RSS Feed

The Independent Investor: OPEC's Oil Ploy

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist

Over the last four months, Americans have received an early Christmas present. The price of oil has dropped precipitously, benefiting both corporations as well as the consumer. But that could be a two-edged sword for this nation.

Brent crude, the global oil benchmark in the futures market, has declined 23 percent since its June price of $115 per barrel. Today it is trading below $83 per barrel, providing an enormous windfall in cost savings for all of us. The retail price of gasoline has dropped 15 percent during the same time period to a national average of $3.17 a gallon. Every one-cent decline in gas prices equals about a $1 billion drop in energy spending, according to economists. So we have all just received what amounts to a tax cut that has gone directly into our pockets.     

That's the good news. The bad news is that many of the same economists believe the reason prices have fallen so quickly is the deteriorating state of the global economy. Slower growth equals less demand for oil, all things being equal. As such we find ourselves with an oversupply of oil.

Now usually, OPEC, which controls the lion's share of oil production worldwide, would begin to throttle down the amount of oil produced per day. There would be meetings and all the disparate members of this energy cartel would decide what cut backs are necessary in order to prop up energy prices. This time around no such agreement is contemplated.

Instead, Saudi Arabia, the energy colossus, has been quietly telling the oil market that they would be quite comfortable with even lower prices for an extended period of time. Behind the scenes, they have said that $80 a barrel for a year or two would be just fine with them even though that level of pricing would hurt all OPEC members, and some more than others. Venezuela, for example, is in such bad shape that oil at that level would probably force the country into bankruptcy.

So what, you might ask, is the reason for this change in strategy? OPEC recognizes that a new competitor is emerging in the form of United States energy independence. Readers may be surprised to learn that the U.S. has emerged as the No. 1 oil producer in the world, even as it maintains the same spot in energy consumption. We can thank new technology, such as oil and gas fracking, for the turnabout in our energy prospects.

OPEC competitors would like to slow the rate of production here at home, thereby reducing our competitive edge. The best way to do that is by lowering prices. As prices drop certain sources of energy such as fracking and tar sands become less economical in comparison. Industry experts figure that a drop to $75 a barrel in oil would begin to curtail drillers and producers from developing additional fracking wells. The fracking industry has become much more cost sensitive since the early days of 2003. There has been so much capital sunk into the cost of expanding this output that any price change in oil impacts the bottom line much faster.

Investors are well aware of that risk, which explains why many energy stocks have dropped 25-30 percent over the last month. By keeping prices low for a year or two, OPEC could effectively gut much of the growth in energy production here at home. I suspect that is their game plan going forward.

There are other negative implications if OPEC succeeds in their plan. The U.S. oil and gas sector has added over 400,000 jobs since 2003. Some estimate that another 1 million to 2 million jobs have been created in construction, manufacturing and transportation to support our drive for energy independence. As a result, although the cost savings in energy consumption might contribute a 0.03 percent gain to GDP growth, the hit to Americas as a result of a decline in the energy sector could be far greater.     

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

     

The Independent Investor: Why Is This Recovery Different?

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist

The stock markets are at record highs. Interest rates are at record lows. The unemployment rate is below 6 percent and yet, most Americans are unhappy. They are not feeling the recovery. Why?

The answer to that question is complicated. But let's start with the financial crisis. Like the Crash of 1929, the events of 2008-2009 were also the result of a credit crisis. The country's financial system was on the brink of a meltdown. In the 1930s, a lot of banks went under.  That was averted this time by spending massive amounts of money to shore up our financial institutions. However, the damage was done.

We lost trust. For the first time in three generations, Americans had doubts as to the credit-worthiness of its most venerable institutions. The ensuing recession was unlike any that America has experienced since the Great Depression. When one loses trust, both lender and borrower pull back. It takes a long, long time before that trust is rebuilt.  That process is still ongoing.

Readers may recall that it was only in 1939-1940, a full 10 years after the "Crash," before this country was able to climb out of its longest downturn in memory. Some say that if it had not been for World War II it would have been even longer. I don't believe that it will take us quite that long to return to a normal economy but from a historical perspective, the present state of our economy is understandable.

Back in August, The New York Times crunched some numbers to determine what the economy would look like coming out of a normal recession, compared to what is happening today. They found that five economic sectors out of 11 were lagging badly in this recovery. They were housing, state and local government spending, durable goods consumption, business equipment investment and federal spending. Let's examine how credit impacts these sectors.

Housing is no surprise. After all, it was at the forefront of the subprime loans financial crisis. There is a shortfall of over $239 billion in missing output in this sector. We know the reasons for this shortfall — tighter lending standards and housing prices that are still underwater from their peak. That means less jobs, fewer wage increases, a less mobile workforce since few are willing to sell their homes at a loss to relocate for a job. Bottom line: banks have a trust issue with borrowers; less borrowing, less housing, simple.

Less state and local government spending represents a $180 billion gap versus what they should be spending. The reason for the decline in spending is the absence of tax revenues and burgeoning debt burden most local governments incurred as a result of the recession. States have cut back drastically and for a good reason. They need to borrow just to make ends meet and who will be willing to lend if they are spending like a drunken sailor?  

The $178 billion gap in durable goods consumption is all about big-ticket items, many of which you need to borrow in order to purchase. Things like automobiles, furniture, appliances, etc. If you are already underwater on your house, who can afford to borrow and who will lend to you?

Corporations also have a trust issue. They are spending $120 billion less on plants and equipment than they should be because they lack faith in the future demand for their goods. Most of them can borrow all they want but they don't or if they do it is not for plants and equipment. It is for things they can control like stock buybacks or mergers and acquisitions.

That leaves the Federal government, which is spending $118 billion less than it would in a normal recovery. Because we were forced to spend so much in propping up our financial sectors, the nation's debt skyrocketed to a level that created a crisis of confidence among our politicians. The fear that the nation might not be able to service, let alone pay off these historical high levels of debt resulted in a compromise that in effect reduced spending for the next decade.

To make matters worse, none of the other six sectors that make up the major contributors to gross domestic product have been able to take up the slack. So where does that leave us? When one gets into financial difficulty, it takes a long time to repair a credit rating. It takes years, and that is exactly what has happened between borrowers and lenders over the last five years. There is no way to hurry the process. In the meantime, it is what it is.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

     

The Independent Investor: Money & Divorce — What You Should Know

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist

You never paid attention to the family finances. Suddenly, your spouse wants a divorce. Fortunately, it's an amicable separation and you agree to split things up equitably. Where do you begin?

The above scenario is much more common than you think since the odds that your marriage will end in divorce are about even at best. More than 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce and 60 percent of remarriages, so the statistics are weighted against a successful marriage in America. It is extremely important therefore that both spouses understand their current financial situation and what their income needs will be post-divorce.

First, think of what your immediate cash needs will be. If one of you is working and the other is not, then cash flow is going to be highly important to the unemployed spouse. In that case, the cash-strapped party will want to receive assets that one can sell easily, quickly and with the least tax consequences. This would include stocks, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds bonds and possibly Roth IRA assets. For the spouse that is working, a combination of assets makes more sense. Some might not have immediate liquidity such as a home, a limited partnership, retirement plans and certain taxable accounts.

Remember also that you may decide to split up, but that does not mean your debtors will agree to let one or the other off the hook when it comes to your liabilities. Mortgage lenders, credit card companies, the IRS and even your credit report agencies will want to know exactly who and how each party are going to honor their debt obligations. As such, it is important that before you get divorced you agree to either pay off your mutual debt or determine each spouse's responsibility for that debt. It might also be a good idea to request a credit report as well since sometimes there may be some outstanding debt that has slipped through the cracks over the course of a long marriage.

By the way, don't ignore the tax ramifications of splitting up your assets. For example, if the spouse in need of cash flow sells securities there may be taxes to pay at the end of the year. If you are going to agree to sell your home and you think you can sell it for more than the purchase price, you might want to hold off getting a divorce until after the sale. Why?

The first $500,000 in capital gains from the proceeds of a home sale is not taxed as a married couple. However, if you are single the tax exclusion drops in half to $250,000. In addition, you may have also accumulated tax assets, which are tax losses that can be applied against taxable gains over the years. Make sure this issue is examined and those assets divided appropriately.

Next to your home, retirement assets are usually a major part of any couple's net worth.

Employer–sponsored retirement plans, IRAs, even pensions can be divided and transferred on a tax-free basis as long as the rules and regulations are followed. Divison of some of these retirement assets requires both the divorce court and the plan administrator's approval.

Getting a divorce for most of us is a traumatic emotional decision but it also has a major financial impact as well. Separating emotion from the financial decisions is tough enough when the both sides are relatively civil about the decision. It can be almost impossible when the divorce is acrimonious. And I have not even mentioned the subject of children. That is another topic for another time.

In any case it is a good idea to seek out someone who can advise you on these financial matters that has an objective point of view.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

     

The Independent Investor: Is Wall Street Responsible for Climate Change?

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist

Monday's Wall Street sit-in by a few hundred radicals would lead us to believe that Wall Street is responsible for the present changes in the world's climate. Maybe so, but remember this, what Wall Street has done, it can also undo.

Readers know that I am no apologist for big business, the financial community or Wall Street. As for climate change, I am clearly on the side of those 300,000-plus people who participated in the People's Climate March on Sunday. The earth is in jeopardy today thanks to carbon emissions generated by fossil fuels.

The simplistic approach, preferred by this "Flood Wall Street" crowd, condemns Corporate America, Capitalism in general, and oil companies, specifically, for the global dilemma we face. The solution, they offer, is to do away with these entities with the assumption that once that is accomplished, the world shall once again be green and free. If only things were so easy.

Historically, I can understand why they blame all things business. You see, it takes a long time for climate to change, according to the scientific community. As such, we could blame the Robber Barons of the 19th century for today's ills.

After all, without a Rockefeller or Morgan(and Wall Street to fund them), there would be no oil and gas industry, nor railroads to transport these products. Of course, we probably wouldn't have computers or medical technology or a host of other things that makes up today's society either.

We could go back further still in our search for a scapegoat to the Dawn of Industrialization, but then we would have to bring Europe into the equation, specifically Great Britain where it all started. Remember, too, that it was foreign nations, not Wall Street, capitalism or America, that first developed and exploited the globe's natural resources. The world's populations ravaged the earth while mining for coal, tin, gold and dozens of other metals for centuries.

How many forests were cut down worldwide before the New World was even discovered in order to clear the way for population expansion and farming? We wring our hands in anguish today over the downing of trees in the Amazon and other locales but conveniently forget how we have all abused the environment to get us where we are today.

Some say that we need to radically change our priorities. Walk rather than drive, forsake flying and stop mining altogether. Give up fossil fuels even if it would drive the world into a global depression. Radical times, they argue, call for radical solutions.

So who wants to go first, you?

For most of us, those kinds of remedies are beyond the pale, but does that mean that we should simply continue as we are? Of course not, but let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by getting rid of the very engine of change we need to turn around this situation. The forces that got us into this mess are the ones that will get us out of it. Evidence abounds.

It is Wall Street and capitalism that is making it possible for any number of carbon-reducing technologies to flourish. Who funded and is developing the world's first, second and third electric car companies? Where are solar companies getting their backing?

Read my lips: it is private capital that will convert this generation of fossil burning vehicles into one powered by electricity and other clean technologies. Wind farms, rooftop solar panels, organic farming, solar powered utility plants, pollution controls, scrubbers, in fact, just about everything we will need to clean up the environment is either funded by or made by companies that are listed on Wall Street or soon will be.

Yes, world governments have a role in providing the incentives for companies to take a chance on new technologies. But all the governments in the world do not have the money, knowledge or technology to effect climate change. That's the job of the private sector. And as long as there is a profit to be made in cleaning up the environment, Wall Street will be happy to oblige.

So let's use it.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

     

The Independent Investor: The United States of Scotland?

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist

Will the ghost of William Wallace finally see the British thrown out of his country once and for all? If the latest polls on the outcome of the Sept. 18th referendum on Scottish Independence are any indication, Scots are in a dead heat over the political and economic future of their country.

Last weekend, for the first time, polls showed that the majority of voters in Scotland were leaning toward independence. Since then new polls show the public vacillating between yes and no on a daily basis. The news has shocked the world and galvanized the three major British political parties to implement a no-holds-barred program of damage control.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and opposition Labour Party chief Ed Millbank dropped whatever they were doing and headed for the Highlands on Wednesday. The British leaders are pulling out all the stops in trying to convince Scottish voters to stay with the Union. Even Harry Potter has been enlisted or at least his author, JK Rowling, is backing the Union, which has been in effect for 307 years.

On the financial front, the polls caught "The City" (England's Wall Street) by surprise. For months, European financial institutions had been discounting the referendum as a non-event, just another opportunity for those dour Northern people, who talk funny, to blow off a little electoral steam. No one seriously considered that Scotland would actually embrace independence.

For most of the week both the British pound and the UK stock markets have been declining. And they should, because if Scotland does decide to fly the coop, there will be severe economic consequences for all parties concerned.  No less a presence than billionaire fund manager George Soros has weighed in warning Scotland that now would be the worst possible time to leave the United Kingdom.

A group of big global bank experts also joined the fray arguing that Scottish independence could threaten the UK's economic recovery, weaken the sterling by as much as 5 percent against the dollar, throw Scotland into a deep recession, and wipe billions off the value of big Scottish corporations.

Those for independence argue the positives outweigh the negatives. Exports would grow. North Sea oil revenues, they also contend, would be Scotland's and worth billions, even if energy production from those deep, cold waters is peaking out. Scotland would be able to tax its citizens and determine how that money would be spent. Investments, jobs and future productivity would be for Scotland's benefit alone, not simply as part of a greater United Kingdom budget plan.

Of course, the Scotts would have to come up with a new currency. U.K. politicians have already said they would be against the use of their own currency in the event Scotland went its own way. The Euro would be out of the question, since Scotland would first have to petition and wait for membership in the European Union before using that currency.

Scotland now represents just under 10 percent of Britain's GDP. Independence would pose a potentially lethal blow to the UK's fragile recovery. The loss of billions of dollars in oil revenues alone would throw the country into a much larger deficit.  It would also jeopardize the Labour Party's chances of winning the next election. At present, Labour leads in the polls for parliamentary elections that are scheduled for next year. Of 59 Scottish seats in Parliament, Labour holds 41 of them. Independence would at best reduce the race to a tie between Labour and the reigning Conservative Party of David Cameron.  

The Scots are sitting in the catbird seat. As it is, the politicians have promised the Scots more autonomy on everything from social to economic issues including income tax, housing and transportation. The people of William Wallace might demand even more and receive it. By next Thursday's vote, it could be that the canny Scots, without raising a sword, could come away with independence in everything but name. And for you of Scots birth — "Alba gu bràth."

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

     
Page 51 of 90... 46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56 ... 90  

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
Clark Art Screens 'Adaptation'
Drury High School to Host End-of-Year Showcase
Clarksburg Gets 3 Years of Free Cash Certified
Pittsfield CPA Committee Funds Half of FY24 Requests
MCLA Men's Lacrosse Falls in League Opener
Letter: Vote for Someone Other Than Trump
Berkshire Art Center's Dance Party Returns
Dalton Committee Seeks Funding for Invasive Species
Dog Daycare Planned for Former Williamstown Restaurant Site
Simon's Rock Awarded Freedom to Read Grant
 
 


Categories:
@theMarket (480)
Independent Investor (451)
Retired Investor (183)
Archives:
March 2024 (5)
March 2023 (2)
February 2024 (8)
January 2024 (8)
December 2023 (9)
November 2023 (5)
October 2023 (7)
September 2023 (8)
August 2023 (7)
July 2023 (7)
June 2023 (8)
May 2023 (8)
April 2023 (8)
Tags:
Selloff Stocks Recession Retirement Employment Debt Europe Banking Crisis Oil Banks Bailout Debt Ceiling Stock Market Economy Deficit Markets Pullback Metals Stimulus Energy Taxes Jobs Europe Japan Commodities Euro Fiscal Cliff Greece Congress Election Currency Federal Reserve Interest Rates Rally
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: Sticky Inflation Slows Market Advance
The Retired Investor: Eating Out Not What It Used to Be
@theMarket: Markets March to New Highs (Again)
The Retired Investor: Companies Dropping Degree Requirements
@theMarket: Tech Takes Break as Other Sectors Play Catch-up
The Retired Investor: The Economics of Taylor Swift
@theMarket: Nvidia Leads Markets to Record Highs
The Retired Investor: The Chocolate Crisis, or Where Is Willie Wonka When You Need Him
The Retired Investor: Auto Insurance Premiums Keep Rising
@theMarket: Melt-up in Markets Fueled by Momentum