State and local government employees are essential in delivering everyday services to the American public, but the government's labor force is understaffed and has yet to recover from its pandemic lows. The reasons range from lower pay and less advancement to little flexibility in areas such as remote working.

 

Private-sector jobs have already surpassed pre-pandemic levels, while in the public sector, government employers are still looking for more than 664,000 workers with little success. This may sound like one of those "so what" kind of issues but consider this.

 

Public employees operate the nation's trains, subways and buses in addition to delivering essential services like health and unemployment insurance. Also on the list; safety-net services such as housing and cash assistance, protecting the nation's water, food, and air as well as combating infectious diseases. And let's not forget the increasingly difficult duty of teaching and caring for our kids in state universities, community colleges, and K-12 education.

 

I focus on teachers especially since jobs in education account for most of state and local employment, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Teaching salaries have the reputation of being notoriously low in the best of times, which these are not.

 

The ongoing pandemic, now in its third year, provides a clear and present infection danger for all teachers. Throw in the increasing number of school shootings, and the tension that goes along with it daily and you can understand why teachers have been retiring in droves with few replacements.

 

The increasing political pressure from outside the classroom on everything from facemasks, to books, to what lessons plans will be least likely to cause turmoil and/or outrage among parents adds to the teacher's list of grievances. No wonder, that, with a laundry list like that, it becomes even more difficult to woo young teachers for $50,000 a year when the same graduate can earn twice that and more in the tech industry.

 

Workers considering employment in areas like education, the postal service, etc. are being wooed away in this tight labor market by hefty signing bonuses and faster wage growth in the private sector, which becomes especially important in an inflationary environment.

 

You would think the simplest solution would be to raise wages for government employees just like the private sector has been doing. That turns out to be a rather difficult proposition. In the past, state and local governments struggled with a combination of cutbacks in federal spending (depending on who was in office), as well as low tax receipts from time to time. This made budgeting difficult and somewhat unpredictable.

 

Which brings us to government budgets. For the most part, it is the budget that determine salaries for public workers. Budgets, as we know, are ponderous things that take a long time to pass, and almost always involve political horse-trading. Raising wages for government workers, therefore, is a hot potato that few politicians are willing to tackle unless they must.

 

Another disadvantage in finding workers is that government work is not as flexible. Working from home doesn't cut it for a bus driver, police office, or letter carrier. Therefore, hybrid and remote work options just aren't in the lexicon of most state and local governments. So, who suffers the most from these lower wage jobs?

 

In the overall economy, state and local governments account for about 12 percent of employed people. Most of these workers are women. Workers of color, particularly Black and American Indian employees, are also heavily represented in these industries. As such, public sector employment has provided economic security for women and minorities.

 

Is there a solution to this employment problem? Probably, but not in the short term. However, as the wait time between your bus or subway stop lengthen, the lines at your unemployment office, or at the tax assessor's office trail out to the sidewalk, and your mail is two weeks late, we will notice and complain. At some point, if we yell loud enough, things will change, but I suspect not before they get much worse.

 

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.

Stocks bounced again this week. Recession fears raised hopes that the Federal Reserve Bank might a relent a bit on their tightening program. That could be a false hope but was enough to provide a relief rally.

 

There is a higher probability that we could continue to rally in fits and starts. Exactly what does and does not gain will likely have more to do with what has lost the most in the last month. Energy comes to mind since we have seen more than a 25 percent decline in energy stocks triggered by a sharp decline in oil and gas. Commodity stocks have also swooned with some stocks experiencing double digit declines in the last month or so.   

 

The expectations that global demand would decline in a recession was the motivating factor behind these hefty falls. These plummeting prices sparked hope among investors that inflation could level off, or even come down faster than expected — in which case, the Fed might ease its foot off the tightening pedal.

 

Readers might scratch their heads at all this, since none of these "could be" scenarios have much data to back them up. Last week, however, I did mention that the Atlanta Fed was expecting 2022 second quarter GDP to come in at minus-2.1 percent, following the first quarter's decline of 1.6 percent. Technically, two down quarters in a row counts as a recession, but the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) will be the final arbiter of what is and what is not a recession.

 

Large cap technology shares as well as the most beaten-up sector stocks saw gains this week. Did that make sense?

 

Not really. In a recession, large cap, well capitalized companies (think FANG stocks, for example) should be able to withstand the negative impact of a slowing economy on earnings and sales far better than weaker companies. And yet, these companies, many with no earnings at all, rallied just as much. But who said bear market rallies have any basis in facts anyway?

 

Later in the week, China's Ministry of Finance was said to be "considering" a $220 billion program to fund additional infrastructure in order to boost their economy. The official target for GDP growth for this year is 5.5 percent. This goal is in jeopardy due to the economic hit caused by COVID-19 lockdowns and a housing slump this year. Infrastructure spending is the "go-to" policy the Chinese government has historically used to goose the economy.

 

That rumored announcement was enough to send oil, gas, and all sorts of commodities soaring higher, sparking a rebound in these depressed areas. The thought is that commodities and energy would be key inputs in building infrastructure. It doesn't appear that traders care about the obvious contradictions in chasing commodity, high growth tech and the weakest stocks in the universe all at the same time.

 

Remember too that in this atmosphere of recessionary fears, coupled with higher inflation, and tight monetary policy expectations, bad news can be good news for the stock market, and vice versa. As I see it, negative data that shows a weaker economy, slowing employment growth, and/or lower commodity prices is "good" for the markets because it means the Fed might not tighten further. A stronger labor market, increasing GDP, and higher commodity prices would constitute bad news for the markets, at least for now.   

 

Friday's non-farm payrolls data is a case in point. The U.S. economy added 372,000 jobs in June, which was slightly above expectations, while the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 3.6 percent. Stocks dropped immediately, since stronger job growth equates to a Fed that has no reason to relent on its aggressive tightening mode in monetary policy.

 

Given this background, I see this bounce as just another bear market bounce. My target on this one could see the S&P 500 Index reach 4,000. If traders get enthusiastic, we could see the 4,100 level. The only question is how long it will take to achieve my target.

 

Next week, the second quarter earnings season begins. Given all the issues plaguing U.S. corporations — falling consumer demand, a rising dollar, inflation, and supply chain issues — analysts are expecting weaker earnings and even weaker guidance. This could mark an end to any rally, so traders should be making hay while the sun shines.

 

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 Biden administration is wrestling with whether to ease some of the Chinese import tariffs on billions of dollars of Chinese goods. If they do, it would mark the first step in reconciling the trade differences between the world's two largest economies and could even nudge down the inflation rate.

 

The trade war is now over four years old and substantial tariffs remain. "To what end," some may ask, as certain deadlines approach. The first tranche of the Section 301, China imports tariffs on $34 billions of goods, is set to expire this week. Another $16 billion worth of tariffs will expire on Aug. 23 followed by $100 billion of tariffs on Sept. 4.  

 

 You may recall that back in 2018, former President Donald Trump imposed a series of tariffs on a host of Chinese products totaling more than $450 billion. In response, China imposed their own tariffs on American goods. From there, as the rhetoric reached new heights, each side escalated the tariffs, encompassing more and more goods at higher and higher penalties.

 

Since China represented the United States' largest agricultural export market, China focused their retaliatory tariffs in that area. The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that the tariffs reduced U.S. exports of agricultural products by $27 billion from 2018 to 2019.

 

The damage ultimately was so bad that the federal government was forced to give farmers nearly $30 billion in taxpayer money just to compensate for lost sales to China. Overall, the tariff war caused U.S. exports to fall by 9.9 percent, while reducing GDP by 0.04 percent, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

 

The tit-for-tat escalation ultimately led to a "Phase One" trade deal between the two countries, signed with great fanfare by Trump in January 2020. The agreement required China to sharply increase its purchases of U.S. goods as a precondition for the president to remove the new tariffs. The agreement was a total flop. China, during the first two years of the deal (2020-2021), purchased only 57 percent of its commitments. China purchased $289 billion of U.S. goods, instead of the $502 billion promised.  

 

A partial explanation for such a big miss was the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected trade between almost all nations. In addition, supply chain disruptions had a meaningful impact on other U.S. products such as automobiles and aircraft exports. Weakening demand for imports overall, as China's economy declined, has also been a contributing factor.  

 

Bottom line: if one looks at trade between the two nations overall, China's purchases are below the level they were before the trade wars began.

 

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development found that the trade war was simply a lose-lose for both countries. The tariffs were supposed to protect American industries, but they have hurt the U.S. economy instead. If there had been no trade war, U.S. exports between 2018 and April 2022 would have been $129 billion more, according to a Washington-based research group, Americans for Free Trade.

 

Unfortunately, the Phase One agreement did not end the tariffs, but only prevented them from going higher. The average tariffs on goods affected is still about 20 percent on each side.  Not only did the tariffs on Chinese parts, components, and materials not make our manufacturing sectors stronger and more competitive, it also did the opposite.

 

Our companies needed those Chinese intermediate products (now on the tariff lists) to manufacture finished goods here. Companies found that without them, competing with companies in Japan and Europe, which continued to have access to those cheaper Chinese inputs, made our products more expensive in the open market. Our companies continued to lose market share globally as a result. Those losses continue today.

 

Some may question why President Biden has continued Trump's misguided policies, despite the damage it has caused the U.S. economy, while doing little to hurt China's economy. The simple answer is politics.

 

Being "tough on China" is a popular stance among Americans, even if it means a weaker economy. If you throw in China's growing authoritarianism, suppression of human rights, oppression of minorities, and military ambitions in Asia, the Biden administration would need some strong counter arguments to justify an easing of tariffs.

 

Given the rising inflation rate and cooling economy in the U.S., President Biden may now have the political cover to roll back some of those tariffs. President Biden is hoping that reducing tariffs would lower the costs of everyday merchandise to consumers. Unfortunately, economists are expecting that tariff reductions will only have a modest impact on inflation, but in my opinion, every little bit helps when inflation is topping 8 percent.

 

This week, the U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, and China's Vice Premier Liu He, held talks focusing on economic policy and relieving global supply chains. Words such as "pragmatic," "constructive," and "substantive" seemed to indicate that some movement on tariffs is in the offing. Let's see what develops throughout the week.

 

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.

There are roughly 817,000 unique and different programs available via streaming services in the U.S. The median streaming household pays for three to four such subscriptions costing between $20 and $30 per month. Most consumers claim the choices are overwhelming and cumulatively expensive, so why don't they plan to do anything about it?

 

Those were the findings of a Nielson report titled "State of Play" published in April 2022 that analyzed the state of streaming entertainment in America. The number of programs (movies, series, specials, etc.) has increased by 26.5 percent since the beginning of 2020.

 

The amount of content that we couch potatoes have consumed has also increased by 18 percent since 2021. To put that in perspective, in just one month (February 2022), Americans consumed 169.4 billion minutes of content. Obviously, there is a strong correlation between the amount of content available, and the amount we consumed.

 

Personally, there isn't a day that goes by that I am not bombarded with ads on television, radio, the internet, and emails from one streaming service or another. Most of them promise a week or so of free viewing and then automatically bill me each month via credit card for as long as forever. Honestly, when I examine the offerings, I discover that much of what they offer is old shows and series with one or more new series thrown in that were popular once upon a time.

 

Nielson says almost half of all users they surveyed felt overwhelmed by the quantity of programming available. I concur. My list of shows on the four services I subscribe to continues to build to the point that it would probably take me a year of constant binging to get through it all!

 

So, with all of this content, you would think that I would cut back, discontinue a service or two, and save some money. But true to form, no matter how much I complain, I have no plans to cut back, or reduce the amount of streaming content I consume each night. And that is exactly what most of those surveyed by Nielson said as well. A full 93 percent of respondents said they planned to either keep the streaming services they had or add more over the course of the next year.  

 

If you asked me right now how much I pay a month and over the course of a year for my subscription services, I couldn't tell you. How about you, can you even guess? It turns out that almost a third of U.S. consumers underestimate how much they spend on subscriptions by $100 to $199 per month, according to a study by market research firm, C+R Research. 

 

It is also true that many people (42 percent) have forgotten that they are paying for a streaming service that they no longer use. I am guilty once again. My wife and I enjoy foreign films, so about four months ago, we decided to fork over another $6.99 a month for a British service. We watched maybe one or two shows and that was it. Because we charged the fee to our credit card, the amount was automatically debited, making it easy to go unnoticed. Since 86 percent of consumers have at least some, if not all, of their subscriptions on autopay, I suspect many readers have similar experiences. TV and movie streaming came in third, after mobile phone and internet charges as the most forgotten types of subscriptions.

 

Way back when, if you recall, cable companies offered preset packages to subscribers that included several premium services in addition to network television for a bundled price. In a similar move back to the future, many of Nielson's surveyed consumers (64 percent) said they would be interested in bundling competing streaming services to save money if they could choose the streaming services they want. It seems to me that as winners and losers begin to become apparent among streamers some sort of bundling will make economic sense. In the meantime, I will probably continue to complain about, pay for, and accumulate additional services.

 

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.

"Certainly a Possibility." 

 

Those were the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell during testimony to the U.S. Senate banking Committee on Wednesday, June 22. Investors took his warning in stride, instead of plummeting. That may indicate markets are ready for another relief rally.

 

Powell thought the U.S. economy was strong enough to roll with the Fed's punches of higher interest rates, and a shrinking balance sheet without too much trouble. It was the outside factors — the Ukrainian war, China's COVID-19 policy, and supply chain problems — that complicate the outlook. Avoiding the "R" word was largely out of the Fed's control, he said, "it's not our intended outcome at all, but it's certainly a possibility."

 

Granted, it wasn't as if fears of a recession were a new concept among investors. For the past few weeks, as the Fed made clear they were pursuing an even more aggressive series of interest rate hikes to combat inflation, investors began to worry that the Fed's action might tip the economy into recession.

 

This fear has weighed heavily on stocks in various hot sectors like energy and materials, which have fallen considerably in price. Oil has dropped from $123 a barrel to almost $100 in the last two weeks with energy stocks falling faster and further. Natural gas prices have also dropped substantially, despite the actions of Russia to cut off natural gas to the European Community.   

 

Defensive stocks in areas like utilities, health care, consumer durables, and telecom were bought instead. As were U.S. bonds, which are sending yields lower. That makes sense. If the U.S. does slip into recession, there will be far less demand for energy and other commodity inputs to fuel economies. In recessions, investors usually hide out in higher yielding areas where hefty dividends support stock prices in areas which people need, (not want) to purchase.

 

I pay attention when investors receive bad news (such as a potential recession forecast from the Fed), and the markets hold in there as they did this week. After all, Chair Powell had two days of testimony in front of Congress and plenty of opportunities during the Q&A sessions to tank the markets, but that didn't happen, even though he was no less hawkish in his forecast. That leads me to believe that the markets may have discounted the worst — for now.

 

Rest assured, I still believe we have a lower low in front of us sometime before the end of September. But that does not mean we can't see a face-ripping rally of 10 percent in the short-term. As a contrarian indicator, the AAII Sentiment survey, which measures bullish/bearish sentiment among institutional investors, just registered the 25th lowest bullish and its sixth highest bearish sentiment reading in its history.

 

Many traders are expecting just that kind of event to occur over the next week or two. There are several technical reasons that make bounce higher a high probability. There is the rebalancing of funds by large institutions (bonds into equities) that occurs at the end of a quarter after severe selloffs. Many hedge funds are ending the quarter net short and will also need to rebalance.

 

There will also be the usual flow of new funds into pension plans that will need to be invested. Finally, a huge number of put options will expire at the end of the month. They will need to be either liquidated or rolled over to a future month. This could set the markets up for another oversold bounce.

 

We have had several of these rallies thus far in 2022. The S&P 500 Index gained 6 percent in four trading days, 11 percent in 11 days, and 8.7 percent in 9 days, while losing 19 percent overall. Bear market rallies typically get back 70 percent of the losses of the prior move lower with over a quarter of the rallies gaining back over 100 percent.

 

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.