| Home | About | Archives | RSS Feed |
@theMarket: Get Ready for More Stimulus
 |
Actually, this week's sell-off was simply another buying opportunity for those, like me, who are convinced that additional easing is in the cards. How can I be so sure?
The U.S. Federal Reserve in the minutes of its FOMC meeting this week, acknowledged that the economy and unemployment was a disappointment. They said it "will provide additional accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions."
So it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that most of the recent economic data is quickly moving from bad to worse, but the real kicker is the unemployment rate. Despite Friday's welcome gain of 163,000 jobs, the overall rate ticked up to 8.3 percent. That was not an anomaly. The number of new jobs created over the last few months has been falling and this week's number does not appreciatively change that. That, my dear reader, should really concern the Fed. To me, I'm betting the Federal Reserve Bank is going to act. Evidently the markets agree since stocks soared after the unemployment data was released.
Next, we move to European Central Bank President Mario Draghi. After last week's comments that he would "do whatever it takes" to defend the Euro, investors immediately expected him to launch some new bond–buying program this week. When that failed to happen, markets sold off.
I have often reminded readers that prior to accomplishing anything significant in European financial policy; a consensus needs to be built among at least the largest players in the European Union. That does not occur in a week. Draghi is looking for ways to reduce Spanish and Italian sovereign bond rates that will also enlist the cooperation of Germany, France and other nations. He will accomplish that because in the end all the key players have shown that they, too, will defend the Euro with whatever it takes.
In the meantime, ignore all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by the markets and their commentators. Increasingly, world markets act like children: they want instant gratification and as little pain as possible. If they don't get it, they throw a tantrum.
The Fed has a number of opportunities to announce further monetary initiatives. Although they could technically take action at any time, they normally wait for a forum of sorts to make this type of announcement. The closest is their annual meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyo., at the end of the month. But the Fed might want to wait until they see more economic data, in which case it could be September before they move. They could also synchronize their actions with other central banks. That happened in October, 2008 and again in November, 2011.
The point is that further stimulus is coming both in Europe and in the U.S. If the past is any guide to how the stock market will react, it behooves readers to be invested and stay invested until those events occur. QE II was announced in Jackson Hole on Aug. 27, 2010. The S&P 500 Index rallied 20.9 percent. The next stimulus program, "Operation Twist," was launched on Sept. 21, 2011, resulting in a gain of 21.7 percent in the S&P.
It is also noteworthy that in both cases the stock market averages experienced a "V" shaped recovery in the immediate days and weeks after the announcements. Those who were not invested already were forced to chase the markets. Experienced money managers who waited for a pullback before investing were disappointed time after time. Is it any wonder that this time investors who believe more stimuli are forthcoming are buying on any dips?
There are those who argue that because the markets are climbing ahead of the event, much of the gains will already be discounted once the stimulus occurs. "Not so," say I, as I look back to May 18, 2012, (which was the S&P low for this year). To date, the markets have gained about 7.5 percent. Let's say the markets climb another 3 percent before the end of August. If the expected gains are similar to the rallies of the last two QE's (20 percent), that would still leave another 10 percent between the end of August and the November elections. That's more than enough for me. How about you?
Bill Schmick is registered as an investment advisor 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: Health-Care Feud Continues
 |
"Obamacare," as the legislation has been nicknamed, was probably destined to be controversial no matter what the Supreme Court had decided. But by voting in favor of the act, by reason of Congress' power to levy taxes, simply stirred the hornet’s nest further.
Republicans have said they will try to repeal the key provision of the act after the election. They argue that since the court considers any penalty on citizens who fail to hold health insurance as a tax, then the legislation should be subject to a fast-track procedure called budget reconciliation where certain tax issues are resolved.
The GOP figures that if it can just gain a handful of additional Senate seats in November it can knock down the Act altogether on the tax issue. In any case, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate and author of Massachusetts' health-care initiative, has sworn to repeal it on his first day as president if he is elected to the White House.
From my point of view, I just can't see what is so bad about our country's fledgling steps toward universal health care. I look at health care as simply another form of insurance like home owners or auto insurance. It is a simple fact that our economic system would not function as well or not at all without certain forms of carried insurance.
Do we, for example, protest when the bank demands that we pay for home insurance as a condition of receiving a mortgage loan? Of course not, because we know that a fire, or flood or a tree could fall on our home at any time preventing us from paying off our debt, with dire consequences for ourselves as well as the bank.
The same thing applies to auto insurance. Most states require drivers to carry auto insurance. We are relieved that we do, despite the high and ever-increasing costs of carrying this insurance because we know how much those fender-benders cost. God forbid if it is anything more serious! And yet, how many times have we heard of accidents where the other driver was not covered by insurance? Not only were we angry at the driver, but at the authorities as well for even allowing that uninsured driver on the road.
Without insurance, ships wouldn't sail, planes wouldn't fly, trains wouldn't roll, and you would not even be able to move your furniture to that new home across the state. So why do we want to omit something as potentially expensive as poor health from other's insurance obligations?
Might it be possible that people do not understand that an uninsured person with poor health has the ability to inflict financial damage on everyone else in the health care system?
In our country, hospitals and other medical providers tend to give care first and then try to collect payment later. When the system winds up providing free care or is unable to collect on the bills it sends out, who do you think pays for that? You do.
Our health-care system is a for-profit entity that has to make up for the losses incurred by uninsured customers of its services. Costs are reduced either by shaving salaries and benefits of its employees thereby providing less in the way of services and/or charging you higher fees for the services delivered. In turn, you pay more through your co-pay and insurance premiums.
What's worse is that uninsured people usually wait until their medical condition is so extreme that they cannot function without medical assistance. Health issues that could have been resolved by a yearly check-up at the doctor's office are left unattended due to no insurance. These medical problems can cost literally an arm and a leg by the time the person shows up in the emergency room. Not only will the cost of treating that person be much higher than it would be, but taxpayers are likely to foot the bill for that person for the rest of their lives via welfare, disability or other aid programs.
The bottom line is that we are already paying for those who refuse to carry health insurance either as taxpayers or as health-care insurance owners. Obamacare has no impact on the vast majority of Americans who carry some sort of health insurance. As for those who really can't afford health insurance, this country's social system already covers them through Medicaid and other programs.
That only leaves those who are free-riding the system. Those who can afford to pay for health insurance but refuse. They don't even have to buy health insurance under the Act. They simply have to pay a penalty for not opting in. What's wrong with that?
Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net . Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.
|
