After a three-year hiatus, cryptocurrencies have returned and are attracting the attention of investors. Will this time be any different?

 

Readers may recall the Bitcoin craze that sent the largest digital currency to an all-time high of $20,000 in 2017 and spawned numerous copy-cat cryptos like Ethereum and Litecoin.

 

You may also remember that all of them came crashing back to earth and ignominy where they have languished, unloved, until this year.

 

This week, Bitcoin hit a new three-year record of $19, 857. If that is news to you, there is a reason for that. After the last buying frenzy and subsequent crash, the financial media has taken a more cautious approach in touting cryptocurrencies. Until recently, Bitcoin has barely been mentioned in the press.

 

Another big difference is the number of new Bitcoin. More and more companies, many of them traditional financial institutions, are taking an interest in using and trading Bitcoin, and other digital currencies such as Ethereum and Litecoin. JPMorgan Chase & Co., as well as several other Wall Street firms, have expressed more than a passing interest in owning and trading these currencies.

 

In addition, more and more firms are accepting Bitcoin as payment. As of mid-year 2020, more than 160 companies allow their customers to pay with Bitcoin, including such heavy hitters as PayPal, Microsoft, AT&T, and Shopify. And it is no longer just the retail investor and "hot money" guys who are buying and selling crypto. A growing number of institutional investors are dipping their toes into the arena in search of better returns. Simply parking their spare cash in a money market fund (where it earns next to nothing) is not an option for many.

 

In one recent famous incident, a public company in business intelligence, MicroStrategy Inc., announced in July a new strategy in which it would invest its substantial excess cash into various assets instead of low-yielding money market funds. They chose Bitcoin as one of those alternative assets.

 

At last count, the company held 38,250 Bitcoin with an aggregate cost basis of $425 million. It is worth more than $730 million today. As a result, many traders have used the company's stock as a proxy to play Bitcoin. The share price has often tracked the price of Bitcoin rather than the fortunes of the company's main business. Other investors are identifying listed companies with any exposure to cryptocurrencies. In some cases, traders are bidding up their stock prices by more than 100 percent.

 

The same thing happened on the last go-around with cryptos. So why is this time any different? Aside from the big bets that respected investors like Paul Tudor Jones and Stan Druckenmiller and other institutional players are making, the overall environment has changed.

 

Most risky assets are already at record highs. Low interest rates provide little to no return and, according to the Fed, will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Then there is the U.S. dollar, which is dropping like a rock, making lower lows almost very day. 

 

Does that mean cryptocurrencies are somehow a better bet than they were three years ago? No. I expect the volatility that easily cut Bitcoin in half in a matter of weeks could happen again tomorrow. The digital currency markets, while maturing, are nowhere near stable, and won't be for a long, long time. It is not a market for the faint of heart. Over Thanksgiving and into Black Friday, for example, Bitcoin dropped more than 10 percent in 36 hours. It bounced back by Monday, but you catch my drift.

 

As for me, I have added cryptocurrencies to investments I will now follow daily, because I do believe that this asset class will become more meaningful over time. If you are itching to purchase, my advice is to wait for a pullback, which should come somewhere between $20,000-$25,000 Bitcoin. I would except a 20-30 percent decline, so wait for it!

 

It was a good week for investors, which is not surprising since Thanksgiving week has been kind to investors in the past. The question is, will December fulfill its role as one of the year's best months for stocks?

 

The short answer is yes, I don't see why not. My recent target for the S&P 500 Index is 3,800, but it is possible that I may be too conservative. An additional spike up to the 4,000 level might be in the cards sometime early next year, but one week at a time. What is the bull case for those lofty predictions?

 

I have long argued that a coronavirus vaccine was key to the economy and the market's future performance. We now have at least three vaccines with possibly more in the wings. That is a game changer, in my opinion. While distribution of these medical wonder drugs will take time, markets are discounting their successful distribution now, not when it happens in three to six months.

 

While I expect the present surge of COVID-19 will ravage the nation throughout the winter (as happened in the 1918 influenza pandemic), there is some hope that the government could come to the rescue in ways it has failed to do leading up to the election. Most observers around the world would give the U.S. failing marks in handling the pandemic. What is worse, there has been a notable vacuum in leadership in Washington since the election, even as deaths and cases skyrocket. That void in leadership is increasingly being filled by the president-elect by default.

 

Plans to combat the coronavirus and alleviate its worst impact on Americans, a viable and far-reaching program to distribute the vaccines, and the willingness to spend what it takes to accomplish that mission, have given the country and Wall Street new hope. Rather than Armageddon, which was predicted if Joe Biden and the Democrats won the election, the nation has been impressed by Biden's picks for cabinet positions this week. In addition, Janet Yellen's selection as U.S. Treasury secretary (the first woman to fill that post), has met with approval from the business and financial sectors.

 

It was Biden's election and his subsequent actions which has propelled the stock market to new highs in the past weeks. President-elect Biden's initial moves appear to have reassured Wall Street and many conservatives that his will be a moderate path forward. Until that proves wrong, the financial markets should continue to gain.

 

As I have been pointing out during the last two months, underneath the overall averages there has been a sea change occurring in the market's leadership. Technology, especially the large-cap leaders that have propped the market up in recent years, are relinquishing their leadership role (at least temporarily). In their place, industrial, transportation, materials, financials, and other cyclical parts of the economy have been given a new life, as reflected in their stock prices.

 

Basic materials, led by copper, a key ingredient of any worldwide economic recovery, have soared. Energy stocks, the worst performing sector of the markets by far this year, have seen double digit gains. The price of oil has lifted as traders anticipate additional demand by a world in economic recovery. Two casualties of this switch from tech to value and cyclicals has been the "safe haven" plays of the U.S. dollar and gold.

 

The dollar, as measured by DXY, an index that measures the value of the greenback relative to a basket of foreign currencies, is hovering just above a major support level at 91.75-92. A break below that would likely send the dollar a great deal lower. Gold has also fallen below the $1,800 an ounce level.

 

Normally, a declining dollar would be good for gold, since it is perceived as an alternative form of currency, but not right now. Investors believe that without the need for a safe haven, and with little to no inflation on the horizon, why hold gold? My own belief is that attitude is extremely short-sighted. I believe gold has a life of its own and fears of inflation next year could spark a resurgence. The precious metal may fall even further over the next two weeks, and if it does, I would be using that decline as a buying opportunity.

 

Sales are increasing wherever you look in the pet sector. Toys, beds, grooming products, leashes, day care, you name it; the pet industry is experiencing double-digit increases in revenue. Better yet, there are few signs that consumer spending in this area will slow down anytime soon.

 

As readers are aware, the retail sector has been one of the hardest hit as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The pet care industry is an exception to that rule. In the past, I have written extensively about how recession-proof the pet industry can be.  In both the 2001 and 2008 recessions, pet care sales grew between 5-7 percent. Consumer spending on pets has grown 36 percent in the past 10 years (ending in 2017). Edge by Ascebtial, a market research firm, is expecting the overall industry to reach $281 billion in sales over the next three years.

 

The pandemic is only accelerating this growth. COVID-19 has made owning a pet that much more important to Americans, in my opinion. In the time of plague, I have found that aside from my wife and family, there is no greater comfort than the emotional attachment a pet offers. As it turns out, I am not alone. The initial stay-at-home, lock-down period in this country triggered many to seek the companionship of some kind of pet, usually a cat or dog. 

 

Adoption and fostering rates soared, in some cases, by more than 100-200 percent nationally, according to Pethealth Inc.  In New York City, application rates actually reached an unbelievable 1,000 percent. 

 

What many pet owners discovered was that one of the benefits of working from home was that it allowed them much more time to care for a pet properly (as opposed to locking them up in a cage/crate all day). Plus, let's face it, there is nothing better than to get off a high-pressured, Zoom call with a client, or a domineering boss, only to receive a big lick, an offered toy, or the release of walking one's dog in the woods or park. 

 

Naturally, these new-found members of the family sparked a wave of demand for pet-care products. Online sales of companies such as Amazon or Chewy exploded, while internet-based pet services of all kinds saw an enormous uptick. Sales of dog food lead the charge. The U.S. pet food market is predicted to grow to be a $13.3 billion market by 2023. In a recent example, Nestle, the Swiss-based food conglomerate, just reported nine-month earnings this week. It identified their Purina PetCare business as the number one leader in growth worldwide this year.

 

The pet industry is also working to identify and adapt to the latest industry trends to maintain their good fortunes. Proactive, healthy ingredients in pet food is a massive trend in the industry. Back in the day, when Titus, our chocolate Lab, was a puppy, I bought 50-pound bags of Purina dog chow on sale for $25 at Tractor Supply. Today, we are on automatic re-order of 26-pound bags of a protein-dense, grain-free, dry food for $63.67 every month from Chewy, plus we throw in a 12-can case of canned food for $48.28 (also nutritional). You do the math. Is it any wonder companies such as Chewy's have seen their stock price go through the roof?

 

Whether its vet bills, pet insurance, doggy day care, or pet grooming, the cost of owning that pet just continues to go up, but it doesn't stop us. More than half of all Americans own a pet and that was before the pandemic. 

 

There are also trends that are less than healthy. For example, over half of all U.S. pets are obese, due to overeating and inactivity. But that is still lower than two-thirds of their owners, who are either overweight or obese. COVID-19 may have an impact on that trend as well. 

 

More Americans, stir-crazy from sitting at home with little to do, are actually getting off the couch. They are putting on their sneakers, or hiking boots and exercising outdoors. Better yet, they are taking their pets with them.  

 

As a pet owner and outdoor enthusiast, I have long argued that pets, especially dogs, need exercise and stimulation, as do their owners. Letting our pets out to do their business in the backyard does not qualify on either count. So, it warms my heart to see so many pets walking alongside their owners enjoying the great outdoors, despite, or maybe because of, the pandemic.

 

The number of COVID-19 cases and deaths are surging way beyond those cases earlier in the year. That could indicate tough going for the economy over the next two quarters. On the other hand, two highly effective coronavirus vaccines have been announced, but won't be widely distributed until next year. In the middle sits the stock market investors.

 

We know that financial markets are discounting mechanisms, meaning that investors usually buy or sell stocks based on what may happen in six to nine months from now. At that time, so the story goes, at least two vaccines will be readily available to most of the public. One may be ready for limited distribution before the end of the year if all goes well. That should cause the economy to rebound and unemployment should decline. That is a bullish case for equities, so investors would normally anticipate that and buy now.

 

However, in the near term, the next three-four months, thanks to this second coronavirus surge, the economy is expected to slow, and unemployment to rise. The expectation that little to no fiscal stimulus is forthcoming from our divided government adds to investor worries. The impact on the economy in the short-term could be severe as a result. It is fairly certain, according to most economists, that the reason the economy bounced back as quickly as it did from the first nationwide shut-down was the quick response by the government to  monetary and fiscal stimulus.

 

As of this week, there are no plans for a countrywide shutdown. Instead, individual states, cities, towns, etc. are closing some things down and leaving others open (schools versus bars and restaurants for example). Most businesses are simply ignoring all of it, while trying to convince workers that everything is all right when it isn't.  

 

As a result, the coronavirus case numbers are increasing exponentially. Worse, there appears to be no way to prevent it. Next week, a large segment of the population is already making plans to visit the family for Thanksgiving week, despite medical advice to the contrary. The way we are headed, I expect that the caseload in hospitals should continue to mount. Friends, families and neighbors will continue to die and, at some point, a partial or total shut-down of the economy could occur out of necessity.

 

If so, this time around I expect there won't be an immediate stimulus response from the government. That could do lasting damage to the economy and prolong the time required to recover. Despite pleading from the Federal Reserve Bank and just about every economist in the nation, both the president and Congress are not listening. Both parties are far too engrossed in debating who won the election (or who will win the Senate in January) to worry about another couple hundred thousand deaths, let alone jobs and the economy. It is the America we live in.

 

Normally, the week leading up to a national holiday such as Thanksgiving, is positive for stocks. This year, the averages will likely be tugged in two directions — the bearish, daily rise in COVID-19 cases versus more good news on the vaccine front. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict the bad news should get worse, which leaves the markets dependent on more vaccine news to remain buoyant. 

 

The Regional Comprehensive Economics Partnership (RCEP) is a trade pact that could change the global trade equation over the next decade. It is an example of multilateralism and free trade that could leave the United States in the dust. 

 

The 15 nations that comprise RCEP represent about one third of the world' s population (2.2 billion people), and 29 percent of global gross domestic product. The partnership is made up of 10 Southeast Asian countries, as well as South Korea, China, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. The RCEP is officially the world's largest trading bloc.

 

What makes this trade deal noteworthy, apart from its size, is the inclusion of China. In the past, China, while signing numerous bilateral trade agreements, has refrained from joining a multilateral trade pact — until now. Getting there required eight years of negotiations. The deal could have been even larger, if India, which had been part of the negotiations, had signed. 

 

Since the agreement is expected to eliminate tariffs on a wide range of imports throughout the next 20 years, India was worried that lower tariffs could hurt some of their more inefficient producers. Nonetheless, RCEP members are extending an open invitation to India in the event that it changes its mind.

 

Most of the member countries already have free-trade agreements with each other. What makes RCEP unique is that it defines new rules of origin on imported products among members. Before this deal, if a product happened to have parts made by a country that was outside of a free-trade agreement between two countries, then those parts would likely be subject to tariffs. Imagine, for example, if a Chinese-made automobile exported to Indonesia had several parts manufactured from countries that were not part of a free-trade agreement between China and Indonesia. Indonesia would be able to levy tariffs on all those non-exempt parts, which can get really complicated. The RCEP eliminates that issue.

 

If you are an RCEP member, as long as the product parts are made by another RCEP-member nation, the product will receive the same tariff treatment. The hidden benefit here is that now the RCEP trade bloc will be incentivized to look within their trade group for suppliers. 

 

The Peterson Institute for International Economics believes the trade pact could generate as much as $186 billion yearly over the next decade and tack on 0.2 percent in growth to the GDP of each member state. Some economists believe that the North Asian countries — China, Japan, and South Korea — could benefit the most from RCEP. However, it will take some time before all the member states ratify the agreement. In some countries that suffer from anti-free trade or anti-China sentiment, ratification of the pact may take time.

 

The agreement is bigger than both the U.S. North Atlantic trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, as well as the European Union's trade pact. In contrast, for the last four years the U.S., under the direction of our president, has largely retreated from inking large multinational trade deals. In fact, we have done just the opposite by raising tariffs, while pursuing a policy of isolationism. I am not sure that a new president, regardless of party, could alter this trade trend. I don't know what it would take to convince a divided American populace that there will be far-reaching consequences of our actions.

 

America's withdrawal from free trade has left a void, which other nations (especially China) are all too happy to fill. We pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), for example, which was an even broader agreement than the RCEP, largely because of what the nation perceived was China's growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region. We continue to isolate when even our trading partners like the European Union understand that, in a world ravaged by the coronavirus, new trade agreements (not less) are vitally important to economic recovery. 

 

But the U.S. seems intent on fighting the pandemic battle alone, while scrambling for ways to rebuild the economy amid a crumbling national infrastructure, without going into more debt. In a nation divided, where more than half the country cannot even agree on the winner of a presidential election (let alone the presence of COVID-19 among us), do we really have the resources necessary to go it alone on the world trade front?