Sometimes good news on Main Street is bad news for Wall Street. Let's start with the good news. The U.S. economy grew at its fastest pace in nearly two years during the past three months. Third-quarter Gross Domestic Product grew at an annualized pace of 4.9 percent blowing away economists' expectations of a 4.5 percent growth rate.

 

The resilient U.S. consumer continued to spend, which has boosted growth, defying those who have been expecting the economy to slow down under the weight of 18 months of interest rate hikes. The bad news is the stronger economy will make the Fed's fight against inflation that much more difficult and therein lies the rub for the stock market.

 

The nation's second-quarter GDP came in at 2.1 percent, so the economy is accelerating not slowing. Despite past predictions of a slowdown that has not occurred, many economists are now predicting that this quarter will turn out to be the peak in economic growth. They point to a restart in student loan payments, the impact of lagging monetary policy, and a weakening worldwide economic backdrop as the negatives that will provide a huge impediment to further economic growth.

 

I remain doubtful, at least until U.S. employment begins to roll over. As long as the job market remains strong, Americans will continue to spend. The Fed knows that as well, which is why Chair Jerome Powell is adamant that he will continue his higher for longer interest rate policy. On numerous occasions, he has insisted that before he can relax this stance, he needs the economy to slow. It is doing just the opposite. That is bad news for the stock market.

 

However, the inflation fight, which has long occupied Wall Street's attention, is now in second place behind the fears that government spending is out of control. It is one of the reasons why we are seeing yields on longer-dated bonds continuing to rise. Sure, we have seen some minor pullbacks in yields, but not enough to make a difference.

 

For some reason, investors like round numbers. We hit a 5 percent yield on the benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury bond early this week and traders bought bonds in a knee-jerk reaction. But is that the yield that will pay bondholders enough to satisfy their fears of higher deficits? I'm thinking we could go higher, possibly to 5.3 percent-5.5 percent or more.

 

Investor sentiment is really in the doldrums. The election of a new House speaker should have been good news, but it wasn't. Whether Mike Johnson, a far-right representative from Louisiana, can compromise with Democrats is anyone's guess. He is the least-experienced speaker in 140 years and his political stance on a whole host of social and economic issues may make cutting a deal with Democrats difficult at best. Miracles do happen, however, even in the Capital.

 

The AAII sentiment readings are extremely bearish, as is the CNN Fear index, which is almost at panic levels. "Stockmarketcrash" was one of the top ten searches on Twitter this week. Good earnings results from some of the market heavyweights like Amazon and Microsoft have not been able to support the averages. All of the above tells me from a contrarian point of view that we are nearing the end of this bottoming process.

 

Since the Israeli/Gaza conflict and the dysfunction in Washington, I have been extending the period of this equity pullback. Originally, I thought all this mess would have been concluded by the end of the second week in October. At the same time, I increased my downside target for the S&P 500 Index level.

 

As of last week, I was targeting the 4,100 level or possibly a little lower. We were only 37 points above that level before we bounced on Friday. Close but no cigar. I could see a worst-case scenario where the S&P broke below 4,100 by 30-50 points. Either way, I expect a rebound to begin in November if not sooner. Future events in the Middle East, however, will remain a wild card for the markets.

 

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.

Spending on candy, costumes, decorations, and parties is rising. The expected amount Americans plan to spend on Halloween is $12.2 billion in 2023, according to the National Retail Federation NRF). That beats last year's record of $10.6 billion.

 

More Americans than ever are celebrating with 79 percent of people participating, which is greater than last year and exceeds pre-pandemic levels as well. In addition, 76 percent of adult American pet owners plan to put their pets in costumes, according to a PetSmart national survey. The average amount consumers will pay to celebrate the holiday is $108.24 versus $102.74 last year.

 

Candy is still at the top of the agenda for households. They will spend $3.6 billion in rewarding trick-or-treaters at their doors. Those doors, as well as front steps, interiors, and yards, will be decorated with pumpkins, spider webs, skeletons, etc. Those decorations will total $3.9 billion, even more than consumers will spend on candy.

 

Halloween parties are also gaining increased popularity, especially among Gen Z and millennials. The three great elements of such parties are costumes, the food, and the decorations. While today's partygoers may believe they are forging a new trend in entertainment, Halloween parties are simply a blast from the past.

 

In the late 1800s, Halloween parties for both children and adults became the most common way to celebrate the holiday. Parties focused on games, foods of the season, and festive costumes. By the 1920s and 1930s, the holiday had become a community-centered event with parades and townwide Halloween parties as the featured event.

 

So, it's "back to the future" this year as more than 32 percent of American consumers plan to attend or throw a Halloween party. And like days of old, beyond your typical neighborhood get-together, there are long lists of Halloween parties (now listed on the internet) for just about every community in the nation.

 

However, it is costumes that have garnered the greatest spending — $4.1 billion, up from $3.6 billion last year. More consumers than ever (69 percent) are planning to buy costumes this year. Adult costumes saw an 18 percent increase, while children accounted for a 20 percent gain. Spider-Men, princesses, ghosts, witches, and other superheroes still account for the lion's share of children's preferences. This year aside from the traditional stable of vampires, witches and Batman, Barbie and Ken will be top picks for adults.

 

A growing new category for costume demand is pet costumes. The NRF believes consumers intend to spend as much as $700 million on costumes for their pets. Dogs seem to be the target of most owner's costume spending, according to another survey by Honest Paws.

 

The most popular costumes include a pumpkin, a hot dog, a bat, a bumblebee, a spider, and Chucky. Most owners planned to spend under $50 for Fido's disguise, but a third of dog owners admitted that they spent more money on their dog's costume than their own.

 

Another trend that seems to appeal to most costume buyers with pets is matching outfits for both owner and dog. Do not be surprised therefore to see a Batdog and Robin knocking on your door.  Almost 50 percent of owners plan to bring their dog along for trick-or-treating and more than one quarter will be competing in costume contests with their pet.

 

Just a side note on pet costumes. My canines, both past and present, would run for the hills at the drop of a costume hat. Most pets that show similar signs should never be forced to wear a costume. If you absolutely must dress your pet in something, make sure whatever costume you select allows your pet to be able to move and breathe easily. Clothing that resembles a traditional dog vest, or T-shirt that doesn't cover the entire body and head are the best. You may not win that neighborhood costume contest, but your pet will thank you for it, and Halloween for both of you will be far more memorable. 

 

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.

Investors sold stocks, as bond yields reached new multi-year highs. Third-quarter earnings are almost an afterthought in this climate, and geopolitical events did not help either.

 

The 10-year, U.S. Treasury bond hit the 5 percent mark. The 30-year bond has already broken through that number and then some. The higher yields climb, the more investors fear that they will rise even further. As it stands now, the return you can get by putting your money in bonds is becoming more and more attractive versus stocks.

 

This is happening despite the cessation of long-term bond auctions by the U.S. Treasury this week. Short-term bills and notes have been auctioned instead. The next tranche of longer-dated securities won't begin again until November. You would think that with the pressure off yields, longer-term bonds would have rallied but they didn't.

 

The explanation is simple but also troubling. After years of ignoring the growing U.S. deficit, the financial markets are becoming worried that the government's continued spending is rocketing out of control. I have written about this in past columns, but it seems investors are starting to pay attention to the problem at long last.

 

A reader may wonder why it is so hard for politicians to corral their spending. The simple answer has nothing to do with whether we are talking about Democrats or Republicans. Two-thirds of U.S. spending is earmarked for just two programs: Social Security and Medicare. That's it, and no one in their right mind is going to cut back on those programs unless they want to lose their jobs.

 

That leaves a much smaller piece of the pie to squabble over. Liberals want spending to go to social programs and cut the rest. Conservatives insist it is spent on things like defense and investment instead. In a political landscape, where compromise has become a dirty word, the only answer is to keep spending more and more to satisfy the demands of both sides.

 

A great example of the conundrum we all face is President Biden's emergency funding request to Congress this week. The president is asking for $75 billion to aid Israel and Ukraine. There is another $30 billion he wants to fortify border security.

 

So, who among us is ready to say no to that kind of spending? Sure, some might, but most Americans and their representatives in the heat of the moment are going to want to approve those additional funds. But it was no accident, in my opinion, that when the president first announced this additional spending request on Oct. 18, the yield on the benchmark, ten-yield bond spiked even higher and hit a 16-year high.

 

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Jerome Powell gave little comfort to investors in a speech before the Economic Club of New York on Thursday. Some investors hoped that he might be willing to relax his monetary policies instead of the recent run-up in bond yields. Instead, Powell said inflation is still too high and warned that more interest rate increases are still possible if the economy stays strong, or if the tight labor market does not ease further.

 

The most he said about the recent surge in long-term bond yields was that "we remain attentive to these developments" acknowledging that if this situation persists "it can have implications for the path of monetary policy."

 

As for the continuing saga of failed governance among the Republicans in the House of Representatives, the facts speak for themselves. Rep. Jim Jordan, the radical politician and Trump lackey, has failed in his attempt to claim the position of speaker for a second time. His followers used social media to browbeat and threaten some Republicans into voting for him. That ruse backfired leaving him no choice but to try again on Friday. Once again, Jordan failed to convince his fellow legislators that, somehow, he had changed his stripes.

 

One hopes that he will accept the "three strikes you're out" verdict, but given his nature, he could very well claim the voting was fixed. He has done it before. The country remains in limbo as a result, with no progress in averting a government shutdown or aiding our allies around the world.

 

Last week, I said we were still in a bottoming process. I expected this period should have been over a week ago. It is still not done. I blame the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel for prolonging this process. I warned that we were going to test the low 4,300s on the S&P 500 Index. If the geopolitical events worsened (and they have) we could fall all the way down to the 4,200 area. That is just what we did. 

 

As of noon on Friday, we were trading 35 points above my low-end target. We bounced off the 200 Day Moving Average at 4,233, which was to be expected. Is it almost over, maybe? I still think we could go lower if the geopolitical news gets 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.

They are called general practitioners or primary-care doctors. Overworked, suffocating under mountains of paperwork, they see more than 30 patients a day in one of the most underpaid areas of the medical field.

 

An estimated one-third of all physicians in the U.S. are primary-care doctors, according to the Robert Graham Center, which studies the primary-care market. They include medicine physicians, general internists, and pediatricians. Depending on the definition, other researchers, like the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, say that number is far lower, around 12 percent. That compares with a range of 23-45 percent of primary care doctors in Europe.

 

My doctor, whose office is a stone-throw away from my house, fits the profile of most doctors in her field. She is meticulous, saved me from serious health issues several times, and knows my family intimately. I trust her implicitly and don't know what I would do without her.

 

Through the COVID-19 pandemic, her doors were always open, and she did it alone since finding anyone willing to work for her was impossible. With no help, she spent her evenings entering patient data into the nation's cumbersome electronic health record systems, scheduling appointments, and checking on patients.

 

Today, a smaller and smaller percentage of medical students are even considering the field. Salaries are a big reason why other medical and surgical specialties are promising far more income. Retirement is further depleting the nation's stock of GPs. At the same time, the demand for primary care is growing, thanks to record enrollment in Affordable Care Act programs. 

 

This results in longer and longer waiting times between visits to see your primary-care doctor. The average wait time is now about 21 days and growing. If, God forbid, your doctor retires, most people are faced with a "not taking new patients" electronic message from most physicians.

 

In response, over the last five years, large primary care and urgent care groups have sprung up across the nation. They are flourishing. Patients can usually walk in to see a doctor (although not necessarily the same doctor) on each visit. Many times, they will not even see a doctor. They will instead see a nurse practitioner or a physician's assistant.

 

Retail clinics like CVS Minute Clinics, offer in-person and virtual care seven days a week. Changes in Medicare and state laws have loosened the requirements for physicians and billing. This has boosted the growth in these areas, making them one of the fastest-growing segments of the medical arena.

 

The trend has grown so fast that roughly 46 percent of all primary-care physicians are currently working in practices they do not own. And two-thirds of those doctors do not work for another doctor, but a different entity altogether — Corporate America.

 

Given the present state of the primary-care field, why would the country's largest health-care insurers, drug store chains, and other billion-dollar corporations want to get involved in this business? Names like CVS, Amazon, Aetna, and Amazon are all buying up primary-care centers, doctor groups, and even the practices of individual doctors.

 

The simple answer — to create one-stop shopping for all your health-care needs. Corporations want access to the nation's huge number of consumers who need all sorts of health care and medical insurance. Primary-care doctors hold the pulse of millions and millions of patients. These patients will continue to generate a steady flow of business and profits to hospital systems, health insurers, and pharmacies.

 

In addition, Medicare, the federal health insurance program, is gradually being privatized. As it stands now, more than 30 million beneficiaries have policies with private insurers under the Medicare Advantage program. That is worth $400 billion a year for insurers and is growing every year.

 

Corporations entering the field say they are bringing coordinated health care to patients. Health insurers and others want to institute "value-based care" where the insurer and doctor are paid a flat fee for individual patient care. They argue that fixed payments will act as an incentive to maintain the health of the patient and provide access to early care, which in turn will reduce hospital stays and visits to expensive specialists.

 

Critics, however, worry that the economies of scale invading patient care will destroy the personal doctor-patient relationship. It may also end up in situations where corporate owners begin to dictate and limit services from the patient's first visit to extended hospital stays.

 

Given the growing scarcity of primary-care physicians, many millennial patients, especially those who are younger and generally healthy, are unfazed by the changes in health care. A video call or a no-wait visit at their local drug store or big-box store beats waiting for weeks to see a doctor. As for me, I am both lucky and grateful for my primary-care doctor.

 

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 American work culture has shifted radically since COVID-19. The idea that there is more in life than work is catching on among many workers. Working from home, quiet quitting, and "missing Mondays" are all symptoms of this change as is a four-day workweek.

 

Most full-time workers and job seekers, when asked, say a four-day workweek is at the top of their wish list. That is what a recent study by Bankrate, a consumer financial services company, discovered. Fully 81 percent of 2,367 adults polled, supported such a move, and 89 percent of workers were willing to make sacrifices to achieve that goal. Those surveyed said they would work longer hours, change jobs, take a pay cut, have fewer vacation days, switch industries, and even sacrifice advancement for the chance to reduce their days of toil.

 

At the same time, more than half of American employers offer, or plan to offer, a four-day workweek, according to a poll of 976 business leaders by ResumeBuilder.com. In that survey, 20  percent of those businesses already offer a four-day week and another 41 percent are planning to implement a similar week at least on a trial basis.

 

Several large trials are already occurring both here and abroad to explore the possibilities of a shortened work week. Studies have shown that for those who have implemented the change employees are happier, have less burnout, and it is also easier to attract new talent. In a Canadian trial, researchers found that revenue increased by 15 percent in many of the 41 companies that decided to continue with the approach after the trial ended.

 

Some large private-sector companies in the U.S. including Shopify, and even Amazon and Microsoft, are experimenting with a shorter workweek. California, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and possibly Vermont have introduced legislation to reduce the standard workweek as well.

 

You would think that with this much support from both employee and employer, why hasn't it happened already?

 

The facts are that the lion's share of U.S. companies and organizations still operate under a five-day work schedule. It happens to also be a labor law and has been for more than 80 years. Changing that would require a large adjustment and require a great deal of planning. Just think for a moment about how downsizing the working week might impact you. Everything from taking the kids to school, to when you go grocery shopping might change.

 

From the perspective of your company, there is a lot that needs to be assessed. Staffing needs, concerns over productivity gains or losses, increased costs, and complex changes to operations are all legitimate concerns. None of those issues can be overcome quickly. Experts estimate a complete changeover could take five years or more.

 

Back in 1926, Henry Ford was credited for standardizing the five-day workweek (down from six) in response to pressure from the labor movement. Unions have long been instrumental in fighting for most of today's worker benefits like weekends off, overtime, and health benefits.

 

In 1940, an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act mandated pay for any time worked beyond 40 hours per week. Since then, not much has changed in labor laws.

 

While remote workers, office jockeys, and the salaried bunch are lobbying for a change in the workweek, the United Auto Workers are putting the four-day workweek on the map for hourly workers. Today's striking autoworkers union, in addition to wanting better pay and benefits, are asking for a four-day workweek. The deal they want is to put in a 32-hour week and get paid for 40 hours. In addition, anything clocked over the 32-hour limit would count as overtime.

 

Part of the union's effort is due to the auto industry's transition from building gas-powered vehicles to electric. It takes less time to assemble EVs on the line, so assembly workers wouldn't necessarily see their weekly take-home pay take a hit.

 

Most labor experts do not expect the UAW will win on that demand. And not all workers want a reduction in their hours worked anyway. Hourly workers across many industries are fighting for more, not less, hours to work. It is a sad fact in this country that many employers actively try to keep workers' hours under certain thresholds to avoid paying fringe benefits. It would take a concerted effort by labor unions, corporate executives, and politicians to pull off something like a four-day workweek. Nonetheless, the idea is gathering steam across the nation, and at some point, we should expect it to become a fact, possibly in my lifetime.

 

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.