| Home | About | Archives | RSS Feed |
The Retired Investor: Beware Political Pollsters
 |
The pollsters were wrong in 2016, 2020, and now 2022. The recent "Red Wave" of GOP wins, so confidently predicted in the final days of the mid-term elections, failed to be no more than a red ripple. Is this a question of "three times you're out?"
Heading into November 2022, Republicans were shown to have a clear edge in battleground states, as well as throughout the nation generally, according to the average of most polls. A minority of polls, mostly those of traditional pollsters, seem to dispute those results but were drowned out by the red wave forecasters.
Some argue that the traditional pollsters got it right, especially in the final weeks of the mid-term elections. Those surveys indicated that the Democrats were running neck and neck with Republicans, even in those races where opinion seemed to favor Republicans hands down. What happened to skewing the averages the other way?
One misconception is that polls are meant to predict the future. The value of polls is to explain the how and why of voters and their feelings, attitudes, and behaviors. It is a snapshot of time and not a prediction of future outcomes. Anyone can conduct a poll, you see, regardless of experience, political agenda, and in some cases, even honesty.
But beyond the right questions to ask, interpreting those answers, and extrapolating that data to form generalities with a high level of confidence is just as important. Strong poll results for a candidate or political party, or even a company, can bring several advantages. Companies, for example, that consumers consider a number one brand or a great place to work, or to have a social conscience can increase sales, profits, morale, and even the caliber of new hires. The fact that traditional polling organizations do not claim to predict the future is largely ignored.
In the political arena, strong poll numbers can mean more contributions in campaign financing, a boost to morale for volunteers, a shot in the arm for the political party overall, and in the final days and weeks of an election greater turnout at the polls. The Republican Party figured this out early on.
During Donald Trump's upset election in 2016, few pollsters got it right. Four years later, it happened again, only this time the opposite occurred, and Democrats took control. By November of last year, the polling industry was a free-for-all with partisan-aligned pollsters springing up virtually overnight to try their hand at polling.
After all, if the traditional pollsters couldn't get it right, maybe new blood with a new outlook might do better. Polling organizations, many backed by political PACs, with a great deal of enthusiasm, but little experience jumped into the fray. Even some high school students tried their hand at polling and found their results were taken as seriously as any others.
As I mentioned, traditional nonpartisan pollsters did a pretty good job of reflecting reality during the run-up to the November 2022 elections, but at the same time, they conducted far fewer polls than in the past. This left open a vacuum that fledgling newcomers in the polling business were happy to fill. And that is where the "average" poll comes in.
In this day of internet streaming, social media, and partisan news shows, political polling results can be a big business. The news media, always in pursuit of higher clicks and ratings, were eager to promote and broadcast these new poll results (even high school results), especially in key battleground states. Few questioned the ability of these pollsters to conduct surveys, or their skill and experience in what questions to ask, what groups to target, and how to analyze the outcomes of their results. Those that should but didn't pay attention to this deliberate flooding of polls were the aggregators. These are organizations that average several polls conducted by different organizations and come up with a leading candidate overall.
As more and more polls were generated, many by partisan groups showed Republicans widening their leads, the "average" poll results leaned more and more into the red column.
This had profound effects on campaign strategies for both parties. Despite internal polls conducted by veteran polling organizations that continued to call the election a toss-up, both parties began to doubt those findings in the face of the average poll results. They too began to operate as if a red wave was coming.
Some candidates that were in little danger of losing their seats found that political action committees and other organizations funneled more money than necessary into campaigns where candidates were leading. In comparison, these candidates who were fighting for their political lives, but were assumed to win in a red wave, were ignored.
The bottom line is that a "three times you're out" attitude toward political polling results may be a bit extreme. However, if partisan polls, no matter what the subject matter, continues to gain traction and the media accept those results carte blanche, the value of polls overall will surely continue to diminish.
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.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: U.S. Income Inequality
 |
In 2022, 68 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of wage earners while the lowest 50 percent of workers accounted for just 3.2 percent of that wealth. The gap between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen.
I was brought up believing that hard work, determination, and pulling oneself up by your bootstraps could guarantee success in America. In my case, as the son of lower-middle-class parents, I have moved up a rung to solidly middle-class. Unfortunately, most Americans have not been able to even do that.
As most readers probably know, income and wealth inequality in the U.S. is wider than in almost every other developed country. There are many reasons for this and depending on your political persuasion you may agree or disagree with many of the causes. For example, the facts are that a large wealth and income gap exist across racial groups. Many economic experts explain this as a result of the nation's legacy of slavery and racist economic policies.
In addition, the globalization of trade over several decades resulted in shifting jobs and wages out of America and into counties such as China, India, and elsewhere. The failure of the U.S. public and private sectors to adapt to this sea change, as well as to accommodate a technological explosion that left many workers in the dust worsened these trends.
U.S. tax policies during this era increased inequality while reducing bargaining power among employees, and both gender and racial discrimination widened the gap further. The 2008 onset of the Financial Crisis, the slow and painful subsequent recovery, followed by the economic trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic simply made a bad situation infinitely worse.
COVID-19 and the U.S. reaction to its spread caused the largest spike in unemployment in modern history. Those hardest hit were low-wage workers. At the same time, a boom in the stock market and housing prices benefited the top 10 percent of American earners most of all.
Over the years, there have been those who argue that inequality is the wrong target. If everyone is doing better, everyone wins, while entrepreneurship benefits everyone, even if some benefit more than others. The focus, they argue, should be on poverty instead.
However, gaining traction requires economic mobility. We know that the percentage of Americans earning more than their parents continues to shrink. Overall economic mobility in the U.S. continues to fall behind most developing nations including Japan, Australia, Germany, France, and Canada.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal reports that "wage inequality may be starting to reverse." Over the past two years, stalled technological innovation, the trend toward remote work, and deglobalization have begun to erode some of the advantages of the top earners in the U.S. — at least for now. Labor shortages, aided and abetted by the government's immigration policies, are increasing wages for many in the labor force. It has also contributed to the recent rise in union activity, which is further boosting wages and fringe benefits.
However, job and wage growth happen to be in the crosshairs of the Fed's attempt to reduce inflation and slow the growth of the economy. If they succeed, the wages gain of the recent past may go up in smoke and with it a resumption of the long-term trend in inequality.
Through the years, I have expressed my worries over growing inequality and its potential threat to our political system. As more and more Americans feel trapped and lose faith in a system that favors a smaller and smaller minority, democracy suffers. The rise of populism and the attraction of authoritarian leaders both here and abroad, I believe, is a direct result of economic inequality. The wider the inequality gap, the less chance this nation has in overcoming its present partisan divide.
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.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: Are Christmas Trees Worth It?
 |
As Christmas arrives around the nation this weekend, tardy consumers are hitting the neighborhood Christmas tree lots and farms in droves. Late-coming artificial tree buyers are finding slim pickings at big-box stores as well. This is despite an average price increase this season of between 5 percent-15 percent.
Americans will spend nearly $6.6 billion on Christmas trees this season, according to the National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA). NCTA predicts consumers will pay an average of $86.59 for a live tree, and $122.60 for an artificial tree. Many shoppers could pay much more than that.
Last year, 75 percent of U.S. households, or 94 million homes, displayed a Christmas tree during the 2021 season, according to the American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA). This year, ACTA predicts Americans will purchase almost 21 million live trees, which is on par with last year's total. In addition, 6.5 million households displayed both live and artificial trees.
Supply chain issues had snarled artificial tree sales last year, so retailers ordered early this year and stocked up on inventory. It has turned out that they still sold out early in many locales.
As for living trees, there could be shortages of inventory depending on the region. In 2021, live tree farms were walloped by environmental conditions, which continued into this year. Wildfires, lack of irrigation, elevated temperatures, and drought were the main drivers of the loss of young Christmas trees in certain parts of the country. Experts expect climate change conditions will continue to bedevil farms in the future.
As a result, whether you choose a live or artificial tree this year expect to pay more. Nearly all of the 55 largest U.S. Christmas tree wholesalers are raising prices this year by as much as 5 percent-15 percent. Some wholesalers intend to raise prices even more. But don't blame the Grinch, blame inflation — rising prices for diesel, fertilizers, and chemicals. Supply chain issues and labor have contributed to higher prices, in addition to the weather problems for live trees.
Despite the prices, and lack of selection, 85 percent of consumers found that Christmas trees are worth it, according to the Real Christmas Tree Board, an industry marketing and research firm based in Michigan. Who can blame them, especially when buying a real tree?
For many in society who have become increasingly aware of the environment, Christmas trees can be guilt-free. Just one acre of trees provides enough oxygen for 18 people every day. One Christmas tree alone can absorb one ton of CO2 during its lifetime and with over 350 million trees growing at any one time, the environmental benefits are enormous.
So are Christmas trees worth it? My answer is a resounding yes. Just sit back for a moment, close your eyes, and remember the scent of that blue spruce, Scotch pine, or Douglas fir in your living room or den. I can almost feel that sticky sap on the branch, as we hung that special ornament. How much is that worth?
And that's not all. Picking out the perfect tree, hauling it home in the car, or through the field, and then wrestling it through the front door has become one of those yearly family traditions most families cherish. The actual decoration of the tree, whether real or artificial, becomes a work of art that even the youngest of us gets to experience and create.
I would like to wish all my readers a happy holiday season, with or without a Christmas tree. Take some time off, cherish your family and friends and hug someone.
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.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: Why the Stock Market Needs to Decline
 |
After a year where the stock averages have declined anywhere from 7 percent to 30 percent, the last thing investors want is to see further downside. The problem is that a surging stock market is the last thing the Fed wants to see in its battle to reduce inflation.
It is common knowledge that the Fed does not want to see a robust equity market. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and his merry men have never said so explicitly, but they are monitoring the ups and downs of the market closely. When they perceive that price action is getting out of hand, one or more FOMC members step up and try to talk the markets down.
Several times this year when the animal spirits of traders and investors have pushed stocks up 10 percent or more, the Chairman has been able to squash the move effectively simply by jaw boning. These actions may be contrary to many investors' long-held belief that a stronger stock market is always good for the economy but that is not always the case.
The Fed has done a good job of explaining that inflation is their number one concern when it comes to the health of the economy. That sentiment has been echoed throughout the globe as central bankers everywhere are raising interest rates continuously. Readers should know that tightening monetary policy by raising interest rates and reducing liquidity in the credit markets by selling bonds are the main tools central bankers use to reduce demand.
The problem is that thus far, despite raising rates at a historical pace, the economy continues to grow. Employment remains stubbornly higher than expected as well. That combination continues to fuel consumer demand for goods and services. As a result, inflation remains substantially higher than the Fed's target of two percent.
But hasn't the stock market declined enough to warrant a more dovish Fed? Not really. Consider that the pre-pandemic low of the S&P 500 Index was 3,387 in February 2020. Since then, despite 2022 losses, the index is still 16 percent higher than that level. For the most part, meme stocks and other speculative assets are still alive and kicking. In every bear market rally thus far, investors have flocked back into these assets, despite the lack of earnings, profits, or even cash flow. In many of these companies.
It is only recently that highly speculative assets such as crypto have finally begun to fall substantially, but it took a major financial crisis and bankruptcy to trigger that event. None of this seems to have phased or altered the casino-like atmosphere of today's stock markets. In short, after years of buying the dip, it is taking much longer to convince traders that may not be the best investment strategy. It could require a recession to change that behavior.
Most financial professionals are expecting a recession in 2023 thanks to the Fed's tightening of monetary policy. A recession is one of the best ways to reduce economic demand and by doing so achieve the Fed's goal of lowering inflation. I'm hoping for a quick, couple of quarters of a moderate recession that will drive inflation lower without causing too much harm to the country's labor force.
So how would a substantial decline in the stock market help reduce inflation?
In the U.S., the stock market is normally the bailiwick of those considered well-off. They have enough money to both support their lifestyle and save for their eventual retirement.
When financial assets decline, there is less money in the system, so financial conditions automatically tighten.
At the same time, a sell-off in equities has a psychological effect on those who are invested. People feel poorer as their 401 (k) or IRA decline. Often, they tend to reduce spending on consumer goods and services, therefore reducing demand (and inflation). As prices decline substantially, savvy savers can also take advantage of fire sale prices. This is an especially good deal for younger retirement savers who can take advantage of a "buy low" period in order to beef up their retirement saving plans.
As for those living paycheck to paycheck, a plunge in the stock market means little to them, even if the selloff is caused by a recession. Hourly workers who are laid off will likely find another job quickly, especially if a recession is short and sharp in duration.
Overall, a moderate recession and a cheaper stock market would hurt investors in the short term but help just about everyone in the long term. It would wring out speculative fever among investors, help the Fed accomplish its inflation goals sooner than later, and have comparatively little impact on both the long-term performance of one's retirement account and the stock market.
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 Retired Investor: Financial Markets Face Year of Unknowns
 |
Historically, mid-term election years are notoriously periods of underperformance in the stock market. The post-election year is a different story altogether. Will 2023 be one of those years?
The average return for the stock market in the 12 months after elections has been 16.3 percent.
2022 will qualify in history as one of those underperforming mid-term election years. To date, the benchmark S&P 500 Index, has lost roughly 20 percent thus far and may end the year even lower.
Historically, looking back to 1932, S&P 500 returns have averaged 14 percent in a split Congress and 13 percent in a Republican-held Congress under a Democratic president. The facts are that stock markets do well when there is gridlock in Congress. Neither new spending initiatives nor tax increases are likely to pass a divided Congress. In the aftermath of this election, if the House and or Senate flip to the GOP, the best that can be said is that additional business regulation will be limited and may even be rolled back somewhat in areas such as energy, pharmaceuticals, biotech, and the financial sectors.
But a rebound in the markets next year is far from a sure thing given the global economic background. We are wrestling with the highest inflation rate in a generation, sky rocketing interest rates, the Ukrainian war, and a worldwide economic slowdown. The International Monetary Fund has cut its forecast for global growth from 3.2 percent in 2022 to 2.7 percent next year. That is the weakest growth rate since 2001.
As the global economic pie shrinks, I expect to see a rise in worldwide trading blocs as the world fights for a bigger piece of the shrinking pie. A North-South economic and political axis has been forming for more than a decade with China in the lead in expanding trade and investment in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
Russia has joined this bloc in response to Western economic sanctions, while nations such as India, Brazil, some of Eastern Europe as well as certain energy producers in the Middle East are strengthening economic ties with both Russia and China. Together, these countries represent more than one-third of the world's economic output and two-thirds of its population. As global growth slows, expect trade wars to accelerate between this bloc and a U.S.-led trading bloc. That trade group includes most of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and a host of other pro-democratic nations.
A recession seems to be all but guaranteed in 2023 here in the U.S. In a recent CNBC CFO Council survey, more than 68 percent of chief financial officers (CFO) are convinced that a recession will unfold during the first half of 2023. No CFO surveyed believed the country will escape a recession. It is just a question of how severer the recession will be. I believe that will depend on how high the Fed must raise interest rates to bring inflation down.
Inflation was identified as the biggest risk facing the economy and businesses by the Federal Reserve Bank. Most Americans would agree with that position. Unfortunately, inflation, now over 8 percent, has been much stickier than most experts expected. As a result, the ongoing central bank tightening of monetary policy that began this year will continue into 2023.
The longer inflation remains elevated, the longer and higher interest rates must climb. The main debt instrument the Fed uses in raising interest rates is the Fed funds rate. All other debt instruments key off that rate. Bond investors expect the Fed will ultimately target a Fed Funds rate above 5 percent. The Fed's announced target rate is now between 3.75 percent-4 percent. Bond investors expect the Fed will ultimately target a rate above 5 percent before all is said and done. That means we still have a sizable amount of tightening yet to come.
The Fed is counting on higher interest rates to slow demand by reducing economic growth while increasing the unemployment rate. That would hopefully reduce the rate of inflation. Some economists could see inflation fall to 5-6 percent under this scenario.
I expect that rising interest rates will result in a slowing economy in the first half of 2023, resulting in a mild recession, and a decline in the headline inflation rate. The financial markets, I expect, will remain volatile as these economic developments unfold. Traders, witnessing a gradual decline in inflation, will jump the gun, bid markets higher, and expect the Fed to ease, only to be disappointed.
The Fed will remain steadfast for months, in my opinion, until they are sure their policies are working. This divergent behavior will whipsaw investors. It will likely create a series of vicious bear market rallies only to see chasers caught in nasty bull traps. I expect to see lower highs and lower lows as January and February progress.
At some point in the first quarter, fears that the Fed will "over tighten" and force the economy into an even deeper recession will make the rounds on Wall Street as well as in Washington. That will add fuel to the fires of uncertainty and likely make a life for Fed officials difficult, especially if the labor market weakens. We could also see increased stress in financial markets here and abroad, as credit markets grow tighter.
U.S. corporate earnings for the benchmark S&P 500 Index currently at $225 will probably take it on the chin. I expect at best, earnings will be flat versus 2022 and may decline to roughly $200 in a worst-case kind of scenario. If you slap a 15 times earnings ratio onto that number, you come up with a 3,000-price level on the Index, compared to the 3,900 level today.
As such, I see a rather nasty first-quarter decline in the stock markets to fresh lows that could take the S&P 500 Index down another 10 percent-20 percent or so from here. I am forecasting a final capitulation in the stock market around the end of March 2023 with a tentative bottom of 3,200.
When do I see the Fed pivot or at least pause in tightening? That depends on inflation, but I do believe it will take several months before the Fed will be willing to relax its policies once inflation begins to fall. That hasn't happened yet. Let's say it does happen over the next six to nine months, sometime in the second quarter of 2023.
If so, I expect the markets will anticipate this change. The U.S. dollar will begin to retreat, interest rates start to decline, and we should see stocks and bonds bounce in the Spring and throughout the summer. For the year, my guesstimate, which will change for sure as the year progresses, is a target of 4,500 on the S&P 500 index.
I would expect to see assets that are negatively correlated to a declining dollar such as materials, commodities, energy, and maybe cryptocurrencies do well. Emerging markets would also benefit as would U.S. and foreign stocks in general. As interest rates decline, there would also be an upside in bond prices across the board as well as bond funds. High-yielding dividend stocks and value stocks would also do well.
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.
