It is 2026. A new Fed chief has been installed after committing to follow the president's demands to cut interest rates and keep them low. The Fed's first act is a one percent cut in interest rates. How will the markets react?

 

If history is any guide, the stock market would roar. Bond yields across the board might plummet. The economy would catch on fire. Home prices in the real estate market could climb as buyers take advantage of falling mortgage rates. 

It would be a time to break out the champagne because good times are here again.

 

However, history may not be an accurate reference point. In the above scenario, we would be living in a macroeconomic environment in which the independence of the Fed will have taken a back seat to our high public debt and deficits. Those twin issues would now be the new Feds' focal point dictating and constraining America's monetary policy.

 

The U.S. would have entered a regime where the central bank's usual objective of controlling inflation and sustaining employment becomes secondary to the U.S. Treasury's budget financing needs. To accommodate the government's borrowing, the Fed would be expected to keep interest rates low, and if necessary, buy government debt (quantitative easing) on an ongoing basis.

 

Welcome to a state of Fiscal Dominance. We have had our first taste of this condition when former U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, increased the amount of short versus long dated debt the government issued from 25 percent to 50 percent. While yields on Treasury bills and notes fell, long-dated securities (the 10-, 20- and 30-year bond yields) rose. Why?

 

Holders of longer-term bonds were not so quick to buy more in the face of the government's new tactics. As a result, the Fed reversed their quantitative tightening program and bought back more Treasury bonds and sold less. At the same time, the U.S. economy began to decelerate in both real and nominal terms.

 

The same thing happened in Japan in the first decade of this century. The Japanese central bank began buying Japanese Government Bonds (JGB). The Bank of Japan is now the largest holder of the country's national debt worth $4.3 billion. Under fiscal dominance, it is not hard to imagine a future where the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank becomes a bigger and bigger buyer of our debt.

 

To be sure, keeping interest rates low in an economy as large as ours would put a lot of pressure on the financial system. It would require the central bank to inject massive liquidity (print money) in order to keep buying up T-bills and notes while utilizing quantitative easing to buy Treasuries on the long end. In a situation like that, there would have to be fall out. In past episodes of fiscal dominance (mostly in emerging markets), it was the currency that fell victim to these government policies.

 

Consider that the dollar year to date, is down around 10 percent. The combination of Donald Trump's trade policies, inflation, Americas' increasing deficit and debt, and the administrations' disruption of American foreign policy has created alarm and a building distrust from friend and foe alike. These set of circumstances have conspired to pressure the dollars' downward spiral.  

 

Notice too that neither Trump nor his cabinet have uttered a word about the dollar's decline. That may be because in general, taken alone, currency declines can be good for the value of real assets. However, an imploding currency, especially if we are talking about the worlds' reserve currency, would create an enormous flight of capital by foreigners who hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds and stocks. That has not happened yet.

 

If Trump were to manage a fiscal dominant regime in the coming year, I expect the decline in the dollar would continue. That would hurt export-driven economies like Europe, Japan and China. At some point they would be forced to cut their interest rates and drive down the worth of their currency to protect their own exports. Economists would refer to this as a competitive devaluation. In a world where all currencies were declining, investors would be actively looking for somewhere to preserve their assets.

 

We are already witnessing that trend in action. Higher prices for gold, silver, and other precious metals, as well as the recent price gains in crypto currencies are no accident. It appears to me that investors worldwide are already anticipating further declines in the U.S. currency and are hedging their bets and exposure to the U.S. dollar.

 

As for the stock market, there will be winners and losers. Real estate, commodities, precious metals and oil stocks should do well. Anything that tracks the rate of inflation higher would be attractive investments. Exporters could benefit from a lower dollar while those that depend on exports will not.

 

Rate sensitive sectors like technology, consumer discretionary, financial and growth stocks might not do as well. Given the greater role the government would play in the economy, infrastructure, defense, and healthcare could do better. Foreign stocks, especially real asset-rich emerging markets, could also outperform domestic equity as well.

 

The question many readers might ask is will the country go along with this policy change? I suspect they would, given the era of populism we find ourselves in. In my May 2024 column "The Federal Reserve's Role in Today's Populism," I argued that the U.S. central bank's monetary policy is and has been a "top-down approach" where lowering interest rates primarily benefited the wealthiest segment of the population and the largest companies within it.

 

It was they who could borrow the most but needed it the least, who benefited while Americans at the other end of the scale could borrow not at all.  An independent Fed is a Fed that inadvertently fostered and increased income inequality among Americans in my opinion. Given that, I am guessing that a different approach to monetary policy might be greeted with open arms among a large segment of the population.

 

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.

 

Watching paint dry, grass grow, or the markets' action, same, same so far this month. The S&P 500 Index is up about one percent since the beginning of July, not bad, but the big events won't happen until the end of the month.

 

It isn't as if there is no news flow. The president continues to send letters to more than 100 countries. However, few of them have any significant trade with the U.S. Trump continues to boast about tariff revenues, stating, "$113 billion was collected for the first time during the fiscal year."  Given that this money is coming out of  U.S. corporate profits, which they will then pass on to American consumers, this tariff tax is not a good thing.

 

Trump also allowed Nvidia to resume selling semiconductor chips to China (wipe on, wipe off) and, in his spare time, wants to fire (not fire) Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. The controversy over replacing Powell has many market participants worried. Exactly why that may be the case is the subject of my recent column, "What is really behind the move to replace Jerome Powell." I discuss Fiscal Dominance and its ramifications for markets.

 

As the capital swelters, along with the rest of the country, inside Congress, we are finishing up crypto week. Three separate bills—the GENIUS Act, the CLARITY Act. And the Anti-CBDC Act has been passed by the House. The Genesis Act establishing federal regulations for dollar-pegged stablecoins now goes to the Oval Office to be signed into law. The other two bills, if passed by the Senate, establish a market structure for digital assets and prevent the creation of a central bank digital currency. 

 

Passage was supposed to be a lay-up, according to the crypto community, but various Republican factions held it up for a variety of reasons. The president managed to intervene and carried the legislation over the goal line. Crypto is where most of the money was made in a slow market this week.

 

Cryptocurrencies experienced a significant price surge this week, except for Bitcoin, which remained on the sidelines after gaining 12 percent over the last month. Ethereum, on the other hand, gained 20 percent, while lesser-known coin names like Solana (+6.3 percent) and XRP (+23 percent) also participated. These cryptocurrencies, along with various companies that trade or mine digital assets, such as Coinbase (+12 percent) and Robinhood (+13 percent), outperformed most other sectors of the market.

 

Crypto bulls claimed the legislation will forever alter the perception and demand for crypto among institutional investors worldwide. Social media was full of posts predicting Bitcoin prices of $1 million or more. Ignore that. The passage of these last two bills by the Senate will be beneficial for the asset class. It will make it a safer bet for more investors. The question is whether the run-up preceding the passage of these two acts will trigger a typical "sell on the news" reaction in the cryptocurrency markets. If so, I would be a buyer of that pullback, as my Bitcoin target is $145,000.

 

On the macroeconomic front, we have seen some solid data this week. Retail sales were up 0.6 percent last month. Weekly jobless claims were lower at 221,000 applicants, while the ratio of export to import prices remained tame. As for the inflation data, the Consumer Price Index came in higher than the Street estimated, while the Producer Price Index was cooler for June. This month's CPI will show slightly weaker data but then rise again into December.

 

As I mentioned last week, Volatility Control Funds have been supporting the markets, and now attention will switch to second-quarter earnings. As readers are aware, many of these earnings announcements are meaningless. Wall Street analysts deliberately reduce their expectations for the companies they favor so corporate managements can "beat" those estimates. 

 

This system enables trading desks to book extra profits by capitalizing on FOMO chasers. Traders regularly buy company stocks before the expected results and then book their gains by selling to the retail crowd. It is always a wonder to me why investors fail to learn that chasing these so-called earnings surprises is usually a losing game. 

 

In any case, markets are extended but continue to forge ahead. Investors remain convinced that Trump's Aug. 1 tariff deadline is another mirage. If so, markets continue to rally. If not, sayonara to the stock market. The bond market remains neutral on prospects for tariffs.

 

Polymarket, the digital prediction market, places less than a 50 percent chance that any of the largest U.S. trading partners will come to a tariff agreement before Aug. 1. The highest is India (41 percent chance), while Germany has the lowest (3 percent). There may be a handful of tiny countries that could announce deals this coming week, but nothing consequential. As usual, Donald Trump holds the cards on the markets' next direction.

 

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 rhetoric is getting louder. Potential contenders to replace the head of the U.S. Central bank are lining up for that coveted position. The president's demand for lower interest rates is now almost a daily occurrence. Why?

 

Jerome Powell, the chairman of the U.S. central bank, is now on Donald Trump's sh*t list. The White House and its allies have intensified their assault on the Fed chairman. The president is actively asking his allies in Congress if he should fire Powell — if he can. Some members of his administration are using the Fed's over-budget $2.5 billion headquarters renovation to build a case for removing Powell sooner than next spring, when his term is set to end. Why now? What is so important that Trump can't wait a few months before the Fed lowers interest rates anyway?

 

From a financial perspective, the economy appears to be in no danger of recession. The latest non-farm payroll report for June was a robust upside surprise, signaling a healthy labor market. Inflation, while down over the last few months, is by no means defeated. And yet, the administration's urgency to reduce interest rates is palpable.

 

Some dismiss the president's rhetoric by explaining that the president has always been a "low interest rate kinda guy," which is a legacy of his years as a real estate mogul. OK, I can buy that, but Scot Bessent, the Treasury secretary, is a Wall Street money manager. He knows the interest-rate market like the back of his hand. He cares deeply about the ramifications of lowering interest rates in today's economic environment.

 

Some of Bessent's recent comments may hold the key to what is really going on. In a recent Bloomberg TV interview, he stated that President Trump had instructed him "not to do any debt beyond nine months or so" until a new Fed chair is installed. He explained his reasoning: "Why would we issue debt at current long-term rates?" With the government's interest payments exceeding $1 trillion annually, selling longer-term maturities that command higher interest rates would substantially increase those costs.

 

What this indicates to me is that there has been an essential shift in the country's policy toward borrowing, away from long-term debt such as 10, 20, or 30-year Treasury bonds and towards lower-interest, short-dated debt, such as Treasury bills with less than one-year maturities. Why does that matter?

 

Readers should be aware that interest rates on long-term debt are determined by the market, whereas the Federal Reserve sets those on short-term debt through adjustments to the Fed Funds rate. Historically, the Fed has acted independently of the rest of the government, doing what it thinks best to curb inflation and maintain employment, but times change.

 

The person who receives the nod to become the next Fed chairman will be determined by two things: his loyalty to the president and his willingness to reduce interest rates. Once appointed, he is expected to be at the beck and call of Donald Trump's interest rate demands. Given that the president has already instructed the Treasury to focus on issuing debt in the short-term market, the Fed will be able to effectively decide the interest rate the government pays on its debt.

 

Since interest rate payments are now the second-largest cost item after entitlements, the government's control of how much it pays for borrowing would save the government billions of dollars in interest expense. Since the issuance of long-term Treasuries is significantly lower, yields on that debt should drop due to supply and demand. However, interest rates on long-term bonds will depend on what the market decides is a fair yield, based on its growth and inflation expectations.

 

A friendly new Fed chairperson, working with the Treasury to maintain this new financing mix of lower interest rates and short-dated maturity issuance, could keep the nation's interest payments in check. In one fell swoop, the Fed and Treasury would reduce the budget deficit and stimulate the economy at the same time. But what happens if the bond buyers of our long-term debt don't go along with this scheme? There is a remedy for that as well.

 

Recall that last year,  the Fed cut interest rates by 50 basis points. The short end of the yield curve dropped as expected, but the longer-dated bonds (controlled by the markets) did the opposite. What was behind that rise in interest rates? Financial markets decided that the Fed cut could lead to higher inflation over the long term. Since then, yields on those bonds have remained higher than most expected.

 

Could that happen under this new regime at the Fed? It could, but there would be nothing to stop a less-independent central bank from buying longer-dated Treasury bonds on its own, thereby driving down long rates as well. They have done it before under the name of quantitative easing. If they wanted, they could even buy long-dated Treasury bonds at auction if needed§.

 

There is a name for this kind of policy change. It's called Fiscal Dominance, something I witnessed countless times in several emerging market economies back in the day. It is a policy that subordinates a previously independent central bank to the needs of the Treasury. It typically occurs in a government that has abandoned budget discipline and resorts to printing money to finance its deficit. Sound familiar?

 

During my travels throughout South America in what was known as "the lost decade of the Eighties," Fiscal Dominance governments emerged everywhere. Their government leaders opted for stimulating growth this way but ignored the risks of price stability. What occurred was structurally higher inflation, currency debasement, and ultimately, a political crisis.

 

Can this happen here, and if so, what will be the impact on the financial markets? Next week, we will examine how a potential change in Fed leadership, influenced by the president and the U.S. Treasury, could impact bonds, the dollar, commodities, 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.

Over the last few weeks, the above statement has been appearing on financial channels, in newsletters, and on many trading desks. That runs counter to everything taught in business schools and the financial world at large. Has the stock market truly become a trillion-dollar casino, or is there something else going on?

 

As readers are aware, the Trump administration has pushed back the implementation date of reciprocal tariffs until Aug. 1. In the meantime, the White House is sending a flurry of form letters to various countries, listing what will happen if they do not make a deal with the U.S. before that date.

 

A new risk on the tariff front is that Donald Trump showed his willingness to step beyond the economic frontier in his tariff war. Unlike many countries, Brazil has a trade deficit with the U.S. That means Brazilians buy more from us than we buy from them.

 

This time, he is using tariffs to insert himself into a country's domestic political affairs. He threatens to slap a 50 percent tariff on Brazil unless Brazilian authorities drop charges against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing populist leader. Bolsonaro is accused of attempting an alleged coup and trying to poison the sitting president, Lula da Silva.

 

How does this square with his speech to the Arab Islamic American Summit in May, in which he said:

 

"America is a sovereign nation, and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. We are not here to lecture — we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all."

 

The markets are divided on whether this upsurge in tariff rhetoric is just another TACO trade, an escalation, or whether the president will finally put our money where his mouth is. In the meantime, we are getting the usual "a deal any day now" promises from his staff. Judging from this week's market reactions, Donald is the "boy who cried wolf" too often, but there may be something else afoot that explains the market's resilience.

 

 The answer lies in the flow of funds that propel markets in one direction or another, depending on a variety of variables. Readers need to understand that professionals and institutions place their bets on which way the markets are going, like the rest of us, but they also hedge those bets. For professionals, volatility (often a polite term for downside risk) is an extremely important concept that, if not properly hedged, could result in significant portfolio losses and possibly jeopardize your job.

 

Over the decades, an entire industry of funds, known as Volatility Control Funds (VCF), has emerged around the concept of volatility. It is a strategy designed to go long or short based on volatility levels often embedded in portfolios, protecting them from extreme market fluctuations. Class over.

 

For the last few months, the imposition of tariffs has been high on the markets' list of potential volatility events. Witness the stock markets' reaction to President Trump's April 2 announcement of reciprocal tariffs. The "Trump dump" took four days, and the S&P 500 Index fell about 12 percent while the Dow dropped 11 percent. On April 9, Trump announced a 90-day pause, and markets recovered.

 

Since then, VCF funds have been hedging the potential downside to their portfolios by shorting markets to the tune of billions of dollars, ahead of the new July 9 deadline. The higher the markets climbed, the more money was invested in protecting those gains. Last week, President Trump postponed again, this time to August 1.

 

As a result, VCFs must extend their tariff playbook to August. In the meantime, they need to buy back the millions of stocks they shorted over the last 90 days and bring their equity positioning back to neutral. Estimates are that we were looking at $45 billion or more in mechanical demand for equities. This flow of funds is happening regardless of the present valuation of the stock market. It doesn't happen all at once, but at worst, it has kept a floor under stocks this week.

 

In the meantime, we have some important data scheduled for next week. The Consumer Price Index for June is scheduled for release on Tuesday. It will mark a turn in the recent downward trend of the inflation rate. That should come as no surprise to you since I have been warning readers of this turn of events for months.

 

Wall Street analysts have finally twigged to the possibility that the CPI will be higher than expected. Many economists have rushed to ratchet up their expectations for a higher CPI over the last week or two. Many now have higher numbers than my own. In any case, that event poses some risk to the market. It should push bond yields higher along with the dollar.

 

The cryptocurrency markets had a good week. Bitcoin followed the stock market and made a new high at $118,000. Ethereum is also on a tear, as is Solano. I see Bitcoin trading at $145,000 this year. Gold is still trading within a range, but I remain bullish on the precious metals as long as stagflation remains the name of the economic game.

 

 The markets overall have hung in there. The selling pressure in the first half of the week that I had expected was more than matched by the buying demand from the VCTs. As for other potential market movers, I do not expect an interest rate cut by the Fed when they meet at the end of July, so that leaves the inflation data next week, as well as Donald Trump and his tariff threats. My CPI number is plus-2.5 percent while the Street is now at plus-2.6 percent. A hot number could hurt stocks for sure and, if so, send markets down a percent or two.

 

As for President Trump, he remains a wild card. One of the best trading strategies this year has been to buy stocks when they fall because of his tariff threats. Every day this week, he threatened one country or another with higher tariffs. The latest was Canada. He also said he will levy a 50 percent tariff on foreign copper imports. The point is that since markets are at an all-time high, he feels he has room to rattle his tariff stick at the world.

 

As I have advised readers many times over, ignore the noise coming out of Washington. Instead, focus on stocks and sectors that will do well in a stagflation environment domestically, and move more money into overseas markets.

 

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.

Older populations worldwide are experiencing a significant increase in skin cancer cases after years of cumulative sun exposure over multiple decades. In the U.S., invasive melanoma rates continue to rise sharply among those older than 60, especially among whites.

 

The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately 104,960 new cases of melanoma will be diagnosed by dermatologists this year. Is it any wonder that health experts predict the dermatology sector of healthcare will reach $3.59 billion over the next 10 years? Last week, I examined some of the reasons why skin care has been the overlooked stepchild of health care for an entire generation.

 

It was almost as if the Baby Boomer generation was bound and determined to do as much damage as they could to this vital part of their anatomy. I explained how the Sixties generation became sun worshipers searching for the perfect Beach Boys tan at a time when industry was decimating the ozone layer with chlorofluorocarbons.

 

As Baby Boomers stripped down and the ozone layer began to disappear, we found even better, faster ways to damage our skin than simply frying our baby oil-soaked skin in the sun for hours. The explosion of cheap package holidays and tours to exotic locations (noted for their tropical sun) made for a great tan that would be the envy of the neighborhood.

 

Tanning beds were introduced to North America in 1978 and gained popularity by the mid-1980s. At its peak, the industry was generating $2 billion annually; however, as the health risks of exposure to UV became apparent, revenue plateaued, remaining around $1.9 billion per year.

 

The dermatology industry argues that the use of these beds significantly increases the risk of developing skin cancer. In one study alone, 61 of 63 women were diagnosed with melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, before 30 who used tanning beds. These beds can also compromise your immune system, cause clinical eye issues, and lead to photodamage, as well as accelerate photoaging or premature skin aging.

 

The facts are that as we age, the incidence of certain skin disorders increases, as exposure to the sun over a lifetime creates cumulative damage. That is another explanation for why my parents did not have my skin problems. Baby Boomers are living longer than previous generations, thanks to advancements in medicine and technology.

 

In my case, one or both of my parents may have had skin issues, but neither ever bothered to see a dermatologist. I know of several men in my generation or younger who have never had their skin checked out for skin cancer. To me, that is astounding since the median age of onset for melanoma is 55, with the highest incidence rates found in the 65-plus demographic. What's worse, people with paler skin are 20 times more likely to develop skin cancer than those with darker skin.

 

I also wondered if, as a teenager, exposure to the sun while in Vietnam for almost two years may have damaged my skin. No one wore sunscreen, nor was it issued to the troops. Would a similar exposure by U.S. service members in the Middle East also be a factor?

 

I know my father, who served in the 101st Airborne, only served in Europe during World War II, but what about the Marines in the Asian theater?

 

Interestingly, a large proportion of World War II patients with skin cancer were stationed in the Pacific. The Veterans Administration concluded that a few months to a few years of prolonged sun exposure in a high-intensity area may result in skin cancer many years after exposure. Similar findings by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2018 indicated the same high risks applied to service members and veterans.

 

You would think that with all the new medical research on the causes and consequences of skin cancer, the younger generations of Americans would learn from our many mistakes. We never heard about SPF labels back in the day, but we do now. Not so. The American Academy of Dermatology found that Millennials and Gen Z, while more attentive to their overall health, tend to prioritize sun protection less.

 

In a recent survey, 70 percent of respondents did not understand the skin cancer risks associated with sunburns, and nearly 60 percent believe in sun tanning myths. The younger generations believed that base tans were healthy and said they would rather tan and look great, even if that meant they wouldn't look good later. They also believed that tanning beds are safer than sun exposure.

 

Some say skin cancer is part and parcel of our culture now. The phrase "Beauty is only skin deep" was first stated by Sir Thomas Overbury in his poem "A Wife," written in 1613. Tell that to the marketing world today, who argue the opposite. As such, most Americans grew up believing that the better you look, the more successful, happy, wealthy, and so on, you are. 

 

That has spawned an insatiable demand for aesthetic appearance. Aging Baby Boomers want to turn back the clock. Younger generations view skin as simply another cosmetic to alter or do with as they please. Technological advancements promise a wide range of innovations. Bikinis have gotten smaller. Tans are still "in" unless, of course, you are like me and have had several bouts of biopsies, laser treatments, surgery, and more. As any parent of a teenager will tell you, trying to get people to cover up who don't want to is pointless. No wonder dermatology is a growth business with no end in sight.

 

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.