"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

— "New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus (Statue of Liberty)

 

This "land down under" has escaped an economic recession for 26 years in a row. An open immigration policy in a nationalist world that demands just the opposite is one of the key drivers to their success. An abundance of natural resource wealth has also helped.

 

Readers would need to go back to the late 1980s, early 1990s, to find two quarters of negative growth (the definition of an economic recession) in Australia. Back then, Australia was noted for its boom and bust economy. Throughout their 160-plus year history, mining booms in gold, gas, sheep and other commodities left investors rich and confident for a couple of years, only to be followed by devastating shocks to the economy as commodity demand declined, throwing workers on the streets and companies into bankruptcy.

 

This writer has a special fondness for Australia. Early in my career, I spent years investing in Western Australia's iron ore and Queensland's coal. Following in my footsteps, my daughter also spent a couple of years in Australia as an exchange student. Back then, the government tightly controlled the exchange rate. Today, the central bank is free to set interest rates without political interference and the exchange rate is no longer fixed.

 

Investments in industries outside of the mining areas were also encouraged. Aided by the government, businesses were encouraged to seek out new, non-mining investments, thereby reducing Australia's dependence on commodity exports. Since most of the mining is done in the outback, where population and infrastructure are scarce, it made sense to focus investment on those areas where most of the population lives. That bet has paid off. Today, natural resources represent only 7 percent of the economy.

 

At the same time that government spending picked up, Australia's immigration policies were reversed. From 1901 to the 1970s, Australia was known for its "White Australia" policies where the country only allowed immigrants of European descent to permanently set foot on its shores. Since then, Australia liberalized its immigration policies. On the back of that decision, the population has grown by 50 percent.

 

Australia has also created a "points" system for assessing potential migrants. Skilled workers, ranked by the country's needs, count especially high. Immigrants must also pass health and character tests, and before becoming citizens, must pass an English-language quiz on the nation's constitution, history and values. The largest source of skilled labor is coming from India (21 percent), China (15 percent), and the U.K. (9 percent).

 

The country, which boasts a population of 25 million, welcomed 184,000 new arrivals last year. A government-commissioned study indicates another 11.8 million immigrants are expected to make Australia their home over the next three decades. Most of the new entrants are

expected to settle in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Economists credit this continued migration with creating long-term demand, higher consumption, lower unemployment, and continued economic growth.

 

The facts are that if a country has strong population growth, it is harder to go backward in economic output. Their economy will most likely grow at around a 3 percent rate this year, which is higher than their long-term average rate of around 2.5 percent. The labor force participation rate is at a seven-year high, while overall unemployment is around 5.5 percent.

 

While global nationalism's favorite whipping boy is immigration, just over half of the population in Australia thinks the total number of immigrants is either "about right" or "too low." While four in 10 believe the number is too high.

 

I am sure Australia's example will rub some readers the wrong way. So many of us mistake this new-found nationalism for patriotism. That is a fallacy. Throughout history, it has always been easier to blame a foreigner for a nation's woes (Jews in pre-war Germany, the Ottoman Empire's genocide of Armenians, the Tutsis in Rwanda), rather than face the real reasons.

 

My suggestion is that we sell the Statue of Liberty to the Aussies and use the proceeds to build that wall on our southern borders. Why not, since it appears we have very little use for the Statue of Liberty, or what it stands for, in today's America.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Over the weekend, the G-7 group of nations met to denounce the recent actions of the United States. This coming Friday, these same leaders convene in Quebec. President Trump will attend and seems determined to face them down.

 

Ever since the Trump administration announced plans to raise tariffs on imported steel and aluminum by 25 percent and 10 percent respectively, our allies have been livid. Some are referring to the upcoming meeting as the G-6, plus the United States. You've got to hand it to the president, he doesn't back off, but given the circumstances, maybe he should.

 

I doubt that anyone in this country believes the present trade agreements we have signed throughout the years are even remotely fair. They should be renegotiated, but there are different ways of going about it. Unfortunately, Trump used a rather "trumped-up" excuse for his actions by claiming "national security" as justification for the tariffs. Given that the tariffs will be levied principally against America's strongest allies, is it any wonder that the G-7's response was what it was?

 

They rightfully believe that the Trump Administration's blatant attempt to circumvent the World Trade Organization (WTO) is illegal. As an example, Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, responded to the claim by saying that "Canadians have served alongside Americans in two world wars and in Korea. From the beaches of Normandy to the mountains of Afghanistan, we have fought and died together."

 

"Canada," the president claims, "has treated our agricultural business and farmers very poorly for a very long period of time." How that squares with national security is anyone's guess.

 

My point is why confuse the issues? This is not about national security; it is about unfair trade practices. If Trump were to stick to the facts, our trading partners would need to re-examine their own policies. And what we can do in the name of national security, other nations can do as well. The irony is that the World Trade Organization was originally set up after WWII at the prodding of the U.S. to handle just these issues.

 

Back in 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed despite stiff congressional opposition. The law is widely believed to have exacerbated the severity of The Great Depression. The act was intended to save the nation's factories by raising tariffs on imports to record levels. Instead, other nations responded in kind. A global trade war developed, which ultimately led to a shooting war. And the rest is history.

 

No one of rational mind wants to see that history repeated. It may be that the president's administration lacks the knowledge and expertise required to navigate the established WTO channels. Few, if any, of his men have any experience in negotiating far-reaching trade deals.

 

It could be that Trump lacks the patience to wait for these deals, some of which could take years to hammer out.  After all, most of the world's truly successful trade agreements required years of negotiations. Or maybe he thinks he needs a "win" in time to influence the mid-term elections. 

 

By circumventing the WTO, Trump raises the risk that a trade war could develop. President Trump has started with steel and aluminum but has now expanded his list of potential tariffs to food, lumber, automobiles, technology, and whatever else he can fit into his tweets. But tweets are not diplomacy, nor are they trade negotiations. Both need to be developed if we are truly serious about getting better trade deals.

 

Trump is preaching to the choir when he demands a fairer share of the trade pie, but where's the beef? Where are the specific plans to right those wrongs? They are noticeably absent. Bluster and bravado has worked for Trump thus far. Let's cross our fingers that his unorthodox tactics can carry the day.

 

Wilbur Ross, his commerce secretary, just returned from China empty-handed. The Chinese were ready to negotiate with specific ideas. They floated an offer to purchase a massive amount of U.S. goods worth $70 million next year if Trump backed off his tariff threats on Chinese imports.

 

Evidently, the offer was not good enough, but there were no counter offers. Donald Trump has been complaining about the unfair trading practices of our friends and foes for decades. He campaigned on these issues and won. The problem is now that he is in charge, he needs to not only point out the problems but come up with the solutions. You can't negotiate with tweets.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

A political crisis in the fourth largest economy in Europe has spilled over into the financial markets. Global stock exchanges greeted Italy's present political dysfunction by registering major declines — and the crisis may just be getting started.

 

Back in 2010 through 2012, readers may recall a similar eurozone calamity. Greece was at the center of that maelstrom and, at its worse, threatened the viability of the European Union and its currency, the Euro. This time around, many of the same issues are now bedeviling Italy. The country has the third largest debt load in the world after the U.S. and Japan. It still suffers from double-digit unemployment while their economy continues to stagnate.

 

At times like this, voters usually look for something to blame. Most Italians have focused on their membership in the EU as the cause for all of their woes. After an inconclusive election several months ago, Italy has been in a no man's land of political inertia. Two opposing parties: a far-right party (The League) and a populist party (the Five Star Movement) share power. They recently proposed a new government to break the deadlock.

 

The problem was that their candidates presented a threat to those who still wanted to maintain membership in the EU. Their proposed finance minister, for example, was a confirmed foe of both continued membership in the EU and the Euro. He scared the bejesus out of officials throughout the EU.

 

As a result, Italian President Sergio Mattarella vetoed the appointment and instead appointed a technocrat, whom he hoped would reassure the financial markets and the rest of Europe.

 

Both opposition parties are furious. It appears that their ire is backed by the voter population. The League has nearly doubled in popularity, while the Five Star Movement is maintaining its 30 percent political base. Comments from several EU establishment members this week have only fueled the fire of outrage among Italians. 

 

Threats of serious financial repercussions if Italians encourage more populism within their government has had the opposite effect. Most politicians are now calling for yet another round of new elections. Financial markets are afraid that the results could be a referendum on whether Italy will remain or exit the EU.

 

The lessons learned after the Greek Crisis have not been forgotten. Neither Germany nor the rest of the EU want any further cracks in the Eurozone, especially after Brexit. Europe's central bank has a lot of experience defending the Euro in times like this as well.

 

Italy, as one of the founding members of the union, also knows the consequences of exiting the EU. Given their debt load and sputtering economy, Italy would most assuredly see a run on their banking system, which could spike inflation, riots, demonstrations, deaths and most likely a severe recession and even higher unemployment. 

 

Many political analysts argue that the Italian crisis is a simple extension of a broader global trend. On one side are the populists or "have-nots" that have been left out of a generation of booming international trade. To them, that economic model has simply left the rich richer and the poor poorer.

 

On the other side are those riding a new wave of nationalism fueled by a wealthy establishment, whose only objective is to keep their place in the sun. These radical right-wingers are promoting an extreme form of an economic model that the opposition believes is not only obsolete but generating even higher levels of inequality and injustice. It is a global contest of two extreme movements. The winner has yet to be announced.

 

So far, most of the financial damage has been contained to Italy. Both their stock and bond markets experienced hefty losses this week. The financial contagion that occurred during the Greek Crisis five years ago, which spread to the rest of Europe and ultimately the world financial markets, has yet to materialize.

 

Most financial experts believe that things won't get to that point. Both sides are aware of what is at stake and hopefully will back away from a gunfight at high noon. Although I hold with the consensus view for now, I will be watching events closely in the days and weeks ahead, so keep reading.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Back in the day, money managers were revered. News stories spotlighting the year's "hottest hands," or that hedge fund's rising star were all the rage. Retail investors chased performance and paid for it. But times are changing, and simply beating the market for a year or two fails to impress most investors.

 

And with good reason.

 

Most of us are in the investment game for the long haul. We are saving for retirement: a process involving decades of saving and planning. Chasing the firm or adviser that "beat the market" this year has turned out to be a disastrous approach to that concept.

 

Most of us have now realized that you can't beat the market. Sure, for a certain period of time — days, months, even a few years — you can, if you are lucky. Over time, however, your performance will revert to the mean, which in this case is the average returns of the market overall. So, paying a money manager a high fee year after year to provide outsized performance is a fool's game.

 

On occasion, I meet some prospective clients, who still believe that's possible. They have run from adviser to adviser with great hopes followed by disappointment, and then bitterness and blame. As a fiduciary, I am required to tell them the truth. For those who don't believe it, I quickly show them the door.

 

Given the facts of financial life, why, therefore, should you pay a money manager yearly fees simply to give you what the market gives you? Why not save your money and buy an index fund and be done with it?

 

I think that is a rational approach for some of us, at least those who can weather the ups and downs of the markets without getting emotional (selling low and buying high). If you have the discipline to stick to a plan for many years without swerving, changing, or being influenced by outside events than you can manage your money as well as any manager. The problem is that few of us can do that. The rest of us need a coach and that's what you are paying for, but even that is no longer enough. 

 

But how much is that worth? If, over the next decade or two, investment advisers continue to charge large fees for simply providing market returns and "coaching," I believe there will be far fewer of us around.  The advent of artificial intelligence portfolios at substantially reduced fees is simply the first shot over the bow for an industry that hasn't changed in the 40 years I have been in it.

 

In my opinion, investment advisers are at a critical juncture. While they beat their chest for providing an extra percentage point or two for their clients, they ignore an entire array of financial challenges that could prove fatal to their clients. I have been writing columns on many of these issues for years.

 

The rising cost of health-care poses a greater challenge going forward than any down draft in the stock market. Protecting your assets and passing them along to your children is equally (if not more important) than identifying the next internet darling in the stock market.

 

When and who should take their social security benefits, or having enough money to put your kids through college are concerns that are just as important as what the market did this year. Elder care planning, financial planning and advice on veteran's benefits are some additional areas where more and more of us are going to need high-caliber expertise.

 

As market performance becomes the norm, and more and more investors focus on what really matters — a holistic approach to managing their wealth and welfare — who among the nation's advisers can offer all of these services?  Outside of our firm, I can't think of any. And this is not an advertisement; it is a call to action for an industry that is stuck in their ways that they need to change or perish.

 

 

If you simply read the headlines, you would assume that over half of Americans aged 55 and over, have no savings as they approach retirement. That's a dramatic statement, but is it true?

 

Most statisticians derive that data by adding up those who have an IRA or similar tax-deferred savings account such as a 401(k). The latest data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank's Survey of Consumer Finance indicated that 53 percent of households, age 55 to 64, had some savings in those tax-deferred accounts. So, yes, by that standard, almost half of all Americans fail the savings test.

 

But what about all the people who work for the government? There are 22 million workers toiling away within the ranks of federal, state and local government, and all of them have traditional defined benefit pensions.  

 

That's 14 percent of the labor force! Those pensions have amassed 

anywhere from hundred thousand (maybe less) to $1 million or more.

 

While corporate pension funds have been seen a multi-decade decline among workers, there are around 13 percent of private sector workers who are participating in defined benefit pension plans. In fact, roughly 40 percent of all workers between 55 and 64 years of age are expected to receive a traditional pension benefit in retirement.

 

When you add all those segments together, the outcome is entirely different. Almost 75 percent of workers in the U.S. either have a tax deferred savings account or a pension account. That still leaves a goodly portion of Americans coming up short. However, all is not as bleak as it looks for those people.

 

Let's talk about the low-wage earners making around $10,000 per year over their lifetime. When they retire, they will receive Social Security benefits. Those benefits could equal as much as 84 percent of their yearly salary. Almost 19 percent of Americans fit within that category, according to the Social Security Administration,

 

Can some one in retirement live on $10,000 a year? Not likely. Remember that Social Security was never intended to be a retirement account. It was simply unemployment insurance that could help a worker feed his family until he found a new job during the Great Depression. Today, given that we now have unemployment insurance in addition to Social Security, the population has come to think of it as a retirement benefit.

 

As you can see, most Americans have and are saving for their retirement. That's not the question. How much you are saving is the critical variable in this equation. How much should I save, you might ask, to see me through my golden years? My answer is, whatever you might think, most of us are not saving enough.

 

The way to begin answering this question accurately is to find out how much you and your family are spending per year. For every household who can answer that, I see at least 20 families who have no idea what their yearly expenses are. It should be obvious that without knowing your expenses, there is no way you can know how much you might need once you retire.

 

My advice is to find out now, while you are young or at least middle-aged, and set up an appointment with a Certified Financial Planner. Few people have the ability and financial education to create a lifetime play of savings all alone. Make sure that the CFP is a fiduciary and spend the money.

 

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $400 million for investors in the Berkshires.  Bill's forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.