Attendance is down, as is viewership, as we head into the 2019 season. Major League Baseball is hoping some rule changes will turn around the decline. Will it be enough, and does it matter anyway?

 

Defenders of the game argue that last season's declines were to be expected. Television ratings for all sporting events have been declining for years.  But TV ratings in the new world of digital streaming are not what they used to be. There just isn't a good way to capture this new viewership data.

 

However, there is no way of denying that no World Series (the most popular of baseball's games) has been able to beat the average of 20 million viewers per game that was achieved back in 2010. Last year, viewership of 2018's opening game was at an all-time low of just 3.6 million viewers.

 

Critics argue that Major League Baseball (MLB) needs to fix the sport in order to boost viewers. A list of criticisms includes "Young people aren't watching. The games drag on and it's boring." After ignoring these criticisms for years, the MLB is finally addressed what they see as the most troublesome issues: the length of games, pace of play and too many strikeouts.

 

The rule changes have included both on-field changes, as well as proposals from the player's union to improve the competitive balance of the franchises. Some of the suggestions include making the designated hitter universal across both leagues, a rule that would require pitchers to face a minimum of three batters, a 20-second pitch clock, and a reduction in mound visits.

 

There were several more suggestions, but it is clear that many of the new rules could speed up the game. Another complaint by fans has been that the same five or six teams seem to almost always win the titles (think Yankees and Red Sox). Some of the player's union suggestions would address that by improving draft positions to high-performing, lower-revenue teams, while penalizing teams that repeatedly lose large numbers of games.

 

But before you fall victim to those that proclaim the death of baseball, know this, Major League Baseball is still a thriving and quite lucrative business. MLB revenues passed the $9 billion mark in 2017, and last year hit $9.3 billion, which is an average of over $300 million per team. Almost 55 percent of that amount went to Major and Minor League player salaries. And MLB revenues are increasing at a much higher rate each season than players salary.

 

That doesn't mean that the players will be entering the poor house anytime soon. Last year, the average MLB player's salary was $4,095,689.  The 2019 minimum salary paid to players called up from the minor leagues is $555,000. The top players can easily command $30-35 million per year with some, like Bryce Harper, signing a ten-year, $360 million contract.

 

While much attention has been paid to the declining physical attendance at the nation's ballparks, the facts are that stadium attendance is one of the least significant revenue sources for all 30 Major League ballclubs.  Sure, when all the proceeds are touted up, several hundred million of that $9 billion comes from attendance, but stadiums cost almost as much to run.

 

No, the real money for baseball franchises is in media contracts, revenue sharing, and developmental technology like baseball's BAMTech, the MLB's direct-to-consumer streaming, data analytics and commerce management service with 8 million subscribers.  It doesn't matter if their teams win or lose, which big shot players they sign, or how many fans are sitting in those bleachers; the money keeps rolling in day after day from this myriad of lucrative sources.

 

While demographic factors, like age or the decline in interest in playing team sports may crimp the profits of baseball on the margin, in my opinion, it will require a sea-change in viewership before baseball strikes out with investors.

 

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.

Sometimes too much good news can be interpreted badly. Take the U.S. central bank's about face on monetary policy late last year. That was good news and investors responded by bidding the stock market up by 20 percent. But this week we may have received even better news, or did we?

 

The Fed did more than met investors' expectation this week at the central bank's monthly Federal Open Market Committee meeting. Chairman Jerome Powell indicated that there would be no more interest rate hikes for the remainder of the year (after saying back in December that two rate hikes were on the table for 2019). There was even some discussion that a rate cut might be possible, if conditions merited such a move.

 

One would have thought that would send the markets flying, and they did, at least on Thursday. Friday, however, the opposite occurred. Granted, the reaction could simply be dismissed as a "sell on the news" moment or algos playing their daily games. If so, nothing more needs to be said. But I ask myself — why would Powell and the Fed be contemplating a rate cut?

 

The news startled some analysts and left them asking questions. Is the economy weaker than most suspect? Has the slow-down in the global economy infected the U.S. as well? Afterall, the Fed did lower their forecast for GDP growth this year from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent, but it is still growing, or is it? 

 

As most economists know, the economy is getting a little long in the tooth; we call it a "late cycle" market. One of the reasons you might want to cut rates at this point would be if you expected the economy to slip into recession fairly soon. 

 

There is certainly a huge discrepancy between the Fed's forecast and that of the Trump administration. In his budget for 2020, Donald Trump is forecasting 3.2 percent GDP growth this year. Given his tweets about the Fed, that is understandable. He believes that the only problem with the economy is the Fed. He does not believe they are in touch with the market or understand things like trade wars and a strong dollar. Investors are hoping that he is right. Time will tell if the Fed knows more than we do.

 

In the meantime, stocks continue to climb. As I wrote last week, with the world's central banks in an easing mode, stocks are benefiting from all this monetary stimulus just like they have for the past decade. Investor sentiment continues to move higher as well with the latest readings indicating 53.9 percent of investors bullish — the highest level since Oct. 1, 2018. That is the fifth straight reading above 50 percent, which is usually a sign that some caution is called for in investing.

 

However, the percentage of bulls are still much lower than the 61.8 percent bullish level that was registered when the stock market hit record highs back in September of last year. As a contrarian indicator, sentiment is a useful tool, but only one in my bag of tricks.  Clearly, we have had a great run since the lows in December with hardly a pullback to speak of. We could easily decline a couple of percent at any time

 

As long as we held the 2,800 level, any sell-off would set us up to make a run at the 2,900 level on the S&P 500 Index. If that were the case, it would mean that we not only erased all of the losses of 2018 but would be looking at an almost double-digit return for the stock market year to date. That's quite impressive, given that we are not even in the second quarter of 2019 yet.

 

But I don't want to get ahead of myself.  Just be grateful you hung in there through the fourth quarter of last year, and by all means, ignore the noise and negativity. Stay invested.

 

 

Today, medical marijuana is legal in 33 states, while recreational marijuana is legal in 10 states, plus the District of Columbia. Although there has been progress, little of the recent enthusiasm and hype over pot stocks will come to naught unless the federal government does a major about face and legalizes the substance. What are the chances of that?

 

Billions of dollars' worth of investment, stock market gains, and federal, state, and local taxes are at stake. Predicting the outcome of such a change in federal legislation is, for now, like betting all your chips on red or black in a roulette game. Nonetheless, a growing number of retail investors want to "get in" on pot stocks.

 

The calls and emails I get today are reminiscent of two years ago. Back then it was all about Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency. As Bitcoin climbed (from a few hundred dollars to $20,000), the interest and demand to "get in" was almost hysterical. As you might imagine, most of those calls were made as Bitcoin hit new highs.

 

Fast-forward to today and, while no one has called about a cryptocurrency in over a year with Bitcoin now around $4,000, pot stocks are all the rage. And like Bitcoin, few callers know anything about the marijuana industry.

 

"What do I need to know?" said one client (an ancient hippie like me). "You put it your mouth, inhale, and bingo. You are high."

 

But smoking it is a lot different than investing in it.

 

There is now a bewildering array of investment vehicles (and more coming every day) that confronts the up-and-coming pot investor. There are over 80 exchange-listed pot stocks. Most are Canadian companies (where all pot is legal), which have a listing here in the U.S. Since the federal government still deems marijuana illegal, most big major stock exchanges won't touch them. In addition, there are well over 200 over-the-counter (OTC) securities that trade outside of the big exchanges. The question you should ask is which of those stocks will be a winner and how do I avoid the losers?

 

The short answer is you need to do your homework. Most investors I talk to are woefully uninformed when it comes to understanding this sector. They fail to realize that most (if not all) companies who engage in this business make no money at all. Part of the reason for this is their inability to borrow or obtain any kind of credit from the U.S. banking system. Until the federal government legalizes marijuana, it is a purely cash business.

 

To compound the problem, few investors do little more than read market research reports that project global spending on legal cannabis will grow by 230 percent and reach $32 billion by next year. Of that amount, $23 billion is expected to come from U.S. sales. But that forecast assumes that more states will legalize the drug this year and next. That's a big "if."

 

Clearly, there is a bull case for the pot industry. Readers may be aware that over 200 million Americans reside in those states that have already legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. And over 2/3rds of Americans support its legalization, according to Gallup polls.

 

What investors ignore is that the medical market for cannabis and the recreational market are vastly different animals. To muddy the waters further, there is the hemp industry. Hemp is another form of the versatile cannabis plant that has been used in textile production, foods and other home products for decades. There is also a growing use of cannabidiol or CBD. CBD is a non-psychoactive cannabis compound that is being infused in products as diverse as skin care, coffee and even dog biscuits. Titus, our 9-year-old chocolate Lab, who suffers from arthritis, for example, is now munching on CBD cookies several times a week. Over 40 states have already passed some kind of CBD legislation.

 

Each sub-sector of this marijuana industry has a different profile, profitability, and future. But in the rush to make money, these realities are all but by neophyte speculators. Does that mean that pot stocks will go the way of Bitcoin in a year or two?

 

Some will, and some won't. Like all fledgling industries with promise, there will be some companies that make it and a whole lot that won't. Next week we will discuss what kind of companies and what trends to look for in the months and years ahead.

 

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.

The country's national debt hovers at historically record highs, as the nation's budget battle begins. It's a pretty safe bet to expect another budget-busting compromise as well as a hefty increase to our already-overwhelming debt load.

 

At times like this I wonder whether Americans are facing the prospect that someday the United States could be the world's largest impoverished nation, and if so, does it really matter?

 

Last week's column examined the subject of debt, both private and domestic, and how large it has become. This week, I begin by asking why debt matters at all? On a personal level, we know the answer, but what about the nation?

 

Debt has been a popular whipping boy for economists and politicians in this country for decades. At times, one or the other political party has found it expedient to become a champion of economic sobriety. Of course, once they recapture control of the government purse strings, they pretend amnesia.

 

The Republicans, for example, spent eight years fighting the Democrats under President Obama on every dollar of proposed spending, except defense. Their argument back then was that any spending would increase the public debt and make it impossible to balance the budget. Republicans even refused to approve funding for our national debt limit and actually shut down the government in defense of what they called fiscal responsibility.

 

Fast forward to 2016-2018, when the same party (and the exact same politicians) added more debt to the country than at any time in our history, while throwing the budget into the red by trillions of dollars. The president's recent budget proposal only adds more fuel to our fiscal fire.

 

 According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), debt under the President's budget would rise from 77 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2017 to 82 percent in 2022 before falling to 73 percent of GDP by 2028. OMB also projects the deficit will rise from 3.5 percent of GDP ($665 billion) in 2017 to 4.7 percent of GDP ($984 billion) by 2019, and then decline to 1.1 percent of GDP ($363 billion) by 2028.

 

Given that the supposed "fiscally conservative party" has thrown in the towel on spending and debt, is it too much to hope that the liberals (read Democrats) might have a sudden attack of conscience and discover fiscal responsibility? Don't hold your breath.

 

In fact, over the past few weeks, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has once again caught the attention of certain politicians in Congress and on the 2020 campaign trail.  What exactly is MMT?

 

It is an old economic idea that periodically comes to the forefront and has, from time to time, attracted the attention of mostly liberal politicians. It does so, in my opinion, because some of its tenets fit their vision of what government and the economy should be all about.

 

In essence, MMT argues that if you have borrowed money (increased your debt) in your domestic currency (in this case the dollar), which is the currency that you as a government create, then you can always pay back your claims. How? By simply printing more money. Sounds simple, right?

 

The problem is that the United States, or any other country, does not  exist in a vacuum. For every action, there is a reaction There are ramifications for piling on more and more debt and printing vast mountains of money to pay for it. The Weimar Republic tried that back before WWII, and so did Zimbabwe less than a decade ago. It resulted in hyperinflation, destitution and political unrest.

 

Nonetheless, if you believe government has the right and the responsibility to provide health care for all, or full employment through a federally-mandated jobs program, or any other big government spending program, then MMT has some appealing features. The MMT proponents argue that the country's central bank would be the locomotive for such programs by simply printing more money, and raising more debt, which, in turn, would finance such programs.

 

If, as critics argue, that causes our debt to skyrocket and inflation to explode upward someday, then it would be up to Congress to deal with it by raising taxes (to pay down debt), while tightening fiscal policy (to put a lid on inflation by slowing the economy). It would, in essence, turn our economic and financial world upside down, while leaving it to the politicians to make the hard, politically unpopular choices when necessary. Raise your hand if you would have confidence in such a system.

 

MMT, which has never been proven, nor completely understood as an economic theory, continues to look for a home among politicians and others. It is now being used in some quarters as economic justification for the financial expansion of a new welfare state. Does that surprise you?

 

In a country where partisan politics, extreme income inequality, and increasingly radical attitudes and ideas (fostered and fueled by our elected officials) are in every headline and tweet, is it any wonder that ideas like this would find increased backing by a polarized society?

 

Investors were greeted on Friday with two nasty surprises. Both occurred in February. Chinese exports dropped by 20.7 percent, while in the U.S., the nation added a dismal 20,000 jobs. As you might expect, the stock market did not take the news well.

 

What really spooked traders was how far apart these numbers were to expectations. Over here, we were expecting 180,000 jobs to be added to the payroll number. In China, where the economy had been expected to weaken, exports had been forecasted to decline by 6 percent, versus the prior year.

 

Before the ink had dried on the jobs data, the administration was already sending their point man on the economy, Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, on television to assure Wall Street that the February data was "fluky" and should be ignored.

 

As for China, investors there took the Shanghai Composite down by 4.4 percent overnight. Japan dropped half of that (minus-2 percent), even after the government said its economy grew by 1.9 percent in the fourth quarter of last year. It also didn't help that the European Central Bank lowered its forecasts Thursday for growth in the Eurozone and announced more stimulus measures to support the economy.

 

Over the last two weeks, I have been warning readers to expect a pullback in the markets, nothing too serious, but maybe a 3-5 percent decline. If I were to take a guess, we could see the S&P 500 Index hit 2,700 or so, before we mellow out. From there, it depends on how low those crazy algo trading machines decide to take us. Where is John Connor when you need him?

 

By now you should expect these consolidations especially after watching the indices free fall in the last quarter of 2018 and then climb by almost 20 percent from their December lows.

 

There has also been a growing skepticism over the China/U.S. trade deal. Despite my own skepticism, investors were happy to drink the White House "Kool-Aid" on the timing of a breakthrough announcement. It was first thought the deal would be announced three weeks ago. It was then pushed back after the Chinese team of negotiators returned to Beijing with nothing done. Last week, negotiations were "moving along very nicely," according to the president.

 

On Thursday, The New York Times reported that negotiators were still trying to lock down details and that Chinese officials "were wary about the final terms" because of Trump's penchant for making last-minute changes over the heads of his negotiators. But, of course, they would say that.

 

On Friday, Trump, when asked about the deal on the South Lawn, sounded a little less certain. He predicted "a very big spike" in the stock market "as soon as these trade deals are done, if they get done, and we're working with China. We'll see what happens."

 

Whether we actually do see a spike in the stock market (and for how long) depends on what happens next. Readers might recall that I believed that much of any potential upside for stocks based on a breakthrough trade deal was already discounted by market participants. When announced, it would likely be a "sell on the news" event.

 

If, on the other hand, the markets continue to pullback here by several percent, and then a really good deal is announced (as opposed to something which simply saves face), then the president might be right. So how do you play it? Simple: do nothing, stay invested, and strap in. The ride should be bumpy.