Equities remained on hold this week but managed to produce gains for the month. Tariff news dominated the tape, while the quarterly earnings results supported the market overall. Thanks to strong earnings from Nvidia and a federal court decision against reciprocal tariffs.

 

It was a Mr. Myagi kind of week as tariffs off, tariffs on ping-ponged through the federal court system while global markets reacted in kind. On Wednesday, a federal trade court blocked some of President Trump's most sweeping tariffs, set to take effect in July. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade placed a temporary hold on some tariffs imposed by utilizing a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That lasted less than 24 hours as White House lawyers managed to lift the order for ten days.

 

The president had argued the act gave him the authority to impose reciprocal tariffs worldwide, but the court disagreed. It wrote that Trump's actions  "exceed any authority granted to the president by IEEPA to regulate importation using tariffs." Duties based on other laws remain in force, such as tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos.

 

Expectations that the ruling would shoot down the tariffs may have been why so many countries have been "negotiating with good faith" and yet were unwilling to sign on the dotted line until the trade court announced their decision. Why agree to anything when the country's legal system declares your actions illegal? It appears foreigners were right to hold out until this week.

 

The U.S. court system is causing increasing problems in the implementation of many of Trump's most important initiatives. Over 328 lawsuits have challenged Trump's use of executive powers. The courts have ruled against him in more than 200 cases so far in his second term. Immigration, deportations, reduction in the size of government, birthright citizenship, transgender military service, DEI programs, and now tariffs.

 

However, the Wall Street consensus is that the trade war is far from over. There are more conventional means at the president's disposal to impose tariffs, although they do not confer the broad powers Trump claims he needs. The more traditional approach would be to utilize provisions of U.S. trade laws, such as Section 232 (tariffs on national security grounds) or Section 301 (unfair trade practices), to impose tariffs.

 

Overall, this legal setback will likely delay and complicate the imposition of tariffs. Appeals take time, as will adjusting trade strategy. Given that tariff revenues figured prominently in the calculations of deficit spending, the delays may also cause trouble within the Republican Congress and its timetable for passing the tax and spending bill.

 

Aside from busting the budget, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" also includes a change in the tax treatment for foreign capital in the U.S. under a provision labeled Section 899. The provision states that "discriminatory foreign countries” that impose levies that impact U.S. companies would be charged a new 5 percent tax on their U.S. income. Why should you care?

 

If passed, it would transform the present trade war into a capital war, where U.S. assets, such as plants and equipment, as well as purchases of bonds and stocks owned by foreigners, including foreign governments, would see their income taxes here grow to 20 percent per year. It would certainly hasten the current trend among non-U.S. investors to reduce their holdings in the U.S. How that squares with Trump’s desire to increase foreign investment is a mystery to me.

 

As for the markets, I warned readers last Friday not to take Trump's threat to apply 50 percent tariffs on Europe seriously. The markets sold off, but I wrote, "His track record for implementing such actions in the recent past has been spotty at best." Sure enough, by Sunday afternoon, he backed off. 

 

Again, in a post this Friday morning (is this becoming a Friday thing?), Trump accused China of violating their two-week-old trade agreement. Markets fell once again on the news. It's impossible to predict how long this tantrum will last but traders have now begun to discount the president's on-again, off-again, shoot-from-the-hip outbursts. His tariff tactics have earned him a new moniker making its way across social media — "TACO," which means "Trump Always Chickens Out."

 

Nvidia, the semiconductor leader in AI, delivered a robust set of numbers in its latest quarterly results, which provided support for technology stocks and the broader market. Earnings overall have been surprisingly good. Economic data has been mixed, with both the economy and inflation slowing. GDP declined by 0.3 percent in the first quarter, driven by a surge in imports. The Fed's inflation forecaster, the PCE Index, came in less than expected for April, as I had expected.

 

In any case, markets are extended but working off those overbought conditions through time. It appears that stocks are poised to continue their upward climb, barring any new developments from the White House. The best-case scenario for the S&P 500 Index would be between 6,000 and 6,200 before taking a breather.  

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

The American tradition of firing up the backyard grill for a BBQ among friends and family is upon us. However, this year's record high prices for beef, brought on by generational lows in cattle inventories, make serving up steaks and hamburgers a budget-busting event.

 

A look at cattle futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) reveals what we can expect in terms of price increases this summer. Over the last month, live cattle futures have hit a record high of $2.18 a pound. That is a record high. Prices are up 22 percent from the same time last year. In comparison, pork prices are forecasted to rise by 1.8 percent, while poultry prices are expected to increase by a mere 1 percent

 

Grilling season officially began on Memorial Day and runs through to Labor Day. For whatever reason, the lion's share of grilling is packed into the days between Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. Your local supermarket or grocery store has already stocked its meat counters by buying steak, ribs, ground beef, and other meat selections from wholesalers to lock in supply.

 

But before you blame food companies for gouging, consider that companies such as Tyson Foods have reported a second-quarter loss of $285 million in its meat division, where a $470 million cost increase hit them in their beef-packing operations. What, therefore, is the core problem in the sky-rocketing price of meat?

 

I have said it before, and I will say it again — climate change. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that the total cattle herd in the U.S. is 86.7 million head. That is a generational low dating back to 1951. The changing weather has caused drought conditions in grazing and farming lands throughout the nation. That not only limits ranchers' ability to add more animals to the herd but has also increased the cost of feeding them, as feed prices have also risen.

 

That's tough going for the average hard-working rancher, who is now in his sixties. Drought, rising feed prices, water scarcity, the threat of tariffs, and increasing prices for everything from diesel to tools and tractors leave little room for profit.  Many are retiring, and few are taking their places. The cost of starting a farm or ranch requires enormous capital, and few are willing to risk it in this environment.

 

Producers are taking steps to reduce costs, including raising heavier animals, closing inefficient meat-packing facilities, and encouraging growers to replenish their herds. If, by some miracle, this were to occur, it would still require 18-24 months for the calf to grow into a harvestable animal. In the meantime, the trend is not your friend. Unfortunately, since most of the world has given up on addressing climate change, the only real solution to rising meat prices is to accept higher prices.

 

At some point, that steak or hamburger will cost so much that it could cause a massive shift in consumer preferences. When that occurs, is anyone's guess. As for your next BBQ, you have three choices: take out a loan, switch to chicken, pork, or fish, or pray for rain.

 

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.

On Friday morning, Donald Trump decided to ruin investors' Memorial Day holiday weekend by threatening Apple with 25 percent tariffs on foreign-made iPhones and 50 percent tariffs on Europe. Stocks sank worldwide in response.

 

Whether the president will carry through on his threats remains to be seen. His track record for implementing such actions in the recent past has been spotty at best. Nonetheless, the armies of proprietary traders and algorithmic computers that control markets always shoot first and ask questions later.

 

I must confess that the timing of these announcements is somewhat suspect. Throughout the week (until Friday morning), the serious issues we face in the nation's debt and spending was the focus of investors' attention. Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" passed the Republican House by a narrow margin. The consensus on Wall Street Bond was that this budget-busting bill was over the top. Last week, I warned readers that the House bill would increase the nation's debt and deficit. The bill will increase the deficit by almost $3 trillion over ten years and $4-$5 trillion to our debt load.

 

While stocks rose a little in relief that the GOP could at least pass a significant piece of legislation, if only by a vote or two, bond investors both here and abroad were not happy. The U.S. Treasury's 20-year bond auction on the eve of the bill passage could only be described as ugly. Investors went on a buyer's strike, which sent the yields on government bonds higher across the board. The 10- and 30-year bonds saw their yields break 4.5 percent and 5 percent, respectively. That drove equity investors into a tizzy. Markets declined with the dollar, while gold and cryptocurrencies spiked higher.

 

The stock market has drawn a line in the sand for months on bond yields. The lights begin flashing red when the yield on ten-year government bonds reaches 4.5 percent. At that point, many believe interest rates start to dent economic growth, corporate earnings, and, therefore, valuations in the stock market.

 

The downgrade of the nation's debt by Moody's credit agency from AAA to Aa1 this week didn't help the mood either. It was the last of the big three credit agencies to downgrade U.S. debt. They cited the growing burden of financing the federal government's budget deficit and the rising cost of rolling over existing debt amid high interest rates. It is now costing more than $1 trillion per year to do so.

 

By Thursday, bond yields continued to climb. The 30-year hit 5.11 percent, while the tens were yielding 4.6 percent. Equities struggled to hold onto their gains. Investors were torn between relief that the continued tax breaks since 2018 would continue and worries that the debt-fueled fall in the dollar and rise in interest rates would continue.

 

The administration argues that its policies, tax breaks, and deregulation will allow the economy to grow its way out of the debt and deficit quandary. It is a risk. The alternative of just slashing spending would likely result in a recession, higher unemployment, and a Republican loss in the mid-term elections. 

 

In the meantime, the dollar has now lost 8 percent since Trump took office. Fears of a burgeoning debt and deficit problem, policy uncertainty. The trend of 'money going home' has been cited as the cause of the decline. I suspect a weaker dollar has been part of the administration's economic plan from the beginning.

 

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent knew that U.S. tariffs would trigger a corresponding increase in tariffs on American imports by our trading partners worldwide. Putting aside the threat of reciprocal tariffs, the administration appears determined to maintain its global 10 percent on all imported goods and services. Logically, other nations will retaliate with a 10 percent tariff on our goods. Those tariffs would hurt American exporters unless the dollar declined by the same amount as the tariff. 

 

By the week's close, however, Trump had managed to shift investors' attention away from the bonds and debt debate and back on him and tariffs in just two social media posts before the markers opened. His posts also sent the 10-year bond yield below 4.5 percent, pushing the dollar further. Mission accomplished.

 

As for the stock market, in my last column I wrote that the equity markets are in a trading range. As such, we can see further weakness in the averages into next week before bouncing back higher. Gold continues to shine. Bitcoin reached a new high, and the dollar continues to decline.

 

As usual, we remain Trump-dependent, and Friday's announcements only underscore that point. He is a master of marketing, and this Memorial Day you can be sure that the topic at BBQs will be Donald Trump and his tariffs and not the price of beef, and that is just how he wants it.

 

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.

As Pope Leo takes control, the church's financial health will be high on his agenda. The Holy See, which is the governing body of the Vatican, is also the business arm of the Catholic Church.

 

The Vatican is audited by the Office of the Auditor General, which was established in 2014 by Pope Francis. In addition, the Council for the Economy supervises financial operations, and the Secretariat for the Economy (headed by a cardinal) is responsible for financial matters. External auditors, including PricewaterhouseCoopers, review the Vatican's financial statements. In the past, the information on the church's economic health has been murky at best.

 

Through the efforts of Pope Francis and before him, Pope Benedict XVI, the transparency of the church's finances has increased, but in many cases, there is still no evidence that the numbers released are accurate. We do know that last year, the church's worldwide income was around $1.25 billion, with expenses reaching $1.34 billion. In 2023, the church was running a $90 million deficit, according to Crux, an online news organization, and that deficit is presumed to be growing.

 

Part of the problem has been mounting operational expenses, which have outstripped donations, a primary income source. Observers note that much of the church's growth (and expenses) in recent years has been in poorer, less-developed regions. Much of its revenue streams have come from its affluent U.S. and European base.

 

The Vatican reported that its' collections (called Peter's Pence) had yielded 52 million Euros in 2023, with more than 25 percent coming from U.S. parishes, but the expenses were 109 million euros. In addition, Vatican tourism has declined since COVID-19, while increased litigation due to the sexual abuse scandals and the rising cost of supporting an aging clergy has contributed to the deficit.

 

 The church's pension fund is in trouble as well. Officials have expressed concern over its unfunded pension obligations (estimated at over $900 million) and an aging workforce. This shortfall could force both staff reductions and salary cuts unless remedied. Part of the problem, say the critics, has been 30 years of mismanagement by the last three popes, who were all in their mid-70s, without the expertise or financial focus to rectify the situation.

 

The clergy and the faithful will argue that the primary purpose of the Catholic Church is not to make a profit. I agree, but money sure helps spread the word. Over the last 100 years, popes have devoted most of their time, effort, and cash resources to bringing people closer to God while promoting humanitarian causes worldwide.

 

Pope Francis, for example, sought to reorient the church toward the poor around the globe while critiquing the global economy and its leaders for its lack of economic justice, migration, and ecological failures. 

 

Robert Prevost, now Leo XIV, does not have a background in finance, although he was a math major at Villanova University outside of Philadelphia. That skill might help in tackling the Holy See's looming financial issues. He is considered moderately conservative, but his past roles suggest a focus on service rather than savings and financial management.

 

Leo XIV's challenge will be to continue and expand his predecessor's effort to implement structural, procedural, and oversight changes in the bank and other organizations. He must also win over those in the church bureaucracy that maintain and defend the culture of secrecy that hamstrung Pope Francis throughout his term.

 

Managing such a far-flung religious empire creates its own financial challenge. Needs differ, sometimes dramatically, from country to country, as do donors. His message to those in the developed world, especially in the U.S. and parts of Europe, must account for the recent trend towards conservatism among its many members in those regions.

 

How Pope Leo squares that with continued attention to developing markets will require a high degree of sensitivity and finesse. He is on record opposing much of President Trump and Vice President Vance's positions on immigration and other issues. However, a softening of such rhetoric may be required to bolster support within the U.S.

 

Many believe the key to squaring the church's books depends on American donors' willingness to dig deeper into their pockets for Peter's Pence. It may be no coincidence that the Papal Conclave's College of Cardinals voted for an American as the leader of its 1.4 billion-strong congregation. Who better to increase collections in America than an American pope? If so, Pope Leo may already be making progress.

 

Vance led an American delegation, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to the pope's inaugural Mass this week in Rome. President Trump has extended an invitation to the pope to visit the White House as well. With less than two weeks in office, Pope Leo has also thrust himself and the church into the middle of geopolitics by his willingness to bring Ukraine and Russia to the peace table.

 

That should come as no surprise. The role of mediator has long been a tradition within the Catholic Church. Over the last century, popes have functioned as mediators to end international conflicts with varying success. Pope Benedict XV attempted to persuade Italy to enter World War I. When that failed, he offered papal peace mediation throughout the war. Pope John Paul, a native Pole, brokered talks between the workers' union Solidarity and the Polish government. Pope Francis attempted to persuade representatives from Palestine and Israel to bring peace to the Middle East and worked in Southern Sudan to end a civil war.

 

By offering to host negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, Pope Leo is following in the footsteps of his predecessors. First reactions indicate that it is something that may be amenable to both sides. It also appears to have the approval of President Trump. To say that Pope Leo has made a strong impression on global leaders and his congregation right out of the gate is an understatement. Let's hope he can do the same with church finances.

 

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 90-day reprieve on tariffs has given markets a boost. This week, equity indexes briefly turned positive for the year. Are there more gains ahead?

 

Further upside in stocks is dependent on the next moves out of Washington. For now, tariff fears are on the back burner. Fewer tariffs imply less of a hit on the economy. That has convinced many brokers and money managers to backpedal on their recession predictions. Investor attention has now swerved to Congress and the passage of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill."

 

The president's spending bill is beginning to take shape, although the time to passage continues to slip. The original idea was to extend the tax cuts of Trump's first term and reduce spending primarily by slashing Medicaid and "billions" in DOGE cuts. And, if possible, throw a few extra tax deductions to those in the country that need them the most. The House bill taking shape is a far cry from that idea.

 

If passed in its present form, the House Reconciliation package would add $5.2 trillion to the country's debt. Boost deficits over time to $3.3 trillion. Push annual interest costs on government debt to $2 trillion while increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 130 percent. And this is after $2.5 trillion in offsets are applied.

 

That is not what the bond market wants to hear. As such, is it any wonder that the yields on Treasury bonds have spiked higher in the last week? Whether this kind of legislation will ultimately see the light of day or saner heads prevail is what I am watching. Factions among the GOP are feuding on how much to increase the SALT cap on mortgage tax exemptions from the present 10 percent to some higher number. A handful of politicians from wealthy states threaten to torpedo the bill if they don't get their way.

 

It appears seniors will be screwed. Trump's campaign promises to end the double taxation on Social Security is out, although taxes on overtime may survive. So far, there is decidedly nothing beautiful about this version of the bill. It promises the same reward-the-rich and soak-the-poor legislation that has been popular among both parties for the last 40 years. Whatever the outcome, its passage will likely be a purely Republican affair, with Democrats abstaining. How that will square with voters in an era of populism remains to be seen. 

 

The Consumer Price Index and the Producer Price Index came in cooler than most expected for last month. The Street was looking for higher numbers, but readers know I had the opposite view. However, that trend toward weaker inflation numbers may have ended. The imposition of tariffs is already impacting prices.

 

Remember that the effective rate of tariffs, even if reciprocal tariffs were dropped, would still be 15.6 percent. That is the highest rate of tariffs (taxes) Americans will be required to pay since 1938. As such, higher inflation will show up in the numbers in the months ahead.

 

Consumer sentiment numbers are still falling even as the stock market climbs. The bulls believe that, at this point, Trump's tariff initiatives are nothing but bluster. In which case, there will be no recession nor decline in earnings estimates, and with Congress back to its old spending habits, the sky is the limit for equities. Many technical analysts are turning positive as well.

 

The bears, of which there are many, still cling to the idea that this three-week bounce in the averages is just that, a bear market bounce. They believe markets will roll over and re-test the lows or break them because of a tariff-crippled economy and rising inflation.

 

My guess is somewhere in the middle. I could see a new trading range develop with another 150-plus points tacked onto the S&P 500 Index, call it 6,050 to 6,150 on the high end. On the low end, 5,770 is the long-term trend line on this index. That seems about right as we await further developments on the tax bill, tariffs, and the economy.

 

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.