The Court of International Trade waited until the market's close on Friday afternoon before ruining the administration's Labor Day weekend. The court judges said the president had exceeded his authority in using the Emergency Powers Act to levy reciprocal tariffs on the world. Is this a good or a bad thing?

 

It depends on where you sit. The court did not halt the tariffs but instead ruled they would remain in place until mid-October. In a 7-4 decision, the appellate court backed a lower court's decision finding that the law Trump used to justify his policies, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give him the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the power to tax. 

 

The president responded by calling for an immediate hearing by the Supreme Court. "It's an economic emergency," he exclaimed, "If we don't win that decision, you'll see a reverberation like maybe you've never seen before." While the administration appeals to the Supreme Court, the hope is that the courts will allow tariffs to continue to be collected until the Court hears the case.

 

Who ultimately wins the high court case is a toss-up. Republicans appointed six of the nine justices and have backed several recent questionable initiatives by this administration, but not all decisions have been in Trump's favor. Historically, the Supreme Court has been critical of presidents whom they perceive have overreached on policies not directly authorized by Congress. In this case, the appeals court ruled that imposing tariffs is not within the president's mandate and that "the power of the purse belongs to Congress."

 

However, make no mistake, the Trump administration does have several backup plans. In response to Friday's ruling, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scot Bessent said he is preparing a legal brief for the solicitor general that stresses the need to tackle long-standing trade imbalances and curb fentanyl entering the U.S. If that fails, there are other options in the works.

 

Several months ago, after the first ruling against the use of IEEPA, the president's team crafted a two-prong response to a loss in the courts. The first would be a stopgap measure that would impose tariffs under a provision of the Trade Act of 1974. The action would impose up to a 15 percent tariff for 150 days that would address trade imbalances with a wide swath of countries. The administration might also consider using the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. That has a provision that allows tariffs on nations that discriminate against the U.S.

 

The second step would involve going through Congress, although this would take longer and require a great deal of negotiating. But in the end, tariffs would still survive as one of the pillars of the Trump administration. The congressional process would require a lengthy notification and comment process (a polite term for back-room horse trading) among the nation's legislators.

 

It is the traditional method of implementing tariffs within government, which has been used many times in the past. The downside to this approach, however, would be that individual politicians would no longer have the cover of a president to blame for the tariffs. Given that the polls suggest that many voters are against these tariffs, voting for tariffs in the face of dissatisfaction could be political dynamite for members of Congress and senators in states that will suffer the brunt of many of these tariffs.

 

In the meantime, as this tariff drama unfolds, American businesses have no way of determining what costs to eat and what to pass through to customers for their imported goods. Companies are in a political and economic limbo. Overseas, U.S. trading partners, of which there are dozens, face a lengthening period of indecision on how and when to trade with the U.S. The longer this situation persists, the less likely countries will be to trade with us. The confusion will undoubtedly create economic fallout and slower growth.

 

If the tariffs were to be overturned, the results would have both negative and positive effects. The president is predicting a 1930s-style Depression will happen without his tariffs. No one in their right mind is predicting that. In many ways, the reverse might be true. Consumers will benefit from paying less for imported goods than they would otherwise. Many American businesses would see their costs drop and profits rise under the same reasoning. The inflation rate would likely be lower, which would be a real shot in the arm for most working-class people. On the negative side, some companies that have benefited from tariffs thus far would see a reversal in their fortunes, but they are few and far between.

 

From a big-picture economic view, the existing tariffs are a tax and, as such, have generated more than $300 billion in government revenues thus far, which reduced the country's deficit by a like amount. If tariffs go away, what happens to the deficit?

 

Well, Trump and the ruling party could call a spade a spade. They could finally admit that without the tariff taxes, the only straightforward approach to reducing the deficit would require an across-the-board tax hike. We already know that is not going to happen, so the deficit will climb based on the spending that is coming down the pike, thanks to the passage of Trump's latest spending bill. Worse still, what if the courts rule the money must be returned?

 

Bessent has warned that rescinding the tariffs would be a "dangerous diplomatic embarrassment." The only embarrassment I see is that an over-confident administration thought they could shortcut the system and succeed. They did the same thing with DOGE and with several other initiatives. Hopefully (but not likely), the administration can learn a lesson or two from this drama. "Rome was not built in a day," nor will this country be transformed in a matter of months, no matter how much some would like it to be.   

 

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.

September into mid-October has historically been a dicey period for equities overall. Of course, history doesn't mean much when the financial system is wrestling with so many "firsts." Rather than red, it appears markets are waving a yellow flag of caution.

 

Wherever investors look, gut-wrenching changes are occurring in the economy, including trade and even the independence of our monetary system. However, at the same time, there are plenty of positive developments among these changes. Depending on your perspective, the cup is either half full or half empty.

 

The economy continues to grow, with the second-quarter GDP revised higher to 3.3 percent from 3 percent, after shrinking 0.5 percent in the first three months of the year. Most of those results were driven by changes in imports. The historically high tariffs announced by the Trump administration prompted businesses to import foreign goods ahead of their implementation. Imports, which are subtracted from GDP, caused the decline in the first quarter. That trend reversed in the second quarter as imports fell by almost 30 percent.

 

Economists expect the impact of the tariff taxes to begin to show up in earnest in the prices of a wide range of consumer goods. That, in turn, may fuel future inflation. A precursor to that was the most recent Producer Price Index, released a week ago, and the Personal Consumer Expenditures Index, announced on Friday. The PCE data for July came in as expected. Prices rose 2.6 percent year-over-year. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, ticked higher from 2.8 percent to 2.9 percent.

 

Despite those indications of higher inflation, investors are expecting the Federal Reserve Bank to cut interest rates at their Sept. 17 meeting. There is a greater than 70 percent chance of one cut in September, with as many as two more by the end of the year. However, two data points, the August non-farm payroll employment report and the August Consumer Price Index, will be released before the Fed meeting.

 

Wall Street economists are forecasting an inflation rate of 2.8-2.9 percent for the CPI, and the consensus for the employment numbers is for additional job losses. If these forecasts prove accurate, the Fed will need to decide what is more important: employment or inflation. The markets are betting that employment losses will outweigh inflation gains, and thus, there is a high probability of an interest rate cut.

 

Last week, I argued that one interest rate cut is all we can expect. I would be a "hawkish cut" with no more waiting in the wings. I am guessing that a rising inflation rate, which I expect to top 3.15 percent by the end of the year, will deter Fed officials from further easing of monetary policy unless another historical change were to occur.

 

I assume readers are aware by now of the feud between President Trump, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, and now Lisa Cook, a voting member of the Fed Board of Governors appointed by President Biden. President Trump's decision to fire her for "cause," followed by Cook's countersuit, will be decided in the courts. If he wins, Trump would then be free to appoint yet another administration-friendly voting member to the central bank board. That would give him majority control of the six-member voting board.

 

The financial markets, both here and abroad, believe that if Trump succeeds in his effort to control the Fed, it will undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve Board and, with it, any trust in its actions. The Fed's independence from the U.S. Treasury was established by Congress in 1952.

 

For the most part, the concern over Fed independence is primarily a concern of Wall Street. It is surprising, given the financial community's backing of the President's re-election and their continued financial support of his cause. What they fail to realize is that this administration, according to U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent, is focused on Main Street rather than Wall Street.

 

In this case, the populists among us do not view the Federal Reserve Bank as a friend, nor have they seen beneficial results from its years of independence. As I explained last year in my four-part series of columns on regime change and the rise of populism, for decades, the Fed, through its top-down economic policies, benefited those who could borrow, but not those who couldn't.

 

It unknowingly fostered decades of widening income inequality, the main angry engine of growth behind today's populism. Rather than independence, many Americans see the Fed as simply another tool of the deep state. Don't look to them to rescue the Fed. The reasons behind the president's push for control of monetary policy go far beyond simply reducing interest rates or replacing Jerome Powell. Please read my July column, "What is really behind the move to replace Fed Chair Jerome Powell," for a better understanding of the ramifications of this historical challenge.

 

Between labor weakness, higher inflation fears, tariff issues, and now this Fed scare, you might wonder why markets continue to make new highs almost daily. It is because U.S. markets have become increasingly short-term in their focus. The options markets, as I have written in the past, increasingly determine the direction of the market. The tail wagging the dog syndrome, if you will. Given that more than 60 percent of the trade on the options market involves zero-dated options that expire at the close of each day, the reasoning is straightforward. 

 

Look no further than the middle of September when the Fed meets. The overwhelming odds are in favor of a cut. Lower interest rates are good for the stock market. Since Jerome Powell, President Trump, and the markets want the same thing--to see interest rates reduced in September — why worry about something else that may or may not happen until it does?

 

The narrative continues to be bullish. Most market participants accept the government's assurances that all is well with the greatest economy, the lowest inflation, and the brightest future that anyone could imagine. Some might say investors are whistling past the graveyard.

 

The higher we go, the more perilous becomes the path we walk, and the narrower it becomes. Friday's PCE data came in as expected, but the markets still sold off. Traders had expected better-than-expected data, but they didn't get it. Nvidia's earnings were impressive, but the stock still sold off because the results were not strong enough to justify the hype.

 

I urge readers to pay special attention to the macroeconomic data in the next two weeks. The yellow flag is waving. Until unemployment rises dramatically or inflation surpasses a certain threshold, investors will continue to push stocks higher. The S&P 500 could reach 6,550-6,570, but not more than that without a correction.

 

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.

Risks and rewards in adding new investments to your tax-deferred investment accounts

 

An executive order instructing the U.S. Labor Department to consider the pros and cons of adding several new investment choices to your tax-deferred investment accounts is underway. A decision on the president's order won't happen overnight. 

 

Last week, I covered the benefits of adding private equity, real estate, and digital assets to the existing mix of stocks and bonds in retirement accounts. Backers of this initiative cheer the president's executive order and say it will expand the investment opportunities for retirees. It also offers much more diversification than simply stocks or bonds. Why, they say, should investors lose out on the spectacular returns that private investments, real estate, and cryptocurrencies offer? Anyone who has looked at the performance of Bitcoin or Ethereum this year might agree.

 

Technically, private market investments are already allowed in 401(k) plans. In addition, there are also ways to invest in crypto, and there is now a long list of exchange-traded funds offering investments in the digital currency space. Why, therefore, haven't those employers that provide tax-deferred accounts embraced these assets? The short answer is risk.

 

The risks in some of these investments are much higher than in your ordinary stock or mutual fund. In some cases, if you are in the wrong asset, savers can lose a hug chink of their retirement savings. In the private markets, for example, there is a lot less transparency and liquidity. Information can be scarce in analyzing a private company, and if there are periods of financial panic, markets to offload your investments can dry up or disappear entirely.

 

Management fees are also much higher than in the public equity markets, sometimes as much as two or three times the typical fee on a mutual fund holding stocks and bonds. Employers who would offer these assets could be held liable for losses. The issue for many savers is a potential lack of restraint in investing in risky assets. Without proper guardrails, such as limiting exposure to 5-10 percent of the portfolio, investors could be exposed to unnecessary risk and significant losses unless they were protected by some conditions set forth by the Labor Department, for example. 

 

We all know the history of cryptocurrencies. Digital assets have had several periods of deep declines. Prices have more than halved at times and then gained little over several years before once again climbing. Just last week, some of the most popular cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ethereum, saw wild swings in their prices, both up and down. There have also been digital hacks of account holders' assets, fraud, and some crypto kings are languishing in prison to this day.

 

Both the Labor Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have roles to play in allowing access to these alternative investments. The Labor Department, which governs tax-deferred retirement accounts, needs to establish rules and regulations, a so-called safe harbor, for plan fiduciaries that would protect them from lawsuits. Plan sponsors, in turn, would need to select investment options designed to protect retirees, like limiting the amount savers could accumulate, ensuring these investments provided the required liquidity, and determining if the fees charged were in line with the returns of these assets.

 

The SEC's role would be to ensure the expansion of registered closed-end funds managed by registered investment advisors that invest in private equity and private credit funds. These funds need to be registered and listed on exchanges, providing the liquidity necessary to ensure functioning markets in downturns.

 

Even if Labor and the SEC were to green-light these added investments, the rules and regulations would require months to write, and that may be an optimistic appraisal. Neither of these government bodies is noted for its ability to make swift decisions about anything. In which case, by the time they get around to deciding on this initiative and enacting it, we may have a new president in office.

 

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.

If President Trump has his way, investments in private equity, real estate, and even digital assets will soon be allowed in your 401(k). As in everything, there are risks and rewards in this proposition.

 

Last week, Donald Trump ordered the Labor Department to examine his proposal. The new investments, aside from your 401(k), would also apply to other defined benefit plans. These are America's primary vehicles for retirement savings.

 

How much money are we talking about? As of the first quarter of 2025, 90 million Americans held $12.2 trillion in 401(k) plans alone. That is not counting the $8.9 trillion in federal, state, and local government plans.

 

Today, most of that money is invested in either stocks or bonds, but the pool of investments offered to the public is shrinking. More companies are going private as regulations, disclosure requirements, litigation, and compliance costs increasingly interfere with the job of creating products, making profits, and increasing sales. Over half the 8,000 companies that existed in 1996 have concluded that going private is a far better proposition.

 

"Going public" used to be the primary method of raising capital for growing companies. Not today. Dozens of companies now tap private funding sources for their financing needs. Technology and AI companies, like SpaceX and OpenAI, with more than $400-$500 billion in capital, consistently raise capital in the private equity markets. Over the last two decades, the number of companies tapping this source of funds has grown from 2,000 to more than 11,500. As a result, equity and private credit funds have skyrocketed with assets greater than $8 trillion, which is a $5 trillion gain over the past 10 decades.

 

Defined benefit plans, unlike your 401(k) or 403(b), guarantee an annual payout to retirees. That means the professionals who manage this money need to perform consistently. In a bid to do just that, plan sponsors have been investing substantial sums in alternative assets for at least the last 30 years.

 

Those bets have paid off. They have outperformed the typical 401(k) by almost 30 percent over that time. The main driver of that performance has been their investments in private equity and private credit funds. However, most investors have been shut out of this market. Only about one-third of those saving for retirement can participate in these plans.

 

However, the private equity industry is facing a slowdown. The appetite for investing in private companies has been waning among the institutional crowd. It is a mature industry where the lion's share of money has already been made. Private equity buyers are worried that they might not be able to offload these investments in a saturated market. To grow, managers need to tap new markets for their funds. The employee retirement market is a tempting market for them. 

 

On a different front, the presidential order also includes crypto investments and real estate. These are two areas the president knows something about. Over the last nine months, the president and his family have dived into the crypto market with both feet. He has made about $1 billion on crypto since then, lifting his net worth to around $5.6 billion. Most of the rest of his wealth is in commercial real estate. While the real estate market has been nothing to write home about lately in the commercial market, home prices have skyrocketed since the COVID pandemic.

 

As for cryptocurrencies, both Bitcoin and Ethereum have been on a tear. New rules and regulations offer investors much greater safeguards, and the creation of stablecoins sets the stage for a much greater use of digital assets over time. Next week, we examine the risks involved in these investments

 

CORRECTION TO LAST WEEK'S COLUMN

 

Several readers notified me during the week of an error in my column "Trump Accounts Could Be Seed Money For America's Future Generations."

 

I wrote that under the recent passage of the government's tax and spending bill, beginning in 2025, each newborn American would receive $1,000 into a tax-deferred investment account that will grow tax-free until retirement. My error was in computing how much that seed money would be worth by the time of retirement at age 68.

 

I wrote, "The short answer is $1,029,500, assuming you invested the money in the S&P 500 Index at an annual average return of 6 percent and were not allowed to touch it until you retired at age 68." That is incorrect. If only the $1,000 were contributed and nothing more through the years to retirement, the total would be a little over $50,000. However, if family, friends, or employers continued to contribute $1,000 per year (as the government hopes), which I did not make clear, then the total would be more than one million dollars by retirement. "In one fell swoop, that could solve the Social Security issue facing future U.S. generations." I apologize for the error.

 

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.

About 3.6 million babies are born in the U.S. every year. Imagine that at birth, each one was given $1,000 to invest. Any ideas how much that would be worth by retirement age?

 

The short answer is $1,029,500, assuming you invested the money in the S&P 500 Index at an annual average return of 6 percent and were not allowed to touch it until you retired at age 68. In one fell swoop, that could solve the Social Security issue facing future U.S. generations. Hats off to the president on this one.

 

This new kind of savings account was part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and this "Trump Account" may turn out to be one of the most beautiful pieces of legislation in years. Over the next few years (until Dec. 31, 2028), each newborn American citizen with a Social Security number (and under age 18 in the year the account is established) can open an account.

 

The U.S. Treasury will provide the $1,000 seed money to a new custodial individual retirement account for our children. The investments must be in low-cost mutual or exchange-traded funds consisting of mostly U.S. equities. The money would grow tax-deferred with income taxes due only upon withdrawal.

 

At age 18, the child could access the account and empty it if so desired. There is an early distribution penalty for withdrawals before age 59 1/2 unless an exception applies, such as using the money for higher education or up to $10,000 for a first-time home purchase. Distributions can become more complicated depending on other factors, like who else is contributing to this Trump account.

 

Beyond the government's money, others will be able to contribute to this retirement fund. Parents, relatives, and friends can contribute up to $5,000 annually in after-tax money until the child turns 18 years old. That amount in contributions will increase if inflation rises. Employers can also contribute as much as $2,500 for an employee or an employee's dependent, and it will not be considered taxable income by the IRS. Charities can also contribute.

 

Last month, Democrats called out Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for stating that these Trump accounts "are a back door for privatizing Social Security." I understood what he meant by that, but his words ventured a bit too close to the third rail of politics — Social Security. Critics feared that Bessent's suggestion could be an attempt to reduce the government's role in funding the nation's safety net program for retirees. Bessent quickly posted on social media that these accounts were not an "either-or question" and that the administration was committed to protecting Social Security.

 

However, the facts are that the future of Social Security, as presently constructed, cannot guarantee benefits for future generations. Young people know this, believe this, and have a great deal of anxiety over this fact. In my book, anything that provides Americans with an opportunity to build wealth as early as possible is key to a solution.

 

These accounts, according to tax experts, are projected to cost the federal government $15 billion over 10 years. This country needs to identify and promote alternative ways to finance Americans' retirement. What better way than to allow the power of compounding growth through investment to work for all Americans?

 

Those who say that people would be better off just contributing more to a traditional investment account on behalf of their children are missing the point. This program helps those with no savings, no traditional tax-deferred investment accounts, and no money or inclination to start one. They make up a large proportion of those who are fueling the populist movement in this country.

 

For the 50 percent or more of Americans that face this dilemma, this is an excellent way of ensuring future generations won't end up in the same situation. If I have any criticism of these accounts, I would have liked to see no early withdrawal loopholes. In addition, I had hoped that the age at which one could begin to withdraw funds would be later, or only at retirement age.

 

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.