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.

This weekend, my wife went shopping for a beach hat but came home empty-handed. A new display of plastic skeletons, smiling pumpkins, and scary costumes occupied the beachwear display at her favorite store. Welcome to Summerween.

 

If you thought holiday merchandise is getting earlier each year, consider the July launch by most retailers of their fall Halloween collection. Walmart calls it their "Summer Frights" section, but it was Home Depot that first set the tone by marketing 12-foot skeletons back in April. Michaels, Lowes, Target, Costco, HomeGoods — you name it — major retailers have jumped into this trend.

 

The fact is that Halloween spending is a multibillion-dollar business. Last year $11.6 billion went into buying candy, home decorations, costumes, parties, and pumpkins. This year, retailers are expecting $12.2 billion, which would be a record spending total, according to the National Retail Federation.

 

That is a 37 percent gain over the last five years, and 47 percent of shoppers in their annual survey said they were beginning their Halloween shopping before October. Early shopping continues to be dominated by the 25-34 age group, with almost 50 percent of consumers saying it was their favorite holiday. But in July? 

 

Think skeletons in beach chairs, ghosts in bikinis, and sun hats on Frankenstein. It all started with an episode of Disney's animated show "Gravity Falls" (season 1, episode 12). The town of Gravity Falls loved Halloween so much that they decided to celebrate it twice a year (June 22 and October 31). That started a trend, but the summer dates are loose with Summerweeners picking the last weekend in July or whenever they decided, as long as it was in the summer.

 

And just like its Fall sister, Summerween has its own lineup of snacks and drinks from mummy hot dogs to marshmallow ghosts. Kids have been known to paint beachballs as pumpkins while parents have crafted ghoulish-themed floral displays from their gardens.

 

Retailers were quick to capitalize on the trend, which has only kick-started this summertime holiday trend. Walmart introduced its July deals with a DIY pumpkin head figure. Michaels beat them to it, launching two out of their five Halloween collections on June 13. Spirit Halloween plans to open more than 1,500 stores and hire 50,000 retail associates sometime in August. And Home Depot launched its full lineup of online Halloween items this week. Their collections will be in stores before Labor Day.

 

Don't think it's all about greed, however, what is pushing consumers to spend so far in advance can be summed up in one word: tariffs. Back in April, the Halloween and Costume Association warned that tariffs were threatening to wipe out Halloween and severely disrupt Christmas unless urgent action was taken to reverse them. Since most Halloween items are imported from China, that threat is real.

 

Currently, there is an across-the-board 55 percent tariff rate on Chinese imports into the U.S. Many retailers have already downsized their orders much earlier in the year, so shoppers who wait risk paying more for the most coveted items, and costumes will be out of stock. At this point, even if the U.S. comes to a trade agreement before the Aug. 12 deadline, it will be too late to alter the supply and demand balance for this year.

 

My advice is not to be too upset over the early Halloween displays. Embrace the change and celebrate along with the 47 percent of shoppers who love the holiday and now get to celebrate twice a year. Just make sure that the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups and M&M's are on ice. Happy Summerween!

 

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 unemployment rate in the Gen Z population, those born between 1997 and 2012, is edging up to 7 percent compared to the nation's overall employment rate of 4.3 percent. That is the highest gap the country has seen in 30 years. For entry-level college grads, aged 22 to 27, the number is roughly 5.8 percent — the highest level in a dozen years.

 

Fed officials and private sector economists have been quick to point out that the uncertainty created by the Trump administration's tariff increases is a major cause of reluctance among businesses to hire young, inexperienced workers. That makes some sense since entry-level jobs are the first to go in times of economic uncertainty.

 

Job openings in June fell to a post-pandemic low, but the rate of layoffs also stood near a record low, which is a good sign for the broader U.S. economy. Companies are reluctant to cut jobs because of the chronic labor shortage. They are worried they won't be able to rehire enough experienced people when the economy speeds up.

 

Young Gen Z workers are struggling to find jobs. Economists blame the uncertainty of tariffs, and, among white-collar workers, artificial intelligence is also taking its toll on entry-level college grads.

 

One interesting development is that the unemployment rate is just about the same regardless of whether the applicant holds a college degree. If one looks at overall job openings, there are still millions of jobs available, but many of them do not require a college degree. Corporations are realizing that an automatic college-level degree requirement for many entry-level jobs in their screening process is superfluous.

 

Over many years of writing these columns, I have addressed this subject on several occasions. I urged readers and their children alike to reconsider the worth of a trade school education versus a college degree. For those interested, check out my Feb. 14 and 21, two-part, 2013 columns "Trade Schools Versus College." 

 

Fast-forward to today, where at least some readers have taken my words to heart. The overall share of young college students has declined by about 1.2 million between 2011 and 2022, according to Pew Research Center. Enrollment at two-year vocational public schools has increased by 20 percent since 2020. It appears that we are finally realizing that vocational careers are enormous opportunities that pay exceptionally well.

 

History still says individuals with a bachelor's degree earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than those with a high school diploma and $500,000 more than those with an associate's degree. Of course, the area of study in college is important as well. Over the last decade or so, for example, many students realized that jobs for graduates with a liberal arts degree were scarce. Those who were lucky enough to land an entry-level position found that their salaries were less than what high school grads were making in fast food chains. This convinced many students to find more lucrative fields of study.

 

"You can't go wrong with a degree in technology" became the mantra of the day as college enrollment surged in programs leading to entry-level jobs in computer system design, related tech fields, and mathematical and computer sciences. Unfortunately, over the last few years, these areas have been among the first to feel the brunt of the increased adoption of artificial intelligence systems.

 

The professions where hiring is still exhibiting some modest gains are in health care, government, restaurants, and hotels. We all know that government jobs, thanks to DOGE, are among the riskiest fields to enter, while restaurants and hotels rarely require an upper-level education degree. Health-care occupations are projected to grow much faster than the rate of all professions, around 1.9 million openings each year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is also recession-resistant, as more Baby Boomers require more health care.

 

Gen Z, at 70 million people, accounts for 20.81 percent of the U.S. population. Politically, this age group has traditionally leaned left, but that shifted somewhat during the last presidential election. For the first time ever, Gen Z voters backed more Republicans (47 percent) than Democrats (46 percent). The shift is widely attributed to economic frustration, discontent with President Biden, and the GOP's outreach to young people on social media.

 

However, over the last few months, support for the GOP has wavered, according to the latest data by the Pew Research Center. Gen Z has swung back to favoring Democrats by 49 percent, while Republican support has dropped to 43 percent. 

 

How much of that dissatisfaction is due to the economic frustration of unhappy college grads remains to be seen. Last year, according to the World Population Review, there were more than 20 million students enrolled in colleges and universities in the U.S. Just a quarter of that total would be more than enough to swing sentiment, especially in a period of populism and partisanship. Remember that in a populist era, voters are quick to reject candidates and political parties that fail to deliver and deliver quickly on their promises. 

 

The good news for college grads, if there is any, is that the economy is still growing. If the Trump plan to grow the economy at 3 percent per year pans out, and immigration continues to slow, there will still be plenty of jobs for Gen Z college grads. They may not be in their chosen field, but a job is a job. And if they really want to make money, try plumbing or electrical work.  

 

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.

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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