Older populations worldwide are experiencing a significant increase in skin cancer cases after years of cumulative sun exposure over multiple decades. In the U.S., invasive melanoma rates continue to rise sharply among those older than 60, especially among whites.

 

The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately 104,960 new cases of melanoma will be diagnosed by dermatologists this year. Is it any wonder that health experts predict the dermatology sector of healthcare will reach $3.59 billion over the next 10 years? Last week, I examined some of the reasons why skin care has been the overlooked stepchild of health care for an entire generation.

 

It was almost as if the Baby Boomer generation was bound and determined to do as much damage as they could to this vital part of their anatomy. I explained how the Sixties generation became sun worshipers searching for the perfect Beach Boys tan at a time when industry was decimating the ozone layer with chlorofluorocarbons.

 

As Baby Boomers stripped down and the ozone layer began to disappear, we found even better, faster ways to damage our skin than simply frying our baby oil-soaked skin in the sun for hours. The explosion of cheap package holidays and tours to exotic locations (noted for their tropical sun) made for a great tan that would be the envy of the neighborhood.

 

Tanning beds were introduced to North America in 1978 and gained popularity by the mid-1980s. At its peak, the industry was generating $2 billion annually; however, as the health risks of exposure to UV became apparent, revenue plateaued, remaining around $1.9 billion per year.

 

The dermatology industry argues that the use of these beds significantly increases the risk of developing skin cancer. In one study alone, 61 of 63 women were diagnosed with melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, before 30 who used tanning beds. These beds can also compromise your immune system, cause clinical eye issues, and lead to photodamage, as well as accelerate photoaging or premature skin aging.

 

The facts are that as we age, the incidence of certain skin disorders increases, as exposure to the sun over a lifetime creates cumulative damage. That is another explanation for why my parents did not have my skin problems. Baby Boomers are living longer than previous generations, thanks to advancements in medicine and technology.

 

In my case, one or both of my parents may have had skin issues, but neither ever bothered to see a dermatologist. I know of several men in my generation or younger who have never had their skin checked out for skin cancer. To me, that is astounding since the median age of onset for melanoma is 55, with the highest incidence rates found in the 65-plus demographic. What's worse, people with paler skin are 20 times more likely to develop skin cancer than those with darker skin.

 

I also wondered if, as a teenager, exposure to the sun while in Vietnam for almost two years may have damaged my skin. No one wore sunscreen, nor was it issued to the troops. Would a similar exposure by U.S. service members in the Middle East also be a factor?

 

I know my father, who served in the 101st Airborne, only served in Europe during World War II, but what about the Marines in the Asian theater?

 

Interestingly, a large proportion of World War II patients with skin cancer were stationed in the Pacific. The Veterans Administration concluded that a few months to a few years of prolonged sun exposure in a high-intensity area may result in skin cancer many years after exposure. Similar findings by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2018 indicated the same high risks applied to service members and veterans.

 

You would think that with all the new medical research on the causes and consequences of skin cancer, the younger generations of Americans would learn from our many mistakes. We never heard about SPF labels back in the day, but we do now. Not so. The American Academy of Dermatology found that Millennials and Gen Z, while more attentive to their overall health, tend to prioritize sun protection less.

 

In a recent survey, 70 percent of respondents did not understand the skin cancer risks associated with sunburns, and nearly 60 percent believe in sun tanning myths. The younger generations believed that base tans were healthy and said they would rather tan and look great, even if that meant they wouldn't look good later. They also believed that tanning beds are safer than sun exposure.

 

Some say skin cancer is part and parcel of our culture now. The phrase "Beauty is only skin deep" was first stated by Sir Thomas Overbury in his poem "A Wife," written in 1613. Tell that to the marketing world today, who argue the opposite. As such, most Americans grew up believing that the better you look, the more successful, happy, wealthy, and so on, you are. 

 

That has spawned an insatiable demand for aesthetic appearance. Aging Baby Boomers want to turn back the clock. Younger generations view skin as simply another cosmetic to alter or do with as they please. Technological advancements promise a wide range of innovations. Bikinis have gotten smaller. Tans are still "in" unless, of course, you are like me and have had several bouts of biopsies, laser treatments, surgery, and more. As any parent of a teenager will tell you, trying to get people to cover up who don't want to is pointless. No wonder dermatology is a growth business with no end in sight.

 

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.

Congress passed the tax and spending bill, and the president signed it into law on July 4 but traders have already moved on. They are laser-focused on the July 9 tariff deadline. It doesn't look good.

 

As the holiday weekend begins, President Trump warned the nation that he will be sending letters to 10 or 12 countries starting Friday to notify them of the tariff rates they will face as of August 1. He claimed that by July 9, all nations "will be fully covered. They'll range in value from maybe 60 percent or 70 percent tariffs to 10 percent and 20 percent tariffs."

 

Equity futures, which are open on the July 4 holiday for a half-day, indicate that the indexes were down a little over half a percent on the news after gaining a little more than that by Thursday's close. While these letters appear to be an escalation in Trump's trade war, he has also postponed the deadline for tariff implementation once again, until Aug. 1.

 

Given his track record, most traders are looking to the crypto-based prediction market, Poylmarket, to gauge the chances he will follow through. As of Friday, the odds that Trump will remove most of the reciprocal tariffs before the deadline are 56 percent. Look out below, if that doesn't occur. Of course, in the event of a significant sell-off in the stock or bond market, I expect Trump and his billionaire crew to rapidly change their tune on tariffs as they have done in the past.

 

A deal with Vietnam was announced on Wednesday, marking the second such agreement to date. Imported goods from that country will face a 20 percent tariff, while transshipped goods, those shipped from Vietnam, but originating in another country (like China), will face a 40 percent tariff. U.S. exports to Vietnam would not face a tariff. That is good news, but small potatoes (U.S. exports total $13 billion) compared to what we export to other countries in the European Union ($592 billion) or Japan ($79 billion). The president has already said he doubts a deal with Japan is forthcoming.

 

Regarding the passage of Trump's spending bill, aside from the fact (denied by its legislators) that this so-called "beautiful" bill will increase the U.S. debt load by $3 trillion to $5 trillion over time, it will once again be an exercise in redistributing wealth from the poor to the wealthy. Remember, taxes under this bill will remain the same. They just won't go back up because the bill extends the status quo. There are a few minor exceptions, such as no taxes on tips or overtime for some Americans, and seniors receive a break through tax credits.

 

More than two-thirds of the total tax cuts will continue to benefit those with annual incomes above $217,000. Those making $1.1 million or more will garner one-fourth of the tax benefits. However, the real issue for GOP politicians is the spending cuts. The deep cuts in Medicaid and SNAP programs disproportionally impact working-class voters (defined as those without a college degree). 

 

Those are the voters who put both Donald Trump and a slim majority of Republicans in Congress in power. That is the main reason, aside from the cost of the bill, that the GOP, despite their majority in both houses, have struggled to pass this bill.

 

In 2023, Republicans represented 56 of the 100 lowest-income districts in the House. Republicans are counting on Trump's ability to sway the public to disregard the fine print in the bill. We all know why. Republican politicians worry how 20 million or more Americans, who face a deep decline in their social safety-net programs, will feel about their elected representatives come election time. To avoid that, Republicans deferred their most painful spending cuts until after the midterm elections.

 

In the meantime, the pressure on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to cut interest rates continues unabated. The spate of weaker inflation data, combined with a recent weakening in economic growth, has prompted more players to follow the president's lead in calling for cuts as early as July. The June labor report punctured that narrative. The non-farm payrolls report was an upside surprise, as the U.S. economy added 147,000 jobs, exceeding the 106,000 that economists had expected. That pushed the headline unemployment rate down to 4.1 percent. It suggests that there is no need for a rate cut at this time.

 

My higher-end target on the S&P 500 Index was exceeded this week. As readers are aware, I have been anticipating a bout of profit-taking in July. Next week, we could see a pullback based on Trump's latest tariff threats. A 2-3 percent sell-off in the averages is possible, which may be a chance for the markets to refuel from overbought levels.

 

And yet, I see no real signs that the bulls want to relinquish their hold on the markets. Seasonally, July is a good month for markets, with an average gain of around 2 percent. In addition, the AAII investor sentiment survey is not nearly as euphoric as it should be, given a 28 percent gain in the stock market from its lows.

 

While there is no sure way to predict an interest rate cut in July or another extension of tariff delays after Aug. 1, either occurrence would send markets higher, possibly into what is called a "blow-off top." If so, this could catapult the S&P to 6,350-6,500 in a relatively short time. As such, over the next two weeks, anything could happen so strap in!

 

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 dermatology sector in health care is expected to grow by almost 7 percent per year between now and 2034. That is good news, but the increasing incidences and prevalence of skin disorders are behind the industry's torrid growth rate.

 

The global market was estimated to top $1.4 billion last year, with North America being the fastest-growing market, followed by the Asia-Pacific. Skin cancer, warts, infections, dermatitis, psoriasis, and acne are among the primary disorders treated using a variety of therapeutic strategies, including cryosurgery, laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, radiation, and vitiligo therapies.

 

Over the past decade, like many other health-care areas, acquisition and investment activity in dermatology has skyrocketed, fueled by private equity, family offices, and institutional investors.

 

I am practically an expert in the area, given the number of times I have been scraped, cut, fried, and zapped over the last several years. As I wait for yet another biopsy on two spots, one on the crown of my head and the other on my forehead, I wonder how come I have all these unrelenting skin treatments when my parents had none, so I did a little research on the subject.

 

Each year in the U.S., an estimated 6.1 million people are treated for skin cancer, and that number is growing. With names such as basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, the most common forms are usually treatable. Most of these maladies are caused by overexposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun and indoor tanning devices.

 

We know that the thinning of the ozone layer, where 90 percent of the earth's ozone sits between six and 31 miles above the surface, is partially responsible. This allows harmful ultraviolet rays (UVA) to penetrate the earth's surface and damage the middle layer of our skin. Unfortunately, it was only in the late 1970s that people realized that man-made chemicals, specifically chlorofluorocarbons, were destroying the ozone.

 

As a Baby Boomer, I recall the 1950s at Barnegat Bay on the Jersey Shore with my family. That's when suntan lotion became "a thing." We kids had to slop Coppertone on, although my parents rarely used it. It did little good anyway since I still managed to get a glowing red sunburn that ended in my peeling away large sections of white dead skin weeks later.

 

Reflecting on the past, I realized that basting in the sun only gained popularity in the late 1950s, at least in this country. It was then that the modern bikini became the rage for American women, shortly after Brigitte Bardot modeled a floral version on the beach at the Cannes Film Festival in 1953.

 

Before that, having a summer tan was the mark of a lower-class individual or an outside day laborer, while pale skin signified anything but. Having a tan became high on everyone's agenda. A tan was healthy, sexy and signified someone on the move.

 

I also recall that every male in America wore a hat of some kind while I was in grammar school. It was only after John F. Kennedy first appeared bareheaded at his 1961 inauguration that wardrobes began to change. He is credited with the death of the men's hat as males of all ages gladly exposed their scalps to the rays of the sun in perpetuity.  

 

The point is that, in general, people wore far more clothes back then than we do both summer and winter. Next week, I will expand on this combination of culture, science and events that conspired to create today's epidemic of skin cancer.

 

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.

Mission accomplished. After a tumultuous six months in 2025, equities managed to overcome every obstacle and closed in on new highs. What does that mean for the second half of the year?

 

The short answer is nothing. We start again. Investors need to take each day as it comes. It is a world where governments have more weight and influence in determining the outcomes of both the economy and the markets than ever before.

 

I hope you read last week's column, "Regional Conflicts Present Buying Opportunities." I reminded investors that recent skirmishes, such as the one between Iran and Israel, usually do not last long and have little bearing on markets three to six months out. This week's cease-fire between the two adversaries is a case in point and is partially responsible for the breakout to new highs we are enjoying today.

 

Kudos to Donald Trump for engineering the circumstances that one can hope will make the Middle East a safer place in the future. And lest you think the president headed off to play golf, think again. He is now brow-beating the Senate to pass his Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) before the Senate's self-imposed deadline of July 4. He has already told legislatures that there will be no vacation days for them until this bill passes.

 

A lot is riding on that bill passing. I believe the market has already discounted its passage, so any hiccups or delays could spark a rush toward the existence. The most significant concern among the dissenting Republican politicians is not the spending part of the bill. Like most politicians, they talk a good show on the need to rein in spending but never do. It is that the cuts in Medicaid and other social programs may hurt some politicians' chances in the next election.

 

As investors await an outcome on that front, the president's feud with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is intensifying. Readers may recall that Trump appointed Powell to lead the Fed back in 2018. Powell's term does not run out until June 2026. But it appears the president doesn't want to wait that long. This week, he floated the idea that he will name his pick to succeed Powell much earlier than is customary, possibly as early as September or October. Interestingly, several members of the Fed are already auditioning for the job by mimicking Trump's demand that the Fed cut interest rates as early as July.

 

Former Fed Governor Kevin Walsh, National Economic Council Director Kevon Hassett, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Fed Governor Christopher Waller, and former World Bank President David Malpass are reportedly on Trump's shortlist. The thinking is that by naming a successor early, the president would undercut Powell's authority for the remainder of his term.

 

The odds of two rate cuts this year are rising, and stocks are climbing in anticipation that this additional pressure will force Powell to reconsider and reduce interest rates.

 

My two cents is that Powell is correct about waiting. As readers are aware, I expect inflation to rise through the end of the year, possibly reaching 2.9-3 percent by December. The Fed's preferred inflation indicator for May, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, released on Friday, showed an increase, which was in line with my expectations but higher than the Street's forecasts. At best, we need to wait until we know whether or not Trump will do another TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) on tariffs in July.

 

All indications are that he will once again postpone. China and the U.S. say they are working toward an agreement on tariffs, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick promises that tariff agreements with 10 nations are "imminent." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent chimed in by predicting that the U.S. could complete the balance of its most important trade talks by Labor Day.

 

Last week, I worried that the war in the Middle East would screw up my bullish forecast: "That leaves the market's range bound and probably short circuits my hope that we could reach 6,100-6,250 on the S&P 500 anytime soon. Now, don't take that as gospel because events could turn on a dime, propelling stocks higher." That is precisely what occurred.

 

We are within striking distance of 6,250, the high end of my target range. Next week is the end of the second quarter and depending on the headlines on tariffs, the BBB, etc., we could see a blow-off top in the markets.  After that, I am looking for some profit-taking in July and possibly August.

 

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.

Stablecoins have become a hot topic lately. The supply of this digital currency has grown from $2 billion to $200 billion, and it is beginning to transition from the digital to the conventional world of finance. The Senate's passage of the GENIUS Act this month sets the stage for stablecoins to further integrate into the global economy.

 

A stablecoin, for those who have yet to dip their toes into the digital world is a cryptocurrency without the notorious volatility typically associated with that asset class. Their value is generally pegged or tied to that of another currency, such as the U.S. dollar, a commodity like gold, or another financial asset, such as a U.S. Treasury bond or bill.

 

Stablecoins can act as a medium of exchange. To do so, a stablecoin, like any other currency, must remain relatively stable, assuring those who accept it that it will retain purchasing power in the short term. That is where the need for collateral comes in. 

 

There are four types of stablecoins, depending on the types of collateral they have chosen. Fiat-collateralized stablecoins maintain a reserve of a fiat currency such as the U.S. dollar or, in some cases, U.S. Treasury debt instruments. As such, stablecoins have become one of the largest holders of U.S. Treasuries in the world. 

 

Other collateral choices include commodity-backed stablecoins, pegged to the market value of individual commodities such as gold, silver, or oil. Crypto-collateralized stablecoins, backed by cryptocurrencies and algorithmic stablecoins, are computer-driven and strive to keep the stablecoin's value stable by controlling its supply.

 

Until now, the stablecoin universe has been considered the exclusive domain of crypto enthusiasts who require a digital cash equivalent to finance their trades. The GENIUS Act, short for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, just passed by the Senate, is intended to open this market to the conventional financial world.

 

The act aims to establish a clear federal framework for stablecoins, introducing strict reserve, licensing, and consumer protection standards. Rather than speculative instruments, the act would treat stablecoins as a payment infrastructure with full reserve backing and monthly audits for issuers to ensure stability and reliability. The legislation now goes to the House, where the act could pass by the end of August.

 

If the act passes, the benefits will likely first accrue to the crypto investor, who can use these stablecoins as a cash management tool. For example, it could be a place to store their profits from Bitcoin or Ethereum, Solano, etc., without converting those gains back into a fiat currency.  The investor could even receive an interest rate return, as many of these stablecoins now offer annual yields similar to those of money-market mutual funds. If a new opportunity in the crypto universe comes along, he could then use these stablecoins to acquire it with his stablecoins.

 

If the GENIUS Act becomes law, it would be logical to transition this digital asset into conventional finance. These coins, for example, could be used similarly to debit-card-based payments. In the brave new world of digitalization, stablecoins offer some real advantages.

 

It all comes down to time and money. In today's conventional transfer of funds between two or more parties, intermediaries charge a fee based on the amount transferred and typically require a waiting period before the transaction is complete. Some sums of money can take days to settle or more or are limited to being transacted only during specific windows of opportunity, such as bank working days.

 

Blockchain technology eliminates most of that. Stablecoins enable near-instant transfers, improved settlement speeds, and reconciliation of business payments almost instantly. Internal branch-to-branch or book transfers for banks, as well as intercompany settlements, would also be much faster and cheaper than straight money transfers. Many transactions could be significantly less expensive because they bypass intermediaries.

 

Additionally, stablecoins can utilize contract technology to facilitate automated payments under predefined conditions and events. Real-time transaction tracking would become commonplace, and stablecoins could be used across various platforms, wallets, and networks. A well-regulated digital entity could trigger significant changes in the way money is transferred among governments, banks, merchants, technology platforms, and digital wallets, as well as between traditional and decentralized financial systems.

 

For consumers, three obvious benefits include online shopping and sending and receiving money internationally, as well as paying utilities, subscription services, rent, and, at some point, even mortgage payments.

 

There has been a complete turnaround in the government's attitude toward all things crypto, largely thanks to President Trump and his administration. In the case of stablecoins, the U.S. Treasury has been particularly enthusiastic over the prospect of institutionalizing the acceptance of these coins. Since most stablecoins are pegged to the dollar (over 90 percent), they help to cement and maintain the dollar's dominant role in the global economy. A growth industry, such as stablecoins, could also increase the use of U.S. Treasuries as collateral. That would open up a vast new market for our sovereign debt, something that would likely keep long-term bond yields in check for the foreseeable future. In any case, stablecoins are part of the new digital frontier, and I expect to see their use sprout throughout society in the years ahead.

 

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.