The Fed stands tall

Sometimes it takes a while, but financial markets almost always test a new incoming Federal Reserve Bank Chairman. On Wednesday, Jerome Powell faced his test and passed with flying colors. Of course, a glance at the stock market averages at the end of the day on Wednesday, would have the casual observers scratching their heads. As most readers know, the stock market has been declining since October. One of the reasons for the sell-off is the fear that the Federal Reserve Bank’s gradual tightening policies have gone too far. Their continuous interest rate hikes coupled with the selling of $50 billion of U.S. Treasury bonds every month had started to reduce the excess liquidity from the financial markets. Investors fear that these actions will slow the growth of the economy and tip the country into a recession as early as next year. No one is sure that this will happen, although most economists are already ratcheting down our forecasted growth rate to somewhere around 2-2.5% for 2019. That is by no means a recession, simply a slowing of growth, but nonetheless, investors have decided to sell first and see what happens as events unfold. The continued losses in the stock market, after so many years of gains, have driven the level of angst to a point where the markets (and the president) have demanded that the Fed stop tightening—now. The media and Wall Street, coming into Wednesday’s FOMC meeting, were convinced that the Fed would cave-in to their demands and announce a cessation of their tightening policies. Investors wanted him to say no more rate hikes and possibly a...

The market’s winter storm

Stocks worldwide have experienced a downdraft since October. All the gains so painstakingly made thus far in 2018 have been erased. Volatility has battered markets with all the severity of a Nor’easter. Next year may prove to be a continuation of the same. It is interesting that the culprits responsible for this change of heart in the markets have been around for just about all of the past year. Leading the list is Donald Trump. It was our president that decided to wage a trade war against the world. There has been little success in his battle thus far. The prospect of more of the same faces us well into the new year. The Federal Reserve Bank can also take some blame. After over a decade of “easy money,” the new Fed chief, Jerome Powell, (appointed by Donald Trump), has decided to raise interest rates and sell $50 billion in Treasury bonds every month for the foreseeable future. In his own way, Powell is draining the system that has been swamped with money for years. As a result of both the continued threat of a trade war and rising interest rates, the economy is slowing. It has not lost enough steam to threaten a recession, but it has removed the wind from the market’s sails, to say the least. Let us not forget the controversy raging across the pond. The United Kingdom is having a devil of a time pulling off their exit from the European Community. On the one hand, the EU doesn’t want to make it too easy for this to happen, lest other members might follow...

Will our country’s military win the next war?

There was a time, not long ago, when most Americans would answer that question in the affirmative without much thought. It was one of those “truisms” that we didn’t give much thought. But today, many experts are debating that answer. Back in the day, after WW II, our military prowess, (aided by the development of the atomic bomb) was unquestioned throughout the world. Growing up, it was never a question of spending on defense for me, it was simply how much. Republicans wanted more, Democrats wanted less. Today, not only is the amount of spending crucial but also its predictability and even more importantly, what those billions are spent on. The Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy was issued in January. Like all of their tomes before, it is heavy reading and fairly boring but this time around things were different. The United States Institute of Peace, a federal institution, issued a 98-page report rebutting some of the assumptions made about peacetime competition or wartime conflict. The authors focused primarily on our top competitors for global hegemony, Russia and China, but also included recognized threats in Europe, Asia, portions of the Middle East. The report authored by a panel of former security officials and military experts did not mince words. “The U.S. military could suffer unacceptably high casualties and loss of major capital assets in its next conflict. It might struggle to win or perhaps lose, a war against China and Russia. The United Sates is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed should its military be forced to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously.” Unlike WW II, where we did...

Markets hope for trade break through

This Saturday evening, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping will sit down to dinner in Buenos Aires at the G-20 conference. Investors are holding their breath, hoping that the two might come to some agreement that could lower tensions and avert a full-out trade war between the U.S. and China. Given past rhetoric and the president’s mercurial temperament, anything could happen. Xi Jinping and his advisors, after years of dealing with Washington, believe if they just hang tough and wait Trump out, the outcome will be “business as usual” on their terms. Unfortunately, Wall Street and the media have created another binary event out of the dinner. Either there is a breakthrough, in which case the markets roar higher, or there is no deal and stocks fall back to the lows and maybe break them. I wish it were that easy. The trade relations between our two countries are complicated. I mean really complicated and no single dinner or event is going to solve it. A new economic relationship with China will take months, even years, and require talks on many fronts. Tariffs are just one small issue in these talks, although the president uses that issue constantly in his tweets and rallies. Whether he is truly that naïve (a possibility) or is just using a dumb-down approach for the benefit of his political base, is unknown. His rhetoric on many other issues (immigrants, the Wall, jobs, the Media, Mueller, etc.) indicates that he believes his audience has little understanding and even less patience on the issues that beset us than he does. Clearly, the president has had a “bad...

Sustainability investing and the millennials

The demand for sustainability investments is growing. Companies that offer measurable social and environmental impacts that address issues like world hunger, climate risk, poverty and access to health care, seem like a good investment for those socially-minded. Finding companies that also provide a good financial return at the same time is not so easy. Sustainability investing is different from the decades-old trend called “social investing.” Generally, social investments are those that bet on solar power, clean water, or the avoidance of “sin stocks” such as tobacco, guns or liquor companies. Most of these areas were not viable investments without a great deal of government help. The idea of sustainability goes far beyond that concept. In this modern-day make-over, the idea is to use your money to solve some of these enormous global environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues and also make a profit over the long-term. Of all social groups measured, it is the Millennials who profess the most interest (80%) in social-impact investing. An increasing number of younger investors (28%) are putting their money where their mouth is. They want to select investments that reflect their own values and personal priorities. After all, when you think about it, they are inheriting a world that we, the Baby Boomers, have totally messed up. Just look around you. Our fossil fuels are burning the planet alive. The air in China, or in Mexico City among many other locales, is so bad citizens routinely where masks. Millions are starving. Water is fast disappearing from much of the earth. I know, I know, I can already see yours eyes glaze over. By...