| Home | About | Archives | RSS Feed |
The Retired Investor: Lessons Learned From Brexit
It has been 10 years since Brexit took center stage in the politics of the Western world. The populist furor of an unhappy electorate triggered Great Britain's exit from the European Union. How has that worked out for the Brits?
The populist rhetoric of a "Global Britain," their answer to MAGA, was supposed to secure their borders by reducing immigration. Bureaucracy would be jettisoned; regulations and the budget would finally be restored after 14 years of Conservative Party mismanagement.
It would be the first populism-led attempt to overhaul one of the world's oldest and wealthiest democracies. A decade later, it appears the nation is up to its ears in chaos. Prime Minister Keir Starmer resigned this month after serving less than two years despite a landslide Labor Party victory. He was supposed to save the country from years of successive Conservative Party prime ministers.
Instead, the country is struggling with low growth, higher inflation, faltering public services and an electorate that is every bit as angry and partisan as our own. Over the past decade, the country has had six prime ministers. David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak and now Keir Starmer are some of the names you may recognize. Brexit itself, scandal, market panic, immigration, and electoral rejection are just some of the factors that have sunk Britain's leaders.
Back when, many economists were predicting an immediate recession if the country left the EU. It didn't happen. What happened was that, over time, the British economy grew far less than it might have if it had stayed in the trade bloc. At the same time, business investment and productivity slumped as trade suffered. The typical family is worse off by thousands of pounds per year.
The pound dripped sharply after the Brexit vote, collapsing by 10 percent, the largest one-day drop in its history. That triggered a sharp increase in import prices, leading to an inflation shock that affected everyone across the board. The exit from the EU also involved erecting trade barriers that hit goods exports, since the EU was still the UK's largest trading partner until last year.
The problem deepened since no one in government had a clear plan on what to do once the votes were counted. This led to years of political infighting and indecision. A weaker currency should have led to a surge in exports, but the uncertainty around Britain's future clouded business judgment and investment. Investment is estimated to be almost 18 percent lower and productivity 4 percent lower than it would have been if a plan had been forthcoming.
The currency has never recovered.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent watchdog of the UK Treasury, predicts that the UK is on track to suffer a 4 percent hit to national income over a 15-year period. A U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research report claims that the country's GDP per head is between 6 percent and 8 percent lower than it would have been without Brexit.
As for unemployment, that fell dramatically in the initial Brexit days to the lowest rates since the 1970s. However, COVID took its toll on the labor market. The employment rate has never really recovered and remains between 3 percent and 4 percent below what it would be under a "remain" decision.
Can I extrapolate from the UK's experiences to the present immigration, trade, and tariff policies of the Trump administration? Not really, at least in the short-term. Equity markets in both countries recovered quickly after the referendum and Trump's Liberation Day. Both countries' economists initially predicted a steep decline in economic activity, and both were wrong. However, over the long term (a decade in the UK), large trade policy shocks seem to lead to lower investment, productivity, and employment growth as supply chains and trade patterns unravel.
Not surprisingly, public support for Brexit has fallen since the 52 percent versus 48 percent leave vote. Today a majority of voters (56 percent) would back rejoining the EU, according to YouGov, and 70 percent of Britons support a closer relationship with the EU. Support is strongest among Labour and Green Party voters and weakest among Nigel Farage's right-wing, Reform UK party. Reform UK members oppose rejoining the bloc by 83 percent. That party has gained support as immigration and affordability have become major issues for voters.
The next candidate for PM, at least among the Labour Party, is Andy Burnham, a Manchester mayor with authentic populist appeal. In a special election, Burnham beat the Reform Party, which pundits believe will clear the way for him to head his party and win the PM title in Britain. The question is how long he can last, given the issues and the populism in his country and around the world.
Readers may recall several of my past columns in which I have explained the populist wave of discontent in the U.S. and worldwide. I wrote that, here at home, over a 20-plus-year period, no single president survived to serve a second term, except Richard Nixon (who was impeached without completing his second term).
Populist voters have a very short fuse. Promises are made, but unless real progress is made within four years, the electorate has no patience for incumbents who can't or won't deliver. Overseas, beyond the UK, France, Germany, and Hungary, several other countries are facing populist challenges to incumbent parties.
We are seeing this here in the U.S. as we head into the midterms. Promises made but not kept have sent President Trump's approval ratings into the 30s. Within the Democrat Party primaries, a war is already brewing between a growing populist wing of the party and the more conservative incumbents. Established Democrats, their critics say, offer failed 40-year-old policy solutions that have been rejected out of hand by younger generations of disenfranchised voters.
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.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
@theMarket: Stocks Have Best Quarter in Six Years
The benchmark S&P 500 Index had its best quarter since 2020. It did so with help from the Magnificent 7 and the technology sector, but other areas also participated. That was a good thing.
For the last few years, the handful of stocks that make up the MAG 7 have done most of the heavy lifting in keeping markets positive. In the last six months, the story has changed. A lot more stocks participated in the gains, and some believe that this broadening out of upside participation will continue in the second half of the year.
Here are some of the numbers: Dow +13 percent, Nasdaq +21.4 percent, S&P 500 +14.9 percent, Russell 2000 +21 percent, and the equal-weight S&P +11 percent. The Mag 7 gained 18 percent. And while technology was the clear winner, helped by strong gains in the AI-fueled semiconductor index, industrials, consumer discretionary, financials, healthcare, and communications also posted significant gains.
This performance becomes even more significant considering what investors have had to face since January. Topping the list of worries was the Trump War and subsequent explosion in oil prices. Inflation accelerated, expectations of Fed interest rate cuts reversed, and rate hikes became a possibility. Rounding out the list was the new Fed chief, who took over and sounded more hawkish than most expected.
Supply chain disruptions caused by the closure of the Straits of Hormuz sent oil, fertilizer, natural gas, and other essential products higher. The worst performers were among last year's best. Gold, silver, and most other precious metals and basic materials lagged the markets. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and just about all other cryptocurrencies also ended in the red, by substantial amounts. If a market ever had to scale a wall of worry, this was it!
As readers know, artificial intelligence plays fueled much of the technology sector's gains. However, stellar earnings results across the board in equities consistently beat analysts' expectations. The quarter has ended and with it the last few days of window-dressing by institutions. Every quarter, money managers want to show their clients that they hold the latest winners while few of the losers.
At the same time, the beginning of July (before and after the Fourth) is normally positive for the markets. This year, with the nation's celebration of its 250th birthday, the bulls may want to push prices a bit higher. So be it.
The economy is still growing, and employment, while plateauing, is holding up. Now that oil prices are declining, inflation should begin to decelerate over the next few months. The non-farm payroll data helped the markets along on Thursday, the last trading day of the week. The U.S. labor market added just 57,000 jobs in June while the unemployment rate dipped to 4.2 percent. That was well below estimates. If you consider that, on average, payroll data inflates job gains by about 60,000 jobs per month, the real number after revisions may have been a job loss.
Why that would be good for financial markets lies in the Fed's equations for full employment and reduced inflation. Kevin Warsh, the new Fed head, said Wednesday ,while speaking on a European economic panel, that the inflation data was a little better than expected recently. That is largely due to the swift decline in oil prices.
Now, we have a weaker jobs number. The calculus of investor expectations on whether the Warsh-led central bank will raise interest rates suddenly looks less likely. That's all the markets needed to see on a slow day where most of the Street has already taken off for the beach, mountains, or backyard BBQs.
The S&P 500 Index is holding up despite a wobble in tech. That is because of the rotation trade. Healthcare, financials, industrials, consumer staples, even real estate and utilities are getting a bid. I noticed that some of the bloom is coming off the technology sector. AI memory stocks are getting clobbered. The semiconductor trade is faltering as well. Technology overall is in its ninth or tenth day of volatility, with more lower highs than higher highs. That is a worrisome sign.
As for the three-day holiday celebrating America's 250th birthday, enjoy it where you can. Hopefully, a pond, lake, or ocean is close by. Otherwise, be grateful for air conditioning!
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.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: Sovereign Wealth Fund Could Help Solve America's Financial Issues
Critics dismiss a federal sovereign wealth fund as a "solution looking for a problem." We can't afford one, they say, we are already in too much debt. The real solution is to cut spending and raise taxes.
How has that solution been working for you? My argument is that buying stakes in our companies, especially in strategic areas, by a U.S. government fund will only improve our financial position. Not only within our own country, but also in our ability to compete globally.
Investments in areas like artificial intelligence could generate far more cash and profits in the future than we could imagine. Those profits could be used to pay down our debt, reduce deficits, and fund the country's needs in areas like healthcare, alternative energy, clean energy initiatives, and social programs.
Unlike some advocates who argue that the government should hold a large stake (20 percent or more) in companies, I believe this would be excessive and would impede companies' ability to operate efficiently in competitive markets. Japan, for example, limits its holdings in that country's equity markets to no more than 7-8 percent.
What will it take to convince Congress and the public to establish such a fund? Unfortunately, I suspect it will most likely occur during a financial crisis. Crisis, what crisis, you are probably thinking. The markets have shown they are just too resilient for that to occur. That was my attitude until last month.
That is when I heard Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who navigated us through the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, warn of a potential "doom loop" in the bond market. He worries that demand for U.S. government debt could collapse soon.
This, he said, could trigger a cycle of lower bond prices, higher yields, and rising inflation. There is more than an element of truth to that since our government's Treasury market underpins everything from mortgage rates to corporate borrowing to equity prices. He urged policymakers to prepare an emergency plan and have it ready when demand for U.S. government debt falters.
While his comments did not elicit much comment from the media, his warning, by no means, should be taken as just 'off the cuff' remarks. In my experience, Paulson, like any ex-Treasury chief, doesn't just start spouting off about a debt crisis unless it's vetted. To me, it was a clear trial balloon well-crafted by the Fed and the U.S. Treasury. The "when" of such an event is difficult. If his doom loop is correct, sometime next year might be a good guess.
In the meantime, I believe legislation to establish a federal sovereign wealth fund will be passed with bipartisan support. It will be part of this "on the shelf" emergency response plan that Paulson urged the administration to work out now.
A crisis, as he suggested, would leave the Federal Reserve as the lone buyer of our treasuries. Realistically, that would mean the government could be forced to "print" money in one form or another. That would trigger a fresh round of inflation, eroding valuations across most asset classes, including equity.
This could cause a large (30 percent-plus) decline in the stock market. That most certainly creates a crisis. If so, it would be an ideal time for a newly established federal U.S. sovereign wealth fund to enter the market. The fund could establish substantial positions in a wide range of companies at bargain-basement prices. Not only would that be ideal from a price perspective, but it would also establish a floor under the stock market. That would shift investor psychology from 'the Fed has our back' to 'the fund has our back.'
Readers may dismiss my observations as little more than a pie-in-the-sky daydream (or nightmare), especially given a stock market at record highs. However, this administration has taken great pains to offer added incentives to more Americans to enter the equity and bond markets via tax-deferred retirement accounts. Some argue this may only be a prelude to dismantling Social Security. They may be right.
However, if that were true, as the number of Americans involved in the financial markets broadens through retirement accounts, there is an added incentive by the government to ensure that, in the event of another financial crisis, retirement savers do not lose their shirts. What better way than through the support of a sovereign wealth fund that has our back?
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.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
@theMarket: Rotation Takes Center Stage as Markets Consolidate
Traders took profits in the red-hot technology sector. That money has been flowing into areas like healthcare, housing, and industrials. That's a good thing since it keeps the downside somewhat in check.
Professional money managers always stress that a proper portfolio should be well-diversified, so that no one individual sector can overwhelm your long-term performance. Under that strategic investment case, as one sector gets extended (like technology has), money flows out of high-priced stocks and migrates into other areas that are cheaper but still have good prospects.
Most readers know that the MAG 7 stocks have an enormous weighting in the S&P 500 Index. This has been going on for a long time, and the result has been that many U.S. funds have some exposure to this handful of stocks. It's called concentration risk. Right now, for various reasons, these stocks are out of favor.
There are two ways this can work itself out. A bout of profit-taking can take the equity indexes down all at once, causing a sharp decline, or the money leaving tech can find its way into other sectors and stocks. That's called rotation.
In addition, within the technology sector, the AI trade has not only led the area higher but, in many cases, has pushed valuations to stratospheric levels. When an entire sector is dependent on the earnings announcement of a handful of stocks, or this week just one, Micron Technology, the risk is somewhere in the stratosphere.
In this case, Micron, an AI memory play, topped earnings expectations for the quarter, sending the stock price up more than 15 percent. For the bulls, Micron seemed to dispel worries that the AI infrastructure investment case was faltering. The company told investors that revenues were expected to climb by 346 percent year over year and earnings after adjustments were $25.11 per share, versus the Street's expectations of $20.60.
That gave investors a reason to stampede the averages higher, with the Nasdaq posting a more than 2 percent gain on Thursday's opening. It didn't last long. Traders took the opportunity to sell down even more of the highflyers. To me, when markets sell off on good news, you should pay attention.
In any case, markets managed to hang in there. They did so because the flow of money out of tech rolled into healthcare, banks, industrials, and other sectors. Markets were also supported by the continued decline in the oil price. Oil fell below $70 a barrel. At one point, as investors decided to turn the page on Trump's War. It seems clear that Trump's War will have significant downsides for the U.S. and the world at large.
Despite Trump's denials, both Oman and Iran plan to charge as much as $40 billion per year to travel through the Straits of Hormuz. That will hurt Europe more than the U.S., since it imports a lot of Middle Eastern oil through the Straits. Thanks to Trump's short-sighted war, Iran has realized they have a far greater weapon in their hands than simply nuclear reactors — control of the Straits. They now control, at their whim, a global economic lever that can hold the nations of the world hostage.
As for the U.S., when you cut through the BS, it seems clear that the Trump administration is willing to pay billions of dollars to the Iranians, free up billions more in frozen Iranian assets, and that's just to get them to agree to a ceasefire. There has been no regime change other than to solidify the position of the anti-American Revolutionary Guard and install a hardline cleric of the same family as supreme leader. As for their nuclear ambitions, so far, nothing concrete has been agreed upon. Yes, the tiny Iranian navy, and even smaller air force and missile defense, have been decimated, but at what cost? Failure would be a generous term to describe this war.
On a macroeconomic level, however, the damage has been done, according to the latest Personal Consumer Expenditures (PCE) data for May. The PCE hit a three-year high, rising 4.1 percent up versus the 3.8 percent increase in April. Given that the PCE is the Fed's preferred inflation index, investors know that the data dashes any hope for a rate cut. It also keeps the possibility of a rate hike very much in the forefront.
I believe the prospect of immediate interest rate hikes is remote at best, as I expect inflation to slow over the next several months. The May data did not capture the ceasefire, the reopening of the Straits, nor the subsequent drop in oil prices. The recent decline in oil prices from $112/bbl. to $69 /bbl. just adds further confidence to my slower inflation forecast.
As such, the prospect of a slowing but still growing economy seems quite good. I do not expect interest rates to go higher in the near term either, which appears to offer a pretty good scenario for stocks going forward. That does not mean up, up, and away.
The period before mid-term elections is usually volatile, and this one appears no different. Equity valuations near record highs, profit-taking in tech, the summer doldrums, and an unhappy populace are not conducive to another near-term equity run-up.
Over the last two weeks, I have been warning readers that a period of consolidation was in the cards. The July-August period seemed an ideal time for this to occur. I guess some traders are getting ahead of the pack by selling this week.
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.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund a Good Idea?
What do Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have in common? Yes, they are both octogenarians, but even more important, they want to establish a sovereign wealth fund in the U.S. They may differ in their approach, but it is an idea whose day has come.
The number of sovereign wealth funds worldwide now exceeds 100. These state-owned investment funds are professionally managed and intended to provide their countries and citizens with an investment pool that delivers long-term financial returns, enhances national wealth, and fosters fiscal stability.
The largest such fund in the world is the Norwegian Government Pension Fund with assets of over $2.11 trillion. The Chinese rank second and third, with the SAFE Investment Company ($1.95 trillion) and the China Investment Corp ($1.56 trillion). The Arab nations make up most of the remaining entries on the top ten list.
It may surprise readers that, while there is no Federal fund, Alaska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming do have state-sponsored investment funds. Several Native American and Alaskan Native tribes also manage similar funds.
In February 2025, the president issued an executive order directing the Treasury and Commerce departments to develop a plan for creating a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. They did, but the White House didn't like some of the particulars. In addition, like so many of the administration's initiatives, Congress must also approve such a plan. It has also established a commission to study the matter.
In the meantime, Trump has taken 10 percent stakes in a variety of companies, including Intel and IBM. OpenAI's Sam Altman, the CEO of the AI startup that is planning to go public this year, has been talking to the administration about a government stake in his company. Altman suggested he could donate equity in his company to seed a potential wealth fund.
On June 1, Sanders announced he planned to introduce legislation establishing the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. The act would impose a 50 percent tax on OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI giants, payable in stock. In this way, the public would be given a direct stake in AI and its leading companies. This is not too far from the thoughts and discussions Trump has been having with AI sector managements for more than a year.
In this era of populism, where demonstrations against the threat of job loss due to AI are becoming more frequent, a government-owned wealth fund would give the people a direct role not only in determining the future of this technology but also in giving more than the very rich an opportunity to benefit from the trillions of dollars being spent on developing AI.
The key reasons cited for why the U.S. has yet to establish such a fund center revolve around the country's current poor fiscal health. The government has been running huge budget deficits that are increasing every year. In comparison, most sovereign wealth funds are typically established by countries that generate budget surpluses from natural resources or other revenue streams.
In the U.S., with a national debt of more than $37 trillion, where would the money come from to establish such a fund? Critics argue that instead of a fund, the government should focus on managing its existing debt and reducing budget deficits. In addition, the prospect of cronyism and mismanagement is a great concern.
In my opinion, the critics have it wrong. Next week, I will argue why a federal sovereign wealth fund could be essential especially in a time of financial crisis if it should occur.
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.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
