A combination of anti-business government policies, worsening U.S.-Sino relations, and several draconian actions by Chinese authorities have cast a pall over foreign investment and the Chinese stock market. Chinese equities have lost $7 trillion since the market's peak in 2021. That interests me.

 

On Wall Street, the Chinese stock market is now considered "uninvestable." Main Street and the politicians who represent them are just as negative. Anti-China rhetoric and U.S. actions, from the attempt to force a sale of TikTok to forbidding Chinese nationals from buying land here, is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

It is as if we are already at war with China. In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, Rory Truex, an associate professor at Princeton University who focuses on Chinese authoritarianism, says it best.

 

"America's collective national body is suffering from a chronic case of China anxiety. Nearly anything with the word 'Chinese' in front of it now triggers a fear response in our political system, muddling our ability to properly gauge and contextualize threats."

 

That attitude usually spells opportunity in the investment world. I do not dispute the gravity or seriousness of that country's political and economic issues. Much of the malaise in China is of their own making. The zero-COVID policies gutted their economy. The government authorities, unlike those of the Western world, did little to help the country recover. The impact of the Trump trade wars lingers on with no resolution. The lifetime appointment of Xi Jinping created an even more rigid authoritarian government. I believe Xi's one-man rule felt threatened by the success of China's successful free-market-oriented companies. Policies were promulgated that stripped those companies of their entrepreneurial spirit, increased the government's control with management, trod on shareholder rights, and, as a result, sent their share prices to historic lows.

 

The Chinese support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine cemented the growing anti-China policies in Europe. In the U.S. these negative attitudes gathered even more steam as China grew closer to Russia. Is it any wonder that "uninvestable" became the new watchword for China?

 

However, what so many Americans forget is that hundreds of U.S. companies have huge investments in China. China revenues, for example, account for 19 percent of Apple's sales, while 44 percent of its suppliers' production sites are based in China. Caterpillar, Tesla, McDonald's, Nike, and Starbucks; I could go on, but you get the point.

 

Bank of America's manager survey recently noted that the most crowded trades in the global stock markets were to go long on U.S. technology, followed by shorting China technology. In January, the mainland and Hong Kong experienced a meltdown as even Chinese investors threw in the towel.

 

However, since Feb. 2, stocks began making a comeback. There were no big announcements of government stimulus but there was a visible relaxation of many of the policies that brought on the crisis of confidence in the first place. As a result, China technology is now beating both U.S. technology and U.S. large caps by more than 20 percent. The overall market has gained more than that. And yet most global investors remain underweight in the world's second-largest economy.

 

In international investing, I have learned to pay attention to what the locals are doing. Chinese investors are, without question, already buying Chinese stocks. The "National Team," i.e. investors associated with the country's sovereign wealth funds, are buying mega-cap Shanghai and Shenzhen-listed stocks. Mainland investors are buying Hong Kong-listed stocks as well.

 

American investors are only beginning to take notice. By types of investors, momentum traders like hedge funds and some individual investors that can move quickly are starting to dip their toes into these waters. If this rally persists, more institutions will begin to see this rebound as something more than a dead-cat bounce. In this case, institutional investment committees will meet to discuss changing their "underweight" positions and may up their investment stance to neutral.

 

But institutions move slowly, and this will take time. However, active fund managers that track their performance against world indexes are already behind the eight ball thanks to the recent rally and their underweight China stance. At some point, (likely when Chinese stocks experience a minor pullback), some of these funds will start buying.

 

In any case, we could be looking at the beginning of a longer-term reversal in the Chinese stock market. Now, Chinese equities are experiencing a sharp bout of profit-taking after ten up days in a row. This is normal and could be an opportunity to get in.

 

Granted, buying equities in China is not for the faint of heart. I would say it is about as risky as buying cryptocurrencies, maybe more. Since most emerging markets funds have some portion of their funds invested in China, that may be a less risky way to go if you decide to take a flyer on China, even if it is "uninvestable."

 

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 was a week where macroeconomic data, corporate earnings, and the Federal Reserve dictated the direction of the markets on almost a daily basis. By the end of the week, the verdict was a plus for the bulls.

 

On Friday, the non-farm payrolls indicated that the labor market cooled notably in April. The U.S. economy added 175,000 new jobs which was a lot lower than the expected job gains of 240,000. The unemployment rate rose to 3.9 percent. What is bad news for the economy is good news for the stock market since weaker macroeconomic data means the Fed may cut interest rates sooner rather than later.

 

At the Federal Open Market Committee meeting on Wednesday, the central bank, as expected, maintained their higher for longer stance on interest rates as they await further data on the direction of inflation. He also laughed at the notion of stagflation seeing neither the "stag" nor the "inflation" required to indicate this economic condition.

 

The good news was that the central bank reduced the number of bonds they planned to sell into the debt markets. For months the Fed has been reducing the size of their balance sheet by selling government bonds. That has put pressure on bond prices. This quantitative tightening or QT has been part of the Fed's efforts to tame inflation.

 

Slowing down the rate of selling is good news but has much less impact than cutting interest rates. That, says the Fed's Chairman Jerome Powell, will have to wait until he sees more progress in bringing inflation back to its 2 percent target.

 

What has most concerned many investors is the possibility that if inflation remains sticky, the Fed will be forced to hike interest rates once again. Powell eased investors' concerns on that subject during the Q&A session after the meeting when he said, "It is unlikely the next policy move will be a hike."

 

On a positive note, first-quarter corporate earnings for the S&P 500 Index have been positive so far. More than 340 companies or 68 percent of the S&P 500, have reported. Overall, 80 percent are beating estimates and those that beat have done so by an average of 7 percent. Magnificent Seven stocks still have the power to move markets. The earnings disappoint of Meta on one day and the surprise beats by Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple sent markets up and down whip sawing traders in the process.

 

Most American investors are so hyper-focused on U.S. equities that what happens overseas is sometimes ignored. It seems to me, for example, that investors, as well as the financial media, have written off China as a basket case. I am not so sure that is the case. FXI, the largest China exchange-traded fund (ETF), is up 20 percent since the Chinese New Year.

 

There is also a stealth rally going on behind the scenes in Chinese large-cap technology, as represented by the KWEB ETF, which holds companies like Alibaba, Baidu, and JD.com, among others.

 

The tech sector (up 30 percent year-to-date) has outperformed its counterparts in the U.S. market. Bank of America's manager survey recently noted that the most crowded trades were long U.S. technology, followed by short China technology. It could be that some global investors are selling high-priced tech stocks in the U.S., India, and Japan and using the proceeds to buy these cheap tech stocks in China.

 

As for the overall market, the index averages have been a chop fest this week. As I expected, earlier in the week we did sell-off, dropping almost 100 points on the S&P 500 Index before recovering. As a result, we have made little headway for the week, tacking on at most 32 points on the S&P 500. I expect we need to climb a little higher (5,181) before I can sound the all-clear for the rest of the month.

 

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 number of U.S. workers who claimed union membership increased ever so slightly last year from 14.3 million in 2022 to 14.4 million. However, as a share of the American workforce, union membership hit a new low. Today only one in 10 workers in America wear the union badge.

 

Back in 1983, union membership was as high as 20.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yet, every day we hear of some effort to unionize workers across a wide spectrum of companies and industries. Starbucks, CVS, and Amazon come to mind. In 2023, the United Auto Workers (UAW) occupied headlines for months as they negotiated new contracts with General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis — and won.

 

It turned out that these hard-fought labor agreements marked the biggest win for the auto unions in 40 years. This was followed by wins by UPS workers and Hollywood writers in their labor contracts. These victories on the labor front have inspired and galvanized efforts to organize across the nation. Even the live performers at Disneyland are organizing a vote to join the Actor's Equity Association.

 

The UAW, emboldened by their victories last year, has set its sights on the South where unions have been a non-starter historically. This region of the country has opposed unions from legal, business, political, and cultural standpoints. But that has not deterred the UAW.

 

Last month the first crack in that southern wall of opposition appeared when Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tenn., voted to become the only non-Detroit automotive assembly plant to be unionized. This was the third time since 2014 that unions fought for the right to organize at that plant.

 

Also in April, the UAW reached a deal with Daimler Truck in North Carolina that averted a strike and gave workers a 25 percent increase in wages over the next four years. The agreement also included profit sharing, automatic cost-of-living increases, and equalized pay among workers at all of Daimler's North Carolina factories. Next month, the Mercedes-Benz plant in Tuscaloosa, Ala., will be voting to unionize as well.

 

Governors in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas are fighting back. They have been denouncing the UAW and its efforts. In most of these states, "right to work" laws do make it more difficult for unions to collect dues, but not impossible.

 

However, countering that pressure are the results of a Gallup Poll that indicates an overwhelming majority of Americans (7 out of 10) approve of labor unions. Another poll by the UAW last year indicated that 91 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents, and 52 percent of Republicans supported unions and their goals. And well they should, given that a study by the Center for American Progress indicated that there is a large wealth gap between workers in unions and those non-union workers across all education levels.

 

They found union workers make 10-15 percent more than their non-organized brethren. The median wealth of those in unions was $338,482 compared to $199,948 for nonunion workers. However, many other benefits accrue to union workers over time. Job security, defined benefit retirement plans, better health care, and even higher homeownership rates.

 

Unionized workers lacking a high school degree make more than three times the wealth of their nonunion peers. Those with some college education, like nurses or dental hygienists, earn 2.5 times more. Unionized teachers, college professors, journalists, and government employees also do better than their nonunionized peers.

 

While the overall number of union members is still tiny compared to the overall workforce, unions do tend to have an outsized influence on the fortunes of the workforce. Their battle for better pay and benefits has had a trickle-down effect. Their gains have been known to impact and influence the economic well-being of most U.S. workers over time.

 

Some point out that the union's success of late may have more to do with the tightness of the labor market than the prowess of unions. Companies, worried about attrition, may be more willing to negotiate rather than suffer employee departures or suffer strikes. Whatever the case, I will always be on the side of the worker and as such applaud the recent trend and hope it continues.

 

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 S&P 500 bounced by more than 2 percent this week, retracing almost half of the 5 percent decline we have suffered so far in April. The jury is still out on whether this is only a dead-cat bounce or a signal that the downside is over.

 

It was a week of mixed messages for sure. Good earnings drove markets up on Monday and Tuesday. About 43 percent of companies listed on the S&P 500 Index have reported so far. Overall, 57 percent of them are beating estimates. Those that have been beaten are doing so by a median of 8 percent. There have been stand-out winners and losers among them.

 

Meta, for example, had good results, but its future guidance (higher capital expenditures and lower second-quarter sales) disappointed the markets. As most are aware, Meta is one of the most favored Magnificent Seven stocks. Disappointment in Meta caused the NASDAQ and other indexes to fall (one step back).

 

Thursday night Google and Microsoft reported better-than-expected results and propelled markets higher by one percent or more on Friday (two steps forward). Stocks were buffeted in both directions as traders were forced to reverse positions daily. To say the week was volatile would be an understatement.

 

This volatility was aided and abetted by macroeconomic data as well. The announcement that the U.S. economy in the first quarter of 2024 grew at its slowest pace in nearly two years, threw investors for a loop. The economy grew at 1.6 percent over the last three months, which missed the consensus forecast of at least 2.5 percent growth. That is a big drop considering that in the fourth quarter of 2023, GDP came in at 3.4 percent. Even worse, inflation, as measured by the core Personal Consumption Expenditures Index, grew by 3.7 percent, above estimates of 3.4 percent and a lot higher than the prior quarter's 2 percent. This was followed by the Fed's favorite inflation indicator, the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index on Friday morning which also came in higher than expected. The combination of lower economic growth and higher inflation immediately triggered talk of stagflation.

 

I think talk of stagflation is a bit premature at this point but that didn't stop traders from bidding up the price of gold and other commodities. Stagflation is the best possible scenario for pushing the price of gold higher. It is already one of the best-performing assets this year and bulls believe it could go much higher.

 

The question on my mind is whether this week's gains are simply a counter-trend rally or the end of the recent sell-off. Last week, I advised readers that "the technical charts say that we should expect a counter-trend rally, commonly called a dead-cat bounce. Unfortunately, the probabilities indicate that a bounce will not signal the selling is over."

 

For those investors that are not aware, "if you drop a dead cat from a high enough building it will surely bounce." I first encountered this saying back in 1985 when both the Singaporean and Malaysian markets were in free fall. These bounces are predictable, and they usually occur on declining volume. That is exactly what happened this week. It usually sucks in the FOMO crowd, who, conditioned to buy every dip, pile in only to get their hands burnt.

 

I will reserve judgment for now and see how the markets handle next week when we will once again be treated to the next Federal Open Market Committee meeting in mid-week(April 30-May 1)). Until then, hold on to your hats.

 

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 has been a month since the National Association of Realtors (NAR) was forced to scrap a system of broker fees that has been in place for a generation. A federal court still must approve the change in June or July, but if it does, it could alter the way Americans buy and sell homes for decades into the future.

 

The change was precipitated by a series of class action lawsuits from home sellers that accused Realtors and the Realtors Association of keeping agent compensation artificially high. In October 2023, a federal jury in Kansas City found the NAR and some of the largest brokers in the country guilty of colluding to inflate real estate commissions.

 

The damages of that suit were $1.78 billion, which will be paid to more than 260,000 homeowners in three states. More class action suits followed. Last month, the association settled the mounting lawsuits by agreeing to pay $418 million without admitting to any wrongdoing regarding compensation.

 

For those of us who have bought or sold a home through an agent who may have worked tirelessly in closing a deal, don't feel bad. That agent was paid handsomely for the effort. It is why there are 1,162,364 real estate sales and brokerages businesses in the U.S. This has been a great business for a long time. Until now, the home real estate market has been a tightly controlled market of fixed fees with no genuine competition.

 

Traditionally, the home seller pays a 5 percent to 6 percent commission on the sale price of the home. Typically, the seller's agent and the buyer's agent split that commission. In effect, the buyer's agent is working for the seller, which is a clear conflict of interest. Many home buyers are unaware of this fact.

 

Under NAR rules, sellers are required to advertise the buyer agent commission on the Multiple Listing Service, which is the database where real estate agents put homes for sale. There is even a specific box just for that number, but many homebuyers can't see that number, only their agents can.

 

Could an enterprising agent be tempted to focus their clients on houses with higher fee deals at the expense of lower fee homes that may be just as suitable? Raise your hand if that has happened to you. Sure, not all agents do this, but some certainly do. All this goes away if the courts approve this NAR settlement. Sellers could no longer promise a commission to buyers' agents and that little box would disappear.

 

We are talking big money here. Today, Americans pay out $100 billion in real estate commissions. The present commission structure could be reduced by between 20 percent and 50 percent if fixed fees go by the wayside, according to Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. The new agreement is expected to cut fees on the average home by $5,000 to $13,000.

 

For the 1.6 million Americans who are registered as real estate agents and for those companies that employ them, this is bad news. Commission rates would drop. Negotiated fees could be a viable alternative to fixed-rate fees. Online real estate companies that rely on partnerships with real estate agents, would also feel the heat and may pull back on their marketing efforts. Broker's commissions could fall to as low as 1 percent-1.5 percent per agent on each side, according to the Consumer Federation of America. The result, by some estimates, is that the number of real estate agents and companies could be reduced by half.

 

If the courts rule in favor of dismantling fixed commissions, existing homeowners would benefit immediately. They would no longer be faced with paying both their agent and the buyer's representative out of the sale proceeds. Sellers may get lower prices for their homes but keep more of the proceeds through reduced commissions. Buyers can save money by choosing a cut-rate broker, or none.

 

There will be a downside as well. Surviving agents and brokers might have to charge home buyers hourly rates. Sellers may have to pay higher fees to unload their homes. Agent services that are for now taken for granted could be drastically reduced. New ways of providing value will be a challenge for many brokers.

 

I know that most real estate agents bend over backward to satisfy their clients. Many provide weeks, months, and sometimes years of time, effort, and expense to move a home for you. Remember too that there is also a perk in paying the traditional fixed commission. Since the fees are baked into the higher home price, buyers can finance the fees with a mortgage.

 

Plenty of prospective home buyers may not be able to pay agents out of pocket. First-time home buyers and lower-income households, including minorities, have traditionally relied more heavily on agent services. In addition, the "let's go see what's out there" crowd will disappear once an agent begins charging for that privilege.

 

The end of fixed commissions is not rocket science. In so many industries, the practice of charging fixed fees for services is a thing of the past. In the financial services industry, for example, discount brokers and other new forms of competition effectively reduced commissions to zero. The industry did not disappear. It got bigger as participants figured out more and better ways to service their clients. Overall, economists expect the result in the real estate industry will be more homes bought and sold, and more liquidity in the real estate markets while making housing more affordable in the U.S.

 

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.