the February issue is live Hi, guys.
As you might have noticed, the February issue is live!
Lynn does exceptionally detailed work on three aspects of fixed-income investing. I try to work through water infrastructure as an asset class. Since that's something folks have discussed before, I'm hoping I got it approximately right. And, too, I walked through my own portfolio. Unlikely past years, I tried to focus more on the Big Picture aspects - the role of investments in a healthy adult life, the necessary tradeoffs implied in the dual pursuit of eating well vs sleeping well - than on individual funds. I did allow that you could probably achieve comparable outcomes with two funds, and modeling the 2024 performance of two such portfolios. And, as well, TheShadow tracked down a slew of industry machinations.
My publisher's letter touched on chaos and the prospect that some forms of chaos are productive. I am struck that our total public debt after 204 years (that is, as of 1980, was $900 billion, smaller than our yearly deficit now. Too, some forms of chaos are purely toxic; "havoc" (from Old French, "pillaging" or "looting") might be the alternate term there. I did excise rather a substantial chunk of the draft text as less relevant and inflammatory.
Please do follow the same impulse. If you're going to excoriate any particular politician or political movement, it should live in "Off Topic" and strive to be civil. Discussions of trade wars might plausibly be "Other Investing" to the extent that we try to reason through how to hedge against such.
Be well!
CFPB halts work after Trump appoints Bessent as acting head Following are edited excerpts from
a current report in The Washington Post:
The consumer watchdog agency was formed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Elon Musk wants to “delete” it.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau halted much of its work to investigate and penalize corporate wrongdoing on Monday, after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — tapped to lead the watchdog on an acting basis — ordered an agency-wide review to “promote consistency” with the new Trump administration.
Shortly after assuming the post, Bessent and his aides ordered bureau staff in an email to cease crafting regulations, enforcing rules, conducting probes or providing “public communications of any type,” according to a copy obtained by The Washington Post, which said he had instituted the ban “effective immediately.”
The missive appeared to herald a stark shift for the CFPB, a powerful agency formed in the wake of the 2008 banking crisis to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive or predatory financial practices. It came on the same day that President Donald Trump named Secretary of State Marco Rubio acting administrator of another agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which the administration moved to shutter as part of a broad and contested effort to slash government spending and regulation.
The financial watchdog is a longtime target of Republicans’ scorn: Party lawmakers have threatened for years to defund the CFPB or neuter its powers — and tech billionaire Elon Musk, who is advising Trump on his reconfiguration of American government, has called on Congress to “delete” the bureau entirely.
Under President Joe Biden, the CFPB had been active and aggressive: Its leader, Rohit Chopra, issued a wide array of rules to crack down on predatory lending, reduce the burden of medical debt and cut fees that customers pay when they fall behind on their credit card bills or overextend their checking accounts. Chopra also expanded the bureau’s watch over Apple, Google and other tech giants as their digital payment apps grew more popular with consumers.
Trump similarly moved to restrain the CFPB during his first term. His acting director then — former congressman Mick Mulvaney — at one point requested no new money for the agency and settled its pending enforcement actions, sometimes for as little as $1.
This time, Republicans have promised to pursue even more significant changes to the CFPB, targeting its leadership structure, investigative powers and funding source; the bureau gets its money from the Federal Reserve. Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) unveiled the latest bill to curtail its funding, describing the CFPB as an “unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic agency.”
EU-Mexico-Chile-Mercosur. Trade Agreement Analysis I have not seen the rule of law improve in Latin America for its citizens the locals in the last 30 years. Has it?
Flaming Orange Craziness tariffs
Flaming Orange Craziness tariffs Reagan was a bit before my time, although he easily won both of his elections (for better or worse). I posted it because I thought the quote was sadly relevant today, roughly 40 years later.
Flaming Orange Craziness tariffs And here's more on what was thought to be priced in from The Barron's Daily (BOLD added)
Trump Tariffs Cause Stock Market Chaos. Why Wall Street Didn’t Act on Warnings and 5 Other Things to Know Today.
President Donald Trump looks set to deliver on his promise and impose hefty tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, with Europe next in his sights. Amid all the turbulence that’s causing in financial markets, one question is obvious—why is this such a surprise?
After all, this is what Trump promised to do since he started his campaign to retake the White House. He reiterated it after he was elected in November. He even gave specific numbers and dates for a start last week.
But traders were still skeptical that anything material would come of it. Stocks rose markedly in January, extending impressive gains since Trump’s victory in November on optimism that deregulation and tax cuts would bolster corporate earnings.
The reason investors dismissed the rather obvious signs was because the tariffs don’t seem to make sense. Maybe they would work as a negotiating technique to extract concessions on other things, but from an economic perspective it’s hard to see what tariffs accomplish—other than rapidly increasing prices for fuel and other goods that will hamper economic growth.
Furthermore, the actual announcement was on the extreme end of the spectrum of what was possible. George Saravelos, a strategist at Deutsche Bank, noted that the tariffs are three times larger than had been priced into the market—and five times as big as the cumulative action Trump took in his first term.
To be sure, Trump may yet de-escalate and walk back the levies—or be forced to do so by the courts or Congress. Given the market’s early losses Monday, it would still be a huge surprise if the tariffs lasted a long time—it certainly seems unlikely they will be in place for four years.
One thing is clear. Chaos and confusion will remain a feature of Trump’s policies.
Flaming Orange Craziness tariffs Imports into the US -
EU imports went from $200b in year 2000 to 600b now; whereas Canada imports went from $200b to 400b. I am sure EU membership has expanded during that period but still that much more imports from a region that presumably is a nursing home makes me think what the hell have we been. China and HK went from 100b to 440b, after hitting nearly 600b a few years ago. Mexico is the biggest beneficiary going from 100b to 500b. Japan stayed steady more or less around 150b, which means as a percentage of our GDP, imports from Japan fell drastically. My earlier comments about China diversifying their exports to the US can be seen in the data.
In any case, given so much illegal immigration is from (and through) Mexico, I think providing serious disincentive to Mexico was warranted 20-30 years ago. This is not a new problem. The biggest beneficiary US industries of illegal immigration must have now decided they received too many than they want. Mexico has had governance problems for as long as I can remember. Why were not illegal immigration and drugs tied into trade agreements for all these years? So, all the public reasoning provided for current Tariffs does not add up for me. Show me what is behind the curtain. Makes me think neither the illegal immigration nor drugs from Mexico will be solved in my lifetime.
Flaming Orange Craziness tariffs The damage is happening now. Next senate election is 2 years away. It may be too late to get these GOP out of their seat. There are few moderates as they get squeezed out in recent years. It is sad to see the cabinet confirmation failed to get the most qualified person for the job.
WealthTrack Show rosenberg takeaway :
- his past models were wrong, in that they did not predict sentiment would move the equity risk premium to zero or negative. (currently 3X historic annual growth, for next 5 years, is priced into valuations)
- many canadian stocks are better bargains than u.s., given valuations and exchange rates. exposed to many identical themes.
- models expects recession (2026?) and unemployment spike, suppressing inflation.
- midterm safe bonds are in a good risk:reward position compared to u.s. equities.
my inferior intuition is screaming that inflation is not so easily killed as long as nearshoring is supported, and it will move violently through different sectors as always.
NVDA and largest market-cap losses @BaluBalu -- I agree. Farro is great (as are his co-hosts) and Kelly Evans has evolved quite nicely since starting off at WSJ digital many
years ago, when her quick daily recaps would air just before Cramer.
Flaming Orange Craziness tariffs The 10% on China announced yesterday are on top of the Tariffs already in place. For an apples to apples comparison, are the Tariffs lower on Chinese products than on border countries' products? Another way to look at it is, total $ Tariffs imposed as a percentage of total imports.
US trade rep / Commerce Dept website probably will have accurate and updated information.
I expect Tariffs on China to be higher if not equal to that on border countries but someone can post the info when available.
Over the past six-seven years a lot of Chinese manufacturers have moved their operations to other Asian countries and continue to be under (direct or indirect) China / CCP control.
It would be good to know how have forum members changed or plan to change their portfolio because of the Tariffs. Your reaction can be very targeted to specific tickers, sectors, or market as a whole. For example, you decreased or plan to decrease your equity allocation because you think Tariffs will dampen (slow down) the economic activity in the US and / or cut into gross margins of US companies.
I too am wondering. Why 25% on Canadian and Mexican products and "only" 10% on Chinese products?
M* Portfolio not updating Morningstar Portfolios have had this issue for at least ten years and they will never fix it. It seems a lot to ask for people to pay a subscription fee or (especially) to trust the opinions of their writers who may very well themselves be working with incorrect data.
Flaming Orange Craziness tariffs The 10% on China announced yesterday are on top of the Tariffs already in place. For an apples to apples comparison, are the Tariffs lower on Chinese products than on border countries' products? Another way to look at it is, total $ Tariffs imposed as a percentage of total imports.
US trade rep / Commerce Dept website probably will have accurate and updated information.
I expect Tariffs on China to be higher if not equal to that on border countries but someone can post the info when available.
Over the past six-seven years a lot of Chinese manufacturers have moved their operations to other Asian countries and continue to be under (direct or indirect) China / CCP control.
It would be good to know how have forum members changed or plan to change their portfolio because of the Tariffs. Your reaction can be very targeted to specific tickers, sectors, or market as a whole. For example, you decreased or plan to decrease your equity allocation because you think Tariffs will dampen (slow down) the economic activity in the US and / or cut into gross margins of US companies.
WealthTrack Show Feb 1st Episode:
Outspoken and influential market economist David Rosenberg reflects on the extraordinary bull market of the last two years and why he isn’t changing his bearish outlook.
