The early morning news that China is retaliating with 34% tariffs on all imported US goods starting on April 10^th is feeding fears of a recession and a global trade war. China is perhaps in the best position of all countries to retaliate, but equally important, it poses the possibility that other countries will follow suit. This would, of course, be the worst-case scenario for the Trump administration. China’s move has also been the catalyst for several Wall Street firms raising the odds of a recession in the US to more than 50%. Likewise, the high yield corporate bond yield spread soared to 401 basis points, its widest since November 2023.

Today is also employment day, but since the federal employee cutbacks are unlikely to have an impact on the numbers yet, we expect this report will be benign and show slow steady growth in jobs.

There are many possibilities regarding tariffs at this juncture. The Trump administration could announce a number of carve-outs, along with successful negotiations with countries where tariffs have been lowered or totally eliminated and call on China to come to the negotiating table. This would be an opportunity for further negotiations that would lower tariffs and trade barriers across the board and help define an end game for the administration. Or, since nearly all of President Trump’s actions have been challenged by various groups and district attorney generals in the court system, tariffs could follow suit. If so, the court system could stall and potentially block the administration’s entire tariff regime. Or the worst case would be a full-blown tariff war, triggering fears of a global recession.

Today is the last day of the week, a lot of news could unfold over the weekend, and this makes it unlikely that traders will be willing to take a major stand on stocks today. Not surprisingly, markets look like they will open substantially lower. This reminds us of other major panic lows, such as in 1987, in which sequential downdrafts on Thursday and Friday were followed by a huge selloff on Monday morning, until the market reverses on Monday afternoon. Many major bear markets have ended in a similar pattern.

However, what is still missing in our technical indicators is extreme panic, which is identified when 90% of the daily volume is in declining stocks. Yesterday’s session was an 87% down day but it fell short of 90%. These 90% down days are helpful in a bear market because they usually materialize in a series, and the appearance of a 90% up day helps to identify the low – it indicates that the worst of the decline is over. In sum, a 90% up day denotes buyers have returned to the market with conviction. (Our indicators use NYSE volume only in order to eliminate the noise of program/algorithmic/day trading which does not reflect a market stance.) Since we are yet to see a 90% down day, and panic is clearly in the air, investors should be cautious in the very near term since one is apt to appear. The news surrounding the announcement of “Liberation Day” tariffs is purely negative, and though we have a difficult time finding a positive side, we cannot help but think of the Chinese word for “crisis” which is the combination of the characters for “danger” plus “opportunity/inflection point.” For long term investors remember that even though earnings forecasts will also be in flux, falling prices are finally generating value in the equity market.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff regime was far more extensive and specific than most analysts, and we, expected. Global markets are responding with shock and big selloffs across the board. However, some key areas like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors are exempted and we expect some countries will soon be lowering or eliminating their tariffs on US imports and the US will respond in kind. For example, Israel eliminated all tariffs on US goods prior to April 2, yet this was not mentioned by President Trump at the press conference. Perhaps the administration is waiting to hear from more countries regarding tariffs and will make a larger announcement later this week on the fallout of “Liberation Day.” In terms of transparency, the table shown at the White House announcement regarding tariffs on US exports by country and the “reciprocal” tariffs being imposed was revealing in terms of tariffs on US exports. Some are challenging the White House numbers, but the tariffs being imposed by the US were never larger than those imposed on US exports, and in most cases substantially lower.

Nonetheless, it appears that the administration is not just making a statement regarding the uneven playing field of tariffs on US exports versus US imports but is going for a longer-term shift of bringing manufacturing back to the US. This will take time. And it appears that President Trump and his team are willing to see inflation benchmarks rise in the near term in order to bring more jobs back to the US and improve GDP in the longer run. The media will focus on this short term negative, but investors should focus on the longer-term positive.

What is certain in this time of uncertainty is that the worst of the potential tariff impact is probably being announced and discounted by the financial markets today. There may be a few country leaders that will attempt to start a tariff war, and that will get worldwide attention, but we doubt it will work out well for these countries. It important to remember that the US is the largest consumer in the world and from that perspective, losing the US consumer will hurt any country negotiating with the US from a standpoint of pride rather than logic.

Again, the average household may soon see price differentials at the grocery or retail store, but consumers have options of what to buy and often have substitutes. The beauty of America is that creativity abounds and in time we expect local entrepreneurs will step into areas that will be impacted by tariffs to create a non-tariff option.

In sum, this announcement comes as the equity market is retesting its February 13, 2025 low and those lows could easily be broken temporarily. But in the longer run, we see this as a buying opportunity.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

Ironically, as President Trump’s April 2 target date for implementing tariffs approaches, investors are beginning to understand Trump’s negotiating process, and the fear of a tariff war appears to be subsiding. In sum, tariffs may, or may not, be implemented; it depends upon the flexibility of the export country, but if this were a card game, the US already has a better hand. At least for the moment, equity prices seem to be stabilizing.

It is not a surprise, and should not go unnoticed, that officials from both the European Union and India are meeting with US trade officials this week to avoid steep tariffs next week. This has been the goal – to get our trading partners to the negotiating table in earnest. According to Reuters, India is open to cutting tariffs on more than half of US imports worth $23 billion in the first phase of a trade deal that the two nations are negotiating. It should not be a surprise that the overwhelming angst regarding tariffs since President Trump came into office has been exaggerated and misplaced. The real fear regarding the strength of the US economy in 2025 should be on how the economy will fare once the massive fiscal stimulus implemented throughout the four-year Biden administration disappears. This has been our worry; because as fiscal stimulus has been fading, consumption has already been weakening, and 70% of US GDP is driven by the consumer. There is a potential counterbalance; but the question is whether or not Congress can, or will, soon pass a comprehensive tax reform bill that will help support the average household by lowering taxes. Republicans are quickly discovering that a slim majority in both houses of Congress does not guarantee success in passing legislation. Therefore, there is risk to the consumer and to the economy this year.

Another, but longer term concern we have is the recent disclosure that a sophisticated Chinese network is trying to recruit newly fired, and we assume angry and disenfranchised, federal employees. Max Lesser, a senior analyst for emerging threats at the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said some companies placing recruitment ads were “part of a broader network of fake consulting and headhunting firms targeting former government employees and AI researchers.” Lesser uncovered the network and shared his research with Reuters ahead of his publication. He said the campaign follows “well-established” techniques used by previous Chinese intelligence operations. This type of recruitment is not really new; however, in the current Washington DC political environment that is steeped in partisan anger and cynicism, these fired workers and the US in general, could become particularly vulnerable to Chinese espionage.

The S&P 500 is down 8% from its recent peak, down 1.8% year-to-date, and is currently on track for its first quarterly loss since June 2023. However, a correction was long overdue. Moody’s rating agency reported that the United States’ fiscal health deteriorated since it last lowered its outlook on the AAA rating in November 2023, and the US is on track for a continued multiyear decline as budget deficits widen and debt becomes less affordable. Federal debt has been our major concern for 2025. Meanwhile, more dismal news came from consumer confidence surveys.

The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index made headlines because it fell from a revised 101.1 (previously 98.3) in February to 92.9 in March, its lowest reading since January 2021. The present situation index also declined, but remains well above its long-term average. The story was in the expectations index which fell 9.6 points to 65.2, its lowest reading in 12 years. See page 7. But note that the Conference Board has been systematically revising previous monthly readings higher. More importantly, as we noted last week when analyzing the University of Michigan survey, sentiment is swayed by political bias and in the current environment by Democratic pessimism. This suggests that much like the bias seen in past presidential-election polls, sentiment indices may not be a reliable predictor of economic outcomes. In our view, retail sales are the better benchmark for measuring consumer strength or weakness. Note that March retail sales data will be released on April 16.

Housing data for February was mixed but continues to show weakness. Seasonally adjusted existing home sales were 4.26 million (SAAR) in February, down 1.2% YOY; however, this was the first YOY decline in five months. Seasonally adjusted new home sales were 676,000 in February, up 5.1% YOY, after being unchanged in January. The median price of an existing single-family home was $402,500, up 3.7%, but rising at a decelerating pace. The median price of a new single-family home was $414,500, down 1.5% YOY, continuing the slow decline seen for most of the last two years. See page 3. The discrepancy between existing and new home price trends has existed since the second half of 2023 and the weakness in new construction may be a result of higher prices and excess capacity. Over the last 50 years existing home prices and retail sales have been highly correlated, so it is encouraging that both existing home prices and retail sales have remained positive and stable. See page 4. Again, upcoming retail sales reports will be an important barometer of consumer strength.

The NAHB single-family housing market index has been declining since the end of March 2024; but the good news is that housing affordability is slowly improving as incomes rise and home prices ease. The index of median existing home prices versus personal income per capita has dropped from “expensive” to “normal” in recent months. Unfortunately, the median home price relative to median household income remains in the “expensive” range which suggests that mid-range housing prices may decline further in coming quarters. See page 5.

One positive for the real estate market is that the Federal Reserves’ newly revised household debt service ratios show the mortgage debt service ratio has stayed low, stable, and healthy over the last 18 months. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the mortgage debt ratio dipped from 5.83% to 5.77%. Conversely, the consumer debt service ratio rose from 5.48% to 5.51%, and is up from a pandemic low of 4.31% in 1Q21. See page 6. Recent consumer credit card data suggest this ratio continued to move higher in the first quarter of this year.

At the March 13, 2025 lows, the peak to trough declines in the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Nasdaq Composite index, and the Russell 2000 index were 10.1%, 9.3%, 14.2%, and 18.4%, respectively. Not only did the S&P 500 appear to stabilize after a 10% correction, but the Nasdaq Composite index rebounded off its 2022-2025 uptrend line and the Russell 2000 index bounced off its pivotal 2000 resistance/support level. These were all important levels of support, and the bounce off these levels makes it likely that the “fear of tariffs” decline has run its course. However, most market lows are retested and this low may be no exception. See page 10. The 25-day up/down volume oscillator is at minus 0.59 this week, neutral, and relatively unchanged for the week. However, it was significant that the equity market rallied after this indicator reached a level of negative 1.84 on March 13, its lowest level since the market weakness seen in December/January. And finally, last week’s AAII survey showed bull/bear percentages of 21.6%/58.1%. These numbers continue to exceed the bull/bear split of 20/50 which is rare and favorable. The AAII 8-week bull/bear index is minus 23.6% and the most positive since November 2022. All in all, the technical backdrop of the equity market suggests bearishness has run its course.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

This week marks the Federal Reserve’s second FOMC meeting of the year and it is one of the few meetings that will include a summary of the Federal Reserve Board’s economic projections. Economists will be analyzing these predictions for clues regarding future monetary policy changes and looking to see if the dot-plot has been amended — particularly since fed fund futures are now predicting a 55% chance of a rate cut by June and a 40% probability of two rate cuts by September. This shift from no rate changes this year to two or three rate cuts was triggered by several items, but particularly the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s GDPNow forecast. Two weeks ago, this indicator plummeted from an estimate for first quarter GDP growth of 2.3% to a decline of 2.8%. At present, this forecast has improved a bit to a decline of 1.8%; however, the suggestion of recessionary weakness in the first quarter triggered Fed watchers to pivot toward rate cuts this year.

Note that rate cuts are counter to the expectations that tariffs, and the possibility of a tariff war, will be inflationary in 2025. Nevertheless, February’s inflation data pointed to a marked deceleration in nearly all benchmarks. Even import prices were seen to be rising at a comforting pace of 2.0% YOY. However, import prices will be a closely monitored economic statistic in coming months.

Headline CPI for February was better than expected at 2.8% YOY, down from 3.0% in January. Core CPI eased 0.2% to 3.1% YOY. Service sector inflation was 4.1% YOY, down from 4.2% in January and owners’ equivalent rent was 4.4% YOY, down from 4.6%. In conclusion, all the major price trends improved in February. See page 3.

What made February’s inflation release important was that it showed a reversal of the acceleration seen in most core inflation indices. For example, the various core indices that exclude shelter, food, energy, medical care, and used cars & trucks were all lower in the month. Even problem areas such as health insurance and motor vehicle maintenance & repair saw prices trending lower in February. One holdout was the “other goods and services” index which reverted to December’s 3.3% YOY pace after falling to 2.4% YOY in January. See page 4. With the exception of egg prices, most inflation indices showed inflation was decelerating. In fact, there were many areas in the report such as information technology, hardware and services, gasoline and fuel oil, fruits and vegetables, and airline fares that showed prices were falling on a year-over-year basis.

But business and consumer sentiment has been plummeting, and much of this is due to uncertainty related to tariffs and inflation. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index fell 2.1 points in February to 100.7, its fourth consecutive month above the 51-year average of 98, but 4.4 points below its December peak of 105.1. Of the ten components in the index, one was unchanged, three were higher, and seven were lower. Sales expectations were lower in February, but job openings rose. The NFIB Uncertainty Index rose 4 points to 104, its second highest reading on record. Small business owners have experienced uncertainty whiplash in recent months with the Uncertainty Index falling from October’s 110 reading to 86 in December and then back up to 104. See page 5.

Consumer confidence indices also tumbled. The headline Conference Board consumer confidence index fell 7 points to 98.3 in February and the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index dropped 9.8 points to 57.9 in March. Expectations were the main source of weakness in both surveys; however, the University of Michigan, which also releases data based upon income, age, and political affiliation, showed that consumer sentiment was significantly swayed by political bias. In the five months since October, the University of Michigan survey shows Democrat expectations plunged from 93.1 to 49.4, while Republican expectations soared from 61.4 to 104.3. See page 6. This dichotomy suggests that much like the bias seen in recent presidential-election polls, sentiment indices may not be reliable in predicting economic outcomes.

After a sizeable drop in January, seasonally adjusted retail sales grew in February, albeit at a below consensus pace. Total retail and food services sales rose 3.1% YOY after the 3.9% YOY gain seen in January. But after adjusting for inflation, retail sales grew a modest 0.3% YOY versus the 0.9% seen in January. Christmas and back to school buying tends to result in retail sales declining in January, February, and September, which is why economists tend to look at seasonally adjusted data. However, this February’s unadjusted sales were down 0.9% YOY, implying that February 2025 was slightly weaker than normal. Since weak consumer sentiment and sluggish retail sales are a poor combination, this means the March retail sales release will be important. It could be helpful in determining whether consumption (i.e., GDP) is seriously weakening in the first quarter. See page 7.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis’s second estimate for fourth quarter GDP was 2.3%, which was a deceleration from the third quarter’s 3.1% growth. However, inventory destocking was a drag during the fourth quarter, and this could reverse in the first quarter. Economic growth in the first quarter of 2025 will be important for many reasons, but we would point out one disturbing fundamental benchmark. Total market capitalization to GDP touched its June 2021 record peak at the end of 2024. This implies that equity valuations were extremely rich at the end of 2024 and were discounting a substantial amount of future earnings. This helps to explain the recent market weakness. But it also underscores why March retail sales may be an important bellwether for the economy, corporate earnings, and the equity market. See page 8.

The housing market has been decelerating for several months, and recent data releases indicate that this continues. The National Association of Home Builders confidence survey was sluggish in March and the headline index fell from 42 to 39, current sales dropped from 46 to 43, and traffic of potential buyers declined from 29 to 24. However, 6-month sales expectations were unchanged at 47. In line with weakening builders’ confidence were residential construction statistics for February which showed permits falling 6.8% YOY and housing starts down 2.9% YOY. Single-family statistics were slightly better with permits falling 3.4% YOY and housing starts dropping 2.3% YOY. In short, the residential housing market continued to slow in the first quarter of the year. See page 9.

In terms of the equity market keep in mind that perpendicular moves tend to be driven by sentiment, not fundamentals. History shows that they tend to be countertrends to the major move. In the current market environment, we would also note that many of the popular indices are at interesting round numbers, which may serve as support. In particular, the S&P 500 is trading near 5500 and the Russell 2000 index is trading close to the key 2000 support level. These levels could be pivotal given that the market has already undergone a “correction” or a bear market depending upon which index one chooses. At the recent March 13, 2025 low, the decline in the S&P 500, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Nasdaq Composite index and the Russell 2000 index were 10.1%, 9.3%, 14.2%, and 18.4%, respectively. See page 12. And on a positive note, the 12-month forward PE multiple for the S&P 500 is currently 18.3 times earnings. This is approaching the 20-year average PE of 18.8 times and falling toward the long-term average PE of 17.8 times. See page 10. In short, valuation is improving.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

The S&P 500 is down 5.26% year-to-date and is currently 9.3% below its all-time high. More importantly, this 9.3% decline took place in just the last 14 trading sessions. But the real carnage has taken place in the Nasdaq Composite index, which is now 13.6% below its record high level and the Russell 2000 index, which has fallen 17.1% from its record peak. In short, the S&P 500 may be slightly short of the 10% correction level, but many stocks, particularly in the small capitalization and technology sectors, have experienced a full bear market in the last two months. This is the bad news. The good news is that perpendicular moves in the equity indices tend to be counter to the major trend. Dramatic moves reflect emotion, either fear or greed, and are rarely the beginning of a new trend. This should be some consolation for investors.

The other bit of good news is that the stock market appears to be discounting a recession, which may or may not occur. At the moment there is no real evidence that a recession is ahead, although there are a few warnings which we will discuss this week. The catalyst for this week’s bloodbath is entirely President Trump, who first shied away from negating the prospect of a recession and then shocked global investors by threatening to place 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. All in all, this meant that there is no way to predict what President Trump’s next move might be and this rising uncertainty drove investors to the exits.

Without the need or ability to run for another four-year term, President Trump, appears to be playing hardball both domestically and internationally to fix a myriad of problems such as runaway fiscal deficits, bureaucracies with no oversight, unfair trade practices, and wars in Europe and the Middle East. None of these problems are easy to fix and they are all serious. But after only 50 days in office, Trump seems to be making progress on many of these issues, but not without creating an uproar in Washington DC and Europe!

Technically Speaking

The key market index to monitor in our view is the Russell 2000 index, which has dropped back to the 2000 level. This level was resistance throughout 2022-2023 and part of 2024 and should now act as support on the downside. Failure to hold at the 2000 level would be a warning that a recession may be a real concern. See page 12.

The 25-day up/down volume oscillator is at minus 0.87 this week, neutral, and surprisingly up for the week. This is shocking in many ways, but our oscillator only uses NYSE volume versus composite volume in order to try to eliminate the noise from program and algorithmic trading that now dominates daily composite volume. Automated trading techniques rely on volatility but do not reflect the conviction of investors. Our indicator looks to measure the conviction behind price moves. Twice this year this oscillator rose close to an overbought reading of 3.0 or greater but failed to confirm the rally earlier this year. Now we expect the market to bottom out before recording a long or deep oversold condition, in keeping with a long-term bull market cycle. See page 13.

Last week’s AAII survey showed bullishness fell 0.1% to 19.3% and bearishness fell 3.5% to 57.1%. Bullishness is below average for the eighth time in 10 weeks, was last lower on March 16, 2023, and was among the lowest 66 readings in the survey’s history. Bearishness is above average for the 14th time in 16 weeks. These numbers now exceed the bull/bear split of 20/50 which is rare and favorable. The 8-week bull/bear is minus 14.1% and the most positive since March/April of 2023. Again, bear markets rarely begin with this level of skepticism. See page 15. The 10-day average of daily new highs fell to 94 this week and new lows are averaging 128. This combination of daily new highs below 100 and new lows above 100 is a change that turns this indicator from neutral to negative and is the only real negative in our collection of indicators. See page 14.

Liquidity is what drives bull markets, and even though the Federal Reserve’s quantitative tightening continues, liquid deposits at commercial banks continue to rise. Both demand deposits and retail money market funds reached record highs recently and total liquid assets in the financial system equal $19.3 trillion, close to the record $19.88 trillion seen in April 2022 during the post-pandemic fiscal stimulus. Cash is currently 34% of total estimated market capitalization of $57.2 trillion – not a record, but a healthy level. In short, fear is generating selling at the moment, but there is plenty of cash on the sidelines once the fear dissipates. See page 9. 

An Economic Mix

The increase of 151,000 new jobs in February and the small rise in the unemployment rate from 4.0% to 4.1% was reassuring, particularly with the increase in recession fear. Our favorite employment benchmark measures the year-over-year change in total employment in both the establishment and household surveys. Both indices indicated growth in jobs in February that was slightly below their long-term averages, but still solid and improving. In our view, this was one of the best features of the February report. See page 3. But there were quirks in the February report including the sharp increase in U-6 unemployment rate, which jumped a full percentage point to 8.5%. There was also a 393,000 increase in multiple job holders, indicating that multiple job holders represent 5.6% of total employment, the highest since 5.7% in October 2004. However, this was not a record percentage when compared to total employment. Still, these two statistics may be signs of rising stress in the job market. Nevertheless, the Misery Index (the sum of inflation and unemployment) sits at 7.1% and is comfortably in the neutral zone of 5.8% to 12.6%. See page 5.

Earnings were a bright spot in the February report and average hourly earnings rose $0.09 to $30.89, reflecting a 4.1% YOY increase. Real hourly earnings rose 1.1% YOY in February, down from the recent 1.7% YOY peak seen in September 2024, but still showing real growth in earnings and purchasing power. See page 6.

Consumer credit has been on our radar for months and total credit expanded $18.1 billion in January. But the real story was that December’s previously reported $48 billion growth in credit was dramatically revised to a $100 billion contraction. Discontinuities in source data explain much of this adjustment; however, inflation-adjusted nonrevolving credit per capita has been decelerating since 2021 and revolving credit has been slowing more recently. The revision in December’s data resulted in the 6-month ROC and the YOY growth in credit turning negative, which is often a sign of a strapped consumer and a pending recession. This is a worrisome sign. See page 7.

The ISM Nonmanufacturing index increased for the 8th straight month in February and indicated that the service sector was expanding for the 54th time out of the last 57 months. Seven of the 9 components increased in February. Not surprisingly, the inventories index rose the most, from 47.5 to 50.6, as businesses ordered ahead of new tariffs. Most importantly, new orders rose from 51.3 to 52.2 and the employment index increased from 52.3 to 53.0, reflecting solid growth in the service sector in the first quarter. Last but not least, the decline in equity prices has improved market valuation. Although the trailing PE for the S&P 500 is still 23.3 times, it is down two points from a few weeks ago. More importantly, the 12-month forward PE is currently at 18.2 times on earnings forecasts that have been coming down in recent weeks. This is approaching the long-term average of 17.8 times earnings for the first time since late 2023. See page 10.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

February ended with losses of 1.4% and 1.6% in the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average, respectively, and even bigger losses of 4.0% and 5.4% in the Nasdaq Composite and Russell 2000, respectively. Yet this was not surprising since February tends to be the third-worst performing month in the annual calendar, averaging a small loss over the last 75 years. The only other months with worse historical performances are September and August.

The Political Calendar

However, with politics dominating the geopolitical and financial landscape, we found the observations in The Stock Traders’ Almanac (TSTA) regarding the election year cycle and differences between Republican and Democratic administrations, interesting and timely. It is no coincidence that the post-election and midterm years are the weakest years of the four-year election cycle.

According to the TSTA “wars, recessions and bear markets tend to start or occur in the first half of the presidential term and prosperous times and bull markets, in the latter half.”

More importantly, over the last eighteen election cycles the TSTA found a marked difference between the two parties during the post-election and midterm years. “More bear markets and negative market action have plagued Republican administrations in the post-election year whereas the midterm year has fared worse under Democrats.” This is partially explained by the fact that Republicans have often taken the White House after foreign difficulties (Korean War, Vietnam War, the Iran hostage situation) and administered tough fiscal action right away.

Democrats have often come to power following economic duress or leaner times. This allowed Democratic administrations to enact favorable fiscal policies and benefit from an economic recovery phase (1961/1993 recessions, the Financial Crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic). As a result, the post-election year tends to be the weakest year in a four-year Republican administration and the midterm year is usually the weakest year in a four-year Democratic administration. This was proven true in the Biden administration and may be a template for the current Trump administration.

A Normal Correction

In our view, the market is undergoing its first 10% correction since the 2022 low, which is normal and long overdue. The Nasdaq Composite index and Russell 2000 are trading below their 200-day moving averages and are down 9.0% and 14.0%, respectively, from their recent highs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 are down 5.5% and 4.8% from their record highs, respectively, yet remain above their key moving averages. The S&P 500 tested its 200-day moving average, currently at 5723.23, on an intra-day basis this week. And while the S&P has broken its 200-day moving average on occasion it proved to be a key support level in October 2023 and August 2024. In this regard, the equity market is at a pivotal point from a technical perspective.

One indicator that suggests this decline is not the start of a bear market is the American Association of Individual Investors sentiment index. This week bullish sentiment tumbled 9.8% to 19.4% and bearishness jumped a massive 20% to 60.6%. A combination of 20% or less bullishness and 50% or more bearishness in the AAII survey is rare and has been a positive sign for the market. The current 19.4%/60.6% split has driven our 8-week bull/bear spread to negative 9.7%, the lowest and most favorable level since May 2023 (during the 2022-2023 low). Plus, our 25-day up/down volume oscillator is at negative 1.27, which is above a negative 3.0 oversold reading, which would display a substantial increase in activity in declining stocks. In a bull market, oversold readings in the 25-day oscillator do appear but should be brief and trigger a rebound. A test may still be ahead for this indicator.

There are many market-moving events this week, which include pausing military aid to Ukraine, 25% tariffs on nearly all goods from Mexico and Canada, Canadian energy taxed at a 10% rate, additional 10% tariffs on all imports from China, and retaliatory tariffs announced by China and Canada.

On March 4, these escalating trade tensions rattled global markets and sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average on a roller coaster ride of down 823 points at 11:30 am, up 109 points to 43,082 at 3:25 pm, only to close at 42,520.00, down 670.25 points for the day. However, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent’s statement that he believed China would absorb the 10% tariff increase, much as they had with earlier tariffs, did little to calm markets. And all of this chaos is taking place hours before President Trump presents his State of the Union address on Tuesday evening. Political pundits are indicating that the Democratic party is planning multiple forms of protest during President Trump’s presentation to the joint Congress. With or without protests, this State of the Union address will be widely watched around the world!

The Positive Side of the Coin

The good news about the current geopolitical situation is that the tariff threat is now a reality as are retaliation tariffs by Canada, Mexico, and China. In our experience, markets can deal with good news or bad news, but uncertainty is what generates the greatest fear and biggest market declines. All in all, we believe the US can withstand the tariff battle better than our counterparts although there will clearly be winners and losers in terms of individual corporations. But if we are right, this correction will generate a longer-term buying opportunity for investors. Our concern is that slower economic activity for key trading partners will negatively impact the US, as well as multi-national earnings. Time will tell.

Another trigger for the recent market weakness was the release of the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s GDPNow estimate. This indicator is actually less of a forecasting tool than it is a calculation based upon released economic data; however, the GDPNow moved from targeting first quarter GDP growth of 2.3% on February 26, to a negative 2.8% growth rate on March 3. This massive swing in expected first quarter GDP resulted in an immediate 50-basis point decline in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and stirred fears of a recession. Again, note that the stock and bond markets are currently discounting a series of negative events and pessimistic forecasts that may or may not happen.

This week we also discuss the second monthly decline in pending home sales, a weakening new home sales trend, a favorable ratcheting down in the PCE deflator and its underlying components, solid personal income growth but a deceleration in real personal disposable income growth, a rise in household savings, and a small decline in the ISM manufacturing index for the month of February.

The employment report for February will be reported later this week and given the state of the stock market it could be a market moving event.

Click to Download

The new administration, now in its fifth week, continues to be the main topic of conversation in almost every economic and political circle around the world. However President Trump’s campaign promise of a peace deal in Europe is gaining momentum this week and an agreement could be on the horizon. Some progress has even been made in the Middle East. Germany has a new conservative leader – Friedrich Merz – and he is already considering a special fund for increased military spending. In the United Kingdom, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer took steps to ramp up its defense spending ahead of his meeting with President Donald Trump later this week. This is an impressive list of achievements for this young administration. But domestically, the press primarily focused on emails from Elon Musk asking all federal employees to send him a list of recent accomplishments. Such a request would not be unusual in the private sector, but for many government employees, it was the cause for a total meltdown. More importantly, it was not the most significant event of the week but it did gather the most media attention.

Meanwhile, a string of recent US economic data points such as retail sales, the NAHB housing market index, new residential construction, and consumer sentiment suggest economic activity may be slowing. The Treasury market appears to believe this is true and yields in the 10-year Treasury bond fell from a high of 4.54% last week to 4.29% this week. Investors also appear to be worried that the layoffs either taking place, or about to take place, in the federal government will negatively impact the February jobs report. This, coupled with the predicted inflationary effect of tariffs, would hurt the overall economy.

Tariffs are yet to be put into place and we doubt that many will be, with the exception of China. But to check the theory of the impact of layoffs in the federal government, we looked at recent Bureau of Labor statistics. We found that the not-seasonally-adjusted level of total nonfarm employment was 157.1 million at the end of January and of that figure federal employees (excluding US Postal Services) represented 2.4 million workers, or 1.5% of the workforce. Since the federal government is the goal of DOGE, and layoffs are to be expected, even a 50% reduction in employment (an extreme case), would equate to 0.75% of the total nonfarm US workforce. Looking further, we found that while the overall unemployment rate was 4.4% in January, for government workers the rate was 1.6%. In short, government workers have not faced the normal ups and downs of economic cycles or unemployment lines, which may explain the pandemonium now seen in Washington DC.

But there is no doubt that the speed of this administration’s actions are creating confusion among some and heightened anxiety among others. The recent Conference Board consumer confidence release showed that consumer sentiment fell in February from an upwardly revised level for January. While the decline in present conditions was modest the decline in expectations was substantial. This is a pattern seen throughout a number of sentiment indicators. At 98.3, the headline index was the lowest since June 2024. The University of Michigan sentiment release was a bit different, with the headline index of 64.7 falling a substantial 7 points to its lowest level since November 2023. This was due primarily to a 9.4 point decline in present conditions to 65.7. In February all three segments of the University of Michigan survey were below 70 for the first time since July 2024. What also disturbs Wall Street traders was that Inflation expectations for the next 12 months soared from 3.3% to 4.3%. See page 3.

Sentiment varied significantly when analyzed by educational level and by current situation versus expectations. In January current conditions sentiment soared, particularly among the college educated, although this index also weakened a bit in February. Sentiment among those with some college education continued to rise in February as it has since the 2024 low. But expectations sentiment plummeted for all groups in February, with the largest decrease seen for participants with a high school diploma or less, where the index fell 23.5 points from 91.3 to 67.8! See page 4.

And the University of Michigan survey showed big discrepancies in sentiment depending upon age and political affiliations. Those 18 to 34 in age had an increase of 10.6 points in current condition sentiment, while the 35 to 54 age group had a 3.3-point decline in January. Those 55+ had a 0.4 point increase in current conditions. Not surprisingly, sentiment by political party affiliation could not be more different and are roughly mirror images of each other. Republican expectations soared in January as Democrat expectations plummeted. Both fell slightly in February. Sentiment for independent voters was somewhere in the middle of the two but declined in February. See page 5.

A survey of personal finances followed a similar pattern with current finances rising for the fifth consecutive month to 87; while expectations of future finances fell two points to 109. Again, surveys are showing that consumers are positive about their current situation but are fearful of what may be ahead. Sentiment of whether $1000 invested in a mutual fund would be worth more in the next twelve months, fell from 59.5 to 55.9 in January. See page 6.

This waning confidence in the equity market is also seen in the American Association of Individual Investors survey on page 12. Last week’s American Association of Individual Investors survey showed bullishness rose 0.8% to 29.2% and bearishness fell 6.8% to 40.5%. Bullishness remained below average for the third consecutive week and bearishness stayed above average for the fourth consecutive week. The decline in bearishness means the survey inched away from the bull/bear split of 20/50 which is rare and very favorable. Nevertheless, the 8-week bull/bear is minus 4.4% and closing in on a positive reading of minus 7.0%.

All in all, we see the rise in investors’ bearishness and the decline in long-term interest rates to be more positive than negative for the equity market. We would be more concerned if these were reversed. The February jobs report will be released next week, and it could be a market-moving event. However, we do not expect it will show a major change. The technical condition of the stock market has deteriorated a bit this week but is in line with a 10% correction which is long overdue. Recent weakness in the equity market carried the S&P 500 below its 50-day and 100-day moving averages for the first time since January 13, 2025. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is the outperformer and is trading above its 100-day moving average. The Nasdaq Composite index is currently below both moving averages and the Russell 2000 index, the weakest of the four indices, is trading below its 200-day moving average. This is the indicator to watch since it is about to test an uptrend off its 2023 low. The 25-day up/down volume oscillator is at 0.33 this week, neutral, but down for the week. This oscillator rose close to an overbought reading of 3.0 or greater, twice this year, without reaching overbought to confirm the recent advance. The 10-day average of daily new highs is 172 this week and new lows are averaging 104. This combination of daily new highs and new lows above 100 is a change that turns this indicator from positive to neutral. The NYSE cumulative advance/decline line made a new high on February 18, 2025, confirming the SPX high on February 19, 2025. In sum, breadth indicators are weaker this week but continue to have a long-term bullish bias. See page 9-11.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

If you own a business that is part of the traditional mainstream of any industry, you will probably be very skeptical of any innovative upstart that enters your world. Not all upstarts are disruptors, but some are, and a few are legendary. For example, in 1994, Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN – $226.65) led by Jeff Bezos, began a new online marketplace for books and soon became a massive disruptor to traditional bookstores. Not only did Amazon deal a major blow to Barnes and Noble (founded in 1873), but over time it changed the entire retail industry. Change is not easy for anyone. I remember being upset when the Borders bookstore closed in my neighborhood in 2011. Borders was a special place where I could take my young son on a Saturday morning, and he could peruse Manga (Japanese comic books) while I sipped a cappuccino at the instore coffee bar. I was an early skeptic of Amazon. Nevertheless, I am now an Amazon Prime member. Technology has and continues to change many industries, and artificial intelligence will take this to another level. In the end, bookstores have faded away, just like Blockbuster, the video store chain ended when streaming became available. It is impossible to say right now, but technology may also be changing politics.

President Trump has always been a disruptor. But in his second term, Elon Musk, and his expertise in technology, artificial intelligence, and business, may become a true disruptor of the political scene as we know it. By combining modern technology and business acumen to find redundancies, fraud, and dark pools of money in the political system, we wonder if Washington DC will ever be the same. Transparency of government money flows has been absent for generations and Washington DC is bereft of modern software systems and people who know how to use them. So, Elon Musk, by posting his findings on the DOGE website, is educating the voting public of the inner workings of federal agencies. This may be why we are seeing so much head spinning and uproar in the federal government this week. However, if this disruption actually results in reducing the federal deficit and making the government more efficient, we cannot imagine how anyone could be opposed. Nonetheless, it will mean many career federal workers will lose jobs and we doubt that they will go quietly.

The stock market has clearly taken the worries about tariffs in stride. The S&P 500 index scored a record high this week, and most of the other popular indices, including the Russell 2000 index, are not far behind. See page 11. Our 25-day up/down volume oscillator is at 2.77 and closing in on an overbought reading. In this indicator an overbought reading that lasts a minimum of five consecutive trading days or more, confirms a new high. What this would signal is that volume is supporting higher prices. See page 12. Last week’s American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) survey indicated that bullishness fell 4.9% to 28.4% and bearishness rose 4.4% to 47.3%. Bullishness has declined 15% in the last three weeks and bearishness has increased 18%. These numbers are close to a bull/bear split of 20/50 which is rare and favorable. The 8-week bull/bear is minus 2.6% and neutral but closing in on a positive reading of minus 7.0%. See page 14. In short, the technical backdrop of this stock market continues to be favorable.

Conversely, valuation is not supportive of equities, but this is not new. Momentum, hope, and sentiment have been overruling valuation for two years. The SPX trailing 4-quarter operating multiple is 25.8 times, and well above all long- and short-term averages. See page 9. However, we have noticed that analysts have been raising their 2024 earnings estimates as fourth quarter earnings season ends but simultaneously lowering estimates for 2025 and 2026. Fears of economic slowdown and higher inflation as a result of tariffs appear to be the underlying cause of earnings forecasts falling, but we believe this is overdone. If we are correct, there will be positive earnings surprises on the horizon and that should support equities. See page 10.

Recent inflation data was unfriendly, but the consensus has already shifted to no Fed rate cuts for the near future, so this did not impact financial markets. Headline CPI rose from 2.9% YOY to 3.0% YOY and core CPI increased from 3.2% YOY to 3.3% YOY. Owners’ equivalent rent remains high, but it did inch down from 4.8% YOY to 4.6% YOY. The areas of concern in January’s report were transportation, which rose 1% over the month, and 3.2% YOY, and eggs, which are now in short supply due to the avian flu. The index for meat, poultry, fish, and eggs soared to 6.1% YOY in January, up from 4.2% YOY in December, but egg inflation should be temporary. For January, food at home rose 1.9% YOY (up 0.1%), but food away from home fell to 3.4% YOY (down 0.2%). See page 3.

Service sector inflation is slowly ratcheting lower, but it remains high at 4.2% YOY. Services less rent of shelter was 3.9% YOY, down from 4%. However, most core indices have been trending up, not down in recent months. One of the Fed’s favorite inflation benchmarks is all items less food, shelter, and energy, and it rose to 2.3% YOY, up from 2.1% YOY in December. See page 4.

The PPI indices had relatively small changes in January. The finished goods index was 2.9% YOY, up from 2.8% YOY, and core finished goods rose 2.2% YOY down from 2.6% YOY. PPI final demand was 3.5%, unchanged from December, but still at the highest pace since February 2023. The main issue regarding these benchmarks is that rising inflation indices also mean the real fed funds rate is falling, leaving the Fed no room to lower rates. Unless inflation data improves in coming months, the consensus view could shift from Fed rate cuts to Fed rate hikes in 2025. See page 5.

January retail sales were solid. Advance estimates for total retail and food services sales for January 2025 were $723.9 billion (seasonally adjusted), down 0.9% on a monthly basis, but up 4.2% YOY. Total sales excluding motor vehicles and parts were up 3.7% YOY and excluding autos and gasoline stations were up 3.9% YOY. Motor vehicle & parts dealers rose a solid 6.4% YOY and gasoline stations increased 2.0% YOY. General merchandise store sales increased 3.7% YOY (an acceleration) and nonstore retailers rose 4.7% YOY (a deceleration). See page 6.

Industrial production rose 0.5% in January following an upwardly revised 1% gain in December. The overall industrial index rose 2% YOY. Manufacturing output rose 1% YOY and mining production rose 3.4% YOY. Utilities output, which can be volatile and weather-dependent, rose nearly 7% YOY. Overall, total capacity utilization rose from 77.5% to 77.8% YOY – the highest since August 2024 – and is back in line which levels seen prior to the pandemic. See page 7. Retail sales and industrial production reflect a healthy level of consumption and an expanding economy; however, the housing market is showing some signs of weakness. After three consecutive months of improvement, the pending home sales index fell from 78.5 to 74.2 in December. The National Association of Home Builders confidence index for February also fell for the first time in seven months, dropping from 47 to 42, with the greatest weakness seen in the expected sales over the next 6 months, which declined from 59 to 46. High mortgage rates are one of the reasons President Trump is lobbying for lower interest rates; but this is out of his control. Meanwhile, the housing sector may be slowing.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

The 3-week-old Trump presidency continues to generate multiple headlines every day and this week was no exception. The big news was that the United States imposed a 25% tariff on imports of aluminum and steel and also cancelled exemptions for major suppliers such as Canada and Brazil. Trump also imposed a blanket 10% tariff on imports from top trading partner China and threatened a 25% barrier on all imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as looking at new reciprocal tariffs on imports of cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. These actions triggered condemnations by Mexico, Canada, and the European Union and ignited fears of a trade war; yet the stock market was unmoved. In our view, this stoic reaction by the market was rational because from a purely economic perspective these tariffs will be very troublesome for Mexico, Canada, China, and other major exporters to the US, but they are unlikely to be much of an issue domestically. And as we noted previously, a strong dollar will help to mute the impact of tariffs. More importantly, these tariffs are more likely to change the behavior of consumers and corporations and nullify much of the impact of tariffs. At least this is the long-term goal and US equities appear to have figured this out.

Gold has risen 16% since Trump was elected and the media has attributed this to the unpredictability of President Trump and the potential of trade wars; however, many precious metal analysts have noticed that demand for gold from abroad, particularly China, has increased and this is a reaction to their concern of weakness in their own currencies and a fear that tariffs will pressure their already declining economies. However, our favorite event of the week was the 30-minute press conference in the Oval Office with President Trump, Elon Musk, and X Musk, where Elon detailed much of what DOGE is doing and finding. Plus, Elon gave a mini course in business discipline and accounting. Nevertheless, the star was little X who clearly stole the show. (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6368671861112)

Overall, the story of the week was the resilience of the stock market even though a wave of tariffs were being imposed. Perhaps more surprisingly, our technical indicators improved this week. The 25-day up/down volume oscillator is at 1.42 this week, neutral and down a bit from two weeks ago when it was closing in on an overbought reading of 3.0 or greater. Nevertheless, it has a bullish bias. See page 14. The 10-day average of daily new highs is 162 this week and new lows are averaging 75. This combination of daily new highs above 100 and new lows below 100 is definitely positive. But the surprise of the week was the NYSE cumulative advance/decline line which made a new high on February 6, 2025. The previous high was made in November, generating a period of nonconfirmation; however, this new high confirms the current advance. See page 15. Last week’s AAII survey showed bullishness fell 7.7% to 33.3% and bearishness rose 8.9% to 42.9%. Bullishness is now below average, and bearishness is above average, which is a favorable combination for the equity market. See page 16. All in all, these indicators, along with the charts of the popular indices, are all bullish.

What is not bullish is the growing federal deficit. This is shown on page 3, with newly released data from the CBO, the fiscal 2024 (September 30, 2024) deficit was 6.2% of GDP. However, new Treasury data show federal debt subsequently grew $711 billion in the last three months of 2024, and the 12-month deficits-to-GDP rose to 6.9% (October), 7.1% (November), and 6.8% (December). This combination of rising deficits and rising interest rates has lifted interest payments as a percentage of outlays from 5.3% in 2020 to 13.1% in 2024. These deficit trends are unsustainable. See page 3.

Nonetheless, economic data has been favorable. The ISM nonmanufacturing index fell 1.2 points in January but continues to show an expanding service sector. See page 4. The NFIB small business survey dipped 2.3 points in January but remained above the long-term average of 98 for the third consecutive month. See page 5. The January employment report showed a 143,000 increase in the month of January, while revisions to previous months added an additional 100,000 more jobs. The household survey showed the unemployment rate fell slightly from 4.1% to 4.0% in the month. See page 6.

Unfortunately, the January employment release is a difficult report to analyze due to the annual benchmark revisions in the establishment survey, the Census population revisions to the household survey, and the updating of seasonal adjustments in both surveys. This year the establishment survey benchmark revision for March 2024, without seasonal adjustments, lowered employment by 598,000 workers, or 0.4%. This was unusually large since the typical revision is plus or minus 0.1%.

The population adjustment to the household survey increased the civilian noninstitutional population (age 16 and over) by 2.9 million and increases were substantial for Asians and Hispanics. The total civilian labor force increased 2.1 million, including an increase of 2.0 million in employment and 105,000 in unemployment. The number of people not in the labor force increased by 765,000. As is its usual practice, the BLS does not revise official household survey estimates for earlier months and therefore this bump in population is very obvious in many of the charts on the following pages. The uptick in January employment in the household survey depicts a 1.7% YOY growth rate, which is well above the long-term average of 1.5%. However, this spike in employment could be less an increase in real workers and more an increase in the Census Bureau’s estimate of population growth. Still, we are relieved that the household survey, which had been showing no employment growth for much of 2024, could simply have been an undercounting of both population and employment.

Nevertheless, the January report is dubious for a variety of reasons. We know that seasonal adjustments were revised in both surveys, however there were unusually large differences between the seasonal adjusted data and the not-seasonally-adjusted data this month. For example, January’s establishment survey showed the addition of 143,000 new jobs in seasonally adjusted data, and a loss of 2.85 million jobs in the not-seasonally adjusted data. That is a strangely large discrepancy.

In the household survey, January’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell from 4.1% to 4.0%, but the unadjusted unemployment rate for those 16 and over rose from 3.7% to 4.2%. Unadjusted unemployment rates for men, women, and workers by level of education also rose in January. Only the not seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for those with less than a high school diploma actually fell from 5.6% to 5.2%. Those with a bachelor’s degree or higher saw their unemployment rate ease from 2.4% to 2.3%. But other educational categories saw a rise in their unemployment rates, contrary to the decline in the overall rate. Similarly, native versus foreign employment statistics, which are not seasonally adjusted, showed the native unemployment rate rising from 3.7% to 4.3% and the foreign unemployment rate rising from 4.3% to 4.6%. The seasonally adjusted employment-population ratio and labor force participation rates both rose 0.1% due to Census revisions, but the unadjusted employment population ratio fell from 59.3% to 57.6%. In sum, January’s job report is filled with contradictions. We wonder if Elon Musk and his minions can do something to improve government agency data.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

The first two weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency have been both hectic and head-spinning. And while some might call these past few days chaotic, the new administration has definitely been impactful, transparent, accessible, and game changing. And despite a tremendous amount of pearl-clutching by the media, the much-telegraphed tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China did not hurt the financial markets like most economists expected. To date, what has materialized are postponements due to potential political agreements with Mexico and Canada. The objectives here appear to be the monitoring of both borders to help prevent illegal immigration and the smuggling of illegal and lethal fentanyl.

Tariffs and deals with China may be more difficult to resolve in the near term, but China is also pivotal in terms of illegal fentanyl and that may be one of the longer-term goals. Meanwhile, economists and analysts are revising forecasts on future corporate earnings, inflation, and the economy based upon the administration’s actions, but if one is honest, no one knows how the tariffs will play out, even the negotiators. These tariffs are part of a process and Trump’s administration is currently working on a vast number of negotiations making outcomes extremely difficult to predict. Most importantly, one should not let personal political views color one’s forecast. In our view, it is important to analyze economic data skeptically and to make predictions objectively and separately from media headlines.

What is known is that Donald Trump used tariffs successfully in his first term and it did not impact inflation. What it did do was change American and global corporate behavior and as a result China lost manufacturing to other areas of Asia, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia. President Trump has been clear that this is another one of his goals and he is using the threat of tariffs as a catalyst to bring manufacturing back to the US. It is important to remember that inflation was 1.9% YOY when Trump left office and President Biden maintained Trump’s tariffs when he came to office.

This time it is different however because inflation is already a problem and service sector inflation has been sticky for several months. Farmers are facing rising feed stock costs, and this will trickle down into higher food prices. On the other hand, energy prices are expected to move lower. This could offset some of these threats and a higher dollar will also mute the potential impact of tariffs on imported goods. (But it will also be a handicap for exporters.)

What is also known is that President Trump takes pride in his pledge of “promises made, promises kept,” and this will be the cornerstone of his four years. To this end, the key financial-related promises are to increase energy production, increase jobs, reduce or eliminate government waste, lower taxes, and put the US in better fiscal shape. While not being specific, in our view, putting the US in better fiscal shape is apt to include a mixture of boosting economic activity and shrinking annual deficits. This combination would thereby lower the total public debt-to-GDP ratio which rose to 120% as of December 19, 2024 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/gfdegdq188S). These are ambitious goals, but goals that are difficult to challenge.

The last week has also been hectic in terms of corporate earnings and economic releases. According to an S&P earnings scorecard, of the 211 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported earnings for the fourth quarter, 76.8% reported above analyst expectations. In general, earnings have helped boost equity prices.

Economic releases were mixed this week. In December, personal income grew 5.3% YOY, disposable income grew 5% YOY, and real personal disposable income (RPDI) grew 2.4%. RPDI fell from 2.6% in November and was below the long-term average of 3.2% for the tenth month in a row. See page 4. Government workers had the largest increase in wages in December with a gain of 6.5% YOY, and this pattern of government wages growing faster than private sector wages, has been ongoing since November 2022. Manufacturing workers had minimal increases in wages in the last six months of 2024. Meanwhile, government transfer payments and supplements to wages were robust in 2024. See page 5.

Personal consumption expenditures rose 5.7% YOY in December and service sector expenditures grew 6.7% YOY. In short, the growth in spending was greater than wage growth for most households, so it was not surprising that the savings rate fell from 4.3% to 4.1% at year end. Given this decline in household savings and the persistent rise in prices, household consumption could encounter headwinds in 2025. See page 6.

Average weekly earnings grew 3.5% in December, which was above the 2.9% YOY rate of inflation. However, this gap is narrowing since wage growth has been decelerating and inflation accelerating in recent reports. The PCE deflator rose from 2.4% in November to 2.6% in December and core PCE deflator was unchanged at 2.8% YOY. These figures were a disappointment to the consensus, and it has led to a consensus view that the Fed is unlikely to cut rates again in the near future. We agree. As previously noted, our concern is that farmers are currently seeing a rise in core feed stocks, and this will be a future driver of food prices at home and at restaurants. See page 7.

Hopefully, lower energy prices will offset higher food prices in 2025, however the bigger issue is that core inflation indices have been trending flat to higher. The core PCE deflator was unchanged at 2.8% in December. Core PPI was 2.6%, up from 2.5%, and up for the second month in a row. Core CPI was 3.2% in December, down from 3.3%, but has been stuck at 3.3% for three months in a row. This is why we do not expect rate cuts in the near future. Moreover, the real fed funds rate (fed funds minus the PCE deflator) is currently 180 basis points, down from 300 basis point in August. In our opinion, the Fed’s neutral rate is when the real fed funds rate is 200 to 300 basis points. See page 8.

The most favorable economic release of the week was the ISM manufacturing index for January. It was 50.9 and above 50 for the first time in 26 months! Seven of the ten components were higher in the month. Customers’ inventories were unchanged, and the inventories index and order backlog index were lower. The employment index rose to 50.3 and was above 50 for the first time in eight months. The best component was new orders, which increased from 52.1 to 55.1. See page 9. Since the DeepSeek controversy, technology stocks have underperformed, and this can be seen in the performance of the indices. The DJIA is up 4.7% year-to-date, the S&P 500 and the Russell 2000 are up 2.7%, and the Nasdaq Composite is up only 1.8%. Nevertheless, all the indices are in relatively stable and favorable uptrends. See page 12. Our 25-day volume oscillator remains neutral but has a bullish bias. In summary, we would be a buyer on dips.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download