In a dreary smartphone market, Apple Inc. could do something it’s never done before.
The consumer-electronics giant has a chance to finish the year as the global leader in smartphone shipments for the first time, according to analysts at Counterpoint Research.
Consumers continue to hold on to their smartphones for longer, one reason that the Counterpoint team expects overall shipments to fall 6% this year, to 1.15 billion units. That would be the lowest level in a decade.
“But we’re watching [the fourth quarter] with interest because the iPhone 15 launch is a window for carriers to steal high-value customers,” Jeff Fieldhack, Counterpoint’s North America research director, said in a release.
With a big base of current iPhone 12 owners due for upgrades, “promos are going to be aggressive, leaving Apple in a good spot.”
Counterpoint notes that premium smartphones have been picking up share within the market and called out China as a region where that trend holds true. Apple AAPL, -0.12%
focuses on the premium market and is expected to debut its next lineup of devices, the iPhone 15 family, in September, and sales likely will begin later that month or in early October.
Projections from Counterpoint put Apple the closest its ever been to capturing the top spot. “We’re talking about a spread that’s literally a few days’ worth of sales,” Fieldhack said. “Assuming Apple doesn’t run into production problems like it did last year, it’s really a toss-up at this point.”
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 005930, +0.45%
was the market leader in shipments last year, and it held the top spot in the first quarter of this year.
Food prices rose 0.2% on the month in July after remaining unchanged in June, and they rose 4.9% on the year, while the cost of food at home rose 3.6% on the year, government data released Thursday showed. Prices of fresh fruits and vegetables rose just 1.2% year over year.
However, there were some big — even alarming — outliers: Frozen fruit and vegetable prices increased by 11.8% in July over last year, frozen vegetable prices rose 17.1% and frozen noncarbonated juice and drink prices rose 16.3%.
Those price rises are at odds with overall inflation figures. U.S. consumer prices rose to 3.2% in July from 3% in the prior month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said this week. It was the first increase in 13 months.
Why have the prices of frozen fruits and vegetables shot up over the past 12 months, while the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables has increased so little?
Climate change and extreme weather conditions — from heavy rainfall to drought, particularly in California — have led to big problems for farmers. This has been compounded by issues related to the war in Ukraine and an ongoing increase in the cost of labor, experts said.
As a result, a large proportion of the fruits and vegetables grown were destined to be sold as fresh produce — which led to a shortage of ingredients for frozen goods, said Brad Rubin, sector manager at Wells Fargo Agri-Food Institute. “Because of the late crop, lots of produce is being pushed to the fresh market to keep up with demand,” he said.
California weather
California has experienced some drastic weather conditions over the last 12 months. Some 78 trillion gallons of water fell in California during winter 2022 and early spring 2023, according to data from the National Weather Service, delaying planting. And all that snow and rain was followed by a months-long drought in the region.
What happens in California is felt by consumers across the country.
“California produces nearly half of U.S.-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables,” according to estimates from the Sciences College of Agriculture, Food & Environmental Sciences at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. “California is the only state in the U.S. to export the following commodities: almonds, artichokes, dates, dried plums, figs, garlic, kiwifruit, olives, pistachios, raisins and walnuts,” it says.
The subsequent price rises hit ingredients like strawberries and raspberries especially hard, Rubin added. Inventories of frozen berries are “near five-year lows” after winter storms in Watsonville flooded agricultural fields, damaging and delaying the strawberry crop. Most of the strawberries in the U.S. are grown in California.
Labor costs
Frozen fruits and vegetables have a longer supply chain than fresh produce, which can make them more vulnerable to disruptions in inventory, experts say. Rising energy prices are also pushing up the cost of cold storage.
In addition to those issues, U.S. farmers are dealing with increased labor costs and fewer migrant workers, partly due to changes in government policies and the closure of borders during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a February 2023 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
“Immigration has traditionally provided an important contribution to the U.S. labor force,” the report said. “The flow of immigrants into the United States began to slow in 2017 due to various government policies, then declined further due to border closures in 2020-21 associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This decline in immigration has had a notable effect on the share of immigrants in the U.S. labor force.”
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also continues to affect agricultural production in the U.S., said Curt Covington, senior director of institutional business at AgAmerica Lending, a financial-services company providing agricultural loans. Because the war disrupted supplies of commodities like wheat and corn — also pushing up prices for those goods — farmers have been prioritizing planting those crops over vegetables.
“These escalating frozen-vegetable prices present a challenge for farmers as they grapple with increased production costs and labor pressures,” and that presents a long-term challenge for farmers, “potentially impacting their profitability,” Covington said.
All of these factors — from international supply chains to extreme weather conditions — will have an effect on the cost of frozen goods in U.S. supermarkets. Ultimately, experts said, consumers will end up paying the price.
““We are actively exploring ways to address account sharing and the best options for paying subscribers to share their accounts with friends and family.””
— Disney CEO Bob Iger
Pour another one out for streaming freeloaders.
Netflix Inc. NFLX, -2.14%
has been cracking down on account-sharing, and now Walt Disney Co. DIS, -0.73%
is likely to follow suit.
Bob Iger, the media giant’s chief executive, said Wednesday that the company was “actively exploring” how to tackle the fact that many streaming subscribers on Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ share passwords and accounts with loved ones.
“Later this year, we will begin to update our subscriber agreements with additional terms on our sharing policies, and we will roll out tactics to drive monetization sometime in 2024,” he said, according to a transcript provided by AlphaSense/Sentieo.
Whereas Netflix suggested that it could be housing 100 million global account borrowers, Iger declined to put a number on Disney’s own base of password sharers, “except to say that it’s significant.”
“What we don’t know, of course, is as we get to work on this, how much of the password-sharing, as we basically eliminate it, will convert to growth” in subscribers, he said. “Obviously, we believe there will be some, but we’re not speculating.”
The company plans to “get at this issue” next calendar year, and the initiative could have some impact on Disney’s business in that period.
“It’s possible that we won’t be complete or the work will not be completed within the calendar year, but we certainly have established this as a real priority, and we actually think that there’s an opportunity here to help us grow our business,” Iger continued.
Disney is making a big push to improve the financials of its streaming business, after spending the stay-home pandemic era focused on raw subscriber growth. Now the company is targeting streaming profitability by the end of fiscal 2024, and it just announced a new round of price hikes in pursuit of that goal.
“We grew this business really fast, really before we even understood what our pricing strategy should be or could be,” Iger commented. In the past six months, the company has started to pursue a pricing strategy “that’s really aimed at enabling us to improve the bottom line, ultimately to turn this into a growth business.”
Netflix is farther along in its efforts, and it’s won praise from Wall Street for them. Executives at the streaming giant indicated early success with Netflix’s broad password-sharing crackdown, though it will take time for the impact to fully manifest in the company’s financials.
I’ve read your previous responses to letters on tipping, and my thoughts are simple: Tipping is dependent on the service given. I won’t tip at a deli counter, but I will tip more in a diner. I see no reason to tip a deli counter person on a regular basis. The person who rings up my groceries isn’t allowed to accept tips, and they do a lot more than put a sandwich in a bag.
As far as restaurants go, 15% is the starting point and I will go up from that as warranted. I do tend to tip a high percentage in diners. The waitstaff there are generally fabulous, deal with lower price points and a varied clientele. I feel they also suffer from customer bias where some people seem to think it’s only a diner not a fancy restaurant.
“‘Helping others is not always through money. I volunteer my time with several charities and donate blood.’”
The job is the same whether my meal is $10 or $100. I try to pay in cash to ensure the waitstaff is promptly getting their tip, and to ensure that the money does indeed go to the wait staff. Are we expected to tip on a total that includes credit-card charges? What’s more, helping others is not always through money. I volunteer my time with several charities and donate blood.
What troubles me is that throughout the New York City metro area, tipping recommendations in restaurants are based on faulty calculations. My friends and I all agree that tips are supposed to be based on the price of the meal — that is the subtotal or pre-tax figure. Restaurants frequently encourage people to tip on the final amount.
Yes, wait staff in diners work as hard as any restaurant worker, and they deserve whatever your optimum tip — 15% or 20% — and as much as you would tip in a white-tablecloth restaurant. Yes, consumers should not be expected to tip in a deli — unless you have a good relationship with the staff, and you tip occasionally for goodwill. If you choose to “skip” the charity donation in a pharmacy, that’s OK too. Yes, donations and tips are increasingly being conflated, and that’s not always a good thing. We should be comfortable with the charity and 100% sure that the donation is going to the charity in question.
And your main point: Yes, tipping on the subtotal before tax and before credit-card charges is absolutely fair, although a lot of people — especially when calculating the tip among friends — tip on the after-tax total. Why? Perhaps we don’t want to be seen splitting hairs over the tax among friends and/or in front of a service worker who has given us exemplary service. Calculating tips is often done under pressure, and no one likes to be seen as a cheapskate. I almost always tip on the total amount, knowing that the sales tax is included, primarily because I figure that extra $1 or more is going to the person who served my table.
My colleague, MarketWatch news editor Nicole Pesce, put together a guide for how much you should tip everyone, and who you should NOT tip. She also cited three reasons why tipping has become such a note of contention, and why it appears we are tipping more: people tipped staff more during the pandemic (they were, after all, putting their health and lives at risk with their jobs); 40-year high inflation over the last 12 months has increased the cost of everything and, as such our tips rose in tandem with prices; and, finally, digital tipping appears to be ubiquitous, and people have been suffering from tipping fatigue.
“‘You’re not the only one: Americans are souring on tipping.’”
You’re not the only one with tipping fatigue, though: Americans are generally souring on tipping. A large majority (66%) of U.S. adults have a negative view about tipping, according to a poll released by the personal-finance site Bankrate last month. The bottom line: consumers feel they are being forced to compensate employees for low pay (41%) and they don’t appreciate all that digital guilt tipping (32%) and, as a result, they believe that tipping culture has gotten out of control (30%). Respondents also said they were confused about how much to tip (15%), but a small minority (a paltry 16%) said they would be willing to pay higher prices in lieu of tipping.
People appear to be less generous with their tipping amounts, and they also appear to be tipping less often. What’s perhaps most surprising from Bankrate’s research is that only 65% of diners actually tip when they eat out (that’s down from 73% last year). After restaurants, people are most likely to tip barbers/hairdressers (53% of those polled) and food-delivery workers (50%). From thereon, only a minority of people say they tip taxi or rideshare drivers (New York City cabs, which give tipping options upon payment, may be an outlier here), hotel housekeepers, baristas and food-delivery workers.
It’s important that we have this conversation about tipping because expectations and digital tipping methods are evolving all the time. On the one hand, people are facing higher prices and they are understandably feeling under pressure to tip. On the other hand, this conversation naturally overlaps with the working conditions and pay of service workers. Americans are tipping less than they did during the worst days of the pandemic. Service workers — along with medical personnel, bus and train drivers and first responders — were among the heroes of the pandemic. That is something I hope we never forget.
“The person who rings up my groceries isn’t allowed to accept tips, and they do a lot more than put a sandwich in a bag,” the letter writer says.
I went for dinner with six friends last weekend, and we each ordered entrees and desserts, and some side orders. One of our group only eats gluten-free food, so he ordered two starters. We split the bill, and it worked out at $36 each. But our gluten-free friend cried foul, and asked for a separate check to pay $22 for his gluten-free dish. I was outraged — and almost felt physically sick. I kicked my husband under the table, and said under my breath, “Can you believe that?’
Can you believe it? Do you think he should have just paid the $35 instead of asking for a separate check? Adding insult to injury, he left the waiter a $10 tip. Why not just pay $35 like everyone else? I told my husband I was never going for dinner with him again. Don’t you think he should have just paid $35 like everyone else? It was a big crowd. If everyone did that, you’d need a forensic accountant to figure out how many breadsticks someone ate.
We otherwise had a nice evening, and it was a bring-your-own-bottle restaurant. I work as a teacher and my husband works in tech. We own a home together and have three kids. Our gluten-free friend is a freelance consultant, and is divorced with two kids. He had a very privileged upbringing. I worked hard for everything I have. I’m not saying any of us are rich, but when we go out to eat, we like to share and share alike, and split the bill down the middle.
When did eating out become so full of these cringeworthy moments?
Equal Bill Splitter
Dear Equal,
I’m sorry to say that the most cringeworthy moment here happened when you kicked your husband under the table. I’m not a big fan of under-table communication in a group, and while we could debate the pros and cons of asking for a separate check for a $13 difference, I don’t think there’s much of a gray area when it comes to calling someone out at the dinner table, especially when your eye-rolling and disapproval could be picked up by the other guests.
As far as your friend is concerned, $13 is a lot of money to pay when you did not eat all the food that was ordered by the table. Maybe it doesn’t seem like it to you or anyone reading this column, but your friend is divorced with two kids, and works as a freelancer — so let’s assume his income is not always stable. Could he have just split it down the middle and paid $35 and another 15% or 20% for a tip? Sure. But he has good financial boundaries. I applaud him.
The real issue here may go back to your respective upbringings, and could explain your dramatic — and I would argue disproportionate reaction — to your friend asking for a separate $22 check. You’ve worked hard, and maybe your friend had an easier start in life, but that doesn’t mean he’s not entitled to pay for what he ate, and watch every dollar. Divorce is like a recession. You can end up struggling to get back on your financial feet for years.
Perhaps your friend had always intended to pay $22 for his gluten-free dish, and tip the server 50%, or perhaps he has a well-trained side eye and caught your reaction to his paying for his own order, and he decided to pay closer to what everyone else had paid. But ordering separate checks, I suspect, will become more common as prices continue to rise, even at a slower pace, and people feel uncertain about spending money in restaurants.
You believe in equality of bill splitting. I suggest you apply that equality to all dinner guests, regardless of upbringing and dietary restrictions, and allow them to make their own choices about what they pay for at dinner. People often have problems — financial or otherwise — that we are not aware of, so try to leave space for that. And if your friend did see your eye-rolling and under-the-table antics? I’d like to think he made space for your behavior too.
Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas.
By emailing your questions, you agree to have them published anonymously on MarketWatch. By submitting your story to Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties.
The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.
Would Twitter have been better off to remain a public company rather than be taken private by Elon Musk?
We’ll never know for sure, of course. But it’s hard to imagine that it would have performed any worse. Twitter as a private company is hemorrhaging advertisers, and according to a recent Fidelity analysis its market value is down nearly two-thirds from the $44 billion Musk paid for it.
Grading Twitter’s performance as a private company is more than an idle armchair exercise. It goes to the heart of an age-old debate over whether companies can be more profitably managed when private rather than public. The private equity (PE) industry not surprisingly claims that its approach is superior, and much of Wall Street agrees since many PE firms have produced impressive long-term returns.
The industry’s claims are not devoid of dissenters. Consider a recent study from Verdad Capital entitled “Private Equity Operational Improvements.” It was conducted by Minje Kwun of Dartmouth College and Lila Alloula of Yale University.
In order to overcome the otherwise insuperable obstacle of being unable to measure how private companies are performing, the researchers focused on a subset of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) from 1996 to 2021 in which the private equity firms issued public debt. In order to sell debt to the public, of course, the PE firms had to issue financial statements publicly, and that enabled the researchers to analyze the LBOs’ performance after going private, relative to public companies in the same industry sector.
Kwun and Alloula focused on six indicators of financial performance: Revenue growth, EBITDA margin, capital expenditures as a percentage of sales, and the ratios of gross profit to total assets, EBITDA to total assets, and debt to EBITDA. (EBITDA, of course, refers to Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization.)
Relative to public companies in the same sector over the three years after going private, LBOs on average did not show any operational improvement along these six dimensions. The researchers conclude: “The [private equity] industry mythology of savvy and efficient operators streamlining operations and directing strategy to increase growth just isn’t supported by data.”
Their results are consistent with those of a near-decade ago study by Jonathan Cohn and Lillian Mills of the University of Texas and Erin Towery of the University of Georgia. They used a different technique to access the otherwise inaccessible financial data of newly-private companies: Their tax returns. The professors focused on the operating performance of a sample of companies that had gone private between 1995 and 2007, comparing them to otherwise-similar companies that remained public. On average over the three years after going private, the researchers found, the private companies performed no better than the public ones.
The source of PE’s industry high returns
What, then, is the source of the increased return that the private equity industry often produces? The answer appears to be increased leverage. Leverage increases returns on the upside, even if it magnifies losses on the downside. Leverage has worked to the PE industry’s advantage over the last several decades since public markets have on balance have risen significantly.
Notice that increasing leverage requires no particular management expertise or shrewd strategic planning. In principle it’s no more difficult than you or me purchasing stock on margin.
These studies are not the final word on the subject. Some other studies, using alternate methodologies, have found some operational improvement at companies after being taken private. If different methodologies can reach such different conclusions, however, that would suggest that the benefits of going private are not as obvious and overwhelming as the private equity industry would have us believe.
At a minimum, Kwun and Alloula argue, we should be skeptical “of any claims of operational improvements being a major contributor to PE’s performance relative to public markets.”
Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at mark@hulbertratings.com
Meta Platforms Inc. launched Threads, its rival to Twitter, a day early Wednesday.
“Let’s do this. Welcome to Threads,” Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg posted on the new app.
The text-based app, a spinoff of Meta’s META Instagram, had been set to launch Thursday morning, but instead went live for users in the U.S. and more than 100 other…
As we enter artificial intelligence’s brave new world, humans have naturally come to fear what the future holds. Do computers like HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey pose an existential threat? Or in an incident not from Hollywood fiction, an Air Force official’s recent remarks implying that a drone had autonomously changed course and killed its operator, only to be later declared a hypothetical, certainly raised alarm.
Closer to home for most of us, the release of large language models like ChatGPT have renewed worries about automation, reminiscent of earlier fears about mechanization. AI has advanced far beyond rote data-storage tasks and can even pass the bar exam, or write news, or research papers, leading to fears of massive white-collar unemployment.
But, as new research looking at data of job churn over the past two decades finds, the impact of automation on workers and industries is, in fact, pretty hard to predict given the complexity of the labor market, requiring carefully crafted policies that take these nuances into account.
First, changes in exposure to automation are not intuitive: they do not easily mesh with “blue-collar” and “white-collar” jobs, as typically defined. Instead, automation is more closely linked to the tasks and characteristics of each job, such as repetitiveness and face-to-face interactions. That translates to the three most automation-exposed jobs: office and administrative support, production, and business and financial operations occupations.
Meanwhile, the three least automation-exposed jobs are in personal care; installation, maintenance and repair occupations; and teaching. In other words, even with the Internet of Things controlling your HVAC system, it cannot fix itself when it needs new refrigerant, but its smart-panel interface can help the technician diagnose the problem remotely quickly and know what equipment to bring for a repair. But back-end accountants in that company may not fare as well in the AI jobs sweepstakes.
While automation can displace workers, history suggests that new technology also tends to boost productivity and create new jobs. Consider the automobile: while horses and buggies are outdated, we still need humans to drive (at least until autonomous vehicles come to full fruition), and the assembly line helped automate manufacturing with entire new classes of jobs created for every part of a car and all its electronic systems, with almost 1 million U.S. workers in auto manufacturing today.
But automation has continued in the auto industry over the decades, with robots helping to make hard and heavy physical labor tasks easier, without fully displacing workers. So there is a push-pull with automation, and the relative sizes of these countervailing effects remains an area of active scholarly debate.
“ It is rare for an entire job class to disappear overnight; changes mainly take place over generations ”
Second, it is rare for an entire job class to disappear overnight; changes mainly take place over generations. The research shows that newer generations of workers, perhaps deterred by the job insecurity observed in earlier generations and lured by high wages in the technology sector, are less inclined to enter automation-prone jobs than those before them. However, after embarking down those career paths, workers tend to stay in their fields, even if the prospects of automation loom large, likely because reskilling is time-consuming and expensive. It is relatively easy for recent high school graduates to opt for tech-centric college degrees like computer science, but learning new skills like coding is more difficult for mid-career professionals in automation-susceptible fields like manufacturing.
Adjustments to automation can be slow on the business side as well. Incorporating automated technology takes time because modern production tasks tend to be so intertwined that automating one part of a business can affect all other operations. For example, when AT&T, once the country’s largest firm, began replacing telephone operators with mechanical switchboards, they found that operators had become central to the complex production system that grew around them, which is why there are fewer operators today, but some still exist.
Third, the research found that the share of workers in highly automation-exposed occupations tends to be clustered, ranging from about 25% to 36% across commuting zones. The least-exposed areas in the U.S. are across the Mountain West, thanks to the area’s high shares of workers in management, retail sales and construction (which hasn’t had much automation or productivity improvement in decades but additive manufacturing may be a game-changer), as well as those on the East and West coasts, with their more innovative finance and tech industries.
On the other hand, those most exposed to automation tend to be located in the Great Plains and Rust Belt, namely due to agriculture. In spite of the fact that U.S. agriculture has been exposed to automation for over a century (more efficient machines and advances in biotechnology), it has become even more technology-driven recently, making ag workers more likely to be impacted by automation.
So will the robots take over your job soon? More likely, they will make our jobs easier and more efficient. Trying to slow the adoption of technology is both futile and counterproductive: taxing or overregulating tech adoption may backfire, especially given global competitiveness and other countries who may not pause. While the advent of a new era of automation is likely to be both gradually incorporated and result in complements to human labor rather than full replacement, thoughtful policies can help disrupted workers transition to new and better opportunities, ensuring we can harness the transformative power of automation and foster a future of work that benefits all.
Eric Carlson is associate economist at the Economic Innovation Group; DJ Nordquist is EIG’s executive vice president.
Apple Inc. officially showed off its mixed-reality headset Monday, with the new Vision Pro device supporting 3-D content and featuring a price tag of $3,499.
The Vision Pro, Apple’s AAPL, -0.76%
first major new product category in eight years, will be available early next year and feature the ability for users to control the device with their hands, eyes and voice, a distinguishing feature of the headset in the current market. Chief Executive Tim Cook previewed the widely anticipated device during the keynote address of Apple’s WWDC developer event Monday.
Apple had been rumored for years to be developing a mixed-reality headset, which merges immersive augmented reality with real-life surroundings. Cook has long been excited about AR technology, and Monday’s event gave a sense for how he sees the theme playing into the business going forward as he announced WWDC’s “one more thing.”
“It’s the first Apple product you look through and not at,” he said, adding that Vision Pro represents “spatial computing” and brings “a new dimension to powerful personal technology.”
Users will be “no longer limited by a display,” Cook claimed.
One key feature of the Vision Pro is the ability to see apps overlaid across real-world surroundings. Users will be able to determine how immersed they want to be by tweaking settings on a digital crown.
The device will also allow users to rely only on their eyes, hands and voice to control content. Users can flick to scroll through options and tap their fingers together to select something with gestures that Apple says are subtle. Apple showed off how users will be able to arrange apps like FaceTime and Safari and then turn to the side to switch from one app to another. Their eyes will still be visible to people engaging with them in the real world.
The company highlighted panoramic photos and noted that users will be able to capture “spatial” 3-D videos and photos using the headset. Apple teased that people would be able to make the surroundings of a plane disappear if they opted to watch 3-D video while flying.
Robert Iger, Walt Disney Co.’s DIS, +0.25%
CEO, appeared onstage to call the launch a “momentous event” that could help make Disney’s vision “a reality” through the advent of deeply immersive and personal stories. The Disney+ app will be available “on day one” through Vision Pro.
Apple explained that users can either plug the Vision Pro in or use an external battery that will provide roughly two hours of use. The display has “more panels than a 4K TV for each eye.” The Vision Pro relies on Apple’s custom processing, including a new R1 chip that the company says helps reduce latency issues, which have plagued other devices.
Users will be able to set up digital personas as part of the new visionOS operating system for the device.
With the Vision Pro, Apple is wading into a market for augmented- and virtual-reality devices that has been underwhelming thus far as products from Meta Platforms Inc. META, -0.45%
and others have failed to pick up meaningful traction with consumers. VR devices dominate the market, according to third-party data from IDC, but overall shipments plunged more than 50% in the latest quarter amid economic pressures and a general cooling of interest.
While Apple is sitting on a number of multibillion-dollar businesses now, the company’s current big moneymakers weren’t seen as slam dunks when they launched. Evercore ISI analyst Amit Daryanani noted that critics dinged the early iPhone for a lack of third-party apps and keyboard and pointed to fading interest in watch-wearing more generally at the time the Apple Watch debuted.
Whether Apple can succeed again in making a once-questioned product category mainstream remains to be seen with the Vision Pro. The company could sell over 10 million units in the first five years, according to Daryanani, but that would make the device Apple’s slowest to ramp in the 21st century.
Users of Apple Inc.’s iPhone will soon be able to more easily screen calls, check-in with loved ones and exchange contact information.
Apple AAPL, +0.43%
executives teased the elements of its forthcoming iOS17 software update at the keynote address of its WWDC event Monday, which also brought the introduction of new Macs.
Consumers will gain the ability to choose how they come up when they call others through a new “poster” feature. Users will be able to customize posters with photographs and fonts, and have these appear in another person’s contacts app.
The company is also changing up how calls work by adding a way for people to pick up calls while they’re in the middle of receiving a voice mail. A new on-device live-voicemail feature will show transcripts of a voice mail while it’s in progress, so people can determine that a call isn’t spam or is important enough to stop what they’re doing before they pick it up.
Users will also gain the ability to leave a message when using FaceTime, Apple’s video-calling app.
Within iMessage, Apple will offer the ability for people to share their locations within a conversation and check in with loved ones. People will be able to set up a check-in option that can notify loved ones when they get home and offer alerts about battery, cell service, and location if they end up running late.
Apple is also enhancing the Stickers feature within iMessage with the ability to create “live stickers” from photos. Further, it’s tucking iMessage apps like Stickers behind a menu so they don’t initially clutter the message screen.
Within iMessage, Apple will make it easier for people to jump to the top of long group threads and swipe to reply to a given message.
Apple is introducing a NameDrop feature that lets people share contact information just by tapping their phones together. It’s also augmenting AutoCorrect with in-line predictions that go beyond one word and the ability for people to teach autocorrect their preferences better.
The company is rolling out two new apps, including one for journaling. People will be able to collect photos, music, and written notes into moments. A new StandBy app will turn a locked iPhone into a smart display that users can customize based on their preferences and the time of day.
Walt Disney Co. will increase the cost of ad-free Disney+ subscriptions this year while adding Hulu content to the Disney+ streaming service and removing some shows from streaming entirely, executives announced Wednesday.
Disney DIS, -1.02%
executives have been making changes to their streaming strategy in an attempt to lose less money from offering its content directly to consumers over the internet. The company launched an ad-supported version of Disney+ in the U.S. and other countries late last year, and increased the cost of its ad-free offering at the same time, while increasing costs of other services.
“Pricing changes we’ve already implemented have proven successful, and we plan to set a higher price for our ad-free tier later this year to better reflect the value of our content offerings,” Chief Executive Robert Iger said in a conference call Wednesday related to Disney’s quarterly earnings. “As we look to the future, we will continue optimizing our pricing model to reward loyalty and reduce churn, to increase subscriber revenue for the premium ad-free tier, and drive growth of subscribers who offer the lower-cost ad supported option.”
Iger returned as chief executive of Disney late last year, and has been overseeing the evaluation of Disney’s streaming strategy. One of the biggest question marks is Hulu, of which Disney now owns two-thirds, with the option to buy the remaining interest from Comcast Corp. CMCSA, +0.61%
as early as January.
Iger, though, has been rethinking the path for Hulu since returning. In an interview with CNBC earlier this year, he intimated that Disney could choose to sell the streaming service instead of buying the remaining interest. In his first big move with the service since returning, Iger said Wednesday that Hulu content would roll into Disney+ in the U.S. later this year.
“As a significant step toward creating a growth business, I’m pleased to announce that we will soon begin offering a one-app experience domestically that incorporates our Hulu content via Disney+,” Iger said in the conference call. “While we will continue to offer Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ as stand-alone options, this is a logical progression of our [direct-to-consumer] offerings that will provide greater opportunities for advertisers while giving bundle subscribers access to more robust and streamlined content, resulting in greater audience engagement and ultimately leading to a more unified streaming experience.”
Iger later clarified that the two apps will be combined only for those who subscribe to both.
“On the integrated app experience that we announced today, that’s more consumers that have subscribed to both services for now,” he said. “So in other words, it’s taking what we call the dual bundle and putting it together in one experience, which is obviously good for consumers. Why have to close out one app and open another one?”
After a wave of new streaming services appeared in recent years to compete with Netflix Inc. NFLX, +0.99%,
media companies are looking to combine some of their offerings as consumers deal with a web of potential subscriptions. Paramount Global PARA, -4.11%
plans to combine its Paramount+ and Showtime streaming services, and Warner Bros. Discovery WBD, -2.76%
is planning to combine HBO Max with Discovery+ while renaming the service Max.
When an analyst on Wednesday’s call suggested that Disney’s move revealed that Iger had decided to purchase the rest of Hulu, Iger responded by saying “it’s not really been fully determined what will happen in that regard.”
“Where we are headed is for one experience that would have general entertainment and Disney+ content together for the reasons that I just described,” Iger said. “How that ultimately unfolds is to some extent in the hands of Comcast and in the hands of basically a conversation or a negotiation that we have with them. I don’t want to be in any way predictive in terms of when or how that ends up.”
While adding Hulu content to Disney+, Disney will also remove some content from its streaming services, which will allow the company to save money that would be paid out as residuals for airing the content. Warner Bros. Discovery made similar moves as it looked to cut costs for its HBO Max streaming service last year.
“We will be removing certain content from our streaming platforms, and currently expect to take an impairment charge of approximately $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion,” Chief Financial Officer Christine McCarthy said in the conference call, without elaborating further.
Iger did elaborate on his vision for streaming in his second earnings report since returning to the company, laying out his general thoughts about the path forward for Disney’s streaming portfolio — which also includes ESPN+ and a version of Disney+ in India and other parts of Asia refereed to as Disney+Hotstar.
“First, it’s critical we rationalize the volume of content we’re creating, and what we’re spending to produce our content. Second, our legacy platforms enable us to expand our audiences and often augment our potential streaming success while at the same time, allowing us to amortize our content costs across multiple windows,” he said. “We also need to strike the right balance between our local and global programming, as well as our platform and program marketing. Finally, we must continue calibrating our investments in specific markets.”
Netflix Inc. is ending the DVD-by-mail business that first made it a household name and took down Blockbuster Video.
Netflix NFLX, +0.29%
executives announced Tuesday afternoon that the company will ship its last red DVD envelopes on Sept. 29, after 25 years. The business has dwindled in the past decade from more than $900 million in revenue in 2013 to less than $150 million last year.
“Our goal has always been to provide the best service for our members, but as the business continues to shrink that’s going to become increasingly difficult,” co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos said in a blog post titled “Netflix DVD — The Final Season.”
Netflix launched as a DVD-by-mail service in an era that relied on physical media such as the discs to watch television shows and movies at home. The DVD business at the time was dominated by Blockbuster, which relied on brick-and-mortar stores that rented movies for a few days and charged late fees if they were not returned on time.
Netflix offered a different approach, allowing consumers to have a certain number of DVDs mailed to their home and return them at their leisure, which eventually led to the demise of Blockbuster. Eventually, the company began focusing on streaming media directly to consumers, and first offered that service for free to DVD subscribers.
Co-founder and former Chief Executive Reed Hastings — who announced he was stepping down from that position three months ago — decided to pivot from the successful DVD business to focus on streaming, which wasn’t an easy transition. When he announced that Netflix would sever the DVD and streaming businesses in 2011, effectively doubling the monthly price for consumers who wanted both offerings, it became one of the biggest debacles in Netflix history as consumers raged and canceled their subscriptions.
While the process was not easy — remember Qwikster? — Hastings’ vision for streaming services won out, with Netflix collecting roughly $31.5 billion in streaming subscription revenue last year, as the DVD business racked up $146 million. Some of the biggest names in entertainment and tech — Walt Disney Inc. DIS, +0.63%,
Apple Inc. AAPL, +0.75%,
Warner Bros. Discovery’s WBD, -1.79%
HBO, and many more — have followed Netflix’s path, and established streaming as one of the most dominant forms of media consumption.
“Those iconic red envelopes changed the way people watched shows and movies at home — and they paved the way for the shift to streaming,” Sarandos wrote in Tuesday’s announcement.
Netflix Inc. is ending the DVD-by-mail business that first made it a household name and took down Blockbuster Video.
Netflix NFLX, +0.29%
executives announced Tuesday afternoon that the company will ship its last red DVD envelopes on Sept. 29, after 25 years. The business has dwindled in the past decade from more than $900 million in revenue in 2013 to less than $150 million last year.
“Our goal has always been to provide the best service for our members, but as the business continues to shrink that’s going to become increasingly difficult,” co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos said in a blog post titled “Netflix DVD — The Final Season.”
Netflix launched as a DVD-by-mail service in an era that relied on physical media such as the discs to watch television shows and movies at home. The DVD business at the time was dominated by Blockbuster, which relied on brick-and-mortar stores that rented movies for a few days and charged late fees if they were not returned on time.
Netflix offered a different approach, allowing consumers to have a certain number of DVDs mailed to their home and return them at their leisure, which eventually led to the demise of Blockbuster. Eventually, the company began focusing on streaming media directly to consumers, and first offered that service for free to DVD subscribers.
Co-founder and former Chief Executive Reed Hastings — who announced he was stepping down from that position three months ago — decided to pivot from the successful DVD business to focus on streaming, which wasn’t an easy transition. When he announced that Netflix would sever the DVD and streaming businesses in 2011, effectively doubling the monthly price for consumers who wanted both offerings, it became one of the biggest debacles in Netflix history as consumers raged and canceled their subscriptions.
While the process was not easy — remember Qwikster? — Hastings’ vision for streaming services won out, with Netflix collecting roughly $31.5 billion in streaming subscription revenue last year, as the DVD business racked up $146 million. Some of the biggest names in entertainment and tech — Walt Disney Inc. DIS, +0.63%,
Apple Inc. AAPL, +0.75%,
Warner Bros. Discovery’s WBD, -1.79%
HBO, and many more — have followed Netflix’s path, and established streaming as one of the most dominant forms of media consumption.
“Those iconic red envelopes changed the way people watched shows and movies at home — and they paved the way for the shift to streaming,” Sarandos wrote in Tuesday’s announcement.
The U.S. economy added 236,000 jobs in March, just shy of the 238,000 forecast by economists polled by the Wall Street Journal. The unemployment rate declined to 3.5% in March from 3.6% in February.
The latest data was calculated before the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank last month, an event that…
April is National Financial Literacy Month. To mark the occasion, MarketWatch will publish a series of “Financial Fitness” articles to help readers improve their fiscal health, and offer advice on how to save, invest and spend their money wisely. Read more here.
Do you know the difference between a stock and a bond, or a mutual fund and an exchange-traded fund? MarketWatch put together a meat and potatoes — although that’s always relative — quiz for our savvy readers. We’ve stuck to some familiar topics — taxes, stocks, interest rates, savings and inflation. There are 10 questions — with one bonus question thrown in for good measure.
You don’t know what you don’t know until you get an incorrect answer in a financial literacy quiz. Some of the questions are tricky, but we hope they are fun and that — most importantly — readers learn something new. Financial literacy helps us to plan for the future, gives us peace of mind and brings more understanding and less fear about the complex world of investing and retirement.
Our aim is to raise awareness of Financial Literacy Month. If you get 10/10, including the bonus question, buy yourself (and a friend) a popsicle. If you didn’t answer all the questions correctly, buy yourself a popsicle anyway. We, at MarketWatch, aim to democratize and demystify financial news, and make this sometimes intimidating subject as accessible as possible.
If you found it useful and/or entertaining, share it with a friend.
–Quentin Fottrell
Question 1: What is the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit?
(a) A tax deduction reduces your income taxes directly. A tax credit reduces your taxable income.
(b) A tax deduction reduces your taxable income. A tax credit reduces your income taxes directly.
(c) Both reduce your income taxes directly.
Question 2: Which way do bond prices move when interest rates rise?
(a) Bond-market prices fall as interest rates rise. Bond prices rise when interest rates decline.
(b) Bond-market prices rise as interest rates rise. Bond prices fall when interest rates decline.
(c) Bond-market prices fall as interest rates rise, but bond prices also fall when interest rates decline.
Question 3: What has been the average annual total return, with dividends reinvested, for the S&P 500 over the past 30 years?
(a) 9.7%, according to FactSet.
(b) 3%, according to FactSet.
(c) 6.5%, according to FactSet.
Question 4: What is compound interest and how does it work?
(a) Compound interest reflects the linear gain that comes from all the reinvested interest of your savings and investments, which allows your initial investment/deposit to gain value regardless of the amount of interest you pay.
(b) Compound interest reflects the exponential gain that comes from all the reinvested interest of your savings and investments, which allows your initial investment/deposit and the additional interest to increase in value.
(c) Compound interest reflects the amount of interest you pay every month on a loan, and the total amount of interest you have paid over the lifetime of that loan.
Question 5: What is APR and how is it different from a regular interest rate?
(a) APR is the annual interest on a loan calculated on the initial loan, including additional costs and fees, but not on the accumulated interest incurred on the loan.
(b) APR is the annual interest on a loan calculated on the initial loan and the accumulated interest over the first year.
(c) APR is the annual interest on a loan calculated on the initial loan, including additional costs and fees, and the accumulated interest over the lifetime of the loan loan.
Question 6: What percentage of your income should you spend on rent?
(a) Most real-estate experts say you should spend no more than 20% of your income on housing costs, which is considered to be a tipping point for becoming “cost-burdened.”
(b) Most real-estate experts say you should spend no more than 50% of your income on housing costs, which is considered to be a tipping point for becoming “cost-burdened.”
(c) Most real-estate experts say you should spend no more than 30% of your income on housing costs, which is considered to be a tipping point for becoming “cost-burdened.”
Question 7: What’s an ETF?
(a) ETFs, or Exchange-Traded Funds, are baskets of investments — stocks, bonds, or commodities — that investors can buy throughout the trading day like stocks.
(b) ETFs, or Exchange-Traded Funds, are baskets of investments — stocks, bonds, or commodities — that investors can only buy at the end of the trading day.
(c) ETFs, or Exchange-Traded Funds, are baskets of investments — stocks, bonds, or commodities — that investors can only buy during or at the end of the trading day.
Question 8: What is the difference between a stock and a bond?
(a) A stock is a temporary investment in a company, while a bond is issued by a company to reward shareholders.
(b) A stock is a share in the ownership of a company, while a bond is issued by a company to finance a loan.
(c) A stock is a share in the ownership of a company, while a bond is issued by a company to finance the stock.
Question 9: If you were born in 1960 or later, at what age can you receive your full Social Security in the U.S.? Bonus question: At what age can you receive your maximum Social Security benefit?
(a) Full retirement age in the U.S. is 65 for those born in 1960 and after. While you can start collecting your Social Security retirement benefits as early as 62, your benefits are permanently reduced. Your Social Security benefits max out at age 70. By delaying until 70, your benefit is 76% higher than if you had claimed at the earliest possible age (62).
(b) Full retirement age in the U.S. is 65 for those born in 1960 and after. While you can start collecting your Social Security retirement benefits as early as 62, your benefits are permanently reduced. Your Social Security benefits max out at age 67. By delaying until 67, your benefit is 76% higher than if you had claimed at the earliest possible age (62).
(c) Full retirement age in the U.S. is 67 for those born in 1960 and after. While you can start collecting your Social Security retirement benefits as early as 62, your benefits are permanently reduced by a small percentage each month until you reach 67. Your Social Security benefits max out at age 70. By delaying until 70, your benefit is 76% higher than if you had claimed at the earliest possible age (62).
Question 10: What is the Federal Reserve’s desired rate of inflation?
(a) 2%
(b) 3%
(c) 2.5%
Bonus question! What is considered a good credit score?
(a) 560
(b) 680
(c) 800
If you get 10/10, including the bonus question, buy yourself a popsicle.
Getty Images/iStockphoto
Answer 1:
(b) A tax deduction reduces your taxable income. A tax credit reduces your income taxes directly.
Answer 2:
(a) Bond-market prices fall as interest rates rise. Bond prices rise when interest rates decline.
Answer 3:
(a) 9.7%, according to FactSet.
Answer 4:
(b) Compound interest reflects the exponential gain that comes from all the reinvested interest of your savings and investments, which allows your initial investment/deposit and the additional interest to increase in value.
Answer 5:
(c) APR is the annual interest on a loan calculated on the initial loan, including additional costs and fees, and the accumulated interest over the lifetime of the loan.
Answer 6:
(c) Most real-estate experts say you should spend no more than 30% of your income on housing, which is considered to be a tipping point for becoming “cost-burdened.”
Answer 7:
(a) ETFs are Exchange-Traded Funds. These are baskets of investments — stocks, bonds, or commodities — that investors can buy or sell throughout the trading day.
Answer 8:
(b) A stock is a share in the ownership of a company, while a bond is issued by a company to finance a loan.
Answer 9:
(c) Full retirement age in the U.S. is 67 for those born in 1960 and after. While you can start collecting your Social Security retirement benefits as early as 62, your benefits are permanently reduced. Your Social Security benefits max out at age 70. By delaying until 70, your benefit is 76% higher than if you had claimed at the earliest possible age (62).
Answer 10:
(a) 2%
Answer for bonus question!
(b) 680. Although credit scores vary depending on the model, according to Experian, credit scores between 580 and 669 are considered “fair,” scores between 670 and 739 are regarded as “good”; 740 to 799 are considered “very good”; and scores of 800 and above are considered “excellent.”
What advice would you give to a widow and widower considering marriage on how to manage finances — and deal with adult children?
We are both 60 years old and plan to work a few more years, mostly for health insurance. We both have about $1.5 million in retirement savings accounts. Our spouses’ 401(k)s and IRAs rolled into our accounts.
I have another $500,000 in a brokerage and he has almost another $1 million. We both own homes with $300,000 mortgages. Mine is worth $500,000, Paul’s (not his real name) home is worth $1 million. We have no other debt.
We both have one married, and one unmarried child that we help. We both have two grandchildren.
We should be set up very well. Here’s the concern: His married, well-off daughter is very aggressive about inheritance. She wants the family home retitled in a trust. She wants all life insurance and brokerage beneficiaries in her name. Her brother has had drug-addiction problems, so she’s cutting him out even though it seems he’s the one who will need help.
“‘She wants the family home retitled in a trust. She wants all life insurance and brokerage beneficiaries in her name.’”
The daughter isn’t thrilled about our relationship and suggests we just live together. For religious reasons, I would never do this. Grandma shacking up? What example would I set for my grandchildren?
As a widowed couple, we are realistic enough to plan for the time one of us is left alone. Paul has diabetes, high blood pressure and already sees a cardiologist. What if he has a heart attack? Stroke? Or if he dies?
What’s a fair way to mingle finances and allow security for me should he predecease me while allowing Paul’s daughter to ultimately inherit?
By the way, my children have never raised money as an issue. After we both cared for spouses through cancer, they know life is short and just want us to be happy.
Happy to Have Found Love Again
Dear Happy,
She is overstepping the line, and overplaying her hand.
The first rule of inheritance is that it’s not yours until the decedent’s money is sitting in your bank account. Your fiancé’s daughter can make all the demands she likes, but the only thing your fiancé has to do is say, “You don’t need to be concerned. My affairs are all in order. I’ve always taken care of my own affairs, and I am not changing now.”
How your fiancé decides to split his estate is entirely up to him, and can be done in consultation with a financial adviser and attorney, taking into account each of his children’s individual needs. For instance, if you move in together, he could give you a life estate, allowing you to live in the home for the rest of your life, and dividing the property between his two children thereafter.
Given that you have your own home, however, you may decide to rent it out, and move back there in the event that he predeceases you. There are so many ways to split an inheritance. You could look at the intestate laws of your state, and follow them. In New York, the spouse inherits the first $50,000 of intestate property, plus half of the balance, and the kids inherit the rest.
“Paul” may decide to set up a trust for his son, so he can provide an income for him over the course of his life. If he has or had issues with addiction, this will help him while not putting temptation in his way with a lump sum of money. The best kind of trust is the one that deals with any recurring issues directly, and takes into account the person’s circumstances.
Martin Hagan, a Pennsylvania-based estate-planning attorney who has practiced for four decades, writes: “First, it would authorize distributions only if the beneficiary is actively pursuing treatment and recovery. Second, it would limit distributions to paying only for the expenses incurred in carrying out the treatment plan that will have been developed for the beneficiary.”
You have $2 million collectively in a retirement and brokerage account and $200,000 equity in his home, and you can use these next seven years or so to pay off your mortgage, while your fiancé has $2.5 million and $700,000 in equity on his home. You are both well set up for retirement, and let’s hope you have many years to spend together.
The financial services industry has many opinions. You should, advisers say, have 10 times your salary saved by the time you’re 65 years old. You don’t mention your salary, but I would be surprised if many people in America had that much money saved, especially given all of the unexpected events — divorce, illness, job loss — that can occur in the intervening years.
You also have other priorities than dealing with an aggressive daughter/daughter-in-law. AARP suggests that most people should look into long-term care insurance between the ages of 60 and 65, around the time most people are eligible to qualify for Medicare. If you do it earlier, it can serve as a savings account in the event that you never need long-term care, AARP says.
As retirement columnist Richard Quinn recently wrote on MarketWatch, everybody’s circumstances are different. “Living in retirement isn’t about averages. It isn’t about what other people do or the opinions of experts, especially online instant experts who don’t know anything about you and have yet to experience many years of retirement themselves.”
Don’t give too much oxygen or power to your future daughter-in-law. Her father should give her a stock answer, and be firm. If she persists, he can say, “The subject is closed. I need you to respect the decisions I make about my own life, respect my privacy on these matters, and it would be nice if you would be happy for us, and support us in our marriage together.”
You can’t change people. But you can change wills.
You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at qfottrell@marketwatch.com, and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.
Check out the Moneyist private Facebookgroup, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write in to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.
The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.
David Rosenberg, the former chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch, has been saying for almost a year that the Fed means business and investors should take the U.S. central bank’s effort to fight inflation both seriously and literally.
Rosenberg, now president of Toronto-based Rosenberg Research & Associates Inc., expects investors will face more pain in financial markets in the months to come.
“The recession’s just starting,” Rosenberg said in an interview with MarketWatch. “The market bottoms typically in the sixth or seventh inning of the recession, deep into the Fed easing cycle.” Investors can expect to endure more uncertainty leading up to the time — and it will come — when the Fed first pauses its current run of interest rate hikes and then begins to cut.
Fortunately for investors, the Fed’s pause and perhaps even cuts will come in 2023, Rosenberg predicts. Unfortunately, he added, the S&P 500 SPX, -0.61%
could drop 30% from its current level before that happens. Said Rosenberg: “You’re left with the S&P 500 bottoming out somewhere close to 2,900.”
At that point, Rosenberg added, stocks will look attractive again. But that’s a story for 2024.
In this recent interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Rosenberg offered a playbook for investors to follow this year and to prepare for a more bullish 2024. Meanwhile, he said, as they wait for the much-anticipated Fed pivot, investors should make their own pivot to defensive sectors of the financial markets — including bonds, gold and dividend-paying stocks.
MarketWatch: So many people out there are expecting a recession. But stocks have performed well to start the year. Are investors and Wall Street out of touch?
Rosenberg: Investor sentiment is out of line; the household sector is still enormously overweight equities. There is a disconnect between how investors feel about the outlook and how they’re actually positioned. They feel bearish but they’re still positioned bullishly, and that is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. We also have a situation where there is a lot of talk about recession and about how this is the most widely expected recession of all time, and yet the analyst community is still expecting corporate earnings growth to be positive in 2023.
In a plain-vanilla recession, earnings go down 20%. We’ve never had a recession where earnings were up at all. The consensus is that we are going to see corporate earnings expand in 2023. So there’s another glaring anomaly. We are being told this is a widely expected recession, and yet it’s not reflected in earnings estimates – at least not yet.
There’s nothing right now in my collection of metrics telling me that we’re anywhere close to a bottom. 2022 was the year where the Fed tightened policy aggressively and that showed up in the marketplace in a compression in the price-earnings multiple from roughly 22 to around 17. The story in 2022 was about what the rate hikes did to the market multiple; 2023 will be about what those rate hikes do to corporate earnings.
“ You’re left with the S&P 500 bottoming out somewhere close to 2,900. ”
When you’re attempting to be reasonable and come up with a sensible multiple for this market, given where the risk-free interest rate is now, and we can generously assume a roughly 15 price-earnings multiple. Then you slap that on a recession earning environment, and you’re left with the S&P 500 bottoming out somewhere close to 2900.
This is just pure mathematics. All the stock market is at any point is earnings multiplied by the multiple you want to apply to that earnings stream. That multiple is sensitive to interest rates. All we’ve seen is Act I — multiple compression. We haven’t yet seen the market multiple dip below the long-run mean, which is closer to 16. You’ve never had a bear market bottom with the multiple above the long-run average. That just doesn’t happen.
David Rosenberg: ‘You want to be in defensive areas with strong balance sheets, earnings visibility, solid dividend yields and dividend payout ratios.’
Rosenberg Research
MarketWatch: The market wants a “Powell put” to rescue stocks, but may have to settle for a “Powell pause.” When the Fed finally pauses its rate hikes, is that a signal to turn bullish?
Rosenberg: The stock market bottoms 70% of the way into a recession and 70% of the way into the easing cycle. What’s more important is that the Fed will pause, and then will pivot. That is going to be a 2023 story.
The Fed will shift its views as circumstances change. The S&P 500 low will be south of 3000 and then it’s a matter of time. The Fed will pause, the markets will have a knee-jerk positive reaction you can trade. Then the Fed will start to cut interest rates, and that usually takes place six months after the pause. Then there will be a lot of giddiness in the market for a short time. When the market bottoms, it’s the mirror image of when it peaks. The market peaks when it starts to see the recession coming. The next bull market will start once investors begin to see the recovery.
But the recession’s just starting. The market bottoms typically in the sixth or seventh inning of the recession, deep into the Fed easing cycle when the central bank has cut interest rates enough to push the yield curve back to a positive slope. That is many months away. We have to wait for the pause, the pivot, and for rate cuts to steepen the yield curve. That will be a late 2023, early 2024 story.
MarketWatch: How concerned are you about corporate and household debt? Are there echoes of the 2008-09 Great Recession?
Rosenberg: There’s not going to be a replay of 2008-09. It doesn’t mean there won’t be a major financial spasm. That always happens after a Fed tightening cycle. The excesses are exposed, and expunged. I look at it more as it could be a replay of what happened with nonbank financials in the 1980s, early 1990s, that engulfed the savings and loan industry. I am concerned about the banks in the sense that they have a tremendous amount of commercial real estate exposure on their balance sheets. I do think the banks will be compelled to bolster their loan-loss reserves, and that will come out of their earnings performance. That’s not the same as incurring capitalization problems, so I don’t see any major banks defaulting or being at risk of default.
But I’m concerned about other pockets of the financial sector. The banks are actually less important to the overall credit market than they’ve been in the past. This is not a repeat of 2008-09 but we do have to focus on where the extreme leverage is centered.
It’s not necessarily in the banks this time; it is in other sources such as private equity, private debt, and they have yet to fully mark-to-market their assets. That’s an area of concern. The parts of the market that cater directly to the consumer, like credit cards, we’re already starting to see signs of stress in terms of the rise in 30-day late-payment rates. Early stage arrears are surfacing in credit cards, auto loans and even some elements of the mortgage market. The big risk to me is not so much the banks, but the nonbank financials that cater to credit cards, auto loans, and private equity and private debt.
MarketWatch: Why should individuals care about trouble in private equity and private debt? That’s for the wealthy and the big institutions.
Rosenberg: Unless private investment firms gate their assets, you’re going to end up getting a flood of redemptions and asset sales, and that affects all markets. Markets are intertwined. Redemptions and forced asset sales will affect market valuations in general. We’re seeing deflation in the equity market and now in a much more important market for individuals, which is residential real estate. One of the reasons why so many people have delayed their return to the labor market is they looked at their wealth, principally equities and real estate, and thought they could retire early based on this massive wealth creation that took place through 2020 and 2021.
Now people are having to recalculate their ability to retire early and fund a comfortable retirement lifestyle. They will be forced back into the labor market. And the problem with a recession of course is that there are going to be fewer job openings, which means the unemployment rate is going to rise. The Fed is already telling us we’re going to 4.6%, which itself is a recession call; we’re going to blow through that number. All this plays out in the labor market not necessarily through job loss, but it’s going to force people to go back and look for a job. The unemployment rate goes up — that has a lag impact on nominal wages and that is going to be another factor that will curtail consumer spending, which is 70% of the economy.
“ My strongest conviction is the 30-year Treasury bond. ”
At some point, we’re going to have to have some sort of positive shock that will arrest the decline. The cycle is the cycle and what dominates the cycle are interest rates. At some point we get the recessionary pressures, inflation melts, the Fed will have successfully reset asset values to more normal levels, and we will be in a different monetary policy cycle by the second half of 2024 that will breathe life into the economy and we’ll be off to a recovery phase, which the market will start to discount later in 2023. Nothing here is permanent. It’s about interest rates, liquidity and the yield curve that has played out before.
MarketWatch: Where do you advise investors to put their money now, and why?
Rosenberg: My strongest conviction is the 30-year Treasury bond TMUBMUSD30Y, 3.674%.
The Fed will cut rates and you’ll get the biggest decline in yields at the short end. But in terms of bond prices and the total return potential, it’s at the long end of the curve. Bond yields always go down in a recession. Inflation is going to fall more quickly than is generally anticipated. Recession and disinflation are powerful forces for the long end of the Treasury curve.
As the Fed pauses and then pivots — and this Volcker-like tightening is not permanent — other central banks around the world are going to play catch up, and that is going to undercut the U.S. dollar DXY, +0.70%.
There are few better hedges against a U.S. dollar reversal than gold. On top of that, cryptocurrency has been exposed as being far too volatile to be part of any asset mix. It’s fun to trade, but crypto is not an investment. The crypto craze — fund flows directed to bitcoin BTCUSD, +0.35%
and the like — drained the gold price by more than $200 an ounce.
“ Buy companies that provide the goods and services that people need – not what they want. ”
I’m bullish on gold GC00, +0.22%
– physical gold — bullish on bonds, and within the stock market, under the proviso that we have a recession, you want to ensure you are invested in sectors with the lowest possible correlation to GDP growth.
Invest in 2023 the same way you’re going to be living life — in a period of frugality. Buy companies that provide the goods and services that people need – not what they want. Consumer staples, not consumer cyclicals. Utilities. Health care. I look at Apple as a cyclical consumer products company, but Microsoft is a defensive growth technology company.
You want to be buying essentials, staples, things you need. When I look at Microsoft MSFT, -0.61%,
Alphabet GOOGL, -1.79%,
Amazon AMZN, -1.17%,
they are what I would consider to be defensive growth stocks and at some point this year, they will deserve to be garnering a very strong look for the next cycle.
You also want to invest in areas with a secular growth tailwind. For example, military budgets are rising in every part of the world and that plays right into defense/aerospace stocks. Food security, whether it’s food producers, anything related to agriculture, is an area you ought to be invested in.
You want to be in defensive areas with strong balance sheets, earnings visibility, solid dividend yields and dividend payout ratios. If you follow that you’ll do just fine. I just think you’ll do far better if you have a healthy allocation to long-term bonds and gold. Gold finished 2022 unchanged, in a year when flat was the new up.
In terms of the relative weighting, that’s a personal choice but I would say to focus on defensive sectors with zero or low correlation to GDP, a laddered bond portfolio if you want to play it safe, or just the long bond, and physical gold. Also, the Dogs of the Dow fits the screening for strong balance sheets, strong dividend payout ratios and a nice starting yield. The Dogs outperformed in 2022, and 2023 will be much the same. That’s the strategy for 2023.
