Long-term investors who can manage a 10-fund equity portfolio, as I described last week, have what I consider the absolute best shot at attractive returns no matter what happens in the stock market.
This time, in Part 2 of a series for do-it-yourself investors, I’ll tell you how to get much of that benefit with fewer funds.
The Merriman Financial Education Foundation has created seven additional equity portfolios that handily outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 53 calendar years, from 1970 through 2022.
Each requires only one to five funds. If you’re looking for action without too much angst, one of these seven could be for you.
First, let’s get the baseline comparison on the table.
From 1970 through 2022, $10,000 invested in the S&P 500 SPX, -0.60%
would have grown to $1.89 million. In the same period, a portfolio made up of equal parts of that index and nine other U.S. and international asset classes would have grown to $3.74 million.
Those additional asset classes made a mighty big difference.
The other asset classes are U.S. large-cap value stocks (US LCV), U.S. small-cap blend stocks (including both value and growth) (US SCB), U.S. small-cap value stocks (US SCV), real-estate investment trusts (REIT), international large-cap blend stocks (Intl LCB), international large-cap value stocks (Intl LCV), international small-cap blend stocks (Intl SCB), international small-cap value stocks (Intl SCV), and emerging markets stocks (Em Mrkt).
That’s a lot to keep track of, more than most people are willing to do.
A few years ago, I challenged Chris Pedersen, research director of our foundation, to find a way to achieve similar returns with no more than four funds.
Here are seven additional portfolios. In this table below (and available on my foundation’s website), you can see the breakdown of each fund and the asset classes that make up each one.
1. Chris came through, creating what we call the Worldwide Four-Fund portfolio. From 1970 through 2022, $10,000 would have grown to $3.92 million.
2. Of course, many people are skittish about owning funds with companies based outside the United States. For them, we created the U.S. Four-Fund combo. In this one, $10,000 grew to $4.09 million from 1970 through 2022.
If you’re wondering where these higher returns come from, the answer is simple: value stocks.
3. In our five-fund Worldwide All Value portfolio, $10,000 invested in 1970 would have grown to $5.34 million, nearly three times as much as the same investment in the S&P 500 alone.
4. For investors who want to stick with U.S. companies, there’s the U.S. All Value portfolio. In this simple but powerful combination, $10,000 would have grown to $6.43 million.
Compared with just the S&P 500, that seems pretty astounding. But hang onto your hat for a moment.
5. Both internationally and in the United States, small-cap value stocks have been the most productive of these asset classes. In our two-fund Worldwide All Small-Cap Value portfolio, $10,000 would have grown to an astonishing $9.14 million from 1970 through 2022.
That’s $7.25 million more than the S&P 500 alone.
6. The all-U.S. variation is the ultrasimple U.S. All Small-Cap Value portfolio. The 1970-2022 growth of $10,000 in this one-fund variation would have been $8.65 million.
U.S. small-cap value stocks have such a highly productive track record that they are part of every single suggested portfolio except the S&P 500 by itself.
By now, you might be thinking you’d like some of that small-cap value horsepower, but also some of the “safety” and familiarity of the good old S&P 500. That seems reasonable.
7. To meet that need, we created the U.S. Two Fund portfolio: equal parts of the S&P 500 and U.S. small-cap value stocks. From 1970 through 2022, an initial $10,000 would have grown to $4.48 million, more than twice as much as the S&P 500 by itself.
In Table 1, you can find these variations along with their 1970-2022 results.
Table 1
The far-right column, standard deviation, represent a common measure of risk. But in this case, I don’t think they are the best indicator. For many investors, a better measure involves the number of years in which they lose money.
Table 2
As you can see, the numbers in the far-right column aren’t that different from one another.
If you could accept a worst year of 36.8% (as in the bottom two rows), you could perhaps also live with a one-year loss of 42.2%, especially since it came bundled with the fewest losing years.
Of these alternative portfolios, the U.S. Two-Fund might be the most intriguing:
It taps into the power of U.S. small-cap value stocks, and can easily be modified.
You can substitute a target-date retirement fund or a balanced fund for the S&P 500.
U.S. stocks finished lower on Thursday as Tesla Inc.’s earnings report weighed on shares of the electric-vehicle giant. The S&P 500 SPX, -0.60%
fell by 24.64 points, or 0.6%, to 4,129.88, according to preliminary data from FactSet. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.33%
declined by 110.13 points, or 0.3%, to 33,786.88. The Nasdaq Composite COMP, -0.80%
shed 97.67 points, or 0.8%, to 12,059.56.
It was a two-week trading period like few had ever seen in the $24 trillion Treasury market.
In a span of roughly nine trading sessions between March 7 and 17, the yield on 2-year Treasury notes — a gauge of where U.S. central bankers are most likely to take interest rates over the next two years — sank a full percentage point to 3.85% from an almost 16-year closing high above 5%, with wide swings in both directions on the way down.
The 2-year yield’s yearlong upward trajectory made a sudden and dramatic descent, as investors swung from a view that interest rates would remain higher for longer to a scenario in which the Federal Reserve might need to cut borrowing costs to avert a deep recession and repeated bank failures. The wild swing in sentiment turned the 2-year Treasury rate TMUBMUSD02Y, 4.178%
into a roller-coaster ride and made it the most exciting space to watch in the traditionally staid government-debt market.
For traders like David Petrosinelli of InspereX in New York, a 25-year veteran of markets, March’s daily volatility was akin to “getting on an elevator with no buttons,” he said. He recalls telling people at his firm, who were worried about the positions they held at the time, that “a lot of this is a knee-jerk reaction to the unknown” — even if it felt both “eerily reminiscent” of rates volatility seen ahead of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, and “distinctly different’’ because it was driven by rapidly changing market expectations for the Fed and contained within the U.S. regional-banking system.
For more than a decade, there wasn’t much to say about the 2-year Treasury yield because the U.S. was mired in mostly low interest rates and “no one knew how to trade it,” according to Petrosinelli, 54, who began his career in the late 1990s as a as a portfolio manager focused on asset-backed and residential mortgage-backed securities. It was an overlooked rate in a sleepy corner of the market and nobody paid it much attention. That changed beginning in 2022, when monetary policy makers finally undertook the most aggressive rate-hike campaign in four decades to combat inflation — reinforcing the 2-year yield’s role as the best proxy for where the market thinks interest rates will end up. The 2-year yield rocketed to above 5% in early March from 0.15% in April 2021.
Suddenly, the 2-year Treasury became the most watched financial indicator on Wall Street, influencing the trajectories of stocks and the U.S. dollar throughout much of 2022. “This thing is relentless,” declared market commentator Jim Cramer on CNBC last year. He told viewers he was buying 2-year notes, not meme stocks. “The run to 4 is probably the most punishing one I can recall for the 2-year.” Other prominent names like Mohamed El-Erian, the former chief executive of PIMCO, and Jeffrey Gundlach, founder of DoubleLine Capital, wanted to talk about it. “If you want to know what’s going to happen in the year, follow the 2-year yield at this point,” El-Erian said on CNBC. “That’s the market indicator that has the most information.” More hedge funds and macro private-equity firms jumped on board and started trading it, said InspereX’s Petrosinelli. And head trader John Farawell of Roosevelt & Cross in New York, said family and friends who never showed much interest in fixed income before began regularly asking him if it was the right time to buy the 2-year Treasury note.
“Once we started to hit 4% on the 2-year yield last September for the first time since 2007, everyone got interested,” said Farawell, 66, a trader for the past 41 years. He estimates that interest in the 2-year yield among his firm’s clients has gone up about 30% in the past 12 months. “We have seen retail customers suddenly saying they want to put their money to work in the 2-year note because of an interest rate that we have not seen in years.”
From his office in Midtown Manhattan, Nicholas Colas noticed an abrupt and unexpected shift over the past year and it had to do with the 2-year Treasury. As the co-founder of DataTrek Research, a Wall Street research firm, Colas realized that the 2-year Treasury yield was influencing trading in the stock market. When the 2-year Treasury yield shot higher in 2022, the equity market would become volatile and often drop. In fact, the 2-year Treasury seemed to influence equity-market volatility in both directions. Whenever the 2-year yield briefly stabilized, Colas said, stocks tended to rally since equity investors took the stabilization in the 2-year rate to mean that Fed policy was “no longer as much of a wild card.”
To Colas, equity markets appeared to be taking any selloff in the 2-year note, and thus a rise in its corresponding yield, as a sign that the Fed would have to increase interest rates by more than expected and keep them higher for longer. With stocks and U.S. government debt both getting trounced regularly in last year’s selloffs, Colas said his first thought was that “all of a sudden, Treasurys were no longer a safe haven — something that has rarely happened since I started my career in 1983.”
Trading in government debt, like elsewhere in financial markets, is a two-way street of buyers and sellers. When yields are moving higher, that means the price of the corresponding Treasury security is dropping — and vice versa. The 2-year Treasury note pays out a fixed interest rate every six months until it matures. The trick to trading it, as opposed to buying and holding, is to either sell it before its underlying value gets destroyed by higher interest rates, or to buy it before the Fed starts cutting rates — which would, theoretically, produce a lower yield and make the government note more expensive.
Throughout the yield’s march higher, investors sold off the underlying 2-year note — a move which diminished the note’s value for existing holders like banks, pension funds, credit unions, foreign central banks, and U.S. corporations. Two-year Treasury notes also constitute about 1% to 2% of the total holdings at the 10 largest actively managed money-market funds, according to Ben Emons, senior portfolio manager and head of fixed income at NewEdge Wealth in New York.
“Policy expectations are what really drive the 2-year yield,” said Thomas Simons, a U.S. economist at Jefferies, one of the two dozen primary dealers that serve as trading counterparties of the Fed’s New York branch and help to implement monetary policy. “We had a major paradigm shift in terms of what investors’ expectations were for the sustainability of higher inflation and what the Fed would do in response. The impact on markets has been far less appetite for risk than there otherwise would be,” with stocks putting in a dismal performance in 2022, though generating somewhat better 2023 returns. Tucked into the note’s selloff, though, was plenty of interest from prospective government-debt buyers, which helped temper the magnitude of the 2-year yield’s rise once the rate got to 4%. Many looking to buy were individual investors hoping to benefit from higher yields and to diversify away from stocks, said traders like Tom di Galoma, a managing director for financial services firm BTIG.
Historically, banks, mutual funds, hedge funds, foreign investors and even the Fed have been the biggest buyers of Treasurys across the board; some of those players, particularly foreign central banks and money-market mutual funds, are mandated to buy and hold government debt. All two dozen primary dealers are involved as market makers for the 2-year security, stepping in to buy it in the absence of either direct or indirect buyers.
The 2-year note remains a reliable source of funding for the U.S. government, given the consistent demand for the maturity, which enables the U.S. Treasury Department to “raise a lot of cash quickly, if needed,” said Simons of Jefferies. In 2020, for example, when the government authorized $2.4 trillion in Covid-related spending and relief programs, the amount of 2-year notes sold at auction was one of the biggest of any maturity — far exceeding the 10- and 30-year counterparts — “because it had the capacity to handle that.’’
Sources: Treasury Department, Bureau of Public Debt, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Currently, the Treasury has $1.421 trillion in total outstanding 2-year notes, representing about 13% of all the debt issued out to 10 years, according to Treasurydirect.gov. The most recent 2-year note auction in March was for $42 billion — more than the 10-year note sale.
Fallout from the banking sector and worries about a potential recession altered the trajectory of the 2-year starting in March, triggering concerns that the Fed’s rate-hike cycle had gone too far. Fresh buyers poured into the 2-year space and pushed the yield below 4% — driven by the view that rates weren’t likely to go much higher from here and that policy makers might cut them by year-end.
Substantial downside volatility in the 2-year Treasury yield has actually helped to stabilize stock prices this year, in Colas’ estimation, because it’s been interpreted as the bond market’s sign that the Fed is approaching the end of its rate-hiking cycle.Like InspereX’s Petrosinelli, Colas says he had visions of the 2007-2008 financial crisis during March’s flight-to-quality trade, which occurred amid regional bank failures and “significantly more stress than the market was expecting.”
As of Thursday morning, the 2-year rate was at 4.17%, below the Fed’s benchmark interest-rate target range — implying that traders still believe policy makers will follow through with rate cuts. That’s a turnabout from the thinking that prevailed over most of 2022 through early last month, when the 2-year rate had been on an aggressive march toward 5% as the Fed continued to hike rates to combat inflation.
Meanwhile, poor liquidity continues to plague the Treasury market broadly, based on Bloomberg’s U.S. Government Securities Liquidity Index, which measures prevailing conditions. According to the New York Fed, the Treasury market was relatively illiquid throughout last year — making it more difficult to trade. As a result, there was a widening in the bid-ask spread — or difference between the highest price a buyer is willing to pay versus the lowest price a seller is willing to accept — of the 2-year note relative to its average.
“The volatility we’re seeing in the 2-year, we think, is largely a function of uncertain Fed rate hiking expectations coupled with poor liquidity,” said Lawrence Gillum, the Charlotte, N.C.-based chief fixed income strategist at LPL Financial.
“The 2-year is the most sensitive to changing policy expectations and since this Fed is ‘data dependent,’ any and all new data that could potentially change the inflation/economic growth narrative has increased volatility substantially,” Gillum said in an email. “As the Fed’s rate hiking campaign comes to an end (we think there is one more hike and then they’ll be done), we would expect the volatility to decline. Moreover, the Treasury and Fed are looking at ways to improve liquidity, but so far nothing has happened. Hopefully, they will do something, though, since the Treasury market is arguably the most important market in the world.”
At InspereX, Petrosinelli regards the 2-year note as an “anchor” to any short-term portfolio, and says that “it’s not a bad place for investors to hide out for at least a year.’’ That’s because even if the yield does come down, “investors wouldn’t be getting too hurt price-wise,” he said. “We think the Fed will leave rates elevated for some time.”
However, the 2-year could continue to dip below the fed-funds rate on soft economic data, especially related to consumption, later this year, Petrosinelli said. In order for the 2-year rate to go above the Fed’s main interest-rate target — now between 4.75% and 5% — “people would have to think the Fed is behind the curve again on inflation.”
For Farawell of Roosevelt & Cross, which was founded in 1946 and is one of Wall Street’s oldest independently owned municipal-bond underwriters, the 2-year note “has become such an attractive asset class for us’’ that “you almost can’t go wrong with putting money in it.” Friends and family “ask me about this 2-year and say, ‘It sounds good.’ I say, ‘It’s a great rate, you should buy it — until the Fed starts to change course.’”
U.S. stocks drifted, closing mostly lower on Tuesday, as investors waited for earnings season to gather more steam. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.03%
ended down 10 points, or less than 0.1%, near 33,976, while the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.09%
gained 0.1%, according to preliminary figures from FactSet. The Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -0.04%
fell less than 0.1%. Bank of America BAC, +0.63%
and Goldman Sachs GS, -1.70%
were among the major banks to report quarterly results, while streaming giant Netflix Inc. NFLX, +0.29%
was on deck after the bell. It is ending its red-envelope DVD rental service after 25 years. Investors also heard Tuesday from several more staffers at the Federal Reserve, with Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic telling Reuters that he expects one more rate hike, but for the Fed’s policy rate to stay higher for awhile. Continued gridlock in Washington on the debt-ceiling stalemate also has been coming into focus for markets. BlackRock also sold the first batch of seized assets from Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, which fetched about 85 cents to 90 cents on the dollar.
S&P Dow Jones Indices announced Monday afternoon that a 2017 rule barring companies with multiple share classes from joining indexes such as the S&P 500 SPX, +0.33%
has been dropped. The move comes after the index manager consulted with “market participants” at the end of last year to discuss several potential changes to the policy.
Snap’s move was an acceleration of an approach used by a generation of Silicon Valley tech companies to ensure that founders retained control of their companies even while selling shares to the public. Companies such as Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. META, -1.19%
and Google parent Alphabet Inc. GOOGL, -2.66% GOOG, -2.78%
used similar structures that provided their leaders with special shares that included increased voting rights, which Snap took further by offering no voting rights.
In response, FTSE Russell established rules about putting votes in the public’s hands while selling stock, and S&P Dow Jones Indices completely barred all companies that had multiple classes of stock from joining its core indexes. While FTSE Russell’s rule — which requires that at least 5% of votes rest in the hands of public investors — remains, S&P Dow Jones Indices will now drop its rule entirely, after roughly 80% of respondents voted in favor of a change in 2017.
There were other options besides completely dropping the rule. Participants in the consultation process were given several options and asked to rank them, including barring companies that only offer nonvoting stock to the public — such as Snap — or allowing companies that establish “sunset” provisions that would eventually revert all shares to equal voting rights.
The change to allow all companies with multiple share classes to join the S&P Composite 1500 and its multiple component indexes is effective as of Monday, S&P Dow Jones Indices announced, though no changes were immediately made to any index. Tracking stocks will still not be eligible for inclusion, according to the announcement.
U.S. stocks finished higher on Monday after paring earlier losses during the final hour of trading as the first-quarter earnings season is poised to pick up the pace. The S&P 500 SPX, +0.33%
gained 13.69 points, or 0.3%, to 4,151.33, according to preliminary data from FactSet. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.30%
gained 100.71 points, or 0.3%, to 33,987.18. The Nasdaq Composite COMP, +0.28%
rose by 34.26 points, or 0.3%, to 12,157.72. Investors are looking ahead to a batch of earnings from megacap technology names later in the week, including Netflix Inc., which reports on Tuesday.
During a period of high interest rates, it might be more difficult to impress investors with dividend stocks. But the stocks can have an important advantage over the long term. The dividend payouts can increase over the years, helping to push share prices higher over time.
When considering stocks for dividend income, yield shouldn’t be the only thing you consider. If a stock’s price has tumbled because investors are worried about the company’s business prospects, the dividend yield might be very high. A double-digit yield might mean investors expect to see a cut to the dividend soon.
There are many ways to look at companies’ expected ability to maintain or raise their dividend payouts. But one can also take a simple approach to begin researching stock choices.
For investors who would rather aim for long-term growth to go along with dividend income, or take a relatively conservative approach to growth while reinvesting dividends, a screen of stocks in the S&P 500 SPX, +0.33%
produces only 10 stocks with dividend yields of 4.5% or higher with majority “buy” or equivalent ratings among analysts polled by FactSet. Here they are, sorted by dividend yield:
Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information available for free on the MarketWatch quote page.
The dividend yields for this group of 10 companies are based on current annual regular payout rates, with all paying quarterly except for Realty Income Corp. O, +1.30%,
which pays monthly.
These two oil and natural gas producers would have passed the above screen based on their most recent dividend payments and analysts’ sentiment, however, they pay a combined fixed-plus-variable dividend every quarter, with the fixed portion relatively low:
Shares of Pioneer Natural Resources Co. PXD, -0.77%
closed at $230 on April 14. Among analysts polled by FactSet, 59% rate the stock a “buy” or the equivalent, and the consensus price target is $257.42. The company pays a fixed quarterly dividend of $1.10 a share, which would make for a dividend yield of only 1.91%. However, the most recent variable quarterly dividend was $4.48 a share, for a combined quarterly dividend of $5.58, which would translate to an annualized dividend yield of 9.70%. The consensus estimate for dividends in 2025 is $4.63 — the analysts are only estimating the fixed portion of the dividend. Pioneer has held preliminary merger discussions with Exxon Corp. XOM, -1.16%,
according to a Wall Street Journal report.
Devon Energy Corp.’s DVN, -0.72%
stock closed at $55.70 on April 14. The shares are rated “buy” or the equivalent by 55% of analysts and the consensus price target is $67.66. The fixed portion of Devon’s quarterly dividend is 20 cents a share, for an annualized dividend yield of 1.44%. The variable portion of the most recent quarterly dividend was 69 cents a share. The total payout of 89 cents would make for an annual dividend yield of 6.39%. Analysts expect the fixed portion of annual dividends to total $3.61 in 2025, according to FactSet.
Here’s a thought for investors: If the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to 5% or more would that wreck the economy and stock prices ?
The U.S. stock market has been rallying to start 2023, clawing back a big chunk of the painful losses from a year ago. The bullish tone has been linked to a view that the Federal Reserve will need to cut interest rates this year to prevent a recession, reversing one of its quickest rate-increasing campaigns in history.
Doomsday investors, including hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer, have been warning against that outcome. Singer thinks a credit crunch and deep recession may be necessary to purge dangerous levels of froth in markets after an era of near-zero interest rates.
Another scenario might be that little changes: Credit markets could tolerate interest rates that prevailed before 2008. The Fed’s policy rate could increase a bit from its current 4.75%-5% range, and stay there for a while.
“A 5% interest rate is not going to break the market,” said Ben Snider, managing director, and U.S. portfolio strategist at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, in a phone interview with MarketWatch.
Snider pointed to many highly rated companies which, like the majority of U.S. homeowners, refinanced old debt during the pandemic, cutting their borrowing costs to near record lows. “They are continuing to enjoy the low rate environment,” he said.
“Our view is, yes, the Fed can hold rates here,” Snider said. “The economy can continue to grow.”
Profits margins in focus
The Fed and other global central banks have been dramatically increasing interest rates in the aftermath of the pandemic to fight inflation caused by supply chain disruptions, worker shortages and government spending policies.
Fed Governor Christopher Waller on Friday warned that interest rates might need to increase even more than markets currently anticipate to restrain the rise in the cost of living, reflected recently in the March consumer-price index at a 5% yearly rate, down to the central bank’s 2% annual target.
The sudden rise in interest rates led to bruising losses in stock and bond portfolios in 2022. Higher rates also played a role in last month’s collapse of Silicon Valley Bank after it sold “safe,” but rate-sensitive securities at a steep loss. That sparked concerns about risks in the U.S. banking system and fears of a potential credit crunch.
“Rates are certainly higher than they were a year ago, and higher than the last decade,” said David Del Vecchio, co-head of PGIM Fixed Income’s U.S. investment grade corporate bond team. “But if you look over longer periods of time, they are not that high.”
When investors buy corporate bonds they tend to focus on what could go wrong to prevent a full return of their investment, plus interest. To that end, Del Vecchio’s team sees corporate borrowing costs staying higher for longer, inflation remaining above target, but also hopeful signs that many highly rated companies would be starting off from a strong position if a recession still unfolds in the near future.
“Profit margins have been coming down (see chart), but they are coming off peak levels,” Del Vecchio said. “So they are still very, very strong and trending lower. Probably that continues to trend lower this quarter.”
Net profit margins for the S&P 500 are coming down, but off peak levels
Refinitiv, I/B/E/S
Rolling with it, including at banks
It isn’t hard to come up with reasons why stocks could still tank in 2023, painful layoffs might emerge, or trouble with a wall of maturing commercial real estate debt could throw the economy into a tailspin.
Snider’s team at Goldman Sachs Asset Management expects the S&P 500 index SPX, -0.21%
to end the year around 4,000, or roughly flat to it’s closing level on Friday of 4,137. “I wouldn’t call it bullish,” he said. “But it isn’t nearly as bad as many investors expect.”
“Some highly levered companies that have debt maturities in the near future will struggle and may even struggle to keep the lights on,” said Austin Graff, chief investment officer at Opal Capital.
Still, the economy isn’t likely to “enter a recession with a bang,” he said. “It will likely be a slow slide into a recession as companies tighten their belts and reduce spending, which will have a ripple effect across the economy.”
However, Graff also sees the benefit of higher rates at big banks that have better managed interest rate risks in their securities holdings. “Banks can be very profitable in the current rate environment,” he said, pointing to large banks that typically offer 0.25%-1% on customer deposits, but now can lend out money at rates around 4%-5% and higher.
“The spread the banks are earning in the current interest rate market is staggering,” he said, highlighting JP Morgan Chase & Co. JPM, +7.55%
providing guidance that included an estimated $81 billion net interest income for this year, up about $7 billion from last year.
Del Vecchio at PGIM said his team is still anticipating a relatively short and shallow recession, if one unfolds at all. “You can have a situation where it’s not a synchronized recession,” he said, adding that a downturn can “roll through” different parts of the economy instead of everywhere at once.
The U.S. housing market saw a sharp slowdown in the past year as mortgage rates jumped, but lately has been flashing positive signs while “travel, lodging and leisure all are still doing well,” he said.
U.S. stocks closed lower Friday, but booked a string of weekly gains. The S&P 500 index gained 0.8% over the past five days, the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.42%
advanced 1.2% and the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -0.35%
closed up 0.3% for the week, according to FactSet.
Investors will hear from more Fed speakers next week ahead of the central bank’s next policy meeting in early May. U.S. economic data releases will include housing-related data on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, while the Fed’s Beige Book is due Wednesday.
Democrats largely have closed ranks behind President Joe Biden ahead of next year’s election, but he isn’t completely without challengers for the party’s nomination.
Author and activist Marianne Williamson has thrown her hat in the ring, pursuing a longshot bid that comes after her 2020 presidential campaign fizzled out before the Iowa caucuses.
Why isn’t she falling in line and supporting her party’s incumbent president? What’s her pitch to people who think she’s not a serious candidate? What are her top economic proposals?
Williamson, 70, tackled those questions and more in a phone interview earlier this week.
Our Q&A with the Democratic presidential hopeful has been edited for clarity and length.
MarketWatch: In a nutshell, could you explain why you’re running for president?
Williamson: I’m running for president because I believe that some things need to be said and some changes need to be made, in order to repair some serious damage that’s been done to our democracy, to our country, to our people and to our environment over the last 50 years.
MarketWatch: You’ve talked about running to address “systemic economic injustices endured by millions of Americans” because of the “undue influence of corporate money on our political system.” What do you see as the top examples of that?
Williamson: During the 1970s, the average American worker had decent benefits, could afford a home, could afford a yearly vacation, could afford a car and could afford to send their child to college. In the last 48 years, there has been a $50 trillion transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1% of Americans. That transfer has decimated our middle class. We are now at a point where if you are among 20% of Americans, then the economy’s doing pretty well for you. But, unfortunately, that 20% is surrounded by a vast sea of economic despair. We have 60,000 people in the United States who die every year because they can’t afford healthcare XLV, -1.11%,
one in four Americans living with a medical debt, and 18 million Americans unable to fill the prescriptions that their doctors give to them.
If you are in the club in America, if you are making it in America — and I have sold some books, so I understand the high side of the free market and have benefited, and I’m grateful for that — but no conscious persons wants to feel that they create wealth at the expense of other people having a chance. That is not American. It’s not what the American Dream is supposed to be.
I’m not trying to whitewash and romanticize American capitalism before this era. I’m not saying we were ever perfect, but it does seem to me that when I was growing up, the social consensus is that we were supposed to try. We knew that the higher good was that there would be this balance between individual liberty, including economic liberty, and a concern for the common good. But today concern for the common good has become almost derided as some quaint notion, and that we shouldn’t really give much more than lip service to it. And that’s a lot of human suffering that occurs because of that change in the social contract.
MarketWatch: Here’s kind of a two-part question. What would be your top economic priorities, and how in particular would you address high inflation and the recent banking KBE, -1.65% crisis?
Williamson: I’d like to see universal healthcare. I want to see tuition-free college at state colleges and universities, which is what we had in this country until the 1960s. There should be free childcare. There should be paid family leave. There should be guaranteed sick pay and a livable wage. And I think Americans are waking up to the fact that those things that I just mentioned are considered moderate issues in every other advanced democracy. They should not be considered left-wing fringe issues. They are granted to the citizens of every other advanced democracy.
That was your first question. The second has to do with high inflation. A lot of that high inflation has to do with price gouging by huge corporations, whether it has to do with food companies, transportation companies and so forth. All of those CEOs should testify before Congress and talk about the ways that they have — for the sake of their own profits — gouged the American people, particularly at such a time as this. And this is what happens when we normalize such a lack of conscience and such a lack of ethics within our system.
In terms of what happened with the bank in Silicon Valley SIVBQ, -3.39%,
which is what your third question was, right? I think the depositors should be made whole, but the bank executives who were taking multimillion-dollar bonuses for themselves, both before and right after the crash, they certainly should not get those bonuses. And also it’s concerning that some of the tech investors that would benefit the most from those deposits were the ones who caused the run on the bank. I don’t think that they should receive the benefit of what happens when those deposits are made whole. But the average depositor absolutely should be made whole in such cases.
MarketWatch: You mentioned free tuition and child care. Where would the funding for that come from?
Williamson: The funding should come, first of all, from taxation. The 2017 tax cut in this country was a $2 trillion tax cut, and 83 cents of every dollar went to the highest-earning corporations and individuals. Now that tax cut also included the middle-class tax cut, and the middle-class tax cut was good.
That tax cut for the highest earners should be repealed, but the middle-class tax cut should be put back in immediately.
Secondly, we should stop all the corporate subsidies. Why are we giving subsidies to these companies that are already making multibillions of dollars in profit and often then price gouging the American people?
Third, I believe there should be a wealth tax. If somebody has $50 million, I don’t have any problem with their paying an extra 2% tax. And if they have $1 billion, let them pay another 1%. Somebody with a $50 million portfolio, much less $1 billion in assets, would not even feel that change, but the changes in people’s lives that would be created by those shifts would be huge.
MarketWatch: Your campaign often gets described as a real longshot bid. Why are you running when so many people say you have a low chance for success?
Williamson: Well, certainly Donald Trump was considered a longshot. For that matter, when he began Barack Obama was considered a longshot. Surely we remember when Hillary Clinton was considered a shoo-in.
MarketWatch: A recent Monmouth University poll of Democratic voters found 11% had a favorable view of you, 16% had an unfavorable view, 21% had no opinion, and 52% had not heard of you. How do you win over those voters who have an unfavorable view, and how do you reach the folks who haven’t heard of you?
Williamson: Well, there was a poll that came out last week that put me at 10%, including 18% with independents and 21% with people under 30.
It’s very difficult for someone like myself to get the message out when you have such institutional resistance to my even being in the conversation, and that is displayed in various ways. But there is independent media today. God knows there’s TikTok, where my information seems to be doing quite well.
This early, no candidate should be allowing the polls to determine their path forward. I didn’t go into this expecting the approval of institutional forces. And I, as a matter of fact, expected the kind of resistance that I’ve received, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that a certain agenda be placed before the American people, and I am providing that option — the option of that alternative agenda.
I believe that agenda is the way for the Democrats to win in 2024. But even more importantly, I think it’s the agenda that will lead to the repair of this country.
MarketWatch: You mentioned TikTok, and that has been a hot topic in Washington, D.C., in recent weeks. Do you have a view on the Democratic and Republican proposals to ban TikTok in the U.S.?
Williamson: I think the United States government does need to be concerned with tech XLK, -1.00%
surveillance, but I wish they were as concerned when it comes to American-run companies as when it comes to Chinese. It’s a serious issue, it’s a valid issue — the whole issue of surveillance. But it’s a gnarly issue as well, and rushing to shut something down, which is so obviously a platform depended on by millions and millions of Americans for information sharing, is never something that should be done lightly.
MarketWatch: Some Americans may know you only for your spiritual work, and these folks may not think you’re a serious presidential candidate. The White House press secretary indicated she’s in that camp. What’s your message to win those folks over?
Williamson: First of all, I don’t think of my campaign as quote-unquote trying to win anyone over. There’s something that I read years ago that has always guided my work: “If there’s something you genuinely need to say, there’s someone out there who genuinely needs to hear it.” I am speaking to people who I know agree with me. I wouldn’t be doing this if I weren’t aware that millions of people agree with me.
I think it’s very sad that the president would allow a presidential press podium to be used to mock a political opponent, and I think that many people were and are offended by that. This is a democracy. We should have as many voices out there as possible. We should have as many people running in an election as feel moved. Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. There are ideas on the left and ideas on the right. There are ideas all across the spectrum, and this is a point in American history where we as Americans should hear them all.
MarketWatch: What do you think are some of the main things that President Biden has gotten right, and in what areas has he gone wrong?
Williamson: Well, the first thing he did right was he defeated Donald Trump. The president has taken an incremental approach to America’s problems, and I believe that he does wish to alleviate the suffering of many people whose lives are affected by some deeply unjust systems. But I don’t think that the alleviation of stress is enough right now. We need fundamental economic reform.
We also need a serious answer to climate change, and the president’s approval of the Willow project is not that. The president has said that he recognizes that climate change is an existential crisis, and yet he has given more oil CL00, +0.34%
permits than even Donald Trump did, and he has approved the Willow project.
The Democratic House and Senate — they did cut child poverty in half with the child tax credit, but then, when that expired six months later, they didn’t bother to permanentize it.
These are the kinds of half-measures and incremental measures which are not enough to change the fundamental economic patterns in this country that lead to so much chronic economic anxiety and despair.
Joe Biden is shown in conversation in August 2019 with Marianne Williamson during an event for Democratic presidential candidates in Clear Lake, Iowa.
AFP via Getty Images
MarketWatch: One thing that comes up often with President Biden is his age, which is 80, while you’re 70. Do you think his age should be a concern, or is it ageism to bring it up?
Williamson: I think the individual has to consider this themselves. I have a problem, of course, contributing to the conversation because of the issue of ageism. But on the other hand, everybody can see for themselves what they can see for themselves.
I can only say if I were 80, I wouldn’t be running. But you know, I will not take potshots at the president, and I think that veers into potshots.
MarketWatch: Let’s talk about taking on Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis or whomever the Republican nominee ends up being. Why do you think you’re the Democrat who could end up beating one of them?
Williamson: Republicans are going to throw some big lies at the Democrats in 2024, and the only way that we’re going to defeat them, in my opinion, is to tell some big truths. Franklin Roosevelt said we would not have to worry about a fascist takeover in this country as long as democracy delivered on its promises. Democracy has not delivered on its promises. The only way to beat Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis in 2024 is to propose an agenda in which democracy once again delivers on its promises to the majority of the American people. And that would mean the issues I mentioned before: universal healthcare, tuition-free college, free child care, a guaranteed livable wage and paid family leave. Those are given to the citizens in every other advanced democracy, and there is no good reason whatsoever why they are not delivered to the average citizen in the United States.
MarketWatch: There are Democrats who could be challenging President Biden for the party’s 2024 nomination, but they aren’t and instead they’re supporting him. Why aren’t there more efforts in the party to get people to run for president?
Williamson: Well, you’d have to ask them why they’re not running. But there’s clearly a trope that the field should clear, and everybody should simply get in line with the opinion of the Democratic establishment that Biden is the man because they have decided so. I don’t see it that way. I believe the Democratic primary voters — and independent voters and anyone else, if it’s an open primary — they should decide who the Democratic candidate is. To me, that’s what democracy is. That’s what elections are about.
MarketWatch: The Democratic Party is not expected to hold presidential primary debates for 2024. What can you do to change that and get some time on a debate stage?
Williamson: Well, I hope to have a successful campaign. I hope to have high poll numbers. I hope to have a lot of people in those primary states yelling foul. It’s a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The American people should hear what their options are, and that’s what a debate would be. If enough people realize that and believe it and make laws about it, then that is what will happen.
I think sometimes there’s a kind of learned powerlessness on the part of the American people today. We forget the radicalism of the American experiment, which is that the governance of this country is supposed to be in our hands. But the American people have been trained to expect too little and almost trained to give up the power of independent thought. I hope that my campaign and other things that occur in this campaign season will awaken people, and I think a certain kind of awakening is happening already.
MarketWatch: We’re a financially focused publication, so here’s a question along those lines. I looked at your financial disclosure from your 2020 presidential run. It showed some investments in big public companies like Apple AAPL, -0.58%
and Mastercard MA, +0.27%
…
Williamson: Wait, what are you talking about?
MarketWatch: That’s from your 2019 executive-branch personnel public financial disclosure report. It shows investments in various stocks and funds. The question — for our readers who are investors or people saving for retirement — is could you describe your own approach to investing and preparing for retirement?
Williamson: Socially responsible investing, and that’s why I said, “Whoa, what?” Because I believe in investing in socially responsible companies.
MarketWatch: One last question: What else would you like people to know?
Williamson: America has some serious problems, but we have infinite potential to solve those problems. We need to revisit our first principles, as John Adams said, and find that place in our hearts where, as Americans, as adults in this generation, we recognize that this profound idea of American democracy is put in our hands for safekeeping. And that doesn’t just give us rights; it gives us responsibilities. The political system in the United States speaks to us too often like we’re children, like we’re seventh-graders. Our public dialogue is too often on this kind of seventh-grade level. This is not a time to be an immature thinker, and it’s not a time to get into mean-spiritedness or cynicism either. If we allow ourselves to rise to the occasion, no matter what our politics are, we’re going to repair what has been broken, and we are going to initiate a new beginning. I think that’s possible. Other generations have done it, and we can do it, too.
MarketWatch: Thank you for being available to chat.
The U.S. economy could slip into recession given the fast pace of interest rate rates over the past year, said Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee on Friday.
“There is no way you can look at current conditions around the U.S. and not think that some mild recession is on the table as a possibility,” Goolsbee said, in an interview on CNBC.
At the same time, while inflation is coming down, there is “clear stickiness” in some categories of prices, he said.
Goolsbee said he is focused on whether there is a credit crunch in the wake of the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in March.
The Chicago Fed president, who is a voting member of the Fed’s interest rate committee, said he wanted to see more data before deciding what to do at the Fed’s next meeting on May 2-3 .
“What I am looking at quite clearly coming into the next FOMC meeting is what’s happening on credit…how much of a credit crunch is there,” he said.
“Let’s be mindful that we’ve raised a lot. It takes time for that to work its way through the system,” Goolsbee said.
The March retail sales report, released earlier this morning, might be a sign of further slowing in the economy, he said. The government reported a 1% drop in retail sales, the biggest decline since November.
“If you add financial stress on top of that, let’s not be too aggressive,” he said.
After a long period of underperformance when compared with the U.S. equity market, stocks in other countries are holding their own this year. One way to lower your overall risk with real diversification is to add exposure to an active international management style that doesn’t mirror a broad stock index.
One example is the $2.7 billion Columbia Overseas Value Fund COSZX, which is rated four stars out of five by Morningstar in its Foreign Large Value category. Fred Copper and Daisuke Nomoto co-manage the fund and described…
Series I bonds had a good two-year run at the top of the interest-rate heap, but the next 6-month rate that will be announced on May 1 is likely to fall so low that buyers probably won’t show up in record-breaking numbers.
I-bonds are priced based on two factors: a variable rate based on six months of inflation data (from October through March) and a fixed rate that is less transparently calculated. The latest CPI numbers for March indicate that the variable rate is going to pan out at an annualized rate of 3.38%, down from…
Federal Reserve officials, meeting days after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, agreed that the stress in the banking sector would slow U.S. economic growth, but were uncertain about how much, according to minutes of the meeting released Wednesday.
The twelve voting members on the Fed’s interest-rate committee “agree that recent developments were likely to result in tighter credit conditions for households and businesses and to weigh on economic activity, hiring and inflation, but that the extend of these effects were…
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com.
The deep uncertainty that the COVID pandemic created in the workforce hasn’t waned. U.S. workers are struggling with inflation, burnout, and fresh waves of layoffs. This comes as people expect more from employers — more leadership, more urgency, more action, and better jobs.
The public’s perspective is clear and consistent: companies need to prioritize their employees. In today’s unstable economic climate, worker wages and treatment are more important to Americans than ever.
When it comes to creating U.S. jobs with strong wages, good benefits, safe environments and opportunities for upward mobility, a handful of companies lead the pack.
Bank of America BAC,
NVIDIA NVDA
and Microsoft MSFT
are the top-three companies in JUST Capital’s 2023 rankings of America’s most JUST companies. They all share one crucial thing in common — a clear commitment to addressing worker issues and investing in employees.
Since 2018, JUST Capital’s rankings have provided a snapshot of how U.S. companies are measuring up to the public’s priorities, as determined through an annual survey to identify issues that define principled business behavior. Companies that are just provide a clear benefit for investors. For example, If an investor purchased an index tracking the JUST 100 companies at its March 2019 inception, the index would have generated 13.3% in excess return versus the Russell 1000 as of December 2022.
Worker issues have risen to the forefront of Americans’ vision for what is a just business. Paying a fair and living wage, supporting workforce advancement, protecting worker health and safety, and providing benefits and work-life balance are top priorities for the public. Notably, regardless of demographic differences including political affiliation, Americans agree that companies should do more to address worker needs.
What makes a great company?
Bank of Americademonstrates strong leadership on the top priority — paying a fair, living wage – by raising its minimum wage to $22 per hour, a key step in its pledge to offer a $25 starting wage by 2025. In addition, employees receive an extensive benefit package, including 16 weeks of paid parental leave for primary- and secondary caregivers, and career development opportunities through tuition assistance and professional training.
NVIDIA works to ensure equal pay for equal work, performing detailed pay equity analyses, and is one of only a few companies to disclose pay-analysis results separated by racial and ethnic categories. Like Bank of America, NVIDIA is one of 10% of Russell 1000 RUI
companies that offer at least 12 weeks of paid parental leave for both caregivers, providing 22 weeks of paid leave to primary caregivers.
Microsoft offers at least 12 weeks of parental leave for both caregivers, in addition many other generous paid-time-off benefits, including 15 days of paid vacation and an additional 10 days of paid sick leave for every worker — a policy still rare for many companies. Additionally, Microsoft discloses the results of its pay-equity analyses, going above and beyond other companies by disaggregating pay ratios for specific racial and ethnic categories — including Black, Asian and Latinx — all of whom are paid on par with their white counterparts.
“ When companies ensure the economic security, advancement, equity and safety of their workforces, employees are more engaged and productive. ”
These efforts provide tangible benefits to employees, but prioritizing workers offers much more to companies than just an assurance of moral good. When companies ensure the economic security, advancement, equity, and safety of their workforces employees are more engaged and productive, strengthening their companies’ business in turn.
Americans expect the private sector to better support employees. Effective business leadership today puts workers at the center of an organization’s strategy. When businesses take this approach, we get much closer to an economy that works for all Americans.
Alison Omens is chief strategy officer at JUST Capital.
U.S. investors will hop right back to work on Easter Monday, after the confluence of Good Friday and “jobs day” required an abbreviated trading session for stock-index futures and Treasurys.
Because Good Friday isn’t a federal holiday, the U.S. Labor Department released the March jobs report at its usual time of 8:30 a.m. Eastern. U.S. stock exchanges and most markets were closed Friday, but U.S. stock-index futures on the CME remained open until 9:15 a.m., giving investors a 45-minute window to trade the employment data….
The U.S. stock market is closed Friday, April 7, for the Good Friday holiday, but the bond market will be briefly open.
Friday morning has seen the release of the monthly jobs report for March, a key piece of economic data that households, investors and industry leaders will be following for clues to how much further progress the Federal Reserve has been making in its inflation fight.
U.S. stocks eked out modest gains on Thursday after a choppy session, helping the S&P 500 avoid a third day of losses as investors await Friday’s jobs report. The S&P 500 SPX gained 14.61 points, or 0.1%, to finish at 4,104.99, according to preliminary closing data from FactSet. The Nasdaq Composite COMP rose by 91.09 points, or 0.8%, to 12,087.96. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA finished just 2.63 points, or less than 0.1%, higher at 33,485.35. Cash trading in stocks will be closed Friday when the March report from the Department of Labor is released. Economists polled by the Wall Street Journal have a median forecast…
Followers of the “Sell In May and Go Away” market-timing strategy may want to consider selling stocks before the end of April.
The “Sell in May and Go Away” strategy, which also goes by the “Halloween Indicator,” calls for being in the stock market for the six months between Oct. 31 and May 1, and out of the market the other half of the year. Investors who mechanically follow this seasonal strategy therefore wait until the close of the last trading day of April to sell and to the close of the last trading day of October to…
