Overview

 Market indexes regained all of their losses since the president’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement one month ago, culminating in an historic +10% 9-day rally for the S&P 500 (and +18% from its 4/7 intraday low) that sent it back above its 20-day and 50-day moving averages to test resistance at its 200-day. But was this just a short-covering relief rally as bearish commentators assert? I said in my April post that the $10 trillion that left the stock market was not the “capital destruction” they claimed, like a wildfire burning down homes, but rather a rotation into the safety of bonds and cash that could quickly rotate back. Sure enough, when retail investors swooped in to scoop up the suddenly fair valuations of the capitulation selloff, leveraged algo momentum traders quickly joined in. But while I think the longer term holds promise, the chart became short-term overbought (and is pulling back this week), and macro conditions are still treacherous, keeping investors jittery and headline-driven. So, the market remains fragile even as we wind down a solid Q1 earnings reporting season, with the FOMC policy announcement on tap this week.

Nevertheless, in my view, positive signs are emerging to suggest: 1) the trade war (particularly with China) and the hot war in Ukraine will both find their way to a resolution, 2) the fiscal legislation (“one big, beautiful bill”) with new tax cuts working its way through congress will soon be passed, 3) the size and scope of federal government that has crowded out the private sector is shrinking and making way for re-privatization and de-regulation of the economy to unleash organic private sector growth, 4) corporate earnings and capex commitments remain strong, and 5) the Federal Reserve will ensure liquidity growth and restart its rate-cutting cycle like other central banks—and liquidity leads pricing in risk asset markets, gold, and cryptocurrencies. So, I think the noise will quiet and the clouds will clear, making way for a renewed focus on corporate earnings and global liquidity to power forward the economy and stocks. And don’t forget—the market loves to climb a wall of worry, which means it discounts the future and typically turns well in advance of the economic and sentiment metrics.

Of course, the biggest news that juiced the stock market is the apparent offramp forming for the trade stalemate between the US and China. Publicly, China has been saber-rattling as a Trumpian bargaining tactic, in my view, and to stoke the flames of political division in our country with midterms on the docket next year—something the CCP doesn’t have to worry much about. Indeed, it has been loath to give an inch even though its economy was already struggling with deflation, a long-running property crisis, sluggish consumer demand, overcapacity, and weak business and consumer confidence well before the recent tariff escalation. Its services PMI just hit a 7-month low, its manufacturing PMI has officially fallen into contraction at 49.0, and its new export orders component plunged to the lowest reading since the pandemic at 44.7. And although China insists the US “unilaterally” started the trade war, the truth is we are finally pushing back after years of turning a blind eye to their tariffs, IP theft, forced technology transfers, hacking, state subsidies, dumping of goods, fentanyl trafficking, and currency manipulation.

In my view, the US is in far better position to weather a brief trade war than mercantilist China. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent succinctly articulated, “China’s business model is predicated on selling cheap, subsidized goods to the US, and if there is a sudden stop in that, they will have a sudden stop in their economy. So, they will negotiate.” Both governments know that an escalating trade war with big tariffs and a tight US Federal Reserve is especially bad for China. The dollar/yuan exchange rate is crucially important to China, and the dollar today is nearly as strong it has been against the yuan since yuan’s devaluation during the Global Financial Crisis. With its massive dollar-denominated debt, a weaker dollar relieves China’s financial strain by boosting global liquidity to the benefit of both countries. So, despite its theatrical saber-rattling, China needs a trade deal that ensures a weaker dollar to shore up the yuan and reduce capital flight.

Indeed, we are now hearing from China that “the door is open” to trade talks, and its security czar is evaluating ways to address the use of Chinese precursor chemicals by Mexican cartels to produce fentanyl for distribution in the US. Moreover, although the Port of Los Angeles announced that volumes will fall be 1/3 as several major American retailers are halting all shipments from China, in reality, American businesses as usual are finding a way to succeed (and skirt the most onerous tariffs) by rerouting supply chains through 3rd party countries like Vietnam and Mexico (“trans-shipping”) and delivering to bonded warehouses to delay the official receipt of goods. Also offsetting the tariffs is the 10% drop in the dollar index.

Looking ahead, although volatility likely will remain elevated for the next few months, unless something crazy comes out of left field, I think the market has seen its lows, and the path of least resistance is higher. American consumers, corporations, and entrepreneurs are optimistic by nature and are always pushing boundaries and seeking a path forward, rather than sitting on their hands waiting for government to tell them what to do. And of course, President Trump is not one to sit on his hands for one minute in his effort to “fix” our unsustainable “death spiral” of inflation, debt, deficit spending, offshoring, and hyper-financialization.

But then we have the FOMC, whose members have been quite happy to sit on their hands in the face of tariff turmoil, falling inflation, and slowing GDP and jobs growth. Among the 19 FOMC participants (the 7 Board of Governors and 12 Reserve Bank regional presidents, which includes both the 12 voting members and the 7 non-voting members who serve as voting members on a rotating basis), they almost unanimously (18 of 19) agreed at their March meeting that growth and employment risks are skewed to the downside while inflation risks are skewed to the upside. Overall, the Fed has taken a dovish stance but will be reactive to sudden distress in growth and jobs rather than proactive in preventing such distress.

Although Fed Chair Powell often talks about tariffs as being inflationary, in fact tariffs are deflationary like all forms of taxation—i.e., without a commensurate increase in income or credit, they necessitate a rethinking and reallocation of one’s existing disposable income. Furthermore, Powell & Co. seem to be ignoring the deflationary signals of falling oil prices, slowing household consumption, declining savings rates, and rising delinquencies. Inflation metrics are pulling back after being propped up by elevated energy prices and long-lag components (like shelter costs) and the prior administration’s profligate federal deficit spending that overshadowed—and indeed created—sluggish growth in the private sector. I talk more about inflation metrics and expectations for next week’s CPI and PPI releases in my full commentary below.

To be fair, government spending (to the tune of nearly 6.5% of GDP) exacerbated the inflation and private sector malaise it created by making it difficult for the Powell & Co. to justify helping out the private sector with lower interest rates, thus crowding out the efficient capital allocation and high return on investment of the private sector with the inefficient capital allocation of bloated government boondoggles. Economist Michael Howell of CrossBorder Capital reminds us that “public debt is expanding faster than private debt, fueled by welfare commitments and rising interest burdens, ensuring persistent liquidity growth.” Importantly, Howell persuasively asserts that, “monetary policy must prioritize liquidity over inflation” concerns, so the Fed’s current hands-off, higher-for-longer, reactionary approach risks causing a liquidity crunch. In his view, “The modern financial system is a fragile, collateral-driven mechanism, and one that requires constant intervention [through proactive management] to avoid collapse.”

As Andrew Lees of MacroStrategy Partners has pointed out, “Economies naturally self-order productively when not constrained by excessive regulation and over-bearing government intervention. The current "financialized" economic system as it is, is dependent on debt and unproductive use of capital (Wall Street vs Main Street).” The private sector has proven to be much better at the efficient and highly productive allocation of capital to maximize ROI. So, as Secretary Bessent has described, the Trump administration seeks to reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP and increase real GDP growth to 3%, which would lead to the same kind of small-government/strong-private-sector economy that has turned around a foundering Argentina under President Milei.

The May FOMC meeting convenes this week, so we shall see. CME Group fed funds futures show only 3% odds of a 25-bp rate cut, but increases to 32% at the June meeting, and 78% odds of at least 75 bps (3 cuts) by year-end. In my view, they should be readying for 50 bps in rate cuts by July and a target neutral rate of around 3.25-3.50% by early 2026. Certainly the 2-year Treasury yield (the shortest term that is substantially market driven) at 3.80% (as of 5/6) is signaling to the Fed that rates should be much lower than the current 4.25-4.50% fed funds rate. According to a recent post by AlpineMacro, “…the current 10-2 year spread in the bond market is not sustainable, particularly if the economy slows sharply. Ultimately, the long end of the curve will gravitate to the short end, particularly when investors realize that tariff-induced price increases are temporary.” Notably, projections on bond issuance from Secretary Bessent suggest a gradual return to an 80/20 split between T-bonds & notes (80%) versus T-bills (20%) going forward as opposed to the nearly 100% allocation to T-bills (< 1 year) under his predecessor Janet Yellen.

I have been insisting for some time that the FFR needs to be 100 bps lower, as the US economy's headline GDP and jobs numbers were long artificially propped up by excessive, inefficient, and often unproductive federal deficit spending, while the hamstrung private sector has seen sluggish growth. Moreover, today’s DOGE-led spending cuts, trade war uncertainty, and with budget reconciliation and fiscal legislation still in progress have removed much of that artificial stimulus. But regardless of the May FOMC decision, I expect the rate-cutting cycle to restart in June and signed trade deals with our 18 key trading partners beginning this month.

But for the near term, until those things come to fruition, I continue to expect stocks will remain volatile (with VIX above the 20 “fear threshold” but below the 30 “panic threshold”). CNN's Fear & Greed Index just jumped from "Fear” to “Greed” on the dial but remains volatile. The American Association of Individual Investors' ("AAII") Investor Sentiment Survey has shown more than 50% bearish (vs. historical average of 31%) for 10 consecutive weeks, which is the longest streak since 1990. Capital flows reflect a sharp drop in foreign capital flight into US bonds and equities over the past two months in something of a “buyers’ strike,” adding pressure to the US dollar. And last week saw a negative Q1 GDP print, somewhat offset by an upside beat from the jobs report and rising labor force participation.

There are certainly plenty of high-profile bears. One market technician I respect a lot, A.J. Monte of Sticky Trades, still believes stocks will eventually retest their pandemic lows (!). He warned of the dreaded “death cross” when the 50-day moving average crossed down through the 200-day moving average on 4/12. And then we have Christoper Wood of Jefferies, who believes that US stocks saw a permanent (!) peak last December (at lofty valuations) and will never (!) see those levels again—much like Japan’s market peak in 1989. Instead of US stocks, Wood thinks investors should buy Europe, China, Japan, and India. Others have pronounced that the US brand is permanently damaged and that we have witnessed the end of “American exceptionalism.” Heavy sigh.

Call me overly patriotic with rose-colored glasses, but my view is a little different. Capital tends to flow to where it is most welcome and earns its highest returns, so the recent falling tide of foreign capital flight leaving the US will surely return once visibility clears and the dollar firms up. Most any foreign investor will tell you there is no other place in the world to invest capital for the innovation and expected return than the US given our entrepreneurial culture, technological leadership in disruptive innovation, strong focus on building shareholder value, low interest-rate exposure, global scalability, wide protective moats, and our reliable and consistently strong earnings growth, free cash flow, margins, and return ratios, particularly among the dominant, cash flush, Big Tech titans, which continue to use their piles of cash to seed AI startups and other disruptive technologies. Notably, the US boasts more than 50% of the world’s privately owned late-stage start-ups valued at over $1 billion (aka “unicorns”) and leads in R&D spending and patent applications.

Moreover, it’s not just the Technology sector that is appealing to investors. As BlackRock wrote in their Q2 2025 Equity Market Outlook, “Commentators will often cite the prevalence of a large number of Tech companies in the U.S. as the driver of U.S. equity dominance. But our analysis points to wider breadth in U.S. quality. Current return on tangible invested capital (ROTIC), a proxy for a company’s ability to allocate capital for optimal profitability, is significantly higher in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world, suggesting quality exists not in pockets but across sectors.”

As Kevin O’Leary has opined, “Our number one export is the American dream. Everyone wants to come to America and start a business and become personally free." And this will not change just because our president seeks to incentivize the private sector to strategically reshore manufacturing with the ultimate goals of reviving the middle class, narrowing the wealth gap, reducing the trade deficit, ensuring reliable supply chains, and reinforcing national security. Moreover, Trump’s federal cost-cutting, tariff regime, and America-First rhetoric does not aim for absolute deglobalization, fiscal austerity, mercantilism, and isolationism as the MSM would have you believe, but rather to simply rebalance a system that had become completely out of balance—and indeed was falling into that aforementioned death spiral of rising inflation, debt, deficit spending, offshoring, and hyper-financialization. The rebalancing involves re-privatization and de-regulation rather than relying on massive government spending—and what I call “smart austerity” to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, corruption and unaccountability, plus a “peace dividend” from ending the war in Ukraine.

So, I continue to believe the macro uncertainty and jittery market will ultimately give way to a melt-up, sending the market to back near its highs of Q1 by year-end or early-2026, driven by rising global liquidity, a weaker US dollar, reduced wasteful/reckless government spending and regulatory red tape, lower interest and tax rates, massive corporate capex, and the “animal spirits” of a rejuvenated private sector and housing market.

The early April selloff brought down some of the loftiest valuations among the popular mega-cap stocks, with the forward P/E on the S&P 500 falling to 18.5x on 4/8 versus 22.7x at its February peak and today’s 20.6x (as of 5/5). In fact, many of the prominent names in the Technology and Communication Services sectors saw their valuations retreat such that they are scoring well in Sabrient’s growth models (as shown in our next-gen Sabrient Scorecards subscription product)—including large caps like Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM), Broadcom (AVGO), and Spotify (SPOT) that are in the new Q2 2025 Sabrient Baker’s Dozen portfolio, and small caps like Freshworks (FRSH), QuinStreet (QNST), and RingCentral (RNG) that are in our new Sabrient Small Cap Growth 46 portfolio. These portfolios along with Sabrient Dividend 51 (a growth & income strategy yielding 4.05% as of 5/5) are packaged and distributed quarterly to the financial advisor community as unit investment trusts through First Trust Portfolios.

Indeed, rather than the passive cap-weighted indexes dominated by Big Tech, investors may be better served by active stock selection that seeks to identify under-the-radar and undervalued gems primed for explosive growth—many of whom could coattail on the Big Tech names and provide greater returns. This is what Sabrient seeks to do in our various portfolios, all of which provide exposure to Value, Quality, Growth, and Size factors and to both secular and cyclical growth trends.

As a reminder, the “Size” factor refers to market cap and the Fama French study that showed small caps historically tend to outperform over time. Although that has not been the case for the small cap indexes (like Russell 2000) for most of the past 20 years, I still think the small cap universe is where to find the most explosive growth opportunities, even if the broad passive indexes can't keep up. So, insightful active selection is important for small cap investing—which is easier to do given the relative lack of analyst coverage and institutional ownership of small caps.

For each of our portfolios, we seek high-quality, fundamentally strong companies displaying a history of consistent, reliable, and accelerating sales and earnings growth, rising profit margins and free cash flow, solid earnings quality, low debt burden, and a reasonable valuation. Notably, our proprietary Earnings Quality Rank (EQR) is a key factor in each of our growth, value, dividend, and small cap models, and it is also licensed to the actively managed First Trust Long-Short ETF (FTLS).

Sabrient founder David Brown describes these and other factors as well as his portfolio construction process in his latest book. David describes his path from NASA engineer in the Apollo moon landing program to creating quant models for ranking stocks and building stock portfolios. And as a companion product to the book, we have launched next-gen versions of Sabrient Scorecards for Stocks and ETFs. You can learn more about both the book and scorecards by visiting: http://DavidBrownInvestingBook.com.

In my full commentary below, I discuss earnings, gold, tariffs, inflation, global liquidity, the power of free market capitalism, and the imminent “bullish triumvirate” of tariff resolution, tax cuts, and deregulation. I also discuss Sabrient’s latest fundamental-based SectorCast quantitative rankings of the ten U.S. business sectors, current positioning of our sector rotation model, and several top-ranked ETF ideas. Our model likes Technology, Healthcare, Communication Services sectors, and assuming interest rates indeed come down and liquidity rises as I expect, I also like dividend stocks and gold. HERE is a link to this post in printable PDF format.

I had so much to say this month that I decided to defer until next month my in-depth commentary on the exciting new developments in energy and electrical generation. Please contact me to speak on any of these topics at your event!  Read on….

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

The future direction of both stocks and bonds hinges on the trajectory of corporate earnings and interest rates, both of which are largely at the mercy of inflation, Fed monetary policy, and the state of the economy (e.g., recession). So far, 2023 is off to an impressive start, with both stocks and bonds surging higher on speculation that inflation will continue to subside, the Fed will soon pause rate hikes, the economy will endure at most a mild recession, China reopens, and corporate earnings will hold up…not to mention, stocks have risen in the year following a midterm election in every one of the past 20 cycles. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is at a 52-week low.

Moreover, although inflation and interest rates surged much higher than I predicted at the beginning of 2022, my broad storyline around inflation and Fed policy remains intact:  i.e., a softening of its hawkish jawboning, followed by slower rate hikes and some balance sheet runoff (QT), a pause (or neutral pivot) to give the rapid rate hikes a chance to marinate (typically it takes 9-12 months for a rate hike to have its full effect), and then as inflation readings retreat and/or recession sets in, rate cuts commence leading to an extended relief rally and perhaps the start of a new (and lasting) bull market. Investors seem to be trying to get a jump on that rally. Witness the strength in small caps, which tend to outperform during recoveries from bear markets. However, I think it could be a “bull trap” …at least for now.

Although so far consumer spending, corporate earnings, and profitability have held up, I don’t believe we have the climate quite yet for a sustained bull run, which will require an actual Fed pause on rate hikes and more predictable policy (an immediate dovish pivot probably not necessary), better visibility on corporate earnings, and lower market volatility. Until we get greater clarity, I expect more turbulence in the stock market. In my view, the passive, broad-market, mega-cap-dominated indexes that have been so hard for active managers to beat in the past may see further weakness during H1 2023. The S&P 500 might simply gyrate in a trading range, perhaps 3600–4100.

But there is hope for greater clarity as we get closer to H2 2023. If indeed inflation continues to recede, China reopens, the war in Ukraine doesn’t draw in NATO (or turn nuclear), the dollar weakens, and bond yields fall further, then investor interest should broaden beyond value and defensive names to include well-valued growth stocks help to fuel a surge in investor confidence. I believe both stocks and bonds will do well this year, and the classic 60/40 stock/bond allocation model should regain its appeal.

Regardless, even if the major indexes falter, that doesn’t mean all stocks will fall. Indeed, certain sectors (most notably Energy) should continue to thrive, in my view, so long as the global economy doesn’t sink into a deep recession. Quality and value have regained their former luster (and the value factor has greatly outperformed the growth factor over the past year), which means active selection and smart beta strategies that can exploit the performance dispersion among individual stocks seem poised to continue to beat passive indexing in 2023—a climate in which Sabrient’s approach tends to thrive.

For example, our Q4 2021 Baker’s Dozen, which launched on 10/20/21 and terminates on Friday 1/20/23, is outperforming by a wide margin all relevant market benchmarks (including various mid- and small-cap indexes, both cap-weighted and equal-weight) with a gross total return of +9.3% versus -10.2% for the S&P 500 as of 1/13, which implies a +19.5% active return, led by a diverse group encompassing two oil & gas firms, an insurer, a retailer, and a semiconductor equipment company. Later in this post, I show performance for all of Sabrient’s live portfolios—including the Baker’s Dozen, Forward Looking Value, Small Cap Growth, and Dividend (which offers a 4.7% current yield). Each leverages our enhanced model that combines Value, Quality, and Growth factors to provide exposure to both longer-term secular growth trends and shorter-term cyclical growth and value-based opportunities. By the way, the new Q1 2023 Baker’s Dozen launches on 1/20.

Here is a link to a printable version of this post. In this periodic update to start the new year, I provide a comprehensive market commentary, discuss the performance of Sabrient’s live portfolios, offer my technical analysis of the S&P 500 chart, review Sabrient’s latest fundamentals based SectorCast quant rankings of the ten U.S. business sectors, and serve up some actionable ETF trading ideas. To summarize, our SectorCast rankings reflect a modestly bullish bias, the technical picture looks short-term overbought but mid-term neutral, and our sector rotation model remains in a neutral posture. Energy continues to sit atop our sector rankings, given its still ultra-low (single digit) forward P/E and expectations for strong earnings growth, given likely upside pricing pressure on oil due to the end of Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases (and flip to purchases), continued sanctions on Russia, and China’s reopening…and assuming we see only a mild recession and a second half recovery. Read on…

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

Needless to say, investors have been piling out of stocks and bonds and into cash. So much for the 60/40 portfolio approach that expects bonds to hold up when stocks sell off. In fact, few assets have escaped unscathed, leaving the US dollar as the undisputed safe haven in uncertain times like these, along with hard assets like real estate, oil, and commodities. Gold was looking great in early-March but has returned to the flatline YTD. Even cryptocurrencies have tumbled, showing that they are still too early in adoption to serve as an effective “store of value”; instead, they are still leveraged, speculative risk assets that have become highly correlated with aggressive growth stocks.

From its record high in early January to Thursday’s intraday low, the S&P 500 (SPY) was down -19.9% (representing more than $7.5 trillion in value). At its lows on Thursday, the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) was down as much as -29.2% from its November high. Both SPY and QQQ are now struggling to regain critical “round-number” support at 400 and 300, respectively. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) further illustrates the bearishness. After hitting 36.6 on May 2, which is two standard deviations above the low-run average of 20 (i.e., Z-score of 2.0), VIX stayed in the 30’s all last week, which reflects a level of panic. This broad retreat from all asset classes has been driven by fear of loss, capital preservation, deleveraging/margin calls among institutional traders, and the appeal of a strong dollar (which hit a 20-year high last week). The move to cash caused bond yields to soar and P/E ratios to crater. Also, there has been a striking preference for dividend-paying stocks over bonds.

It appears I underestimated the potential for market carnage, having expected that the March lows would hold as support and the “taper tantrum” surge in bond yields would soon top out once the 10-year yield rose much above 2%, due to a combination of US dollar strength as the global safe haven, lower comparable rates in most developed markets, moderating inflation, leverage and “financialization” of the global economy, and regulatory or investor mandates for holding “cash or cash equivalents.” There are some signs that surging yields and the stock/bond correlation may be petering out, as last week was characterized by stock/bond divergence. After spiking as high as 3.16% last Monday, the 10-year yield fell back to close Thursday at 2.82% (i.e., bonds attracted capital) while stocks continued to sell off, and then Friday was the opposite, as capital rolled out of bonds into stocks.

Although nominal yields may be finally ready to recede a bit, real yields (net of inflation) are still solidly negative. Although inflation may be peaking, the moderation I have expected has not commenced – at least not yet – as supply chains have been slow to mend given new challenges from escalation in Russian’s war on Ukraine, China’s growth slowdown and prolonged zero-tolerance COVID lockdowns in important manufacturing cities, and various other hindrances. Indeed, the risks to my expectations that I outlined in earlier blog posts and in my Baker’s Dozen slide deck have largely come to pass, as I discuss in this post.

Nevertheless, I still expect a sequence of events over the coming months as follows: more hawkish Fed rhetoric and some tightening actions, modest demand destruction, a temporary economic slowdown, and more stock market volatility … followed by mending supply chains, some catch-up of supply to slowing demand, moderating inflationary pressures, bonds continuing to find buyers (and yields falling), and a dovish turn from the Fed – plus (if necessary) a return of the “Fed put” to support markets. Time will tell. Too bad the Fed can’t turn its printing press into a 3D printer and start printing supply chain parts, semiconductors, oil, commodities, fertilizers, and all the other goods in short supply – that would be far more helpful than the limited tools they have at hand.

Although both consumer and investor sentiment are quite weak (as I discuss below), and there has been no sustained dip-buying since March, history tells us bear markets do not start when everyone is already bearish, so perhaps Friday’s strong rally is the start of something better. Perhaps the near -20% decline in the S&P 500 is all it took to wring out the excesses, with Thursday closing at a forward P/E of 16.8x ahead of Friday’s rally, which is the lowest since April 2020. So, the S&P 500 is trading at a steep 22% discount compared to 21.7x at the start of the year, a 5-year average of 18.6x, and a 20-year post-Internet-bubble average of 15.5x (according to FactSet), Moreover, the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight (RSP) is at 15.0x compared to 17.7x at the beginning of the year, and the S&P 600 small cap forward P/E fell to just 11.6x (versus 15.2x at start of the year).

But from an equity risk premium standpoint, which measures the spread between equity earnings yields and long-term bond yields, stock valuations have actually worsened relative to bonds. So, although this may well be a great buying opportunity, especially given the solid earnings growth outlook, the big wildcards for stocks are whether current estimates are too optimistic and whether bond yields continue to recede (or at least hold steady).

Recall Christmas Eve of 2018, when the market capitulated to peak-to-trough selloff of -19.7% – again, just shy of the 20% bear market threshold – before recovering in dazzling fashion. The drivers today are not the same, so it’s not necessarily and indicator of what comes next. Regardless, you should be prepared for continued volatility ahead.

In this periodic update, I provide a comprehensive market commentary, offer my technical analysis of the S&P 500 chart, review Sabrient’s latest fundamentals based SectorCast quant rankings of the ten US business sectors, and serve up some actionable ETF trading ideas. To summarize, our SectorCast rankings reflect a bullish bias, with 5 of the top 6 scorers being cyclical sectors, Energy, Basic Materials, Financials, Industrials, and Technology. In addition, the near-term technical picture looks bullish for at least a solid bounce, if not more (although the mid-to-long-term is still murky, subject to news developments), but our sector rotation model switched to a defensive posture last month when technical conditions weakened.

Regardless, Sabrient’s Baker’s Dozen, Dividend, and Small Cap Growth portfolios leverage our enhanced Growth at a Reasonable Price (GARP) selection approach (which combines Quality, Value, and Growth factors) to provide exposure to both the longer-term secular growth trends and the shorter-term cyclical growth and value-based opportunities – without sacrificing strong performance potential. Sabrient’s latest Q2 2022 Baker’s Dozen launched on 4/20/2022 and is off to a good start versus the benchmark, led by three Energy firms, with a diverse mix across market caps and industries. In addition, the live Dividend and Small Cap Growth portfolios have performed quite well relative to their benchmarks. Read on....