by Scott Martindale
  CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

  Overview

As we close out H1 2025, markets seem eager to press higher on optimism about imminent fiscal stimulus and monetary policy support during H2—plus perhaps a “peace dividend” thrown in. Of course, investors at home and abroad know that President Trump will pull out all stops to demonstrate meaningful successes in raising organic economic growth and jobs creation, fostering an affordable and reliable energy supply for an electricity-hungry future, and leveraging trade negotiations to open up overseas markets while shrinking the debt/GDP and deficit/GDP ratios over the next 12 months. Otherwise, he risks a catastrophic loss in the mid-term congressional elections—which means his political opponents will be impeding him every step of the way in an effort to make that loss happen.

I had been expecting elevated volatility during H1 as the economy faced a gauntlet of challenges before surging to new highs in H2, but sanguine retail investors (with a healthy dose of FOMO) have been too eager to wait it out. Instead, they bought the April dip and never looked back, seemingly confident that my optimistic scenario would play out. And then the momentum-driven algos jumped in, followed by the institutional money. The Invesco S&P 500 High Beta ETF (SPHB) is up nearly 50% since the “Liberation Day” selloff, reflecting major risk-on behavior. Foreign capital is returning as well after a brief period of rebalancing, hedging, and “tariff paralysis.”

But, with lingering macro uncertainties and valuations seemingly “priced for perfection,” caution is warranted. Inflation and jobs metrics have been softening, in spite of what the headline numbers and MSM might suggest, as I discuss in greater depth in today’s post. The current inflation trend, as illustrated by the rolling 3-month annualized month-over-month (MoM) metrics rather than looking back 12 months to last year’s price index, shows Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) and Consumer Price Index (CPI) falling to just +1.08% and +1.01%, respectively. And regarding jobs growth, if you look under the hood of last week’s reports, private sector hiring has been quite weak, with the headline numbers bolstered by government hiring (at the state and local level, while federal jobs shrink) and government-supported sectors, like healthcare and education.

Of course, some of this reluctance to hire can be chalked up to the lack of clarity around trade deals, tariffs, inflation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), and Fed policy, but much of this is clearing up. For example, now that the OBBBA has been signed into law, we know the new rules on tax rates, subsidies, and incentives. Moreover, the trade deals are gradually coming to fruition. However, the FOMC might continue to lay low in “watch and wait” mode to see how the economy and inflation respond rather than cut rates, which leaves Fed policy intentions murky.

I discuss both inflation and jobs in greater depth in my full commentary below, and I again make the case that the FOMC should have a terminal/neutral fed funds rate 100 bps lower than today’s 4.33% effective rate. Bond yields have normalized with the 10-year Treasury now around 4.40%, which is back to its levels last November to flatten the yield curve, and the 2-year is around 3.90%. Both rates are signaling to the FOMC they should cut, and in fact the Fed’s own long-run estimate for the fed funds rate is 3.0%. The market needs lower interest rates in tandem with business-friendly fiscal policy, including a 5.0% 30-year mortgage rate and a weaker dollar, to support US and global economies, to allow other central banks to inject liquidity, to avert global recession and credit crisis, and to relieve indebted consumers and businesses.

As Real Investment Advice has opined, “…if interest rates drop by just 1%, this could reduce [federal] spending by $500 billion annually, helping to ease fiscal pressures, [and] the coming strategic investments, workforce development, and sustainable energy policies could improve economic outcomes while resolving deficit concerns.” I agree.

So, I believe the Fed remains behind the curve as it worries about tariffs and phantom inflation—which the FOMC sees as a lurking boogeyman, like frightened children lying wide-eyed awake in their beds at night, expecting it to pounce at any moment. But as I continually pound the table on, tariffs are actually disinflationary (in the absence of a commensurate and offsetting increase in income). And more broadly, I believe inflation has resumed its 40-year (1980-2020) secular downtrend, as I discuss in my market commentary below.

Famed investor, co-founder of PIMCO, and “Bond King” Bill Gross argues that the growing federal deficit, elevated bond supply, and a weak dollar likely will keep inflation above 2.5% and create headwinds for bonds. However, while we both like US equities (even at today’s valuations, which I discuss in greater detail below), I see the outlook for bonds differently. Now that we have some clarity on the OBBBA and the debt ceiling, foreign investors and US consumers and businesses know much more about the rules they will be playing under.

Capital tends to flow to where it is most welcome and earns its highest returns, so I think the recent tide of foreign capital flight leaving the US will reverse, helping the dollar find a bottom and perhaps strengthen a bit, which based on historical correlations would suggest higher bond prices (lower yields, despite elevated issuance in the near term) and perhaps lower gold prices. However, without the de facto boost to global liquidity of a weakening dollar, the Fed will have to step up and provide that liquidity boost, such as by lowering interest rates and implementing “stealth QE” (such as through reduced bank reserve requirements) to encourage lending and boost velocity of money (M2V), which has recently stagnated.

Most any foreign investor will tell you there is no other place in the world to invest capital for the innovation and return on shareholder capital than the US, given our entrepreneurial culture, technological leadership in disruptive innovation, strong management and focus 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. So, I continue to like US equities over international equities for the longer term (other than a simple mean-reversion trade).

Hindered by its quasi-socialist policies, Europe doesn’t come close to the US in producing game-changing technologies, opportunities, and prosperity for itself and the world at large. In my view, it lacks our level of freedom, openness, dynamism, and incentive structures. And as for China’s unique “capitalism with Chinese characteristics,” although its authoritarian rule, homogenous society, and obedient culture helps ensure broad unity and focus on common goals, its system is still far inferior when it comes to freedom of thought, entrepreneurship, and innovation, in my view. Despite America’s inequalities and inadequacies, there is no better country on earth for tolerance and opportunity for economic prosperity, and we continue to grow ever more diverse and inclusive—without government programs forcing it to be so.

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.”

Indeed, rather than investing in 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, undervalued, high-quality gems. 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. When I say, “high-quality company,” I mean one that displays a history of consistent, reliable, resilient, durable, and accelerating sales, earnings, and free cash flow growth, rising profit margins, a history of meeting/beating estimates, high capital efficiency and ROI, solid earnings quality, a strong balance sheet, low debt burden, competitive advantage, and a reasonable valuation compared to its peers and its own history.

These are the factors Sabrient employs in selecting our Baker’s Dozen, Forward Looking Value, Dividend, and Small Cap Growth portfolios, which are packaged and distributed as UITs by First Trust Portfolios. (By the way, the new Q3 Baker’s Dozen and Small Cap Growth portfolios are launching late next week, so these are the final several days to get into the Q2 portfolios launched in April—both of which are performing well versus their benchmarks so far.)

We also use many of those factors in our SectorCast ETF ranking model, and notably, our proprietary Earnings Quality Rank (EQR) is a key factor used in each of our portfolios, and it is also licensed to the actively managed First Trust Long-Short ETF (FTLS) as a quality prescreen. In fact, we have launched our next-generation Sabrient Scorecards, which are powerful digital tools that rank stocks and ETFs using our proprietary factors. You can learn more about them by visiting:
http://HighPerformanceStockPortfolios.com.

In my full commentary below, I discuss in greater depth the trends in inflation, jobs, GDP, and stock valuations, as well as 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. Click HERE for a link to this post in printable PDF format.

By the way, my in-depth discussion of energy and electrical power generation (that I keep teasing) will be released soon. As always, please email me your thoughts on this article, and feel free to contact me about speaking on any of these topics at your event!  Read on….

 
  by Scott Martindale
  CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

  Overview

So much for the adage, “Sell in May and go away.” May was the best month for the stock market since November 2023 and the best month of May for the stock market in 35 years, with the S&P 500 up +6.1% and Nasdaq 100 up +9.3%. Moreover, the S&P 500 has risen more than 1,000 points (20%) from its 4/8 low and is back into positive territory YTD (and challenging the 6,000 level). History says when stocks rally so strongly off a low, the 12-month returns tend to be quite good. Even better news is that the rally has been broad-based, with the equal-weight versions of the indexes performing in line with the cap-weights, and with the advance/decline lines hitting all-time highs. An as Warren Pies of 3Fourteen Research observed on X.com, “…the S&P 500 has retraced 84% of its peak-to-trough decline. The [market] has never retraced this much of a bear market and subsequently revisited the lows. The technical evidence points, overwhelmingly, to the beginning of another leg to the bull market and new ATHs.” We certainly aren’t seeing the H1 volatility I expected, with the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) back down to February levels. So, is this the all-clear signal for stocks? Well, let’s explore this a bit.

As Josh Brown of Ritholtz Wealth Management reminds us, “Stocks [tend to] bottom in price a full 9 months before earnings do… By the time earnings are reaching their cycle low, stocks have already been rallying for three quarters of a year in advance of that low. This is why you don’t wait to get invested or attempt to sit out the economic or earnings downturns.” Typically, the growth rates for GDP, corporate earnings, wages, and stock prices should not stray too far apart since they are all closely linked to a strong economy. And as of 6/9, the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model indicates an eye-popping +3.8% growth is in store for Q2 (albeit largely due to a collapse in imports following the negative Q1 print from front-running of imports, ahead of the tariffs).

And with the last administration’s last-minute surge in deficit spending wearing off, the new administration is doing quite well in bringing down inflation, starting with oil prices. Indeed, April CPI came in at +2.33% YoY and the rolling 3-month annualized CPI (a better measure of the current trend) is +1.56%. Looking ahead, the Cleveland Fed’s Inflation NowCasting model forecasts May CPI of +2.40% YoY and an annualized Q2 CPI of +1.70%, while the real-time, blockchain-based Truflation metric is +1.90% (as of 6/9). After all, disruptive innovation like AI is deflationary by increasing productivity, China’s economic woes are deflationary (cheaper goods), and tariffs are deflationary (in the absence of commensurate rise in income), so the rising GDP forecast and falling CPI numbers reflect the exact oppositive of the “stagflation” scare the MSM keeps trumpeting. I discuss inflation in greater length in today’s post below.

It all sounds quite encouraging, right? Well, not so fast. For starters, the charts look severely overbought with ominous negative divergences that could retrace a lot of gains. Moreover, with ISM manufacturing and services indexes both in contraction, with so much lingering uncertainty around trade negotiations, with President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” (aka OBBB) wending a treacherous path through congress, and with his ambitious drive to reverse the course and negative outcomes of decades of hyper-globalization, entitlement creep, and climate/cultural activism facing fierce resistance both at home and abroad, the coast is hardly clear.

Witness the rise in bond term premiums even as the Fed contemplates cutting its benchmark rate as foreign central banks and bond vigilantes slash demand for Treasuries (or even sell them short) due to expectations of unbridled federal debt and Treasury issuance. According to Mike Wilson of Morgan Stanley: “we identified 4%-4.5% [10-year yield] as the sweet spot for equity multiples, provided that growth and earnings stay on track.” Similarly, Goldman Sachs sees 4.5% acting as a ceiling for stock valuations—and that is precisely where the rate closed on Friday 6/6. Wilson identified four factors that he believes would sustain market strength: 1) a trade deal with China, 2) stabilizing earnings revisions, 3) a more dovish Fed (i.e., rate cuts), and 4) the 10-year yield below 4% (without being driven by recessionary data)—but there has been observable progress only in the first two.

Regarding our debt & deficit death spiral, I will argue in my full commentary below that despite all the uproar, the OBBB might not need to institute harsh austerity with further cuts to entitlements (which, along with interest on the debt, amount to 73% of spending) that would mostly hurt the middle/working classes. The bill rightly repeals low-ROI tax credits and spending for boondoggles from prior bills, most notably low-transformity/low-reliability wind and solar energy projects that require government subsidies to be economically viable. But beyond that, the focus should be on lowering the debt/GDP ratio through fiscal and monetary policies that foster robust organic economic growth (the denominator) led by an unleashed private sector fueled by tax rate cuts and incentives for capital investment, deregulation, disruptive innovation, and high-transformity/high-reliability natural gas and next-generation nuclear technology. Real Investment Advice agrees, arguing that market pundits might be “too focused on the deficit amount…rather than our ability to pay for it, i.e., economic growth.”  The charts below show the debt-to-GDP ratio, which is about 120% today, alongside the federal deficit-to-GDP ratio, which is about 6.6% today. (Note that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s target of 3% deficit-to-GDP was last seen in 2016.)

Of course, nothing is all bad or all good. But Trump is shining a bright light on the devastating fallout on our national security, strategic supply chains, and middle/working classes. Changing the pace and direction of globalization, including deglobalizing some supply chains, reshoring strategic manufacturing, and focusing on low-cost energy solutions for a power-hungry world cannot occur without significant disruption. Within the US, we can have different states provide different types of industries and services depending upon their comparative advantages like natural resources, labor costs, demographics, geography, etc.—after all, we are all part of one country. But on a global scale, with some key trading partners that might be better considered rivals, or even enemies in some cases, we can’t entrust our national security to the goodwill and mutual benefit of international trade. Indeed, China has a history of not fulfilling its commitments in prior trade agreements, like reducing state subsidies overproduction (“dumping”), and IP theft, moving some manufacturing into the US, and increasing imports of US goods.

I have talked often about the 3-pronged approach of addressing our federal debt by: 1) inflating it away with slightly elevated inflation around 2.4% to erode the value of dollars owed and increase nominal GDP to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, 2) cutting it away with modest reductions or at least freezes on spending and entitlements, and 3) growing it away by fostering robust organic growth from a vibrant private sector with pro-cyclical fiscal and monetary policies that ultimately grows tax receipts on higher income and GDP (even at lower tax rates) and reduces the debt-to-GDP ratio. But of these three, the big “clean-up hitter” must be #3—robust growth. In fact, a key reason that the OBBB does not propose more austerity measures (i.e., spending cuts beyond waste, fraud, and the “peace dividend”) is to ensure that GDP grows faster than the debt and deficit. We can only live with slightly elevated inflation, and it is difficult to cut much spending given the dominance of mandatory spending (entitlements and interest payments) over discretionary spending. So, the primary driver must be robust private sector organic growth—and by extension an embrace of disruptive innovation and a productivity growth boom that boosts real GDP growth, keeps a lid on inflation, widens profit margins—leading to rising wages tax remittances.

As a case in point, I highly recommend a recent episode of the All-In Podcast in which the panel of four Tech billionaires (of various political persuasions) speak with Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. In 2017, Suarez took over leadership of a city that was in distress, near bankruptcy, and a murder capital of the country, and he resurrected it with three core principles for success: “keep taxes low, keep people safe, lean into innovation”—whereas he laments that most other big-city mayors prefer to do the opposite, i.e., raise taxes, tolerate crime, create suffocating regulations, and reject the offers and entreaties of billionaire entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and Elon Musk (Tesla) as overly disruptive or politically incorrect.

May inflation metrics will come out this week, and then the June FOMC meeting convenes 6/17-18. So far, the FOMC has been quite happy to just sit on its hands (while the ECB just cut for an 8th time) in the face of tariff paralysis; falling oil prices, unit labor costs, and New Tenant Rents; declining inflation and savings rates; rising delinquencies; and slowing jobs growth; instead preferring to be reactive to sudden distress rather than proactive in preventing such distress. Inflation metrics continue to pull back after being propped up by elevated energy prices, long-lag shelter costs, and the prior administration’s profligate federal deficit spending that overshadowed—and indeed created—sluggish growth in the private sector. Economist Michael Howell of CrossBorder Capital 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.”

So, I believe it’s going to be hard for Fed Chair Jay Powell to justify continuing to “wait & watch.” As of 6/9, CME Group fed funds futures show zero odds of a 25-bp rate cut this month, but increases to 17% at the July meeting, and 64% odds of at least 50 bps by year-end. 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, and 30-year mortgage rates need to be closer to 5% to allow the housing market to function properly. But regardless of the FOMC decision this month, I expect the rate-cutting cycle to restart soon and signed trade deals to emerge with our 18 key trading partners, calming domestic and foreign investors.

I still expect new highs in stocks by year end. For now, traders might wait for a pullback and bounce from support levels, or perhaps an upside breakout beyond the 6,000 level on the S&P 500. But my suggestion to investors remains this: Don’t chase the highflyers and instead focus on high-quality businesses at reasonable prices, expect elevated volatility given the uncertainty of the new administration’s policies and impact, and be prepared to exploit any market pullbacks by accumulating those high-quality stocks in anticipation of gains by year end and beyond, fueled by the massive and relentless capital investment in blockchain and AI applications, infrastructure, and energy, leading to rising productivity, increased productive capacity (or “duplicative excess capacity,” in the words of Secretary Bessent, which would be disinflationary), and economic expansion, as I explore in greater depth in my full post below.

Rather than investing in 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, undervalued, high-quality gems. 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. When I say, “high-quality company,” I mean one that is fundamentally strong, displaying a history of consistent, reliable, and accelerating sales and earnings growth, a history of meeting/beating estimates, high capital efficiency, rising profit margins and free cash flow, solid earnings quality, low debt burden, and a reasonable valuation compared to its peers and its own history. These are the factors Sabrient employs in selecting our Baker’s Dozen, Forward Looking Value, Dividend, and Small Cap Growth portfolios (which are packaged and distributed as UITs by First Trust Portfolios). We also use many of those factors in our SectorCast ETF ranking model, and notably, our proprietary Earnings Quality Rank (EQR) is a key factor used in each of our portfolios, and it is also licensed to the actively managed First Trust Long-Short ETF (FTLS) as a quality prescreen.

Sabrient founder David Brown describes these and other factors as well as his portfolio construction process in his latest book. He also describes his path from NASA scientist 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 our next-generation Sabrient Scorecards for Stocks and ETFs, which are powerful digital tools that rank stocks and ETFs using our proprietary factors. You can learn more about both the book and scorecards by visiting: http://HighPerformanceStockPortfolios.com.

Keep in mind, stock market tops rarely happen when investors are cautious, as they continue to be today. So, I continue to believe in staying invested in stocks but also in gold, gold royalty companies, Bitcoin (as an alternative store of value), and perhaps Ethereum (for its expanding use case). These not only serve as hedges against dollar debasement but as core holdings within a strategically diversified portfolio. Bitcoin’s climb back to new highs in May has been much more methodical and disciplined than its previous history of maniacal FOMO momentum surges that were always destined to retrace. This is what comes from maturity and broader institutional acceptance, characterized by “stickier” holders and strategic allocations. Notably, iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) had its largest-ever monthly inflow during May.

I highly encourage you to read my full commentary below. I discuss in greater depth the economic metrics, the truth about the OBBB, deglobalization, trade wars, affordable energy, economic growth, jobs, inflation, and global liquidity. 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. Click HERE for a link to this post in printable PDF format.

By the way, rather than including my in-depth discussion of energy and electrical power generation in this post, I will be releasing it in a special report a little later this month, so please watch for it. As always, please let me know your thoughts on this article, and feel free to contact me about speaking on any of these topics at your event!  Read on….

 
  by Scott Martindale
  CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC
 

  Here is my take on the early inflation metrics for April. I feel as though I have been shouting into the wind for several months about the deflationary trends that are upon us—as opposed to the worries about resurgent inflation we keep hearing from smart economists and the Fed.

The outgoing administration during its final months juiced its already enormous spending that had long supported GDP and jobs growth. This contributed to the spike in inflation metrics in October-January, with CPI/PPI hitting +3.00%/+3.65% YoY in January, and pushed the budget deficit to $1.3 trillion for the first half of fiscal year 2025 (10/1/24-9/30/25), marking the second-highest six-month deficit on record, which was exacerbated by surging interest payments on surging debt.

Then the new administration came in with the lofty but earnest goal of fixing our unsustainable death spiral of inflation, debt, deficit spending, offshoring, and hyper-financialization. Well, it's so far, so good on the inflation front, which has been falling for the past 3 months, with all March readings back below 3%, and the new April readings falling even further.

As shown in the upper chart below, April CPI and PPI came in at +2.33% and +2.41% YoY, and the real-time blockchain-based Truflation (which historically presages CPI) is at +1.79% today. The middle chart shows the rolling 3-month annualized rates (which I like to follow for a better read on the current trend), which came in at just +1.56% and -0.08% (yes, negative). It is evident that PPI is the most volatile, but the resumption in the downtrend is clear. The third chart shows the correlation among CPI, PPI, and the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index (GSCPI). GSCPI remains subdued, in negative territory (i.e., below its long-term average), which bodes well.

But in my view, maintaining somewhat elevated inflation above 2% might be appropriate to help reduce the giant federal debt by “inflating it away” as part of a 3-prong approach comprising: 1) elevated inflation in the 2.5% range, 2) cost cutting, particularly rooting out waste and fraud, and 3) robust real economic growth through fiscal & monetary policies that foster organic private sector growth (rather than continued overreliance on inefficient government)—leading to gains in productivity, margins, earnings, jobs, wages, GDP, and ultimately tax receipts.

And by the way, here's my take on the impact of tariffs: 1) tariffs are a tax, 2) taxes are deflationary, 3) ipso facto, tariffs are deflationary (in the absence of a commensurate increase in income).

Read on....

 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

 Key Points:

 1. The country’s 40-year path into a debt & deficit spending spiral was not working and had to change dramatically, not gradually, and the process to fix it is scary and uncomfortable.

2. The president’s “Liberation Day” tariff regime is at once simplistic and perplexing, but the selloff seems overdone, in my view, although the market remains fragile.

3. After an initial price shock, tariffs are deflationary like any tax; and countries are already coming to the table to negotiate them down.

4. The US is much less dependent on trade, less vulnerable to trade disruptions, and in far better position to weather a brief trade war than any other country, including mercantilist China, which is saber-rattling as a Trumpian bargaining tactic and to stoke the flames of political division in our country, in my view.

5. The $10 trillion that left the stock market was not lost like a wildfire burning down homes; it simply rotated into bonds and cash and can quickly rotate back if the outlook does not change and we have fiscal stimulus, supportive Fed, and rising global liquidity.

6. Volatility (up and down) may be sticking around through H1 until clarity improves later in the year.

7. For those still contributing to a 401(k), the selloff has presented a long-awaited opportunity to “buy low.”

8. Investors may be better served by active stock selection, such as Sabrient’s Baker’s Dozen, Small Cap, and Dividend portfolios.

Overview:

The news has been dominated by President Trump’s announced “Liberation Day” regimen of draconian tariffs, which are intended to induce both fairer trade policies from our trading partners and the onshoring of manufacturing. As his words moved from a 10% across-the-board baseline tariff (a nominal amount that initially sent stocks higher) to the gory details of his broader plan, the swan dive commenced. Negative volume went through the roof. Margin calls rained in. Algorithmic trading systems switched from leveraged long to either leveraged short or out of the market completely (thus removing critical liquidity), tripping stop losses and creating a cascade of selling pressure. The next day’s weekly AAII Sentiment Survey hit an extreme 62% bearish reading and will likely fall lower in this week’s survey. IPOs are being put on hold. The Polymarket odds of an emergency rate cut surged to 285, as did the odds of a rate cut meeting (36% at the May FOMC meeting but a 92% lock by the June meeting).

As of Monday morning’s open, the stock market had essentially given back all last year’s gains. Chartists are lamenting the failure of scary-bearish chart patterns (like the dreaded inverse flag pattern) that could potentially send stock indexes all the way down to their pandemic lows. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) surged above 45 on Friday 4/4 and then touched 60 in the pre-hours on Monday 4/7, which is reminiscent of the pandemic lockdown five years ago.

But are things today really as bad as that, when global supply chains were paralyzed and people were falling ill (and/or dying) en masse? I would say no, and in just a couple of blood-red, gap-down days, the rapid market meltdown already seems overdone, as I discuss further in today’s post. As famed value investor Ben Graham once said, “In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighting machine.”

Although the VIX certainly could still go higher (perhaps a lot higher) and stocks lower, Friday looked to me a lot like capitulation and perhaps the start of a bottoming process leading to a great (and long-awaited) buying opportunity for long-term investors. Just be careful about “catching a falling knife.” Many countries (reportedly more than 50) have apparently reached out to fix their trade arrangements, although the biggie, China, is still in saber-rattling mode, at least for now.

Of course, the current selloff also was exacerbated by “priced for perfection” valuations and a complacent “buy every dip” mentality, largely driven by AI exuberance (and its promise of transformation disruption and rapid growth in productivity) and the massive capex allocated for AI infrastructure and datacenters. Furthermore, during the run-up to all-time highs in 2024, hedge funds had become more heavily leveraged long in US equities than at any time since the pandemic lockdown (as much 300% leveraged), essentially pulling forward gains from 2025 based on strong earnings expectations. So, there might be some similarities to the dot-com bubble bursting in 2001 in that respect. But even at its recent high, the overvaluation was nowhere near 1999 levels of the dot-com mania, and we don’t have the systemic credit and accounting issues leading into the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Company balance sheets are quite sound, and although credit spreads have spiked, they remain low on a historical basis.

Even before the 4/2 tariff announcement, stocks were already looking shaky. It was fascinating to watch the charts of the major indexes like the S&P 500 ETF (SPY) and Nasdaq 100 ETF (QQQ) as they struggled for several days to hold support at the 300-day simply moving average, like a sloth hanging from a tree branch, until ultimately losing grip in dramatic fashion following the big tariff announcement. I opined in my March post that it might be time to create a shopping list of stocks but that volatility would likely continue into the tariff target date (4/2) and perhaps into Tax Day (as liquidity draws down for making tax payments). But few (including me) expected the cataclysmic selloff. Volatility may be sticking around for a while until clarity improves, particularly as Q1 earnings season (and forward guidance) kicks off this week.

To be sure, the reality of the new administration’s aggressive policies to fix many long-festering trade issues has caused much consternation and gnashing of teeth, drawn swift retaliation (particularly from China), disrupted global supply chains, lowered corporate earnings estimates, and raised recession risk (both domestically and globally). In response, just like when the so-called “bond vigilantes” short Treasury notes and bonds (or go to cash) in protest of rising budget deficits and total debt, the “stock vigilantes” went to work shorting stocks (or defensively moving to cash or Treasuries, removing market liquidity and briefly driving the 10-year yield below 4.0%) in protest of the uncertain impacts on the economy and corporate earnings. Or as former Democrat turned Trump supporter Batya Ungar-Sargon sees it, “Suddenly, everybody is sitting around saying, ‘Oh, no, the stock market!’ Yeah, the stock market looks like that because the rich [i.e., Wall Street institutional investors and hedge funds] are punishing Trump for siding with the neglected and humiliated American working class over them.” Indeed, the top 10% of Americans by income own 88% of stocks, the next 40% own 12%, and the bottom 50% are shut out.

So, yes, stock portfolios, IRAs, and 401(k) plans are way down, as the evening news keeps telling us. According to Bespoke Investment Group, the Russell 3000 has seen well over $10 trillion in lost market cap since Inauguration Day (1/20). However—and this is an important point—this is not “capital destruction” in the same sense that a wildfire can destroy homes and businesses. The capital pulled from the stock market didn’t vanish from the earth. It simply rotated into cash and bonds. And it very likely will return to stocks once trade situations are ironed out and visibility improves. It might take several months…or it could come back in a hurry. Be prepared. Perhaps start nibbling at stocks now. If you’re like me, you probably received a slew of low-price alerts for your target list. Some speculative investors might be going all-in at current levels. Regardless, for those still contributing to their IRA or 401(k) and not yet drawing on it, this selloff is a gift to be appreciated, in my view, restoring some value back into the market. After all, when you are in long-term accumulation mode, you want to “buy low.”

Of course, no one knows for sure how low it can go and when the selloff will bottom—and the bottoming process may be lengthy and volatile. The wild card for stocks going forward is uncertainty around the severity and duration of tariffs, which seem designed by their sheer audacity to induce a swift resolution. After all, there is no underlying malady in the economy that prevents business leaders and entrepreneurs from adapting like they always do, and only pride and prejudice can prevent a quick resolution to most of the trade arrangements.

Political, economic, and market volatility will surely continue during H1. But even if we get a larger correction than I expect, I continue to believe stocks will soon find support and ultimately give way to a gradual 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. So, if you have been hoping and praying for lower prices in risk assets (including stocks and crypto) or for a lower mortgage rate to buy a house, you are getting them now, with the forward P/E on the S&P 500 at 18.7x as of 4/4 (before any significant downward revisions to earnings estimates), versus 22.7x at its February peak. As the poet Virgil once said (in Latin), “audentes Fortuna iuvat” — i.e., “fortune favors the bold.”

Because this market correction was led by the bull market-leading MAG-7 stocks and all things AI related, investors now have a second chance to get positions in some of those mega-cap titans at more attractive prices. There remains a persistent sense among global investors of “American exceptionalism” based on ouir entrepreneurial culture, a tenacious focus on building shareholder value, and the mesmerizing appeal of our Big Tech companies that offer disruptive innovation, huge cash positions, reliable and consistently strong earnings growth, free cash flow, margins, return ratios, low interest-rate exposure, global scalability, and wide protective moats.

So, the initial recovery may well be led by the Big Tech titans that are now much more fairly valued, such as NVIDIA (NVDA) at a forward P/E of 21x (as of 4/4). Notably, some of these names have seen their valuations retreat such that they are once again scoring well in Sabrient’s growth models (as found in our next-gen Sabrient Scorecards subscription product)—including names like Amazon (AMZN), NVIDIA (NVDA), Salesforce (CRM), Alphabet (GOOGL), Meta Platforms (META), Microsoft (MSFT), Broadcom (AVGO), Oracle (ORCL), Arista Networks (ANET), Fortinet (FTNT), Palo Alto Networks (PANW), Palantir (PLTR), and Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM)—two of which (TSM and AMZN) are in the Q1 2025 Sabrient Baker’s Dozen.

But longer term, 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 for small caps, which as pointed out by Fama French used to outperform large caps over the long haul (higher risk, higher reward), the small cap indexes have been consistently lagging large cap indexes over the past 20 years, mostly due to their much lower allocation to the Technology sector. For example, the S&P 500 has a massive 17.6% relative overweight to the Tech sector (30.3%) versus the Russell 2000 (12.7%). And if you include the Tech-adjacent MAG-7 names that are categorized as Consumer Discretionary (i.e., Amazon and Tesla totaling 5.3%) and Communications (Alphabet and Meta Platforms totaling 6.4%), the S&P 500 allocation to the MAG-7 is 30.5%, and the combined Tech plus Tech-adjacent allocation is a whopping 42.0%—or a 28.9% relative overweight versus the Russell 2000!

Some might say that small caps are due for a mean reversion versus the S&P 500, but it seems its relative overweight to cyclical sectors like Industrials, Financials, Real Estate, Materials, and Energy (with only noncyclical/secular growth Healthcare having an overweight of 5.9%) rather than to secular growth Technology would make any attempt at mean reversion temporary. Nevertheless, I still think the small cap universe is where to find the most explosive growth opportunities (with the notable exception of large cap names like NVDA), even if the broad passive indexes (like Russell 2000) 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.

We at Sabrient have become best known for our “Baker’s Dozen” portfolio of 13 diverse growth-at-a-reasonable-price (GARP) stocks, which is packaged and distributed quarterly to the financial advisor community as a unit investment trust through First Trust Portfolios, along with three other offshoot strategies based on Value, Dividend, and Small Cap investing. By the way, our Q1 2025 Baker’s Dozen remains in primary market until 4/16, after which time the Q2 portfolio launches. Also, our Small Cap Growth 45 portfolio remains in primary market until 4/21, followed by the launch of Small Cap Growth 46, and Dividend 51 is in primary market paying a 4.25% yield on new purchases.

As a reminder, Sabrient founder David Brown’s new book, How to Build High Performance Stock Portfolios, is available in both paperback and eBook versions on Amazon. 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 the scorecards book and, download a sample scorecard, and sign-up for a free trial subscription—by visiting: http://DavidBrownInvestingBook.com/

In today's post, I examine in detail the new tariff regimen, the case for reducing (but not eliminating) the trade deficit, the liquidity challenge and “debt maturity wall,” and the case for tariffs and trade realignment. You won’t regret reading it through! 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. Here is a link to this post in printable PDF format.  Read on….