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….

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

The S&P 500 rose 20.8% during the first three quarters of 2024, which is its best start since 1997 and the best for any presidential election year in history. Moreover, for perspective, the ratio of US stock market capitalization to the global stock market has risen from 30% in 2009 (following the GFC) to almost 50% today. This has happened despite escalation in multiple wars, numerous catastrophic weather events ravaging the country, a highly contentious election tearing apart friends and families, strapped consumers (after 25%+ cumulative inflation over the past few years), falling consumer confidence, and jobs and GDP growth over-reliant on government deficit spending, with national debt approaching $35.7 trillion and rising $2 trillion/year (as debt carrying costs alone cost over $1 trillion/year). Even over the past several days when oil prices spiked above $75/bbl (on sudden escalation in the Middle East conflict) and bond yields surged (with the 10-year reaching 4.05%), the major indexes continue to hold near their highs.

As investor Howard Lindzon (of StockTwits fame) said the other day, “There is a fear trade happening (e.g., gold and bitcoin) while there is growth trade happening. It’s really mind-boggling.” Indeed, many of the most prominent investors are wary, including the likes of Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon, and Jeff Bezos, and corporate insider buying has slowed.

I’m not an economist. I started my career as a structural engineer with Chevron Corporation, then earned an MBA in night school and moved into the business side of the company before venturing into the world of investment research. But as a long-time student of the economy and capital markets, combined with my critical-thinking nature and engineering training, I’ve developed a healthy skepticism of numbers presented to me, even from supposedly objective sources like the government. They have to pass the “smell test.”

Of course, the Fed has been basing its monetary policy primarily on metrics calculated by federal agencies regarding inflation, jobs, and GDP. But headline YoY numbers can be illusory—particularly when they are propped up by massive government deficit spending. So, I like to look beyond the headline numbers. For inflation, my skepticism of official numbers (with the long lag times of key components, like shelter cost, and distorted metrics like “owner’s equivalent rent,” which is highly subjective and based on surveys of homeowners) is why I seek alternative metrics like: 1) the annualized rolling 3-month average of month-over-month price changes (which better reflects current trends), 2) a European method (quietly published by the BLS since 2006) called the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), and 3) the real-time, blockchain-based Truflation, which is published daily.

My skepticism was further elevated when I saw the jobs, retail sales, and ISM Services metrics all suddenly perk up in September—right before the election after a lengthy period of decline and contrary to several negative developments like a record divergence between rising consumer credit card debt and falling personal savings and The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence dropping to the bottom of its 2-year range and showing increasing pessimism about labor market conditions.

On the other hand, it is notable that Truflation also has risen quickly over the past couple of weeks to nearly 2.0% YoY, so could this be corroborating the apparent rise in consumer demand? Could it be that the Fed’s dovish pivot and 50-bps rate cut has suddenly emboldened consumers to start spending again and businesses to ramp up hiring? Or are my suspicions correct such that we are in store for more downward revisions on some these rosy metrics post-election? After all, the last set of major revisions in early September showed not just an over-reliance on government jobs and government-supported jobs (through targeted spending bills), but the August household survey showed 66,000 fewer employed than in August 2023, 609,000 more “”part-time for economic reasons,” and 531,000 more “part time for noneconomic reasons,” which implies 1.2 million fewer full-time jobs in August 2024 versus August 2023.

Then along came the big 254,000 jobs gain in the September report that made investors so giddy last week, and the household survey showed 314,000 more employed workers than in September of last year. However, digging into the numbers, there are 555,000 more “”part-time for economic reasons” and 389,000 more “part time for noneconomic reasons,” which suggests 630 million fewer full-time jobs in September 2024 versus September 2023, so it’s no surprise that the average weekly hours worked also fell. Furthermore, government spending (and the growing regulatory state) continues to account for much of the hiring as government jobs have soared by 785,000 (seasonally adjusted) over this 12-month timeframe, which was the largest month-over-month (MoM) gain on record. Also, workers holding multiple jobs hit an all-time high. And notably, native-born workers have lost 1.62 million net jobs since their peak employment in July 2023 while foreign-born workers have gained 1.69 million over the same period.

Hmmm. I continue to see the GDP and jobs growth numbers as something of a mirage in that they have been propped up by government deficit spending (which our leaders euphemistically call “investment”). As you recall, leading into the September FOMC announcement I had been pounding the table on the need for a 50-bps rate cut, which we indeed got. Many observers, and at least one Fed governor, believe it was a mistake to go so big, but as I discussed in my post last month, recessionary pressures were mounting despite the impressive headline numbers, and the pain felt by our trading partners from high US interest rates and a strong dollar essentially required some agreement among the major central banks, particularly Japan and China, to weaken the dollar and thus allow an expansion in global liquidity without inciting capital flight to the US. And the PBOC soon did exactly that—slashing its reserve requirement ratio (RRR), cutting its benchmark interest rate, and loosening scores of rules regarding mortgages and the property market—which has restrengthened the dollar after its summer decline.

Of course, cutting taxes and regulation is the best way to unleash the private sector, but it's often argued that a tax cut without a corresponding reduction in spending only serves to increase the budget deficit and add to the federal debt. In fact, I saw a Harris campaign commercial with an average guy named “Buddy” lamenting that it’s “not cool” with him that Trump would give “billionaires” a tax break because they should “pay their fair share.” But Buddy and Harris both need to know what DataTrek Research has observed—i.e., since 1960, regardless of individual and corporate tax rates, federal receipts have averaged 17% of GDP. This means that raising taxes stunts GDP growth while cutting taxes boosts GDP growth by leaving more money in the pockets of consumers, business owners, and corporations to spend and invest with the wisdom of a free and diverse marketplace (Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”). In other words, the path to rising tax revenues is through strong economic growth—and the best return on capital comes from the private sector, which has proven itself much more adept at determining the most efficient allocation of capital rather than Big Government’s top-down picking of winners and losers, like a politburo.

Nevertheless, given the Fed’s dovish pivot (and despite the “heavy hand” of our federal government), I continue to expect higher prices by year end and into 2025. Bond credit spreads remain tight (i.e., no fear of recession), and although the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is back above the 20 “fear threshold,” it is far from panic levels. So, I believe any “October surprise” that leads to a pre-election selloff—other than a cataclysmic “Black Swan” event—would likely be a welcome buying opportunity, in my view. But besides adding or maintaining exposure to the dominant MAG-7 titans—which provide defensive qualities (due to their disruptive innovation and wide moats) as well as long-term appreciation potential—I think other stocks may offer greater upside as the economic cycle continues its growth run and market rotation/broadening resumes.

So, my suggestions are to buy high-quality businesses at reasonable prices on any pullback, hold inflation hedges like gold and bitcoin, and be prepared to exploit any credit-related panic—both as stocks sell off (such as by buying out-of-the-money put options while VIX is low) and before they rebound (when share prices are low). Regardless, I continue to recommend high-quality, fundamentally strong stocks across all market caps that display consistent, reliable, and accelerating sales and earnings growth, positive revisions to Wall Street analysts’ consensus estimates, rising profit margins and free cash flow, solid earnings quality, and low debt burden. These are the factors Sabrient employs in selecting the growth-oriented Baker’s Dozen (our “Top 13” stocks), the value-oriented Forward Looking Value, the growth & income-oriented Dividend portfolio, and Small Cap Growth, which is an alpha-seeking alternative to a passive position in the Russell 2000.

We also use many of those factors in our SectorCast ETF ranking model. And notably, our Earnings Quality Rank (EQR) is a key factor in each of these models, and it is also licensed to the actively managed, absolute-return-oriented First Trust Long-Short ETF (FTLS).

Each of our key alpha factors and their usage within Sabrient’s Growth, Value, Dividend, and Small Cap investing strategies (which underly those aforementioned portfolios) is discussed in detail in Sabrient founder David Brown’s new book, How to Build High Performance Stock Portfolios, which is now available for pre-order on Amazon at a special pre-order price.

And in conjunction with David’s new book, we are also offering a subscription to our next-generation Sabrient Scorecard for Stocks, which is a downloadable spreadsheet displaying our Top 30 highest-ranked stock picks for each of those 4 investing strategies. And as a bonus, we also provide our Scorecard for ETFs that scores and ranks roughly 1,400 US-listed equity ETFs. Both Scorecards are posted weekly in Excel format and allow you to see how your stocks and ETFs rank in our system…or for identifying the top-ranked stocks and ETFs (or for weighted combinations of our alpha factors). You can learn more about both the book and the next-gen Scorecards (and download a free sample scorecard) at http://DavidBrownInvestingBook.com.

In today’s post, I discuss in greater detail the current trend in inflation, Fed monetary policy, stock valuations, technological trends, and what might lie ahead for the stock market. 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. And be sure to check out my Final Thoughts section with a few off-topic comments on the imminent election and escalating Middle East conflict.

Click here to continue reading my full commentary online or to sign up for email delivery of this monthly market letter. Also, here is a link to this post in printable PDF format. I invite you to share it as appropriate (to the extent your compliance allows).

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

Falling inflation, weak manufacturing activity, cautious consumer sentiment, and sluggish GDP and jobs growth have conspired to elicit a dovish tone from the Federal Reserve and the likely start of a rate cut cycle to avert recession and more jobs losses. I continue to pound the table that the Fed is behind the curve and should have begun to cut at the July meeting.

Why? Well, here are my key reasons:

1. Although official inflation metrics still reflect lingering “stickiness” in consumer prices, my research suggests that real-time inflation is already well below the Fed’s 2% target, as I discuss in detail in today’s post.

2. Last week’s BLS jobs report shows 66,000 fewer employed workers in August 2024 versus 12 months ago after massive downward revisions to prior reports. And if you dig deeper into the August household survey it gets worse, indicating a whopping 1.2 million fewer full-time jobs (yikes!), partially offset by a big growth in part-time jobs.

3. The mirage of modest GDP and jobs growth has been temporarily propped up by unhealthy and inefficient government deficit spending (euphemistically called “investment”) rather than true and sustainable organic growth from a vibrant private sector that is adept at efficient capital allocation. Thus, despite government efforts to “buy” growth, recessionary signals are growing at home and abroad.

4. The burden caused by elevated real interest rates on surging debt across government, business, consumers at home and emerging markets abroad, and the impact of tight monetary policy and a relatively strong dollar on our trading partners must be confronted.

So, a 50-bps cut at the September FOMC meeting next week seems warranted—even if it spooks the markets. As Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee said, “You only want to stay this restrictive for as long as you have to, and this doesn’t look like an overheating economy to me.”

A terminal fed funds neutral rate of 3.0-3.5% seems appropriate, in my view, which is roughly 200 bps below the current range of 5.25-5.50%). Fortunately, today’s lofty rate means the Fed has plenty of potential rate cuts in its holster to support the economy while remaining relatively restrictive in its inflation fight. And as long as the trend in global liquidity is upward (which it is once again), then it seems the risk of a major market crash is low.

Regarding the stock market, as the Magnificent Seven (MAG-7) mega-cap Tech stocks continue to flounder, markets have displayed some resilience since the cap-weighted S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 both topped in mid-July, with investors finding opportunities in neglected market segments like financials, healthcare, industrials, and defensive/higher-dividend sectors utilities, real estate, telecom, and staples—as well as gold (as both a store of value and protection from disaster). However, economic weakness, “toppy” charts, and seasonality (especially in this highly consequential election year) all suggest more volatility and downside ahead into October.

Of course, August was tumultuous, starting with the worst one-day selloff since the March 2020 pandemic lockdown followed by a moon-shot recovery back to the highs for the S&P 500 (SPY) and S&P 400 MidCap (MDY), while the Dow Jones Industrials (DIA) surged to a new high. However, the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) and Russell 2000 SmallCap (IWM) only partially retraced their losses. And as I said in my August post, despite the historic spike in the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), it didn’t seem like the selloff was sufficient to shake out all the weak investors and form a solid foundation for a bullish rise into year end. I said that I expected more downside in stocks and testing of support before a tradeable bottom was formed, especially given uncertainty in what the FOMC will do on 9/18 and what the elections have in store.

In addition, September is historically the worst month for stocks, and October has had its fair share of selloffs (particularly in presidential election years). And although the extraordinary spike in fear and “blood in the streets” in early August was fleeting, the quick bounce was not convincing. The monthly charts remain quite extended (“overbought”) and are starting to roll over after August’s bearish “hanging man” candlestick—much like last summer. In fact, as I discussed in my post last month, the daily price pattern for the S&P 500 in 2024 seems to be following 2023 to a T, which suggests the weakness (like last year) could last into October before streaking higher into year end. Anxiety around a highly consequential election on 11/5 (with counting of mail-in ballots likely to last several days beyond that once again) will surely create volatility.

Many commentators believe the Fed is making a policy mistake, but it goes both ways. Some believe the Fed is turning dovish too quickly because inflation is sticky, the jobs market is fine, and GDP is holding up well, so it risks reigniting inflation. Others (like me) think the FOMC is reacting too slowly because the economy, jobs growth, and inflation are weaker than the mirage they seem, masked by inordinate government deficit spending, misleading headline metrics, and political narratives. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell said at the July meeting, “The downside risks to the employment mandate are now real,” and yet the FOMC still chose to hold off on a rate cut. Now it finds itself having to commence an easing cycle with the unwanted urgency of staving off recession rather than a more comfortable “normalization” objective within a sound economy.

Indeed, now that we are past Labor Day, it appears the “adults” are back in the trading room. As I discuss in detail in today’s post, economic metrics seem to be unraveling fast, stocks are selling off, and bonds are getting bought—with the 2-10 yield curve now “un-inverted” (10-year yield exceeds the 2-year). So, let’s get moving on rate normalization. After all, adjusting the interest rate doesn’t flip a switch on economic growth and jobs creation. It takes time for lower rates and rising liquidity to percolate and reverse downward trends, just as it took several months for higher rates and stagnant liquidity to noticeably suppress inflation. Fed funds futures today put the odds of a 50-bps cut at about 27%.

Nevertheless, stock prices are always forward-looking and speculative with respect to expectations of economic growth, corporate earnings, and interest rates, so prices will begin to recover before the data shows a broad economic recovery is underway. I continue to foresee higher prices by year end and into 2025. Moreover, I see current market weakness setting up a buying opportunity, perhaps in October. But rather than rushing back into the MAG-7 stocks exclusively, I think other stocks offer greater upside. I would suggest targeting high-quality, fundamentally strong stocks across all market caps that display consistent, reliable, and accelerating sales and earnings growth, positive revisions to Wall Street analysts’ consensus estimates, rising profit margins and free cash flow, solid earnings quality, and low debt burden. These are the factors Sabrient employs in selecting the growth-oriented Baker’s Dozen (our “Top 13” stocks), the value-oriented Forward Looking Value, the growth & income-oriented Dividend portfolio, and Small Cap Growth, which is an alpha-seeking alternative to a passive position in the Russell 2000.

We also use many of those factors in our SectorCast ETF ranking model. And notably, our Earnings Quality Rank (EQR) is a key factor in each of these models, and it is also licensed to the actively managed, absolute-return-oriented First Trust Long-Short ETF (FTLS) as an initial screen. Each of our alpha factors and their usage within Sabrient’s Growth, Value, Dividend, and Small Cap investing strategies is discussed in detail in Sabrient founder David Brown’s new book, How to Build High Performance Stock Portfolios, which will be published shortly.

In today’s post, I discuss in greater detail the current trend in inflation, Fed monetary policy, and what might lie ahead for the stock market as we close out a tumultuous Q3. 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. And be sure to check out my Final Thoughts section with some political comments—here’s a teaser: Democrats have held the presidency for 12 of the past 16 years since we emerged from the Financial Crisis, so all these problems with the economy, inflation, immigration, and global conflict they promise to “fix” are theirs to own.

Click here to continue reading my full commentary online or to sign up for email delivery of this monthly market letter. And here is a link to it in printable PDF format. I invite you to share it as appropriate (to the extent your compliance allows).

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

The first half of 2024 looked a lot like the first half of 2023. As you recall, H1 2023 saw a strong stock market despite only modest GDP growth as inflation metrics fell, and H2 2023 continued on the same upward path for stocks despite a slowdown in inflation’s retreat, buoyed by robust GDP growth. Similarly, for H1 2024, stocks have surged despite a marked slowdown in GDP growth (from 4.1% in the second half of 2023 to an estimated 1.5% in the first half of 2024) and continued “stickiness” in inflation—causing rate-cut expectations to fall from 7 quarter-point cuts at the start of the year to just 2 at most.

And yet stocks have continued to surge, with 33 record highs this year for the S&P 500 through last Friday, 7/5. Of course, it is no secret that the primary driver of persistent market strength, low volatility (VIX in the mid-12’s), and an extreme low in the CBOE put/call ratio (around 0.50) has been the narrow leadership of a handful of dominant, innovative, mega-cap Tech titans and the promise of (and massive capital expenditures on) artificial intelligence. But while the S&P 500 is up +17.4% YTD and Nasdaq 100 +21.5% (both at all-time highs), the small cap indexes are flat to negative, with the Russell 2000 languishing -14% below its June 2021 all-time high.

Furthermore, recessionary signals abound. GDP and jobs growth are slowing. Various ISM indexes have fallen into economic contraction territory (below 50). Q2 earnings season kicks off in mid-July amid more cuts to EPS estimates from the analyst community. Given a slowing economy and falling estimates, it’s entirely possible we will see some high-profile misses and reduced forward guidance. So, investors evidently believe that an increasingly dovish Fed will be able to revive growth without revving up inflation.

But is this all we have to show for the rampant deficit spending that has put us at a World War II-level ratio of 120% debt (nearly $35 trillion) to GDP (nearly $29 trillion)? And that doesn’t account for estimated total unfunded liabilities—comprising the federal debt and guaranteed programs like Social Security, Medicare, employee pensions, and veterans’ benefits—estimated to be around $212 trillion and growing fast, not to mention failing banks, municipal pension liabilities, and bankrupt state budgets that might eventually need federal bailouts.

Moreover, the federal government “buying” jobs and GDP in favored industries is not the same as private sector organic growth and job creation. Although the massive deficit spending might at least partly turn out to be a shrewd strategic investment in our national and economic security, it is not the same as incentivizing organic growth via tax policies, deregulation, and a lean government. Instead, we have a “big government” politburo picking and choosing winners and losers, not to mention funding multiple foreign wars, and putting it all on a credit card to be paid by future generations. I have more to say on this—including some encouraging words—in my Final Comments section below.

As for inflation, the Fed’s preferred gauge, Core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE, aka Consumer Spending), for May was released on 6/28 showing a continued downward trend (albeit slower than we all want to see). Core PCE came in at just +0.08% month-over-month (MoM) from April and +2.57% YoY. But Core PCE ex-shelter is already below 2.5%, so as the lengthy lag in shelter cost metrics passes, Core PCE should fall below 2.5% as well, perhaps as soon as the update for June on 7/26, which could give the Fed the data it needs to cut. By the way, the latest real-time, blockchain-based Truflation rate (which historically presages CPI) hit a 52-week low the other day at just 1.83% YoY.

In any case, as I stated in my June post, I am convinced the Fed would like to starting cutting soon—and it may happen sooner than most observers are currently predicting. Notably, ever since the final days of June—marked by the presidential debate, PCE release, various jobs reports, and the surprising results in Europe and UK elections, the dollar and the 10-year yield have both pulled back—perhaps on the view that rate cuts are indeed imminent. On the other hand, the FOMC might try to push it out as much as possible to avoid any appearance of trying to impact the November election. However, Fed chair Powell stated last week that the committee stands ready to cut rates more aggressively if the US labor market weakens significantly (and unemployment just rose above the magic 4-handle to 4.1%)—so it appears the investor-friendly “Fed put” is back in play, which has helped keep traders bullishly optimistic. The June readings for PPI and CPI come out later this week on 7/11-12, and July FOMC policy announcement comes out on 7/31.

And as inflation recedes, real interest rates rise. As it stands today, I think the real yield is too high—great for savers but bad for borrowers, which would suggest the Fed is behind the curve. The current fed funds rate is roughly 3% above the CPI inflation forecast, which means we have the tightest Fed interest rate policy since before the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (aka Great Recession). This tells me that the Fed has plenty of room to cut rates and still maintain restrictive monetary policy.

As I have said many times, I believe a terminal fed funds rate of 3.0-3.5% would be the appropriate level so that borrowers can handle the debt burden while fixed income investors can receive a reasonable real yield.

Nevertheless, even with rates still elevated today, I believe any significant pullback in stocks (which I still think is coming before the November election, particularly in light of the extraordinarily poor market breadth) would be a buying opportunity. It’s all about investor expectations. As I’ve heard several commentators opine, the US, warts and all, is the “best house in a lousy [global] neighborhood.” I see US stocks and bonds (including TIPS) as good bets, particularly as the Fed and other central banks inject liquidity. But rather than chasing the high-flyers, I suggest sticking with high-quality, fundamentally strong stocks, displaying accelerating sales and earnings and positive revisions to Wall Street analysts’ consensus estimates.

By “high quality,” I mean fundamentally strong companies with a history of, and continued expectations for, consistent and reliable sales and earnings growth, upward EPS revisions from the analyst community, rising profit margins and free cash flow, solid earnings quality, and low debt burden. These are the factors Sabrient employs in selecting our growth-oriented Baker’s Dozen (primary market for the Q2 portfolio ends on 7/18), value-oriented Forward Looking Value portfolio, growth & income-oriented Dividend portfolio, and our Small Cap Growth portfolio (an alpha-seeking alternative to a passive position in the Russell 2000), as well as in our SectorCast ETF ranking model. Notably, our Earnings Quality Rank (EQR) is a key factor in each of these models, and it is also licensed to the actively managed, absolute-return-oriented First Trust Long-Short ETF (FTLS) as an initial screen.

Each of these alpha factors and how they are used within Sabrient’s Growth, Value, Dividend income, and Small Cap investing strategies is discussed in detail in David Brown’s new book, How to Build High Performance Stock Portfolios, which will be out shortly (I will send out a notification soon!).

In today’s post, I provide a detailed commentary on the economy, inflation, valuations, Fed policy expectations, and Sabrient’s latest fundamentals based SectorCast quantitative rankings of the ten U.S. business sectors, current positioning of our sector rotation model heading into earnings season, and several top-ranked ETF ideas.

Click here to continue reading my full commentary. Or if you prefer, here is a link to this post in printable PDF format. I invite you to share it with your friends, colleagues, and clients (to the extent compliance allows). You also can sign up for email delivery of this periodic newsletter at Sabrient.com.