J.P. Morgan Insights (audio)

When I was growing up, school holidays weren't packed with organized activities. Sometimes, to relieve the boredom of a rainy day, I would tackle a jigsaw – I remember one particularly challenging 1000-piece puzzle which, when completed, promised to reveal a charming picture of Dutch skaters on a frozen lake.

This week, after a very busy few months, I am putting down my pen, picking up my metaphorical spade and bucket and taking some vacation time. 2025, so far, has been a challenging year for analysts and it is tempting, as I'm trying to clear my desk, to assert that not much has changed over the past few weeks and so I don't need to update any analysis of federal government policy, the economy and markets. However, the reality is that events in Washington and on Wall Street over just the last two weeks do require a reassessment.

There have only been two U.S. recessions since 2001 – the Great Financial Crisis and the Pandemic Recession. Both of these were huge – accounting for two of the only three times since the 1940s that the unemployment rate has vaulted to double digits. However, because the recessions of our recent memory have been so dramatic, investors may not appreciate the risks from a softer sort of slowdown.

A crowd is gathered around the sickbed of the economic expansion. Among the multitude are the workers, consumers and business people who would be most impacted by its demise. There are political partisans too, some fervently praying for recovery, others quietly hoping for the opposite. At the foot of the bed are fiscal and monetary doctors, the former preparing a sugary solution to inject into the patient and the latter casting nervous eyes both on the patient and the fiscal doctors, concerned about a renewal of inflationary fever. Foreign governments and central bankers also stand vigil, from as safe a distance as they can manage, conscious of the infectious nature of the patient's disease. And close by the door are investors, contemplating a quick exit from American assets but haunted by the memory of the many past remarkable American recoveries. There is a knock at the door. It is the last week in April and a battery of tests are in that should shed further light on the delicate health of the economic expansion.

Last weekend, I neglected to finish my Notes on the Week Ahead as I got caught up in watching the Masters. In truth, it was mostly a battle between Rory McIlroy's emotions, which produced two double-bogeys in his final round, and his exceptional skill, which propelled his second playoff shot to within three feet of the hole. I was particularly happy to see his victory since he hails from the same island as myself, But I was also glad to see him win because, at 35, he is no longer in the first blush of youth. It is a sad truth that in athletics, as in life, no-one soars forever. Twenty years from now, McIlroy will probably still be a fine golfer – training and resilience should see to that. But he may no longer be exceptional.

One clear advantage of getting older, (and I can attest to many of its disadvantages), is that you learn from experience. The financial market chaos, following the President's tariff announcement, is different from previous market slumps. Every market selloff is. However, a common thread in all crises is that the best decisions begin with a structured approach to analysis. 

I may have mentioned this before, but as a young lad, I had a very healthy appetite. Consequently, when deciding on a hobby, I prudently elected to go with “cooking”. My experiments included making fudge and my mother dutifully supplied me with sugar, vanilla and helpful advice. However, we possessed no candy thermometer and, as anyone in the fudge-making business will tell you, getting the temperature right is essential. Too hot and you end up with toffee or hard caramel. Too cold and you end up with a grim sludge, which no degree of refrigeration can render palatable. Making fudge is a delicate operation.

I was running along the roads of our neighborhood last weekend when I came upon a small herd of deer. I often see these beautiful but dopey creatures at dawn as they wander aimlessly in the middle of the road. When a car or truck bears down on them, they stop and stare. Perhaps they are pondering whether it would be more fun to hop into the woods to their right or gambol off into the field to their left. But, of course, the only important decision is to get out of the road. A “wait and see” attitude could be fatal.

I was at a conference last week and a financial advisor asked me what I thought he should say when a client asked him what was so bad about tariffs. It's a fair question. Many people who instinctively believe in free trade would still have a hard time in clearly explaining the trouble with tariffs. And since tariffs are likely to be a big issue this week, with the president promising to impose postponed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and a new, second 10% tariff on China as of March 4th, it seems like a good time to review the problem.

In December, the Census Bureau announced that the U.S. population had grown by nearly 1% in the year ended July 1st, 2024, marking the strongest annual gain since 2001[1]. Given this, it seems strange to be already talking about slowing population growth. However, the reality is that the gap between births and deaths is continuing to shrink, with almost all of our recent population growth coming from immigration. Going forward, if immigration is dramatically curtailed, overall population growth could turn negative by the middle of the next decade while the working-age population would immediately start to contract. [1] See Net International Migration Drives Highest U.S. Population Growth in Decades, U.S. Census Press Release, December 19th, 2024.

In the four weeks since he took office, the president has issued an extraordinary number of executive orders, while promising dramatic change across the full reach of the federal government. While these policy moves have broad political, geopolitical and social implications, for investors, the most important concern tariffs, immigration, the federal workforce and the federal budget. The rapid pace of these moves, along with frequent reversals, court challenges and mixed signals on future policy actions, make it difficult for economists to assess their cumulative effects. Also important, and even harder to analyze, is the potential for policy uncertainty to delay business decisions. Much has been said about the potential for the new administration's policies to add to inflation pressures. However, investors should also consider how these actions, and the uncertainty surrounding them, could slow economic growth.

For investors, Europe seems like a train in a station, perpetually gathering steam and loading up for a long-delayed journey, but clearly advertising only a modest pace when it gets under way. Such has been the case for the European economy and, even more so, for European equities for many years. This has, of course, been deeply frustrating for those investing in European stocks, which, while often producing OK returns, have underperformed U.S. stocks in 12 of the last 15 years.

On Saturday, the White House announced the imposition of heavy tariffs on goods exported from Mexico, Canada and China and all three nations announced their intention to retaliate. These tariffs threaten to raise prices and slow economic activity across all four countries. While the end game of this trade war remains very uncertain, it has the potential to impact bonds, stocks and exchange rates. For investors, regardless of the early market reaction, the reality of a trade war suggest the need for broad diversification including allocations to real assets and international assets.

This Wednesday, at 2:00 PM, the Federal Reserve will release a statement on monetary policy. It will, as usual, be a brief and colorless document and will look paler still in comparison to the more than 60 executive orders, proclamations and memoranda that have emanated from the White House in the first week of the President's new term. However, the Fed's statement and Jay Powell's press conference could well be of equal importance to financial markets.

“Unsustainable!” To quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” For decades, journalists, economists, politicians, and central bankers have said that the U.S. federal debt is on an “unsustainable” path.  However, it has stayed on that path, climbing from a very manageable $3.3 trillion, or 31.5% of GDP, in fiscal 2001, to $28.3 trillion, or 98.2% of GDP in fiscal 2024.

In football, it's always better, at the snap of the ball to disguise your intentions. Are you going to pass or run the ball? Is it a zone defense or man-to-man?  In business or in military maneuvers the same rule applies – keep them guessing. However, in macro-economic management, it is better to make your plans clear.  That way businesses can feel more confident in hiring and investing, as can consumers when deciding to buy.  It is one of the reasons the Federal Reserve publishes a quarterly Summary of Economic Projections (or SEP) and so frequently repeats its determination to achieve 2% inflation. 

Over the holiday season, we got to spend some time with our very charming granddaughter and, as a bonus, I am now fully re-acquainted with all the verses of “The Wheels on the Bus”. As we enter 2025, the American economy is rather like an old school bus – slow but steady, reliable and resilient. It generally moves forward. However, it is not invulnerable. The wheels of the bus are being pulled off the ground by ballooning asset prices. The new driver of the bus may or may not try some dangerous policy maneuvers. The wipers of the bus may be obscuring obstacles in the road ahead. And the people on the bus, instead of spreading out and sitting down, are all standing up, crowded to one side so that if something does go wrong, there could be significant injuries.

When testifying to the Senate Banking Committee back in 1987, the newly-appointed Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, provided some insight into his views on communication: “Since becoming a central banker”, he said, “I have learned to mumble with great incoherence. If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.” His successors have generally tried to be more open with regard to both their opinions and their intentions. However, there are times, when the Fed will want to communicate to financial markets without piquing the interest of either the general public or the administration.

Many years ago, I worked for the Office of Revenue and Tax Analysis at the State of Michigan and, from time to time, Saul Hymans and his colleagues from the University of Michigan would visit the state government in Lansing to discuss the latest output from their macro economic models of the U.S. and Michigan economies. As they started into their presentation, I was always eager to hear about their forecast. However, I was rather puzzled about how much time they devoted to the current quarter. I mean they had a big macroeconomic forecasting model – couldn't we just skip the present and move on to the future?

This week will be full of market-moving economic data. We expect purchasing manager surveys and light-vehicle sales to indicate steady demand in November, as investors await Friday's jobs report. Recent data on unemployment claims point to continued momentum and payroll growth should rebound from October's meagre reading which was suppressed by both weather and strike activity. Markets will also be focused on wage growth, with futures still only assigning a 64% probability of a December Fed rate cut. That being said, any decision on a December rate cut will also depend on next week's CPI report and, whether they admit it or not, the Fed's own quiet assessment of the potential for the new Administration's agenda to reignite inflation. It will likely be some months, therefore, before investors can more accurately assess the potential path for economic growth, corporate profits, inflation and interest rates. As we note in our year-ahead outlook, while we have emerged from a cyclical storm, we have entered a policy fog.

I've been running my own econometric model of the U.S. economy for almost 30 years now. The basic structure is simple. You start by forecasting the components of demand, that is to say, consumption, investment, trade and government spending. This gives you an initial projection of real GDP growth. You then feed this into labor market equations, along with some demographic assumptions, to forecast the growth in jobs, the unemployment rate and wage growth. All of this, along with assumptions about energy prices and the dollar, then drive forecasts of inflation. Given this outlook for growth and inflation, you make an assumption about the path for the federal funds rate and then run forecasts of other interest rates. With all of this in hand, you can forecast productivity, corporate profits, the federal budget deficit and household net worth. And then you go back to the start to see how all these changes impact your original demand forecast. You repeat the process until you arrive at a reasonably consistent solution.

The most urgent task facing investors in the wake of the 2024 elections is figuring out how much of the Trump agenda, as broadly outlined on the campaign trail, will be put into effect. A full and literal implementation across taxes, trade and immigration could have unwelcome consequences for the economy in both the short and long run. A more partial implementation, (which seemed to be anticipated by financial markets last week), could net out to be positive for stocks and negative for Treasuries in the short run. However, even this more restrained policy path would likely result in sharply-rising government debt and the potential, in some areas, for building economic and market risks. For this reason and because of the further run up in the U.S. equity valuations in the wake of the election, investors would be well advised to continue to rebalance portfolios both across asset classes and around the world.

The last few weeks have seen spectacular weather in New England, with warm temperatures and blue skies almost every day. By now, we would normally have stored the back-yard furniture inside to prevent it getting ruined over the winter. But instead, on weekend afternoons, Sari and I drowsily read our books in the sunshine with the still-loud chirping of the crickets letting us pretend that summer isn't really over. Nor is there any harsh weather in the near-term forecast – it should be in the 70s on Thursday when the trick-or-treaters set off on their rounds. But the gentle rustle of falling leaves is providing its usual warning of colder days ahead and the need to be prepared.

Growing up in Dublin, I had a well-earned reputation as a child of very healthy appetite. At birthday parties, I'd always make sure, at the outset, to get my share of any cocktail sausages, cucumber sandwiches or Rice Krispie treats going around. When it came time for cake and ice cream, I made sure my plate was amply stocked. And I know my mother was filled with pride, (and the other young mothers equally filled with envy), as her little man waddled back up to the table in search of seconds. But even I had my limits. I vaguely recall a rather distressing incident on the car ride home from one of these parties. I won't go into the sordid details – suffice to say that the upholstery in the back of the car neither looked nor smelt quite the same thereafter.

On Tuesday, the Commerce Department will publish international trade data for August. The numbers will, undoubtedly, show a deficit – the U.S. has run a trade deficit every year since 1975. This, in turn, implies that the U.S. dollar exchange rate is too high – we buy everyone else's stuff because it's cheap; they don't want to buy ours because it's expensive. That being said, even as Americans have sent dollars overseas to buy goods and services, these dollars have returned to buy U.S. stocks and bonds, fueling a booming stock market and allowing the federal government to borrow relatively cheaply.

I have a habit, or so my wife tells me, of staring intently, for minutes at a time, into an open refrigerator, in search of one particular item. When she can no longer stand it, or when the binging of the refrigerator alarm informs the world that its contents are now thawing, she gently asks me what I am looking for and points it out, sitting, as it always is, right in front of my nose. I had a similar feeling of sheepish embarrassment last week, when I reflected on the impact of the extraordinary surge in wealth on the economic and financial environment. I spend a significant chunk of my life looking at stock indices and home prices. And yet, throughout this year, while agonizing about tenths of a percent in the unemployment rate or the inflation rate and how the Fed might interpret them, I have neglected to consider fully how burgeoning stock market and housing wealth has changed both the economic environment and the position of investors.

On Thursday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, commonly known as the BEA, will release revised data on the national income and product accounts going back to the start of 2019. This is an annual process, usually only mildly interesting to economists and ignored by everyone else. However, this year it's more important since it could help clarify the trajectory of the economy at a critical time for both political and monetary policy choices. It's also important because it could help resolve at least some of a yawning discrepancy between the estimates of output produced and income received in the American economy.

Cutting short-term interest rates from a peak is a little like hauling a piano down a flight of stairs. The operation is best done slowly and with care. The Federal Reserve will probably show some awareness of this in their actions and communications this week. That being said, one of the greatest identifiable dangers to the economy and markets today is that the Fed, by acting too aggressively or talking too negatively, increases the risk of the economy falling into recession.

On Wednesday of next week, the Federal Reserve will almost certainly embark on its long-anticipated easing cycle. However, whether the first cut in the federal funds rate is 25 or 50 basis points is still very much in doubt. This is a crucial question for the economy and financial markets since a 50 basis point cut might well do more harm than good if businesses, consumers and investors saw it as a signal that the Fed is worried about recession. The most important issue for the Fed as they debate this decision is the strength of the U.S. labor market. It is quite clear that job growth has slowed over the past year as the post-covid rebound has faded. But is the labor market stalling, or just slowing to a more gradual pace?  

The U.S. working age population is growing relatively slowly. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the U.S. population aged 18 to 64 grew by less than 0.1% over the past year.

Every August, for more than 40 years now, the Federal Reserve has held a retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It has become an important venue for Fed communications and investors this week will be focused on Jerome Powell's speech, to be delivered at 10:00AM eastern time (or 8:00AM Wyoming time) on Friday. The topic of this year's conference is “Reassessing the Effectiveness and Transmission of Monetary Policy”, a subject that is well worth careful reconsideration. This, no doubt, will be the focus of Chairman Powell's remarks.

The last two weeks have provided a vivid reminder of how sensitive markets can be to small changes in the macro-economic outlook. With a nudge down in oil prices, the Fed's 2% inflation goal suddenly seems achievable within a matter of months. With a slight weakening in the labor market, the unemployment rate has shifted to a trajectory that has foreshadowed recession in the past. In response, the 10-year Treasury yield fell from 4.29% on July 24th, to 3.78% on August 5th while the VIX index, a measure of stock market volatility, more than doubled over the same period, with stock prices falling sharply by the close of business last Monday.

We live at a time when extreme voices get the most attention and so it is tempting, following a string of weak economic numbers, to yell the word “recession”. However, a balanced assessment of demand and supply suggests that we are, thus far, merely transitioning to slower growth. A slower growth path is a more vulnerable one, particularly because excessive monetary ease is more likely to weaken than strengthen the economy in the short run. Nevertheless, barring some outside shock, the baseline scenario should be a slowdown scenario, even as volatile markets remind investors of the importance of diversifying and paying attention to valuations.   The mood on the economy has changed quite quickly. The economic headline from just 12 days ago was that real GDP growth had, yet again, surprised to the upside, coming in at a robust 2.8% for second quarter, well above the 2.1% consensus expectation. Since then, however, we have seen higher-than-expected weekly unemployment claims and weak readings on construction, durable goods orders, home sales and manufacturing activity. This was topped off, on Friday, by a softer-than-expected employment report, both in terms of payroll job gains and the unemployment rate.

My wife, Sari, and I love old movies and one of our favorites is the Long, Long Trailer, staring Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz.  Desi and Lucy are newly-weds who decide, instead of buying a house, to purchase a trailer home which they hitch onto the back of their car and set off on their adventures.  Soon, without any idea of how to drive such a contraption, they find themselves ascending into the Sierra Nevada mountains, driving up steep, narrow and twisty mountain roads.  Unbeknownst to Desi, Lucy decided to collect rocks as souvenirs along the way which she hid all over the trailer, adding extra weight to an already dangerously unwieldy vehicle.  The funniest part is watching them making small talk, pretending nothing is going on, as their car engine roars, gears squeal and little rocks spit out from their tires, over the cliffs and out into the abyss below.  The contrast between the nonchalance of their conversation and the terror in their eyes is priceless and it only increases as they head over the peak and begin to descend. The most dangerous time, both for oversized trailers and central bankers, is when you begin to descend from a peak.  Recent data suggest the Fed should, finally, begin to cut rates in September.  This operation could work out OK.  However, it is a delicate one and, particularly, when both markets and portfolios appear to be overconcentrated, it is important that investors take what steps they can to maintain or regain balance in their portfolios. 

Despite a slightly higher-than-expected payroll job gain, the June employment report was on the soft side, with downward revisions to payroll gains from prior months, a drop in temporary employment and only modest gains in wages.  However, the weakest aspect of the report was the unemployment rate, which edged up from 4.0% to 4.1%.  This, in itself, wouldn't be particularly notable were it not for the fact that the unemployment rate has now risen steadily over the past 14 months from a 54-year low of 3.4% set in April of last year. 

The play, entitled “Steadily She Slows”, has, from a dramatic perspective, turned out to be a dud. It started with such a promising prologue of pandemic, recession, recovery, political upheaval, war and inflation. However, it has since settled into a drawn-out, repetitious script, wherein the lead actor, consumption, hogs the center stage and the supporting cast, in the form of investment spending, government spending and trade, has very little impact on the plot. The promoters, on cable news shows and social media feeds, do their very best to gin up public interest by prophesying catastrophic collapse into recession or reignited and blazing inflation. But still the play drones on, unloved by all, except, of course, the investors, who are profiting handsomely from its extended run.

As a young lad growing up in South Dublin, I received certain geography lessons on where I could, or could not, safely roam.  In particular, I was warned not to stray north of O'Connell Street.  I remember debating my mother on the issue, once when I wanted to go to a movie at a theatre near Parnell Square.  I can't remember exactly what I said, but I probably claimed that bad things didn't happen on the North Side quite as frequently as South Side mothers thought they did.  But my mother held her ground on this occasion…someone might or might not get beaten up in Parnell Square that afternoon.  But if her son wasn't there, it wouldn't be him. After almost every speech, someone asks me about risks – what keeps me up at night.  And today, with a soft-landing economy and the stock market near record highs, it does seem like a good time to review risks.  But it's important to recognize the most obvious point about market risk.  The risk to you, as an investor, isn't simply the danger of some negative event – it is the product of the probability of that event and your exposure to it.  How you are positioned says a great deal about how worried you should be about any risk. 

Every three months, the 19 members of the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee, of FOMC for short, aided, no doubt, by an army of econometric minions, work up new forecasts for key economic variables and their assessment of appropriate monetary policy.  In recent days, as they have huddled in their offices engaged on this task, they've had much to be thankful for.  The economic roller coaster triggered by the pandemic and the policy response, which manifested itself in wild swings in output, unemployment and inflation, has subsided.  Moreover, the very narrow road by which they thought inflation could be subdued without triggering a recession, turned out to be not so narrow after all.  The U.S. economy has maintained solid economic growth and a very tight labor market even as inflation has fallen towards their 2% objective.  

For centuries, economists have extolled the almost magical properties of competitive markets.  In the 1770s, Adam Smith wrote about an “invisible hand” by which individuals end up promoting the common good even though they only ever intended to do themselves a bit of good.  In the 1970s, Milton Friedman spoke passionately of the virtues of a free-enterprise system in boosting innovation and productive activity.  Such voices are quieter now and much of modern economic commentary is devoted to how to fix an economy when markets fail or how governments and central banks should seek to manipulate it.  However, the U.S. economy in the wake of the pandemic should serve as a reminder of the power of simple economics.  No matter how abnormal the starting point, an economy will, if sufficiently neglected by the government, tend towards balanced growth.

One of the most common plotlines in all of literature is when a protagonist, overestimating the gravity of a situation, responds with a series of unfortunate decisions. Perhaps the classic example of this is Romeo, not appreciating the difference between a sleeping Juliet and a dead Juliet, but the pattern has played out in innumerable stories. When it comes to the state of the economy, it seems clear that Americans are harboring too negative a view. In the short run, this misapprehension may not lead to disaster. However, it could still imperil investment returns if it leads to political decisions that make a relatively healthy economy sick.

The importance of any piece of economic information depends on your time horizon.  For traders, the issue is how it will move markets today.  For politicians, its relevance lies in how it could shape public opinion between now and the next election.  However, for long-term investors, what really matters is how it will impact the economic and financial environment for decades to come.  From this last viewpoint, there is no more important topic than the continued deterioration in the federal finances.  Information released in the last few days provides an updated perspective on this issue.  However, before delving into this, let's take a quick look at upcoming economic data.  

The most common scavenger bird in the western United States is the turkey vulture, more commonly called the turkey buzzard.  It is a marvel of evolution, with keen eyesight and an extraordinary sense of smell, allowing it to locate the recently deceased from miles away.  Ungainly as it takes off with furious flapping, once in the air it is a majestic creature, soaring thousands of feet upwards on air thermals, with an out-spread V-shaped wing span of up to six feet.  As it circles from a height, it surveys the landscape below and then plunges to feast on the remains of less fortunate creatures. I don't believe in reincarnation but, if I did, I would have to say the best real estate investors were probably turkey buzzards in a previous life.  And never more so than today, when the real estate landscape is littered with the victims of the seismic changes wrought by the pandemic and a sudden return to normal interest rates, following 15 years of super-easy money.

I have never been blessed with any skill in golf.  However, I do have some imagination and so I can imagine a situation in which I am lining up a long and difficult putt.  With well-justified humility, I wince as I strike the ball, knowing it will miss.  However, even two or three seconds after sending it on its way, I realize that, surprisingly, I'm still not sure how it will miss – I can't quite tell if it's going to miss to the right or to the left.  And so, of course, the ball trundles its zig-zaggy way up to the lip of the hole, pauses, and then topples in.   Last week's GDP report ignited angst on both sides.  Some worried that the economy was slowing too much, with recession in the offing.  Others saw too much inflation, requiring an even more aggressive Fed campaign to squash it before it begins to reaccelerate in a serious way.

Since the advent of modern financial markets, bonds have always had the reputation of being conservative – rather like an elderly family lawyer in a leather-bound chair frowning at more jumpy and excitable stocks.  Bonds would never make you rich.  However, they would provide you with a moderate, steady and dependable income.  This reputation was challenged in the 1970s and 1980s by Treasuries yielding more than 10%, in the wake of high inflation, and the explosive growth of the high-yield market.  In the decades that followed, yields drifted down in parallel with inflation but investor excitement was maintained by a steady stream of capital gains as well as income.  However, once monetary easing hit its peak in the days following the Great Financial Crisis, high-quality bond yields fell to levels that promised very little income and, at best, modest capital losses, assuming yields eventually recovered. 

Growing up in New England, our sons had a privileged childhood as sports fans and particularly as football fans. Between 2001 and 2020, the New England Patriots, coached by Bill Belichick and with Tom Brady at quarterback, competed in nine super bowls and won six of them -  a truly extraordinary performance in a league of 32 teams.  It is all the more impressive because of the NFL's efforts to make the league competitive.  These include the salary cap, which forces all teams to spend roughly the same on their rosters, and the draft, which awards the top picks to the worst teams from the year before. And yet the dynasty continued for almost two decades, with the Patriots winning many games that they should have lost due to their own confidence and their opponents doubts.  And the supposedly eroding effects of low draft picks seemed to have little impact on the team, as relatively unknown players found a way to win.

Next Monday, I once again get to lace up my shoes and join my friends from the Dana-Farber team in running the Boston Marathon.  This year will be particularly special, as both of our sons are also running the race. One of the advantages of being an older member of the team, (and I can testify to plenty of disadvantages), is that you accumulate advice that you can share with younger members, particularly those who are running their first marathon.  One such piece of advice is to drink before you are thirsty and to eat before you are hungry. By the time you are thirsty, when running a marathon, you are likely severely dehydrated and low on electrolytes, causing, at best, a sharp deterioration of your performance.  By the time you are hungry, your blood sugar will probably be too low, making the rest of the race slow and painful.  In short, in long-distance running, one key is to make decisions before it feels like you need too.

When I was nine, my father was elected to the Irish parliament and joined the new government.  Not long after that, my history teacher, a man of the opposite political persuasion, was expounding on the Norman conquest of Ireland and the attempts of the local Irish clans to wage war against them….”not like the “wage war” we have with the current government” he said, finding humor in a rather dull subject.  I, being an overly sensitive child, took this as a terrible insult to my father and promptly burst into tears, whereupon he sent me out into the hall for disturbing the peace.

This week, investors will be focused on the Fed's second Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting of the year.  They are widely expected to make no change in interest rates.  However, Fed communications will provide guidance on two important subjects:  First, they will update their summary of economic projections and their “dot-plot” forecast for the federal funds rate.  Second, and particularly in Chairman Powell's press conference, they will likely provide some further hints on when and how they could begin to phase out quantitative tightening.  While their messaging will likely continue to point towards monetary easing in the months ahead, the implied timing and extent of that easing could have major impact on markets.

Financial reporters and market strategists often argue about whether we are “early-cycle”, “mid-cycle” or “late-cycle”.  However, these perspectives are based on an outdated model of how the U.S. economy behaves.  In a pure “business-cycle” paradigm, the U.S. economy would, today, be in the late innings of an economic expansion that must naturally end rather soon.  However, a more realistic model of today's economy suggests that this expansion could continue for some time more and that, when it ends, it will be because of some financial, environmental or geopolitical shock rather than the inevitable result of the age and stage of the expansion.  This doesn't negate the need for diversification.  However, it does suggest that a portfolio should be stress-tested mostly against how it would react to a downturn triggered by non-economic shocks.

On Friday, December 29th, 1989, the Nikkei 225 stock index hit an all-time high of 38,957.  It then began to fall and it took until February 22nd of this year, more than a third of a century later, to reach this level again.  Today, for the first time, it closed above 40,000. This ultra-long bear market in Japanese stocks was accompanied by the collapse of a colossal property bubble and was followed by decades of economic stagnation, rising government debt and periodic deflation.  While Japan still faces many challenges today, there are signs that it is turning a corner from both an economic and financial perspective.  However, decades of Japanese economic and financial malaise provide some powerful lessons for Japan itself and for governments, monetary authorities and investors around the world.

In last week's article and podcast, I looked at the potential path for the U.S. economy over the next two years, noting that the outlook suggested a very tight labor market throughout.  This would be a generally healthy outcome for the country, boosting economic growth and productivity and supporting solid wage growth.  To the extent that it maintained pressure on profit margins and limited monetary easing, it would be less favorable for investors.  However, a number of readers asked the very reasonable question of whether my analysis took account of the recent migration surge at our southern border.