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….

 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

Overview:

Strong US stock market performance has been driven, in my view, by the combination of: 1) a dovish Fed, money supply growth and global capital flight to the US (“shadow liquidity”), 2) expectations of lower energy costs and falling inflation, 3) AI exuberance and capex and the promise of massive productivity gains, and 4) growing optimism about technologies like nuclear energy, blockchain, quantum computing, robotics, autonomous vehicles, and genomics. But after two consecutive years of 20%+ gains in the S&P 500 for the first time since 1998 (and even greater gains for the Tech-dominated Nasdaq 100)—greatly outperforming all prominent forecasts—investors are looking ahead to a year that arguably brings even greater uncertainty and a wider range of expected outcomes, ranging from a recession and bear market to a continued bull run within a Roaring ‘20s-redux decade.

Will Trump 2.0 business-friendly fiscal policies (e.g., tax cuts, deregulation) and DOGE cost-cutting impact the economy, inflation, federal budget deficit, and corporate profits negatively for a period of time before kicking in later? What about sluggish economic growth abroad and the disastrous impacts of the ultra-strong dollar, particularly among key trading partners like Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and Japan? And will the massive corporate capex (which is expected to accelerate under the new administration’s policies) start to show commensurate returns in the form of rising productivity and profitability, leading to rising GDP growth (in true supply-side style) without the crutch of government deficit spending (which accounted for about 30% of growth over the last 4 quarters)…and ultimately to rising tax receipts to quickly offset any initial rise in the deficit?

The bull case sees an economy and stock market driven by business-friendly fiscal policies under Trump 2.0 including deregulation, lower corporate tax rate, and restoration of civil liberties and constitutional freedoms should also be stimulative and might fuel disinflation (as opposed to the inflation that many critics expect). Trump’s energy policies are also likely to be disinflationary. Capital flight into the US (most of which stays outside our banking system and therefore is not captured by M2), huge corporate capex, less deficit spending (and politburo-style “malinvestment” and mandates), and strong productivity growth, and rising velocity of money that offsets any tightening in money supply growth.

According to Capital Group, a mid-cycle economy typically displays rising corporate profits, accelerating credit demand, modest inflationary pressures, and a move toward neutral monetary policy—all of which occurred during 2024. And besides expectations of a highly aggressive 15% earnings growth in the S&P 500 over the next couple of years, Silicon Valley VC Shervin Pishevar recently opined, “I think there’s going to be a renaissance of innovation in America…It’s going to be exciting to see… AI is going to accelerate so fast we’re going to reach AGI [Artificial General Intelligence, or human-like thinking] within the next 2-3 years. I think there will be ‘Manhattan Projects’ for AI, quantum computing, biotech.” So, it all sounds quite good.

However, my observation is that GDP and jobs growth have been highly reliant on huge government deficit spending bills, which is not so good. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model forecasts Q4 GDP to come in at just 2.7%, which is sluggish growth considering the huge amount of government money and corporate capex being spent. Rising bond yields and strengthening US dollar means less liquidity and tighter financial conditions, which are negatives for risk assets. The incoming administration—free this time of the unknowing appointment of deep-state obstructionists like in his first term—is suggesting a new tack characterized by smaller government and the unleashing of animal spirits in the private sector, with the goal of achieving GDP growth north of 4%.

So, for 2025, I expect strong fiscal and monetary policy support for economic growth (albeit with some pains and stumbles along the way as government spending is reined in) as well as moderating inflation as shelter costs recede, military conflicts are resolved (war is inflationary), and deflationary impulses arrive from struggling economies in China and Europe. I also expect stocks and bonds will both attain modest gains by year end (albeit with elevated volatility along the way). In this transitional year in which a more politically seasoned Donald Trump’s policies and leadership have gained broader support domestically across demographics (and indeed across the world), how it all gets off the ground and how quickly it generates traction this year will have profound implications for the rest of his term and beyond. Heck, even a growing contingent in ultra-blue California have become willing to give his approach a chance—further red-pilled by the disastrous LA wildfires (more on this below).

To me, the biggest question marks for our economy and stocks in 2025 (other than a Black Swan event) are: 1) the net impacts of Trump’s cost cutting efforts (on federal deficit spending and boondoggles) balanced with his pro-business policies and a supportive Fed, and 2) the impacts of economic growth struggles abroad. China is dealing with deflation (PPI has declined for 26 months in a row), a real estate crisis, weak retail sales, and surging excess savings among a shrinking population. Since the Global Financial Crisis, China’s marginal returns on capital have plunged from around 14% to barely 5% (on par with the US). As for the Eurozone, its share of world GDP has fallen from a high of 26.4% in 1992 to just 14.8% in 202, as its obsession with renewable electricity (rather than fossil fuels and nuclear) costing 5x the price of conventionally produced electricity—and driving low returns on capital and thus capital flight. As MacroStrategy Partners UK has opined, “With all of GDP [essentially] an energy conversion, our future depends on either extending fossil fuel production further or developing nuclear.”

Indeed, the US remains the beacon of hope for global investors. However, at the moment, surging bond yields, weak market internals, and a strengthening dollar suggest investors have grown cautious. All the major stock and bond indexes fell below their 50-day simple moving averages (although they are trying to regain them today, 1/15). Inflation hedges gold and bitcoin have risen back above theirs, but all these asset classes have lost both their momentum in concert with sluggish global liquidity growth since October (as pointed out by economist and liquidity guru Michael Howell of CrossBorder Capital). Of course, rising real yields tend to reduce the appeal of gold, and nominal yields have been rising much faster than the modest (and likely temporary) uptick in inflation.

Indeed, the latest PPI and CPI readings this week show stabilization, which the markets cheered (across all asset classes). As I write, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen below 4.70% and the 20-year dropped below the important 5% handle. Hopefully, this will stem the rise in 30-year mortgage rates, which are above 7.0%, creating a big impediment to the critical housing market. The delinquency rate on commercial office MBS jumped to a record 11% in December, which is the highest since the Global Financial Crisis. Consumer credit card defaults jumped to a 14-year high as average cc interest rates hit a record high, now in excess of 23%. And then we have our federal government needing to roll over at least $16 trillion (of our $36.2 trillion debt) during the next four years.

Although Michael Howell thinks the 10-year Treasury yield could continue to rise to perhaps 5.5%, which would be a huge definite negative for risk assets, my view is that bond prices will soon find support (and stabilize yields), which would help stocks stabilize as well. After all, US Treasury yields are attractive in that they are among the highest among developed markets, and the two largest economies are diverging, with China’s yields collapsing (10-year below 1.7%) as US yields surged. Indeed, debt deflation and sluggish economic conditions in China are at risk of creating a deflationary spiral. Also, the traditional 60/40 stock/bond portfolio rebalancing is taking place, which shifts capital from equities to bonds.

If I am right and the bottom in 20-year Treasury price (i.e., peak yield) is nigh (as it retests its low from April 2024), we likely would see the dollar decline, gold rally, and bond yields fall, which would be a tailwind for growth stocks. Ultimately, I expect the terminal fed funds rate will be around 3.50% (from today’s 4.25-4.50%), although it might not get there until 2026, and I think the 10-year will gradually settle back to around 4.25%.

Assuming AI and blockchain capital spending and productivity gains are already largely priced into the lofty Big Tech valuations, perhaps this is the year that the market finally broadens in earnest such that opportunities can be found among small caps, bonds and dividend paying stocks, value, and cyclical sectors like Financials, Industrials, and Transports (and perhaps segments of Energy, like natural gas production, liquefication, and transport), However, the Basic Materials sector, particularly industrial commodities (like copper), may struggle with weak Chinese demand, and because many commodities are priced in dollars, a strong dollar reduces purchasing power among all our trading partners, which further hinders demand. As such, Materials continues to rank at the bottom of Sabrient’s SectorCast rankings.

I go into all of this (and more, including my outlook for 2025) in my full post below. Overall, my suggestion to investors remains this. Don’t chase the highflyers and instead focus on high-quality businesses at reasonable prices, hold inflation and dollar hedges like gold and bitcoin, 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 massive capex in blockchain and AI applications, infrastructure, and energy, leading to rising productivity, increased productive capacity (“duplicative excess capacity,” in the words of Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent, would be disinflationary), and economic expansion.

When I say, “high-quality company,” I mean one that is fundamentally strong by displaying a history of consistent, reliable, and accelerating sales and earnings growth, positive revisions to Wall Street analysts’ consensus forward estimates, rising profit margins and free cash flow, solid earnings quality, and low debt burden. These are the factors Sabrient employs in selecting our portfolios. 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).

Sabrient founder David Brown describes these (and other) factors and his portfolio construction process in his new book, How to Build High Performance Stock Portfolios, which is available on Amazon for investors of all experience levels. David describes his path from NASA engineer on the Apollo 11 moon landing project to creating quant models for ranking stocks and building stock portfolios in 4 distinct investing styles—growth, value, dividend, or small cap growth. To learn more about David's book and the companion subscription product we offer that does most of the stock evaluation work for you, visit: https://DavidBrownInvestingBook.com

As a reminder, our research team at Sabrient leverages a process-driven, quantitative methodology to build predictive multifactor models, data sets, stock and ETF rankings, rules-based equity indexes, and thematic stock portfolios. As you might expect from former engineers, we use the scientific method and hypothesis-testing to build models that make sense—and we do that for growth, value, dividend, and small cap strategies. We have become best known for our “Baker’s Dozen” growth portfolio of 13 diverse picks, which is packaged and distributed quarterly to the financial advisor community as a unit investment trust, along with 3 other offshoot strategies for value, dividend, and small cap investing.

In fact, the Q1 2025 Baker’s Dozen will launch this Friday 1/17, followed by Small Cap Growth on 1/22 and then Dividend on 2/11.

Lastly, let me make a brief comment on the LA wildfires. It seems every wildfire in SoCal has always ended when “we got lucky,” as the fire chiefs and local meteorologists would say, due to the winds tapering off and/or rains arriving just in time. I certainly saw this firsthand a few times during my 20 years raising a family in Santa Barbara. And I always wondered, what will happen when this “luck” doesn’t materialize the next time? Of course, even if one believes that reversing climate change is humanly possible, the lengthy timetable to decarbonization (while countries like China and India continue to increase carbon emissions by burning coal at record amounts to generate 60% and 70% of their electricity, respectively) means that proper preparation today for disasters is essential. And yet California’s leadership was doing the opposite, prioritizing specious social justice agendas while degrading readiness for the “perfect storm” of wildfire conditions…when luck fails to arrive. My deepest sympathies, thoughts, and prayers go out to all those impacted by this preventable tragedy.

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

July saw new highs for the broad market indexes followed by a big fall from grace among the Magnificent Seven (MAG-7) stocks. But it looked more like a healthy rotation than a flight to safety, with a broadening into neglected market segments, as inflation and unemployment metrics engendered optimism about a dovish policy pivot from the Federal Reserve. The rotation of capital within the stock market—as opposed to capital flight out of stocks—kept overall market volatility modest. But then along came the notorious month of August. Is this an ominous sign that the AI hype will come crashing down as the economy goes into a recession? Or is this simply a 2023 redux—another “summer sales event” on stock prices—with rate cuts, accelerating earnings, and new highs ahead? Let’s explore the volatility spike, the reset on valuations, inflation trends, Fed policy, and whether this is a buying opportunity.

Summary

Up until this month, a pleasant and complacent trading climate had been in place essentially since the Federal Reserve announced in Q4 2023 its intended policy pivot, with a forecast of at least three rate cuts. But August is notorious for its volatility, largely from instability on the trading floor due to Wall Street vacations and exacerbated by algorithmic (computer-based) trading systems. In my early-July post, I wrote that I expected perhaps a 10% correction this summer and added, “the technicals have become extremely overbought [with] a lot of potential downside if momentum gets a head of steam and the algo traders turn bearish.” In other words, the more extreme the divergence and euphoria, the harsher the correction.

Indeed, last Monday 8/5 saw the worst one-day selloff since the March 2020 pandemic lockdown. From its all-time high on 7/16 to the intraday low on Monday 8/5 the S&P 500 (SPY) fell -9.7%, and the Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK) was down as much as -20% from its 7/11 high. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) hit a colossal 67.73 at its intraday peak (although tradable VIX futures never came close to such extremes). It was officially the VIX’s third highest reading ever, after the financial crisis in 2008 and pandemic lockdown in 2020. But were the circumstances this time around truly as dire as those two previous instances? Regardless, it illustrates the inherent risk created by such narrow leadership, extreme industry divergences, and high leverage bred from persistent complacency (including leveraged short volatility and the new zero-day expiry options).

The selloff likely was ignited by the convergence of several issues, including weakening economic data and new fears of recession, a concern that the AI hype isn’t living up to its promise quite fast enough, and a cautious Fed that many now believe is “behind the curve” and making a policy mistake by not cutting rates. (Note: I have been sounding the alarm on this for months.) But it might have been Japan at the epicenter of this financial earthquake when the Bank of Japan (BoJ) suddenly hiked its key policy rate and sounded a hawkish tone, igniting a “reverse carry trade” and rapid deleveraging. I explain this further in today’s post.

Regardless, by week’s end, it looked like a non-event as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 clawed back all their losses from the Monday morning collapse. So, was that it for the summer correction? Are we all good now? I would say no. A lot of traders were burned, and it seems there is more work for bulls to do to prove a bottom was established. Although the extraordinary spike in fear and “blood in the streets” was fleeting, the quick bounce was not convincing, and the monthly charts look toppy—much like last summer. In fact, as I discuss in today’s post, the market looks a lot like last year, which suggests the weakness could potentially last into October. As DataTrek opined, “Investor confidence in the macro backdrop was way too high and it may take weeks to fully correct this imbalance.”

Stock prices are always forward-looking and speculative with respect to expectations of economic growth, corporate earnings, and interest rates. The FOMC held off on a rate cut at its July meeting even though inflation is receding and recessionary signals are growing, including weakening economic indicators (at home and abroad) and rising unemployment (now at 4.3%, after rising for the fourth straight month). Moreover, the Fed must consider the cost of surging debt and the impact of tight monetary policy and a strong dollar on our trading partners. On the bright side, the Fed no longer sees the labor market as a source of higher inflation. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell said, “The downside risks to the employment mandate are now real.” 

The real-time, blockchain-based Truflation metric (which historically presages CPI) keeps falling and recently hit yet another 52-week low at just 1.38%; Core PCE ex-shelter is already below 2.5%; and the Fed’s preferred Core PCE metric will likely show it is below 2.5% as well. So, with inflation less a worry than warranted and with corporate earnings at risk from the economic slowdown, the Fed now finds itself having to start an easing cycle with the urgency of staving off recession rather than a more comfortable “normalization” objective within a sound economy. 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.”

The Fed will be the last major central bank in the West to launch an easing cycle. I have been on record for months that the Fed is behind the curve, as collapsing market yields have signaled (with the 10-year Treasury note yield falling over 80 bp from its 5/29 high before bouncing). It had all the justification it needed for a 25-bp rate cut at the July FOMC meeting, and I think passing on it was a missed opportunity to calm global markets, weaken the dollar, avert a global currency crisis, and relieve some of the burden on highly indebted federal government, consumers, businesses, and the global economy. Indeed, I believe Fed inaction forced the BoJ rate hike and the sudden surge in US recession fears, leading to last week’s extreme stock market weakness (and global contagion).

In my view, a terminal fed funds “neutral” rate of 3.0-3.5% (roughly 200 bps below the current “effective” rate of 5.33%) seems appropriate. Fortunately, today’s lofty rate means the Fed has plenty of potential rate cuts in its holster to support the economy while still remaining relatively restrictive in its inflation fight. And as long as the trend in global liquidity is upward, then the risk of a major market crash this year is low, in my view. Even though the Fed has kept rates “higher for longer” throughout this waiting game on inflation, it has also maintained liquidity in the financial system, which of course is the lifeblood of economic growth and risk assets. Witness that, although corporate credit spreads surged during the selloff and market turmoil (especially high yield spreads), they stayed well below historical levels and fell back quickly by the end of the week.

So, I believe this selloff, even if further downside is likely, should be considered a welcome buying opportunity for long-term investors, especially for those who thought they had missed the boat on stocks this year. This assumes that the proverbial “Fed Put” is indeed back in play, i.e., a willingness to intervene to support markets (like a protective put option) through asset purchases to reduce interest rates and inject liquidity (aka quantitative easing). The Fed Put also serves to reduce the term premium on bonds as investors are more willing to hold longer-duration securities.

Longer term, however, is a different story, as our massive federal debt and rampant deficit spending is not only unsustainable but potentially catastrophic for the global economy. The process of digging out of this enormous hole will require sustained, solid, organic economic growth (supported by lower tax rates), modest inflation (to devalue the debt without crippling consumers), and smaller government (restraint on government spending and “red tape”), in my view, as I discuss in today’s post.

In buying the dip, the popular Big Tech stocks got creamed. However, this served to bring down their valuations somewhat, their capital expenditures and earnings growth remains robust, and hedge funds are generally underweight Tech, so this “revaluation” could bode well for a broader group of Tech stocks for the balance of the year. Rather than rushing back into the MAG-7, 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 our growth-oriented Baker’s Dozen, value-oriented Forward Looking Value (which just launched on 7/31), growth & income-oriented Dividend portfolio, and the Small Cap Growth (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 income, 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 this month (I will send out a notification).

Click here to continue reading my full commentary, in which I go into greater detail on the economy, inflation, monetary policy, valuations, and 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. Also, here is a link to this post in printable PDF format. I invite you to share it as appropriate (to the extent compliance allows). You also can sign up for email delivery of this periodic newsletter at Sabrient.com.

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

StocksThe S&P 500 fell more than 5% over the first three weeks of April (it’s largest pullback since last October). Bonds also took it on the chin (as they have all year), with the 2-year Treasury yield briefly eclipsing 5%, which is my “line in the sand” for a healthy stock market. But the weakness proved short-lived, and both stocks and bonds have regained some footing to start May. During the drawdown, the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), aka fear index, awakened from its slumber but never closed above the 20 “panic threshold.”

In a return to the “bad news is good news” market action of yore, stocks saw fit to gap up last Friday as the US dollar weakened and stocks, bonds, and crypto all caught a nice bid (with the 10-year yield falling 30 bps)—on the expectation of sooner rate cuts following the FOMC’s softer tone on monetary policy and a surprisingly weak jobs report. So, the cumulative “lag effects” of quantitative tightening (QT), falling money supply, and elevated interest rates finally may be coming to roost. In fact, Fed chairman Jay Powell suggested that any sign of weakening in inflation or employment could lead to the highly anticipated rate cuts—leaving the impression that the Fed truly wants to start cutting rates.

But I can’t help but wonder whether that 5% pullback was it for the Q2 market correction I have been predicting. It sure doesn’t seem like we got enough cleansing of the momentum algo traders and other profit-protecting “weak holders.” But no one wants to miss out on the rate-cut rally. Despite the sudden surge in optimism about rates, inflation continues to be the proverbial “fly in the ointment” for rate cuts, I believe we are likely to see more volatility before the Fed officially pivots dovish, although we may simply remain in a trading range with downside limited to 5,000 on the S&P 500. Next week’s CPI/PPI readings will be crucial given that recent inflation metrics have ticked up. But I don’t expect any unwelcome inflationary surprises, as I discuss in today’s post.

The Fed faces conflicting signals from inflation, unemployment, jobs growth, GDP, and the international impact of the strong dollar on the global economy. Its preferred metric of Core PCE released on 4/26 stayed elevated in March at 2.82% YoY and a disheartening 3-month (MoM) rolling average of 4.43%. But has been driven mostly by shelter costs and services. But fear not, as I see a light at the end of the tunnel and a resumption of the previous disinflationary trend. Following one-time, early-year repricing, services prices should stabilize as wage growth recedes while labor demand slows, labor supply rises, productivity improves, and real disposable household income falls below even the lowest pre-pandemic levels. (Yesterday, the San Francisco Fed reported that American households have officially exhausted all $2.1 trillion of their pandemic-era excess savings.) Also, rental home inflation is receding in real time (even though the 6-month-lagged CPI metrics don’t yet reflect it), and inflation expectations of consumers and businesses are falling. Moreover, Q1 saw a surge in oil prices that has since receded, the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index (GSCPI) fell again in April. So, I think we will see Core PCE below 2.5% this summer. The Fed itself noted in its minutes that supply and demand are in better balance, which should allow for more disinflation. Indeed, when asked about the threat of a 1970’s-style “stagflation, the Fed chairman said, "I don't see the stag or the 'flation."

The Treasury's quarterly refunding announcement shows it plans to borrow $243 billion in Q2, which is $41 billion more than previously projected, to continue financing our huge and growing budget deficit. Jay Powell has said that the fiscal side of the equation needs to be addressed as it counters much of the monetary policy tightening. It seems evident to me that government deficit spending has been a key driver of GDP growth and employment—as well as inflation.

And as if that all isn’t enough, some commentators think the world is teetering on the brink of a currency crisis, starting with the collapse of the Japanese yen. Indeed, Japan is in quite the pickle with the yen and interest rates, which is a major concern for global financial stability given its importance in the global economy. Escalating geopolitical tensions and ongoing wars are also worrisome as they create death, destruction, instability, misuse of resources, and inflationary pressures on energy, food, and transportation prices.

All of this supports the case for why the Fed would want to start cutting rates (likely by mid-year), which I have touched on many times in the past. Reasons include averting a renewed banking crisis, fallout from the commercial real estate depression, distortion in the critical housing market, the mirage of strong jobs growth (which has been propped up by government spending and hiring), and of course the growing federal debt, debt service, and debt/GDP ratio (with 1/3 of the annual budget now earmarked to pay interest on the massive and rapidly growing $34 trillion of federal debt), which threatens to choke off economic growth. In addition, easing financial conditions would help highly indebted businesses, consumers, and our trading partners (particularly emerging markets). Indeed, yet another reason the Fed is prepared to cut is that other central banks are cutting, which would strengthen the dollar even further if the Fed stood pat. And then we have Japan, which needs to raise rates to support the yen but doesn’t really want to, given its huge debt load; it would be better for it if our Federal Reserve cuts instead.

So, the Fed is at a crossroads. I still believe a terminal fed funds rate of 3.0% would be appropriate so that borrowers can handle the debt burden while fixed income investors can receive a reasonable real yield (i.e., above the inflation rate) so they don’t have to take on undue risk to achieve meaningful income. As it stands today, assuming inflation has already (in real time, not lagged) resumed its downtrend, I think the real yield is too high—i.e., great for savers but bad for borrowers.

Nevertheless, I still believe any significant pullback in stocks would be a buying opportunity. As several commentators have opined, the US is the “best house in a lousy (global) neighborhood.” In an investment landscape fraught with danger nearly everywhere you turn, I see US stocks and bonds as the place to be invested, particularly as the Fed and other central banks restore rising liquidity (Infrastructure Capital Advisors predicts a $2 trillion global injection to make rates across the yield curve go down). But I also believe they should be hedged with gold and crypto. According to Michael Howell of CrossBorder Capital, a strong dollar will still devalue relative to gold and bitcoin when liquidity rises, and gold price tends to rise faster than the rise in liquidity—and bitcoin has an even higher beta to liquidity. Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine on 2/24/2022 and was sanctioned with confiscation of $300 billion in reserves, central banks around the world have been stocking up, surging gold by roughly +21% and bitcoin +60%, compared to the S&P 500 +18% (price return). During Q1, institutions bought a record 290 tons, according to the World Gold Council (WGC).

With several trillions of dollars still sitting defensively in money market funds, we are nowhere near “irrational exuberance” despite somewhat elevated valuations and the ongoing buzz around Gen AI. At the core of an equity portfolio should be US large cap exposure (despite its significantly higher P/E versus small-mid-cap). But despite strong earnings momentum of the mega-cap Tech darlings (which are largely driven by robust share buyback programs), I believe there are better investment opportunities in many under-the-radar names (across large, mid, and small caps), including among cyclicals like homebuilders, energy, financials, and REITs.

So, if you are looking outside of the cap-weighted passive indexes (and their elevated valuation multiples) for investment opportunities, let me remind you that Sabrient’s actively selected portfolios include the latest Q2 2024 Baker’s Dozen (a concentrated 13-stock portfolio offering the potential for significant outperformance) which launched on 4/19, Small Cap Growth 42 (an alpha-seeking alternative to the Russell 2000 index) which just launched last week on 5/1, and Dividend 47 (a growth plus income strategy) paying a 3.8% current yield. Notably, Dividend 47’s top performer so far is Southern Copper (SCCO), which is riding the copper price surge and, by the way, is headquartered in Phoenix—just 10 miles from my home in Scottsdale.

I talk more about inflation, federal debt, the yen, and oil markets in today’s post. I also discuss Sabrient’s latest fundamentals based SectorCast quantitative rankings of the ten U.S. business sectors (which continue to be led by Technology), current positioning of our sector rotation model, and several top-ranked ETF ideas. And in my Final Comments section, I have a few things to say about the latest lunacy on our college campuses (Can this current crop of graduates ever be allowed a proper ceremony?).

Click here to continue reading my full commentary. Or if you prefer, here is a link to this post in printable PDF format (as some of my readers have requested). Please feel free to share my full post with your friends, colleagues, and clients. You also can sign up for email delivery of this periodic newsletter at Sabrient.com.

By the way, Sabrient founder David Brown has a new book coming out soon through Amazon.com in which he describes his approach to quantitative modeling and stock selection for four distinct investing strategies (Growth, Value, Dividend, and Small Cap). It is concise, informative, and a quick read. David has written a number of books through the years, and in this new one he provides valuable insights for investors by unveiling his secrets to identifying high-potential stocks. I will send out an email once it becomes available on Amazon.

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

Stocks are pulling back a bit to start Q2 but have shown remarkable resilience throughout their nearly 6-month (and nearly straight-up) bull run, with the S&P 500 (SPY) finding consistent support at its 20-day simple moving average on several occasions, while the slightly more volatile Nasdaq 100 (QQQ, beta=1.18) has found solid support at the 40-day moving average. Moreover, the Relative Strength Index (RSI) on SPY has reliably bounced off the neutral line (50) on every test. And it all happened again early last week—at least until Thursday afternoon when Minnesota Fed president Neel Kashkari ventured off Fed chairman Jerome Powell’s carefully crafted script to say they may not cut interest rates at all this year if inflation’s decline continues to stall.

Before that moment, Powell had been keeping his governors in line and saying all the right things about imminent rate cuts in the pipeline (albeit making sure not to provide a firm timetable). And the pervasive Goldilocks outlook has lifted stocks to uncomfortably elevated valuations (current forward P/E for SPY of 21.3x and for QQQ of 26.6x) that suggest a need for and expectation of both solid earnings growth in 2024-25 and falling interest rates (as the discount rate on future earnings streams).

Up until Kashkari’s unexpected remarks, it appeared that once again—and in fact every time since last November, when the indexes look extremely overbought and in need of a significant pullback (as typically happens periodically in any given year) a strong bid arrived like the Lone Ranger to save the day and push stocks higher. It has burned bears and kept swing traders who like to “fade” spikes hesitant. Not surprisingly, the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) has seen only a couple of brief excursions above the 15 line and has been nowhere near the 20 “fear threshold.”

But after his remarks, the market finished Thursday with a huge, high-volume, “bearish engulfing candle,” and the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) surged 20% intraday (closing at 16.35), and all those previously reliable support levels gave way—until the very next day. On Friday, they quickly recovered those support levels following the apparently strong March jobs report, finishing with a “bullish harami” pattern (that typically leads to some further upside). As you recall from my March post, I have felt a correction is overdue—and the longer it holds off, the more severe the fall. The question now is whether SPY and QQQ are destined for an upside breakout to new highs and a continuation of the bull run…or for a downside breakdown to test lower levels of support. I believe we may get a bit of a bounce here, but more downside is likely before an eventual resumption in the bull run to new highs.

Regardless, the persistent strength in stocks has been impressive, particularly in the face of the Fed's quantitative tightening actions (balance sheet reduction and “higher for longer” rates)—along with the so-called “bond vigilantes” who protest excessive spending by not buying Treasuries and thus further driving up rates—that have created the highest risk-free real (net of inflation) interest rates since the Financial Crisis and reduced its balance sheet by $1.5 trillion from its April 2022 peak to its lowest level since February 2021.

But (surprise!) gold has been performing even better than either SPY or QQQ (as have cryptocurrencies, aka “digital gold”). Gold’s appeal to investors is likely in anticipation of continued buying by central banks around the world as a hedge against things like growing geopolitical turmoil, our government’s increasingly aggressive “weaponization” of the dollar to punish rogue nations, and rising global debt leading to a credit or currency crisis.

To be sure, solid GDP and employment data, a stall in inflation’s decline, rosy earnings growth forecasts for 2024-2025, tight investment-grade and high-yield credit spreads, low volatility in interest rates, a low VIX, and a sudden recovery in manufacturing activity, with the ISM Manufacturing Index having finally eclipsed the 50 threshold (indicating expansion) after 16 straight months below 50 (contraction), all beg the question of why the Fed would see a need to cut rates. As Powell himself said the other day, we have seen an unusual and unforeseen occurrence in which “productive capacity is going up even more than actual output. The economy actually isn't becoming tighter; it's actually becoming a little looser…” Indeed, the “higher for longer” mantra might seem more appropriate, at least on the surface.

Yet despite the rosy outlook and investor confidence/complacency (and Kashkari’s latest comments), the Fed continues to suggest there will be multiple rate cuts this year, as if it knows of something lurking in the shadows. And that something might be a credit crisis stemming from our hyper-financialized/ultra-leveraged economy—and the growing debt burden across government, small business, and consumers being refinanced at today’s high interest rates. We are all aware of the outright depression in commercial real estate today; perhaps there is a contagion lurking. Or perhaps it’s the scary projection for the federal debt/GDP ratio (rising from 97% of GDP last year to 166% by 2054). Or perhaps it is a brewing currency crisis with the Japanese yen, given its historic weakness that may lead the BOJ to hike rates to stem capital outflows. Or perhaps it’s because they follow the real-time “Truflation” estimate, which indicates a year-over-year inflation rate of 1.82% in contrast to the latest headline CPI print of 3.2% and headline PCE of 2.5%.

I discuss all these topics in today’s post, as well as the relative performance of various equity and asset-class ETFs that suggests a nascent market rotation and broadening may be underway, which is a great climate for active managers. Likewise, Michael Wilson of Morgan Stanley asserts that the stock rally since last fall has been driven more by loose financial conditions, extreme liquidity (leverage), and multiple expansion (rather than earnings growth), but now it's time to be a stock picker rather than a passive index investor.

So, if you are looking outside of the cap-weighted passive indexes (and their elevated valuation multiples) for investment opportunities, let me remind you that Sabrient’s actively selected portfolios include the Baker’s Dozen (a concentrated 13-stock portfolio offering the potential for significant outperformance), Small Cap Growth (an alpha-seeking alternative to the Russell 2000 index), and Dividend (a growth plus income strategy paying a 3.74% current yield). The latest Q1 2024 Baker’s Dozen launched on 1/19/24 and remains in primary market until 4/18/24 (and is already well ahead of SPY).

Click here to continue reading my full commentary in which I also discuss Sabrient’s latest fundamentals based SectorCast quantitative rankings of the ten U.S. business sectors (which continue to be led by Technology), current positioning of our sector rotation model (which turned bullish in early November and remains so today), and several top-ranked ETF ideas. Or if you prefer, here is a link to this post in printable PDF format (as some of my readers have requested). Please feel free to share my full post with your friends, colleagues, and clients! You also can sign up for email delivery of this periodic newsletter at Sabrient.com.

By the way, Sabrient founder David Brown has a new book coming out soon through Amazon.com in which he describes his approach to quantitative modeling and stock selection for four distinct investing strategies (Growth, Value, Dividend, and Small Cap). It is concise, informative, and a quick read. David has written a number of books through the years, and in this new one he provides valuable insights for investors by unveiling his secrets to identifying high-potential stocks. Please let me know if you’d like to be an early book reviewer!