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.