Weekly Market Commentary Archives

Nov 13

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: The Perils of Taking Private Markets Public

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

For decades, private markets were an investment category for large institutions like universities, endowments, and pension funds. The common thread connecting these institutions: deep pockets, very long time horizons, and the ability to trade liquidity for the possibility of higher returns.

Those days may be changing.

A new policy shift could soon make private market investments available to millions of everyday Americans through their 401(k)s. The idea is simple and marketable: private markets promise diversification, the potential for higher returns, and supposedly smoother performance than public stocks and bonds.¹

But investors would do well to approach this new frontier with caution. The evidence suggests the benefits of private-market investing are overstated, while the risks aren’t fully understood and/or appreciated.

Start with the idea that private assets are less volatile. Data can make it appear that way, but it’s largely a matter of accounting. Because private holdings aren’t traded on open exchanges, their prices don’t update in real time. The result is what is known as “volatility laundering,” whereby risk looks more measured on paper than in practice. A recent analysis from Morningstar found that private assets can, in fact, be more speculative and leveraged than their public counterparts, with “stability” often reflecting a lack of transparency, not lower risk.

Performance is another area where the marketing outpaces the math.

The most common measure of private equity success, the internal rate of return (IRR), is not comparable to the annualized returns investors see on mutual funds, ETFs, or statements for separately managed accounts. IRRs can look impressive because they measure money flows rather than time, and early distributions can artificially inflate results. A 15% IRR does not mean the investor actually earned a 15% compounded annual return.

When researchers use better apples-to-apples performance comparisons, such as the private market equivalent (PME), which asks whether investors would have done better in a public index fund, the results become more clear-eyed. Median private equity returns have historically matched, not beaten, the public market once an investor accounts for fees, leverage, and liquidity. The averages tend to be pulled up by a small number of big winners, but most funds fall short.

What I’m describing above about private funds is not well known, and it may result in a rush to bring these strategies and products to the retail market, with many investors eager to participate. Asset managers are launching “semi-liquid” funds that blend private and public holdings, with limited redemption windows and higher fees. But if markets sour and redemptions surge, liquidity strains could ripple across the system.

For retirement savers, this investment trend raises a fundamental question: why complicate what’s already working? In my view, everyday investors do not necessarily need exposure to opaque, expensive funds to build wealth. Broadly diversified portfolios of stocks and bonds have delivered competitive long-term returns with full liquidity and far lower costs over time.

I’m not saying private investments have no place in a portfolio. For investors with the means, the patience, and the ability to evaluate managers closely, private funds can add diversification and potentially enhance returns. But for most 401(k) savers, the rush to “democratize” private equity looks more like a marketing push than a breakthrough in access. ‘Democratizing’ an asset class doesn’t necessarily democratize its best opportunities, which will likely remain reserved for the largest institutions.

Bottom Line for Investors

The growing push to open private markets to retail investors may sound like progress, but it’s worth remembering what makes retirement investing work in the first place: transparency, liquidity, and discipline. Public markets already give investors the ability to own a slice of long-term, global economic growth at a minimal cost. Adding complex, illiquid, and high-fee products to that mix could make retirement portfolios harder to manage, not necessarily better diversified.

The irony, in my view, is that the more these private funds are adapted to meet retail needs, by trading more frequently or disclosing more information, the more they start to behave like public markets. That reduces the so-called “illiquidity premium,” which is the very feature designed to produce higher returns in the first place.

¹ Wall Street Journal. October 27, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/edit-winter-is-coming-cb016ec5/5tscfk/1373516278/h/R__iaeT5-tqrMLFa71Y4O_Lo9ER76L4IBY4ZAila6zs

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts as an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

This material is being provided for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. Do not act or rely upon the information and advice given in this publication without seeking the services of competent and professional legal, tax, or accounting counsel. Publication and distribution of this article is not intended to create, and the information contained herein does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment or strategy is suitable for a particular investor. It should not be assumed that any investments in securities, companies, sectors or markets identified and described were or will be profitable. All information is current as of the date of herein and is subject to change without notice. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of the firm as a whole.

Any projections, targets, or estimates in this report are forward looking statements and are based on the firm’s research, analysis, and assumptions. Due to rapidly changing market conditions and the complexity of investment decisions, supplemental information and other sources may be required to make informed investment decisions based on your individual investment objectives and suitability specifications. All expressions of opinions are subject to change without notice. Clients should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in any security or investment strategy discussed in this presentation.

Certain economic and market information contained herein has been obtained from published sources prepared by other parties. Zacks Investment Management does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information. Further, no third party has assumed responsibility for independently verifying the information contained herein and accordingly no such persons make any representations with respect to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of the information provided herein. Unless otherwise indicated, market analysis and conclusions are based upon opinions or assumptions that Zacks Investment Management considers to be reasonable. Any investment inherently involves a high degree of risk, beyond any specific risks discussed herein.

The S&P 500 Index is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 500 large-company common stocks, mainly blue-chip stocks, selected by Standard & Poor’s. The S&P 500 Index assumes reinvestment of dividends but does not reflect advisory fees. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor. An investor cannot invest directly in an index.

The Russell 1000 Growth Index is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 1000 large-company growth common stocks selected by Russell. The Russell 1000 Growth Index assumes reinvestment of dividends but does not reflect advisory fees. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

Nasdaq Composite Index is the market capitalization-weighted index of over 3,300 common equities listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. The types of securities in the index include American depositary receipts, common stocks, real estate investment trusts (REITs) and tracking stocks, as well as limited partnership interests. The index includes all Nasdaq-listed stocks that are not derivatives, preferred shares, funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or debenture securities. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average measures the daily stock market movements of 30 U.S. publicly-traded companies listed on the NASDAQ or the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The 30 publicly-owned companies are considered leaders in the United States economy. An investor cannot directly invest in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The Bloomberg Global Aggregate Index is a flagship measure of global investment grade debt from twenty-four local currency markets. This multi-currency benchmark includes treasury, government-related, corporate and securitized fixed-rate bonds from both developed and emerging markets issuers. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The ICE Exchange-Listed Fixed & Adjustable Rate Preferred Securities Index is a modified market capitalization weighted index composed of preferred stock and securities that are functionally equivalent to preferred stock including, but not limited to, depositary preferred securities, perpetual subordinated debt and certain securities issued by banks and other financial institutions that are eligible for capital treatment with respect to such instruments akin to that received for issuance of straight preferred stock. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Index captures large and mid-cap representation across 22 of 23 Developed Markets (DM) countries (excluding the United States) and 24 Emerging Markets (EM) countries. The index covers approximately 85% of the global equity opportunity set outside the U.S. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The Russell 2000 Index is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 2000 small-cap company common stocks, selected by Russell. The Russell 2000 Index assumes reinvestment of dividends but does not reflect advisory fees. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The S&P Mid Cap 400 provides investors with a benchmark for mid-sized companies. The index, which is distinct from the large-cap S&P 500, is designed to measure the performance of 400 mid-sized companies, reflecting the distinctive risk and return characteristics of this market segment.

The S&P 500 Pure Value index is a style-concentrated index designed to track the performance of stocks that exhibit the strongest value characteristics by using a style-attractiveness-weighting scheme. An investor cannot directly invest in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

Nov 11

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Dollar Doom? Markets are Telling a Different Story

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Headlines have been buzzing over the last several weeks as gold and other “hard” assets have sprinted higher. The rally has been accompanied by a familiar storyline: investors are supposedly fleeing dollar assets, termed the “debasement trade,” because of the U.S.’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory, deficit spending, upended global trade, etc.¹

In the most extreme of cases, the narrative is that the dollar is doomed, which means investors need to look beyond dollar-denominated assets for secure investment opportunities.

Don’t “buy” it.

If the dollar were genuinely under siege and U.S. financial assets were being shunned, we would see telltale signs in various corners of the market. But we’re not.

Start with bonds. When investors fear a long-run loss of purchasing power, they usually demand higher yields to compensate. Instead, the opposite has unfolded: the 10-year Treasury yield is notably lower than where it began the year, and even the 30-year, typically most sensitive to long-term inflation worries, has drifted down as seen in the chart below. That isn’t the behavior of a market dumping Treasurys. On the contrary, it points to steady demand.

10- and 30-Year U.S. Treasury Bond Yields

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis²

Another place to look is inflation expectations. The 10-year breakeven rate sits a bit above 2.2%, and 30-year expected inflation is near that level as well. In other words, expectations are pretty firmly anchored, with bond markets still expecting inflation to average close to the Fed’s target over the long haul. If investors truly believed a lasting bout of currency erosion was at hand, you would expect those measures to pop, dramatically. They haven’t.

10- and 30-Year Expected Inflation

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis³

The dollar tells a similar story. After a weak first quarter, the broad trade-weighted dollar index has been broadly stable for months and has even outperformed several major peers recently. If fears of dollar erosion were truly driving flows, you would likely see a cocktail of rising long-term nominal yields, widening corporate credit spreads, and a sliding greenback. We’re just not seeing that now.

To be sure, I’m not making an argument against gold or other inflation hedges here. A modest allocation can diversify portfolios and dampen volatility, particularly during bouts of geopolitical stress or when real yields fall. The keyword is “modest.” Going all-in on a single narrative leaves investors exposed to timing and headline risk. If markets have taught anything in the last few years, it’s that stories can travel faster than fundamentals, and then reverse just as quickly.

Long-time readers of my columns know what I see as the most effective inflation hedge over time: owning stocks. Buying shares of leading businesses offers a natural inflation valve, since companies can lift prices, improve efficiency, and compound earnings over time. Across most rolling 10-year periods, U.S. stocks have outpaced inflation—even through episodes of rising deficits, shifting policy regimes, and currency fluctuations. Over longer investment horizons, which most investors have, profits and dividends have been powerful antidotes to inflation and currency fluctuations. I don’t see that changing now.

Bottom Line for Investors

The so-called “debasement trade” may have a kernel of logic behind it, but not the kind of logic that justifies labeling the dollar as doomed. When you strip away the noise, what markets are signaling is stability, not debasement. Bonds are rallying, inflation expectations are anchored, and the dollar remains the world’s preferred reserve currency. I’m confident that will not change in our lifetime.

For investors, that means this is not the time to overhaul portfolios in favor of hard assets or chase a narrative about dollar decline. The playbook hasn’t changed: own the world’s most productive companies, stay diversified across asset classes, and let corporate earnings compound over time. A small allocation to gold or other real assets can provide ballast, but the real protection against inflation or dollar weakness is the same as it’s always been, in my view: Own stocks.

¹Reuters. October 20, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/g-debasement-trade-2025-10-20-/5trbgk/1365057499/h/MRKBoufWwlpb8oEKjzYxtZbaBfL9mNRWT8wrtpBlPAc

²Fred Economic Data. October 28, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-DGS10/5trbgn/1365057499/h/MRKBoufWwlpb8oEKjzYxtZbaBfL9mNRWT8wrtpBlPAc

³Fred Economic Data. October 28, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-T10YIE/5trbgr/1365057499/h/MRKBoufWwlpb8oEKjzYxtZbaBfL9mNRWT8wrtpBlPAc

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Oct 27

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Do Recent Bankruptcies Signal Systemic Credit Market Problems?

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

The high-profile collapses of First Brands Group (a global auto-parts supplier) and Tricolor Holdings (a subprime auto lender) have stirred some alarm amongst investors. The central question investors are asking is: are these isolated failures, or early warnings of deeper credit stress?¹

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

First Brands’ bankruptcy is a striking story. The company, once an industrial roll-up boasting 26,000 employees and a portfolio spanning 25 well-known automotive brands, borrowed over $10 billion from a mix of Wall Street lenders and private funds. But as new directors and forensic accountants now sift through its books, they’ve uncovered what appears to be $2 billion in unaccounted-for funds and billions more in off–balance sheet borrowing.²

From my vantage, it appears that exposure to First Brands’ bad loans is spread across dozens of banks and collateralized loan obligation (CLO) funds, which is actually a good thing. It means no one institution’s holdings are likely large enough to trigger contagion. Even still, it’s a sharp reminder of the lack of transparency that has crept into parts of the private debt market, now approaching $2 trillion in size. It is relatively common to see these types of credit quality issues creep up near the end of an easy money environment. Increased risk aversion for debt investors who have been searching for yield would be appropriate in response to the First Brands’ bankruptcy.

Then there’s Tricolor Holdings, a Texas-based subprime auto lender that targeted borrowers without credit histories or documentation. It filed for liquidation last month, listing more than $1 billion in liabilities. The business model, based on “buy here, pay here” auto sales financed through asset-backed securities, crumbled under rising delinquencies and tighter funding conditions. Now, some tranches of Tricolor’s securitized debt that once traded above par are only worth pennies on the dollar.

Taken together, these bankruptcies show how weaker players at the fringes of the credit spectrum are struggling. Years of easy liquidity and investor demand for yield have encouraged aggressive underwriting. As the economy normalizes and interest rates settle above the near-zero era, some of those bets are now being tested.

The private credit market, in particular, is where I’m increasingly turning my focus. Defaults in business development companies (BDCs) and other private-lending vehicles have been creeping higher. Roughly 11% of loans in these portfolios now pay interest “in kind”, that is, with IOUs instead of cash—signaling stress among smaller borrowers. Fitch’s measure of private credit defaults hit 9.5% this summer before easing slightly.

This is a market and a trend worth monitoring very closely. As I write, however, I think it’s important to qualify that “higher defaults” does not mean “credit crisis.” Public credit markets, the most transparent barometer of corporate financial health, aren’t showing much strain. High-yield bond defaults remain near 1%, well below their long-term average of around 4%. And investment-grade and high-yield spreads, as seen in the chart below, remain historically tight. Investors aren’t demanding higher risk premiums, which suggests the market is still confident that these issues are more local than systemic.

The takeaway for investors, in my view, is to acknowledge that credit markets are running hot. The additional yield investors receive for holding corporate debt versus Treasurys has fallen to near 25-year lows, prompting companies to issue debt at record levels. This strength underscores confidence in the market, but it could also signal investor complacency. It’s important to constantly try to differentiate between the two.

Bottom Line for Investors

If I could sum this story up in a single sentence, it would be this: Remember that easy money often sows the seeds of future problems.

Or put in an even simpler way: bad loans are often made in good times.

The failures of First Brands and Tricolor are cautionary tales, and I think they warrant greater investor attention. They remind us that in the far reaches of the private and subprime credit universe, excesses built up during the era of cheap money are still unwinding. Investors should watch these developments closely, but also be careful not to overreact. Evidence from broader credit markets, like tight spreads, low defaults, and contained fallout, does not point to systemic stress, at least not yet.

¹ Wall Street. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/es-306d7869-mod-article-inline/5tql5g/1355093773/h/YN-hUysQ1y4uie04NzdszYAQt7KthqrMofBorT0yCqY

² Wall Street. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/mod-Searchresults-pos-4-page-1/5tql5k/1355093773/h/YN-hUysQ1y4uie04NzdszYAQt7KthqrMofBorT0yCqY

³Fred. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-BAMLC0A0CM-/5tql5n/1355093773/h/YN-hUysQ1y4uie04NzdszYAQt7KthqrMofBorT0yCqY

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Oct 13

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Why Markets Rarely Flinch at Government Shutdowns

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Why Markets Rarely Flinch at Government Shutdowns

As readers are well aware, the U.S. government officially shut down after lawmakers failed to reach a funding deal. To date, paychecks for hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been paused, and some national parks and agencies have been shuttered, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which supplies jobs and inflation data.

Government shutdowns almost always get constant media attention, perhaps understandably so. They are disruptive and create plenty of short-term uncertainty.¹

But for investors, they need not be a source of stress or urgent concern. History tells us, quite clearly, that shutdowns have not been a source of meaningful and certainly not lasting economic impact.

Since 1976, there have been more than 20 shutdowns of varying lengths. None has caused a recession. None has triggered a bear market. And in many cases, stocks moved higher during the shutdown and in the months immediately after. The longest shutdown on record, 35 days spanning late 2018 into early 2019, coincided with a strong equity rally.

If we parse out the data even more, going back to all shutdowns since 1976, we find that the S&P 500 was up an average of 12.1% in the year following a shutdown. In the second longest shutdown (21 days in late 1995 and early 1996), stocks went up 3.1% in the month after the shutdown, and +21.3% in the following year.

This is not to say shutdowns come without consequences and should be completely ignored. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees are furloughed without pay, while others, such as members of the military and air traffic controllers, continue working but receive their paychecks later. Businesses that depend on government contracts can see delays, and data collection also halts—which means key economic reports, including the monthly jobs and inflation data, are delayed. In an environment where the Federal Reserve is highly data-dependent, that could momentarily complicate monetary policy decisions.

Still, the broader economic footprint of a shutdown is surprisingly small. Most of the federal budget keeps flowing even when Washington hits a stalemate. Social Security, Medicare, and interest payments on U.S. debt continue, covering roughly three-quarters of total federal outlays. Mandatory programs don’t shut down. And when the government reopens, furloughed workers are paid retroactively, meaning much of the lost income and spending returns to the economy in short order.

For investors, that’s an important distinction. Shutdowns are inherently temporary, and markets know it. A federal funding impasse has yet to alter corporate earnings trends, long-term inflation trajectories, or consumer behavior in any meaningful way. In fact, markets often rise during shutdowns precisely because investors have seen this story before and know how it ends. The government eventually reopens, paychecks resume, and the economic data catch up.

Some commentators have worried about the potential for a shutdown to weigh on consumer confidence or market sentiment. That’s possible in the short term, especially if the headlines grow louder and political rhetoric intensifies. But even in those cases, the effect tends to fade quickly. The same pattern has repeated across decades, with temporary volatility followed by quick stabilization as markets refocus on fundamentals.

Bottom Line for Investors

The question for investors, then, is: are the economic fundamentals still strong enough for markets to look through the shutdown?

In my view, the answer is yes. Growth has moderated from last year’s pace, but the economy continues to expand. The jobs market is showing signs of leveling off, but unemployment remains low. Business investment remains solid, thanks in large part to AI investment, and corporate profits are holding up well. Our colleagues at Zacks Investment Research have been noting for some time now that forward estimates continue to trend higher, signaling confidence in corporate America. The U.S. financial system also remains in fine shape, with healthy lending activity in a monetary easing cycle.

In this kind of environment, it takes more than a political impasse to derail the broader trend.

¹Wall Street Journal. October 1, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/-mod-economy-more-article-pos2/5tp38p/1340471816/h/oHCC4EptMjDjKBX9l32s0Ez55oiv-jRLalL68_h0dWM

²Fred Economic Data. October 6, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-SP500-/5tp38s/1340471816/h/oHCC4EptMjDjKBX9l32s0Ez55oiv-jRLalL68_h0dWM

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Oct 09

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Will a Steepening Yield Curve Boost Financials and the Broader Economy?

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Conditions for a steepening yield curve are forming.

The Federal Reserve cut its benchmark fed funds rate by 25 basis points at its September meeting, and there are indications that more rate cuts are on the horizon. If the next few meetings go as many market participants anticipate, yields on the short end of the curve are poised to keep falling.

Meanwhile, yields on the longer end of the curve (10-year and 30-year U.S. Treasurys) have been steadily climbing. As seen on the chart below, 30-year U.S. Treasury bond yields recently brushed 5%, and the 10-year has remained above 4% all year.

As I wrote in a recent column, there are a few reasons to believe we could see sustained pressure on long duration bond yields. Debt issuance has picked up after the summer lull, increasing supply. Sentiment could also play a role—after years of near-zero interest rates and heavy central bank buying, investors have grown more sensitive to small shifts in expectations about growth, inflation, and policy. Expectations of lower growth and higher inflation can push yields up.

In that same column, I framed this dynamic as a potential positive. I argued that with central banks cutting short-term rates and long yields drifting higher, yield curves could be set to steepen, which is a classic marker of healthier credit conditions since it improves incentives for banks to lend. Remember, the basic business model of banking relies on borrowing money at short-term rates and putting it to work through longer-term loans. When the yield curve slopes upward, long rates exceeding short, banks have higher incentive to extend credit widely because the margin is in their favor.

The chart below shows the yield curve as the difference between yields on 3-month U.S. Treasurys and 10-year U.S. Treasurys. It’s clear that the yield curve has been flat for some time, but as outlined above, there’s a reasonably good thesis that we could see more steepening ahead.

A steeper yield curve is generally good news, but I want to be careful not to portray it as a definitive game-changer.

Although the correlation is relatively tight, banks’ lending margins don’t map directly to government bond spreads. Banks’ funding costs are shaped more by the abundance of deposits, swollen in recent years by pandemic-era fiscal transfers, than by short-term Treasury yields. Loan pricing, meanwhile, generally runs above long-term government yields, reflecting higher credit risk. This helps explain why loan growth (see chart below) has remained steady even during the curve’s inversion. In other words, banks did not suddenly stop lending when the curve flipped upside down, so it’s unlikely that merely un-inverting will spark a dramatic new lending boom.

To be sure, a modestly positive slope can provide a tailwind for Financials stocks, and it may offer some incremental support to credit creation. But as a barometer for the U.S. economy overall, the curve’s current steepening is more symbolic than fundamental. The bigger picture is that lending activity never really faltered, and the economy has kept grinding ahead despite widespread worries.

Bottom Line for Investors
A steepening yield curve is positive, and it can add some support for Financials. But I do not think we’re in a place in this cycle where a steeper curve will fundamentally alter the economic outlook. The U.S. economy remains sturdier than many appreciate, with strong employment and steady loan growth underscoring that resilience. For investors, a steeper yield curve is something to celebrate, but it’s not a panacea for weakness that could emerge elsewhere in the economy.

¹Fred Economic Data. September 30, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-DGS10-/5tn8sy/1333099486/h/geOAQyKBeBZ__09SQgDnxopD9r5IOqVUKxnO9oVEqrE

²Fred Economic Data. September 30, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-T10Y3M-/5tn8t5/1333099486/h/geOAQyKBeBZ__09SQgDnxopD9r5IOqVUKxnO9oVEqrE

³Fred Economic Data. September 26, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-TOTLL/5tn8tc/1333099486/h/geOAQyKBeBZ__09SQgDnxopD9r5IOqVUKxnO9oVEqrE

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Oct 03

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: The 4 Risks Investors Should Worry About Most

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Barring a sharp correction in the next few trading sessions, U.S. stocks are likely heading into the fourth quarter near all-time highs. I’ve made the case previously that steady, although fairly modest, economic growth paired with resilient earnings has supported prices to date. With the Federal Reserve poised to ease monetary policy as the economy expands, there is not a great case for being outright bearish.¹

But that does not mean risks are low. Below, I outline four that I think investors should be keenly watching in the next quarter and beyond.

Risk #1: A Second Wave of Inflation

Among institutional investors, recession fears dominated earlier this year, particularly following the “Liberation Day” announcement. Today, it’s inflation that is again the top concern. August CPI data underscored this concern, with inflation coming in hotter-than-expected. The risk here is that the Fed will again have to reverse course, just as the market is baking in expectations for several rate cuts.

Prices for some goods may rise, especially where tariffs hit. But without the monetary backdrop to sustain a broad-based surge, the specter of runaway inflation looks overstated, in my view. Broad money supply growth in the U.S. remains tame (see M2 money supply chart below), though the trend line will be worth watching closely in the months ahead.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ²

Risk #2: Concern Over Federal Reserve Independence and U.S. Dollar Weakness

Fed policy is always political to some degree, given that appointments come from the White House and confirmations from the Senate. Removing Fed governors because of a disagreement over policy would be a major concern, but the Supreme Court already reaffirmed this year that such an act would be illegal. Public criticism of rate policy may seem threatening, but it’s also nothing new, and there is little evidence it has swayed decision-making from the Federal Open Markets Committee.

As for the dollar, “de-dollarization” chatter resurfaces regularly, with Russia, China, or the BRICS bloc often floated as challengers. Yet data show the dollar still comprises more than half of global currency reserves, and it is involved in nearly 90% of all foreign exchange transactions. No other currency matches the U.S. dollar’s liquidity, stability, and global reach. Over time, the dollar’s share may fluctuate, but fears of sudden debasement or collapse look misplaced.

Risk #3: Over-Concentration

Tech remains the market’s favorite sector, with AI-related companies driving much of 2025’s gains. In my view, this enthusiasm reflects strong fundamentals. Q3 2025 Tech earnings are expected to rise over 12% year-over-year on similarly strong revenue growth.

But with enthusiasm comes concentration. When too much capital chases the same trade, markets become vulnerable to abrupt reversals if sentiment shifts. For now, earnings support remains solid, but this is a reminder of the importance of diversification. Overcrowding isn’t a reason to avoid strong companies, but it does raise the odds of volatility if momentum cools.

Risk #4: Rising Long-Term Bond Yields

The summer saw 30-year yields in the U.S., U.K., France, and Germany climb to multi-year highs, sparking a wave of debt-crisis headlines. In Britain, rising gilt yields were pinned on budget concerns. In France, an offhand remark about an IMF bailout got blown out of proportion. In the U.S., some tied higher yields to worries about refunding tariffs should courts strike them down.

But a closer look reveals that rising long yields is a global issue. Italy, Spain, Canada, and Australia all saw long-term yields rise in tandem. In my view, and as I’ve written before, this trend is less about country-specific fiscal woes and more about sentiment flowing through interconnected global bond markets. Historically, modest increases in long rates alongside central bank rate cuts steepen yield curves, which is a setup that can support lending and growth.

Bottom Line for Investors

It’s a mixed bag right now for investors. Many are growing more bullish as 2025 closes, but worries also remain. Inflation, Fed independence, dollar stability, crowded trades, and rising yields all top the list. But it’s also true that these risks are widely known and widely discussed, which in my view reduces their power to derail the bull market.

For long-term investors, the persistence of these worries ultimately creates a constructive backdrop. Earnings continue to hold up, the Fed has begun easing, and the economy is chugging along despite headwinds. Volatility may flare if one of these worries dominates headlines again, or if the risk comes to fruition in a worse way than expected. That’s why I’m urging investors to stay focused on them.

¹TrustNet. September 16, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/ite-record-overvaluation-fears/5tmj31/1326236343/h/GiShj21LxhtbTDGNKyNnyarlFm8_dLP4EUXm8RxlG2U

²Fred Economic Data. September 23, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-WM2NS-/5tmj34/1326236343/h/GiShj21LxhtbTDGNKyNnyarlFm8_dLP4EUXm8RxlG2U

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Sep 24

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: The Fed Cuts Rates, But Remember What Really Moves Markets

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

The Federal Reserve cut rates by 25 basis points last week, a widely expected move that I would argue was priced into markets weeks, if not months, ago. Readers should expect the media and Fed prognosticators to spend the next several weeks debating the size and frequency of future cuts.

From an investment perspective, however, there are far better ways to spend your time.

I’d start by parsing the economic backdrop against which the Fed made its move. Last week brought a pair of reports that I would label as “stagflation-light.” Consumer prices in August accelerated slightly faster than expected, with core CPI rising 3.1% year-over-year. At the same time, labor market figures showed more weakness than previously thought. A major revision reduced payroll gains by nearly a million jobs from prior estimates, and August’s unemployment rate ticked up to 4.3%. Payroll growth slowed to a trickle, with June even registering a net job loss after revisions. A headline in the Wall Street Journal this week summed it up: “More Americans are Stuck with the Jobs They Can Get, Not the Ones They Want.”¹

Taken together, the view from 30,000 feet suggests that while the job market isn’t collapsing, the days of “goldilocks” balance, low inflation, and strong job growth, are clearly behind us.

This combination does not amount to stagflation in the 1970s sense, however, with runaway inflation and high unemployment. Instead, it looks more like stagnation: a slow patch where growth cools, inflation runs a bit hotter than policymakers would like, and businesses hesitate to make longer-term investments. Consumer spending is still positive, and business outlays on areas, like intellectual property and AI infrastructure, remain robust. This results in a picture of an economy experiencing ‘muddle-through’ growth—not great, but not dismal either.

Against this backdrop, the Fed’s quarter-point cut looks less like the start of an aggressive easing cycle and more like a recalibration. Policymakers appear to be acknowledging that tariff-related inflation pressures are likely a one-time shock rather than the start of a lasting upward spiral. At the same time, they are signaling an awareness that labor market weakness is mounting. The Fed’s updated projections will show just how seriously they are weighing those risks. But whether this cut turns into a series of cuts will ultimately depend on the data in the coming months.

For investors, the key point to come back to, in my view, is that monetary policy is not the main driver of stock prices. Earnings remain the heartbeat of equity markets, and here, the outlook is broadly supportive. With the Q2 reporting season effectively in the rearview mirror, S&P 500 earnings are on track to have risen +12.1% from a year earlier on +6.1% revenue growth. Looking ahead, Q3 earnings for the index are expected to climb another +5.1% on +5.9% higher revenues. Importantly, estimates have been revised upward in recent weeks, as seen in the chart below.

To be fair, the earnings picture remains top-heavy. Strip out Tech’s contribution in the coming quarter, and S&P 500 earnings growth would be closer to +2.1%. This unevenness raises the odds that actual results could disappoint relative to rising expectations, particularly in sectors under pressure like Medical, Transportation, and Basic Materials.

Still, the overall revisions trend is positive, which is not what you would expect if the economy were tipping into recession. Yes, the economy is slowing, and yes, tariffs are creating headwinds. But corporate America is still finding ways to grow, and earnings power is intact.

Bottom Line for Investors

Shifting the focus away from the Fed decision is not meant to totally diminish its significance. A lower policy rate can help steepen the yield curve and reduce some financing pressures, particularly in interest-rate-sensitive areas like housing or credit creation. But it would be a stretch to argue that one quarter-point cut will meaningfully change the economic cycle or override the market’s longer-term trend. The decision was telegraphed well in advance and priced in by investors weeks ago. That means the announcement itself carries little surprise power for markets.

More important is the economic backdrop, which I would characterize more as stagnation than stagflation. While policy uncertainty and weaker job growth may keep volatility elevated in the near term, corporate earnings remain the critical driver for markets, and the outlook for Q3 is encouraging at this moment.

¹Reuters. September 12, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/r-than-stagflation-2025-09-12-/5tl1m1/1320635682/h/Sk9R3dptH8K4_UDgkXGz6C-jhr5TPu_NGuh–53dZmw

²Zacks.com. September 10, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/nings-expectations-good-or-bad/5tl1m4/1320635682/h/Sk9R3dptH8K4_UDgkXGz6C-jhr5TPu_NGuh–53dZmw

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Sep 16

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Bond Yields are Rising Globally. Should Investors Be Concerned?

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Bond markets aren’t known for volatility and tend to be viewed as a relatively boring, relatively stable component of capital markets. Stories over the past couple of weeks have suggested otherwise.

We’ve seen quite a bit of coverage concerning rising long-term government bond yields across the world. Notably, the 30-year U.S. Treasury brushed 5%, U.K. gilt yields reached their highest levels since 1998, and French yields hit multidecade peaks. Commentary about potential debt crises, inflation spirals, or even potential bailouts (France) followed shortly thereafter.

The spoiler alert here is that long duration bond yields have fallen back since, as has the media coverage about a potential crisis. But the unfolding of this story is worth a closer look, as it offers insights and takeaways for investors to keep in mind going forward.¹

Take the U.S. narrative as an example. Some reports tied higher 30-year Treasury yields to fears about America’s fiscal trajectory, pointing out that interest costs on our country’s debt have ballooned and now exceed defense spending. In the U.K., coverage pointed to public finance concerns and a currency under pressure. France got its turn when a finance minister’s offhand comment about the IMF was spun into bailout speculation. And finally, Germany’s rising yields were tied to the cost and timing of its fiscal stimulus.

The key point for investors to notice is that each country’s rising yields came with their own unique explanation, but the broader story seemed to be missed completely. That is, that long duration yields were moving in tandem across developed markets. Even countries showing fiscal restraint, like Italy, saw their 30-year yield jump recently. The Netherlands, where debt is less than 50% of GDP, has experienced one of the biggest moves of all. Clearly, this isn’t about one country’s fiscal or inflation outlook.

So, what could have been a factor driving global bond yields higher? There’s no single answer, in my view, but there could be a few factors at play. Debt issuance has picked up after the summer lull, increasing supply. Seasonal patterns matter as well. September has historically been a weak month for long bonds, with global long-dated government debt posting a median loss of about 2% over the past decade. Finally, sentiment almost always plays a role. After years of near-zero interest rates and heavy central bank buying, investors have grown more sensitive to small shifts in expectations about growth, inflation, or policy. Long-term yields are where those expectations get expressed.

This is not to say that tariffs, inflation, or deficits are irrelevant. Tariff-driven price pressures have shown up modestly in recent inflation readings, and governments everywhere are contending with higher refinancing costs after borrowing heavily during the pandemic. But these are longer-term drags, not sudden shocks. The fact that yields are rising together across continents suggests the driver isn’t one country’s fiscal math, but rather a broad repricing of long-term debt globally. In short, something to keep an eye on but not panic over.

Perspective also helps. Looking at a 5-year chart of the U.S. 30-year Treasury bond yield shows a line moving steeply, up and to the right. But that’s only because yields were closer to 1.5% in 2020, which interest rates were at historic lows in the wake of the pandemic. Zooming out even further, it’s plain to see that today’s levels are low relative to previous decades.

In fact, there may be positives here. With central banks cutting short-term rates and long yields drifting higher, yield curves are steepening, particularly outside the U.S. A steeper curve is a classic marker of healthier credit conditions, since it improves incentives for banks to lend. Rather than a warning sign, it may be an early indication that growth momentum is building, even if tariff and policy uncertainty continue to cloud the outlook.

Bottom Line for Investors

The ‘relatively stable, relatively boring’ expectation for bond markets can make sudden upticks uncomfortable, and it can also give rise to worrisome media narratives. But volatility in bond markets is normal. A few dozen basis points up or down doesn’t necessarily mark a crisis, and it’s not always necessary or constructive to require an explanation. Sometimes it’s just global markets adjusting and sentiment shifting.

As mentioned, the uptick in long-duration bond yields could even be construed as a positive for equity markets. A steepening yield curve often signals improving credit conditions, which could provide a growth tailwind looking ahead.

¹Wall Street Journal. September 3, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/4-mod-wsj-furtherreading-pos-1/5tjz78/1314640372/h/MDfe-Ly6O6wtwVUdxjVMFG6_yeynFRXXvQzRkm38BtY

DISCLOSURE

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Sep 10

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Earnings Strength Confirms Resilience, But Leadership Remains Narrow

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

The Q2 2025 earnings season is wrapping up, with just a handful of companies left to report. The results provide a clear message: American corporations found ways to power ahead, despite a challenging backdrop of tariffs, policy uncertainty, and shifting global demand.

As I write, total Q2 2025 earnings are on track to rise by +12.1% from a year earlier on +6.1% higher revenues. Long time readers of my column know how much weight I place on strong earnings results. But the real market-moving feature of this earnings season was not just the strong results. It was about how much they exceeded expectations.¹

Take a look at the chart below. You can see that 80.3% of S&P 500 companies exceeded earnings per share (EPS) estimates, which is nicely above the five-year average of 77.9%. The percentage of companies that beat revenue estimates also stands out as well above the five-year average and previous years’ results.²

The one sentence takeaway: businesses are still spending, consumers are still buying, and markets have responded accordingly.

This is not a cause for being ‘pound the table bullish,’ however. As I’ve written in recent columns, the feedback loop on tariffs and other policy changes is not immediate. Companies front-ran many tariffs and have worked through inventory, without having to pass on too many costs to consumers or see a big impact on margins. But this can’t continue indefinitely.

If tariffs persist at current levels, or rise further, more companies will likely need to raise prices, which could eventually weigh on demand. Business investment data also point to the same caution. While equipment spending looked solid in Q2, investment in structures fell -10.3%, and R&D registered its third consecutive decline. Both trends hint at executives becoming more selective about long-term projects until they see a clearer policy direction.

Leadership in the market also remains narrow. Technology firms continue to drive much of the growth story. In Q2, Tech sector earnings grew at a double-digit pace, propelled by demand for data centers, chips, and software tied to AI. The “Magnificent 7” stocks in particular have been standout performers, with earnings up +26.4% year-over-year on +15.5% higher revenues. While this leadership has lifted indexes, it has also concentrated risk. Excluding the Tech sector, Q3 earnings for the rest of the S&P 500 are expected to rise just +2.1%, compared with +5% overall. That discrepancy highlights how much weight a small group of companies continues to carry.

There are reasons to be cautious, but on balance, the economy continues to look ‘steady state’ to me. For Q3, S&P 500 earnings are projected to grow +5% from last year on +6% revenue growth. Notably, estimates have ticked higher since the start of July, which is a reversal from recent years when estimates tended to drift lower as the quarter progressed. The growth engine continues to run hottest in a few specific places like Tech, so we’ll need to see if that strength continues to broaden. It’s a reminder that investors should be mindful of concentration and avoid extrapolating recent gains as if they were uniform across the market. It’s important to be selective.

Bottom Line for Investors

Second-quarter earnings confirmed what markets have been signaling for months: resilience is still the operative word for the U.S. economy and corporate profits. Upward revisions to Q3 estimates and continued consumer spending are encouraging signs that growth hasn’t run out of steam. But it would be a mistake to assume the rally will be a straight line higher from here. The earnings picture remains top-heavy, and companies may not be able to shield consumers from higher tariff costs indefinitely.

Overall, I think the backdrop remains bullish, supported by healthy profits, fiscal tailwinds, and a still-strong labor market. Staying invested is the right approach, but balancing exposure beyond the biggest winners can help ensure portfolios remain positioned for whatever the next phase of this expansion delivers.

¹Wall Street Journal. April 28, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/onomy-trendingnow-article-pos5/5tj7by/1310520493/h/gMfhEJJWnxSoKzUFqNyuFAcg2GLIuStlz5bnUo-tzGk

²Zacks.com August 27, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/q2-retail-earnings-good-or-bad/5tj7c2/1310520493/h/gMfhEJJWnxSoKzUFqNyuFAcg2GLIuStlz5bnUo-tzGk

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Sep 03

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Why a September Rate Cut Likely Won’t Impact Markets Much

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

The financial media and many in the investor community are eyeing the Fed’s September meeting with bated breath. I’m already looking past it.

At this stage, markets are pricing in a 100% probability of a 25-basis-point cut, with a very small chance of a larger 50-point move. As I’ve written many times before, markets move on surprises, not widely known information. When it comes to the upcoming Fed decision, the surprise factor is essentially nil. The Fed has been telegraphing its thinking pretty clearly for weeks.¹

Rate cuts make for dramatic headlines, but in practice, they rarely alter the trend already in motion. When the Fed started cutting rates in January 2001 (nearly a year into the dot-com bust), stocks fell another 40% before finally bottoming in 2002. When the Fed cut rates in September 2007, the S&P 500 peaked just a few weeks later. The Global Financial Crisis followed. On both occasions, the cuts were real-time responses to worsening conditions, not tools that fundamentally changed the direction of the cycle.

Some may offer the counter-argument that Fed cuts in 1974 and 1990 were followed by powerful and lasting stock market rallies. But in those years, the Fed began cutting just months after bear markets had already bottomed. I would argue that stocks rebounded not because of the policy shift, but because the cuts happened to coincide with the early months of a new bull market. The rally was driven by positive forward-looking economic fundamentals and the anticipation of an earnings rebound, not by the central bank.

I want to be fair here, however, in acknowledging that rate cut cycles tend to be good for stocks on a forward-looking basis. On average, the S&P 500 has done reasonably well after initial cuts: about 7% forward returns over six months and roughly 12% over 12 months. But investors should not take these averages to mean that the rate cuts are the catalysts for strong returns. The cuts themselves aren’t the deciding factor—the economic and earnings cycles are. Rate cuts help, but they don’t drive.

We saw the opposite play out in 2022. For months, Fed officials downplayed the need to raise rates as inflation accelerated. Remember the “inflation is transitory” narrative? When the Fed reversed course in March and began aggressive hikes, the sudden shift was a surprise, jolting investor sentiment. It wasn’t the hikes themselves that drove the bear market—it was the abrupt change in expectations, i.e. the negative surprise. We don’t have that today.

In the current environment, we largely see a resilient U.S. economy, even as some signs of slowing are starting to show. In this economic environment, a 25-basis-point cut may steepen the yield curve slightly and marginally encourage lending. But the U.S. economy and credit creation have been holding up just fine with rates at current levels, where they’ve been since December 2022. I don’t think a widely telegraphed 25 basis point cut is going to make a major difference.

None of this is to say the direction of rates doesn’t matter. Over the long term, easier monetary policy can support growth at the margin, especially if it steepens the curve and helps banks lend. But investors should remember: The Fed is more often a follower than a leader. Cuts typically reflect conditions already visible in the data, not catalysts that create new ones.

Bottom Line for Investors

September’s rate cut will be a headline-grabber, but its pricing power on stocks is likely to be minimal, in my view. Markets already know it’s coming, and history shows Fed cuts don’t alter the prevailing trend. Investors should focus less on the drama of Fed decision day and more on the fundamentals—corporate earnings, consumer resilience, and global growth drivers. Those, not a single quarter-point move, are what shape long-term market returns.

¹Black Rock. April 25, 2025. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/tential-portfolio-implications/5thcyf/1303156704/h/QWWdKPoIzENSL0MPL39x8wdrkrkgan-gzxDrYJ_IcEM
DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Weekly Market Commentary

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: The Perils of Taking Private Markets Public

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Dollar Doom? Markets are Telling a Different Story

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Do Recent Bankruptcies Signal Systemic Credit Market Problems?

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Why Markets Rarely Flinch at Government Shutdowns

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Will a Steepening Yield Curve Boost Financials and the Broader Economy?

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: The 4 Risks Investors Should Worry About Most

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: The Fed Cuts Rates, But Remember What Really Moves Markets

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Bond Yields are Rising Globally. Should Investors Be Concerned?

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Earnings Strength Confirms Resilience, But Leadership Remains Narrow

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Why a September Rate Cut Likely Won’t Impact Markets Much

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta