Daily Commentary

MarketMinder’s View: There are several publicly traded companies mentioned here, so please note MarketMinder doesn’t make individual security recommendations. We are here for the broader theme only: the rise in corporate bankruptcies this year. First, the data: “At least 717 companies filed for bankruptcy through November, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. That’s roughly 14 percent more than the same 11 months of 2024, and the highest tally since 2010.” Overall, this piece does a decent job breaking down which type of companies are struggling and why (most cited inflation and political uncertainty). Interestingly, “The rise in filings is most apparent among industrials — companies tied to manufacturing, construction and transportation. The sector has been hit hard by President Donald Trump’s ever-fluid tariff policies — which he’s long insisted would revive American manufacturing. … Among industrials, bankruptcies spanned a mix of manufacturers and suppliers, as well as transportation-oriented firms and renewable energy companies. Many of those companies had specific preexisting problems unrelated to tariffs and the economy.” That is a useful reminder, in our view, that campaign promises and some high-level policies aren’t sufficient to override long-running issues, i.e., a tariff tweak won’t keep an unprofitable business afloat. Now, as scary as the titular point sounds, rising bankruptcies aren’t a blaring warning alarm for the economy. To be clear, we aren’t dismissing the financial stress and emotional pain for the many folks involved. But from a macroeconomic perspective, bankruptcies tend to follow, not lead, economic pain. They are after effects of issues markets already priced in. Again, we feel for all those involved, but bankruptcies don’t signal economic or market trouble to come. For more, see Elisabeth Dellinger’s February column, “Sometimes a Bankruptcy Is Just a Bankruptcy.”

MarketMinder’s View: Shiny metals continue receiving their flowers thanks to their strong 2025 returns. This piece focuses on silver, which has dwarfed gold’s well-publicized rise. That said, we found the overall investment discussion here mixed. Sensibly, it notes silver’s utility differences versus gold, noting: “Silver’s varied uses mean its market price is influenced by a wide array of events including shifts in manufacturing cycles and interest rates and even renewable energy policy.” Correct. Element Ag is a key ingredient in circuit boards, switches, solar panels and more, and that varied use means more supply and demand drivers can affect prices. For example, the article suggests regulatory headwinds in Mexico, Peru and China likely contributed to lower production and thus supply tightness this year, pushing prices up. However, the article misses what we think is a key driver: short-term sentiment swings, which are near impossible to predict. Now silver is obviously less prone to this than gold, which has basically no industrial use. But even with its broader real-world demand, it is prone to sentiment-induced boom and bust. We have seen this movie before. In 2011, silver spiked on hype and big sentiment swings over future supply and demand scuttlebutt. It crashed hard. Today’s speculation over various potential supply and demand changes strikes a similar note, and it comes with a heaping dose of hype and bandwagon jumping. None of this makes short-term moves predictable, which is the point: Trying to time these cycles with any consistency is extremely difficult. For more on why, see our October commentary, “Silver, Revisited.”

MarketMinder’s View: This piece highlights some of 2025’s headline-grabbing fears, including President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the dollar’s fall versus other major currencies and Fed independence (please also note that MarketMinder is nonpartisan, assessing these topics solely for their potential economic/market effects). The article acknowledges the consensus largely overrated the negative economic effects of all three even when they carried real negatives, as we think tariffs did. On tariffs, most initially overlooked their use as negotiation tactics and the global economy’s ability to sidestep them, dismissing the possibility that tariffs would be lower and less broad than feared once they took effect. On the dollar, many overstated the greenback’s “weakness” especially when compared to not-too-distant history. Fed independence? Those concerned seemingly missed that the Fed is inherently a political creature, rendering 2025’s rumblings more of the same. Yes, tariffs’ scope and scale negatively surprised markets, contributing to 2025’s early-year correction. But markets quickly discerned today’s better-than-feared economic reality. Therein lies our takeaway: Scary economic stories can be … well, scary. But considering all the attention they receive, markets price them in and move on quickly, making them bricks in stocks’ wall of worry—a counterintuitive bullish factor.