Daily Commentary

MarketMinder’s View: The titular trend? America’s economic expansion chugs along despite lackluster jobs data. “That dichotomy of an expanding economy and a softening labor market presents a conundrum for policymakers at the Federal Reserve, complicating their efforts to determine whether the economy needs cooling or boosting.” A “jobless expansion” is an alleged negative because it presumes jobs support economic growth, i.e., if the labor market doesn’t rebound, the broader economy will eventually falter. That then supposedly raises the likelihood of a Fed policy mistake (e.g., not cutting rates to “support” the economy) or even recession ahead. And while monetary policy mistakes (i.e., leaving rates too low for too long or raising them too quickly) can have economic consequences, we see a couple of points worth noting here. For one, the argument relies heavily on some Fed official quotes to suggest increased uncertainty around upcoming policy decisions. Sounds spooky, but this is nothing new. Years of Fed meeting minutes show plenty of debate and disagreement among officials—we don’t see a novel threat here. Moreover, weak hiring doesn’t portend future economic weakness or contraction. We saw this through much of 2010 – 2012 and in the late 1990s (per FactSet). Yet no recession followed the former. The reason: Jobs are always and everywhere a lagging economic indicator, which is why you generally get handwringing about a “jobless recovery” early in a new cycle. Labor represents a big investment of time and money, and businesses tend not to add or reduce headcount unless absolutely necessary—which means action tends to follow a long stretch of economic weakness or contraction. To us, this piece is heavy on fearful speculation, not anything useful for investors.

MarketMinder’s View: For those nearing retirement, this piece provides some useful perspective on situations where one spouse or partner stops working before the other. The upshot: having a financial plan (ideally before one partner stops working) can help both parties navigate the financial and emotional changes of going from two paychecks to one. Preemptive planning and effective communication can go a long way. That might seem simple, but it is less common than you might think. “Of the more than 1,500 couples surveyed, 24 percent had not agreed on how much income they would need to live on during retirement. And 25 percent disagreed on how much they would spend on experiences, including travel and hobbies.” Thus, for those making a plan with a partner, it makes sense to discuss these points in detail. Will we retire together? If not, who will retire first and when? In this scenario, what will our income and expenses look like? What lifestyle do we envision? Take time to imagine each potential outcome. Your plan doesn’t have to play out exactly, but having expectations in place can help reduce unnecessary tensions or stress. Even if you or your spouse are years away from retirement, this is still worth keeping in mind. Consider: “Among retired respondents in a 2024 study by Ameriprise, a financial services firm, just 11 percent of partners retired together, while 62 percent staggered their dates by at least a year. But only 39 percent of respondents who hadn’t retired yet anticipated working more than a year after their partner stopped.”

MarketMinder’s View: A political update here, so please note MarketMinder prefers no party nor politician, assessing developments solely for their potential market and/or economic effects. Last Friday, Japan’s cabinet approved new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s widely hyped economic package worth ¥21.3 trillion ($135.8 billion). It now goes to the legislature in the form of a supplemental budget, which will require opposition votes to pass given the government lacks a majority. So nothing here is final, but it is a starting point for debate. That means the provisions, which this article outlines, could get sanded down or left on the cutting room floor. So while there seems to be broad enthusiasm for things like targeted strategic investment across several industrial sectors, increased defense spending, public-private partnership investments and more, there is a risk of sentiment getting too far out over its skis. Note, too, that not all the measures here equate to direct government spending. A small example: “The government will set aside ¥2 trillion for its existing grant program that allows regional governments to flexibly decide how to use the funds to counter rising prices, hoping to encourage the introduction of measures such as the utilization of rice vouchers and electronic coupons.” A lot of this isn’t “stimulus” in the traditional sense of the word. So as the debate progresses, how expectations evolve and whether reality looks likely to disappoint will be worth watching.