The Money Spigots

QUESTION: What do you think of the closure of the ports due to the strike?

MY RESPONSE: I’ve been following it closely. In case you missed the news, the giant union that controls port workers on the East Coast, the Gulf Coast, Canada, Puerto Rico, Bahamas, major rivers and the Great Lakes — with over 85,000 members — has gone on strike. They are demanding an increase to their wages of $5/hr every year for the next six years, and an air-tight guarantee that shipping lines will stop all efforts to automate the ports.

This concerns us for two reasons. First, because we added container shipping line, Zim Integrated Shipping [ZIM] to the Official List a month ago. Zim is in the business of transporting containers, and many of its containers move through ports affected by the strike.

Whenever something disrupts the flow of containers around the world, shipping rates soar. We saw this with Covid and then with the Red Sea closure. This strike is just another potential bonanza for shipping lines like Zim.

This likely explains why Zim was the best performing shipping stock in September, rising 40.4%.

Our thesis for buying Zim had nothing to do with strikes or other disruptions. Zim’s stock looked mispriced relative to the profits it is making, and the giant pile of cash it holds on the balance sheet. If rates could stay high for another two months, we said, Zim would likely pay out a 30%-plus dividend early next year, based on our cost basis for the stock.

So a strike significantly improves the odds of us receiving a large dividend from Zim early next year…

Our strategy remains the same. We’re holding out for a 50% gain here, which based on our official entry price equates to a sell price of $27.89. If Zim’s stock touches $27.89, I’ll issue a sell alert and take the 50% gain. In the meantime, I’m moving ZIM to ‘HOLD’ and keeping ZIM marked “Sell at a 50% gain.”

The second reason the strike concerns us is because of our Big Picture view. In short, the longshoremen are at risk of becoming the next victims of globalization. If the shipping lines get their way, the ports will be automated, as they are in other countries, and the longshoremen will eventually lose their jobs.

But if the longshoremen get their way, US ports will become even more inefficient and expensive to operate, and ultimately US consumers will pay higher prices for the imported goods they buy.

In other words, this is a fight between globalization and onshoring. Cheaper consumer goods or protected US jobs. Political unrest or a weak dollar.

Our position is simple. They’re going to let the dollar go against gold. It’s already started. We call this the “synchronized global currency devaluation.” They’ll water down the real value of the debt. They’ll choose onshoring… and inflation… and protectionism.

The other aspect of the ports issue — which catches my attention — is whether supply chain bottlenecks ever did, or ever will again, cause inflation. Our argument is that the 20% expansion in the money supply from 2020 to 2022 resulted in the 25% shift higher in the entire price level. It wasn’t the lockdown policies that produced inflation. And it wasn’t corporate greed. It was the huge gusher of money spewing out of Washington.

However, if there WAS any truth that it was the supply chain that caused inflation — constrained supply meeting pent up demand — well then we ought to see that again in a prolonged port strike. In fact, that wouldn’t surprise us at all.

Any higher inflation numbers between now and the election, which is just now just 34 days away, will be blamed on the union’s strike. In the big picture, we know that inflation is now the deliberate policy in DC. The soaring national debt requires it. ~~ Tom Dyson, Bonner Private Research

Tom Dyson, Bonner Private Research

QUESTION: What do you think of the closure of the ports due to the strike?

This likely explains why Zim was the best performing shipping stock in September, rising 40.4%.

So a strike significantly improves the odds of us receiving a large dividend from Zim early next year…

But if the longshoremen get their way, US ports will become even more inefficient and expensive to operate, and ultimately US consumers will pay higher prices for the imported goods they buy.

In other words, this is a fight between globalization and onshoring. Cheaper consumer goods or protected US jobs. Political unrest or a weak dollar.

By then the receipts on my desk had arranged themselves into a sort of chorus. I heard, faintly, another refrain—one from Kentucky. In the first days of the shutdown, Senator Rand Paul stood alone among Republicans and voted against his party’s stopgap, telling interviewers that the numbers “don’t add up” and that he would not sign on to another year that piles $2 trillion onto the debt.

That, I realized, is what the tariff story shares with the broader budget theater: the habit of calling a tax something else, of shifting burdens into the fog and then celebrating the silhouette as victory. Even the vote tally made the point: he was the only Republican “no,” a lonely arithmetic lesson in a crowded room.

Senator Rand Paul, (R. KY), who was the sole Republican to vote against a continuing resolution, seems to care about the actual finances of the government. “I would never vote for a bill that added $2 trillion in national debt,” Paul said in various interviews over the weekend.

The $2 trillion he’s referring to is the lesser of two proposals made by the national parties… and would accrue during this next fiscal year.

Oy.

We liked what Liz Wolfe at Reason wrote on Friday, so we’ll repeat it here: “One of the dirty little secrets of every shutdown is that everything remains mostly fine. Private markets could easily replace many federal functions.”

It’s a strange kind of confidence — one where Wall Street soars while Washington goes dark.

The Liberal Democratic Party victory has sent Japanese stocks soaring, as party President Sanae Takaichi – now set to become Japan’s first female Prime Minister – is a proponent of stimulus spending, and a China hawk. The electoral win is a vote to keep the yen carry trade alive… and well.

The “yen carry trade” is a currency trading strategy. By borrowing Japanese yen at low interest rates and investing in higher-yielding assets, investors have profited from the interest rate differential. Yen carry trades have played a huge role in global liquidity for decades.

Frankly, we’re disappointed — not because of the carry trade but because the crowd got this one so wrong!

Back in the Global Financial Crisis (2008), we recall mass layoffs were driving desperation.

Today, unemployment is relatively low, if climbing.

Affordability is much more of an issue. Food, rent, healthcare, and childcare are all rising faster than wages. Households aren’t jobless; they’re stretched. Job “quits” are at crisis-level lows.

In addition to the top 10% of earners, consumer spending is still strong. Not necessarily because of prosperity, but because households are taking extra shifts, hustling gigs, working late into the night, and using credit cards. The trends hold up demand but hollow out savings.

It’s the quiet form of financial repression. In an era of fiscal dominance, savers see easy returns clipped, workers stretch hours just to stay even, and wealth slips upward into assets while daily life grows harder to afford.

The $2 trillion he’s referring to is the lesser of two proposals made by the national parties… and would accrue during this next fiscal year.

Oy.

It’s a strange kind of confidence — one where Wall Street soars while Washington goes dark.

Frankly, we’re disappointed — not because of the carry trade but because the crowd got this one so wrong!

Back in the Global Financial Crisis (2008), we recall mass layoffs were driving desperation.

Today, unemployment is relatively low, if climbing.