The major averages made all-time highs again this week, except the Nasdaq. It is just a matter of time before that tech-heavy index joins the party. But what happens after that?

The short answer is that we go higher, maybe not right away, but soon. January, you may recall, was a down month, which was similar to last year. This month saw a recovery followed by higher highs just like last year. If the trend versus last year continues, we should see further gains in March, possibly fueled by more demand from overseas investors.

Given that the United States is the only game in town for bond buyers, if off-shore investors want yield and safety, we should expect to see a continuation of demand for our bonds. That should keep interest rates low and stock prices up. If so, we should expect to see a broadening out of stock market participation, which is usually a bullish indicator.

I've noticed that while the S&P 500 Index, the Dow Industrial and Transport averages, the Russell 2000, the Nasdaq 100 and the Mid-cap  S&P 400 are all above the 2007 highs, one of the largest indexes around has lagged the party. I'm talking about the NYSE Composite Index of 2000 listed stocks, including REITs and ADRs (American Depositary Receipt) of foreign companies. This is a big index and about 25 percent of those stocks represent foreign companies.

It appears to me that the NYSE Composite is getting ready to play catch-up with the other averages. Although I am not sure, one reason this index may be lagging is due to the underperformance of the foreign components of the index. However, thanks to central bank quantitative easing in both Europe and Asia, a number of foreign stock markets are starting to participate in the U.S. rally.

In fact, so far this year some foreign markets, such as Japan and parts of Europe, have outperformed our own stock market. This could continue as the impact of monetary stimulus begins to take hold within their economies. That could set us up here at home for even further stock market gains in a virtuous circle.

Does that mean that it will be smooth sailing from now on? Not likely. Although I am confident that the Nasdaq will break its old Dot.com high of 2000, investors should then expect a bout of profit-taking. If we look at the short-term conditions of the market, I would say that almost all the averages are over bought and are due for a pullback, but that's exactly what we long-term investors want to see.

Two steps forward and one step back is a concept that my longtime readers are familiar with. In bull markets, like most of life, there are good times, followed by a little disappointment, and then more good times. That is the kind of stair-step market that I believe we are enjoying right now. There will be plenty of reasons for why the markets are too high and should be sold — slow growth, lower earnings, fear of higher interest rates, etc. — but these will be sorted out and stocks will climb higher after some profit-taking.

In my mind, the party isn't over until the fat lady sings and nobody I see is even overweight. For those of you who want a bit more beta in your portfolio, you might want to add some overseas investments, but remember risk and reward. You will be betting that despite poorer economic fundamentals, overseas markets will play catchup with our own stock market. If you are wrong, what gains you might make here could be lowered or even erased by losses overseas. As always, it is your choice.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

The Department of Labor is trying again. This week, a proposed new rule, backed by the president, would force all financial advisers to adopt a "fiduciary responsibility" toward their clients when overseeing retirement plans. If passed, it could substantially reduce the fees and expenses we pay for that advice.

So exactly what is this fiduciary responsibility that President Obama is championing? The rule would require all advisers to put their client's interests above all other considerations when making investment recommendations on accounts covered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. That means the bulk of middle class savings represented by all types of IRAs, 401 (k)s, 403 (B)s, pensions, et al. would finally be protected from the present practices of gouging Americans through investing them in high-priced, low-return investment vehicles.

"But I thought that was already the law," said a New York client, on hearing the news.

Actually it is not. Unless you work with a registered investment adviser, most financial advisers on Wall Street are simply required to suggest products that are "suitable" to investors. In practical terms, all that means is that a broker can't put your uninformed, 92-year-old granny into a foreign penny stock that fluctuates 10 percent or so on a daily basis. Anything else is fair game and the industry has taken advantage of that suitability rule to rake in billions over the years from you and me.

It is estimated that over the course of 25 years of saving for retirement, the average investor will pay one-third of his or her assets in fees and expenses. The White House Council of Economic Advisors estimates that these conflicts of interest cost the investor 1 percent, or about $17 billion, per year.

These legal (but less than moral) practices of the financial community have been a pet peeve of mine for years. In my columns, I have repeatedly written about these pitfalls and how my readers could avoid them. Back in 2010, when the Department of Labor suggested this rule, Wall Street, the GOP and the SEC successfully shot down the proposal arguing that a tougher fiduciary standard would prove so costly that small investors would not be able to afford investment advice at all.  I say, why pay for investment advice that only enriches the broker that gives it to you in the first place?

I'm not saying that everyone in the financial sector who is not a fiduciary is a bad guy, because they are not. It is the system that is at fault. The early '80s saw the end of an era of fixed commissions for Wall Street brokers. Since then the way brokers managed to earn a living was to acquire as many clients as possible, while making as much money as one legally could through fees, commissions and revenue-sharing kickbacks from other vendors like mutual funds, insurance companies and annuities.

The fiduciary rule would change that model substantially and it would be expensive to implement and oversee. One's compliance department, like my own, would need to oversee that rule and ensure that client's interests were always placed above the company and individual's interests.  It is certainly doable. My company has a fiduciary responsibility to our clients and enjoys a good bottom line while fulfilling the letter and the spirit of that rule.

Wall Street, in my opinion, could fulfill a fiduciary obligation and still make money — just not as much. The quality of personnel that interface with clients would have to improve and many lucrative relationships with their existing vendors would have to change as brokers pursued the best investments possible at the lowest costs. I, for one, believe this rule is long, long overdue. It's about time the government and the White House put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the little guy.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Yes, it's complicated. Social Security benefits have been around since 1935 and, like taxes, have become increasingly complex through time. Most people are losing out because they don't understand the fine print. Starting today, you will, so read on.

For most of us, who haven't saved a great deal during a lifetime, Social Security benefits are about all we can depend on once we retire. In 2013, almost 58 million Americans received these benefits. Retirees and their dependents accounted for 70 percent of benefits paid, 19 percent went to disabled workers and dependents while survivors of deceased workers accounted for 11 percent of the total.  Although benefits have increased numerous times since its creation and those benefits are inflation-indexed, the total doesn't come to much, so wringing every last penny out of the program is essential.

In past columns, I have explained that if you can, waiting until you are 70 years of age is your best bet as far as receiving the most money from Social Security. If you defer filing at age 62 (your earliest allowable retirement dates) until age 70, the difference is over $100,000 per person. That's a nice piece of change for retirees. Of course, the downside is that if you die at age 71, then retiring early would have been a better bet. The healthier you are, the more sense it makes to retire later.

There is also an opportunity for married couples to enhance their combined benefits. It is called "file and suspend." It works best if one spouse is making significantly more than the other. The bigger the income gap, the bigger the payoff. Hypothetically, let's say my wife and I are now 66 and debating on whether to tap Social Security since we are both at full retirement age (FRA). Assume my wife, Barbara, as president of the company, has been the real bread-winner and has earned more than me over the years. She can expect to receive $2,000 per month in benefits, while I get $900 a month.

If Barbara files for benefits under her earnings record, I could claim one-half of her benefits ($1,000). At the same time, I could let my benefits continue to increase (by as much as 32 percent if I wait until I am seventy) before claiming them. That's a great deal for me since I make $100 more a month and let my benefits ride. But what happens to Barbara's benefits under this scenario?

As soon as I claim my spousal benefit, Barbara can turn around and immediately suspend receipt of her own benefits of $2,000/month. By doing so, we can now both accumulate the 32 percent increase in benefits until age 70. In dollars and cents, Barbara's benefits will grow to $2,640 a month and mine will top out at $1,188. But in the meantime, as the claiming spouse, I still receive $1,000 a month until age 70.

If we both live to say, 95, the file and suspend strategy would result in more than $200,000 in extra benefits between us. Not a bad return to simply spend an hour or two of additional form filing. There is an added benefit as well; since it would allow me to take a survivor benefit on Barbara's increased monthly amount should she die unexpectedly after age 70. Complicated? Yes, but well worth the time and effort.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Faced with slowing economies and sluggish employment, more and more countries throughout the world are devaluing their currencies, slashing interest rates and stimulating growth wherever they can. That should be a recipe for further global growth in the years to come.

These days wherever you look — China, Canada, Denmark, Sweden — central banks are announcing surprise interest rate cuts on a weekly basis. Last month's announcement by the ECB of their own additional quantitative easing efforts evidently triggered a rush of responses by other banks across the world.  So far this year 26 out of 34 major central banks are establishing or maintaining monetary easing policies.

This has had the effect of lowering the exchange rate of their currencies, which will, over time, allow their exports to grow and thus their economies. In a sense, this amounts to a price war, where those who can sell their goods at the lowest price (exchange rate) benefit the most. In times past, this kind of action would elicit howls of protests from organizations such as the G-20 group of nations. However, this time around, in their last meeting two weeks ago, the membership actually condoned this global trend.

"But isn't all this money printing inflationary?" one client asked.

Actually, under different circumstances it would be, but right now, most nations, including our own, have the opposite problem. The central bankers are worried about deflation today as economies stumble toward recession and the price of commodities and other products decline further.

Clearly, there is a lot of uncertainty in the world. Investors are skeptical that all this stimulus will have the desired effect. Yet, look at what happened in this country. Despite a gaggle of naysayers, after four years of QE stimulus, our economy is growing at a 2.8-3.0 percent clip and unemployment is gaining. If it worked here, it will work overseas, in my opinion.

Notice what is happening to the stock market, despite this wall of worry. The averages are making new highs. NASDAQ reached its highest closing level since the dot-com boom and bust of 15 years ago. Only this time, these gains are backed up by solid earnings and a strong future outlook.

The participation within the market is broadening as well, which is always a sign of strength. The market's advance is becoming less dependent on megacap stocks (last year's favorites) and leadership is becoming more democratic. Usually, this indicates the likelihood of longevity, or market staying power.

In a stock market like this, one actually hopes for pullbacks. What you want to see is a gain followed by a pullback that makes a higher low, and then a higher high. There are plenty of triggers in the world for these kind of movements — Greece, ISIS, oil prices, the Ukraine. Don't let any potential sell-off spook you. Stay the course.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Greece is once again on center stage as the world looks on, wondering if this time the country's finances will finally implode. It is a play we've seen before and its outcome fairly predictable.

Several weeks ago, I warned readers to expect turmoil in Greece. As expected, the anti-austerity party, Syriza, was elected in a nationwide election at the end of January. The new prime minister, Alexis Tspiras, has promised the voters that the spending cuts, tax increases and other austerity measures leveled on Greece by the "Troika" (the IMF, ECB and the EU) would come to an end.

The austerity measures were agreed to by the previous Greek administration in exchange for a three-tranche, $272 billion bailout, which runs until the end of this month. Until the elections, the Troika was insisting that Greece implement even more measures to reduce the country's debts and spur economic growth. Now both sides are seeking a compromise.

The Troika has offered to extend the bailout package for several months to give both parties time to come to a compromise. No deal, say the Greeks. Greece evidently has learned that they can cut a better deal for themselves if there is a clock ticking in the background. They are counting on the Troika caving in to at least some of their demands by the end of the month.

As it stands now, Greek banks are already in a jam, since they can no longer use their government's bonds to borrow funds from the ECB. Instead, they have to rely on their own central bank for emergency funding. Investors have dumped Greek stocks and bond yields have spiked higher as a result. Yet, the panic we've seen before under these circumstances just isn't there.

There is a growing faction within the EU, led by Germany, who believes that a Greek exit from the EU and the Euro is probably the best outcome for everyone. After all, Greece has a long history of going in and out of bankruptcy. Some argue that it was only invited into the original European Union because it was the "birthplace of European Democracy." Its economy and finances, some argue, were never strong enough to warrant a seat at the EU table.

Others say that it is the precedent that counts: if Greece exits the EU, than others may be tempted to do the same, namely countries such as Portugal, Ireland, Spain and even Italy. All of the above are suffering from their own austerity/bailout deals with the Troika. And this is where it really gets messy. If Greece gets its way, by either renegotiating its debt and the austerity program, other countries will demand the same thing.

At the moment, both sides are still talking in a marathon session that could conceivably last through the rest of this week and into next. Tspiras, who knows full well that the major stumbling block to getting what he wants is a reluctant Germany, is attempting to muddy the water. He is demanding billions of Euros in World War II reparations and unpaid debt from Germany. It certainly plays well with the populace, who have long felt that Germany has never paid its fair share for the damage the Nazis have done. The stoic Germans, pointing to two separate agreements in the 1950s and 1960s, say that issue is a red herring as far as they are concerned.

My bet is that despite all the bluster, Greece needs Europe more than Europe needs Greece. At some point in the near future, Tspiras will back off and agree to some face-saving measures that will give his country a bit more time to get its act together. That may lead to similar measures in the case of other problem countries. End of story.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.