While shopping for my Memorial Day cook-out last weekend, I experienced a lethal dose of sticker shock. Steaks, roasts, spare ribs, pork loin, even ground beef were commanding prices that were a good 5 to 9 percent higher than they were at the start of the year.

Unfortunately, it appears prices will go higher still in the months ahead. Here's why.

Remember the Drought of 2012? The results of that dry period are still having repercussions on food prices today. Back in July of that year this is what I wrote: "If one looks at just the price of corn in the United States, which has increased in price by 38 percent since June 1, it is not hard to predict increases in processed food prices by the winter. Since other staples, like soybeans and wheat, are also wilting in the heat there could be a domino effect across the board for all kinds of agricultural products."

That domino effect had an interesting and long-lasting impact over the short and medium terms for all sorts of food stuffs including beef and pork prices. This was my advice back then.

"It might surprise you, however, that the prices of beef, poultry and pork might actually decline in the short term. That's because livestock producers would rather send their herds to slaughter now than face the increased costs of feeding them in the future. Out West, (today's potential Dust Bowl) many ranchers have simply run out of range land that could support their herds. As this new supply of livestock is dumped on the market, prices should ease a bit before heading up, so plan accordingly. The best strategy would be to stock up now and freeze for the future."

I hope you took my advice and have a very big freezer.

Fast forward to today, almost two years later, and we find that meat prices have seen almost record monthly increases across the nation. As a result of the drought and the subsequent livestock slaughter that followed, the U.S. now has the lowest cattle numbers since 1951.

Inventory continues to decline. At some point ranchers and farmers will begin to rebuild their stock as prices continue to move higher. But there is no quick fix because it takes at least 18 months for a calf to become market ready. Some experts estimate it could take up to three or four years before the nation's herds are back to what they were before the drought.

As for pork prices, the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus is a major cause of reduced pork production. The virus has now spread to 26 states with devastating effect. The pork industry lost almost 8 million animals, mostly piglets, to the disease over the last year. As a result, the USDA is expecting a 2.3 percent decline in overall pork production for 2014. In the meantime, most food analysts are expecting the consumer to pare back on meat purchases and substitute chicken in their diets. It is much cheaper per pound and mush easier to increase production. It would only require six months or so to meet added demand.

However, I am betting poultry prices will see some price inflation as well. As for meat, it appears that higher prices are going to be with us for the foreseeable future.

And there may be more bad news for U.S. consumers. Analysts are betting that the return of El Nino this year, somewhere between August and October, will have a negative impact on certain crop yields.

El Nino, readers may recall, is a climatic phenomenon caused by warm waters in the Pacific Ocean that can trigger ferocious rain and flooding in some areas while drought in others.

In the past, this weather event has caused devastating crop losses. In turn, this has resulted in huge and sudden price spikes, especially in soft commodities like sugar, coffee, cotton and cocoa. The last "super El Nino" was in 1997. That year, from Florida to California, there were storms, tornadoes and mudslides.

The bottom line is that you can expect food prices across the board to keep climbing.

So welcome to America, a land where there is no "official" inflation, unless you need to eat, consume gasoline, buy clothing, rent space, put a child through school or pay medical bills.

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.

You can't keep a good market down, so why is everyone so darn worried about the stock market? Could it be that too much of a good thing may be dangerous to your financial health? If so, someone should tell the bulls.

Truly, no one should be complaining. Here we are at the end of May, normally a month where the markets come under selling pressure, and we are a mere five points away from the S&P 500 Index's all-time high. The contrarian in me says that too many people are waiting for the shoe to drop right now, so it probably won't.

Officially, it is the Memorial Day weekend that kicks off the herd migration from Wall Street's gray canyons and valleys to more amenable vistas. Highly-polished Wing-tips are exchanged for Gucci sandals, as the high and mighty head for the over-crowded beaches and multimillion dollar "cottages" of Long Island and the Hamptons.

Those who remain are the young and ambitious. Without much trading authority, they will have a hard time moving markets. Nonetheless, they will attempt to make a killing for their bosses at the expense of the rest of us. As market volume dries up this summer, it is a toss-up on whether markets become even more volatile or simply wallow in apathy and neglect.

In my career, I have seen both during the summer doldrums. In recent years, the markets have tended to be more volatile with fairly large declines in June and July. In other periods, you could hear a pin drop for weeks at a time on New York trading floors. I'm betting we see more volatility than less.

While the markets continue to grind higher so does the short interest in the stock market.

Short interest is the quantity of stock shares that investors have sold short but not yet covered or closed out. Many strategists use short interest as a market-sentiment indicator, since it indicates how many investors think a stock's price (or market) is likely to fall. Both the short interest aggregate dollar amount of the S&P 500 Index and short interest ratio (days to cover or buy back these shorts) are at levels not seen since mid-2007. We all know how that ended for investors.

The markets continued to make new highs until the end of the year and then subsequently crashed in 2008-2009.

Last week the markets touched my S&P 500 Index target of 1,900 — briefly. It was so quick that I half hoped we would make another stab at that level and possibly break it. It appears we are trying to accomplish that as I write this. Markets are never neat and tidy so if we break this level to the upside, I would expect a bout of short-covering which could propel the markets higher by another 20-40 points quickly. At the same time, I think too many people are bearish for a sell-off right here and now. If we were to see a fast jump higher and a panic stampede into the market at that time we just might be set up for a last hurrah.

Have a happy Memorial Day weekend. But while you are grilling, swimming or just plain having fun, do me a favor. Take a moment to remember our servicemen and women both past and present. I know I will be remembering my buddies in Vietnam that didn't make it. Semper Fi

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.

Financial gurus have come up short in explaining exactly why interest rates are going down, and not up, as everyone expected them to do. The same thing is happening overseas. What gives?

Pundits have been trotting out the same old reasons for why rates are declining. Slow-growth economies in North America, Europe and Japan have persisted this year, much to the surprise of everyone. So central banks worldwide are maintaining an easy-money policy, which is driving all interest rates lower. That is at odds with the Fed's view of economic conditions.

If you recall, back in May of last year, the Fed announced that the U.S. economy was gathering so much steam that they had decided to begin tapering their $85 billion a month stimulus program beginning in January of this year.

Interest rates spiked higher as the bond market anticipated not only the end of stimulus but higher economic growth as well in 2014. The Fed was right, but only in the very short term.

The fourth quarter GDP hit 4 percent. But then the economy fell off a cliff.

Economists would have us believe that the Polar Vortex is to blame. I expect when the first quarter is finally revised for the final time we will have experienced a minus sign in growth for the first three months of the year. No question that the prolonged season of cold weather hurt the economy, but by how much? No way was that decline all weather-related, in my opinion.

Through it all, the stock markets have refused to go down, despite the slowing economy, cautionary earnings and revenue forecasts by corporations, the Ukraine, and any other bad news.

We are in an environment where new highs in stocks are reflecting an expectation that economic growth will not only continue but accelerate. Historically, when the economy gains momentum, interest rates rise and the stock market goes up. When the economy weakens, the reverse happens. So, my dear readers, either the bond market has it wrong or the stock market does.

What or who is the fly in this particular ointment? My guess is the Fed has a lot to do with this.

Think back, what happened when our central bank announced the first quantitative easing plan, known as QE I. The economy gained ground, the recession faded and the stock market took off. When the Fed announced the end of that program, the economy slowed, and stocks plummeted. So the Fed announced QE II. The process was repeated: stocks up, rates down and economic growth. By the end of QE II, the bond market and corporate America had learned a thing or two about central bank stimulus. They learned to anticipate.

Corporations began to pull back their investments. The bond market headed lower, bracing for more sluggish growth and a possible recession and stocks headed lower. Enter QE III. But by then, even the Fed realized something had to change. So they changed the game plan.

As QE III was about to sunset, Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman at the time, extended QE III indefinitely. He promised that the stimulus would continue until the economy was able to stand on its feet again without assistance that unemployment needed to drop to at least 6.5 percent and that short-term interest rates would stay low out to 2015.

The stock market took off and the economy gathered steam once again. Fast forward to today. QE Infinity is winding down at a rate of $10 billion dollars per month. By the end of the year the Fed plans to end their stimulus program entirely. It has already been cut in half, year to date. The economy has slowed from 4 percent in the fourth quarter to 0–to–negative in the first quarter. The data seems to indicate it is slowing still. The bond market's low interest rates are indicating the same thing.

So something has to give. If bond players are right, (and they tend to get it right more often than stock jockeys) then we can expect even slower growth in the months ahead. Might the Fed reverse course if that were to happen? The consensus says no, but consensus tends to be wrong fairly often. In the meantime, what in the world is the stock market doing at record highs?

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 S&P 500 Index hit 1,900 this week. The Dow Jones Industrial and Transportation averages also reached new historical highs but the euphoria lasted about a minute and a half.

That's about as long as it took for traders to sell into the move. Not good.

The market gave the bulls all the excuses in the world to man-up and push the markets higher, as they backed and filled for two days, then the bears took over. Thursday was a blood bath and sellers added to the damage again on Friday. Not good.

Last year, if you recall, all I recommended readers to do is "buy the dips" whenever the stock market declined. Obviously, from this headline, I am recommending just the opposite today, especially in the so-called momentum stocks. Momentum, small-cap and mid-cap stocks continue to lead the markets lower. As it should be, since they have led the market up over the first three months of the year. Don't think that they have bottomed. In fact, sell any bounces in these names.

"I can't sell them now, they are down too much," retorted Chris, a friend and client, as we walked our dogs by the lake this morning.

It is an understandable attitude. The hardest thing to do is sell when you are underwater pricewise and down 40-50 percent from the highs. That little devil on your shoulder is whispering that if you just hold on you will recoup all your losses and then some. That may happen but in my experience too often the opposite occurs. Instead, you will end up watching those stocks drop another 30 percent before you finally sell in a fit of emotional disgust.

Another thing to remember is that many of these momentum names that hit astronomical prices had no business reaching that price in the first place. Expecting them to regain their former luster anytime soon is about on par with hitting the lottery next week. To me, it is far better to take losses now, sit on the sidelines in cash and wait until there truly signs of a bottom before buying back in.

If, on the other hand, you managed to avoid getting entangled in these high flyers, sit tight. You have raised the recommended cash. Sure, you will take some paper losses on the rest of your portfolio, but that will be a temporary condition. By the end of the year you should recoup those losses.

It is too hard to tell whether this week was the start of my forecasted 10-15 percent correction.

However, we are entering the third week in May (sell in May and go away) so whatever you do - don't buy the dip. If the markets follow the behaviorial pattern of the last several weeks, expect the market to bounce for a few days next week.

We have now hit my target of 1,900 on the S&P 500 Index. I actually expected a little further upside (20-30 points or so) once we hit that level but I'll settle for what I can get. And who knows, traders might try once again to break that 1,900 ceiling level and propel markets and emotions to higher highs. I don't care.

It feels to me like the markets are rolling over here. If that process has begun, I wish it would be a short, sharp and therefore less painful ordeal than a drawn-out affair that lasts through the summer. However, markets, as I have often said, will do what is most inconvenient for the greatest number of people.

Plan accordingly.

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.

Can you count the number of potholes you hit or narrowly avoid every day? Do they make your blood boil, teeth clench and trigger a choice euphemism or two during your commute? Unless the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) receives a $302 billion injection of funds this year, it could get a lot worse.

And I'm not just talking about potholes. More than one in nine bridges in this country is structurally deficient. At least 66,405 (11 percent of the total) are in sad shape and these are not out-of-the-way covered bridges that are rarely used. Americans have taken over 260 million trips over these derelict spans. They are simply accidents waiting to happen, like the one last month in Mount Vernon, Wash., or the I-35W collapse in Minneapolis that killed 13 people back in 2007.

President Obama is pleading with Congress to work with him in developing an infrastructure plan that would fund a four-year transportation program. It will not solve our infrastructure problems, but it will help. So far there has been little appetite by legislatures to embrace the concept. If they fail to act, the highway fund will run out of money by August or September.

Historically, the nation's transportation infrastructure has been financed by a gas tax of 18.4 cents established in 1993. In hindsight, that has been woefully deficient in keeping pace with the number of vehicles that use our roads today. The problem is that raising the gas tax or requiring corporations to pay more for infrastructure (an Obama suggestion) will probably not fly in an election year. So, instead, Congress will do what it always does, kick the can down the road by coming up with a stop-gap funding scheme.

If you have ever had the opportunity of driving on the Autobahn, you might ask how the Germans have managed to keep their highways in fabulous condition while keeping maintenance required down to a bare minimum. The answer, my dear reader, lies in the American past.

Back in 1919, a little known War Department publicity stunt organized a 72-vehicle convoy that journeyed across America. It required two months to make the trip. The roads west of the Mississippi were so bad that the convoy averaged a mere 6 mph for the 3,200 mile excursion. Along for the ride, was a young lieutenant colonel named Dwight Eisenhower. It affected him profoundly.

Forty years later, as the 34th president of the U.S., Eisenhower was finally in a position to do something about our road system. Starting in the 1950s, the Interstate Highway System was founded and developed 42,795 miles of roads across the nation. Once again, America showed the world what we could do when we put our mind to it. The goal was to get them down as quickly as possible.

The problem was that these roads were never built to last.

Of course, this sudden network of nationwide roads allowed the American family to enjoy cheap vacations, see the country and make the weekend drive an American pastime. Combined with fuel-efficiency gains, the ownership of cars exploded in this country.

That was bad enough, but what the planners did not count on was the massive shift by American industry from transporting goods via railroad to shipping them via the nation's brand-new highway system. Roads that were of substandard construction (although good enough to withstand the damage of 2,000-pound cars) were suddenly assaulted by convoys of commercial trucks. These rigs, weighing 80,000 pounds or more, do 40 times the damage (the mathematical equivalent) of the lighter weight cars due to a truck's weight distribution.

When roads are not properly sealed, water (ice, snow, etc.) leaks underneath the asphalt and settles in the base of the road, which is mostly compacted dirt here in the U.S. Big trucks constantly drive over these moisture spots driving the water downward causing air pockets that form over time the great American pothole.

The Germans know this, as does every engineer in the world. So some foreign engineers and governments choose instead to build extremely thick roads with solid foundations designed to prevent moisture from penetrating the underside of their structures. So why don't we do this? Because it costs more.

Obviously, in a country that groans and moans over the on-going cost of infrastructure maintenance, building better roads at higher costs is a non-starter. If we ban large trucks from our highway and bridge systems, then our roads would stand up a lot better than they do now.

Good luck trying to implement that change.

Given that corporate America uses our transportation system to help turn a profit, (rather than simply commute to work or see Mom on Mother's Day, as taxpayers do), would it not be reasonable to ask them to foot a larger percentage of the cost of maintenance? Reasonable, but probably political suicide for any elected official. I guess we will just have to settle for potholes.

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.