"Wax on, right hand. Wax off, left hand. Wax on, wax off. Breathe in through nose, out the mouth. Wax on, wax off. Don't forget to breathe, very important." — Mr. Miyagi, from "The Karate Kid"

Miles of newsprint and thousands of terabytes of Internet space has been devoted to what happens Friday, the day after the end of the Federal Reserve Bank's quantitative easing experiment. Some say it bodes ill for bond and stock prices. Others argue it will have little or no impact. I say it is simply the end of one program and the beginning of another.

The total cost of the Fed's Treasury bond purchase program amounted to $600 billion. The goal of QE II was to put more money in the hands of consumers and corporations (especially small businesses) in an effort to boost spending and hiring. Unfortunately, it did little to jump start the economy in either area.

In a circular exercise similar to Mr. Miyagi's admonition to "wax on, wax off" the Fed purchased the bonds from the banks, hoping that they would in turn lend that sudden windfall of money to us. But instead, these banks just bought back more treasury bonds. The banks simply refused to lend that money and the Fed has no authority to make them.

QE II did result in lowering interest rates to historical lows, however, which allowed financial speculators to borrow money cheaply and to invest that cash (really short-term speculative trading) into commodities, stocks and all sorts of higher yielding securities. Those of us who have retirement savings also benefited somewhat as the stock market rose and we regained some of the losses incurred in 2008-2009.

All it meant for the average Joe was higher gas and food prices as commodities skyrocketed into the world’s latest financial bubble. That actually slowed spending. As for corporations, the big guys already had more cash on their books than they needed. Their profits were exploding as well and none of them felt the urge to hire more labor since they were doing just fine with what they have now. And why not, since their workers have had no wage increases in years, have had their benefits cut to the bone, and if they complained, well, there are always 13.9 million unemployed American who would be happy to take their job at an even lower pay rate ... As for small business, QE II was a total bust for them.

Doomsayers, such as Bill Gross, the highly respected portfolio manager of the world's largest bond house, Pimco, believe that without the Fed’s support, interest rates in the Treasury market will spike, the economy will fall back into recession, and the stock market will tank in response. A host of knowledgeable players subscribe to that theory and have made their views known to anyone who will listen.

Others believe that there are still plenty of potential investors, especially overseas, who will still want to own U.S. Treasury bonds as a safe haven and as a dependable source of income. Interest rates might rise a little, especially on long term bonds (10-20-30 years) but the rise would depend on the growth rate of the economy and inflation expectations. The stock market would no longer be underpinned by the easy money policy of QEII but that might actually be a good thing since it would reduce the amount of speculation that seems to be a massive part of today’s stock markets.

Of course, the caveat here is that Washington politicians come to their senses and do not allow the country to default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

In my opinion, I do not think that the Federal Reserve has taken us this far only to cast us adrift to the whims of fate. The Federal Reserve will continue to keep its role as the largest buyer of Treasuries. A week ago, for example, the Fed stated that it intends to use the proceeds of maturing debt that it already owns to buy more treasury bonds as needed. A total of $112.1 billion will mature within the next 12 months. The Fed also holds $914.4 billion of mortgage-backed debt and $118.4 billion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds,  which will also mature. That will mean an additonal$10 billion to $16 billion of cash maturing every month. When you add it all up, the Fed has another $300 billion in cash, more than enough to maintain its support of the bond market.

Remember too that the Fed isn't about to give up on the economy just because QE II didn't quite do the job that they intended. Like Daniel in The Karate Kid, the Fed has learned some valuable lessons from their latest experiment.

I predict that they will try again, as early as next month, to come up with yet another way to stimulate the economy. I’m not sure what they have up their sleeves, but I expect we will start hearing rumors about a new plan very shortly. That will certainly play well in the stock market, don’t you think?

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

After this week you should have either an upset stomach, stress headache or both. Human beings do not do well in markets that climb up and down by over a percent on a daily basis. Unfortunately, as this market bottoms, we may expect more of the same.

On the plus side, the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou received a parliamentary vote of confidence this week. Yet, facing investors this week is a vote on the passage of the austerity plan that the European Community demands in exchange for bailout money.

Economic data continues to disappoint with the latest unemployment figures coming in more than expected. Wherever you look, gloom and doom pervades the minds and hearts of investors. On Wednesday, Fed chief Ben Bernanke didn't help by reducing the Fed's estimate for GDP growth in the second quarter from 3.1-3.3 percent to 2.7-2.9 percent. Even a 5 percent decline in oil was viewed as negative and simply another proof that the economy is faltering.

Most investors missed the point of Thursday's release of 60 million barrels of crude from the world's strategic oil supply. Pundits complained that it was too little to impact demand since it amounted to less than a day's supply of global demand. Others argued it was an act of desperation by an administration that has run out of ideas to stimulate the economy.

It was none of the above, in my opinion. Readers may recall that a few weeks ago prices of most commodities peaked after the CME raised margin requirements for everything from energy to silver. Speculators, who had bid commodity prices up to astronomical levels, abandoned the market in droves causing prices to decline to their present levels.

Most energy experts believe that the fundamental price where supply and demand for oil are in balance is closer to $85 in barrel. But notice oil, until this week it was still trading at $100 a barrel and above, (although down from its recent peak of $112 a barrel). Clearly, there were still a lot of speculators in the market, who could go either way. It was a tipping point where there was at least a 50/50 chance that traders might try and take the price higher once more.

To me, the International Energy Agency exhibited perfect timing. With a relatively small amount of released oil, they managed to drop the price of crude by $5 a barrel and send the speculators running for the hills. It has also added another element of risk since nervous traders will now have to be looking over their shoulder in case the IEA does it again.

As for the wall of worries that beset the market, all this pessimism is part of the normal process one expects as the averages descend to a level where buyers once again appear. Today we are probably within 1-2 percent of that area, if we are not already there. To me, the math is simple: a possible 50-point decline in the weeks ahead on the S&P 500 Index versus 150-200 points of upside. The risk/reward ratio tells me to not only hold the course but to buy on weakness.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

On Thursday, for only the third time in its history, the International Energy Agency decided to release 60 million barrels of oil from global strategic petroleum reserves. They did so in order to "ensure a soft landing for the world economy."

As readers are aware, I suggested that investors "take profits" on oil as it soared past $100 a barrel almost two months ago. I argued that the clearing price on oil should be closer to $85 a barrel, given the slow growth of world economies. I was early in my recommendation, since oil subsequently climbed as high as $112 a barrel before plummeting to its present level of around $90 a barrel. I fully expect my price target will be reached in the coming weeks.

However, while oil dropped 5 percent Thursday, generating an annualized benefit of $36 billion to American consumers, the stock market fell by over a percent equating to a $200 billion loss. To me, that is a major contradiction. Here's why.

In energy, the rule of thumb economists often site is for every $10 increase in the price of oil, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) drops by one half of one percent. By March of this year, we had experienced a $25 hike in a barrel of oil in a very short time period. Economists were predicting that when (not if) oil reached $120 a barrel, the U.S. economy could easily fall back into recession.

Consumers bear the brunt of higher energy prices. Every one cent increase in the price of gasoline takes $1 billion out of our pockets. And actually it is much more than that (almost double) when you include things like home heating, electricity and price rises in alternative sources of fuel such as propane.

The real tipping point in impacting our consumption behavior occurs when energy prices reach 6 percent of average consumer spending, which occurred in March 2011 at 6.27 percent of spending. At that point, the top 20 percent of income earning Americans were spending 7.9 percent of their disposable income on food and energy. That may be a manageable hit for the rich, but not so for the bottom 20 percent of income-generating Americans. For them, energy and food account for a whopping 44.1 percent of after tax income. No wonder consumer spending and employment fell off a cliff.

As a result of higher energy and food prices, together with the fallout from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, our economy has hit a soft patch which triggered the present decline in the stock markets. But circumstances have changed and in my opinion it won't be long before market players begin to realize that.

We can't have it both ways. The steep decline in oil and other commodity prices will boost consumer spending and economic growth while reducing unemployment. For consumers, it should be a matter of days before we begin to see this decline reflected in the price at the pump, in electric bills and in other areas. It is an instant and fairly hefty equivalent to a tax cut. Corporations will feel it too, but consumers benefit from that as well in the form of lower prices for products.

Right now, investors can't see the forest for the trees. With Greece threatening to collapse, unemployment rising a bit and the economy still slowing, it is hard to focus on what is just around the corner. But that, my dear reader, is exactly why I write this column — to help you focus on the horizon because there are better days are ahead.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

The European Community's solution to the Greek debt crisis has been an exercise in kicking the can down the road for well over two years. Unfortunately, this Greek Tragedy is now taking on the dimensions of a three-ring circus and taking the world's financial markets along with it.

This week, the volatility in the stock markets was reminiscent of the bad old days of 2008-2009. The on-again, off-again status of Greece's promised next installment of last year's bailout package was the chief cause of concern. The money was promised to Greece, if it cut the country's deficit of $40 billion. So far that hasn't happened. The Greek population has taken to the streets once again to prevent the passage of this new austerity package while Greek's ruling party is disintegrating.

In the meantime, Germany, the money man of Europe, has been insisting that the European private sector banks with large outstanding loans to Greece also become a party to any additional bailouts of the country. Germany's Angela Merkel had been insisting that 1) European financial institutions agree to give Greece an extra seven years to repay its bonds or 2) agree to a "Vienna-style" solution of swapping their existing Greek bonds for lower interest-bearing bonds.

The problem with scheme No. 1 is that the moment the private banks are forced to take a loss on their Greek debt holdings, global credit agencies would deem Greece in default. That would set off a number of sirens simultaneously in several markets. Countries with similar problems would see their bonds plummet.

The credit default swap market (CDS) would also be shaken. The CDS is where banks go to buy insurance against default by governments or corporate entities. I would guess, for example, that it costs $2 million or more every year just to insure these banks against a Greek default. But the European Central Bank is determined that any Greek debt restructuring should not trigger such a "credit event" that would enable buyers of CDS to be compensated from swap insurance sellers.

That leaves option No. 2, a Vienna-style scheme that would involve convincing banks to voluntarily accept new Greek bonds for old bonds at much lower rates of interest. That way the banks (and their shareholders) take the hit to their balance sheets and the insurance they hold would be of no value (because they would agree to take the hit "voluntarily"). I say good luck to that plan.

Investors would be smart enough to see right through that farce. They would dump their remaining European bank shares, any debt they might hold in countries such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, etc., and would call into question the CDS insurance market overall. If governments can engineer defaults without calling them defaults, then what good is the disaster insurance that banks pay millions for each year?

Fortunately, we only have to wait until Monday for the outcome of this latest chapter in the ongoing saga of European debt restructuring. Euro zone finance ministers are meeting in Luxembourg on Sunday and will hopefully agree on some formula or compromise with Greece. Remember too that this is only an installment not a solution. It will only push the specter of default out until September. Then we get to kick the can down the road for another three months.

I am convinced that the International Monetary Fund and the European community's response to the debt crisis of the PIGS nations won't work. Something radical such as a debt-for-equity swap, combined with a debt forgiveness plan, a la Latin America in the Eighties, will be the ultimate solution to this crisis. On Friday, Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann agreed with me. He said that simply forcing Greece to impose austerity and reduce its budget deficit won't solve the crisis; it will only force the economy to contract further. He called for the creation of a European-style Marshall Plan, referring to the massive U.S. inspired "soft" loan plan to rebuild post-World War II Germany.

As for our markets, I maintain we are close to a bottom. Whether the S&P 500 Index bottoms at 1,275, 1,250, or worst case, 1,225, investors should be looking at equities. However, this time around I don't think commodities will lead the market. Instead, I would be looking at large-cap dividend stocks, the health care and some consumer staples as possible focus areas.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

Here we are in the middle of June, in the third year of a presidential cycle, and no one is talking of its historical bullish implications. Despite all the present gloom and doom about the economy and the stock market, here's something to remember. There has never been a negative return in the stock market during the third year of any president's four-year term since 1939.

Sure, there could always be a first time. And if you look at the historical data and compare it to this cycle, you can understand why. Usually, the year immediately following a president's election is negative. Barak Obama's first year, however, was extremely positive. The stock market lows were put in March of that year and the S&P 500 Index gained 23.5 percent in 2009 and then another 12.8 percent last year.

Right now, all three stock market averages are roughly flat for the year after climbing as high as 8.9 percent earlier in the year. Most pundits believe we still have more downside ahead of us. How much is the question. Some strategists believe we are closer to a bottom than a top; me included. Of course, we could technically have an up year by simply gaining 1 or 2 percent from here. Yet, only once in the last 72 years has the S&P 500 closed more than 10 percent below its previous end-of-year close during a president's third year in office. On the other hand, the index has gained over 10 percent (or more) at least once during the third year on 15 out of the last 17 occurrences. We have yet to do that.

There is a political rhythm to this cycle that makes a good deal of economic sense. Initially, when a new president is elected, he makes the hard choices and absorbs any negative fallout in the economy in his first and second years. Raising taxes or cutting spending are simply two examples of a new administration "biting the bullet" early on. By year three, re-election considerations come to the forefront.

The state of the economy is usually a major determinant on who will be elected and what party will dominate the political arena. This election cycle it is already clear that the economy will be the major factor in next year's presidential election. Traditionally, the sitting president will do everything in his power (whether a lame duck or not) to insure that his party garners the most votes possible.

The problem this time around is that the Obama administration has already done everything in its power to both stimulate the economy and get people working again. The Federal Reserve Bank and its board, which is ostensibly above politics but in reality owes their positions to the sitting administration, is already doing all they can to stimulate the economy. Tactics such as reducing interest rates and other "easy money" policies are already in place and have been for two years.

I have often said that when things look the darkest, that's usually the time to pay attention to the facts and not get sucked down into an emotional morass. Although the presidential cycle is not, nor will ever be, the determining factor in whether this market finishes the year with a loss or a gain, I believe it is simply another arrow in my quiver when I say that good times lie ahead for the market and the economy this year.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.