For years, the mantra of Corporate America has been that they are drowning in government rules and regulations. Small business has echoed that refrain, as has Wall Street. The problem is that these same entities continually shoot themselves in the foot.

Over the last two weeks, thanks to Wells Fargo in the banking sector, and Mylan Labs in pharmaceuticals, Corporate America has once again reminded us of that business just can't be trusted. In the case of Wells Fargo, over 2 million fictitious customer accounts were opened over several years in order to meet sales goals.

Critics say Mylan Labs' 500 percent increase (since 2007) in the cost of a device called EpiPen that treats severe allergic reactions is simply another case of rampant greed within the drug industry. They are not alone. Gilead Sciences and Valeant Pharmaceuticals have both been caught instituting similar price hikes on some of their drugs. And who can forget Martin Shkreli, the former head of Turing pharmaceuticals, who jacked up the price of a life-saving drug, Daraprim, from $13.50 to $750 per tablet (while giving the finger to all of us on tape).

Not only has the public reacted with anger over these incidents, but it has kept the idea alive that existing rules and regulations are justified. What's worse is that many politicians will use these events to pile even more restrictions on the nation's corporations.

Hell hath no fury compared to a politician with a meaty issue in an election year. Senators from both parties jostled for air time on Tuesday during a hearing over Wells Fargo's indiscretions. To say that Wells' chief executive officer was trashed up one side and down the other would be an understatement.

CEO John Stumpf, once the "pretty boy" of the financial industry, due to his company's relatively clean bill of health during the financial crisis, was vilified for going easy on the bank's leadership while firing thousands of lower-level workers. Legislatures used terms like "gutless leadership", "fraud" and "out of touch" executives to decry management's response to the scandal.

Next week, it is Mylan Lab's turn to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Heather Bresch, the CEO of the massive pharmaceutical company, will be on the hot seat. Politicians running for re-election will be vying for the microphone. Expect to hear how she and her company are guilty of price gouging among other charges.

While the hearings and their aftermath might provide entertaining reading, the consequences of these cases of corporate greed may have far-reaching effects on all of our industries.  There is a great deal of truth in the complaints of many businessmen, especially small businessmen, that Federal, state and local regulations are making it almost impossible to run a profitable business, but at the same time, one bad apple after another pops up justifying the chains that bind the entire cart.

After the 2009 financial crisis, a flood of new regulations and reforms swamped the banking industry. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act were signed into law in 2010. Among other things, it created yet another agency: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Federal Reserve was given more power as were a slew of other governmental agencies. Lending practices, reserve requirements, trading restrictions and countless more new regulations were foisted on the banking industry. The idea behind this avalanche of rules and regulations were to ensure that "never again" will Americans be subjected to these "too big to fail" bailouts.

Hillary Clinton has already promised to deal with these outrageous pricing issues in the drug sector. As such, does anyone want to guess the chances of reducing regulations on either the pharmaceutical or banking industry? As long as industry continues to shoot itself in the foot, what else can one expect?

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.

It has been a volatile week in the markets. The averages have rocketed up and down by a percent or more as traders bet for and against a Fed move on interest rates next week. Does it matter?

If you aren't tired after more than two years of reading what the Fed may or may not do, you have the patience of Job. Whether an interest rate hike happens next week during the FOMC meeting or in December should not mean much to the market. But it does.

When fully 70 percent or more of daily trading activity is now in the hands (or keyboards) of high-frequency traders (HFT), short-term moves are where they make most of their money. During the summer months, they practically starved to death while the markets did little to nothing. Now HFT is making up for lost time.

Granted, in many ways, the stock market is priced for perfection, given that the markets are only 3 percent off historical highs. There are few investments outside of stocks that can give you a decent return nowadays. The fact that interest rates are so low has a lot to do with that. Any change, no matter how small, in interest rates is meaningful at the margin.

Sure, a 25 basis point hike in the Fed Funds rate may not seem like a lot (and it isn't when it comes to the economy). But it does tilt the financial apple cart. And if one apple falls, who's to say that won't cause a chain reaction?  If enough apples are impacted, could the entire apple cart tip over?

Many traders believe that is exactly what happened last December when the Fed initially hiked rates. The stock market had a temper tantrum in January and February that resulted, at its worst, in a 13 percent decline. Of course, the markets have come back since then and gone on to new highs.

If history is any guide, and the Fed does raise rates before the end of the year, we could see the same sort of sell-off. But like the declines in January and February, they would not be a reason to sell. If anything, I would be a buyer of such a move. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

September and October are notoriously volatile months in the stock market. So far that historical trend is solidly intact. Since the Federal Open Market Committee meeting is on the 21st of September, which is next Wednesday, we should see this volatility continue until at least that date. I suspect, however, that regardless of what the Fed decides, the markets will continue to stay volatile.

Whether true or false, investors have it in their head that the Fed will raise rates, if not now, then in December.  And since markets usually discount news six to nine months out, I believe there is more downside ahead as markets adjust to an expected rate hike. Readers may recall that I have been looking for a pull-back in the single digit range and it appears that we are in that process now. Buy that does not necessarily mean a straight down market; we could even see a return to the old highs at some point before falling back.

It might be a drawn-out process that occurs between now and the election with plenty of peaks and valleys. Remember that Wall Street believes Hillary Clinton will win the election. Until recently, the polls gave her a substantial margin, confirming those expectations. As Donald Trump narrows that lead, these same investors will start to get nervous. Nervous leads to caution, caution leads to selling. There is no telling how close the election will become but the closer it is the more potential downside is in the offing.

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.

We all know women generally make less than men. On average, female workers make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns doing the same job. If you are a woman of color, or work in some lower paid industries, the gap could be even wider. It is one of the reasons women need to invest and save more, not less.

That may sound counter-intuitive. After all, if you are making less, you have less to save and invest. You are absolutely right, but there are important reasons that you still need to save more. One of the main reasons is that the chances are you will live longer than your male counterparts by about five years.

That means if you are living on $50,000 a year, you will need $250,000 (five years times $50,000) in additional income and assets simply to stay afloat until you die. And guess how much the gender wage cap will cost you over your career? The Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement figures that over your lifetime the wage gap will cost you $300,000. Do you see where I'm going here?

The numbers don't add up. Over 150 psychological studies have shown that most women are great at saving, but saving alone won't save you. The only way I believe women can overcome the wage gap penalty, while living longer, is through investing. But unfortunately, the same studies reveal that women are generally more risk-adverse than men when it comes to investing.

There are several reasons for that: everything from lack of confidence to the fear of becoming a homeless bag lady in their old age. The net result of this aversion to risk is less reward. And therefore less money to live on when you retire, get divorced, or experience the death of your husband.

And yet, study after study reveals that when women do invest, they do it well and, in most cases, outperform their male counterparts by almost 1 percent per year. I can attest to that since well over half of my clients are women.  One of the main reasons is that my female clients trade less than male clients. Frequent trading usually ends up with less, not greater, rewards over time.

For the most part, my female clients contribute to their tax-deferred savings plans on a far more regular basis than males. They also refrain from second-guessing their advisors as well. Given that they are usually paying a fee to have their investments managed, their "hands-off" attitude allows the professional to do their jobs. Many men, on the other hand, are like back-seat drivers, always tinkering with their portfolios usually at the wrong time and with the wrong investment.

Probably, their best investment trait is the ability and willingness to ask for help. And when they get advice that makes sense to them, they stay the course, despite the ups and downs which are always present in financial markets. When you combine all of the above, it is not difficult to understand why women investors outperform men.

The bottom line for women is that despite the wage, age and gender gap, you owe it to yourself to start investing and do it now. The longer you wait, the more difficult it will become to avoid that bag lady fate that haunts your dreams.

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.

Since Labor Day marked the end of summer for Wall Street, the big guys came back to work and evidently did not like what they saw. As this week comes to a close, all three indexes suffered losses.

Friday's downturn could be attributed to North Korea, the rogue state that detonated a nuclear device on Thursday night. Those kind of one-off political events often-times unsettle markets. Stocks went down, the dollar spiked as did interest rates and that I found interesting.

Normally, U.S. Treasury bonds are a safe haven so prices go up in times of uncertainty; but not Friday. We have to therefore look under the hood to discern what is really going on with the markets. Aside from the fact that stocks are due for some turbulence, the culprit seems to be additional worries over whether or not the Fed may surprise us by raising rates on September 21.

Then again, traders were somewhat disappointed that Mario Draghi, the chief of the European Central Bank, did not add further stimulus to the already-multi-billions of Euros the ECB is already pumping into their financial markets. Like junkies in search of their next high, traders want central banks to provide more and more easy money in order to justify higher equity prices.

Draghi disappointed them. He appears to have joined his counterparts at the U.S. Federal Reserve in telling the EU membership countries that it is their turn to take up the mantle. He especially singled out Germany in discussing why additional fiscal spending is necessary to accomplish the European bloc's hope for higher economic growth.

Of course European politicians, like those in America, have been sitting back, playing it safe and letting their central bank do all the heavy lifting on the economic front. Naturally, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic like the status quo. You see, doing nothing is not unique to American politicians.

By increasing spending, cutting taxes and/or regulations in order to grow the economy, legislatures are taking a chance. What will their constituents say if the deficit ballooned as a result? T Baggers, here in America, for example, would be out for blood.  I will be curious to see what happens when the Japanese Central Bank meets later this month. Will they send the same message to Japan's parliament?

But in the meantime, our Fed officials are busy sending mixed messages (as usual) over when they plan to raise interest rates in this country. Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren joined the “hawks” on the Fed in warning that rates need to rise soon.  Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo said on morning television, that he would rather wait until there was more proof that inflation was rising before he pulled the trigger.

Nonetheless, their contradictory comments were enough to send the stock market reeling and hike the probability of a September rate hike to 33 percent. In my opinion, I do not believe the Central Bank will hike in September. I do believe, however, that they do not want market participants to become too complacent about when the Fed will raise rates.

The more important question one must ask is what will happen to the stock market if the Fed does raise rates; if this week is any indication, nothing good. As you know, I have been preparing you for a market pull-back. This may be the beginning, and if it is, it won't be something to worry about, but it could be painful while it occurs.

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.

In the heat of presidential campaign rhetoric, the quality of care given to our veterans has become a popular topic. Needless to say, neither candidate has received care in a veteran's hospital and probably does not know anyone who has.

Actually, few of us know anything at all about the Department of Veterans Affairs medical capabilities. Most Americans have never served in the military. Fewer still have ever been inside a VA facility, and if they have, it was to see a relative or friend.

As such, our ignorance breeds a whole host of misunderstandings about how good or bad our veterans are being treated. Critics are quick to point to the 2014 scandal when some VA facilities were found to be denying care to service members and covering up those failures as well. But is that scandal enough to completely revamp an organization that has been serving our countrymen through countless wars?

As a vet who has experienced VA medical treatment, I can tell you that I found my treatment both professional and given with a high degree of care. There are plenty of other veterans who have had the same experience. But don't take my word for it.

There are at least 60 recent studies (since 2014) done by a variety of medical and other organizations. The results indicate that the care our vets receive at VA facilities is comparable to (or superior to) that offered by private providers. In areas such as mental health, preventative care, outpatient processes and outcomes, VA treatment was superior to that received in the private sector, according to these studies.

Their goal, which is centered on the well-being and health of each veteran, explains why their track record is better than average. Take my case as an example. I was wounded in Vietnam as a teenager. I am now in my late 60s and the VA has had a record of my health and well-being for practically my entire adult life. They know me from top to bottom, inside and out.

For the VA, there has always been a strong incentive to invest in my long-term health. In addition, the specialists work as a team with access to the same records and treatments that I have received over the decades. Therefore, there is little redundant treatment and my care is not fragmented among various doctors, hospitals etc., as it can be in the private sector.

The VA's motives are to keep me healthy and living longer and that gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling. In the private sector, profit dictates what happens to the patient. Those who favor privatization of the Veteran Affairs' medical system can swear that won't happen, but ask me if I believe them? And who says they can run the VA any better? If I look at the performance of the prison system, where privatization has been the buzz word for years, I am not impressed nor convinced they do a better job than the state.

Dr. Joseph Lalka, who worked as a primary-care physician at the VA for five years and is now retired, thinks that privatization would be a big mistake. Even though he recognizes the faults of the system, he believes the vast majority of services fill the veteran's needs. Improvements can always be made and the timing of visits to specialty treatment, in particular, is one obvious area that needs to be upgraded, he says.

Remember also that a lot of vets treated at the VA have combat-related traumas and disabilities. You don't see that often in your run-of-the-mill hospital or medical office. Their treatment costs money and requires expertise born from experience. It is hard for me to believe that the private sector could do a comparable job in this area of medicine. Of course, with trauma comes pain medication and with that the higher chances of developing an addiction. It is a problem that is affecting many Americans, not just Vets. Treatment of drug addiction is another area that could be improved at the VA.

I'm sure there are readers out there who disagree with my stance and I would love to hear from you. In the meantime, fix what needs fixing, but don't jettison a system that has served its veterans well in their time of need.

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.