There is quite a bit of worry over this year's presidential elections. Most of that angst centers on the possibility that Donald Trump might be elected to the office and that this could be a disaster for the stock market. If history is any guide, those concerns may be misplaced.

Granted, we haven't seen a candidate quite like the "Donald" in modern history. Some would like to point out that Ronald Reagan, a movie star best known for co-acting with a chimp, did not give many Americans a warm, fuzzy feeling either. Others say Reagan was a pillar of common sense compared to Trump. A President Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would be a down right relief.

Supporters will argue that you can't take Trump at his word. His statements are merely negotiating positions that are not meant as policy, but simply bargaining chips with some of our foreign partners. That said, Trump, say his detractors, is unlike Reagan or anyone else who ran for office over the last 22 presidential election years. It does seem that he has the knack of piling one outrageous idea upon another.

Building a wall between Mexico and the United States, embargoing Muslims from entering the country, torturing terrorists' families, renegotiating NATO, our U.S. Treasury debt and our trade pacts, if implemented, could easily sink our stock market and those of pretty much every nation on Earth.

Now, I'm sure that if I look back through history, there have been plenty of outrageous statements articulated by candidates. Remember, during the Great Depression, for example, a whole raft of politicians were against any government interference in the economy at all.

Plenty more were dead-set against social security or public works, or any other attempt by American society to alleviate the plight of more than 25 percent of the population. Back then, "Let them eat cake" was not just a French attitude. Plenty of Americans had a similar attitude toward the poor and disenfranchised.

By the way, both parties' isolationist trade policy during the 1920s and 1930s make Trumps' view on trade down right dovish. We tend to forget (or hide) the fact that during WWII, this "just" nation incarcerated entire communities of citizens of Japanese descent behind barbed wire for years. In that context, some American politicians of the past would have had no problem building walls or excluding Muslims. We won't even go in to how our Heroes of the American West treated Native Americans.

Before you protest these examples, I know times have changed. Supposedly, we are living in an "enlightened" nation today. I just wonder how many of us are truly appalled by Trump's statements. From the polls, it appears that there are quite a few Americans who have yet to see the light. If so, then maybe this year won't be as bad as we fear.

If you look at the historical data, between the close of May and the close of October, the S&P 500 Index has rallied 19 of the last 22 election years. That's 86 percent of the time with an average gain of 6.2 percent. Those results, however, have been influenced greatly by just a few election years.

The financial crisis of 2008 (and an election year), saw the S&P Index fall by 31 percent. In 1932, the market gained 55.7 percent, only to give it all back when the Hoover presidency drove us deeper into the Depression. We also had two near 20 percent gains in 1936 and 1940 as well. If you accommodate for those outliers, we could lower the average gain per year to say 4 percent. In addition, volatility appears to be more pronounced during the months of July and August, which was almost 40  percent greater than across the 12-month span.

Although history rarely repeats, it does rhyme, and this election year should be no different. Regardless of who wins, there is a tendency by the electorate to become more hopeful once the elections are over. Wall Street and the markets usually catch that fever and will give the new president the benefit of the doubt until it doesn't. As such, the chances are that we should see a single-digit gain this year in stocks.

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 retirement world is changing. A long-sought-after regulation by the Department of Labor was released in April. It goes a long way toward protecting retirement savers from brokers and insurance agents. Here is what you need to know.

The new ruling insists that those who advise investors on appropriate investments for their IRAs, 401(k)s and other tax-deferred savings plans must put the client’s interest above their own and the company they work for. In short, they must act as a “fiduciary” rather than simply recommend “appropriate” investments.

You see, an “appropriate” investment for someone with little investment experience might be an annuity or a target retirement fund. The fact that these securities might also have a very high cost (called an expense fee) or perform poorly over time doesn’t matter. They are still an appropriate investment. Most investors do not realize that their broker buddy and his company take advantage of this. It is why he has a new car every year and a swimming pool while savers like you lose over $17 billion a year in unnecessary fees.  

Readers may recall that I have been on a crusade for the last nine years in my columns to change these abuses. Despite enormous protests from their friends in Congress, the DOL ruling is in effect now. Brokers and insurance agents have a year to become compliant with the new regulations.

So what does this mean for you as a saver? It should reduce the fees that you are charged in your retirement plan. Remember, that independent research has revealed that over a 25 year period of savings in these plans, fully a third of the assets is consumed by these fees and expenses.

In past columns, I have written that over a 25-year period of savings in these retirement plans, fully a third of a retiree’s assets are consumed by fees and expenses.The new ruling, plus a wave of successful lawsuits by disgruntled retirees against companies whose plans charge exorbitant fees, have plan sponsors rethinking their plan offerings. As company managements realize that they (and not the brokers who advise them) are on the hook in these large class action settlements, a new attitude is emerging. High-priced mutual funds are being replaced by exchange traded funds whose fees are a fraction of the costs and whose performance is better 85 percent of the time.

This is no secret. We have been investing our clients in these low-cost, better-performing ETFs for years. It is why we are fiduciaries and brokers are not. Now, retirement advisers and their firms are required to acknowledge their fiduciary status, enter into a contract with their clients, and explain investment fees and costs clearly. In addition, they must have policies and procedures in place to mitigate harmful effects brought about by conflicts of interest and keep certain data on their performance. It is what we have been doing for years and, in my opinion, it is the only fair and honest way to do business.

Now, realize that these brokers (turned fiduciaries) can still charge you commissions, revenue sharing and 12b-1 fees (a kick-back from mutual fund companies they are recommending). The difference is that now you need to sign a contract agreeing to all of the above.

If you can’t get a plain English explanation from that person sitting across from you in his silk tie and dark blue suit, say goodbye. You should expect and demand an explanation for every charge and fee that they are proposing and how it compares to the competition. There is absolutely no reason that you should agree to a revenue-sharing scheme or paying 12b-1 fees, in my opinion. If you have any questions on the topic, shoot me an e-mail or call at the numbers below. The onus is on you to make the right decisions.

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.