Twenty-five years ago, American beer had more in common with spring water than with one of the oldest beverages of the human race. Today, thanks to a return to the methods of the past, microbreweries and craft beer brewers are hoping to create a renaissance among beer drinkers in America.

Overall, beer consumption in America has seen a steady decline for the past 20 years as consumers abandoned the practically tasteless, calorie-loaded brews in favor of new product offerings in the wine and spirits industries. In hindsight, the launch of Lite beers only made the matter worse. Beer experts debate whether the consolidation among American brewers using mass production techniques accelerated that downtrend or was simply a survival response in the face of disappearing profits and plummeting sales.

It doesn't matter, since the end result was the same. Today, two megacompanies (Anheuser-Busch InBev and Miller Coors) control 90 percent of the American market. That amounts to roughly $200 billion in sales, or 2.787 billion cases last year, a 1.3 percent decline from the prior year. The two big companies now have so many brands that your local bar can offer eight different brands of beer on tap and, unknown to you, all of them are made by the same company using roughly the same brewing procedures and priced carefully to create an illusion of real choice.

However, there is a burgeoning niche market of craft beers with names like "Flying Dog," "Green Pig" and "Sierra Nevada" that have wrestled a 6 percent market share from the big guys largely built on a return to producing beer in smaller batches with the highest quality ingredients. These mini-breweries have been embraced by as many as 50 million Americans. The segment grew 15 percent in volume and 17 percent in dollars last year, equating to about $10.2 billion in sales. There are 2,347 craft breweries operating in this country as of last year, comprising 1,132 brewpubs and 97 regional craft breweries, according to the Brewers Association. Most beer industry analysts expect that the craft-beer market share will continue to climb as more consumers are willing to pay up for tastier brews with hints of dark molasses, cherries and other exotic flavors.

The blossoming renaissance in demand for beer produced by small, independent brewers can be traced back to Boston Beer Co., the brewer of Samuel Adams beer, almost 30 years ago. Since then the market and the microbreweries have expanded to the point where the market is becoming even more segmented.

For example, a distinction is growing between microbreweries, especially regionals such as Sam Adams and Yuengling, which now account for as much as 1 percent of the overall beer market, and those breweries that produce no more than 6 million barrels of beer annually. They can usually be found within 10 miles of their customers.

Craft brewers, according to the criteria, should be independent, with less than 25 percent of their brewery owned or controlled by another alcoholic beverage industry member. Brewers should have at least 50 percent of its volume composed of all malt beers, which uses adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor. Craft brewers, like great chefs, take the basic ingredients of beer—water, yeast, malt and hops — and produce wonderful and unusual flavors through innovation and education.

Recently, the two big brewers have been muscling their way into the micro and mini-markets producing their own brands disguised as craft beers. The attraction of higher profitability and additional growth, given that craft beers can cost twice the price (if not more) of a mass-produced domestic beer, makes that market irresistible.

The competition within the beer sector has always been fierce. There are now more breweries in this country than before Prohibition. It will be interesting to see whether once again the big guys, through money and clout, force the crafters off the shelf and out of the bars.  In the end, I believe, it will come down to whether America's consumers are willing to pay up for a sip, rather than a gulp, and acquire a taste for truly exceptional beer.

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 Dow made a new record high every day this week, except Friday. The S&P 500 Index came within a hair's breath of its historical high as well. Most world indexes are doing the same thing. The consensus is that the markets are going higher — Uh oh.

I guess I should feel vindicated for remaining bullish over the last year or so in the face of all those "what will go wrong" scenarios. However, when just about everyone is bullish I start to get concerned. It's the contrarian in me.

There are a handful of readers I use as a contrary indicator. You know the type. When the markets are at a bottom, they want to go to cash. At market tops they usually call up asking if they are too conservative no matter how much they are making. I received several emailss this week from those kind of readers who were asking about getting more aggressive. Uh, oh.

When I compare the U.S. equity market with its counterparts in 30 other nations, I find that our market is the most overbought of any of them, although Japan comes in a close second. Uh, oh.

 But markets can stay overbought for a long time, so I wouldn't go out and try to short stocks right here, nor would I take profits.

So far, every dip in our markets has been met with renewed buying. The most popular explanation for this seemingly insatiable demand for stocks is that U.S. Treasury bond investors, tired of receiving record low interest payments from their holdings, are finally selling their positions and are seeking greater returns by investing in stocks. It is called "The Great Rotation," but the evidence is more hearsay than fact.

The financial media is doing their part to stoke the buying frenzy. They are having a field day citing financial statistics of this record or that. The Dow, for example, has been up 10 days in a row. That has only happened four times since WWII. An interesting statistic, but worthless when it comes to your portfolio or what happens next.

For those who feel compelled to put more money in the markets at this late date, do so with some financial acumen. Don't buy on the up days or buy everything at once. Average in and try to keep your emotions out of it. Remember, investors' greatest enemies are fear and greed.

Another suggestion would be to look for the laggards using the "rising tide lifts all boats" theory. If you truly believe that the global markets are going to continue to rise (with no breaks) in the foreseeable future than buy those stocks, sectors and country indexes that have lagged the U.S. market.

And for those who have stayed the course and are fully invested, remain so. However, I suspect that as March advances the rate of gains will slow. Once the S&P 500 Index breaks out to new highs, the markets will become a battleground of those buying the dips versus those wanting to take profits. That is not a game that most of us will be willing to play. I know that I would rather sit with what I have and watch the battle play out. Either way, I don't see much downside risk for long-term investors. Overall, I am still looking for double-digit gains in the markets this year.

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.

As the white smoke clears, the first Argentinean was appointed to the pinnacle of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Francis I, formerly known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, assumed the reigns of what many believe is the wealthiest instituition on Earth and since he is the boss that makes him one wealthy individual.

At the helm of this financial behemoth representing 3,000 dioceses and 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, is a 76-year-old man who likes to be called "Father Jorge," who takes the subway and prefers to dress in clerical black, rather than the rich red of his fellow cardinals. He is a man who rejected the palatial digs of his predecessors as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, opting instead to live in a small apartment where he cooked his own meals.

Francis I is responsible for untold billions in assets that range from priceless art works to real estate holdings that are so large they rival the size of many small countries. No one knows for sure how much the Catholic Church is worth although over the years various media organizations and research centers have made a stab at estimating portions of the net worth of this 2,000-year-old religious order.

For example, back in 2010, The Economist estimated that the church and organizations owned by them in just the United States was spending roughly $179 billion a year. They estimated that the 34 metropolitan provinces managed by 270 bishops spent 57 percent of that money in health-care networks, 28 percent went to colleges while parish and diocesan operations (of which there are 196) accounted for only 6 percent. It might surprise some to know that charitable donations only accounted for 2.7 percent.

The church employs 2,800 lay workers worldwide, which isn't much considering the number of Catholics out there. Pope Francis' new digs, Vatican City, alone accounts for 1,900 of these workers. Given that the Vatican is officially a city state, its employees are responsible for issuing its own passports, license plates, postal service as well as the administration of a host of offices and buildings, including its own hospital. Much of that infrastructure has outgrown the confines of the world's smallest country and has sprawled throughout Rome's urban landscape.

If we confine our discussion to just the assets the Vatican owns, we know that its portfolio includes billions in property across Europe. Included in the portfolio are buildings in London, Paris and Switzerland. Then there are the landmarks in Rome, which draw 5 million tourists a year such as the Apostolic Palace (the pope's official residence) the Sistine Chapel (with its murals by Botticelli and Michelangelo) and St. Peter's Basilica, the largest church in the world. You could combine Disneyland, Disney World and a couple more such attractions and you wouldn't come close to the worth of those historical spiritual shrines in the middle of some of the highest priced real estate in Europe.

There are estimates that worldwide, the Church owns roughly 716,000 square miles of real estate - about the size of Alberta, Canada - which includes churches, cathedrals, monasteries, schools and convents among other properties. Its bank, called the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), is estimated to be worth $8 billion to $10 billion and has investments in multiple corporations ranging from finance, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction and real estate.

It is thought that the Vatican holds a mountain in gold worth several billion dollars. The real money, however, is tied up in artwork and other irreplaceable religious relics. They are both practically impossible to categorize and even more difficult to price, since the Church would never sell these objects.

Yet, despite its wealth, the Catholic Church has been cash-flow poor for several years. Scandal and mismanagement has cost this colossal non-profit an enormous sum. The abuse scandals have drained the church of well over $3.3 billion to date. That number is expected to grow as more cases are decided in favor of the plaintiffs. For an organization that receives $170 billion annually in revenues, a couple billion might seem like small change; but many of the settlements have been made by individual dioceses and religious orders, which are not nearly as wealthy as the Church overall. Eight U.S. dioceses have already declared bankruptcy as a result of these settlements and more of the country's 196 dioceses could wind up in similar straits.

The Vatican Bank, itself, has also been the subject to repeated multimillion dollar scandals ranging from money laundering, to mismanagement and the lack of financial controls. So don't envy the new pope too much. Francis I has his work cut out for him and I suspect he will have precious little time to enjoy his status as the wealthiest guy on Earth.

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.

Recently a number of clients have expressed an interest in hiring a financial planner to provide a roadmap toward retiring or saving money toward a child's college education. They asked me what they should look for when hiring such an individual. Here is my advice.

First off, one needs to understand what a financial planner actually does. A practicing financial planner looks at all aspects of your personal finance and that of your family. After understanding your goals and objectives, they create a plan that should include everything from how much money you make, spend and save, to your retirement objectives, education and insurance needs, estate and tax planning concerns and even business planning (for those who own a business).

Many older clients simply want to cut to the chase — how much will they need to retire and when. Creating a financial plan takes a lot of work and there are no short cuts. You have to put in the effort and it can end up costing you anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000, depending on what you want.

In addition, you need to spend time with the planner because they need to gather a lot of data about you and your household and it helps if you keep good records. Once the data is assembled, planners input that information into one of several financial planning software programs. The output should give you a fairly clear idea of where you are going financially.

Most of today's financial planning programs are interactive, which means that by changing assumptions (like retiring at 65, instead of 70 years of age, or saving $100 more a month rather than $50 over the next 15 years) you can generate different outcomes. Depending upon their experience and knowledge, a financial planner can come up with scenarios and solutions that best fit your circumstances. I strongly advise everyone to undergo this process and do so more than once. It could mean the difference between a happy retirement for you and your family or bagging groceries for a living to make ends meet when you are eighty.

Since there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who call themselves financial planners, how do you whittle it down to the one or two that are best for you?

One way would be to narrow your search is to select a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). CFPs must prove that they have completed a rigorous program of study on all aspects of the discipline and are then required to pass a two-day examination. It doesn’t guarantee that they are good at the job, but at least you know they have acquired the knowledge base.

My next suggestion would be to hire a "fee-only" planner as opposed to someone who is "fee-based." Fee-only planners charge you for the financial plan and that's all. Fee-based planners can and do sell a whole host of products and make commissions and fees on those products as well as charging a fee for the plan itself.

Clearly a potential conflict of interest arises when the same person who creates your plan "discovers" you need more insurance, or an annuity, or a new money manager and makes more money selling these services to you than the cost of the plan itself.

That doesn't mean that all fee-based planners are bad or all fee-only planners are good. I know, for example, excellent planners that are fee-based. I also know planners, who are not CFPs, but have vastly more experience than most CFPs. It simply means that you should be aware of these differences when shopping around and never, ever accept a planner that you have not checked out.

It is always smart to ask others for names of planners who have done a good job for them. That doesn't mean you are off the hook. You should still check references, vet the person (at least on the Internet) and find out what the charges will be before you agree to hire the planner.

If you follow this advice, you still may end up with a bad planner but chances are you will avoid a really ugly one and find someone who will provide real value for your money.

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.

If it wasn't such a national embarrassment, the finger pointing going on among our so-called leaders would be comical. Nonetheless, it is March 1 and time is up. Bring on the Sequester.

Our congressional leaders made a big show today at the White House sequestration meeting. It was their first such meeting on the subject to date. I considered it a photo op at best. This week, rather than attempt a compromise, both Democrats and Republicans spent their time blaming each other for the Sequester.
 
From the GOP point of view, it is "the president's sequester" while the president is blaming the cuts on the Republican's failure to act responsibly. Since it was the Budget Control Act of 2011 that first authorized the Sequester, (if the bi-partisan "Super Committee" couldn't come up with a compromise solution to reducing the deficit), let's look at how the final vote panned out.

One hundred and seventy-four Republicans voted for the measure but only 95 Democrats. The final tally was 269-161 with just about all of today's GOP leadership voting yes. These are the same characters who now claim it was Obama's fault. All of this name calling is a smokescreen to hide an even more important deadline that occurs at the end of March.

On March 27, Congress will need to pass a "continuing resolution" (read short-term spending plan) or funding for the Federal government will expire. Yes, my long-suffering readers, without a deal between the two parties the government shuts down. Continuing resolutions are stop-gap measures that keep the lights on in Washington, absent a formal budget. We haven't had one of those in years because of political partisanship.

The threat of a shutdown actually will force Congress to act since, unlike the more subtle and slower-paced sequester cuts, a total shutdown of the government would be highly visible and extremely disruptive. It would not be pretty. Either congress will agree to keep the sequester cuts as is or it will have to come up with an alternative set of revenue increases and spending cuts.

In the meantime, both parties will have had almost a month of dealing with irate airline passengers, defense contractors, various agency heads, parents of Head Start children and the like. So this week's failure to compromise is simply setting the stage for a bigger cliffhanger, much more drama and, I suspect, heightened volatility in the stock market.

Readers may have noticed that over the last two weeks volatility has escalated among the averages. We will most likely see more one percent up and down days as March unfolds. Washington seems to be providing the justification for the pullback I have been expecting. So with headwinds strengthening, one wonders just how long the markets will be able to shrug them off. But let me be clear: I don't expect a market route, simply a nice pullback that stocks sorely need in order to advance further this year.

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.