The Retired Investor: The Never-Ending Story of Rising Beef Prices
By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
Beef is no longer a grocery staple. It is becoming a luxury commodity, priced out of most consumers' everyday budgets. The average price of ground beef is now $6.30 per pound. Steaks are averaging $12.22 per pound. Ranchers want to keep it that way, but the president begs to differ.
In total, beef prices are hitting record highs as the U.S. cattle herd falls to its smallest size since 1951. From around 140 million head of cattle in the U.S. back in the '70s, the herd has dropped to 94 million head. Recently, even Donald Trump had to admit that beef prices are out of control.
"The only price we have that's high is beef — we'll get that down," the president said recently. No doubt his consumption of Big Macs has kept him focused on the price of ground beef while ignoring skyrocketing prices in other food items. Trump blamed the stubbornly high beef prices on reduced imports from Mexico and domestic drought conditions (but refused to acknowledge climate change).
His solution — quadruple beef purchases from Argentina and apply a lower tariff rate. In his mind, he saw a two-fold opportunity. Prop up his buddy, Argentinian President Javier Milei's election chances and, at the same time, "bring our beef prices down."
As you may surmise, cattle ranchers were beginning to benefit from these nationwide higher prices after years of losses. Some were even considering investing their profits back into rebuilding their herds. So, additional imports were not on their wish list. But not all is as it seems.
American ranchers' response to his efforts surprised him, and the blowback came from across the industry. "Misguided," "an absolute betrayal," "a kick in the nuts," "he is picking winners and losers" — those were just some of the comments from ranchers I have read. The outcry was so extensive that about the only ranchers who did not voice their concerns were the Duttons.
As I have explained to readers in past columns, over the past decade, due to climate-driven droughts, inflation, and surging feed costs, ranchers struggled to survive. At the same time, consolidation among meatpackers and feedlots produced fewer buyers at auction for their cattle. Fewer buyers meant lower prices. Many could not survive, others limped along making few ends meet.
I asked myself why, after years of price increases, it is only now that some ranchers are turning a profit of sorts. Does it require a 14.7 percent increase in prices over the last 10 months, on top of prior years' hikes, for ranchers to turn a profit? And if not ranchers, who is benefiting?
Most ranchers in America are long-term supporters of Donald Trump. However, many see the administration's policies toward cattle production as far too simplistic to solve their real issues. Here once again, state capitalism has reared its misguided head.
The U.S. imports beef from dozens of countries and has done so for years. This year, despite record-high beef prices, Trump levied tariffs on U.S. imports of cattle, thinking this would help his voting bloc in cattle country not only turn a profit but also increase American beef production. Wrong.
Not only did he make an already bad situation for consumers much worse, but at the same time, despite these higher prices, ranchers saw little increase in the price they received for their livestock at the auction block. Why?
Ranchers claim that the meatpacking industry is the sector benefiting from the higher beef prices. You may recall that just four meatpackers control 85 percent of the U.S. beef market. Thanks to the president's tariff policies, continued inflation, and the immigration crackdown, processors face their own problems despite charging more for their products. That leaves individual ranchers as price takers with these huge conglomerates dictating prices at auctions.
As for increasing cattle supply, that takes years. Trump will be long gone before that happens, and so will his Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rolins. In the meantime, the increase in Argentine beef will have at best a negligible effect on U.S. retail beef prices. Argentina produces about one-quarter of total U.S. beef output, making it the sixth-largest beef producer in the world. Yet, as an exporter to the U.S., Argentina ranks only ninth, supplying no more than 2.1 percent of total U.S. beef imports thus far in 2025.
What Trump's announcement has done, however, is immediately lower the auction prices ranchers are now receiving for their cattle. Still, it was effective in manipulating the Argentine elections in favor of his crony. If you didn't understand state capitalism before, I suspect you do now.
Ranchers say they are looking for market-based solutions, such as making it easier for start-ups to enter the business. They also want mandatory country-of-origin labeling, reduced costs for meat processors (read: immigration and tariff relief), and expansion of federal grazing lands. Some of these policies are already being rolled out. However, none of these actions will likely increase the herd or lower prices for years to come.
As it is, the population is rapidly changing its diet preferences, and if it continues, there will be little need to grow the cattle population. We are getting to that point quickly. Most people I know reserve meat consumption for special occasions, like graduation dinners, client lunches, or a once-a-week special grilling event.
Given that the USDA retail price per pound of chicken is $2.08 and pork is $4.29, we rarely eat meat at our house. Our meat consumption has dropped from several times a week five years ago to at best twice per month. There are benefits as well: the medical literature indicates that consuming less meat is a healthier choice for living longer.
I often say that the solution to higher prices is higher prices. Our newfound experiment in state capitalism, at least in the ranching industry, may preserve America's myths of cowboys and TV "Yellowstones," but at what cost? What does that say about the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of having a "protected" U.S. industry that requires $12 a pound steak to survive at all?
Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: Americans Are Getting Stingier
By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
Nonprofit giving has declined by $65 billion since 2021. However, institutions are not the only ones pulling back. Consumers are also less enthusiastic about gift-giving. Are we becoming a nation of Scrooges?
Americans gave a record $592.5 billion to charity in 2024. That sounds like a lot, but surveys find that over the last 20 years, the number of Americans donating to charity dropped from about two-thirds to under half in recent years. As a result, wealthy individuals, corporations, and foundations are making up the difference; however, even they are slowing down in their gift-giving.
The reasons are many. The tax laws changed back in 2017, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the standard deduction. That decreased the number of households that itemize their deductions. Practically overnight, millions of middle-class families lost their tax incentive to donate. As a result, giving to charities became less rewarding for many everyday givers. Those in the middle of the income distribution claiming a deduction for charitable giving fell by two-thirds.
You would think that, with the stock market and real estate gains nearing all-time highs, affluent Americans would be giving more to charities. A Bank of America Study of Philanthropy found the opposite. Last year, only 81 percent of high-net-worth households gave to charities compared to 91 percent in 2015.
Several key factors, in addition to taxes, are contributing to this trend. The economy, a perennially significant factor, is currently casting a shadow of uncertainty over charitable giving. When people feel uncertain of the future, when inflation is high, and volatility is heightened, charitable giving falters. The present divisions within the nation have also contributed to this hesitation.
Many of today's business donors also believe that nonprofits, overall (especially in education), are no longer aligned with their values. The present administration's attack on much of the education system only heightens this belief. Over the last few years of cultural strife, we have seen institutions forced to rename buildings, remove faculty positions funded by endowments, and even distance themselves from past donors who no longer align with the political or ideological landscape.
From a demographic point of view, the trend among America's wealthiest donors is gradually becoming more conservative, more center-right, if you will. This shift is a function of generational wealth transfers as Baby Boomers fade and Millennials rise to wealth and power in their place, significantly altering the landscape of charitable giving.
However, it is not only the wealthy who are adopting a frugal approach. The pervasive impact of inflation is affecting the costs of everything from birthday gifts to the amount you tip at your favorite restaurant. In a recent survey by Empower, a retirement planning firm, 75 percent of respondents reported that gifts are more expensive due to inflation and tariffs, shedding light on the financial pressures faced by donors.
More than half say gifting is over the top, and almost as many complain of gift fatigue. Once again, it is the Millennials who want to institute a no-gifts policy in 2025 among all their acquaintances. Those who still gift say they shop for gifts based on price, with 58 percent of them setting a budget for gifts. Today's range for giving a birthday gift is $56 for adults and $83 for kids, while children's allowances per week are now $37.
Tipping for takeout dinners, food deliveries, beauty services, and rideshares has also declined according to the survey by more than 10 percent. Whether consumers are becoming more miserly or simply adjusting to tighter economic circumstances remains to be seen. As for the wealthy, future charitable contributions will depend on how quickly recipients of philanthropy adjust to their goals and objectives to meet the rising tide of populism.
Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: Front running is alive and well in America
By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
On Friday, Oct. 10, just ninety minutes before President Trump took to social media threatening 100 percent tariffs on China, two anonymous accounts placed bets that cryptocurrencies would fall in the short term. By the end of the day, the cryptocurrency market had plunged $19 billion, resulting in a $160 million gain for those traders.
The plot thickens. Sunday night, before the futures market opened, the president took to the airways again, this time calming fears over a trade war with China. When markets opened on Monday and cryptocurrencies were skyrocketing higher, the same account placed a fresh short bet, this time for $160 million, that crypto would fall even further. Tuesday, after China upped the ante in its trade spat with the U.S., crypto crashed again.
Either someone is extraordinarily lucky or prescient. Traders were quick to accuse this anonymous account of insider trading. Is this just a case of bad feelings, envy, or is there something fishy going on in the markets? Obviously, there is no conclusive evidence of insider trading, and even if there were, it is harder to prove and prosecute in the lightly regulated cryptocurrency market.
This is not the first time this has happened. Front-running important news has become a lucrative pastime this year. A week before Liberation Day on April 2, a key official who shapes the Trump administration's trade policy sold off $30,000 worth of stock. Two days before that ill-fated day, a state department official sold $50,000 in stock. Readers may recall that the stock market plunged dramatically after President Trump's reciprocal tariff announcements. More than a dozen U.S. officials in total sold stocks before the announcement that sent stocks plunging that day.
Democrats were quick to accuse the White House of insider trading, demanding an investigation into all the transactions by staffers leading up to April 2. Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the administration, argued that they should instead investigate their own Nanci Pelosi if they were interested in an insider trading probe.
The Democrats' accusations are a proverbial case of the pot calling the kettle black. Members of Congress of both parties are permitted to trade stocks, and almost all of them own shares in publicly traded companies. Congressional lawmakers have access to nonpublic information that has been shown to move markets, individual stocks, and sectors. A New York Times investigation found that 18% of congressional members trade stocks in industries related to the work of the congressional committees on which they serve. Talk about a conflict of interest!
There are laws in place that prevent front-running and insider trading. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 aimed to prevent insider trading on the stock market by mandating disclosures; however, this requirement did not apply to members of Congress. The STOCK Act, passed in 2012, partially closed that loophole. It requires Congress to disclose stock trades of more than $1,000 within 30 days. Penalties for failing to do so are a mere $200 for a first-time violation.
And guess who investigates legislators' violations—Congress. The proceedings are private, and enforcement is inconsistent at best. Insider abuse is so well-known that there are at least six internet services that track congressional stock trading, and at least one that tracks Nanci Pelosi's stock picks daily. If you ever wondered how elected officials manage to acquire vast fortunes on their congressional salary, now you know.
Regarding the accusations against the Trump administration, a research paper by Paul Odin, Assistant Professor of Law, published in the Oxford Business Law Blog, argues that, under the definition of market manipulation as outlined in the 1934 Act, neither Trump nor his team violated the law. As for insider trading under the Stock Act, "theoretically," Trump may have been in breach of its provisions. That would be difficult to prove, and in any case, he is protected by presidential immunity.
The facts are that no sanction for insider trading has ever been imposed under the Stock Act, and given Congress's track record, it is unlikely that it ever will. The president has stated publicly that he has not engaged in insider trading, but he admitted that he cannot definitively claim that members of his administration have not.
A recent poll found that 7 in 10 Americans hold unfavorable views of Congress, and a majority of both Republican and Democratic voters support a ban on congressional stock trading. Leaders from both parties, including President Trump and President Biden, House Speaker Mike Johnson, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Congresswoman Nanci Pelosi, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, support some form of a ban on congressional stock trading. So far, no legislation has crossed the finish line.
As for the mysterious whale that cleaned up in the crypto market, it is doubtful any action will be pursued. The truth is that leaking information to players in the financial markets and other insider trading schemes have been in existence for longer than anyone can remember. Have you ever noticed that markets sometimes rise or fall substantially in the hours leading up to the announcement of a significant economic data point? The same can be said for stocks, and lately, even sectors, more often than I would like to see. It is hard to imagine, given this golden age of grift, that curbs on these illegal practices will be forthcoming anytime soon.
Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: Government Shutdown Keeps Farmers in Limbo
By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
American farmers are set to receive another bailout from Trump's tariffs. The holdup is due to the lack of any additional money that lawmakers can deliver, as well as furloughed administration staffers to finalize and implement the aid package.
Readers may recall that during Donald Trump's first tariff war, which occurred in 2018-2019, farmers were devastated as China retaliated by suspending purchases of U.S. agricultural imports. It took $20 billion of taxpayer money to stop the bleeding. Once again, the same scenario is unfolding as the administration prepares another multibillion-dollar bailout.
Under the first bailout, farmers who earned less than $900,000 a year and produced one of the agricultural products affected by the U.S.-China trade war could apply for relief. The bailout's limit of support for a single farmer was $125,000 per person of a legal entity.
This time around, we are still unclear about the details or how the government will fund it. That is because the government shutdown has removed the administration’s ability to determine if they can use tariff money to pay for it or the need to ask Congress for the funds. Last time around, Trump used funds from an Agriculture Department entity called the Commodity Credit Corp. That avenue is no longer viable since the CCC has depleted its cash.
I still recall the televised announcement when the President claimed he had made a significant trade deal with China, promising to purchase $200 billion of U.S. agricultural products over two years. It turned out that, through 2021, China had only managed to buy 83 percent of that commitment.
While some argue that China deliberately reneged on that promise, I suspect the COVID-19 pandemic had a much more significant impact on the shortfall in purchases, as China struggled to contain the epidemic. Through the Biden years, China continued to purchase farm products. It was only after President Trump restarted the trade war in his second term by increasing tariffs on China by 100 percent that purchases ceased.
Last year, China accounted for more than half of the 24.5 billion of U.S. exports of soybeans. Currently, thanks to Trump's tariffs, China has ceased buying American soybeans since May and increased its purchases from producers in South America. Since the 1950s, the U.S., Brazil, and Argentina have accounted for 80 percent of global soybean production. Soybeans are the second-largest crop in the U.S., with 85 million planted acres over the past five years. That is about the size of the entire Northeast.
That crop contributes, on average, about $124 billion per year to the economy. There are approximately 280,000 soybean farmers in the country, primarily located in the Midwest, with four out of the five largest producers based in states that supported the president in the last election. However, just two multinational corporations, Corteva and Bayer, control more than half of all soybeans (as well as corn and cottonseed) production in America.
Farmers' incomes have been sucking wind for years. Most have lost money over the past two years, and thanks to several different variables, losses will likely mount this year and into 2026. Costs for fertilizer, machinery, and seeds have increased at a rate higher than inflation, while prices for almost every row crop are below the cost of production. Interest rates and climate change have also taken their toll.
The Biden administration and Congress passed a $10 billion bailout for farmers in December 2025, but that is just a drop in the bucket. Republican lawmakers estimate that farmers will need as much as $50 billion in economic support today. Right now the talk centers around another $10 to $14 billion in aid. The American Soybean Association president, Caleb Ragland, called that "putting a Band-aid on an open wound."
While my heart goes out to America's farming community, I cannot help but wonder why farmers have been singled out for relief once again. At the same time, the rest of us continue to suffer from the same fallout from tariffs, including higher food prices that exceed the inflation rate, and increased health care costs as the Republican-controlled Congress continues to reduce benefits.
Is it because the farmers are mainly from states where Trump voters are prevalent? Is it because our Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent owns thousands of acres of soybean farmland? Will half the spending end up in the pockets of the two major corporations that control the soybean market?
The last bailout was limited to those who earned less than $900,000 per year. There are many small businesses throughout the country that earn less than that. Where is their bailout? What is the solution to turning around our farmers' plight? It is simple. Drop the irrational tariffs on China.
Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
The Retired Investor: Rising Coffee Prices Bitter Brew for Consumers
By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
Sept. 19 was National Coffee Day. Starbucks, Dunkin', Dutch Bros., and other coffee chains offered discounts on coffee. That did little to relieve the sticker shock most consumers are feeling now. The 20 percent price hike year over year for their morning brew has been hard to swallow.
In the futures market, Arabica coffee has traded as high as $4.18 per pound in September, the highest price in almost a year. In grocery aisles, ground roast coffee prices recently reached $8.41 per pound before falling back over the last two weeks. Overall, the cost of coffee imports to the United States has increased by more than 300 percent since the lows of 2020. Five years ago, a bag of coffee was fetching roughly $80 per standard bag (132-154 pounds or so). Today, that same quantity is approaching $368.
More than 99 percent of the coffee Americans drink is imported, as only Puerto Rico and Hawaii grow significant quantities of the crop. Coffee is the second most popular beverage in the U.S., after bottled water, with 63 percent of Americans drinking it daily.
Like most commodities, the prices of soft commodities fluctuate according to supply and demand. Last year, for example, I discussed the skyrocketing cost of cocoa and its impact on chocolate prices. Since then, cocoa prices have dropped from a high of $12,626 per ton to $6,759 today. Coffee prices react similarly.
Consumers may also notice a price differential depending on whether they purchase their caffeine fix from a grocery store, a restaurant, or a coffee chain. Supermarket prices fluctuate more than a cup of coffee at Starbucks or other coffee chains. That is because grocers are quick to raise store prices as coffee prices rise and reverse just as quickly when they fall. Coffee chains, on the other hand, prefer to draw down on their existing coffee inventories rather than buy expensive beans on the open market.
The primary factor underlying the price of coffee (like cocoa) is climate change. Coffee cultivation and yield are highly sensitive to the environment. Extreme weather in both Brazil and Vietnam, major coffee-producing countries, has damaged the coffee crop frequently in the past few years. A severe drought in Brazil during last summer season decimated the coffee crop. Given that Brazil supplies 40 percent of the world's coffee, the shortfall had a significant impact on import prices for the U.S., which accounts for 32 percent of Brazilian coffee exports.
The number two producer, Vietnam, also suffered a drought, resulting in a 20 percent reduction in coffee production last year. Making matters worse, the nation experienced precipitation whiplash (an increasingly common occurrence in climate change). That is where drought is followed by heavy rainstorms, wiping out even further production. Supply chain disruptions are also contributing to the rising cost of coffee, as are global inflation and trade policies. The price of coffee reached a near-50-year high in February of this year.
In the last two weeks, prices in the futures market for coffee have declined slightly, trading around $376 per pound. Traders are hedging their bets ahead of a meeting between U.S. President Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, President Lula da Silva. After bumping into each other during the U.N. General Assembly last Tuesday, the president said that "we agreed to meet next week."
A deal could provide some price relief. What do presidential politics have to do with the price of coffee? Plenty. The president has levied a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian imports, including coffee. Once one of our strongest allies in South America, Brazil is now at odds with the president. The country refused to drop charges against its former President Jair Bolsonaro, a friend and ally of Donald Trump.
Bolsonaro was subsequently tried and convicted of plotting a coup and sentenced to 27 years in prison. As a result, an angry Trump slapped tariffs on the country. He justified these levies by claiming that Bolsonaro's conviction somehow created an economic emergency for the U.S. America has a $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil, meaning it imports more than it exports from the U.S.
A bipartisan group in Congress is well aware of that. They claim the tariffs put a new tax on coffee every morning and have recently introduced the "No Coffee Tax Act." The legislation would repeal the Trump-era tariffs on coffee imports from Brazil, Vietnam, India, Mexico, and Indonesia. Good luck with that. I wouldn't count on Congress for much of anything without the president's approval.
Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.
Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.
We show up at hurricanes, budget meetings, high school games, accidents, fires and community events. We show up at celebrations and tragedies and everything in between. We show up so our readers can learn about pivotal events that affect their communities and their lives.
How important is local news to you? You can support independent, unbiased journalism and help iBerkshires grow for as a little as the cost of a cup of coffee a week.
