The other day, I spent time talking on the phone with a friend of mine (who also happens to be a client).  He is undergoing treatment for a serious illness and taking some time off work, so I am delighted that we have some time now to catch up.

I have to tell you, I really like this guy.  I have learned (over the years) we have much in common: kids roughly the same age, his wife used to work for the same company I did (but in a completely different capacity).  Also, he is a good athlete — and umm, well, I like sports.  Over time, I've learned there are many common threads where our lives cross paths.

Wait a second…what does this have to do with point and figure analysis?

Everything.

I really believe I would have never met him if it weren't for point and figure analysis.  See, like many folks, he was referred to me — by another client.  If I didn't use the point and figure approach in managing the risk for my clients, I am not sure  he would be my client today!

Time out.

Look, prior to learning point and figure analysis (in 1997), I was just like every other financial adviser out there.  The game plan, as directed by the home office, was "gather assets, place the assets with a money manager — or in mutual funds run by "professionals," then go find more assets."

When I was a financial adviser, there were many of those "episodes" where Toto pulled back the curtain and exposed the "Wizard" of the marketing department.  You know what I mean…new product launches (like new mutual funds) would crash and burn, limited partnerships would blow up, stock recommendations would go straight down.  I got tired of watching people's investment accounts getting blown up — through no fault of their own.

It's a wonder anyone made money.

There wasn't "one defining moment" in my 16 years as a broker that pushed me to change.  It was more like a "body of evidence."  And in 1997, I started looking at alternatives to "fundamental analysis."

Let me put it this way: a company can deliver record revenues, record earnings, record profits, raise the dividend twice and announce three stock buybacks in 2 1/2 years.

Fundamentally — that company was doing everything right…right?
But that stock dropped from $60 per share to $22 per share during that same time.

Sooooo…how would you like to own a stock that was doing everything right, but getting carved by two-thirds all the while?

Funny thing, you probably DID own it!
See, the stock is General Electric (GE) from 2000-2002.

You say you didn't own that stock back then?  Ummm…OK.

Oh, say…did you happen to own any mutual funds back then? Did you know GE was one of the most widely held stocks in ALL mutual funds back then?

Hmmm.  Oh well, onward…

Know this: fundamental analysis does have a purpose.  But fundamental analysis will never tell you when to get out. Which is precisely what people have needed to know — especially over the past two years.

What I was able to show my friend — in screenshots — is how the market has moved from a "negatively trending market" to a "positively trending market."

For the first time in about a year and a half!

That darn chart makes it crystal clear there are times you should be "in the market," and times when you should be "out of the market."

Fundamental analysis will never tell you when to get out.  Never.

My friend and his wife (and many other people) spent a significant portion of 2008 with most of their money out of the market…in a time where the major averages fell 35% to 40%.

With all they have going on, I'm happy they sidestepped a lot of potential damage.

And what about you…what's your story?  Is getting a game plan for your investments important today?

This is precisely why I use point and figure analysis… point and figure simply measures price.  And price IS the ultimate indicator — as it reflects changes in supply and demand.

In my opinion, point and figure is the best indicator of risk… which, incidentally, is what we do at Mullooly Asset — we manage the risk in your investments.

Feel better my friend, you are on my mind.

The Treasury Department said Friday that Sun Bancorp Inc. of Vineland, New Jersey, repaid $89.3 million, money it originally received on Jan. 9.  They gave back the TARP money.  Does that make it a good investment?

Sun Bancorp has sufficient funds to complete the redemption.

Additionally:

"When the Capital Purchase Program (which is part of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP) became available to well capitalized and healthy financial institutions like Sun, it was a positive partnership between the government and business to stimulate the economy through additional lending and community support," said Thomas X. Geisel, president and chief executive officer of Sun Bancorp.

Geisel continued: "The partnership then became politicized, the rules and regulations changed, and the dynamics of the partnership substantially shifted.  These changes significantly restricted the way we support our customers and communities, as well as the way we run our business."

Sun Bancorp was well capitalized by regulatory standards before accepting the CPP investment and will continue to be well capitalized under the same standards after the redemption.

Great.

I'm sure the Bank did not appreciate the Government getting into their business anyway.  Neither would too many businesses.

But here is where it gets interesting:

The Company also issued a Warrant to purchase 1,543,376 shares of its common stock to the Treasury Department at an exercise price of $8.68 per share.  According to the Company, they expect the Treasury Department to liquidate the Warrant following the full redemption of the Preferred Stock.

Part of the TARP deal was return of the money, plus interest, — plus warrants — to purchase shares in the bank.  1.5 million shares of the bank.  This represents nearly 7% of the entire shares issued.   They can exercise the warrants at $8.68, the stock closed Friday at $7.00.  This creates significant overhang in the stock.  I say that because a major stockholder (the US Government) will be looking the sell shares as the price moves up over $8.68.

So what does the chart look like?

Wow.  The story sounds great, but the chart looks terrible.   This is a stock that is stuck in a long term negative trend.  And that trend will not change until the stock can break through that red overhead resistance line.  That line is currently sitting at $11, a long way from $7.00.  And in between $7 and $11, there is a significant amount of stock that will be for sale starting as soon as the stock moves beyond $8.68.  This is a good example how we have to "marry" fundamental work with technical work.  The fundamental story sounds compelling.  The technical story looks ugly.

Good for Sun Bancorp, but I'd rather find somewhere else to put money to work.

Did you know General Electric (GE) posted record revenues last quarter?  That has not really helped their stock, has it?   Remember always, price is the ultimate indicator, which is why I rely more and more on charts.  Fundamental analysts and company management can pontificate all day long about market share, earnings and revenues.  If the market doesn't like it, the stock is going down.

I don't think I'll ever get tired of reminding people that the job of the media is to sell advertising.  The fact that you get informed — or get information — is a side benefit.

BY the way…would like like to LISTEN to this post instead?  Click the icon at the top, and turn up your speakers.

I'm not saying the media dispenses incorrect information.  What I'm saying is they tend to focus on some really dumb things, and then pound it over and over and over.  Just keep reminding yourself: their job is not to hang around and "fill you in" on the news of the day.  The media is there to sell ads.  So their teasers and headlines will often be filled more with drama than facts.

And often, the drama persuades you into doing precisely the WRONG thing.  My friend, Tom Dorsey has often said "Remember everything that is written or said in the media about Wall Street is made to make you do the wrong thing."

Example of "News" headlines:

One of the headlines on CBS MarketWatch is Freedom Bank (Georgia) is the 17th bank failure in 2009.  OK, look, in the previous recession, there were over 700 bank failures.  Some will be spectacular.  If we have less than 700 bank failures during this recession, now THAT will be news.
Here's another:

General Motors shares trade near Great Depression territory.  Face it, the stock trades for about a dollar, it's not coming back. Sure, it might get to two dollars.  But will this ever be a $30 stock again?  I don't think so, under its present structure.  Now if they were to file bankruptcy, wipe out the common stock and reorganize (where the debt/bondholders become the new stockholders), anything is possible… see Kmart. 

I am far more interested in learning what will happen to General Motors and the bondholders in a bankruptcy proceeding.  The government has poured $13 billion into General Motors in the last few months, and company management is back at the trough asking for another $17 billion.  Amazingly, the market capitalization of General Motors is less than $1 billion ($900 million currently — one third the size of Burger King).  Where did all that money go?

And another:

This past week, the financial media focused on how the banks were killing the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  This is total nonsense.  Citibank trades for $1 per share, Bank of America trades for $3 per share.  If these two companies filed for bankruptcy tomorrow (or were nationalized — essentially, the same thing), this would move the Dow Jones Industrial Average a total of 50 points.  I wonder how long it will take Dow Jones to remove Citibank, Bank of America, General Motors and General Electric from the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Another favorite topic:

Unemployment rate reaches 8.1%. Okay, lots of room for debate on this topic.  Historically, the average unemployment rate hovers around 5%. Did you know, for the past 15 years, the economy has averaged an unemployment rate between 3% and 4%?  This is actually a pretty spectacular news item, but no one was writing headlines about that.  During economic recessions, the unemployment rate often reaches 10%.  So be prepared for that, and don't be surprised when that news arrives. In fact, there have been several times where the unemployment rate surges in the latter stages of a recession — and the first phase of recovery.  You read that right — many times the unemployment rate will rise, as the economy is improving.

And lastly:

GDP numbers. The stock market fell out of bed last week when it was announced that fourth-quarter GDP came in at -6.2%.  First of all, this should not be a shock to anyone.  Secondly, the media never really puts it in its proper perspective.  So let's look at this number.  It measures growth (or shrinkage) of the economy in the fourth quarter 2008.  The quarter ended December 31, 2008.

The original estimate was released January 31, the preliminary number was released February 27, the final revised GDP for fourth-quarter 2008 will be released at the end of March.  The final revision may be a completely different number — for better or worse.  But by the time we get it, that information is petrified like a redwood. Irrelevant.

By the way, at the end of April we will receive the original estimate for first-quarter 2009 GDP.  What do you think THAT number will be?  I expect it will be absolutely dreadful.  And the media will go crazy. Be prepared.

Warren Buffett writes an annual letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway each year.  If you've never read them, you really ought to.  They are priceless gems.  Not a laugh a minute, but an interesting observation on what's happening.

This year's version is about 22 pages and he comments on Mark to the Market, derivatives, Bear Stearns and some of the other problems we've been exposed to the past year, thanks to our friends on Broad and Wall Streets.  The whole piece is worth your time if you care aout the markets, but I'd pay particular attention to pages 15-18.

I also found Buffett's "prediction" about the possible bubble in the Treasury market to be very interesting.  You should too.

You can find it here: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf

When I was in college, I loved listening to a local college radio station (WFUV, Fordham) that had a sports-talk show on Sunday nights.  The show featured something new: phone calls from listeners!  This was more than 25 years ago, before WFAN in New York, ESPN Radio and all the other sports outlets we have today.

Incidentally, one of the announcers was an annoying student at Fordham, Michael Kay.  Kay continues his annoyance today as the obviously homer-voice of the New York Yanke$$.

One day, I got into a conversation with my father about something mentioned on the show.  He asked "where did you hear that?"  I told him about the radio show.

He replied, "So, they are experts?"

That one line really stuck with me…especially as a communications student.  Shortly after, I changed majors to business and focused on economics, later getting my MBA in Finance.  But our conversation continued.

“Tom, the job of the media is to sell.  They sell advertising.  Not a bad profession.  You can make a lot of money.  But the media has no obligation to look out for YOUR best interests…or even tell you the truth.  They want to sell ads.  So what do you think they are going to say?  And they can (and often do) twist a story to get a different perspective.  Be skeptical."

With that piece as background, let's look at the top headlines Saturday morning over at CBS Marketwatch:

Freddie Mac to ask for an additional $30 billion

Gosh, that sounds awful, doesn't it?
But wait…Freddie already was granted a $100 billion line, but only used $13.8 billion.  They are tapping a line that is already established.  Non-story.

Capital One results suggest gloomy 2009

The unreported part: Capital One also said they don't see a bottomless pit of losses.  Guess CBS Marketwatch missed that.  Or maybe that’s just not a sexy headline today.  The spin continues: “In the last three months of this year alone, Cap One lost a staggering $1.42 billion.”  Sounds bad, right?

But wait: that number includes $1 billion it set aside to deal with expected losses.  They are making provisions for losses that may — or may NOT — happen this year.  I'm not recommending buying this stock whatsoever, but that sounds like pro-active management to me.

Californa-based 1st Centennial Bank Fails

And your point is…?  Look, when banks fail (that is, when banks fail after 1933), they are taken over by the FDIC or sold in a pre-arranged marriage (through the FDIC) to another bank.  In the last real-estate driven recession (18 years ago), 800 banks failed.  Banks are going to fail in recessions.  But accounts don't get wiped out anymore because of this.  They pull down the signs on Friday and re-open on Monday.

AFLAC assures investors it does NOT need additional capital, but S&P downgrades anyway.

What is S&P saying?  Are they saying management is lying?  Or does S&P just knows AFLAC's business better than AFLAC?  After all, S&P re-affirmed positive ratings on banks and brokers throughout 2007 and much of 2008 — all the way down the drain!

And from a few days ago:

Microsoft cutting 5000 jobs.

Microsoft announced they were cutting 5000 jobs — over the next 18 months.  And while 5000 "jobs" were being cut, the actual number of employees being let go — again — over 18 months, is expected to be 2000.  Many people will be re-trained and re-assigned.

Look, sites like CBS Marketwatch, Yahoo Finance, magazines like Business Week and channels like CNBC are designed to do two things: generate enough shock value to attract attention and then find a way to keep you glued to them.

This is a waste of your time, and straps you into the emotional roller coaster.  Why do you want to do that?

Remember this:  Everything said and written in the media on Wall Street is written or said to make you do the wrong thing.

I had a longtime client (and friend) call me yesterday.  She told me one of the "experts on TV" said the market could drop another 20% from here.  And she was scared, worried, and nervous.

Wouldn't you be?

I reminded her — that's just one guy's opinion.  If you met a guy named "Mr. CBS Marketwatch" in the line at the grocery store, you wouldn't believe half of the nonsense he was spitting out.  You'd just nod politely, and pray that he bags his prunes and oatmeal and gets out of your way.

Look, there's a reason I use these point and figure charts.  For the first fifteen years of my career, I was burned relying on “expert opinions.”   What do you say to a client after you relied on the “experts” and lost money for them?  There's a lot of brokers wondering exactly that lately.  They instruct brokers to tell clients "you have look at the long term picture."

That’s nonsense.  And it’s the path to losing money.

I use these charts because there is no “opinion” built into the chart.  They only show price changes.  And from price changes, you can see trends.  And — unlike other types of charts — point and figure charts are not subject to interpretation.  It is what it is.  Charts either trend up, trend down, or stay in place.  No opinion.  Just facts.

And, a funny thing I’ve noticed, time and time again: Point and figure charts often start to move down (meaning, prices are falling) WAY before bad news arrives.  And these charts often start moving up (reflecting rising prices) well before the good news is announced.

Keep that in mind as you read this again: Everything said and written in the media on Wall Street is written or said to make you do the wrong thing.

Don’t ever forget that.

There's a great story I read in the New York Times. It’s part business/part technology. While it delves into some pretty sophisticated topics, I'll try and summarize it as best I can right here.

The author, Anne Eisenberg, wrote about an experimental website, www.many-eyes.com. This is a site where visitors can upload data they want to visualize and use tools to generate displays.

Basically, what they're trying to do is take a range of data — and instead of leaving it on a spreadsheet for people to interpret, they use images, charts and graphs to “paint” a better picture. The idea being that a picture may tell a better story — a clearer story — than trying to sift through data on a spreadsheet.

I hate to break it to the author, but Charles Dow came up with that concept nearly 120 years ago. Dow was the first publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average that bears his name. Dow kept listening to all of the "experts" who were giving all of their fundamental reasons why particular stocks "should" go up or "should" go down.

Dow simply came up with a method to plot the price movement. The "image" that he came up with on a chart gave him a much clearer view of stocks that were in demand and stocks that were in supply. Much clearer than what any analysts could ever "predict." Anything "in demand" must see a price increase. And anything "in supply" will see a price decline. That's not an economic theory — it's a law. It's called the law of supply and demand, and even a fourth grader can explain it.

The article quoted a professor of computer science (Pat Hanrahan) at Stanford, "when analyzing information, no single person knows it all," he said. This helps dispel the thinking of the "expert stock analyst" following a stock. Rather, a chart shows the "flow" between supply and demand. The chart shows the cumulative votes that people make (on a daily basis) to either get in — or get out — of a particular stock.

One of the founders of the site, Dr. Viegas, mentioned "… why not a visual that gives you some insight into the sea of data that surrounds us? I might find one thing; someone else, something completely different, and that's where the conversation starts."

This is precisely the problem when trying to make investment decisions based on only fundamental analysis. The data can be twisted in so many different directions to paint a very good — or very bad — story. Additionally, the fundamental information (supplied by the company… like earnings) can be wrong, or rewritten in the future.

For those of you who have seen these point & figure charts I use in managing the risk in your investments…do they help paint a clearer view of what's happening? Let's hear it!

Exxon reported nearly $12 billion in profits for the previous quarter recently. $12 billion! More net profits in one quarter, than ever recorded in the history of mankind.

And what did the stock do?

It went down.

Numbers like $12 billion generate emotional responses: anger, jealousy, envy, and even pride. The media does a good job of stirring the pot. Once the emotion subsides, a lot of people start to realize that Exxon is one of the largest employers in the United States, along with being one of the biggest taxpayers in the United States as well.

But there was something in the earnings report that really got my attention — maybe you saw it, too.

In addition to reporting record earnings, Exxon also reported their total production declined. Companies like Exxon simply don't have the tools in place — or even available — to do more drilling or exploration. They simply don't have the infrastructure to increase production.

Now let's talk about their stock. And a short lesson in relative strength!

When compared to other oil stocks (Exxon's peer group), Exxon stock has been on a relative strength sell signal since 2001. While this member of the Dow Jones has done well compared to the S&P 500 and the other Dow Jones stocks, Exxon appears to be a weak-kneed Willie getting sand kicked on it by some of the other bruisers in the sector.

And now that Exxon has broken the support line, and the sector is falling out of favor…well, it's really starting to lead the parade out of town.

I suppose $12 billion just doesn't get you what it used to anymore, does it? This company is posting record earnings, record revenues, record profits… and the stock goes down.

Oh…one more thing. Can you guess what stock you will find listed as the first or second largest position (investments) in most large-cap growth mutual funds? Here's a hint…it used to be called Standard Oil.

Go ahead and read the headlines — just don't base your entire investment decision on headlines… like most people do.

Ever heard of Bill Miller? He runs the Legg Mason Value Trust (LVMTX). Miller is literally splattered all over CNBC and other media outlets. He's a value manager, which means he likes to buy stocks at a discount, and then essentially sit on them, until they appreciate. He made a name for himself as he outpaced the S&P 500 for 15 straight years.

Last quarter, apparently he purchased 35 million shares of Freddie Mac (FRE). So, shares he bought in the first quarter of 2008 would have an average cost somewhere between $25 and $30. Any shares bought in the 2nd quarter would have cost between $16 and $25/share.

Today the stock is below $10.

Now, value managers have really long term perspectives. So he may ultimately come out smelling like a rose on these trades. But that could be YEARS from now. Let's throw some MORE cold water on this…

Similarly, last year, Miller was featured in a Business Week article (here) where he discussed buying shares of Countrywide Mortgage and Citibank. Miller states the fair value of Countrywide is three times the current price. Yet, Countrywide was down 65% in 2007.

Now, what if a well-meaning broker or adviser recommended Mr. Jones put $10,000 into that stock earlier in 2007?

When Mr. Jones gets his statement and sees his $10,000 now worth just $3500, do you think he's happy? Do you think he is focusing on some mutual fund manager's opinion that "the fair value of the stock is more than 3 times the stock price"?

The period we're in now is not necessarily a "bull market" or a "bear market" but more like a structurally "fair market." I didn't make that up on my own — Tom Dorsey, from Dorsey Wright and Associates in Richmond coined that term. I think that makes a lot of sense. From 1982 up through 1999 we were in a structural bull market. And everyone became conditioned to buying the market any time it pulled back.

But since late 1999 — 2000, conditions have changed. Anyone who has bought on the dips has not been rewarded. The easiest yardstick to use to measure this structural "fair market" is the S&P 500. In May, 1999, the S&P 500 reached 1375 for the first time.

Remember that number — 1375.

In May of 2000, the S&P 500 was again 1375.

In January 2001 the S&P 500 was at 1375.

In March 2007 the S&P 500 was at 1375.

In April 2008 the S&P 500 was at 1375.

In a structural "fair market" there could be several periods where the market can run up 20% and several periods where the market can drop 20%. And when the dust settles — you're usually right back where you started. And that's essentially what's been happening since 1999. The point I try to drive home is if you've been a "buy and hold investor" you've made no money — no progress — in nine years.

No progress! But you are nine years closer to the day you'll NEED the money. This is why the average Joe can't make money in the market.

Oh — something else — there have been studies showing these phases of the market can last between 15 and 20 years.

It is so important to know when the market is on offense or defense. We have a specific tool, the bullish percent index, which tells us specifically when the risk in the market is high and when the risk in the market is low. We use this tool to determine when to put money into the market, and when to take money off the table. Simply using the "set it and forget it" approach is a bad business plan.

The reason for going through this piece is because nearly 70% of all money — all money — in mutual funds sits in the same 500 stocks — the S&P 500. The S&P 500 is primarily a large cap mutual fund. If you look at the top 25 holdings in most large-cap mutual funds, you will see the same stocks — over and over and over.

From my side of the desk, I chuckle when somebody tells me "they're really diversified" and then show me a handful of large-cap mutual funds. They may own six or seven different mutual funds, but those funds hold the same stocks. That is not diversifying your money.

Also, if you look at the menu of choices in your deferred comp plan, your retirement annuity or 401(k) plan at work, you'll notice that (often times) more than two thirds of your choices are large-cap mutual funds.

Look, Average Joe has the odds stacked against him — but you don't!

Most Wall Street recommendations to buy are based on projected future revenues and/or projected future earnings. Projected. Or you could say, "predicted".

Ever notice that a stock will begin to drop (many times without any news), and people will begin to ask "why is XYZ dropping?" Then rumors begin to swirl that something might be wrong, and the stock drops even further. In fact, it slides quite a bit until the actual news is released.

And by then, it's often TOO late to sell the stock.

This makes some folks jumpy…and with good reason. I'm sure you know someone who makes a point or two in a stock and then flips it. Why is it that some folks just seem so thirsty for a profit? Probably because they rarely make money in stocks. And yet, these same folks will ride XYZ down 50% because "it's not a loss until you sell it."

Yeah, right! People in my line of work always preach cutting your losses short and let the winners run. The problem is most folks don't know whether to sell — or hold on, and they wind up making a mistake.

Look, this is where the charts can give you guidance. They don't predict the future, they just tell you if a mutual or a stock is fund is going down because of the market or because there is something actually wrong.

If a fund or stock is in a strong sector, has good relative strength compared to it's peers and the market overall, and is on a buy signal…then stick it out. If a mutual fund or your stock is giving multiple sell signals, breaks the support line, is on a relative strength sell signal, then it's a loser, and it's time to go.

Point and figure lets you know if the move today in your stock was just a wiggle with the rest of the market, or a change in trend. And trends REALLY matter. And the charts don't care if there was a big seller of shares, or if someone has inside information about the company.

When enough sellers show up to change the trend of the stock (from a stock in demand to a stock that everyone is selling — supply), we will see that very plainly on the chart. Plain as the nose on your face. These point and figure charts are unbiased – they do not care if you have owned XYZ for 44 days or 44 years – when it's time to go, it is time to GO.

The charts are very clear. There's no ambiguity. Buy, sell, or hold on. Simple.

The beauty of the Point & Figure chart is that the chart has no preconceived bias. A Point and Figure chart doesn't care who owns the stock, or who likes the stock…or even if somebody just predicted some stock would double in the next 12 months.

The chart only cares about the daily highs and lows of the stock price, that's all!

And over time — that alone — tells an interesting story of its own.

Which is why it is so easy to spot mutual funds, sectors and individual stocks that are about to collapse — very often, they give a LOT of clues! Red flags — like multiple sell signals, support line breaks, relative strength signals…they often come in bunches, so it's easy to tell when trouble is brewing.

And I see them all the time.

Notice I wrote that Point and Figure can be EASY. That's E-A-S-Y, meaning you don't need a PhD, or a Harvard MBA to see what's happening with your investment.

Well, if it's so easy, why don't more people use point and figure charts?

Its is true, once you get the hang of the charts, they DO become easy.

Easy, but not SIMPLE.

The biggest problem with using charts is that you have to review the changes every day, and that is something a lot of folks just cannot be bothered doing. Does it get you into some good situations too early? Yes. But does it get you OUT of some situations before a meltdown? Yes, it often can. But people want instant gratification today, not more work.

And using point and figure charts can be work.

But here is the rub: look, no system is perfect, but after twenty-plus years of doing this professionally, I have found that the point and figure charts work extremely well in helping us manage the RISK in your portfolio.

And here is why: they do not offer excuses why something things did not work, they do not blame something (or somebody) else when things go unexpectedly.

I like that.

Hanging onto a stock because your broker says "it's a good value" doesn't help when you're losing money, right?

Look, much ink has been spilled lately about the stock market.

First, everyone was slapping themselves on the back about the market reaching 14,000. Almost immediately, folks were tripping over themselves trying to get out the door.

Once again, however, there are LOTS of "fundamental" folks telling you the market is a "great value" or "you need to look long term" or why buying stock in Coke is better than Pepsi, or owning GM instead of Ford.

That is what most people around the stock market actually DO. They analyze, and then tell you "stock A" is better to own than "stock B." No matter what the market conditions are currently.

Most folks want to know if it's safe to be in the market at all!

Which is why we focus on technical AND fundamental analysis. Technical work (charts) tell us WHEN to buy or sell. Fundamentals only tell us WHAT to buy.

The two biggest factors in determining whether you make money in the market is knowing whether the market is on offense or defense, and being in the right sectors.

Tom

Thomas Mullooly
Mullooly Asset Management LLC
Our Only Business Is Fee-Only Investment Advice
www.mullooly.net
support@mullooly.net