Nobody yet knows where this market is headed, except down for the moment. The point I'm trying to make " rather than call tops and bottoms " is that traders have to use all the tools available to them, including fundamental, technical, quantitative, and economic analysis.

And they ought to close their ears to Wall Street and the media, who have proven they have an ax to grind.

But, heaven forbid. On that score, my esteem for CNBC lead anchor Mark Haines has just skyrocketed when he commented loudly that with respect to Goldman Sachs explicit conflict of interest in advising both sides of the proposed NYSE-Archipelago deal (as well as holding significant equity positions in each company). Haines said: "If this (Goldman Sachs) was a law firm, they'd all be arrested."

But again, I ask, is this conflict of interest FOR ALL BROKER-DEALERS not the same? They advise both sides of transactions, and they also hold principal positions in those trades.

I have used the law firm analogy before " both in formal testimony before all the provincial securities commission chairpersons in Canada, as well as the Senate of Canada Banking Committee, both of which organizations invited me to make such remarks, and recorded them, but failed to follow through.

In fact I told both the CSA and the Govt of Canada that the situation is even worse than what Mark Haines alluded to today. Not only are broker-dealers on both sides of transactions as advisors and principals, but their self-regulatory organization manages the rules and regulations. That's like partners of the law firm fighting it out in front of another partner, in this case the judge, all with client and personal money at stake.

As I told the esteemed regulators and politicians, I know, and they know, there is no other part of our society that would permit such a thing. So, why is it permitted?