Our friend in polling tells us it is much tougher for most people to disagree or to be negative than to say "yes" or to acquiesce. So to increase revenues then, a financial intermediary need only find a susceptible investor (a weak link) to whom dubiously priced merchandise may be jammed. To the decision maker at the institution buying the dross it is easier to have the issue go away immediately and not explain himself to the awesome bank than to disappoint a highly intelligent and fabulous representative of it.

While it would certainly be best for all market participants to behave ethically, natural market incentives have predatory principles associated with them. (Perhaps the markets would be best served if it was generally perceived that they are risky places where investors can and do lose money?)

Wall Street traders and banks may or may not be more sophisticated on average than the people and institutions that buy their merchandise (don't kid yourselves, they are), but they are most definitely more energetic about seeing that trades actually get done (and at the widest acceptable vig). This means it will always be unlikely that all "sophisticated" decision makers on the buy-side will say "no" to toxic assets about to go pear-shaped, pitched to them by highly regarded Wall Street institutions. All it takes is one large investor to say "yes" in a moment of weakness to get the deal done.

That "print" then sets a new pricing equilibrium in the market for similar product, much as an aberrant genetic mutation provides the basis for an evolutionary shift. One print means more transactions at the new, distorted level can be justified, which in turn rationalizes the initial distortion. While some may argue that markets are always efficient, being so does not necessarily mean they are always properly and rationally priced. They may adjust in proper proportion daily for all known data, but they may also adjust from ridiculous levels to even more ridiculous levels. Price does not equal value.

So size, financial complexity and price execution do not define investment sophistication. All investors - from a busy physician rebalancing his tech stock portfolio once a quarter to a professional cross market trader - should accept and internalize an uneven set of circumstances and invest by their wits.

The independent investor (of any size) has distinct advantages over levered professional arbitrageurs and gargantuan monolithic index tracking institutions. The only thing holding him back is insecurity that he does not know enough. Of course it is better to know more than less, but it is best to know enough, to be secure enough to accept what one does not know, and to recognize the market's weak spots.

What is a sophisticated investor? We think a truly sophisticated investor is a capable analyst willing to take his or her own counsel and disciplined enough not to be over-influenced by irrelevant existential inputs. It is a willing saver that sees sporadic opportunity where price and value part.

David Fuller's view I think the full article will resonate with subscribers and is worth reading more than once.

Markets move in trends - up, down and sideways. These trends are driven by sentiment and liquidity. The biggest moves, up or down, will far exceed any reasonably objective assessment of fundamental value because the market crowd is manic/depressive.

Traders and active investors benefit considerably from price charts which are essential in monitoring trend consistency and momentum. Anyone using leverage is best advised to run with the trends and to exit or even reverse positions quickly when price dynamics, as taught at The Chart Seminar, signal a change in momentum.

Longer-term investors will also gain perspective from price charts covering the markets which interest them. The best opportunities occur at extremes of both price and sentiment, where the long-term investor should take a contrarian view, aiming to buy low and sell high.

In markets, common sense will be worth more than a doctorate in economics or algorithms.