So, I use historic benchmarks to look for other times when the pessimism was priced in. I do that for one simple reason: In every single downturn in the fundamentals, the stocks have forecast that downturn and in every single upturn the stocks have forecast that upturn. In other words, if you waited until you saw the upturn, you were too late, just as if you waited to see the downturn. As we know most of the declines in these stocks occurred before the downturn was visible to most people. You can bet that most of the upturn in these stocks will be visible before the upturn in the fundamentals. That's precisely why it does not pay to be negative when you forecast that, at 1860 on the Nazz, most of the downturn would be in the stocks.

The problem, of course, is the PSINet problem: franchise worries. This downturn is so severe in tech that you don't know which franchises are going to come through unscathed. Or as the astute reader asked me yesterday: How do we know this isn't 1984-1986 and lots of the stocks won't ever come back?

Which brings me to the financials. Given two beaten-up groups, tech and financials, I am confident that the medicine the Fed is going to use will benefit the financials more than the techs. I am more confident that the pessimism is more "priced in" the financials than the techs because I know that you will get earnings relief if the Fed takes rates down to where I think they are going.

Why should you believe me? Ah, that's simply a question of track record. I have been right in my career far more than I have been wrong or I would not have compounded at 24% after all fees and had no down years in the last 15. (Just to put that in perspective: Of all of the talking heads you see on television, only about a dozen had better records than me for the last 10 years and I can't find more than a handful with a better 15-year record. Unless you think that second-division coaches know more than first-division coaches, you should know why I heap such scorn on most of the talking heads.)

Why bother to create the dichotomy of tech vs. financials? Why not just wish a pox on all houses? Because I still believe, historically, that stocks offer the best rate of return of asset classes and I still believe, after this brutal bear market, that you need to own some stocks.

Let's go over that again, so it is clear. I am not in the 100%-invested-or-nothing crowd. I am not in the bonds-are-junk crowd, as Suze Orman and the Motley Fool are. I am not in the "I want high-octane or nothing crowd." I am just in the opportunity crowd. If I see opportunity in stocks, I want to take it. If I see opportunity in bonds, I want to take it. That's how I was schooled. Works well for me. It can work well for you, too.

Which brings me back to the first point. With everyone hating the market now, and no champions of it who have not been discredited, it is time to find something to buy, even if it means choosing something where near-term earnings are suspect. You have to ask yourself, is the long-term earnings power of a Goldman (GS:NYSE - news - boards) or a Morgan (MWD:NYSE - news - boards) impaired here? Is the long-term earnings power of a KLAC or an Intel impaired here? I can't honestly answer the latter yet. I know it is not the case in the former.