Editor's note: This column is a special bonus for TheStreet.com readers. This piece originally appeared on RealMoney today, and we're giving you a sneak peek at the entire column. To sign up for RealMoney, where you can read Helene Meisler's commentary regularly, please click here for a free trial. I had a wonderful visit the other night with a bunch of folks I worked with about 20 years ago at Cowen. About halfway through the evening, I was asked by someone who doesn't read my column if I was bullish or bearish. My response was "I'm not bearish." Then someone who does read my column chimed in that I've been cautious for a month now. And that's absolutely true: I have been cautious, yet I am not bearish. So I thought this might be a good day to explain why I am not bearish -- yet why at the same time I find it hard to be a raging bull and thus keep calling for a correction. We do keep getting corrections that last a few days and then carry on higher, but I never seem to think those corrections are enough. Last week I explained how breadth looked great, but when we backed out all of the bond-related stuff, breadth was still good (that's bullish) but not as fabulous as the headline numbers would have us believe. That was also the purpose of explaining the new highs in my column Monday. These are not negative numbers (thus the reason why I'm not bearish), but they are not as great as they appear. That's why I can't throw caution to the wind and be a screaming bull. Now the market has made a higher high and has the oscillator at a lower high. That is a negative divergence, which should be another factor that tempers my bullishness. And that might just be what leads us to a better correction. But let's get back to why I was bullish in March but find it hard to be now. To that end, I'll share a few charts of some of the stocks I own, each one vastly different in appearance.