In South Beach and I plan to enjoy the South Beach Bubble tonite! 

Don't count on me to be an early riser tomorrow morning!!

• I missed nothing as the market flatlined all afternoon.
• Here is the intraday on SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY).  
• In commodities land: oil down 16 cents (barely above $40/barrel), natural gas down eight cents, gold up $13/ounce, silver up 15 cents/ounce, copper marginally lower, wheat up $7.25, corn up 0.6%, coffee up $7.30 (that's a big move) and lumber up smartly by $8.60 to $247. 
• High yield continues junky. iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) took a nearly 1% hit and SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond ETF (JNK) similarly lower. Chesapeake Energy (CHK) debt down $18 in last two days. Veritas hung deal -- I discussed previously. Some of my bearish market view stems from the weakness in junk and the widening spreads. But, for now, the markets are not paying attention.
• The U.S. dollar weakened, against consensus/speculators who seem to be large the U.S. dollar long.
• Municipals were bid better and closed-end muni funds were broadly higher (I continue to sell into the strength).
• Banks were marginally higher-- good performance in light of recent strength.
• Retail mixed. Favs Macy's (M) and Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) slightly lower while Wal-Mart (WMT) was unchanged.
• Autos continue their rally.
• Health care weak on the UnitedHealth Group's (UNH) warning earlier in the day.
• Oils gave up some of yesterday's gains. Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Schlumberger (SLB) -- my two shorts -- down large fractions.
• (T)FANG -- Tesla (TSLA), Facebook (FB), Amazon (AMZN), Netflix (NFLX) and Google, now Alphabet (GOOGL) -- was five for five lower, but marginally so as none of the ingredients had a major move down
• NOSH -- Nike (NKE), O'Reilly (ORYL), Starbucks (SBUX) and Home Depot (HD) -- was weaker except a strong gain for NKE.
• Gap (GAP) lowers 2015 earnings per share view from a range of $2.75 to $2.80 to a range of $2.38 to $2.42. Stock down by 2% after hours.
• Nike declares large buyback and 2-for-1 split.  Shares up about $4 after hours.
• Williams-Sonoma (WSM) beats but moves EPS and sales guidance lower (EPS to a range of $1.52 to $1.62 versus consensus of $1.67). Shares down about $3 after hours.
• Apple (AAPL) stood out today on the upside, Allergan (AGN) on the downside (down almost $9 on the day, though it's up almost $6 after hours). See below on new tax rules and my Comments Section back and forth with Bobby Lang.
• Speaking of Allergan, Treasury just gave details on new inversion rules to protect its own tax base.
• Biotechs reversed yesterday's gains and were down by nearly 2%. Valeant Pharmaceuticals (VRX) was a standout, up almost 16% on the day.
• The Treasury's anti-inversion rules should put a brake on some biotech M&A activity
• Square (SQ) initial public offering better received than I expected.
• Square's big brother, Twitter (TWTR), continuing its rally from the recent lows.
• New lows in Hedge Fund Hotel SunEdison (SUNE). Carleton English, Jim "El Capitan" Cramer and I weighed in on the stock today on TheStreet.

The latest fromn Sir Arthur Cashin:

"Pundits still talk of 'hawkish' Federal Open Market Committee minutes, but the U.S. dollar is down, yields are down and gold is up. That's hardly a response to imminent higher rates.

The market is also managing to partially disconnect from crude.

The run rate at 12:15 p.m. ET projects to an NYSE final volume of 800/880 million shares."

As I've mentioned previously, I have three separate out-of-town meetings today, so I'll only be posting sporadically this afternoon -- and my posts will be short (but hopefully on point!).

As for my trades, I've added back to my long of the ProShares UltraShort S&P 500 ETF (SDS) at $19.43 since posting Today's Trades and Orders.

Caterpillar (CAT) is my lengthiest short position in terms of how long I've held it, and it's also on my "Best Short Ideas" list.

Here are some additional reasons from Zero Hedge as to why.

Our Comments Section has improved greatly over the last month or so, and I encourage our subscribers to occasionally visit it during the trading day!

I had a thoughtful and expansive dialogue this morning with one of our smartest contributors -- Kim G, whom I've previously quoted -- regarding the merits of technical and fundamental analysis.

For those who haven't see it, here it is:

"Kim G:

Doug: I really need to make some points about charting, which if you genuinely took to heart, would improve your results, IMHO.

First, let me be perfectly clear: I believe that fundamentals always trump chart patterns, which is to say that if a company with a beautiful chart comes out and pukes up a fur ball of a quarter, the stock's getting hit. Full stop. I should also add that I'm a career fundamental analyst, and I have analyzed many a balance sheet, income statement, cash flow statement, business strategy, product, market share and the like. I know fundamental analysis inside out, and I believe in it, and believe it has a very useful function that charts can never replace.

But has that prevented investment mistakes? Has that prevented any losses? Of course not. You can know everything there is to know about a company and its stock and you can still be wrong. The future is inherently unknowable. And like it or not, fundamental analysis is as firmly rooted in the past as chart patterns.

And in fact, knowing the fundamentals can actually make things worse. I came from a shop that valued investment 'conviction,' and analysts and PMs were encouraged to keep adding to positions that were going against them. And sometimes that worked brilliantly. But sometimes it was an unmitigated disaster, as the price action was foretelling something that the analyst or PM had missed, or which wasn't clear, or which was an emerging issue. But the chart knew. And had we not ignored it, we'd probably have done better. I should add that this particular shop had overall very good performance.

So, ignoring chart patterns and technical analysis only in favor of fundamental analysis doesn't give you any more insight into the future than charting.

There's also one thing which the chart can tell you that no other amount of fundamental analysis can: the views of other market participants. For example, if you look at a stock in a long sideways pattern, you might reasonably conclude that other investors see value at what chartists call 'support,' and that they see overvalued at what chartists call 'resistance.' Is this so hard to believe?

And as Bob points out below, you can be right about your fundamental analysis but wrong in your timing if you ignore the flows of other players. So you could be right about Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) while others are 'wrongly' selling. But since your fund is a minnow in a school of whales, you could be very wrong before you're right if it takes the Fidelitys and Putnams of the world weeks and months to 'wrongly' liquidate their positions. I realize you scale into and out of positions to mitigate this problem, but looking at charts could also help.

Frankly (and respectfully), I think you suffer from confirmation bias with regard to your view of technical analysis. You constantly seek information which discredits technical analysis, and often cite a single failure of TA as a reason it 'doesn't work,' meanwhile ignoring a decent academic study I posted here showing that not only does it work, but far outperforms fundamental analysis, at least as practiced on the sell-side.

If one took your view of TA, then one would say that your experience with Monitise (MONIF) 'proves' that fundamental analysis 'doesn't work.' Obviously that would be a ridiculous conclusion, so why is the inverse not just as ridiculous?

By the way, there are plenty of chart traders out there using strategies that are statistically proven. They may only have a 55% win rate, but if wins are 1.5x losses and risk is controlled, such systems work and generate consistent profits. Believe me, I know plenty of folks who do this successfully and couldn't read a balance sheet if their lives depended on it.

So, for the good of us all, I'd encourage you to open your mind and add a useful tool to your toolbox. Or at least stop dissing TA with derisive comments about how you are focused on the future.

I sincerely wish you well and hope you can take this in the kind spirit in which it was intended.

Dougie:

I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Bottom line, I, too, have been in this game for a long time.

While many find value in technical analysis, I have not and utilize it on a very elementary level and ancillary way (looking at overbought/oversold, as an example).

Among other reasons, I have seen too many good charts become bad charts. As I am reminded by Bob Farrell: 'The bottom of the sea is inhabited by a lot of good charts.'

Another issue I have is that the domination of quant, momentum-based strategies, gamma hedging, risk-parity trading has exaggerated moves and, in turn (at least to me), invalidated a lot of charts. There has never been so much distortion and artificiality (in part because of central bankers' intervention, massive liquidity and zero interest rates). How else to explain the randomness of a market without memory from day to day?

But my statement on technical analysis also applies to faulty fundamental analysis -- as we all learn in our investing experience. Bad investment returns are inhabited by a lot of bad fundamental analysis.

Though I don't incorporate technical analysis in my approach to investing -- importantly, I do feel that technical analysis can have an important role in trading, but not investing (and, in support, those academic studies emphasize the short-term price action). The latter is where I reside most of the time.

The great investors I know, that have accumulated billions of dollars, are not TA oriented, they are long-term fundamental investors.

To me, the lack of involvement in TA and the pushback I get on this site reminds me, to some degree, of the quote: 'The lady doth protest too much.'

Those who endorse TA should move on (and not be defensive in reaction to my -non-involvement) and continue to provide value-added contributions in that arena while I try to in the fundamental arena.

I know very successful people that employ a technical approach to (non-quant but technically inspired) trading, but I don't know many who are super-rich (Cooperman, Buffett, etc.) who endorse that strategy solely.

For the umpteenth time, I respect those that utilize it profitably and ignore fundamentals. Horses for courses. I am not 'dissing' TA, I am simply explaining why I don't use it!

I used AGN as an example in the Comments Section. I simply won't buy an Allergan (AGN) after a $60-a-share up move (as Bobby has) for anything but a very-short-term trade.

But I am laser-focused on prospective fundamentals -- not the picture of today's Y statement or balance sheet, but the prospective look.

As to your point that fundamental analysis doesn't prevent mistakes -- of course it doesn't and I agree with you.

As to Monitise as an example, my fundamental analysis and faith in management and in other large investors and business partners were misplaced. Plain and simple.

For me, contrarian and variant fundamental analysis relative to consensus is invaluable and that is the business I have chosen.

This article expresses my methodology well. I think you should reread it!"

Peter Boockvar rounds up today's economic data and offers some especially good Federal Reserve perspective this morning:

"A U.S. rate hike now looks very likely on Dec. 16 for the first time since June 2006, when the Fed ended the last tightening cycle at 5.25%. Let's compare the current economic stats with the beginning of the last rate-hiking cycle in June 2004, when then-chairman Alan Greenspan's Fed lifted off of 1%.

For the 12 months that ended with second-quarter 2004, U.S. gross domestic product growth averaged 4.25% vs. 2.2% now. The six-month average non-farm payroll gains during 2004's first half was 195,000 vs. 215,000 now (not adjusted for population changes). The unemployment rate was 5.6% then vs. 5% today, and the U6 rate was 9.5% vs. 9.8% today. The workforce-participation rate in June 2004 was 66.1% vs. 62.4% today.

The Consumer Price Index's six-month average in 2004's first half was 2.3% vs. 0.1% over the past six months. The core rate averaged 1.6% in 2004 vs. 1.8% today.

The Institute of Supply Management index's six-month average leading up to the 2004 hike was 60.6 vs. 51.7 now. The ISM services index averaged 59 in early 2004 vs. today's six-month average of 57.8.

Auto sales not adjusted for population changes averaged 16.7 million SAAR in 2004's first half vs. 17.7 million now. June 2004 housing starts totaled 1.8 million and printed 2 million in July 2004 vs. 1.06 million in October 2015.

The control-group component of retail sales averaged 5.7% y/o/y in 2004's first half vs. 3.1% over the past six months. Lastly, nominal GDP is up about 45% since 2004, while total debt (household, business, state/local/federal government, domestic financial sector and foreign-denominated debt) has risen about 70%.

The bottom line: While I'm glad the Fed is finally getting off if 0% rates, it's obvious that the central bank waited way too long. With respect to the euro-heavy dollar index and its response to a hike, the March closing high was 100.3. The index is down 0.5% to 99.13 today after four straight days of gain on a retest of the highs.

We'll see if the looming Fed hike is a 'sell on the news' event, as I do believe it will be considering the uber-bullishness about it. It's also really clear how glacial the pace any rate-hike cycle will likely be.

Unfortunately, the markets won't be setting short-term interest rates anytime soon as long as Congress continues to defer to the Fed for this. Instead, as introduced in yesterday's Federal Open Market Committee minutes, they will be driven econometrically: 'The staff presented several briefings regarding the concept of an equilibrium real interest rate -- sometimes labeled the 'neutral' or 'natural' real interest rate, or 'r*' --that can serve as a benchmark to help gauge the stance of monetary policy. Various concepts of r* were discussed.'

We will soon go from 'ZIRP' ('Zero Interest Rate Policy') to 'JAZRIP' ('Just Above Zero Interest Rate Policy').

Following last week's market pullback and Paris terrorist attack, the American Association of Individual Investors' measure of stock-market sentiment has shifted to a very neutral state. Bulls fell to 30.8 from 34.3 a week earlier, while bears rose to 30.6 from 23 and just 18.6 two weeks ago. Those who are neutral fell to 38.7 from 42.7. 'I don't know' seems to be current sentiment for the individual investor.

Overseas, the Bank of Japan left policy unchanged overnight as expected, as central bankers will likely wait until after Corporate Japan's spring wage negotiations take place. BoJ Gov. Haruhiko Kuroda said: 'In the long term, prices won't rise without increases in wages.'

Japan's October exports fell 2.1% y/o/y, in line with expectations. Imports dropped by 13.4% y/o/y, worse than the estimate of -8.6% and the second-lowest print since 2009.

In Europe, real wage gains of substance didn't help U.K. October retail sales, as sales ex fuel fell 0.9% m/o/m. That's three-tenths worse than expected, and September was also revised down by two-tenths. October's 3% y/o/y gain also represented the slowest annual increase since September 2014.

On Britain's industrial side, the November CBI orders index came in at -11 vs. -18 in October. The latest read was in line with the forecast, but the index has been negative for seven straight months as the stronger British pound and slow global growth have their impacts."

Here's a roundup of my trades and orders so far today:

• Bonds are well bid this morning, with the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) up $0.85 as I write this. I'm using the strength to further reduce my exposure to closed-end municipal-bond funds, which I've been selling since last week.

• I'm adding to my long of the Blackstone/GSO Strategic Credit closed-end fund (BGB).

• I'm bidding (at prices slightly below the market) for Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY), Macy's (M), MidSouth Bancorp (MSL), Southern National Bancorp of Virginia (SONA) and Sterling Bancorp (STL).

• I'm also offering to short (at slightly above the market) more Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B), iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI), Lincoln National (LNC), MetLife (MET), Schlumberger (SLB), United Parcel Service (UPS) and Walt Disney Co. (DIS).

Regions Financial (RF) is giving some long-term targets this morning as part of the company's investors' day.

None of it is very exciting, and as a reminder, I recently sold my RF stake.

Apple (AAPL) is seeing a modest pullback off of its early highs.

Some are attributing this to cautious ITG Research comments on October iPhone sales.

Unicorns are being hunted these days!

From Jones Trading, citing information from The Wall Street Journal(log-in required):

"Square (SQ) is planning to price shares at $9 each -- a 40 percent drop from the level paid by investors in its private fundraising a year ago, and also below the initial range of $11 to $13 that Square was expecting.

Square is the most high-profile tech company to attempt a public offering so far this year. The payments company has also become a litmus test for how the current generation of high-flying tech companies.

The Wall Street Journal reports that two other tech IPOs priced Wednesday -- online-dating-service owner Match Group (MTCH) and e-mail security firm Mimecast (MIME).

Citing people familiar with the deals, the Journal reported that Match priced its IPO at the bottom of the proposed $12-to-$14 range. Mimecast also priced its shares at the low end of the $10-to-$12 range:

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Peter Boockvar parses the latest economic data:

"Initial jobless claims totaled 271,000, in line with expectations and down from 276,000 last week. But the four-week moving average rose to 271,000 from 268,000, as a 259,000 print from five weeks ago dropped out of the average. Continuing claims fell by 2,000 to just above 15-year lows.

The bottom line: The song remains the same in the benign pace of firings. Employers are holding onto employees in the midst of a tight labor market, while too many are on the sidelines -- unwilling or unable to join the rest of us.

Following continued weakness in New York manufacturing, the Philly Fed's regional index rose to +1.9 for November. That's a touch above the -0.5% expected, and up from -4.5 and -6.0 in the two prior months.

New orders rebounded by seven points, but remain negative for a second straight month at -3.7. That compares to the six-month average of 3.9. Order backlogs went positive at 2.4 after four straight months below zero. Shipments were -2.5, up from -6.1. Employment rose to +2.6 from -1.7, but the workweek fell sharply to -16.2 from -7.3 -- the weakest since June 2012.

Inventories rose 10 points, but only to -7.9 after falling by 15 points in the prior month. Prices paid and received both fell and are below zero. The forward-looking six-month outlook for business activity rose almost seven points, but only after falling by about seven points in October. Capital-spending plans rose to 25.9 from 7.2 in October, but they were at 27.2 in September.

The bottom line: I'm glad to see a plus number in front of the Philly Fed index. But the three-month average is -2.9 vs. a six-month average of +3.4, a year-to-date average of +4.7 and the 2014 average of +18.6.

Thus, the manufacturing trend is clearly slowing. But after seeing the flatline ISM last month, we already knew that -- and the reasons behind it. The Fed will still be raising rates anyway."

Jim "El Capitan" Cramer's opening missive, 4 Home Improvement Stocks to Buyand How to Do It, provides a good tactical outline for the retailing segment that includes Lowe's (LOW) and Home Depot (HD).

In fact, one of the ingredients in my initiation yesterday of a long position in Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) is similar to Jim's thought process.

The retail segment represented by J.C. Penney (JCP) and TJX Cos. (TJX) is improving. BBBY, which is well below its highs, could be a collateral play.

Many "talking heads" in business TV were sanctioning a move into European equities prior to the Paris terrorist attacks. But now that Europe has rallied with U.S. equities, I would sell into the European  strength if I were long equities there.

Friday's tragedy almost certainly guarantees that a modest recession will threaten the tourism-based French economy (the Eurozone's second-largest). And the fallout won't be confined to France -- similar safety concerns will envelope tourism across Europe. Employment and related economic activity will suffer as a result.

Besides security concerns, I suspect the related issues of immigration, open borders and the status of refugees will also dampen aggregate Eurozone growth.

Meanwhile, Germany (the EU's largest economy) is bracing for slower growth following the disaster at Volkswagen (VLKAY). Some market watchers estimate the VW scandal will reduce German gross domestic product growth by 1.5%.

The bottom line: EU real GDP growth seems poised to move back towards the zero line in 2016 vs. previous forecasts of 1% growth or more. The above factors will also likely hasten more European Central Bank easing.

Many are claiming after the fact that they anticipated and fully understand the rally we've seen this week following the Paris terrorist attacks and the Federal Reserve's clear indication of a December rise in interest rates. But I don't have a full explanation.

For numerous reasons, I anticipated some stability and even a possible recovery in an oversold market. We'd been down six days out of seven leading into this week, but frankly, I'm startled by the magnitude of the rally that we saw on Monday and Wednesday.

But as I mentioned yesterday in Columnist Conversations, discipline trumps conviction. So, I took some trading losses and covered the ETF shorts I had taken out late Monday and Tuesday.

I remain bearish on equities for fundamental, valuation and sentiment reasons -- but for now, Mr. Market has a mission. And when the market moves in ways incomprehensible to me, the best thing to do is be like Chance the Gardener in Being There and just watch (with a reduced short exposure). My mantra remains: "Live to fight another day."

In the meantime, I expanded my long exposure to bank and retail stocks this week. Four banks are on my "Best Long Ideas" list, and in the retail sector, I'm particularly attracted to Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY), Wal-Mart (WMT) and Macy's (M). (M and BBBY are also on my "Best Long Ideas" list.)

As an aside, I've carefully gone through Macy's income statement and balance sheet and it wouldn't surprise me if private equity is circling the company now and determining a buyout's feasibility.

Goldman's six favorite trades for 2016 out this morning.

This one caught my eye:

"Top Trade No. 6: Long large-cap U.S. banks relative to the overall S&P 500

Go long large-cap U.S. banks through the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index (^BKX) relative to the S&P 500 -- indexed at inception to 100, with a target at 110 and a stop loss at 95.

U.S. banks tend to be mildly pro-cyclical and also benefit from a rising longer-dated yield environment (we forecast a steeper U.S. term structure than the forwards discount). The Fed tightening will lead to a progressive upward revision of expectations on terminal rates, while the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan's efforts to boost inflation should restore bond premium across major markets. U.S. banks are still relatively well-priced, trading just above book value and with a P/E below that of the overall market, and at about median levels compared with their own past history. Moreover, they remain off their recent highs, unlike other possible implementations of the domestic-growth theme in the U.S. stock market."

Some important reads to check out:

• Bloomberg rounds up yesterday's remarks by Fed officials, who say the latest economic figures reinforce a rate hike.

• The Saturday Economistsays low interest rates are actually the problem.

• The Economic Research Council analyzes core inflation.

• The Washington Postreports on President Obama's take on the Syrian refugee situation, and WSB Radio says the White House will veto a Republican bill to toughen security checks on would-be immigrants from there.

• The Post alsorounds up the latest on the Paris terror attacks and other ongoing threats. 

• The New York Timeslooks at the rise of ISIS.

• Families of IS Leaders Flee Syria Stronghold Amid Airstrikes, Bloomberg (Nov. 18, 2015)