TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says they're lousy, so traders have to turn to things like the oscillator for guidance.

Boy, it's tough to find something to like here.

It's tough to even find a thesis.

The litany seems worse than ever: autos falling apart, oil perhaps peaking, volume drying up, mergers falling apart, credit losses back again, lay-offs rising.

To which I say, of course. No kidding. We had a big run up, and when we got there things turned for the worse, not for the better. When that happens you can't fall back on the fundamentals, which are bad and have been bad for what seems like ages, but instead have to fall back on things like the oscillator and the bull/bear ratio. We got very overbought and we lost a lot of bears on that assault on 13,000, and we saw financials, techs, oils, utilities and industrials go for a ride. In the end, even retail had a romp.

Now all of that has to get repealed, even energy for a bit because this last spike to $130 and change was too much too fast even if we ultimately get to this level not far down the road.

Regular BloggingStocks readers know by now that my investment strategies are fairly conservative and relatively coarse. Please don't begrudge me that. Although I don't track my picks in a portfolio, I do mentally track the general performance of the companies I tout, and I believe that overall I've done fairly well.

There are two major differences between my stock-picking efforts and what I perceive to be Warren Buffett's style. First, Mr. Buffett has years of experience that I myself do not have. Second, Mr. Buffett likes to have a greater working understanding of the nature of the businesses he chooses to investment in than I do. I choose my companies of favor with what I call my "big picture" strategy. All that means is that I use a broader view than most of my contemporaries who like to dig right down to the very roots of their picks.

I like to think that my strategy provides solid conservative support, which shall then free an investor to do some aggressive speculating with their profits.

James Cramer was forced to cave in on his NYSE Euronext (NYSE: NYX) pick for the year after the HUGE buy recommendation tanked more each month since he said to back up the truck six months ago. See earlier blog by Brent Archer Cramer switches sides on NYX (for now) for more detail. Cramer has been in love with this stock since it reached a high of $112 in November, made it one of his 2007 picks at $97.51, only to watch it sink to $73.62 after six months for a 24.5% loss. It is down a few cents more today as I write the post.

He still likes the stock, but at lower levels, and he might get back in at somewhere in the $60s. Why is this better? What are the fundamentals now? Why can't it be $50 or $40 or $30? The current P/E ratio (TTM) is 71.47. Gee whiz -- at half its current price, it would have a P/E way higher than that of Google's? You're kidding, right Jim? What fundamentals? The P/S is 8.57 (LFY), and the P/B is 9.1 (LFY). NYX has no debt, and there is a decent ROE of 13.51 but not in relation to the P/E.

So I continue to wonder about all of the things in the stock market that I do not understand, this being one of them -- and stay away. If this stock appeals to you at any particular price then I hope you develop some understanding of where the value will come from, but for now, there are better places for your money -- and today even Jim Cramer agrees.

Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the vice president for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. Check out his other posts for BloggingStocks here.

Red Sox or Yankees? Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton? Sanjaya or one of the talented singers? These are the important issues of the day that normal people debate. Then there are people like us writers at BloggingStocks who ponder questions like "Traditional index funds or fundamental index funds?" Marketwatch's Paul Farrell wrote an excellent piece discussing this very debate, and now I'm going to give you my take on it.

First of all, some quick definitions:

Index Fund: Pioneered by John Bogle, these are mutual funds (or, ETFs) which seek to closely mimic the performance of a certain index, such as the S&P 500 or the Wilshire 5000 by simply owning the stocks that are in that group. Characterized by low expense ratios and minuscule turnover, index funds outperformed the vast majority of actively managed funds over the long-term, and I believe that they have a place in the retirement portfolio of every single working man and woman in America.

Fundamental Index Funds: This is a new hybrid of sorts, combining elements of index funds and active management. Basically, people have noticed that stocks with certain quantitative principles outperform over the long-term: For instance, stocks with low price-book ratios, low price-earnings ratios, high yields, etc. Other fundamental index funds are cap-weighted which means that stocks with larger market caps are represented more heavily than stocks with smaller market caps, as opposed to weighting based on share price.

And now, my opinion: I say you stick with the traditional index funds, at least for now. Here's why, according to John Bogle and Burton Malkiel, two of the greatest proponents of passive investing:

While index [mutual] funds also incur expenses, they are available at costs below 10 basis points. The expense ratios of publicly available fundamental index funds range from an average of 0.49% (plus brokerage commissions) to 1.14% (plus a 3.75% sales load), plus an undisclosed amount of portfolio turnover costs. The portfolios of market-weighted index funds are automatically adjusted for changes in the market caps of their portfolio holdings, and they require no turnover.

Furthermore, I would argue that fundamental indexing may kill the very outperformance that it seeks to take advantage of. Think about it: If investors pour billions of dollars into these funds to invest in stocks that match the ratios the funds are seeking, these stocks will be bid up so that they are no longer bargains. If investors seek out stocks with high yields en masse because they outperform, they will stop outperforming very quickly.

And then there's Jeremy Siegel, one of the leading proponents of fundamental indexing. While I thoroughly enjoyed his book The Future For Investors, Berkshire Hathaway Vice-Chairman Charlie Munger, one of the greatest minds in investing, had this to say about Mr. Siegel at a recent Berkshire annual meeting: "I think he's demented. He tries to compare apples and elephants in making accurate projections." Well then.