If you are picking stocks for your own portfolio, then you are competing against all of the smart stock pickers in the world. In fact, when you're buying or selling, there's someone on the other side betting against you.

While it may be fun, this may not be profitable in that you may end up underperforming the stock market as a whole. In fact, there's a greater than 50% chance, you're losing money by picking stocks.

If the number of large capitalization stocks is dropping due to a falling stock market, what can be done? Change the definition of "large cap." That is exactly what S&P is doing.

According to MarketWatch, "For large-cap stocks, reflected by the S&P 500, the value was cut to $3 billion from $4 billion. The S&P set the $4 billion mark on September 25." That makes for two revisions in three months. If the market keeps falling, perhaps that number could drop to $2 billion.

Why move the goal posts? Perhaps because some S&P indexes are based on the definition of large cap. Perhaps it makes people who invest in large cap stocks feel better.

Changing the definition may actually hurt some investors. There are still plenty of companies that have market caps above $4 billion or even $5 billion. There is a sense that the stocks in these firms are "safer" than other equities. A company that has been dragged below the $3 billion threshold may be a company with a stock that has dropped faster than the market in general or it may be a company that has a falling cash balance. A firm with $1 billion of cash on its balance sheet is more likely to have a market cap of over $3 billion than a company that has $200 million. Being a large cap stock actually means something, even if it is only by having balance sheet that is likely to be healthier than many others.

The S&P action will probably confuse some investors in an already confusing market. What is a large cap stock? Whatever S&P says it is.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

One way to gauge market breadth is to compare the performance of an index where each constituent member is weighted equally to its more traditional, capitalization-weighted counterpart.

When benchmark measures are rising but fewer shares are taking part, that often signals that an advance is nearing its sell-by date.

As far as the S&P 500 index goes, such a divergence has been in effect since late in the summer. That's when the ratio of the equal-weighted version to the conventional version began to roll over.

When it comes to individual sectors, however, there has been considerable variation between them.

Over the past year, for example, the performance of the health care, energy and industrial sectors has been relatively broad-based, while information technology, telecom services and materials group returns have been skewed in favor of large cap shares.

Arguably, because the latter three sectors have lacked the breadth of participation of the former three, that could mean they are especially vulnerable should the market resume the correction that kicked off in mid-October.

Michael Panzner is a 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets and the author of Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes and The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle.

I have written up eight companies that have a chance to be among the top 25 stocks for the NEXT 25 years and I thought it might be time for some discussion. You, the readers have sent in quite a bit of responses to the first six names. Most of your responses have been very positive and I certainly appreciate it. But many of you have been raising questions that I believe need a general response.

Let's put a few ideas and myths to rest once and for all.

The top 25 for the NEXT 25 years are bound to be smaller capitalization companies. By definition, they have to be. I recommend a number of companies on my website that are of a larger capitalization, but to make the list, the law of large numbers is against the larger cap names. If a $20 billion market cap names five folds over the next 10 years, that's a great return and no one should be unhappy. But if a $500 million market cap name goes to $20 billion in value, that's a 40 times return. So, the names will be of a smaller cap nature.

With high-growth companies early in their development, don't get hung up on lack of dividends. High growth companies do not pay dividends, nor should they. You want every penny of after-tax earnings to be plowed back into the business. Mature companies tend to pay cash dividends because their growth rates have slowed, the business lines are well-funded, and the excess cash is returned to shareholders. The downfall is that the stocks will not grow as fast in value as a high-growth company that is executing well. The big joke among portfolio managers when Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) declared its one time $3 dividend and initiated a quarterly dividend was that the party was over! When is the funeral? Microsoft was signaling that the high-growth, plow the earnings back into the business era was over. The stock traded sideways for nearly three years as Microsoft tried to get its footing back.