So interesting. Now, it wasn't always, it wasn't all good, I think, in the press this week.

I think there was another article you tweeted about, which I didn't read either,

with something to do with a 200-day moving average. Can you pick that up, Jerry, and what was that all about?

It was an article in the Min Barrens, and the title of the article was the 200-day

moving average doesn't, no longer works, a market timing tool that no longer works.

I've often wondered, I've been a little unsure what is market timing. And then because

one guy will write an article on Monday that market timing doesn't work. And then on Friday,

he's extolling the virtues of trend following. So, okay, so it's not the same thing. So I think

this article really helped me focus on what do these people mean by market

timing. And I think what they mean is an indicator that tells you now is the time to get out. It's

not a system. A system has an entry, a system has an exit. One of the complaints about this

200-day moving average, you know, is 200 days, is that long-term

enough? Is it should it be 300? Should it be 100? That wasn't really delved into. It didn't

seem to be a lot of interest on getting to the bottom of anything except to say this sort of

indicator of business doesn't look like it's worth anything. And he pointed out

the four or five times, the last four or five times there, that was really the bottom of the

market of the S&P. And the S&P rallied off of that. So, and I guess implicit in that is that

an indicator would have to have a 50% or 70 or 80% or 90% success rate.

So anything less than.

And of course, we know as trend followers, that we're perfectly fine with a 40% success rate.

And so the whole systematic approach with an entry and exit, a stop loss is much different

from an indicator approach, which I think is somewhat worthless.

...