For those of you keeping score, Thursday's action was the seventh bullish day in the past ten trading sessions. As of today's close the S&P 500 has gained 9.6% since the capitulatory low hit on Wednesday from two weeks ago. We figured there would be a bounce from there, but this advance has now exceeded all of our near-term expectations. This isn't necessarily a good thing. While we love momentum as much as the next guy, as we've mentioned before, there's always a question of sustainability. It's possible for stocks to keep climbing after gaining nearly 10% in just two weeks. I looked back for several years though, and it doesn't happen very often... at least not without a dip first, to cool the trend off to a more palatable pace. OK, for what it's worth, let's look at our chart of the S&P 500. We forged ahead to higher highs and a higher close on Thursday. I think at this point the bulls are going to go ahead and try to see what happens when we get to new record highs above 2019, which was the peak hit back on September 19th. That said, 2010 is actually the more meaningful line in the sand. We'll be watching both. A move to the 2010 mark would be more than a 10% bounce off the lows, which may be just about all the gain traders can deal with before getting a profit-taking urge. Plan B is, the bulls aren't going to bother with a retest of or above 2010, and instead go ahead and give us a much-needed near-term cooling. This is the less likely outcome, from where I sit. I have to put it on the radar though. I also have to explain that until the floor around 1965 is broken, any bearish possibility is nothing more than something worth discussing in a theoretical sense. We remain in "show me" mode no matter which side of the table you're sitting on at this time. I know it's not very scientific or unbiased, but I'm telling you, there's just something that doesn't seem right to me about the strength from the past two weeks. I'm still a long-term bull no matter what, but in the near-term it just seems like there's a lack of volume behind the recent bullishness, and there are still several ways the market could be tripped up here. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I'm sure valuations have something to do with it. More on that later. With all of that being said, the shape of the chart isn't even the reason I'm still so concerned about the market's ability to hold onto its recent gains and establish a technical base at its current levels. Remember a few days ago how we discussed you could tell a lot about how investors were thinking based on what they were buying? Money flowing into safe havens like utilities suggested people were looking to play defense, expecting weakness ahead. Conversely, if traders were clamoring for aggressive growth arenas like technology and materials, it likely meant they felt strength was around the corner. Care to guess what sector was up the most today? Nope, it wasn't utilities. It was actually healthcare; the average gain for a healthcare stock on Thursday was 1.7%. Utilities, however, were a close second with a 1.65% gain today, on average. Given that healthcare is almost as much of a safe haven as utilities, and the two were the decided leaders today [the next-nearest arena was financial stocks, with a 0.9% advance on Thursday], we have to assume traders are still expecting some sort of bearish turbulence in the near future. I don't know when that marketwide weakness is supposed to appear, nor do I know how steep the selloff - if any - should be. I do know, though, that if investors collectively think it and act accordingly, odds are good they'll eventually cause the very action they're trying to evade... a self-fulfilling prophecy. From the Site It's been a while since we've had a chance to feature some of the best commentary at the site, but with several really great posts at the site today, we have to make time in today's newsletter to guide you to those write-ups. In no particular order... I don't know how much of this crazy saga between Christina Di Mauro and Sage Kelly you've followed, but it's a dandy. The gist is, the divorce battle between Di Mauro and Kelly - the head of healthcare investment banking at Jeffries, part of Leucadia National Corp (LUK) - is getting really, really bizarre, with the former accusing the latter of pushing her to sleep with the CEO (along with his "his prancing, big-breasted girlfriend") of Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc (AEGR) along with accusations of drug use with Myriad Solutions CFO Mark Hosny, UBS's Bjorn Koch, Sage's boss Ben Lorello and the head of mid cap Seattle Genetics, Inc (SGEN), Clay Siegall. Thing is, both Aegerion Pharmaceuticals and Seattle Genetics will have reported last quarter's earnings by the time you read this. The drama, however, could potentially detract you from the more important quarterly performance numbers. Either way, you've got to read John Udovich's post "Kelly vs Kelly: Sex, Drugs, Lies and Two Biotech Earnings Reports", which details the almost-strange alleged behaviors from all the parties involved. It's certainly not as interesting as the Sage Kelly story, but Bryan Murphy seems to have found a winner in this small cap bank stock. Side note: While large cap banks remain a hit-and-miss proposition, the smaller and regional banks are really turning up the heat now. Murphy's case makes a lot of sense. Finally, Peter Graham shared an earnings preview for Tuesday Morning Corporation (TUES) this morning, with the actual numbers to be posted after the market closes today. Even if you've already heard last quarter's results, you may want to peruse Graham's thoughts, as they go beyond just last quarter's numbers. He paints a much bigger picture. That's all for today. We'll be back at it on Friday.