Fundamental or Technical

Four years ago there was much excitement about the projected upper limit of Google's share price. It had gone as high as about $750 and everyone was calling for at least another $100.

And those were the cautious analysts. I believe that back then, the more optimistic investors referred to those less ebullient analysts as some form of cat.

Everyone agreed that on a fundamental basis Google was undervalued. But then there was that gnawing unease about how quickly its stock price had climbed, about 50% in about 6 weeks.

To put that into terms that my generation can understand, I need to channel "Meatloaf."

"What's it going to be, boy? Fundamentals or Technicals?"

Are we sounding familiar, yet?

At that point the tech bubble was already a very distant memory. Besides, Google had an actually revenue stream and obscene profits. It could only keep going up as there was no reason for search users to curtail their clicking, since there was no cost involved to use Google search.

The one thing you can say about Google the company is that very few people will confuse it with "googol," the mathematical expression from which the company's name is said to be derived.

Well, a funny and totally unexpected thing happened, unless you believe that a cacophony of bulls heralds the coming of bears.

Even before the bottom fell out of the market as we learned such expressions as "sub-prime" and "collaterized debt obligation"," Google decided to shed about 40% of its share value.

From that level it dropped another 40% in  sympathy with the rest of the market. In fact, Google wasn't totally sympathetic as it left its bottom dwelling position about 4 months before the overall market, rising 18% from its low before the market took its lead.

A case of "so long. Been good knowing you, but I'm outta here."

Interestingly, from that market low, what is justly referred to as "The Haines Bottom," the S&P 500 has slightly edged Google in performance.

I wonder if they calculated in Google's generous dividend payments or the stock split.

Today, when someone says the word "Apple," no one is really thinking of the fruit anymore. The product on nature's pollination may as well take a seat next to "googol."

Despite all of the naysayers calling for Apple to take decisive action regarding a divided or stock split after the passing of Steve Jobs, in order to mainatain its share price, Tim Cook, the new and old CEO has done quite nicely, thank you.

Bit the choruses are eerily reminiscent of Google back before we knew of such realities as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

Obviously, unless Tim Cook decides to pull a "Kozlowski" and blow it all on crack, hookers and baccarat, it's not too likely that excesses and greed are going to do Apple in.

But as the waves are increasingly filled with calls for Apple to reach $600, just 2 days after achieving the $500 level, you can't begin but to remember the Google experience.

More and more people are paying attention to the "stream" whether on Twitter or StockTwits and there's no doubt that Apple is king of the stream.

Greece is barely a blip. It's all Apple.

So many are talking up the fundamental argument for why Apple is destined to reach $600 and beyond.

A few months ago James Altucher in his blog predicted that Apple would be the first trillion dollar company. He came to that opinion more than a year ago. On a subsequent "Fast Money" CNBC appearance he upped that to two trillion. My guess is that he didn't do so out of conviction, but more to get a reaction from the panelists.

He's good at that and they typically dismiss his opinions at their own risk.

I tend to tune out when anyone starts talking about such things as "multiples." I really don't know anything about fundamental analysis. I understand the concepts and the use of standard metrics, but I'm too tired and lazy to do the homework necessary to be able to compare Apples and oranges.

I'm not certain which "Apple" I was just referring to.

The other day there was a great side quip from Melissa Lee to Joe Kernen that likely went unnoticed. She commented that he was changing his metrics, regarding a topic they had been discussing. Then she added "you probably learned to do that from our guests."

But it seems that on the fundamentals Apple is destined to be heading higher. At least that what the stream says.

Much higher.

But then comes the competing stream. Those that are stressing the "technical" aspects.

I know even less about "technical analysis."

I do know enough to realize that there's no shortage of bright technicians looking at the same charts and coming to very different interpretations. I can stare at charts until my life expectancy is expired and I still can see the cup from the handle.

I'm also biased because I don't have a middle name and can't even fantasize about filling the blazer of Carer Braxton Worth, the "Chief Market Technician for Oppenheimer, who also appears with great regularity on Fast Money.

He is the antithesis of James Altucher. You can decide for yourself on which metrics.

So out of my own shortcomings I choose to neither adhere to technical nor fundamental analyses, despite the fac that I acknowledged that "fundamentalism can't be all bad" in the past..

From a fundamental perspective, I've always been amazed at the conundrum that surrounds "closed end" mutual funds. Never understanding how they could alternate between trading a huge discounts and huge premiums to the actual value of their holdings.

Beyond that, in a rational world, one might suspect that in the case of a price discount, some wise investor or some crude barbarian would exploit the inefficiency in pricing.

But I suppose that you have to be selective in your application of the fundamentals.

Hey, even the most pious of public officials can't even entirely agree on the nuances of the "Ten Commandments," so what hope is there for the rest of us?

Despite the fact that I spent the greatest portion of my life steeped in scientific methodology and have a great affinity for the sanctity of mathematical truth, I just can't extend that to the newest portion of my life.

Instead, I gravitate more to my Sugar Momma's touchy feely professional realm.

It's all about the emotions.

After a couple of days, I'm still somewhat stunned at all of the professed shock at the sad passing of Whitney Houston, but as I begin to think about the real mover of Apple or any other stock in the news, I realize that I know more than a single Whitney song.

"I get so emotional, baby."

And that explains it all.

Check out Recent PortfolioTransactions and Transaction Performance