Over the last few months, the stock market has traded in a range that has confounded both bulls and bears alike. Now, we are fast approaching the top of the range once again. Will the averages disappoint once again or are we on the verge of a break out?

We turned to our old friend John Roque, technical strategist at WJB Capital Group, for some insight. Many readers know John either through these columns or because of his many appearances on CNBC and other media outlets.

"The S&P 500 Index has serious resistance at 1,220-1,227 and then 1,250," he says, "Meanwhile, support levels are 1,150, 1,100 and 1,050. However, 950 is not out of the question."

He points to the Dow Jones Industrial Average's 1965-1982 trading range as a period similar to that of today.

"After a turn down from the top of the range, the Dow would revisit the bottom of the range. The only question is what's the bottom of the range?"

When Roque looks at the technical action of the S&P today, he feels a certain sense of déjà vu. The technical action closely resembles two recent downturns in this decade: the decline that started in 2001 (the Dot-Com boom and bust) and the decline that began in 2008-2009.

"The only thing missing from this setup right now is a turndown in the S&P's 12-month moving average. But I think it will happen because the index's rate of advance has almost stopped."

Underneath this week's advance in the averages, Roque was not impressed with the market's internals. Some of the variables he looks at like the market's breadth (the number of stocks that are advancing in price versus those that are declining) are forming a negative divergence among New York Stock Exchange common stocks. The S&P's 500 stocks are also experiencing weakening breath.

"And when net new highs are also in negative territory, I get cautious. The markets have broken their trend lines and momentum is rolling over, which are two major concerns as well," he explained.

In this kind of environment, stability is in high demand. Two sectors where he sees upward momentum are in consumer stables and utilities. Both groups are outperforming the market but Roque points out that usually happens when markets experience steep declines.

Roque's technical view is a bit sobering, especially in the face of this week's euphoria over the coordinated effort by central banks worldwide to bolster lending to European banks (see my column "Deja Vu"). Remember, too, that investors are expecting some major new initiative to be announced by the Federal Reserve this coming Wednesday. Whether the Fed will meet expectations is anyone's bet, but the fact that traders have bid markets higher in anticipation should come as no surprise.

Traders have used recent events — the debt ceiling, the Fed's Aug. 26 meeting in Jackson Hole, European summits, etc. — to manipulate markets prior to these announcements. So far the evidence has not been encouraging. After each one of these events the markets has traded lower after two or three days.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net . Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

Everyone seems to be looking for the same thing, an end to the pain, an end to the stress, a place where the selling stops. It's called a bottom and it appears to me that we haven't found one yet.

One contrary indicator is the sheer number of bottom fishers who are trying to outguess each other on how low the markets can go. Normally bottoms are reached when no one wants to buy and everyone believes the markets are never, ever coming back. So far, I have seen no evidence that investors are in that state of mind.

This has been a waterfall decline and as such, one can look back through history and see how markets have reacted to past selloffs of this type. If you haven't read my Aug. 11 column, "What To Expect From After a Waterfall Decline" please be sure to read it.

Over the last two weeks, the market declined to about 1,100 on the S&P 500 Index and then proceeded to bounce 9.5 percent to about 1,204. Many think that was the bottom. But was it? I looked at some historical data on past waterfall declines, compliments of Ned Davis Research, a highly respected financial firm, hoping to confirm or deny that supposition.

I found that in 8 of 11 post-waterfall decline cases since 1929, the market has made lower lows. So far this decline has been a textbook waterfall decline. They all begin with a breath-taking whoosh downward, find an interim bottom, (in this case S&P 1,100) and proceed to bounce about 10 percent to an interim peak. Our rally this week to 1,204 was about 9.5 percent and would certainly seem to qualify as an interim peak.

Eventually this interim peak is followed by a decline to the final bottom, which in past declines have averaged about 14 percent to 16 percent. That would put the S&P 500 Index at around 1,020. But that is an average decline. If you look at waterfall declines that were caused by debt-related fears such as in 2008, 1940, 1937, 1938 and 1929, then, the bottoms were a good 10-15 percent lower than the average.

Now that does not mean that this decline must replicate past performances. And remember, too, that this type of bottom occurred in 73 percent of the cases since 1929. Therefore, 2011 could turn out differently. My intention is neither to frighten readers nor to call the bottom but rather to give you an idea of what has happened in the past and give you a framework for future risk/reward. At the very least, I would think that there is sufficient historical data to reframe from jumping into the market again at some arbitrary number whether it be 1,100, 1,075 or 1,020.

Bottoms are rarely V-shaped. There is usually a basing period of several months where the markets trade up and down, testing the lows until a sufficient amount of evidence convinces investors to get back in the market. The sectors that perform the best in a basing/testing period are health care, energy, consumer staples, telecom and utilities. Once the market bottom is in, then the sectors with higher betas such as technology, consumer discretionary, financials and industrials outperform.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net . Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

Unless you have been living in a vacuum, you are keenly aware of the stock market's freefall. Panic is in the air and rumors are swirling around the Street's trading floors. It is time for investors to step back and take a breath.

If you are worrying about your retirement accounts, don't. This is not 2008-2009. Much of what is going on in the markets is a result of conjecture, not facts. No one knows if we are going into another recession. No one knows if Italy is going to go bankrupt, no one knows the future. At most, we can only make educated guesses.

Let me first admit that I was definitely wrong last week when I posed the question "Buy or Sell" in my column. I advised readers to hold onto their investments. Like many others, I was expecting a rally in stocks after the successful passage of a debt-limit increase. Even though I expressed my deep concerns over the weakening of the economy, I was caught like everyone else going the wrong way when the markets dropped through the floor. That said, I believe it is too late to sell and, if I do, I will wait first for a bounce.

Selling a market already down 12 percent in 10 out of 11 days is not a smart move. We are close to, if not already in, that zone of capitulation where panic takes over and investors want out at any price. Thursday was over a 95/5 day during which 95 stocks were sold for every five purchased. The New York Stock Exchange Index is so oversold that it registers a minus-2 standard deviation (SD). These are all signs of a near-term bottom.

My friend John Roque, technical strategist over at WJP Capital Group, indicates that when stocks are this oversold, a relief rally is not far behind. In 100 percent of the cases over the last 30 years where a minus-2 SD occurred, the markets have bounced anywhere from 2 percent to over 10 percent within two weeks. Three months later, the same markets gained 3.6 percent to 34 percent. So the odds are in your favor that selling now would be a losing proposition.

"OK, I wait for a bounce," says a client from Becket, "then what?"

That depends. Many times after a relief rally (sometimes called a dead cat bounce) the markets return to, at, or near the lows before moving higher. At other times, there is a week or two of pause before markets resume an upward climb. Last year, the S&P 500 Index lost almost 18 percent and then rallied straight up with no retest. It could happen again but we will need to get the bounce first before guessing at its durability.

The reason this correction feels so different from last year's is the compressed nature of the decline. What took four months to accomplish in 2010 has taken only 11 days thus far this year. In some ways, a short sharp correction is better than a drawn out death by a thousand cuts kind of correction, although both are painful.

So here's my game plan: stay invested, wait for the bounce, when it occurs sell some of your most aggressive investments and see what happens. If we retrace, buy at or close to the bottom. If we continue to climb, the worst that can happen is you miss a few percentage points of gains. But remember, preserving principle is your No. 1 concern. Profits should come second. 

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net . Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.