If you're a long-time reader of Adam and my columns, you very well know Adam's view of Alan Greenspan. To save you from hearing Adam spit venom for 18 pages, I'll cut to the chase:

In short, he feels the man has single-handedly given birth to -- and raised the incredible amount of ambiguity we see on Wall Street day after day.

For example, I'm sure you've read his tirades on why “bad is not good” and “good is not bad.” In other words, there are many instances where bad economic numbers spark a market rally -- because bad numbers will force the Fed NOT to raise interest rates -- which is ultimately a good thing for stocks.

On the flipside, great economic numbers oftentimes lead to intense market sell-offs because good numbers mean Fed rate increases to cool the economy -- which would be bad for stocks.

I think you get the picture…

In Adam's view (and I tend to agree), good news should be considered good. And bad news should be considered bad. Overthinking, over- analyzing, and reacting opposite leads to nothing but utter confusion, which has infuriated Adam at times over the Greenspan era. And to be honest, it was quite annoying to me as well.

But lately, the tides have been turning. And boy is it a welcome sight!

For example, this week's Fed announcement sparked a rally. Inflation was under control -- which is a good thing -- and the market rallied. Good news is good!

And today, the Dow is down after a weaker-than-expected January employment report hit the tape.

Can it be that Bernanke is reversing the ambiguity of the Greenspan era?

If that's true, it'll certainly be a welcome sight for your editors!

And I'm sure you'll appreciate a logical market as well.