that was your best thing ever, michael farr. >> was it?uoted you, really. >> michael farr just stumbled into this. he talked about earnings and profits and he says labor costs -- said something really intelligent. jim iuorio, what will you do tomorrow morning? >> i think today's negativity in the market came at an inopportune time. the fact that we couldn't follow through today leads me to believe that -- by the way, we've had an 9% rally in the matter of a few weeks. and normal times we would say, nothing bad was taken 3%, 4% off the top to give us another buy opportunity. if it's weak tomorrow, i think it's going to trade down about 3%, 4%. i would by in the low 1,800s there. >> zach, you get the last word. >> we are in a static two months here after a really strong 2013. and so there is noise and there are stories that are going to move marks up and down, 2% in a week. but until otherwise notified, as far as i'm concerned right now, we are just in a very stagnant pattern. >> i think we're just consolidating last year's enormous gains an

he is michael farr, president of farr, miller and washington. good to see you again, michael. welcome back. >> thank you, sue. great to be here. >> so you're a little worried. what is it primarily that has you worried? we just got a good jobs number or a relatively good jobs number. >> sue, i manage other people's money, so i'm always worried. we've known each other for a long time. i'm a guy who worries. >> right. >> i think that stock prices are fully valued. i think they're rather high. margins are very high. meaning that there are about 50% higher than their average mean level for profit margins for the s & p. so i think stocks are kind of expensive. most of the run up that we've seen came from multiple expansion not so much from earnings growth. so while i think the economy is recovering, i am encouraged by all of the positive things i'm seeing, i'm just cautious out there with my money. and i prefer more solid balance sheets, more experienced management, and international exposure in the stocks that we're buying. >> michael, if i'm lucky i'm going to get a tax return her

michael farr will be with us to make the case that you have to be in it to win it. that's especially true for young people. we have the facts and statistics to back that up for us. >> something he says is the case even at these levels today. if you missed out five years ago or five months ago, he'll make the case for today. >>> could the crisis in the ukraine still end up being a speed bump for the market? both sides digging in ahead of next sunday's vote on who will control crimea. the current prime minister saying he will allow russia to take it back. if no one blinks, will is the stock market look vulnerable again? >>> also, what could be a game-changing lawsuit in las vegas. it sounds frivolous. a gambler, he dropped half a million dollars, is suing to get it back claiming the casino got him drunk. but the entire industry is watching this case with billions, with a "b," billions of dollars on the line. he may have a case. we'll have details on that coming up. >>> in the marketmarkets, the d up only 13 points. it's been an up and down session, rallying after the

michael farr and phil orlando, chief market equity manager. phil, let met begin with you. want to speculate but from a very good piece in "the new york times" by an old friend landon thomas who is in london, investors have put a lot of money, american investors, pimpco and blackrock have put a lot of money into russian stocks, into the russian stock market. investors bought 325 billion in russian stocks and bonds. 235 billion was in gas alone. the question is, what if they pull out? what if blackrock pulls out? what if a lot of people pull out? i don't think this story is over yet. >> >> you look at the bricks over the last few years and china and india were considered to be the investable countries because in part, political instability. so you've got very bold investors that will put some money in. we've been nibbling over the last couple of days but i wouldn't consider what we've done to be significant in any way. >> i mean, the question, mike to you on this, is putin more or less in control with respect to these financial flows? still, jay carney, the white house spoke

cnbc contributors kenny pulcari and michael farr are here. how optimistic are you given the volatility we have seen and are starting to see that rotation kick in as well? >> reasonably, i think optimistic. we have had kind of a flat pull-back quarter where things didn't do a whole lot, but after a 32% rise in 2013, i don't think a flat going sideways quarter is bad at all. we have changed fed chairmen, we heard the fed chairman make a very uncharacteristic hawkish remark a couple weeks ago. we heard more i think of the real inner yellen today in her dovish remarks, and you know, i think the inner yellen said what was it, extraordinary support will be needed for some time. stocks like it. i don't think the fed's going anywhere. i think stocks can do okay. i don't think wildly optimistic but okay. >> you like consumer staples, health care and technology, correct? >> i do. there's no need to swing for the fences in here. i think solid balance sheets that are growing top line and bottom line. you have to be able to grow top line along with bottom

joining us now for perspective on the market's reaction to yellen's news conference is michael farr,e is president of farr, miller and washington. we also have eric marshall, portfolio manager of hodges funds in dallas. did you hear anything that changed your mind about when the fed would be raising rates yesterday and did you do anything different with your portfolio as a result? >> i tended to agree with steve. i thought he was pretty much right on. the thing that got me was the shift to the qualitative language. if you looked at his numbers for the predictions of when rates might hike, there was only about 20%, 23% for the first half of 2015, which means 75% or more think that it's going to be second half or later or even into 2016. i don't think that changed. this shift to a qualitative kind of squishy confused number of what they're going to mean by an employment target, i think added a whole lot of dovish room. it gave them room to say, we're not really worried about the empirical precision here. we've got this general sort of thing we're going to go for, and it lets them ease.