THEORY: Short Interest Investing

Posted on November 3, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

***

Short Interest Theory suggests that high levels of short interest in a stock may actually signal a potential price increase, contrary to traditional bearish interpretations.

Short Interest Theory is a contrarian investment concept that challenges conventional wisdom in financial markets. Traditionally, a high short interest—meaning a large percentage of a company’s shares are being sold short—is seen as a bearish signal, indicating that many investors expect the stock’s price to decline. However, Short Interest Theory flips this assumption, proposing that a high short interest can actually be a bullish indicator, suggesting a potential upward price movement due to a phenomenon known as a “short squeeze.”

To understand this theory, it’s important to grasp the mechanics of short selling. When investors short a stock, they borrow shares and sell them on the open market, hoping to repurchase them later at a lower price and pocket the difference. However, if the stock price rises instead of falling, short sellers face mounting losses. To limit these losses, they may be forced to buy back the stock at higher prices, which increases demand and drives the price up even further. This chain reaction is what’s known as a short squeeze.

Short Interest Theory posits that when short interest reaches unusually high levels, the stock becomes a prime candidate for a short squeeze. Investors who follow this theory look for stocks with high short interest ratios—often measured as the number of shares sold short divided by the stock’s average daily trading volume. A high ratio suggests that it would take many days for all short sellers to cover their positions, increasing the likelihood of a rapid price surge if positive news or buying pressure emerges.

This theory gained widespread attention during the GameStop (GME) saga in early 2021. Retail investors noticed that GME had an extremely high short interest—more than 100% of its float—and began buying shares en masse. This triggered a historic short squeeze, sending the stock price soaring and forcing institutional short sellers to cover their positions at massive losses. The event served as a real-world validation of Short Interest Theory and highlighted the power of collective investor behavior in modern markets.

Despite its appeal, Short Interest Theory is not without risks. Betting on a short squeeze can be speculative and volatile. Not all heavily shorted stocks experience upward momentum; some may continue to decline if the negative sentiment is justified by poor fundamentals or weak earnings. Moreover, timing a short squeeze is notoriously difficult, and investors can suffer significant losses if the anticipated rebound fails to materialize.

In conclusion, Short Interest Theory offers a compelling contrarian perspective on market sentiment. By interpreting high short interest as a potential bullish signal, it encourages investors to look beyond surface-level indicators and consider the dynamics of market psychology and trading behavior. While it can lead to lucrative opportunities, especially in the context of short squeezes, it also demands careful analysis and risk management. As with any investment strategy, understanding the underlying fundamentals and market context is essential for making informed decisions.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", finance, Funding Basics, Glossary Terms, Practice Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

BEWARE: Stocks and the U.S. Stock Markets?

Posted on September 2, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By A.I.

***

***

  • Markets: After a day off for Labor Day, Wall Street is entering September with little confidence as stocks shrugle with tariffs and AI-slowdown jitters to rise for four straight months. September has historically been the weakest month for US stocks, plus a hugely consequential Federal Reserve meeting looms on September17th.
  • Stock spotlight: An already booming Celsius hit a 52-week high last week after Pepsi said it would up its stake in the energy drink maker.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", finance, Financial Planning, Investing, Portfolio Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

STOCK PERFORMANCE: Growth v. Value Investing for Physicians

Posted on June 22, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

BY DR. DAVID EDWARD MARCINKO: MBA MEd CMP™

***

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

Performance of Growth & Value Stocks

Although many academics argue that value stocks outperform growth stocks, the returns for individuals investing through mutual funds demonstrate a near match. 

Introduction

A 2005 study Do Investors Capture the Value Premium? written by Todd Houge at The University of Iowa and Tim Loughran at The University of Notre Dame found that large company mutual funds in both the value and growth styles returned just over 11 percent for the period of 1975 to 2002. This paper contradicted many studies that demonstrated owning value stocks offers better long-term performance than growth stocks. 

The studies, led by Eugene Fama PhD and Kenneth French PhD, established the current consensus that the value style of investing does indeed offer a return premium. There are several theories as to why this has been the case, among the most persuasive being a series of behavioral arguments put forth by leading researchers. The studies suggest that the out performance of value stocks may result from investors’ tendency toward common behavioral traits, including the belief that the future will be similar to the past, overreaction to unexpected events, “herding” behavior which leads at times to overemphasis of a particular style or sector, overconfidence, and aversion to regret. All of these behaviors can cause price anomalies which create buying opportunities for value investors.

Another key ingredient argued for value out performance is lower business appraisals. Value stocks are plainly confined to a P/E range, whereas growth stocks have an upper limit that is infinite.  When growth stocks reach a high plateau in regard to P/E ratios, the ensuing returns are generally much lower than the category average over time. 

Moreover, growth stocks tend to lose more in bear markets.  In the last two major bear markets, growth stocks fared far worse than value.  From January 1973 until late 1974, large growth stocks lost 45 percent of their value, while large value stocks lost 26 percent. Similarly, from April 2000 to September 2002, large growth stocks lost 46 percent versus only 27 percent for large value stocks. These losses, academics insist, dramatically reduce the long-term investment returns of growth stocks.

***

***

However, the study by Houge and Loughran reasoned that although a premium may exist, investors have not been able to capture the excess return through mutual funds.  The study also maintained that any potential value premium is generated outside the securities held by most mutual funds.  Simply put, being growth or value had no material impact on a mutual fund’s performance.

Listed below in the table are the annualized returns and standard deviations for return data from January 1975 through December 2002.

Index                              Return                         SD      

S&P 500                            11.53%                     14.88%

Large Growth Funds         11.30%                     16.65%

Large Value Funds             11.41%                    15.39%

 Source:  Hough/Loughran Study

The Hough/Loughran study also found that the returns by style also varied over time.  From 1965-1983, a period widely known to favor the value style, large value funds averaged a 9.92 percent annual return, compared to 8.73 percent for large growth funds. This performance differential reverses over 1984-2001, as large growth funds generated a 14.1 percent average return compared to 12.9 percent for large value funds.  Thus, one style can outperform in any time period.

However, although the long-term returns are nearly identical, large differences between value and growth returns happen over time.   This is especially the case over the last ten years as growth and value have had extraordinary return differences – sometimes over 30 percentage points of under performance. 

This table indicates the return differential between the value and growth styles since 1992.

YEARLY RETURNS OF GROWTH/VALUE STOCKS

YearGrowthValue
19925.1%10.5%
19931.7%18.6%
19943.1%-0.6%
199538.1%37.1%
199624.0%22.0%
199736.5%30.6%
199842.2%14.7%
199928.2% 3.2%
2000-22.1%6.1%
2001-26.7%7.1%
2002-25.2%-20.5%
200328.2%27.7%
2004 6.3%16.5%
2005 3.6%6.1%
2006 10.8%20.6%
20078.8%1.5%
2008-38.43%-36.84%
200937.2%19.69%
201016.71%15.5%
20112.64%0.39%
201215.25%17.50%

Source:  Ibbottson.

Between the third quarter of 1994 and the second quarter of 2000, the S&P Growth Index produced annualized total returns of 30 percent, versus only about 18 percent for the S&P Value Index.  Since 2000, value has turned the tables and dramatically outperformed growth.  Growth has only outperformed value in two of the past eight years.  Since the two styles are successful at different times, combining them in one portfolio can create a buffer against dramatic swings, reducing volatility and the subsequent drag on returns. 

Assessment

In our analysis, the surest way to maximize the benefits of style investing is to combine growth and value in a single portfolio, and maintain the proportions evenly in a 50/50 split through regular rebalancing.  Research from Standard & Poor’s showed that since 1980, a 50/50 portfolio of value and growth stocks beats the market 75 percent of the time.

Conclusion

Due to the fact that both styles have near equal performance and either style can outperform for a significant time period, a medical professional might consider a blending of styles.  Rather than attempt to second-guess the market by switching in and out of styles as they roll with the cycle, it might be prudent to maintain an equal balance your investment between the two.

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit a RFP for speaking engagements: MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com 

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Refer, Subscribe and Like

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", "Doctors Only", Experts Invited, Financial Planning, Funding Basics, Glossary Terms, Investing, Marcinko Associates, Op-Editorials, Risk Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

PROSPECT THEORY: Physician-Client Empowerment for Financial Decision Making

Posted on March 13, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS

By Staff Reporters

***

***

Prospect theory is a psychological and behavioral economics theory developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979. It explains how people make decisions when faced with alternatives involving risk, probability, and uncertainty. According to this theory, decisions are influenced by perceived losses or gains.

Example:

Amanda, a DO client, was just informed by her financial advisor that she needed to re-launch her 403-b retirement plan. Since she was leery about investing, she quietly wondered why she couldn’t DIY. Little does her FA know that she doesn’t intend to follow his advice, anyway! So, what went wrong?

The answer may be that her advisor didn’t deploy a behavioral economics framework to support her decision-making. One such framework is the “prospect theory” model that boils client decision-making into a “three step heuristic.”
 
Prospect theory makes the unspoken biases that we all have more explicit. By identifying all the background assumptions and preferences that clients [patients] bring to the office, decision-making can be crafted so that everyone [family, doctor and patient] or [FA, client and spouse] is on the same page. Briefly, the three steps are:

1. Simplify choices by focusing on the key differences between investment [treatment] options such as stock, bonds, cash, and index funds. 

2. Understanding that clients [patients] prefer greater certainty when it comes to pursuing financial [health] gains and are willing to accept uncertainty when trying to avoid a loss [illness].

3. Cognitive processes lead clients and patients to overestimate the value of their choices thanks to survivor bias, cognitive dissonance, appeals to authority and hindsight biases.

Assessment

Much like healthcare today, the current mass-customized approaches to the financial services industry falls short of recognizing more personalized advisory approaches like prospect theory and assisted client-centered investment decision-making.

 Jaan E. Sidorov MD [Harrisburg, PA]   

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Read, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", "Doctors Only", Ethics, Experts Invited, Financial Planning, Funding Basics, Glossary Terms, Health Economics, Healthcare Finance, Investing, LifeStyle | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

STUPID COMMENTS: Financial Advisors Say to Physician Clients

Posted on March 12, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

BY DR. DAVID EDWARD MARCINKO; MBA MEd CMP®

***

***

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

Some Stupid Things Financial Advisors Say to Physician Clients

A few years ago and just for giggles, colleague Lon Jefferies MBA CFP® and I collected a list of dumb-stupid things said by some Financial Advisors to their doctor, dentist, nurse and and other medical professional clients, along with some recommended under-breath rejoinders:

  • “They don’t have any debt except for a mortgage and student loans.” OK. And I’m vegan except for bacon-wrapped steak.
  • “Earnings were positive before one-time charges.” This is Wall Street’s equivalent of, “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln; how was the play?”
  • “Earnings missed estimates.” No. Earnings don’t miss estimates; estimates miss earnings. No one ever says “the weather missed estimates.” They blame the weatherman for getting it wrong. Finance is the only industry where people blame their poor forecasting skills on reality. 
  • “Earnings met expectations, but analysts were looking for a beat.” If you’re expecting earnings to beat expectations, you don’t know what the word “expectations” means.
  • “It’s a Ponzi scheme.” The number of things called Ponzi schemes that are actually Ponzi schemes rounds to zero. It’s become a synonym for “thing I disagree with.” 
  • “The [thing not going perfectly] crisis.” Boy who cried wolf, meet analyst who called crisis. 
  • “He predicted the market crash in 2008.” He also predicted a crash in 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001, 1998, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1989, 1984, 1971…
  • “More buyers than sellers.” This is the equivalent of saying someone has more mothers than fathers. There’s one buyer and one seller for every trade. Every single one.
  • “Stocks suffer their biggest drop since September.” You know September was only six weeks ago, right? 
  • “We’re cautiously optimistic.” You’re also an oxymoron. 
  • [Guy on TV]: “It’s time to [buy/sell] stocks.” Who is this advice for? A 20-year-old with 60 years of investing in front of him, or a 82-year-old widow who needs money for a nursing home? Doesn’t that make a difference?
  • “We’re neutral on this stock.” Stop it. You don’t deserve a paycheck for that.
  • “There’s minimal downside on this stock.” Some lessons have to be learned the hard way.
  • “We’re trying to maximize returns and minimize risks.” Unlike everyone else, who are just dying to set their money ablaze!
  • “Shares fell after the company lowered guidance.” Guys, they just proved their guidance can be wrong. Why are you taking this new one seriously? 
  • “Our bullish case is conservative.” Then it’s not a bullish case. It’s a conservative case. Those words mean opposite things.
  • “We look where others don’t.” This is said by so many investors that it has to be untrue most of the time. 
  • “Is [X] the next black swan?” Nassim Taleb’s blood pressure rises every time someone says this. You can’t predict black swans. That’s what makes them dangerous.
  • “We’re waiting for more certainty.” Good call. Like in 1929, 1999 and 2007, when everyone knew exactly what the future looked like. Can’t wait!
  • “The Dow is down 50 points as investors react to news of [X].” Stop it – you’re just making stuff up. “Stocks are down and no one knows why” is the only honest headline in this category. 
  • “Investment guru [insert name] says stocks are [insert forecast].” Go to Morningstar.com. Look up that guru’s track record against their benchmark. More often than not, their career performance lags an index fund. Stop calling them gurus.
  • “We’re constructive on the market.” I have no idea what that means. I don’t think you do, either.
  • “[Noun] [verb] bubble.” (That’s a sarcastic observation from investor Eddy Elfenbein.) 
  • “Investors are fleeing the market.” Every stock is owned by someone all the time. 
  • “We expect more volatility.” There has never been a time when this was not the case. Let me guess, you also expect more winters? 
  • “This is a strong buy.” What do I do with this? Click the mouse harder when placing the order in my brokerage account?
  • “He was tired of throwing his money away renting, so he bought a house.” He knows a mortgage is renting money from a bank, right?
  • “This is a cyclical bull market in a secular bear.” Vapid nonsense.  
  • “Will Obamacare ruin the economy?” No. And get a grip. 

So, don’t let these aphorisms blind you to the critical thinking skills you learned in college, honed in medical school and apply every day in life.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Refer, Like and Subscribe

***

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit a RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com 

***

***

Filed under: "Advisors Only", "Doctors Only", Ethics, Jokes and Puns, LifeStyle | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

STOCK MARKET TRAPS: Overbought Bulls and Oversold Bears

Posted on December 27, 2024 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Staff Reporters

***

***

What Is a Bull Trap?

A bull trap, according to James Chen, is a false signal, referring to a declining trend in a stock, index, or other security that reverses after a convincing rally and breaks a prior support level. The move “traps” traders or investors that acted on the buy signal and generates losses on resulting long positions. A bull trap may also refer to a whipsaw pattern. Read: “Bull Trap.”

What is a Bear Trap

The opposite of a bull trap is a bear trap, which occurs when sellers fail to press a decline below a breakdown level.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Subscribe, Like and Refer!

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", Accounting, Ethics, Experts Invited, Funding Basics, Glossary Terms, Investing, Taxation | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

NAVIGATING STOCK MARKET CYCLES: From Bulls to Nvidia [AI Edition]

Posted on November 29, 2024 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Viataliy Katsenelson CFA

***

***

I’m embarking on something I’ve never done before—I’ve enlisted AI to inform, educate, and maybe even entertain you. I took several essays I wrote and asked my bestie AI to transform them into a radio show-style conversation between two hosts. (The AI tool I used is Notebook LM, a product created by Google.) I didn’t write the scripts myself.

Here were my instructions to the AI: “Here’s my essay. I’m taking a break from writing. Educate, inform and entertain my readers.” That’s it. If what you hear doesn’t surprise you—or even shock you to your socks—I don’t know what will. The future is here.

These essays are just as relevant today as when I first wrote them this summer. You can read the original of the first essay here. Be sure to leave your comments about the conversation you’re about to hear, and feel free to share it with friends, enemies, or even random strangers.
Navigating Market Cycles: From Bulls to Nvidia – AI Edition
In this episode, my AI friends will discuss stock market math, sideways markets, the role of P/E in market cycles, impact of interest rates on P/E, economic analysis, Magnificent Seven stocks, NVIDIA, and a lot more.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Subscribe Today!

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", Experts Invited, Financial Planning, Funding Basics, Information Technology, Investing | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE: Understanding Today

Posted on July 22, 2024 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Vitaliy Katsenelson CFA

***

***

Interest rates that stay low and actually keep declining for almost a quarter of a century slowly propagate deep into the fabric of the economy.

***

Interest rates went up and refused to decline. They are high in relation to where they came from, but they look reasonable in relation to inflation, which is running about 3%.

Bulls argue that current interest rates only appear to be high in relation to the last 20 years, and they are actually low if you look at the 30 years before the turn of the century. This argument is historically accurate, but it is missing a very important point – interest rates that stay low and actually keep declining for almost a quarter of a century slowly propagate deep into the fabric of the economy.

Let me try this analogy.

HERE: Understanding Today’s Economic Landscape

***

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Thank You

***

***

Filed under: "Advisors Only", "Ask-an-Advisor", Experts Invited, Investing | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

DAILY UPDATE: Walmart, HHS and Geriatrics as Companies and Stock Market Still Rise

Posted on July 4, 2024 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

MEDICAL EXECUTIVE-POST – TODAY’S NEWSLETTER BRIEFING

***

Essays, Opinions and Curated News in Health Economics, Investing, Business, Management and Financial Planning for Physician Entrepreneurs and their Savvy Advisors and Consultants

“Serving Almost One Million Doctors, Financial Advisors and Medical Management Consultants Daily“

A Partner of the Institute of Medical Business Advisors , Inc.

http://www.MedicalBusinessAdvisors.com

SPONSORED BY: Marcinko & Associates, Inc.

***

http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Daily Update Provided By Staff Reporters Since 2007.
How May We Serve You?
© Copyright Institute of Medical Business Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved. 2024

REFER A COLLEAGUE: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

SPONSORSHIPS AVAILABLE: https://medicalexecutivepost.com/sponsors/

ADVERTISE ON THE ME-P: https://tinyurl.com/ytb5955z

***

HAPPY JULY FOURTH

The S&P 500 broke above 5,500 yesterday and stayed there for the first time in market history, notching yet another all-time high for the index—its 32nd this year alone. With so much bullishness it’s understandable that investors may be wondering if we’re at the top yet, but chartists suggests gains tend to beget gains. The bulls have too much momentum to stop now—and if/when the FOMC cuts rates later this year, it seems likely that we’ll see more all-time highs in 2024? Any thoughts.

CITE: https://www.r2library.com/Resource

The Biden administration has awarded $206.3 million of funding to clinician training programs across 42 universities and provider organizations to bolster the nation’s geriatrics care workforce. Programs will be able to integrate geriatrics training into primary care and will work to educate older adults’ families on their care needs. Health and Human Services, in its announcement, noted that primary care providers are a crucial source of care for much of the aging population.

As Walmart shutters its primary care clinics, the retail giant inked a deal to sell its MeMD telehealth business to health tech startup Fabric. Fabric provides a telemedicine platform for a range of customers, including provider groups, with the goal of improving the clinician and patient experience, as well as operational efficiency. The acquisition will expand its provider network, add virtual behavioral health to the company’s services and build on Fabric’s employer and payer solutions.

And…The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron deference, stripping power from federal agencies to interpret and enforce regulations. Courts no longer have to defer to reasonable agency interpretations. One healthcare attorney told Fierce Healthcare he predicts the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will be under a microscope from the courts going forward, and there will be more scrutiny towards provider reimbursement cuts, drug pricing regulation and the Inflation Reduction Act.

CITE: https://tinyurl.com/2h47urt5

Here’s where the major benchmarks ended:

  • The S&P 500 index®(SPX)rose 28.01 points (0.51%) to 5,537.02; the Dow Jones Industrial Average® ($DJI) fell 23.85 points (-0.1%) to 39,308.00; the NASDAQ Composite® ($COMP) gained 159.54 points (0.9%) to 18,188.30.
  • The 10-year Treasury note yield (TNX) dropped seven basis points to 4.36%.
  • The CBOE Volatility Index® (VIX) held steady at 12.09.

What’s up

What’s down

  • First Foundation plummeted 23.81% after the bank announced it will raise $225 million to shore up a balance sheet burdened by commercial real estate loans.
  • Constellation Brands fell 3.76% after the alcoholic beverage maker reported stronger than expected earnings but missed Wall Street’s expectations on revenue.
  • Simulations Plus slid 14.87% after it reported strong third-quarter earnings but announced it’s cutting its dividend.
  • CureVac popped then dropped 6.59% after GSK bought the rights to the smaller pharma company’s Covid-19 and flu vaccines for $1.6 billion.

CITE: https://tinyurl.com/tj8smmes

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

Thank You

***

***

***

***

EDUCATIONAL TEXTBOOKS: https://tinyurl.com/4zdxuuwf

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", "Doctors Only", Breaking News, Drugs and Pharma, Ethics, Experts Invited, Financial Planning, Health Economics, Health Insurance, Health Law & Policy, Healthcare Finance, Information Technology, Investing, Marcinko Associates, Recommended Books, Sponsors, Touring with Marcinko | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »