Does anyone else wonder what would have happened had the Federal Reserve not bailed out Bear Stearns? If you believe the propaganda, we very well may have avoided financial Armageddon.

But is that really true?

I'm honestly not so sure.

As a die-hard-free-market guy, I have to say that the intervention bothers me at a base level. After all, in most instances, the free market does a remarkable job of clearing excess, and I fundamentally believe that the free market should have been allowed to do just that with Bear Stearns.

I suppose the collapse of the global financial system might be a good reason to intervene, so onward and upward, correct?

For those investors that actively manage their portfolios with exchange traded funds the Bear Stearns bailout provides the "all-clear" for speculators in the financial space. The implicit message being sent was that no matter the disaster, the Federal Reserve will be there to bail you out.

Too bad that homeowner with a noose around his or her neck cannot feel the same comfort, but I digress. The point here is that someone decided that Wall Street was more important than Main Street.

According to ETF Insider editor, Tim Middleton, investors can take the Federal Reserve puts all the way to the bank. So stunning and absolute was the move that Middleton reversed course in his model portfolio!

In his article title, "Dump the Hedge; Buy Financials," Middleton sells his UltraShort ProShares position, and for those aggressive investors, he suggests using some of the proceeds to establish a position in the Vanguard Financials ETF.

His reasoning is fairly cut and dry...