More than a handful of people asked me if I would be watching the big debate. 10 candidates. One stage. Which politician will emerge as the clear-cut favorite to win the Republican party nomination?

It may surprise some folks, but I have zero interest in the made-for-television event. Each individual will receive about as much air time as Bethe Correia earned in her UFC Title fight against Ronda Rousey. (America's superstar dropped the Brazilian fighter in 34 seconds.)

From my vantage point, a debate exists when two individuals (or two unique groups) express vastly different opinions. And I would be intrigued by an actual match-up with actual position distinctions. Scores of presidential hopefuls from one side of the aisle looking to land a sound byte? I'd rather watch multiple reruns of ESPN's SportsCenter. In other words, I will tune in when it's Walker v. Kasich and Hillary versus Joe. (I am name-dropping, not predicting.)

In the same way that I might ignore political theater until it really starts to matter, investors tend to ignore financial markets until they really start to matter. And by really start to matter, I mean move significantly in one direction or the other. Ironically, investors who wait to buy undervalued securities when the technical backdrop is dramatically improving tend to miss out on sensible risk-taking opportunities.

In the same vein, those who wait to reduce exposure to extremely overvalued stocks when the technical backdrop is weakening tend to miss out on sensible risk-reduction opportunities. What's more, theoretical buy-n-holders shift to panicky sellers when the emotional pain of severe losses overwhelm them.

Although the Dow is slightly negative in 2015, and the S&P 500 is slightly positive, risk has already been sneaking out the back door. Don't let the flatness fool you; don't be misled by ‘journalists' with political agendas. Risk-taking is subsiding and risk-aversion is gaining.