You need a reason to sell. There has to be some sort of imperative to do so.

We could have presumed that we would have seen selling when the "low-level" talks with China led to nowhere. But that was before the U.S.-Mexican talks came to fruition.

We might have expected that Best Buy's ( BBY results would have brought out sellers from all the retail stocks that roared last week.

Nope. Nary a one. In fact most retailers did well.

We might have considered that it was time to take some more profits in the cloud kings . Instead, incredibly, Splunk ( SPLK ) has a huge move higher and the group is carried by that. How in heck could that stock go up another six points? In what world does that make sense?

Some of this is just like the old old days. I remember periods in the 1980s where we would look at the end of August and say that the sellers are off on the beach somewhere but the buyers are going to buy right into the end of the month to mark-up their positions. Why not? It's never been easier because of the dearth of offers. Plus, what desk is going to short Splunk to a voracious buyer knowing that there are others lurking. It's pretty much that kind of market.

Now a lot of people want to say that the market is like this because President Trump is pro-business and pro-stocks. His trade policies, however, have not yet yielded anything that would be described as positive for the majority of large cap stocks. Small caps, yes. Domestics, yes. But that's just the money shifting out of the internationals to the domestics BECAUSE of him.

I think that what may be more important, though, is that he is sensitive to investors' wishes -- for whatever reason. Can you imagine President Obama tweeting "Nasdaq has just gone above 8000 for the first time in history?"

That kind of tweet gives investors confidence that he is aware of his actions and won't do anything to seriously crater the market. It also makes you feel that he will win the trade wars, especially in light of the Mexican framework of an agreement.

There are enough people reading this who are skeptical of everything that Trump does and think that I can't possibly believe what I just wrote.

Here's what I have to say. We can talk about how good the earnings are. But it's really at this point a question of how much we will pay for them. The answer is that we will pay more for them than we would under Obama -- even as stocks rallied under Obama's two terms. It's just a more bullish environment with more cash sloshing around and lower unemployment with the latter being the most important determinant of what we will pay because of its role in influencing Fed policy.

I have also described the stock shortage that comes from very little issuance -- save a bunch of Chinese companies -- and lots of M&A and buybacks. That comes into play every day, too.

But the most important thing I can add here is a historical perspective. We have been here before under Reagan. Just a positive environment for stocks. We have it. Is it Trump's to take credit for? To some degree, hate him or love him, the answer is yes.