Thrilling Thursday – Rejection at S&P 2,000
by phil - August 28th, 2014 8:12 am
The Futures are off a bit today and that's no surprise to those of us who have been paying attention to the volume, or lack thereof, as we made our final approach at the 2,000 line on the S&P 500. Jim Cramer was literally foaming at the mouth this week as he and his CNBC co-conspirators herded the sheeple into the markets to participate in the tail end of the rally, where the suckers could hold the bags for their Corporate Masters.
Why am I angry at Cramer today? Because yesterday he committed the same crime he commtted in 2008 that cost so many people their life's savings – he told people not to sell their stocks on a pullback. "Don't take profits" is the message for the viewing public. But, I would ask, if people don't take profits – when will they ever get profits? What kind of stupid message is that? Well, it's the message that leaves you holding the bag while his hedge fund buddies head for the exits. It's not much different than telling one group of people not to leave a burning building while you make sure all your friends are getting out safely.
"This is not just my opinion. I can prove it to you empirically. See, as I was preparing to write my book "Get Rich Carefully," I went over the previous five years of trades made by my charitable trust. And as I reviewed those trades I noticed that far too often, my good judgment would be overcome by excessive skepticism."
If the "proof" Jim is talking about is his Action Alerts Plus, then I'd say you really should think long and hard about following his advice here (via Kirk Lindstrom – who does compete with Cramer):
I guess, sure, Jim legitimately should regret that he wasn't more bullish from 2008 to 2013, when the market popped 200% and his trust gained about 100% but don't you think the lesson Cramer should be taking from that experience is to CUT YOUR LOSSES, not…
 Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
 del.icio.us
|
|
Paul Farrell Explains Why The Fed-Wall Street Complex Will Self Destruct By 2012
by ilene - October 5th, 2010 3:52 pm
Paul Farrell Explains Why The Fed-Wall Street Complex Will Self Destruct By 2012
Courtesy of Zero Hedge
Some rather scary predictions out of Paul Farrell today: "It’s inevitable: Wall Street banks control the Federal Reserve system, it’s their personal piggy bank. They’ve already done so much damage, yet have more control than ever.Warning: That’s a set-up. They will eventually destroy capitalism, democracy, and the dollar’s global reserve-currency status. They will self-destruct before 2035 … maybe as early as 2012 … most likely by 2020. Last week we cheered the Tea Party for starting the countdown to the Second American Revolution. Our timeline is crucial to understanding the historic implications of Taleb’s prediction that the Fed is dying, that it’s only a matter of time before a revolution triggers class warfare forcing America to dump capitalism, eliminate our corrupt system of lobbying, come up with a new workable form of government, and create a new economy without a banking system ruled by Wall Street." And just like in the Hangover, where the guy is funny because he’s fat, Farrell is scary cause he is spot on correct.
Handily, Farrell provides a projected timeline of events:
Stage 1: The Democrats just put the nail in their coffin confirming they’re wimps when they refused to force the GOP to filibuster Bush tax cuts for billionaires.
Stage 2: In the elections the GOP takes over the House, expanding its strategic war to destroy Obama with its policy of “complete gridlock” and “shutting down government.”
Stage 3: Post-election Obama goes lame-duck, buried in subpoenas and vetoes.
Stage 4: In 2012, the GOP wins back the White House and Senate. Health care returns to insurers. Free-market financial deregulation returns. Lobbyists intensify their anarchy.
Stage 5: Before the end of the second term of the new GOP president, Washington is totally corrupted by unlimited, anonymous donations from billionaires and lobbyists. Wall Street’s Happy Conspiracy triggers the third catastrophic meltdown of the 21st century that Robert Shiller of “Irrational Exuberance” fame predicts, resulting in defaults of dollar-denominated debt and the dollar’s demise as the world’s reserve currency.
Stage 6: The Second American Revolution explodes into a brutal full-scale class war with the middle class leading a widespread rebellion against the out-of-touch, out-of-control Happy Conspiracy sabotaging America from within.
Stage 7: The domestic class warfare is exaggerated as the Pentagon’s global warnings play out: That by 2020
…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Cramer Changes Tune On Goldman, Says Charge Is Not “Frivolous” And Firm Will Have To Settle Or Pay $2-3 Billion Fine
by ilene - April 26th, 2010 7:23 pm
Cramer Changes Tune On Goldman, Says Charge Is Not "Frivolous" And Firm Will Have To Settle Or Pay $2-3 Billion Fine
Courtesy of Tyler Durden
What a difference a day makes. First Cramer was firmly planted in the Steve Liesman camp, who in turn for the past week has been moonlighting as the semi-official Goldman PR manager, in "leaking" every piece of useless "absolving" information (a job only secondary in worthlessness to that of worst financial stock analyst ever Dick Bove who has been buying Goldman all the day down from $185), however now after actually doing some thinking, the troubled theStreet.com owner who himself is no stranger to SEC investigations, has diametrically changed his tune. In this morning’s edition of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, Cramer said: "What makes this worse than most situations is that it’s entirely possible this young guy, who’s now holding the whole firm hostage, Fabrice Tourre – it’s entirely possible that he sold it fraudulently. If he did, then Goldman has no defense. So, what I would emphasize at this particular moment is that this guy is way too powerful. The hearings are going to go badly. Goldman knew they were going to have a Wells Notice, knew they were going to get prosecuted. They didn’t reveal it. It was totally material. Again they did that wrong.” But we thought that according to "GAMECHANGING" information which you yourself Jim broke, Goldman was ok: after all they lost "money on the deal", a conclusion so moronic it immediately led to derisive ridicule from fringe blog Zero Hedge. That said, we are pleased to bury the hatchet – after all even former Goldmanite and seasned CNBSer Jim now agrees that the vampire squid is in deep shit.
As Jeff Poor of Business and Media reports:
Cramer argued that Goldman would have better served by approaching the government hat in hand rather than taking an aggressive tack against the charges. As things are, however, he predicted serious consequences for the firm and its management.
“The main thing you have to understand is that Goldman has basically said, ‘Government, you’re just dead wrong,’ instead of saying, government, ‘We’re sorry, what do you need to do?’” Cramer explained. “In order to end this, if it’s a settlement, they will have to pay the largest fine in history and
…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
THREE THINGS I THINK I THINK
by ilene - March 18th, 2010 2:15 am
THREE THINGS I THINK I THINK
Courtesy of The Pragmatic Capitalist
- The complacency in the market is now reaching a fever pitch. It always amazes me that investors can be so bearish near the bottom and then be so incredibly bullish after the
market has risen so substantially. On January 28th I said the market was not forming a major market top and that the downside was “more likely a correction within the uptrend”. At S&P 1,140 I went net short for just the second time in the last 12 months. With our H1 outlook largely playing out as expected I now find myself wondering if we are in a euphoric blow-off top and on the wrong side of the trade….
- Mad Money started 5 years ago on CNBC. I vividly remember seeing the show when it started because it began right around the same time when the great Louis Rukeyser got sick. My first thought was: “there is something seriously wrong with the market if its participants are willing to listen to a man banging on buttons and acting like a lunatic.” The power of Cramer over the years is undiminished and leaves me wondering exactly the same thing today. Cramer is a good investor and a GREAT salesman, but you just have to wonder after 5 years – the market is flat over the same period – have any of his viewers actually come out on top after taxes and fees? My guess is very few….Investing is not a joke. It is not entertainment. I am not sure why anyone thinks it is okay to make it seem that way.
- While I continue to think the VIX is a sign of near-term complacency you just can’t help but wonder if investors are still too fearful in the long-term. The majority of investors still don’t have an ounce of faith in the recovery and this is reflected in the historically high VIX. In the past two recessions, the VIX did not reach its historical low of 10 until at least 3 years into the recovery. Perhaps most important, the market rallied this entire time.
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
PROOF: Cramer Isn’t A Lousy Stockpicker!
by ilene - May 20th, 2009 10:40 pm
Note: free trial to PSW Report/instant access to articles/no credit card – click here. – Ilene
PROOF: Cramer Isn’t A Lousy Stockpicker!
Courtesy of Henry Blodget at ClusterStock
After years to Jim Cramer bragging about what a great stockpicker he is and of choruses of Mad Money viewers grousing about the opposite, the issue has been settled.
Paul Bolster and Emery Trahan of Northeastern University have done an exaustive analysis of Cramer’s Mad Money stock picks from 2005 to 2007 (pre-crash).
The answer?
Cramer’s not an awful stockpicker!
Unfortunately, he’s not a particularly good one, either.
In fact, once you adjust for the various style factors that explain most stock returns (market, small/large, value/growth, momentum), Cramer’s stockpicking is pretty much in line with the index. In other words, he’s average.
Also, in contrast to one of Cramer’s refrains about the mediocrity of passive investment strategies like Jack Bogle’s, once you subtract the costs of trading and taxes (not to mention the incalculable cost of having to watch Cramer’s show every night), you’d have been better off in an index fund.
Individual investors have an incredible variety of sources for investment guidance. These
include internet blogs, financial publications, books, newsletters and, of course, television
shows. We examine a relatively new but widely popular source of investment advice,
buy and sell recommendations made by Jim Cramer on his popular nightly Mad Money
show on CNBC… Overall, the results suggest that, while Cramer may be
entertaining and mesmerizing to many of his viewers, his aggregate or average stock
recommendations are neither extraordinarily good nor unusually bad.
The Details
Bolster and Emery’s study is embedded below. Here are some of the interesting points.
- On a gross basis, Cramer’s picks actually did quite well, especially relative to the S&P 500. Cramer’s "portfolio" (as constructed by Bolster and Emery) returned 12.1% per year, versus 7.4% for the S&P, providing lots of fodder for those who say he "beats the market." This performance was before trading costs and taxes, however. And the comparison to the S&P also does not take into account the type of stocks Cramer likes to buy (generally, small cap, value, and momentum stocks, which, as a group, outperformed the S&P).
…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
Philip R. Davis is a founder Phil's Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders...
Ilene is editor and affiliate program
coordinator for PSW.
