marko
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 8,503
Yes - he was ridiculed for maybe a year.
...until the rest of the financial community went "hmmmmm....".
Yes - he was ridiculed for maybe a year.
I originally found Cramer entertaining but got tired of his shtick. Part of it was due to the Jon Stewart critique of Cramer sticking with Bear while it headed towards 0. On the other hand, I also started getting tired of Jon Stewart's shtick too.
Boo-yah!I originally found Cramer entertaining but got tired of his shtick.
Stewart is obviously not a financial expert but his critique was about the financial news industry, specifically CNBC, along with segments of Cramer, where the much of the coverage was many times overly optimistic when things were going downhill and thus misleading to the general public.
Nowadays, I view so much of this as just financial pr0n and noise but kind of fun to chat about.
Stewart is obviously not a financial expert but his critique was about the financial news industry, specifically CNBC, along with segments of Cramer, where the much of the coverage was many times overly optimistic when things were going downhill and thus misleading to the general public.
Nowadays, I view so much of this as just financial pr0n and noise but kind of fun to chat about.
Several years ago, Cramer pushed hard on WFC, many times recommending them over JPM. Well we see how well that's played out. When oil took a dip several years back he continued to voice that the drop was poised to recover in a traditional V, highly recommending SLB as a buy. Then as that didn't happen he said it would be a U, well it's been a U in the making over several years. SLB continued to drop and now only getting back to levels when he recommended buying. As i tracked his progress I found he was no better than just random buy and sell plays.
What was prescient was his assertion that the Fed was blind to what was going on.Framing that one rant as Jim Cramer being prescient is ludicrous,...
What was prescient was his assertion that the Fed was blind to what was going on.
Too bad that he didn’t also understand that Bear Stearns was in deep doodoo instead of taking their CEOs claims to the contrary.
What was prescient was his assertion that the Fed was blind to what was going on.
Too bad that he didn’t also understand that Bear Stearns was in deep doodoo instead of taking their CEOs claims to the contrary.
This also is how I remember the boards prior to the meltdown. I think it is the same today. When stocks are historically overvalued-for a simple metric, price to sales- people will usually get on the bandwagon. "Stay the course, how will you know wqen to get back in, etc." Even when it is obvious that things are very optimistically valued, it is hard to face taxes and other costs of selling out. And, one is never sure what will happen. Equity and bond markets have been overvalued for a long time now. When you sell you may feel stupid, at least for a while.Framing that one rant as Jim Cramer being prescient is ludicrous, this is a reframing of one day's Jim Cramer of what he actually believed as is the idea that CNBC somehow should know what is going to happen in the market and should be explaining that to it's viewers. Obviously Stewart also knows nothing of what CNBC was reporting, throughout the entire period, CNBC had people on that were optimistic and people on that were very pessimistic and the entire case and what would happen was laid out multiple times. People actively chose to ignore the negative calls. Cramer was saying Bear Stearns was a good stock throughout the banking debacle and said don't sell Bear Stearns the day before it went belly up. It eventually was sold for $10 which was 75% lower than the price on the day he stated it and later defended this (see second video) as "I was right when I said keep your money in Bear"
He pushed GE throughout the entire episode right up to 2017@ 22, when he finally admitted it was the worst investing mistake of his life and sold.
The overriding view was also home here, if you were negative in 2007 the overwhelming response was so negative- not to the market but to any poster that it was an unbelievable chorus of jeers from these boards. The top posters on this site in 2007 in August were posting that the banks were historically CHEAP and should be bought. One of my favorite posts of all times is when a poster here wrote in early October 2007 as the stock market was making a new high, about stocks, I only wish I had more money so I could invest more! The infamous WHEEEH!!!! thread To which I responded, "that is when tops are created, when people who want to buy have no more money to buy". That comment was heavily criticized and resulted in several public "you are now ignored" for your negative comments.
People do not want to admit any more that market go up and down, oh they'll state as much but if they actually go down, then public outcry is someone is to blame and should be imprisoned. In general the mantra of stocks go up in the long run, means the majority of people will invest in a diverse basket of stocks that should consistently go up in price to adequately fund the retirement of all investors in the market. Anything that impedes that should mean prison for someone......
This also is how I remember the boards prior to the meltdown. I think it is the same today. When stocks are historically overvalued-for a simple metric, price to sales- people will usually get on the bandwagon. "Stay the course, how will you know wqen to get back in, etc." Even when it is obvious that things are very optimistically valued, it is hard to face taxes and other costs of selling out. And, one is never sure what will happen. Equity and bond markets have been overvalued for a long time now. When you sell you may feel stupid, at least for a while.
Ha
Of course, Cramer’s rant makes us all want to know the answer to “Where in the cycle are we NOW?”
My indication that something was wrong was way before that...
Flash forward to 2007-2008 - I'm on a train and talking with a fellow commuter. She was going through a foreclosure on her house. She had bought a low rate to balloon type mortgage. Essentially, she should not have been given a loan to purchase a house. At the same time, I put my house on the market. We met with the agent and figured out the peak had been reached and the prices were starting to fall. We priced the house along that negative slope and sold it in a week. One year later the house was worth $100K less...about what I had bought it for 8 years earlier.
I have a few mlps, and to sell these is to really pay tax, including some ordinary income tax.I am hoping for some sort of tax favored takeout, but at this time I am not sure what that might be. If this doesn't happen I will have these in my estate unless laws or the businesses change markedly. On the plus side, the quarterly payouts are pretty good. I am selling some other issues as they become long term. But overall, I hate to sell stable companies that I have held for a long time and pay even the long term capital gains tax on fairly big gains, though nothing like Apple or Amazon. I do intend to figure as closely as I can what my tax might be on these sales under the new law.You have posted this before. Are you doing anything different this time? Selling and paying taxes?
No disrepect to the OP, but I lost all respect for that idiot when I saw him suggesting shoppers go to best buy, pump the salespeople for information on whatever product they were interested in, then order it on amazon.
!@#$ him & all those who would be low enough to do something like that.
*Not a Best Buy employee & hold no shares*