cramer 2007 pick(s)

Quote from max401:

Action Alerts I don't know about

action alerts is the portfolio he runs on thestreet.com . it is the ONLY thing that cramer trades with real money. when you see (on cnbc) the thing which pops up and says "part of charitable trust", that means it's part of action alerts.

and for 6 years, cramer's portfolio has basically mirrored the s&p's performance.

I gotta ask you, who would keep a loser and continue to ride it down for a 45% loss? Rule of thumb is 5-10% on my swings or longer term trades.

i agree wholeheartedly. 5-10% on longer term is a wonderful stop; o'neill generally preaches 7%, i think, but any stop is good.

there's only 2 problems:
1) cramer has said he doesn't believe in stops on price, only on a change in the fundamentals.
2) who would ride that loser? cramer, apparently.

in mad money 2/15, he reco'd crox at a close of 28, "going to 35"
http://www.thestreet.com/_tscs/funds/madmoneywrap/10268690.html

1 month later, it hit 20.5. big deal, he was wrong. it ran up to 35 in may (so he was 'right' if you have no stops), back to 22. after that, it went up.

and he had a segment in october or november, showing his call from february to "buy buy buy!" crox at 28, and talking about how it was in the 40s now, and he was so right on it. you see where the problem lies, right? if he's got no stops, he's irresponsible and asking to blow out eventually. if he's got stops, you got stopped out of CROX and didn't get the run.

it's not unique to crox, and it's not because of cnbc's prodding.


and you said:
BTW, he correctly called the 2000 bubble prior to the burst.0
no, he didn't.

he called for "taking some off the table". quote on:
http://www.thestreet.com/_tscs/funds/smarter/902295.html

that's 2 weeks after his famous "winners of the new world" speech, where he said to sell everything else and buy these 10 stocks for the rest of the year, on every dip. those stocks lost 95% over the next year.

if he was calling the top of the market, or a bubble, he wouldn't have recommended BUYING so many times on the way down as here:
http://www.itulip.com/awards.htm#Cramer

which brings everything back to this subject. had a pretty bad long-term track record in '00, why believe it's better now?


cane1214

are there any news articles or stuff on the web that support that (trading in advance) claim?

plenty of implications in the world, as someone gave you, maier's book. if you read confessions and maier's book,
the viewpoints and stories are remarkably similar.

here's what cramer said before he left the hedge fund game:
"I think you can invest better than I can. I don't think you can trade better than I can. In fact, I think I can out-trade you on most stocks, given that I get a call from every brokerage house and you don't."
http://www.thestreet.com/_tscs/comment/wrongrear/867444.html

in _confessions_, i believe (or maybe it was on TSCM? i forget) he said something to the effect of we pay the most money on the street (per share) so we can get the upgrade call before anyone else. and i think he 'learned

here's something from _confessions_ (thanks amazon for the quick look!)
"Commissions greased everything..." "massive commission dollars to get the trading edge we needed"
"generate enough commission to get the callback from the analyst promoters"

also, read his buzz and batch series. and make your own decisions. i won't say more.

to hollywood: cramer did fine with his fund, as he gamed much of the system. at bottoms and tops, he was terrible, and saved by many, including his wife (the fund would have blown up as he was dumping, but his wife was double/triple buying). but he DOES get credit for some of the good things.

cramer's good points are that most of what he says is *right*. doesn't matter if he cribbed from o'neill and others; o'neill took from darvas, who took from humphrey neill...if he gets education out there, that's great.

the problem is that his picks - the ones people pay money for, or the ones on mad money - aren't any better than throwing a dart.

and why would he do the tv show, etc.? ego. i truly believe he wouldn't go back to any world at 10* the money if it meant being hidden from the public.


as with all people, cramer's neither the angel or the devil, neither all bad nor all good.
More...
 
Quote from gaj:

Quote from max401:

Action Alerts I don't know about


and you said:
BTW, he correctly called the 2000 bubble prior to the burst.0
no, he didn't.

he called for "taking some off the table". quote on:
http://www.thestreet.com/_tscs/funds/smarter/902295.html

that's 2 weeks after his famous "winners of the new world" speech, where he said to sell everything else and buy these 10 stocks for the rest of the year, on every dip. those stocks lost 95% over the next year.
More...
That was in March. The crash didn't come until around September. Look, here is what naysayers do: They say, "Look at Pundit X, he picked these three stocks and they are all down X%." And you, similarly, are presenting that Cramer made picks in February of 2000 and told the sheep not to sell them all through the biggest tech crash in history.
More...
 
Quote from gaj:

Quote from max401:

Action Alerts I don't know about

action alerts is the portfolio he runs on thestreet.com . it is the ONLY thing that cramer trades with real money. when you see (on cnbc) the thing which pops up and says "part of charitable trust", that means it's part of action alerts.

and for 6 years, cramer's portfolio has basically mirrored the s&p's performance.
More...
Yeah, I know what it is, I don't know the performance. How about a link?
More...
 
Quote from max401:

Yeah, I know what it is, I don't know the performance. How about a link?
More...

actually, max, i've run studies on cramer. i no longer have them because they're not relevant, for the most part, to me making money. his performance on picks - on virtually every level - does NOT differ substantially from the indices.

i'm not cherry picking stuff EITHER way. he didn't call the end of the bubble - he told simple profit taking. something he's done a million times before and after. congrats, good call. and when it WAS the top, he said "i called the top!" even though he hadn't. he toots his own horn when he's right, admits a few mistakes (which is more than most people do), but acts like his picks are brilliant when they're not.

look, he's willing to claim a stock that went down 35% (crox) as a 'winner' - damn well, that most of that 'loss' in the winners of the new world would have materialized and capsized. he took a 50%+ loss on NT and then doubled down on it in action alerts, for crying out loud! i'm not going to search the hundreds of posts on TSCM for you because it's there in the archives, but here's a simple summary: cramer kept wanting to BUY the naz stocks for longer term plays most of the way down. he openly mocked those who called for a crash, and mocked those who said naz 1500. it's in the archives, i've found 'em before to read them, it's time that you do a little research on your own.

oh, i found this post on ET with exactly 3 seconds worth of searching (though i'm certain that someone posted end of year results, which aren't any better):

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...75&highlight=cramer+action+alerts#post1277475

Cramer's Action Alerts Plus portfolio performance:

CRAMER 2006 YTD Return 4.33 %
SP500 (SPX) 2006 YTD Return 11.68 %

CRAMER RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (1/1/2002) 24.58 %
SP500 (SPX) RETURN SINCE INCEPTION 22.03 %

and, as i mentioned in the followup post, that DOESN'T include his negative return in late 2001 - when they scrapped the portfolio and started a new one, where the performance was WORSE than the s&p.

yeah, they reset the clock on action alerts. another neat marketing trick.
 
Quote from gaj:

actually, max, i've run studies on cramer. i no longer have them because they're not relevant, for the most part, to me making money. his performance on picks - on virtually every level - does NOT differ substantially from the indices.

i'm not cherry picking stuff EITHER way. he didn't call the end of the bubble - he told simple profit taking. something he's done a million times before and after. congrats, good call. and when it WAS the top, he said "i called the top!" even though he hadn't. he toots his own horn when he's right, admits a few mistakes (which is more than most people do), but acts like his picks are brilliant when they're not.

look, he's willing to claim a stock that went down 35% (crox) as a 'winner' - damn well, that most of that 'loss' in the winners of the new world would have materialized and capsized. he took a 50%+ loss on NT and then doubled down on it in action alerts, for crying out loud! i'm not going to search the hundreds of posts on TSCM for you because it's there in the archives, but here's a simple summary: cramer kept wanting to BUY the naz stocks for longer term plays most of the way down. he openly mocked those who called for a crash, and mocked those who said naz 1500. it's in the archives, i've found 'em before to read them, it's time that you do a little research on your own.

oh, i found this post on ET with exactly 3 seconds worth of searching (though i'm certain that someone posted end of year results, which aren't any better):

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...75&highlight=cramer+action+alerts#post1277475

Cramer's Action Alerts Plus portfolio performance:

CRAMER 2006 YTD Return 4.33 %
SP500 (SPX) 2006 YTD Return 11.68 %

CRAMER RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (1/1/2002) 24.58 %
SP500 (SPX) RETURN SINCE INCEPTION 22.03 %

and, as i mentioned in the followup post, that DOESN'T include his negative return in late 2001 - when they scrapped the portfolio and started a new one, where the performance was WORSE than the s&p.

yeah, they reset the clock on action alerts. another neat marketing trick.
More...
This guy claims Cramer is 47% accurate with Ken Fisher at an astounding 71%:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/23713

"Larry MacDonald submits: One of the great resources on the Web, in my opinion, is the Forbes column written by Ken Fisher. The CXO Advisory Group currently ranks Fisher No. 1 in its survey of over 35 media-based stock-market forecasters. He has an accuracy rate of 71% (Jim Cramer is at 47%)."
 
thanks vhehn...

max - i'd have no problem backing a 47% winner and dissing a 70% winner if mr seventy was getting 1 point on his winners, and 3 points on his losers, while mr forty seven percent was doing the opposite.

cramer doesn't do that, unfortunately. i believe, though i didn't do actual calculations (i eyeballed results) that his mad money picks would be better if it was "stop after X points" where X can be 1 or 2 and let winners run. however, *any* system has those results as well.

i've read of people using that as a demonstration for newer traders..."you" pick stocks however you want, and i'll have a monkey do it, along with buy or sell, with stops on losers. and inevitably, the 'you' who doesn't use tight money management will more often lose money compared to the monkey.
 
Quote from gaj:

thanks vhehn...

max - i'd have no problem backing a 47% winner and dissing a 70% winner if mr seventy was getting 1 point on his winners, and 3 points on his losers, while mr forty seven percent was doing the opposite.

cramer doesn't do that, unfortunately. i believe, though i didn't do actual calculations (i eyeballed results) that his mad money picks would be better if it was "stop after X points" where X can be 1 or 2 and let winners run. however, *any* system has those results as well.

i've read of people using that as a demonstration for newer traders..."you" pick stocks however you want, and i'll have a monkey do it, along with buy or sell, with stops on losers. and inevitably, the 'you' who doesn't use tight money management will more often lose money compared to the monkey.
More...
I think the major flaw in the Cramer analysis I always see, all of them biased to the bashing side, is that you can't just take a pick and x number of days later look at the current price and say "LOSER!" While Cramer's picks are well documented, I see none of his critics document how they put those picks against a position closing date with an attendant price on his sell recommendations.

Cramer's own staff isn't helping matters when they post the WLT gaffe I mentioned earlier in the this thread:

"Now, WLT. The company declared a $24.70 dividend, hence the huge whack it took in the share price. Why Cramer's staff has that on the Worst Picks List at a 45% negative is a wonder."
 
Quote from max401:

I think the major flaw in the Cramer analysis I always see, all of them biased to the bashing side, is that you can't just take a pick and x number of days later look at the current price and say "LOSER!"

funnily enough, that's what happens in reverse with people who defend cramer to the death. "look, he nailed SHLD and (some other stock) and (some other stock). but when his entire portfolio is revealed, it shows nothing better than random performance.

btw, i'm not biased - i've done the research. if cramer's picks were longer term good, i'd gladly give him props, and put my money alongside his.

however, his mad money performance is spotty.

his long-term stock calls are flip-flops; in fact, (i don't have the link for it) on one day, with NO NEW NEWS, cramer posted two opposite articles - one sell, one buy - on the same stock.

and i guess it can all be summed up with this:

cramer's action alerts portfolio has underperformed the market for several months in 2001. he has a new action alerts portfolio.

a person has 100,000 dollars to invest in january 2002.

that person puts it in the s&p on january 1, 2002. on december 1, 2006, they have 22030 more in their account. minus commissions, it's 22000.

if that person, however, put their faith in "market genius" jim cramer's action alerts - the ONLY thing cramer has put his own money in the past 5 years - they'd have 24580 more.

wait - subtract off the fee for action alerts. that's approximately 2000 dollars. 22580.

then, subtract off commissions. if you're paying $5 a trade, you're paying less than most people who use action alerts. and after those commissions are off, you're below +22000.

therefore, his 6 year performance to action alerts subscribers is WORSE than the s&p. not statistically significant (because of how close the two performances are) and in on way is cramer a BAD investor. but definitive enough, and over enough time, to show he's clearly not a "market guru" (genius, or any other terms) on investing, nor a GOOD investor.

(end point)
all this information is available to you, with minimal research, so you don't have to rely on 'biased' people. or those who have spent a lot of time doing the research with no goal except to see what the results would be.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top