Cramer on The Colbert Report

[gaj]

stockjock - i won't dispute it's entertaining, or his writing and (MOST - not all) of his trading rules are good. i'm only caring about his performance.

I'm not defending Cramer's performance. My criticism is about the method of determining that performance. Even now, when most of the discussion seems to be about the TV show picks, you offer up a Cramer paid for subscription service. In any event, is there a link for the 24.58%? [/QUOTE]

yeah, the reason i do his "paid for" subscription service is because people - including you - constantly move the goalposts on assessing his performance. when an el stinkeroo is made on the show, the excuse "cramer would have sold!" comes out. so i use his *actual* trading record - which shows that he WILL hold dogs that have lost 50%, and in fact double down and cause potentially permanent- because it's all there in black and white.

i'm sure there's a link to people posting the results as they happened.

oh, wait, you don't trust them, or me? fine. go to realmoney, sign up for the free trial 2 week period, and you'll find that you can see the current performance of AA vs the s&p.

but somehow, i think you know all that already. results have been posted in threads where you've been active.
i don't know why you constantly try to - umm - you claim you're not defending, but you won't look at his record. so being blind to his record? maybe that's it.

summary: the ONLY thing cramer has traded is his action alerts portfolio. the method of determining his performance? what HE DOES WITH HIS MONEY.

so it's in black and white, no grey "cramer would have sold those which never bounced, and held those which did" areas. and over 5 years, it's cramer +24.58, s&p +22%. without having to pay those nasty action alert subscriber fees.

i'll leave that for now, since i don't have time to type more.

 

[max401]

Quote from gaj:

yeah, the reason i do his "paid for" subscription service is because people - including you - constantly move the goalposts on assessing his performance. when an el stinkeroo is made on the show, the excuse "cramer would have sold!" comes out. so i use his *actual* trading record - which shows that he WILL hold dogs that have lost 50%, and in fact double down and cause potentially permanent- because it's all there in black and white.

i'm sure there's a link to people posting the results as they happened.

oh, wait, you don't trust them, or me? fine. go to realmoney, sign up for the free trial 2 week period, and you'll find that you can see the current performance of AA vs the s&p.

but somehow, i think you know all that already. results have been posted in threads where you've been active.
i don't know why you constantly try to - umm - you claim you're not defending, but you won't look at his record. so being blind to his record? maybe that's it.

summary: the ONLY thing cramer has traded is his action alerts portfolio. the method of determining his performance? what HE DOES WITH HIS MONEY.

so it's in black and white, no grey "cramer would have sold those which never bounced, and held those which did" areas. and over 5 years, it's cramer +24.58, s&p +22%. without having to pay those nasty action alert subscriber fees.

i'll leave that for now, since i don't have time to type more.

Move the goal posts? You mean like Cramer's own staff leaving a $24 dividend out of their performance own Cramer evaluation?

Or perhaps this quote from a web site touted by an ET member to show Cramer is no better than a monkey making the pick: "Detailed Results - December 31st, 1969* - Monitor Jim Cramer's Mad Money stock pick performance at CramerWatch.org"

In any event, if Cramer's Action Alerts picks only do 2.5% better than the S & P, that obviously stinks. That said, I don't hold on to anything that approaches anything remotely near a 50% loser unless it's a pure spec cheap pos play.

Here's another angle on Action Alerts failure to impress; what effect do you think Cramer's self imposed trading rules have on that portfolio? Certainly Bill Miller at LM is not so constrained.

*Cramer would have been 14 years old.

 

[gaj]

Quote from max401:

Move the goal posts?

no, i mean specifically YOU moving the goalposts. but it's ok; i focus on cramer's results, you can focus on other flunkies, people not resetting the date on their machine, or other sidebars.

if Cramer's Action Alerts picks only do 2.5% better than the S & P, that obviously stinks.

you can remove the "if". if you have any doubts about it, look it up yourself. cramer posts his EXACT buy and sell prices, along with size. it's not too hard to put that information into a spreadsheet and compare it to the results, if you're worried about his flunkies screwing up his results. or that everyone is involved in this great conspiracy.

but i'm glad you finally said "that obviously stinks". yes, for a person who is mr. market guru/expert, those results DO stink.

In any event, That said, I don't hold on to anything that approaches anything remotely near a 50% loser unless it's a pure spec cheap pos play.

great, i'm glad you have money management skills. but i'm not saying you (are/are not) a good trader. you're not hawking your wares, touting what a great investor/trader you are. or selling your special portfolio picks for 'only' an additional $500/yr.

oh, and i forgot until this post, he rode a stock down more than *90*% in 2001-2002, from at least 8 (i think 12 or 14, but i'm not sure) or so to 1 and change, doubling down much of the way. he got out on a bounce to 4 or 5, and was touting his great call. no joke. i believe he had it in his 'new' action alerts portfolio; not sure if he had it in the original one which was scrapped (just like a failing hedge fund) when it did so poorly.

what effect do you think Cramer's self imposed trading rules have on that portfolio?

i'm also glad you said "self-imposed". most people don't realize that part. to completely CYA, there has to be some legal limitations, but they don't have to be those, and they don't have to be so tight.

hey, he doesn't 'have' to sell his action alerts picks; he can give them away. and he doesn't have to have those specific restrictions - he could have added "autosell on a 10% drop, and if a stock has gone up 10% after 2 weeks, autosell if it hits original buying price" and his portfolio would have done much better.

but so would ANY portfolio. if you put your money in the spoos as a strict buy and hold, you're up 22%.

and that's what it all comes down to, doesn't it? it's the whole performance. you can say cramer's an entertainer, and some will disagree on taste. you can say he gives good general advice on things, and most of the stuff in his (first and third - the latter told from friends; haven't read the fourth) books is accurate.

if people say they "like" watching cramer, that's their choice. but it's usually followed by "trading genius" or "market guru". and that's where his performance shows the truth.

btw, have you read any of his books? specifically, _confessions_?