Jim Crammer's got Covid and he wants to buy stocks now at the dip

J

JSOP

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/i-h...en-triple-vaccinated-and-has-a-mild-case.html

So I guess Jim Crammer has now joined Cathie Woods in advocating that stocks are now in “deep value territory” to buy. I have no problem with buying stocks when they are in "deep value territory". My issue is what if they go into "deeper value territory" after you've bought them? The fact that they have no hedging strategies or any plan B's in place and they don't even consider this "what if" scenario as a possibility is what concerns me.

We hope him a speedy recovery and the anti-vaxxer's do not take his case to fuel their argument for not getting vaccinated. Notice he is vaccinated with even the booster shot and he still got a breakthrough infection, imagine if he didn't get vaccinated at all, how sick he would be. And according to this UK study, the omicron variant produces just as severe of symptoms as the delta variant: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/17/no-...-variant-less-severe-than-delta-uk-study.html
 
Last edited:
JSOP said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/i-h...en-triple-vaccinated-and-has-a-mild-case.html

So I guess Jim Crammer has now joined Cathie Woods in advocating that stocks are now in “deep value territory” to buy. I have no problem with buying stocks when they are in "deep value territory". My issue is what if they go into "deeper value territory" after you've bought them? The fact that they have no hedging strategies or any plan B's in place and they don't even consider this "what if" scenario as a possibility is what concerns me.
More...

With that kind of mentality you are going to underperform indexes in 2022. You just seem overly fearful of everything.
 
Last edited:
Nine_Ender said:
With that kind of mentality you are going to underperform indexes in 2022. You just seem overly fearful of everything.
More...

LOL I guess you are long? You bought at the "deep value territory"? I hope you have hedging in place and good luck!
 
Nine_Ender said:
Do you even understand how value investing works? No hedging is necessary.
More...

Hedging is always necessary no matter what the strategy. Value investing is basically bottom fishing for fundamental reasons but how do you know that is the true bottom and the stock is truly undervalued? Maybe there is a reason why it's undervalued?
 
Last edited:
So are the mainstream media going to start saying that the vaccines don't prevent infection? Which some have been saying for a very long time. And if that is the case, then should we be focusing our energy on therapeutics that don't prevent infection or therapeutics that are proven to reduce adverse effects while being completely safe like antibody treatments?

I know which side things are going to fall on but I hold out hope that these dummies start #FollowingTheScience at some fucking point.
 
JSOP said:
Hedging is always necessary no matter what the strategy. Value investing is basically bottom fishing for fundamental reasons but how do you know that is the true bottom and the stock is truly undervalued? Maybe there is a reason why it's undervalued?
More...

No. You don't understand value investing. Some of the best value on the TSX are Oil producers that are up a ton since last year. Maybe you need to discover what research is and how to evaluate stocks rather then make blanket statements about stock markets. There is always a reason why stocks are undervalued; inefficiencies of markets is one such reason, overdone sentiment is another. The task is not to get the "true bottom" it's to buy value. Sometimes value exists at 52 week highs.
 
Last edited:
nooby_mcnoob said:
And if that is the case, then should we be focusing our energy on therapeutics that don't prevent infection or therapeutics that are proven to reduce adverse effects while being completely safe like antibody treatments?
More...

Yes we should. This is what I have been saying all along. We should be putting more efforts and resources in developing treatments instead of focusing solely on vaccines. Adjuvant treatments are just as important as preventative ones. We have vaccines for measles and mumps but we also have treatments for them. I cannot comprehend why with covid, there have been so little efforts put in for the development of treatments.
 
JSOP said:
Yes we should. This is what I have been saying all along. We should be putting more efforts and resources in developing treatments instead of focusing solely on vaccines. Adjuvant treatments are just as important as preventative ones. We have vaccines for measles and mumps but we also have treatments for them. I cannot comprehend why with covid, there have been so little efforts put in for the development of treatments.
More...

My uneducated understanding is that there is a very simple reason. Emergency Use Authorization. This is a bug in the system (as pointed out by Ben Carson.) Basically, the incentives align against adjuvant treatments because the vaccines then lose EUA status.

Therefore, there has been a VERY STRONG PUSH to avoid alternatives because if it can be shown that an alternative exists, the vaccines (and thus the gravy train) stop. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might even say that protocols for which the government reimburses hospitals are designed to create more deaths.

That's why every new drug for covid is aiming for EUA. I can almost guarantee you that those which show promise in clinical trials will not be approved outside of EUA for similar reasons.

That bug needs to be fixed ASAP, but if it is fixed then:

1. Life gets back to normal because there are effective alternatives - petty tyrants don't really want this
2. The obscene profits stop - $PFE and $MRNA do not want this

My 2c, would love to hear otherwise.
 
Nine_Ender said:
No. You don't understand value investing. Some of the best value on the TSX are Oil producers that are up a ton since last year. Maybe you need to discover what research is and how to evaluate stocks rather then make blanket statements about stock markets. There is always a reason why stocks are undervalued; inefficiencies of markets is one such reason, overdone sentiment is another. The task is not to get the "true bottom" it's to buy value. Sometimes value exists at 52 week highs.
More...

Ok but to blanketly say that buying stocks that are in "deep value territory" is warranted simply because they are cheap is dangerous. This is what I am saying. It's obviously different from what you are saying about value investing. I mean a stock at 52-week high is not in "deep value territory". I am talking about the danger of buying stocks or holding onto stocks simply because they are cheap. So I am not sure why you are countering my statement with something that is totally different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top