Showing posts with label Jim Cramer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Cramer. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Trump and Harris agreeing on ending the filibuster rule reminds me of McCain and Obama agreeing on something inadvisable in 2008

 


They both interrupted their campaigns to vote for TARP on October 1, 2008, which became law on Friday, October 3, but did nothing to stop the panic.

On Monday, October 6 Jim Cramer came on the Today Show at 7am and told people who needed their money in the next five years to sell their stocks.

The S&P 500 fell from 1099 to 848 by October 27th, almost 23%, on its way to the March 9, 2009 closing low at 676 (there was an intraday low of 666 on March 6).

Over 500 bank failures marked the era fueled by these events, and more than 6 million lost their homes.

And no one went to jail.

Nothing good will come of ending the filibuster, either, not with the country this divided.


 


Wednesday, December 20, 2023

Friday, October 14, 2022

Jim Cramer's stupid people who made a lot of money on Oct 13 weren't stupid until today, when they gave it all back, lol

Jim thought the market would tank on the inflation news. Instead it rallied.

But the market took it all back today.

Jim is nothing if not entertaining, as are other market cheerleaders.

Gayed meanwhile fully expected the rally to continue today.

Tonight there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth behind the brave faces.



Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Monday, February 28, 2022

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Remembering the most irresponsible stock market call of our times: Jim Cramer on Monday, October 6, 2008 on The Today Show before the markets opened


“I thought about this all weekend,” Cramer told Curry. “I do not want to say these things on TV.

“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”


Monday, July 30, 2018

Jim Cramer March 2016: Trump has been right the whole way on the trade deals, he's always been pro-worker

Jim Cramer, here:

"I'm with Trump on this. Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can't name any," Cramer said on "Squawk Box" on Thursday. ... "People should understand this has been his view from day one. It has always been pro-worker," said Cramer. "Have people not been paying attention to what this man has been saying about the trade deals? He's been right the whole way."

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Clinton to Brazilian bank in 2013: "My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders"

Hacked comment revealed here (private position), which is consistent with her pro-TPP stance while Secretary of State, but inconsistent with her opposition to it now that she is the Democrat nominee for president (public position):

The speech transcripts, a major subject of contention during the Democratic primary, include quotes from Clinton about her distance from middle-class life (“I’m kind of far removed”); her vision of strategic governing (“you need both a public and a private position”); and her views on trade, health care, and Wall Street (“even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged.”) ... "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” Clinton is quoted as telling a Brazilian bank in 2013. “We have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade.”

Monday, January 19, 2015

Bob Brinker's advice to stay fully invested in stocks in 2008 beats Jim Cramer's to sell

Bob Brinker famously said on his radio show Moneytalk during the 2008-2009 market meltdown that "no one could have predicted this".

As a market timer, he's taken a lot of heat for this statement, including from me, but it is time to reassess his 2003 call to return to a fully-invested position in the stock market and to stick to it in 2008 despite the meltdown.

How has that worked out? 

"Fully invested" means different things to different people. This is because it is a question of asset allocation. Asset allocation strategies are by definition highly individualized to meet objectives while minimizing risk, and they depend on many factors including income and age, which change over time and thus necessitate adjustments to the strategy periodically. So to be clear, a person who allocates 50% of all resources to stocks at any given time is fully invested when that is so. But that means that a person who has much more tolerance for risk and normally invests 90% of all resources in stocks by definition has a greater percentage of all his resources in stocks, yet both individuals are "fully invested".

OK, so let's take the hypothetical person born in 1949 who just retired at the age of 65 in November 2014. That person has had theoretically 43 years of continuous investing life, let's say beginning from November 1971 after landing that first job out of college in the spring of that year.

Now whatever this person had allocated to stocks over the course of those 43 years, using the S&P 500 as a proxy for the part allocated to stocks, he or she has averaged a nominal return of 10.68% annually with dividends fully reinvested through November 2014, including the crash periods of 2000 and 2008.

But back in March 2003 this person was turning 54 years old and was worried about the future after the stock market crash he had just experienced. And let's say he had ridden his investments all the way down in that crash by being fully invested through the 2000 debacle. From 1971 to that point in 2003 his average annual performance had been 10.94%.

Had he heard Bob Brinker's advice to be fully invested going forward and stayed the course he had been on, how did remaining in the market as before repay him as part of the overall average performance of 10.68% which he ended up achieving annually on average through November 2014?

The answer might surprise you: The average annual performance of the S&P 500 from March 2003 through November 2014 has been 10.01%. The market crash of 2008-2009 might certainly have unnerved this investor, who was then turning 60, to the point of utter capitulation, for it reduced his performance from 1971 through March 2009 to 9.11% per year on average.

It's clear, however, that cutting and running after the fact in 2008-2009 was not the answer. That was Jim Cramer's answer in October 2008, on morning television no less, but it wasn't Bob Brinker's.

Simply staying the course was like putting back on a point and a half for every year of the 43 year investing life of our hypothetical investor in a matter of just five years.

Kudos to Bob Brinker. Raspberries to Cramer.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Bob Brinker was right in March 2003, but not until May 2009 at the earliest

Bob Brinker's gain since March 2003 when he called for his followers to fully invest in the stock market has been an impressive 7.14% per annum inflation-adjusted, on average, in the S&P500 index through March 2014.

Things didn't look anywhere near that good in April 2009, however, when his  return was still -0.45% per annum, inflation-adjusted, on average, for the 6 years plus one month. His returns had plunged at their worst to -2.32% per annum just the month before, through March 2009, because of the market crash, which of course he never saw coming and he never predicted. Bob remained fully invested into the teeth of the 2008-2009 banking apocalypse cum financial panic, and never told his followers to sell, as did Jim Cramer, infamously, the Monday after TARP was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008, a Friday, on national television no less. Who needs Monday morning coffee with that kind of news on NBC? I say Bob Brinker gets a lot of credit for that courage, and Cramer gets nothing but ridicule.

Bob Brinker's advice began to turn positive again in May 2009, as the stock market began to recover with the suspension of mark to market rules by the SEC in late March. Brinker never told anyone to get out of the markets, but soldiered on to where we are today. Was it prescience? Bull-headedness? Luck? Faith?

Here's what I think it was: Bob believes in secular markets, and he knew the secular high in 2000 was not matched in 2007 on an inflation-adjusted basis (1753), so there was no need for caution even though there might be a big correction. The financial collapse made him look like a fool for the size of it, but he knows that today even at 1967 the S&P500 remains well off the real 2000 high of 2045. We could just as easily get a big correction here before we march on to retest that real high.

Either way the market should retest the former high before the secular bear comes to an end, which means we have a bit more to go in point terms, but not very much.

I'm expecting a stock market sell order from Bob Brinker in the not very distant future as we get closer to 2045.

Anyone wanna bet we get as high as 2249?





h/t politicalcalculations.blogspot.com

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Jim Cramer reads fellow Democrat Tim Geithner and suddenly discovers frugality: both men are only five years behind the curve

THE MARKET IS UP 11% SINCE CRAMER SAID SELL IN SEPTEMBER 2013

Jim Cramer, quoted here:

"I think America's gone frugal. Just like our parents, or grandparents, or even great-grandparents changed their patterns of behavior somewhat radically after the Great Depression, I'm thinking we've changed ours, too."

Here's a newsflash for you Jim: America went frugal already more than five years ago. Why do you think things are the way they are?

See Mish's "The Age of Frugality" here, from October 19, 2008, which noted that frugality had finally (!) made the cover of a magazine after he'd been talking about it since at least March:

"Frugality has finally made front page. BusinessWeek is commenting on The New Age of Frugality."

Cramer thinks there's a new opportunity in the "new" frugality. Remember, this is coming from the same guy who told you in October 2008 to get out of the market if you needed your money in the next five years. If you took his advice, you missed one of the most incredible bull markets in the history of investing. Unfortunately, being five years behind Jim doesn't realize we've already reaped the opportunity of the new frugality.

The future?

I'm still with Chris Whalen and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: DECADES of economic shrinkage ahead. We've already enjoyed the prosperity which the debt we racked up provided. Civilizationally speaking: It's time to pay for all that.

Sorry old boy.

Unnumber'd Maladies each Joint invade,
Lay Siege to Life and press the dire Blockade;
But unextinguish'd Av'rice still remains,
And dreaded Losses aggravate his Pains;
He turns, with anxious Heart and cripled Hands,
His Bonds of Debt, and Mortgages of Lands;
Or views his Coffers with suspicious Eyes,
Unlocks his Gold, and counts it till he dies.

-- Samuel Johnson, 1749

Saturday, October 5, 2013

The 5-year Anniversary of Jim Cramer's Worst Advice Ever

When TARP was signed by George Bush on Friday, October 3, 2008, the S&P500 closed at 1099 after falling dramatically in September during the events of the banking panic.

Jim Cramer came on television the next Monday morning and advised a national audience that if they needed their money in stocks in the next five years, they'd better sell.

They did sell, and the market continued to plunge . . . all the way into 2009 to the March lows. You might even say a lot of people panicked because of Jim Cramer.

But 5 years later, the S&P500 market index alone is up 54%, not counting dividends. And if you had stayed in the market from August 2008 to August 2013 and fully re-invested your returns, you'd be UP 6.4% per year in inflation-adjusted terms, and 7.8% per year nominal.

Thanks for nothing, Jim!

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

5 Years After Saying "Sell" Jim Cramer Says "Sell"!

Almost 5 years to the day after going on national television the Monday after TARP was signed and recommending that people sell their stocks if they needed the money in five years, Jim Cramer again tells people to sell.

Hm. Must mean there's more upside.

Here

Friday, May 10, 2013

Jim Cramer Sucks: Vanguard's Total Market Index Vaults To 41.02

Up 147% since the March 2009 low of about 16.60.

Don't forget, Jim Cramer told you on NBC, the Obama network, the Monday morning after TARP was signed the previous Friday in early October 2008, to sell if you needed your money in five years.

His statement materially contributed to more panic selling and the market lows. Within weeks the market plunged even though TARP was supposed to restore confidence.  By the following April the percentage of the public claiming to own stocks had fallen a full five percentage points from the previous April before the crisis began, according to Gallup, an unprecedented decline of confidence. And the decline has continued another full five percentage points since then.

Let's look at the lows by year as reported by Vanguard, remembering that on Friday, October 3, 2008 VTSMX, a proxy for the total market, closed at 26.62, before Cramer opened his big yap:

Nov. 20, 2008 = 18.00 (a decline of 32% from October 6 when Cramer said "sell"; thanks Jim)
Mar.  9, 2009 = 16.43 (over 38% down after Cramer opened his yap; what's another 6 points, huh?)
Jul. 2, 2010 = 25.36 (this low is already back up to within less than 5% of the pre-Cramer level)
Oct. 3, 2011 = 27.16 (this low for the year firmly 2% above the pre-Cramer level)
Jan. 4, 2012 = 31.75 (this low for the year almost 20% above the pre-Cramer level).

In other words, you had all your money back in three years to the date, despite the damage Cramer caused.

But what if he had just shut up? And what if we just hadn't listened?