Cramer was right

11 replies [Last post]
newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

Anyone who sold as he instructed is very pleased today, relatively speaking. That was 30% ago.

liquid's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-09

Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn occasionally.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

Yeah and two months before that, he was pounding the table and calling the bottom.  He's wrong every bit as often as he's right.  Someone not terribly long ago did a study of the returns on his recommendations and they S-U-C-K-E-D.
 
Anyone still have that link?

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

excellent, ice.

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

The difference is that active money managers have a purpose for investing in what they do.  They're investing for rising dividends or looking for large cap growth.  Cramer isn't working toward one specific style. 
 
Perhaps you are confusing Cramer's "active money management" with entertainment.  I watch TV to figure out how to kill someone and not leave any evidence behind for the CSIs to find.  I don't watch TV to figure out how to build my stock portfolio.  I read magazines for that.   

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

If i still had Am Fds in my book I would be bummed. The fds did well due to Intl doing well, and now intl is a horrid asset class (short term) and those so-called "domestic" stock fds are hurtin'. let's just agree to disagree: I think there is no way that the active expenses are worth it. you disagree-fine. I agree Cramer is strictly for laughs (and he knows it-all the way to the bank).
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122618844677811355.html
 

nestegg's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-14

newnew wrote:If i still had Am Fds in my book I would be bummed. The fds did well due to Intl doing well, and now intl is a horrid asset class (short term) and those so-called "domestic" stock fds are hurtin'. let's just agree to disagree: I think there is no way that the active expenses are worth it. you disagree-fine. I agree Cramer is strictly for laughs (and he knows it-all the way to the bank).
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122618844677811355.html
 Cool, no reason to hire you then....or do you work for free...cause I can buy an index fund, why pay for advice or active mgmt...right

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

you pay me to learn that mutual funds have their place, but let's get real about how many are actually worth it (few-mostly in bonds or no-loads or specialty areas with less efficiency). you pay me to give you exposure to asset classes in a variety of ways, not just show you some managers past performance (anyone can research that on their own too). you ESPECIALLY pay me to make sure that 70-100% of your port is not with the same fund family!

snaggletooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-13

Cramer must be off his bipolar pills:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/28017109

It makes me wonder why I'm still doing this.  Weathermen and the media (talking heads, etc.) get paid just as much when they are right as when they are wrong. 

etj4588's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-18

CEO's get more - no matter what.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×