Do you watch Jim Cramer's "Mad Money"

D

donquixote04

#41
#41
DaveNJ said:
You're interpretation of Elmo's quote of Cramer rarely exists as there's almost always a buyer for most stocks. It's just a matter of what price they're willing to pay.
Click to expand...
Dave, to be completely transparent, this is EXACTLY my point. Elmo quotes Cramer thus:
Cramer said:
how do you know when you've reached a top?, when there are no buyers, when everyone whose going to buy the stock has already bought the stock. Then you know it's time to sell.
Click to expand...
Since, as you accurately point out, "there's almost always a buyer", this means that Cramer's advice (i.e., wait until there are no buyers), as elmo quotes him, is USELESS.

And that's my point. This advice, like nearly all of Cramer's advice, is USELESS.
 
E

elmo16

#42
#42
donquixote04 said:
Dave, to be completely transparent, this is EXACTLY my point. Elmo quotes Cramer thus:

Since, as you accurately point out, "there's almost always a buyer", this means that Cramer's advice (i.e., wait until there are no buyers), as elmo quotes him, is USELESS.

And that's my point. This advice, like nearly all of Cramer's advice, is USELESS.
Click to expand...
I wish Edgar Cayce had a show on CNBC. This was only a one day slump, if the market goes up tomorrow or next week, then the buyers (bulls) will come back out.
 
D

DaveNJ

#43
#43
donquixote04 said:
Dave, to be completely transparent, this is EXACTLY my point. Elmo quotes Cramer thus:

Since, as you accurately point out, "there's almost always a buyer", this means that Cramer's advice (i.e., wait until there are no buyers), as elmo quotes him, is USELESS.

And that's my point. This advice, like nearly all of Cramer's advice, is USELESS.
Click to expand...
I think the confusion lies in the phrasing "there are no buyers". That's to say there is nobody bidding the price up, not that there are literally no buyers. In some circles, certain stock transactions are referred to as "buys", when the buyer raises his bid to close in on the ask. Others are referred to as "sells", when the seller lowers the ask to close in on the bid. I'm sure that's what Cramer was getting at.
 
D

DaveNJ

#44
#44
elmo16 said:
I wish Edgar Cayce had a show on CNBC. This was only a one day slump, if the market goes up tomorrow or next week, then the buyers (bulls) will come back out.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bet on it. There are sure to be a few days in the next week or two that the market goes up a little, but overall (especially for the financials) we're in for a slide. I wouldn't count on the bulls rushing in until maybe the week of May 4th, after the government releases the results of the stress tests, assuming there is some good news for them to latch on to.
 
D

donquixote04

#45
#45
DaveNJ said:
... I think the confusion lies in the phrasing "there are no buyers". That's to say there is nobody bidding the price up, not that there are literally no buyers. In some circles, certain stock transactions are referred to as "buys", when the buyer raises his bid to close in on the ask. Others are referred to as "sells", when the seller lowers the ask to close in on the bid. I'm sure that's what Cramer was getting at.
Click to expand...
So you say.

If you are correct, then Cramer's advice in this case is EXACTLY equivalent to "buy low, sell high." Once again, I suggest that this advice, while true, is also USELESS (like pretty much all of Cramer's "advice").
 
Last edited:
D

DaveNJ

#46
#46
I'm not defending his advice as sage wisdom. Like I said, I don't even bother to watch the guy because I have no use for him. But if I'm going to rip him apart, it'll be for something a whole lot more damning than what your harping on. Like recommending to his listeners to buy Bear Stern shortly before their collapse. THAT was worse than useless, it was downright harmful.
 
E

elmo16

#47
#47
DaveNJ said:
I wouldn't bet on it. There are sure to be a few days in the next week or two that the market goes up a little, but overall (especially for the financials) we're in for a slide. I wouldn't count on the bulls rushing in until maybe the week of May 4th, after the government releases the results of the stress tests, assuming there is some good news for them to latch on to.
Click to expand...
MSN stated that any positive results of the Government stress test will be largely ignored by investors, an I tend to agree. The market won't pick up in any significant way until the public perceives an over all improvement in the economy as a whole, and that could be years from now.
 
D

DaveNJ

#48
#48
It really depends on what kind of opportunity you're looking for, and in which particular stocks. If any of the financials do slide going into the 4th, they'll probably rebound a bit after the results are announced if there is any semblance of good news for those companies. Now those gains may not hold, but if you're looking for quick profits, it could be a good play. Hard to say until next week, the bigger the slide the greater the chances for a pop afterwards.

Without being to specific, look at the banks who are up as opposed to those that are down today. You can see the market is already trying to separate the perceived wheat from the chaff. Well, if the chaff gets better test results than expected...
 
D

DaveNJ

#50
#50
Naked short selling is illegal, and they should do more to enforce against it IMO. But given the incompetence of the SEC, I'd be surprised if they could.

As for the uptick rule, it was in place from 1938 until 2007 when it was repealed. Given all that's happend in the markets since then, it seems like common sense to reinstate it, and adapt it. Maybe it's merely a coincidence the market tanked as much as it has, beginning shortly after the rule was repealed, but I highly doubt it.


Full disclosure: I'm not a formally trained economist, market analyst, or anything like that, so there may be aspects of both that I'm unaware of. But from what I know about naked short selling and the uptick rule, those are my opinions.
 
E

elmo16

#52
#52
DaveNJ said:
What do you think Elmo?
Click to expand...
There are experts who agree with you (I don't have to mention his name anymore) including Ben Bernanike. They feel that naked short selling and the lack of the up tick rule are responsible for much of the present state of Wall Street (that, and of course the bad loans). You know who keeps pushing for the elimination of these two things. There's a good chance that enforcement of NSS rule and the re-introduction of the up tick rule along with greater regulation of Wall Street will come about.
 
D

DaveNJ

#53
#53
elmo16 said:
I'm just wondering, is the stock you want ot buy the one with the stock symbol of DNDN, Dendreon Corp?
Click to expand...
Good call Elmo, hope you were in on it, I wish I was. It'll be interesting to see what it does today, given the results of the clinical trial.



So far the financials haven't gotten beaten down as much as I expected, although C & BAC are under a lot of pressure.
 
E

elmo16

#57
#57
Citi was the biggest bank in the world. They recently sold off their Hongkong branch which was extremely profitable in order to raise cash. I expect that they will end up selling more branches, then they won't be too big to fail. They will also have to convert a large number of their preferred stocks to common stocks, which will dilute the value of their common stock even more. Like Cramer said, low cost stocks are low cost for a reason. I'm going to sell my Citi.
 
D

DaveNJ

#58
#58
If you bought in at around a dollar, you definitely should be selling IMO. Even if it goes higher, which is doubtful, you still locked in some really nice profits.
 
E

elmo16

#59
#59
DaveNJ said:
If you bought in at around a dollar, you definitely should be selling IMO. Even if it goes higher, which is doubtful, you still locked in some really nice profits.
Click to expand...
I tried to buy it at $1.05, but it took a week to register and transfer funds to my on line broker, so I missed that window. Yeah, I scored a real nice profit - $209.44. I sold Citi at $3.09, the market closed w/Citi at $3.19. I hate this shit! Dave, maybe you're cut out for this, but I guess I'm not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top