Cramer: "Stern Won't Get in Sirius Trouble"
13 mensagens
|Página 1 de 1
Há coincidências impressionantes... No mesmo dia em que aqui no Caldeirão discutiamos a "moralidade" e interesse do Cramer, Doug Kass, um dos mais carismáticos analistas do Realmoney, escreveu um longo artigo exactamente sobre isso! E Jim Cramer respondeu num outro longo artigo...
Aqui ficam os 2 artigos que penso assentarem como uma luva neste tópico. Será que eles andam a ler o Caldeirão?
"Granville, Cramer and the Second Coming"
By Doug Kass
Street Insight Contributor
1/12/2006 2:22 PM EST
" Market Gurus Have Their Moments
More than anything else over the last 20 years, I have learned that financial popularity has its seasons, so it is important to explore the Joe Granville/Jim Cramer parallel. Like Granville, Jim "El Capitan" Cramer has become a market guru, and investors, traders and viewers have had an animated response to his Granville-like wild gestures and animated personality. He has recently graced the cover of BusinessWeek, and, like Joe, he is so influential that the mere mention of a stock on his CNBC "Mad Money" program causes an instantaneous response (with some stocks rising as much as 10% in overnight trading).
"Sell Everything" Reaches (Nearly) Everyone
Twenty-five years ago, Kansas City-based market technician Joe Granville was seen as a Wall Street prophet. He was one of the first market technicians to use on-balance volume as a means of predicting stock prices. Under the sponsorship of an unknown brokerage firm, Arnold Securities, Granville began to tour the world, giving a series of traveling seminars, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He had a remarkable run of prescient market calls that resulted in international recognition. His "Sell Everything" message to subscribers in January 1981 made headlines around the world; the Dow Jones Industrials Average fell 2.5% on the next day and 1.5% on the day after that.
Where Are the Clowns? Send in the Clowns
Granville's fame and seminars grew in size and sensationalism. Toward the end of his skein, his presentations were staged in huge hotel auditoriums, and attendance was always standing-room only. The crowds were boisterous in response to the circus-like festivities, which typically included belly dancers, a band and often clowns.
Granville made a dramatic entrance in each of these "seminars," dressed in a tuxedo as he walked down a long aisle while the crowds cheered the messiah's next coming. His antics were wild, in marked contrast to the more subtle presentations then seen on Wall Street. Once, on the stage of one of his seminars, Granville dropped his tuxedo pants and pointed to stock symbols printed on his boxer shorts, ending with a delighted cry of, "And here's Hughes Tool!"
Similar and Yet Not So Similar
There are many similarities between Joe Granville's 1980s popularity and Jim Cramer's today; there also many dissimilarities.
Granville graduated from the Todd School for Boys in Woodstock, Ill., a school made famous by the graduation of another entertainer, Orson Welles, and briefly attended Duke University. Cramer graduated from Harvard College in Cambridge, Mass., where he was president and editor-in-chief of The Harvard Crimson. Later, he graduated from Harvard Law School.
Granville's first book, A School Boy's Faith, was a travelogue in poetry. Cramer's first job was also in journalism, as a reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat and the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. (Before Harvard Law, he helped launch the magazine American Lawyer.)
After enlisting in the Navy, Granville joined E.F. Hutton. He quit six years later to start the Granville Market Letter. After his newspaper gigs, Cramer joined Goldman Sachs. He quit to form his hedge fund, which was known as Cramer Berkowitz.
A Renaissance Man for the New Millennium
The most important dissimilarity between Joe Granville and Jim Cramer is obvious: Granville was a one-trick pony. By contrast, Jim's academic achievements and intellectual content are astonishingly strong. And his professional accomplishments at Goldman Sachs, Cramer Berkowitz and at TheStreet.com are equally remarkable and have allowed him to become financially independent and to pursue his sincere desire to educate investors on his new platform.
Excitability Could Mark a Market Top
In watching the audience and investors' response to Jim "El Capitan" Cramer's live stock recommendations on his "Mad Money" show last night, I couldn't help but think that the instantaneous markups were eerily reminiscent of participants' responses to Granville during his heyday, which leads one to ask whether the excitability around Jimmy's shows, like that of Granville, could mark a market top as unthinking traders mark up his ideas to a fare-thee-well.
'Mad Money' as Microcosm
As I have mentioned repeatedly on Street Insight, my respect for Jim as an investor/trader and as a man knows few bounds. It is the immediate, frantic and unquestioning manner in which investors/traders respond to his ideas (not the ideas themselves) that is reaching silly proportions, and that has me unnerved, causing me to question whether the response to "Mad Money" is a microcosm of a market that has driven fear and doubt away and is ready for a fall.
1. Rumor Mill Turns to Juniper
2. Cisco Turns Traffic Cop
3. Stocks in Motion: Manitowoc
4. Google: Runaway Bull
5. Stern Stocks Up on Sirius
I want to repeat for emphasis that the ludicrous share-price reactions are not Jimmy's fault (indeed, he cautions investors not to pay up for his ideas). Like the doom-like Granville calls of 25 years ago (shortly thereafter, a monstrous bull market started!), they are the fault of those who react in such a foolish manner that they should be chastised and that will hurt financially.
The wild response to Jimmy's stock recommendations in CNBC's live "Mad Money" show last night could suggest that the momentum and enthusiasm with regard to equities is reaching manic and silly levels -- or it could just be an isolated event.
When I distill the parallels (above) and the meaningful content that is being delivered by Jim (vis à vis Granville), I come to two conclusions.
First, Jim is delivering a hard-hitting, informative real-time market/company analysis and is laying his opinions on the line. Unlike Granville's "Sell Everything" mantra, Jim's information reveals substance that is rarely available in the business media today.
Second, participants' response (again not Jimmy's fault) is a strong indication that a section of the investment population is getting goofy and is ready for a fall. "
(in www.realmoney.com)
"Why I Do What I Do"
By James J. Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
1/12/2006 2:22 PM EST
Is he the next Joe Granville? Is he the next Dan Dorfman? In the last 48 hours, I have been compared with both gentlemen, and I think it's about time I weighed in on who the heck I am and what I am doing on both my television and radio shows as well as in my writings.
First, the comparison to Dan Dorfman came from an unflattering bit of research from the shop of Laszlo Birinyi. It's always disappointing when you read something under the name of someone you respect that links you with someone who was dismissed for ethical violations. For those of you not familiar with Dorfman's work, he used to come on CNBC and dazzle us with takeover stories that might or might not be true. I always found him entertaining, but he was, I felt, a negative force, not a positive one, because his splashiest stuff was about who would buy whom and that's unknowable, at least legally.
The Granville analogy comes closer to home, and appears closer, too, being from none other than our own Doug Kass. Having traded aggressively during the period that Joe Granville moved markets, I find myself momentarily flattered by the comparison -- except Joe turned out to be more one-trick than I thought. He couldn't reinvent himself, despite the pyrotechnics.
OK, now let's talk about me. First, I was a professional money manager, something that Dorfman wasn't. Did Granville run money? I don't even know.
Second, I made a ton of money, enough to be able to burn through piles of it to start this enterprise and still feed and house my family, which, believe me, is saying something.
I point these two out because Wednesday, Don Imus, a man I respect tremendously, said that what distinguished me from many of the pontificators out there is that I actually did it and I made a lot of money, which puts me in a different camp from many others who write and talk about the market.
But there are others who have made a lot of money who don't make the splash that I do and don't put on "the show," if you want to call it that.
To that, I plead absolutely and unequivocally guilty. A long time ago I decided that conventional reportage on business was just plain boring. I came from a sports and homicide reporting background -- inherently exciting, if not, alas, grim at times -- and I was taught that it was a cardinal sin to bore people. So, my credentials started in journalism, not money management. My formative and least tabloid portion of my journalism career came when I helped start American Lawyer, a magazine dedicated to revealing the business behind the business of law. The success of that magazine, where I worked for three years, is what gave me a lot of the ideas I have now about writing and talking about the market. If you reveal the inner workings -- or if you are a traitor, to put it the way a lot of people did when I started -- then you have a rapt audience, one that seeks the real man behind the curtain.
For me, the need to entertain and the need to tell what really happens melded first into RealMoney Radio and then "Mad Money," the television show.
I make no bones about the notion that I have become a televangelist for money. I believe it was needed, frankly. The fact that I am rigorous, Harvard-trained, whatever, just makes it a tad more novel than if a pure showman bit the heads off of toy bulls or hit the sell sell sell button or a button with a baby crying or a man falling out a window.
That's why, when anyone asks, I say that my shows are about educating, making money and entertaining. I believe that if you did any one of those three, you might have a moderately successful enterprise. For example, if you can help people make money instead of telling them how they could have made money, which is what conventional business news is about, you'd probably do fine. If you could add education to it, success would pretty much be a given. But if you added entertainment, you might actually be able to reach people you wouldn't otherwise reach and have a following that goes beyond those who are hard-core.
That's where I believe I am right now. Do people get excited and whipped up at these things, like the live audience last night? Yes. But what you don't see is what happens after the show. I spend time with every single person who attends, plenty of time, signing books, getting pictures taken and, most important, asking people what they like about the show.
In almost every case, the answer is the same: "You have helped me make money," or, "You have helped me take control of my money and make it grow."
Now, is it possible that these people are lying? I don't believe that you would come all the way out to the middle of nowhere -- which is where the studio is, in Englewood, N.J. -- if I lost you money. Is the audience self-selective, in that only the people who made money come? Sure, but then again, the truth is that you could fill the audience 10 times over every night for one of these gigs.
And is it true that we have had a great market? Aha, I've got you. We haven't. We have had, until 2006, nothing but fairly crummy markets from the time that I started on radio in 2001 to now. We have had only limited ways to make money, and we have had nothing but abstruse, hard-to-locate bull markets.
Again, I have made plenty of mistakes, but I admit them when I make them, which people like because they, too, make mistakes. Again, I get carried away at times, but I don't hide that, either.
The bottom line is that something is working, something people feel good about more than they do for others who are trying to do to programming. So, if you don't mind, I am just going to keep doing it and hope that I don't become Joe Granville, in that I stop making people money, or Dan Dorfman, who became so pressed for stories that I believe he had to compromise his own standards.
In the meantime, I love the repartee and discussion about the phenomenon that is "Mad Money." But I know that it is all very fragile at all times, and that if I stop picking good stocks and start picking bad ones, I will be consigned rather quickly to the dustbin even if I educate and entertain. "
(in www.realmoney.com)
Aqui ficam os 2 artigos que penso assentarem como uma luva neste tópico. Será que eles andam a ler o Caldeirão?
"Granville, Cramer and the Second Coming"
By Doug Kass
Street Insight Contributor
1/12/2006 2:22 PM EST
" Market Gurus Have Their Moments
More than anything else over the last 20 years, I have learned that financial popularity has its seasons, so it is important to explore the Joe Granville/Jim Cramer parallel. Like Granville, Jim "El Capitan" Cramer has become a market guru, and investors, traders and viewers have had an animated response to his Granville-like wild gestures and animated personality. He has recently graced the cover of BusinessWeek, and, like Joe, he is so influential that the mere mention of a stock on his CNBC "Mad Money" program causes an instantaneous response (with some stocks rising as much as 10% in overnight trading).
"Sell Everything" Reaches (Nearly) Everyone
Twenty-five years ago, Kansas City-based market technician Joe Granville was seen as a Wall Street prophet. He was one of the first market technicians to use on-balance volume as a means of predicting stock prices. Under the sponsorship of an unknown brokerage firm, Arnold Securities, Granville began to tour the world, giving a series of traveling seminars, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He had a remarkable run of prescient market calls that resulted in international recognition. His "Sell Everything" message to subscribers in January 1981 made headlines around the world; the Dow Jones Industrials Average fell 2.5% on the next day and 1.5% on the day after that.
Where Are the Clowns? Send in the Clowns
Granville's fame and seminars grew in size and sensationalism. Toward the end of his skein, his presentations were staged in huge hotel auditoriums, and attendance was always standing-room only. The crowds were boisterous in response to the circus-like festivities, which typically included belly dancers, a band and often clowns.
Granville made a dramatic entrance in each of these "seminars," dressed in a tuxedo as he walked down a long aisle while the crowds cheered the messiah's next coming. His antics were wild, in marked contrast to the more subtle presentations then seen on Wall Street. Once, on the stage of one of his seminars, Granville dropped his tuxedo pants and pointed to stock symbols printed on his boxer shorts, ending with a delighted cry of, "And here's Hughes Tool!"
Similar and Yet Not So Similar
There are many similarities between Joe Granville's 1980s popularity and Jim Cramer's today; there also many dissimilarities.
Granville graduated from the Todd School for Boys in Woodstock, Ill., a school made famous by the graduation of another entertainer, Orson Welles, and briefly attended Duke University. Cramer graduated from Harvard College in Cambridge, Mass., where he was president and editor-in-chief of The Harvard Crimson. Later, he graduated from Harvard Law School.
Granville's first book, A School Boy's Faith, was a travelogue in poetry. Cramer's first job was also in journalism, as a reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat and the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. (Before Harvard Law, he helped launch the magazine American Lawyer.)
After enlisting in the Navy, Granville joined E.F. Hutton. He quit six years later to start the Granville Market Letter. After his newspaper gigs, Cramer joined Goldman Sachs. He quit to form his hedge fund, which was known as Cramer Berkowitz.
A Renaissance Man for the New Millennium
The most important dissimilarity between Joe Granville and Jim Cramer is obvious: Granville was a one-trick pony. By contrast, Jim's academic achievements and intellectual content are astonishingly strong. And his professional accomplishments at Goldman Sachs, Cramer Berkowitz and at TheStreet.com are equally remarkable and have allowed him to become financially independent and to pursue his sincere desire to educate investors on his new platform.
Excitability Could Mark a Market Top
In watching the audience and investors' response to Jim "El Capitan" Cramer's live stock recommendations on his "Mad Money" show last night, I couldn't help but think that the instantaneous markups were eerily reminiscent of participants' responses to Granville during his heyday, which leads one to ask whether the excitability around Jimmy's shows, like that of Granville, could mark a market top as unthinking traders mark up his ideas to a fare-thee-well.
'Mad Money' as Microcosm
As I have mentioned repeatedly on Street Insight, my respect for Jim as an investor/trader and as a man knows few bounds. It is the immediate, frantic and unquestioning manner in which investors/traders respond to his ideas (not the ideas themselves) that is reaching silly proportions, and that has me unnerved, causing me to question whether the response to "Mad Money" is a microcosm of a market that has driven fear and doubt away and is ready for a fall.
1. Rumor Mill Turns to Juniper
2. Cisco Turns Traffic Cop
3. Stocks in Motion: Manitowoc
4. Google: Runaway Bull
5. Stern Stocks Up on Sirius
I want to repeat for emphasis that the ludicrous share-price reactions are not Jimmy's fault (indeed, he cautions investors not to pay up for his ideas). Like the doom-like Granville calls of 25 years ago (shortly thereafter, a monstrous bull market started!), they are the fault of those who react in such a foolish manner that they should be chastised and that will hurt financially.
The wild response to Jimmy's stock recommendations in CNBC's live "Mad Money" show last night could suggest that the momentum and enthusiasm with regard to equities is reaching manic and silly levels -- or it could just be an isolated event.
When I distill the parallels (above) and the meaningful content that is being delivered by Jim (vis à vis Granville), I come to two conclusions.
First, Jim is delivering a hard-hitting, informative real-time market/company analysis and is laying his opinions on the line. Unlike Granville's "Sell Everything" mantra, Jim's information reveals substance that is rarely available in the business media today.
Second, participants' response (again not Jimmy's fault) is a strong indication that a section of the investment population is getting goofy and is ready for a fall. "
(in www.realmoney.com)
"Why I Do What I Do"
By James J. Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
1/12/2006 2:22 PM EST
Is he the next Joe Granville? Is he the next Dan Dorfman? In the last 48 hours, I have been compared with both gentlemen, and I think it's about time I weighed in on who the heck I am and what I am doing on both my television and radio shows as well as in my writings.
First, the comparison to Dan Dorfman came from an unflattering bit of research from the shop of Laszlo Birinyi. It's always disappointing when you read something under the name of someone you respect that links you with someone who was dismissed for ethical violations. For those of you not familiar with Dorfman's work, he used to come on CNBC and dazzle us with takeover stories that might or might not be true. I always found him entertaining, but he was, I felt, a negative force, not a positive one, because his splashiest stuff was about who would buy whom and that's unknowable, at least legally.
The Granville analogy comes closer to home, and appears closer, too, being from none other than our own Doug Kass. Having traded aggressively during the period that Joe Granville moved markets, I find myself momentarily flattered by the comparison -- except Joe turned out to be more one-trick than I thought. He couldn't reinvent himself, despite the pyrotechnics.
OK, now let's talk about me. First, I was a professional money manager, something that Dorfman wasn't. Did Granville run money? I don't even know.
Second, I made a ton of money, enough to be able to burn through piles of it to start this enterprise and still feed and house my family, which, believe me, is saying something.
I point these two out because Wednesday, Don Imus, a man I respect tremendously, said that what distinguished me from many of the pontificators out there is that I actually did it and I made a lot of money, which puts me in a different camp from many others who write and talk about the market.
But there are others who have made a lot of money who don't make the splash that I do and don't put on "the show," if you want to call it that.
To that, I plead absolutely and unequivocally guilty. A long time ago I decided that conventional reportage on business was just plain boring. I came from a sports and homicide reporting background -- inherently exciting, if not, alas, grim at times -- and I was taught that it was a cardinal sin to bore people. So, my credentials started in journalism, not money management. My formative and least tabloid portion of my journalism career came when I helped start American Lawyer, a magazine dedicated to revealing the business behind the business of law. The success of that magazine, where I worked for three years, is what gave me a lot of the ideas I have now about writing and talking about the market. If you reveal the inner workings -- or if you are a traitor, to put it the way a lot of people did when I started -- then you have a rapt audience, one that seeks the real man behind the curtain.
For me, the need to entertain and the need to tell what really happens melded first into RealMoney Radio and then "Mad Money," the television show.
I make no bones about the notion that I have become a televangelist for money. I believe it was needed, frankly. The fact that I am rigorous, Harvard-trained, whatever, just makes it a tad more novel than if a pure showman bit the heads off of toy bulls or hit the sell sell sell button or a button with a baby crying or a man falling out a window.
That's why, when anyone asks, I say that my shows are about educating, making money and entertaining. I believe that if you did any one of those three, you might have a moderately successful enterprise. For example, if you can help people make money instead of telling them how they could have made money, which is what conventional business news is about, you'd probably do fine. If you could add education to it, success would pretty much be a given. But if you added entertainment, you might actually be able to reach people you wouldn't otherwise reach and have a following that goes beyond those who are hard-core.
That's where I believe I am right now. Do people get excited and whipped up at these things, like the live audience last night? Yes. But what you don't see is what happens after the show. I spend time with every single person who attends, plenty of time, signing books, getting pictures taken and, most important, asking people what they like about the show.
In almost every case, the answer is the same: "You have helped me make money," or, "You have helped me take control of my money and make it grow."
Now, is it possible that these people are lying? I don't believe that you would come all the way out to the middle of nowhere -- which is where the studio is, in Englewood, N.J. -- if I lost you money. Is the audience self-selective, in that only the people who made money come? Sure, but then again, the truth is that you could fill the audience 10 times over every night for one of these gigs.
And is it true that we have had a great market? Aha, I've got you. We haven't. We have had, until 2006, nothing but fairly crummy markets from the time that I started on radio in 2001 to now. We have had only limited ways to make money, and we have had nothing but abstruse, hard-to-locate bull markets.
Again, I have made plenty of mistakes, but I admit them when I make them, which people like because they, too, make mistakes. Again, I get carried away at times, but I don't hide that, either.
The bottom line is that something is working, something people feel good about more than they do for others who are trying to do to programming. So, if you don't mind, I am just going to keep doing it and hope that I don't become Joe Granville, in that I stop making people money, or Dan Dorfman, who became so pressed for stories that I believe he had to compromise his own standards.
In the meantime, I love the repartee and discussion about the phenomenon that is "Mad Money." But I know that it is all very fragile at all times, and that if I stop picking good stocks and start picking bad ones, I will be consigned rather quickly to the dustbin even if I educate and entertain. "
(in www.realmoney.com)
-
- Administrador Fórum
- Mensagens: 31013
- Registado: 29/10/2002 4:04
- Localização: Aveiro
O Cramer tem um artigo famoso escrito em Fevereiro de 2000, onde ele identifica umas quantas picks que eram para comprar e guardar. Quase todas faliram ou cairam mais de 80%.
O Cramer é um eufórico e participa consciente ou inconscientemente em inúmeros "Pump&Dump".
Por outro lado é um tipo com enorme experiência de mercado de quem se pode aprender muito.
O Cramer é um eufórico e participa consciente ou inconscientemente em inúmeros "Pump&Dump".
Por outro lado é um tipo com enorme experiência de mercado de quem se pode aprender muito.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein
Incognitus, www.******.com
Incognitus, www.******.com
- Mensagens: 3255
- Registado: 6/11/2002 19:27
Ulisses a justificação é simples:
Na época do “bear market” quando o Nasdaq fazia rallys de +/-15% em 3 ou 4 semanas e depois apareciam na CNBC o Jim Cramer, o Joe Battipaglia, o Ted Reilly a Abby Cohen a aconselharem fortes compras nas TMTs, era um sinal que devia começar a procurar “setups” de entrada curta. Na minha opinião na maioria das vezes o Jim não dizia aquilo que sabia mas aquilo que lhe convinha. Desde então, e por culpa dele, coloquei-o na minha prateleira dos “Pumpers & Scamers”.
Em Maio de 2002 mudei para a Cabovisão, como só tem o Bloomberg, nunca mais os vi, a não ser a Abby Cohen uma ou duas vezes. Mas como ela é “perma-bull” as “calls” já não interessam.
Existe um livro de um antigo colaborador do Cramer que explica alguns dos esquemas que ele utilizava. Ele tentou bloquear a publicação do mesmo mas não conseguiu.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/01/0301cramer.html
um abraço
Na época do “bear market” quando o Nasdaq fazia rallys de +/-15% em 3 ou 4 semanas e depois apareciam na CNBC o Jim Cramer, o Joe Battipaglia, o Ted Reilly a Abby Cohen a aconselharem fortes compras nas TMTs, era um sinal que devia começar a procurar “setups” de entrada curta. Na minha opinião na maioria das vezes o Jim não dizia aquilo que sabia mas aquilo que lhe convinha. Desde então, e por culpa dele, coloquei-o na minha prateleira dos “Pumpers & Scamers”.
Em Maio de 2002 mudei para a Cabovisão, como só tem o Bloomberg, nunca mais os vi, a não ser a Abby Cohen uma ou duas vezes. Mas como ela é “perma-bull” as “calls” já não interessam.
Existe um livro de um antigo colaborador do Cramer que explica alguns dos esquemas que ele utilizava. Ele tentou bloquear a publicação do mesmo mas não conseguiu.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/01/0301cramer.html
um abraço
-
- Mensagens: 249
- Registado: 25/11/2002 18:56
Claro que ele festeja os "golos" das accoes... eu lembro-me de qdo ele dizia que a GOOG ia aos 250USD (ainda estava nos 100) ele fechar a mao e escrever nos dedos as letras GOOG e "mandar" um murro na camara para demonstrar a forca da accao... qdo na accao chegou aos 250USD, ele mostrou esse clip e fez a mesma coisa e disse que a accao ia aos 500...
Mas tb ja o vi a reconhecer que algumas "dicas" foram completamente erradas...
Um abraco
Nuno
Mas tb ja o vi a reconhecer que algumas "dicas" foram completamente erradas...
Um abraco
Nuno
Pluricanal... não obrigado. Serviço péssimo e enganador!!!
-
- Mensagens: 5157
- Registado: 5/11/2002 5:10
- Localização: Portugal
Desculpem lá meter aqui uma colherada meio off-topic e porque estão a falar da postura do Cramer, seja nos artigos que escreve, seja no programa "Pump & Dump"....Algumas vezes que vejo ou penso no Cramer, por vezes faz me lembrar o Dias Ferreira a falar do seu Sporting e do futebol em geral...LOLLOLOLOL!!
Pode parecer patético eu estar aqui a falar disto, mas o estilo, a intrevenção, a postura e expressão em relação aos temas que ambos debatem, quando estão possuidos pela razão e a forma gestual....Não sei lembro-me sempre do.....Eu não sou sportinguista, sou fundamentalista!!!....AHAHAHAH
Estou a imaginar o Cramer....Eu não sou trader...sou fundamentalista!!!...LOLLOLOLOL!!
Desculpem, o off-topic!
Pode parecer patético eu estar aqui a falar disto, mas o estilo, a intrevenção, a postura e expressão em relação aos temas que ambos debatem, quando estão possuidos pela razão e a forma gestual....Não sei lembro-me sempre do.....Eu não sou sportinguista, sou fundamentalista!!!....AHAHAHAH
Estou a imaginar o Cramer....Eu não sou trader...sou fundamentalista!!!...LOLLOLOLOL!!
Desculpem, o off-topic!
Surfer
-
- Mensagens: 864
- Registado: 5/11/2002 1:11
Ele tinha tudo para eu não gostar dele: Demnasiado extrovertido, espalhafatoso e que adora chocar. Mas por tudo aquilo que ao longo dos anos tem mostrado saber (com muitos erros no meio como qualquer humano) e pela forma muito frontal e inteligivel como escreve, é uma das pessoas que adoro ler.
Um abraço,
Ulisses
Um abraço,
Ulisses
-
- Administrador Fórum
- Mensagens: 31013
- Registado: 29/10/2002 4:04
- Localização: Aveiro
Eu tenho a mesma opinião que tu.
O homem (embora muito experiente) é também um eufórico. A sua participação em inúmeros "Pump & Dump" pode estar-lhe na natureza, e não ser uma coisa premeditada ou consciente.
O homem (embora muito experiente) é também um eufórico. A sua participação em inúmeros "Pump & Dump" pode estar-lhe na natureza, e não ser uma coisa premeditada ou consciente.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein
Incognitus, www.******.com
Incognitus, www.******.com
- Mensagens: 3255
- Registado: 6/11/2002 19:27
O Cramer "auto-impediu-se" (que bela palavra) de tocar em alguma açcão que fale no espaço de 15 dias anteriores e posteriores a esse comentário que faça.
Um abraço,
Ulisses
P.S. Gosto de muitas coisas do Cramer mas também não gosto nada de outras. Acho é que tem interesse ler o que ele escreve. Mas, neste aspecto, até acho que estão a ser injustos com ele.
Um abraço,
Ulisses
P.S. Gosto de muitas coisas do Cramer mas também não gosto nada de outras. Acho é que tem interesse ler o que ele escreve. Mas, neste aspecto, até acho que estão a ser injustos com ele.
-
- Administrador Fórum
- Mensagens: 31013
- Registado: 29/10/2002 4:04
- Localização: Aveiro
Porque passa o tempo a participar precisamente em "Pump & Dumps"?
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein
Incognitus, www.******.com
Incognitus, www.******.com
- Mensagens: 3255
- Registado: 6/11/2002 19:27
Cramer: "Stern Won't Get in Sirius Trouble"
"Stern Won't Get in Sirius Trouble"
By James J. Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
1/12/2006 9:21 AM EST
"Am I an idiot, or did Howard Stern just do the greatest pump and dump in history? Did he not say that things were great and that Sirius (SIRI:Nasdaq - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) was doing well? Did he not just come on television, ring the opening buzzer or whatever they have at the Nazz and get all lathered about the stock?
And now he's free to sell 34 million shares?
First, let's stipulate: He's above the law. Stern is different. He's a jovial, intelligent rogue, and rogues can do what they want.
I mean, how many people went and bought the stock much higher because of what he just said, and now will feel compelled to "average down" when Stern does his selling?
Now, you could argue that Stern knew nothing and that he simply doesn't matter. He can say what he wants because he is a big star. But last I looked, there was no Big Star immunity to the 1934 Act.
No matter, though. If he dumps after his pump, he'll get away with it, even as the government picks on just about every little guy out there who does something wrong.
Oh well.
I guess we all just have to get bigger to start pumping and dumping.
Wrong takeaway? "
(in www.realmoney.com)
By James J. Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
1/12/2006 9:21 AM EST
"Am I an idiot, or did Howard Stern just do the greatest pump and dump in history? Did he not say that things were great and that Sirius (SIRI:Nasdaq - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) was doing well? Did he not just come on television, ring the opening buzzer or whatever they have at the Nazz and get all lathered about the stock?
And now he's free to sell 34 million shares?
First, let's stipulate: He's above the law. Stern is different. He's a jovial, intelligent rogue, and rogues can do what they want.
I mean, how many people went and bought the stock much higher because of what he just said, and now will feel compelled to "average down" when Stern does his selling?
Now, you could argue that Stern knew nothing and that he simply doesn't matter. He can say what he wants because he is a big star. But last I looked, there was no Big Star immunity to the 1934 Act.
No matter, though. If he dumps after his pump, he'll get away with it, even as the government picks on just about every little guy out there who does something wrong.
Oh well.
I guess we all just have to get bigger to start pumping and dumping.
Wrong takeaway? "
(in www.realmoney.com)
-
- Administrador Fórum
- Mensagens: 31013
- Registado: 29/10/2002 4:04
- Localização: Aveiro
13 mensagens
|Página 1 de 1