To enter a coupon code in your post please enter the following info:
Coupon Code:
Coupon Offer:
Merchant:
Expires (optional):
Restrictions (optional):
saving...
Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
"I will pay back our parents after we win the lawsuit (lawyer said out of court settlement of maybe 90% of our damage claim of $450 million is a reasonable estimate for our suit.)"
WTF? Did this person risk a couple billion?
Something about watching a guy who looks like he snorted a line before going on the air to talk finance is pretty darn entertaining.
rhythmwaters said:"I will pay back our parents after we win the lawsuit (lawyer said out of court settlement of maybe 90% of our damage claim of $450 million is a reasonable estimate for our suit.)"
WTF? Did this person risk a couple billion?
Something about watching a guy who looks like he snorted a line before going on the air to talk finance is pretty darn entertaining.
you think that's funny, check out the podcast on www.indieanalyst.com
it's a few guys talking stocks, sounding like they are smoking a bong and yelling at someone named Hilda for getting them drunk with free drinks.
I wonder though if the stock he recommends and people guys and gains do they give him any percentage for the gains? So why should a consumer who has lost money sue him for their losses since in turn if they gained they wouldnt give him any.
About 15yrs ago, when Tv was where people got their "investments ideas", one of the main sources was "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street". To try and profit from the unsophisticated, I devised a plan: Four days before the show would air, I would call CNBC and ask for the names of upcoming guests on the show (after awhile, they simply put me on their mailing list and I just got the info by snailmail). With the info in hand, I called their respective investment firms, and simply inquired what stocks they were recommending their clients. The plot: Buy the stocks the last business day before the show, sell on close the first trading day after the show or the following morning. Of course, yours truely sat tight watching the show praying that the guests would mention the stock - over 90% of the time, that's exactly what they did, and soon the plot turned to practice.I would've loved to tell you of the fortune I made but alas, at times the stock simply did not respond, at other times overall market conditions caused it to decline, and when the expected pop up did occur it wasn't really large enough (remember back then, no direct access and super fast execution - all was done by phone). This story I hope, illustrates how professionals approach "advice" regardless of source. Good luck, and if you trade...I'll see you at the dance.
Cramer is much more entertaining. Watching Rukeyser is like watching paint dry. Plus people on his show speak in tongues, and Cramer speaks in English. I picked up a few tid bits from Cramer and with other reading can understand a lot more things than a few months ago. Lou Dobbs is useless. Bloomberg is boring. Squakbox is pretty good but sometimes they don't explain why things happen. The saturday FOX business shows are also OK, but sometimes the people there pump the weirdest stocks. They also have the chartman, but they don't care to explain that charting usually only works in up markets.
The one thing that people don't understand is that Cramer is from Wall Street. Unless he personally knows the company or the industry all he is hyping is good numbers from IBD and their rankings. Unlike other newspapers they keep records of earnings growth and rank companies based on it and other factors like ROE. Cramer looks at the numbers and tells you who is best of breed. He also does a lot of research and sometimes this comes out in the little details he knows about different companies like drug pipelines, the type of cosmetic lasers they sell, etc. Of course sometimes things change and the best of breed gives up that position to a competitor, but this won't become evident for several months or years.
fixfox69 said:About 15yrs ago, when Tv was where people got their "investments ideas", one of the main sources was "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street". To try and profit from the unsophisticated, I devised a plan: Four days before the show would air, I would call CNBC and ask for the names of upcoming guests on the show (after awhile, they simply put me on their mailing list and I just got the info by snailmail). With the info in hand, I called their respective investment firms, and simply inquired what stocks they were recommending their clients. The plot: Buy the stocks the last business day before the show, sell on close the first trading day after the show or the following morning. Of course, yours truely sat tight watching the show praying that the guests would mention the stock - over 90% of the time, that's exactly what they did, and soon the plot turned to practice.I would've loved to tell you of the fortune I made but alas, at times the stock simply did not respond, at other times overall market conditions caused it to decline, and when the expected pop up did occur it wasn't really large enough (remember back then, no direct access and super fast execution - all was done by phone). This story I hope, illustrates how professionals approach "advice" regardless of source. Good luck, and if you trade...I'll see you at the dance.
teplitsa said:Cramer is much more entertaining. Watching Rukeyser is like watching paint dry. Plus people on his show speak in tongues, and Cramer speaks in English.
Agree that Cramer is energetic and entertaining - but I much preferred Rukeyser. And I think the booyas and interplay on cramer is much more akin to tongues.
I do believe the Rukeyser story. I once read a study someone did of the companies recommended on Wall Street Week. It was obvious from the study that someone was buying the stocks several days before and selling them at a peak on Monday. I always wondered how people knew beforehand and fixfox69 gave a plausible explanation, other than confusing CNBC with PBS.
cramer's an idiot. he's wrong 60% of the time. he'll give a buy recommendation one week and a sell recommendation the next on the same stock after it plummets.
i'm betting that cramer and his boyfriend greenberg manipulate stock prices to either profit themselves or for their hedge fund batty buddies.
Two weeks ago he was pushing the tech rally and move on back with cisco. Today he sounding the alerts .. dive dive dive for csco
He also changed his opinion on energy stocks and crude today. Everytime I watch his show his credibility drops a little more each day. But I still enjoy watching the show and listening to the call-ins just to see what people are interested in. Even though those callers are probably pre-screened for specific areas cramer would like to focus on.
so you are saying that he is not allowed to change his mind on winning sectors? Oil and housing stocks took a dive over the last week. Most of his oil stocks are up 10% - 20% over the last few months. People think they are topped out and there is a correction going on. A lot of people think that oil is on it's way down to big losses.
No, I'm not saying the man can't change his mind on a sector but he has the most awful luck when it comes to announcing on air what he believes will go up or go down the next day. Thursday he was saying get out of oil and the energy stocks. Today oil and energy is up, lol he can't win for losing.
Now he is once again touting goog on mad money and friday on cnbc power lunch. You never know what motivates someone like him, maybe all his picks are based on what his hedge fund , fund manager friends need him to say?
I still watching the guy on tv though, they broke the mold when they made him.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
