Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : James Cramer -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stocker who wrote (562)	5/19/1999 10:57:00 PM
From: Adam Weiner	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 766

>> Pathetic justification...... Underperforming for the last 5 years is pathetic justification? >> When you're trading stocks for a fund you don't go surfing the >> net for news stories, you have them piped in by Reuters, >> Bloomberg etc Of course they do. But this story never ran over any of those data services - the story only existed on a bogus web site, and the only link to the story was on Silicon Investor. >> In both cases, you don't check the story 10 times to see if its >> right. Not 10 times; ONCE. Remember, the PAIR situation wasn't represented as a "rumor", it was represented as a bona fide press release from the company. So, if you see a press release from a company announcing a takeover on a 'net board, do you rush out and immediately buy, or do you take ten seconds to look it up on the Bloomberg box to see if its legitimate? (the web posting was designed to appear as a Bloomberg story) Most "funds" aren't looking for opportunistic plays on a swing of a point or two anyway - Cramer only bought 5k or 10k shares, I don't remember the exact amount. Most funds have too much money for such trades to have any effect on the return on the fund, so they're not a productive use of the fund manager's time. What Cramer doesn't realize that while these little B.S. trades may have made him lunch money while he was at Harvard, they do diddly-squat for a fund of his size. >> As for the bonds, if I remember right, as of today he's down only >> a point on the position Its not how much he lost - it's how much he could of loss because he doesn't know what he's doing. Making such a huge bet on a macroeconomic call can be very dangerous. Unless you really know what you're doing, which Cramer obviously did not, you can lose your shirt. Cramer miscalled the top of bonds last year, and now he's miscalled the bottom. Like I've said before, he's the Elaine G. of the new millennium. >> It's likely more a substitute for cash anyway. It's a substitute alright - if he holds onto the position, he's going to eventually substitute $.75 for $1.00. What a deal!