Showing posts with label Media Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Watch. Show all posts

Monday, December 8, 2008

Cramer Nailed It (sarcasm)

I just couldn't resist. The following are quotes from Jim Cramer on his July 29th show. Keep in mind that this came one day after he said, "There is no relief in sight."

“It smells to me like something, in fact many things,” he said, “have at last changed for the better.”

“I am indeed sticking my neck out right here, right now,” Cramer continued, “declaring emphatically that I believe the market will not revisit the panicked lows it hit on July 15. and I think anyone out there who’s waiting for that low to be breached is in for a big disappointment and [they’re] missing a great deal of upside.”

“Stop waiting,” he said, and “buy the next dip because I think it might be the last big one.”

“My bottom call isn’t gutsy,” Cramer said. “I think it’s just a smart call that all the evidence points toward.”

“Bye, bye bear market,” he said. “Say hello to the bull and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

The S&P 500 closed July 15th at 1200. It ended yesterday at 876. That's a decline of 27%. If we measure from July 15th to the most recent bottom on November 20th, we get a 37% decline. Defenders of Cramer (who by now must be down to his wife, mother, and shrink) will be quick to point out that Jim changed his view of the market before the recent lows.

In fact, on October 6th he appeared on the "Today" show and practically begged people to pull any money out of the money that they needed in the next 5 years while encouraging others with more "flexibility" to ride it out. I suppose he's covered either way with that call. If the market falls, he told you to pull money out. If it rises, he told you to ride it out. Part of the problem with Cramer is that he hedges his views and flip-flops way too often to actually be helpful. He claims he wants to help people invest, but his recommendations are more suited to the masochistic, bipolar day trader.

Smart professionals don't try to call the bottom. They're humble enough to recognize the uniqueness of every bear market as well as the tremendous number of unknowns. For instance, the severity of the recession is unknown. The degree to which corporate earnings will decline is unknown. The trough valuation that will be applied to those earnings is unknown. The degree to which fear and investor psychology will influence prices is unknown. The amount of deleveraging still to come is unknown. The magnitude of the positive or negative impacts of Fed and government action is unknown. In light of such uncertainty, no one could possibly know where the bottom is. It's one thing to say that the market has become more attractive, but it's another altogether to try and call a bottom. Of course, if you call the bottom often enough, you'll eventually be right.

One of my favorite Cramerisms came on November 8th of 2007. On that day's show, Jim stated, "You should be buying things and accept that they're overvalued, but accept that they're going to keep going higher. I know that sound irresponsible, but that's how you make the money."

Jim was partly right. That is irresponsible. That isn't investing. It's gambling. It's relying on a greater fool to come along and pay an even more ridiculous (stupider) price for your asset than you did. It was precisely this mentality of greed and lack of concern about risk and valuation that contributed to the housing and credit bubbles.

Many positives (as well as some huge negatives) will come from this downturn. Private-sector leverage (debt) will be reduced, savings will increase, lending standards will rise, capacity will be rationalized, and the valuation of many risky assets will once again be attractive, to name just a few. A discontinuation of Cramer's "Mad Money" program would be the cherry on top.

As Cramer is fond of saying, "There's always a bull market somewhere." Jim has been marketing his bull for far too long now.

Disclosure: The Rubbernecker would much rather be long dart-throwing monkeys than Jim Cramer.


The Market Rubbernecker is affiliated with Aspera Financial, LLC, a registered investment advisor. Please read the disclaimer on the home page of the Market Rubbernecker site.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

"Hall"f Baked

I have nothing against Glenn Hall of TheStreet.com personally. I know nothing about him. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I can't believe some of what he writes. I'm starting to think that TheStreet.com doesn't have an editing staff.

Glenn writes a piece for TheStreet.com that he calls "Today's Outrage." As you can probably surmise, Glenn proceeds in each article to rant, complain, or disgrunt about his topic-du-jour. My turn. I recently read a couple of his pieces that made my jaw hit the floor.

The first one is from today's article entitled "Today's Outrage: Sears Isn't Worth $4 Billion." Glenn writes:
How can Sears be worth $31.84 a share? Target fetches only $29.54, and JC Penney is down to $16.55.

At the other end of the retail spectrum, investors are only paying $6.41 for Macy's, and at the low end, Family Dollar Stores are only trading at $26.

Wal-Mart is one of the few higher-valued competitors, with its shares at $53.

So I have to ask: Who thinks Sears is better than Target or even JC Penney for that matter?

The outrageous spread between Sears' share price and better-positioned retailers may be due for a correction after investors digest today's earnings report from Sears. The company reported a loss of $146 million for its third quarter, which ended Nov. 1, and said sales fell at both its Kmart and Sears chains in the U.S.
This is scary. We're talking Stock Investing 101. Trying to compare the value of different companies by looking at only their stock prices is beyond absurd. Price alone is irrelevant. If you're going to compare equity values of different companies you need to consider how many shares of stock are outstanding. Sears isn't "worth" $31.84 a share. Sears is worth $4 billion (market value). Sears trades at $31.84 a share because Sears has a market value of $4 billion, and the company has 126.4 million shares outstanding.

What would happen if Sears did a 2-for-1 stock split tomorrow? The share count would double to 252.8 million shares, and the price of the stock would decrease by 50% to just under $16. I suppose that this would satisfy Mr. Hall since SHLD would then have a lower stock price than Target, JC Penney, and Family Dollar Stores. Nothing fundamental would change, however. Sears would still have a market value of $4 billion, but for some reason Mr. Hall would be more satisfied with the "spread" between the various share prices. This is the kind of mistake someone completely unfamiliar with stocks might make.

For the record, the following are the market values of the companies mentioned by Glenn:
  • Target: $21.7 billion
  • JC Penney: $3.6 billion
  • Family Dollar Stores: $3.6 billion
  • Macy's: $2.7 billion
  • Wal-Mart: $208 billion
The second piece by Hall that caught my attention is entitled "Today's Outrage: Google-O-Meter Signals Doom." Glenn writes:
The true sign of how bad it's going to get comes from Google, which is throwing its contract workers to the wolves.

The Internet search giant and ultimate barometer of consumer behavior says it will significantly reduce the number of its roughly 10,000 contractors in anticipation of a worsening economy.

No problem here. Clearly, this is yet another anecdotal sign of a weakening global economy. At the same time, good for Google. One of the knocks on the company has been its free-spending ways. If business is slowing, costs need to be cut, and reducing contract workers strikes me as a logical and reasonable place to slice. Glenn continues:

It may be the right thing to do from a fiduciary perspective, but the folks at Google don't seem to realize how damaging it is to the psyche of consumers and investors alike to see the ultimate growth machine scaling back.

He should have quit after "perspective." It's most certainly the right thing to do from a fiduciary perspective. Why in the world should Google be worried about the damage "to the psyche of consumers and investors?" This is investment analysis that only Dr. Phil and Karl Marx could like.

Is Google owned by shareholders, or is it a federal agency? Why is it up to Google to single-handedly repair investor psychology? Maybe Glenn would like Google to ramp up spending and hiring to the point at which net income will be wiped out and the stock completely destroyed (more so than it has already). I wonder what that would do to investor psyche?

I had bought some Google just before their last earnings report and sold it shortly thereafter, so I have no current position in Google. I do, however, applaud the company for getting serious about the cost side of its income statement. This will certainly help them to sustain strong free cash flow generation during the downturn. The day Google or any company starts basing its decisions on "investor and consumer psyche" is the day I short that stock.

Disclosure: The Rubbernecker is long simple math and short Dr. Phil.


The Market Rubbernecker is affiliated with Aspera Financial, LLC, a registered investment advisor. Please read the disclaimer on the home page of the Market Rubbernecker site.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Buffett versus Cramer

Two of the most widely-followed investment personalities were out with some fairly interesting articles late last week. The title probably gave away that I'm talking about Warren Buffett (the richest man in the world) and Jim Cramer (the whiniest man in the world). Buffett came out with a bullish long-term call on U.S. equities, and Cramer came out with an article that sounded a bit defensive and critical of Buffett's piece.

Before delving into the two articles, let's step back and consider which of these two professional investors is more worthy of our attention. I've applied my many years of objective security analysis to this question. The following is a summary of my conclusions:

  • Cramer has a goatee. I don't trust goatees. Lenin had a goatee. Alleged steroid user Mark McGuire had a goatee. Stoners Danny Bonaduce and Shaggy (of Scooby Doo fame) have goatees. Pee Wee Herman has a goatee. Colonel Sanders has a goatee (I'm a vegetarian). Count Von Count of Sesame Street has a goatee (pure evil).
  • One of them is intelligent, witty, and relevant. The other one is Jim Cramer.
  • Warren Buffett is the Warren Buffett of his time. Jim Cramer is the Jerry Springer of his.
  • If I were stranded on a desert island and had to take Buffett or Cramer with me, I'd pick Cramer. He'd be more likely to help me get over my aversion to cannibalism.
So, it's a tight race, but in the end I'm going to have to go with Buffett.

Buffett wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times on October 16th that laid out the case for buying equities. In it, Buffett wrote the following:
THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors.

...Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

...Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.
So, we have Buffett saying that stocks look attractive for the long-term, and he's moving his money from Treasuries to equities at these levels. Importantly, he's emphasizing that he has no idea where stocks are headed in the short-term. Notice that he considers even one year to be a short time period, as do I. I have a hard time arguing with him since I turned positive (for the first time in years) on the market back on October 10th as the market was dipping below 8300. I'm sure Buffett is comforted by that.

In response to Buffett's op-ed, Cramer put out a piece entitled "Sure, Buffett Can Afford To Buy Here." Here are a few snippets from that article:

Great to see Warren Buffett buying here. Fabulous. He has a lot of firepower. He is right to buy American. And I want to go with him, except, he's been buying for awhile, and, more important, he can be down 20% to 30% and it doesn't matter.

Buffett emphasizes over and over again that he can't time the market. Over and over again, he makes the point that he is in it for the long term.

...So, let's do the math. Let's say he is as wrong in these new buys as he was in his General Electric buy a few weeks ago. If you use, for the sake of argument, the allegedly controversial call I made when the Dow was at 10,000 that you need to take as much money out of the market as you may need for a big purchase in the next five years, you will need to gain 37% in your stocks to get back to even. Thirty-seven percent.

Do you think that you will be able to make that back? Maybe if you are the house, like Buffett, maybe if you have a long-term time frame.

But that was never my point. My point was that, if you need that money in the short term, it is better not to have it in the market.

...These buys are of absolutely no consequence to him whatsoever. He may very well make fortunes on his buys. And he has waited until stocks are down.

But are you Warren Buffett? Are you as rich as he is that you don't need to worry about those big purchases? If you are, I say bombs away. Go with him.

If you are not, consider that, if you followed him with GE and then followed him today with this New York Times picks and those prices fell as much as GE did, you would be in a real jam.

So, Jim is basically saying a few things. First of all, don't buy stocks if they're going to fall. Ok...right. That's too ridiculous to even comment on.

Second, apparently Buffett is clearly an idiot for investing in GE too early. I'm a little confused by this. Buffett invested $3 billion in GE PREFERRED stock that will earn him 10% a year in this low-return, high-risk environment. GE can buy the preferred back from him after 3 years, but at a 10% premium. Buffett is also getting warrants to buy GE common stock at $22.25 at any time during the next 5 years. GE's stock is currently at $19.63, not terribly out-of-the-money. There is a very good chance that GE stock will be above $22.25 in the next 5 years. Even if it isn't, barring the unthinkable, Buffett is guaranteed at least a low-risk 10% return on this investment, yet Cramer is criticizing his timing on the GE investment? Amazing. You don't get those kind of terms from GE when everything is wonderful and their stock is rising, Jim.

Cramer states that if "you followed him [Buffett] with GE and then followed him today with this New York Times picks and those prices fell as much as GE did, you would be in a real jam." That is an apples to oranges comparison. Cramer is assuming you bought GE common when Buffett announced that he had bought GE preferred. Cramer should know better. These are two very different investments, and Joe Mainstreet never had the chance to invest in Buffett's GE preferred. You never were able to "follow" Buffett on this one. Had Buffett bought the common, then Cramer would have a more valid point. I discussed this issue more fully in my article, "My Take On Buffett's Take Of GE Stake".

Third, Cramer tells us not to put money in the stock market that we may need in the next 5 years. Buffett clearly isn't telling you to do otherwise. In fact, he repeatedly emphasizes that this is a long-term call, and with Buffett long-term probably means his next two reincarnations. Besides, am I the only one shocked that Cramer EVER thought it was a great idea to put money you really needed in the next 5 years into equities?!

Fourth, Cramer seems to be saying that we should discount Buffett's opinion because Buffett is wealthy and can therefore afford to be wrong. But doesn't Cramer often remind us how filthy stinking rich he himself is? So, if we shouldn't listen to Buffett because he's rich, doesn't it follow that we shouldn't listen to Cramer either since he's also rich? Or maybe he's saying we should pay more attention to the filthy rich rather than the fabulously rich. To follow that logic through, my stock market opinions are far more valuable than either of theirs, and the homeless guy who lives in the woods behind my gym must be an investment genius.

In all seriousness, I don't know one professional investor who pays any attention to Cramer. I know many who listen when Buffett speaks. If I'm interested in an intelligent and clear-headed investment opinion, I'll listen to Buffett. When I want to feel better about myself, I'll listen to Cramer.

Disclosure: The Rubbernecker is long Midwestern oracles and short self-promoters (unless they're writing a blog).


The Market Rubbernecker is affiliated with Aspera Financial, LLC, a registered investment advisor. Please read the disclaimer on the home page of the Market Rubbernecker site.