Cramer might be saying that now, but I remember many times he's screamed to sell or avoid Apple. He's a momentum trader who puts any investors who take his advice at risk by creating fleeting excitement or panic around a stock which day traders in turn exaggerate. Personally, I avoid anything and everything Cramer.
Not even a year ago he said to avoid AAPL and buy IBM.
My only advice is take advantage of the manipulation.
Thanks to market manipulation Apple went down to $380 in 2013. Good opportunity to buy. I took advantage of the manipulation and loaded up on stock at $550, $500, $450, and $400.
IMO its a good opportunity to buy right now as long as you are not to heavy in Apple.
People like to talk about manipulation, but no one can ever prove it. Apple is too big for its stock to be manipulated. That's myrh. Yes, we have those who are shorts, but they often get caught with their pants down, and then they scramble to cover their positions. I've seen trades of 10 million shares that barely bumped the price.
What really happens is that investment firms have a charter that require them to sell stock when a certain percentage of their investments rise above a particular level. If they are fully loaded on Apple, as they were in late 2012, then they have to unload, which they did, by tax time, because the stock rose by 73%. So at the end of 2012, we saw a large unloading of Apple stock by hedge funds, mostly. That dropped the stock to the high mid 600's. But then, some of the market, seeing that drop, sold down, and shorts came up.
But a main problem was that 2013 was simply not a great year for Apple. Sales were up just a little, profits were down, and few new products came out until the end of the year. We had the questions throughout 2013 of Apple's "innovation crisis". That didn't exactly help. Their phones were losing marketshare worldwide, and iPad sales first began to slow the second half of the year. iTunes sales dropped as well.
So there was no need of the so called manipulation. Events "conspired" all by themselves coincidentally. Overall, 2013 wasn't a great year anywhere.
I doubt it's true, after all the Dow Jones industrial index is a privately cultivated list and they can choose to add or remove any company at any time. Additionally, it's far more likely Apple's last stock split was for the sole purpose of appealing to the Dow's criteria for stock selection.
My understanding is the 3 day waiting period is for transferring funds, and doesn't apply for doing trades.
I discussed this with them when I opened the account. They very definitively stated that you can't trade on those funds until they pass through the system. I asked that very question. If I sell a stock on Monday, when can I use those funds to enable another trade, and I was told Wednesday. Of course, if I have unused cash, I could use that.
Yeah, he does know what he's talking about. I've followed him for years. Is he right all the time? Of course not! That's impossible. But he's one of the best guys out there.
Even Warren Buffet recently said that he's made major mistakes that cost his company billions in profits. Is he one of the best ones, sure as hell he is!
Cramer might be saying that now, but I remember many times he's screamed to sell or avoid Apple. He's a momentum trader who puts any investors who take his advice at risk by creating fleeting excitement or panic around a stock which day traders in turn exaggerate. Personally, I avoid anything and everything Cramer.
Saying to avoid pursuing a stock at any particular time doesn't make him unknowledgable. He's owned a lot of Apple for his charitable trust for years, and consistently states on his show to keep Apple.
I tell people at time to not buy the stock too. Some times it doesn't look to be a good time. That doesn't mean he doesn't support the company. That's simplistic.
One rule I've applied to my investing (this doesn't apply to Apple, by the way), I always assume that the largest and most connected to Washington companies will perform well due to politics. I assume self-interest and legalized corruption will be employed to protect those companies, therefore they are a good investment. This theory has unfortunately proven to be correct more than ever before and all have performed solidly throughout the down economy. I'd never risk a large amount of money betting people will do the right thing, they will always act in their own interest and as long as the outright robbery of investor funds isn't likely, certain companies are virtually guaranteed growth and profits. Since I'm not a big proponent of recommending stocks, I'll just say military contractors and those in the financial services and banking sectors are usually part of my mix.
I discussed this with them when I opened the account. They very definitively stated that you can't trade on those funds until they pass through the system. I asked that very question. If I sell a stock on Monday, when can I use those funds to enable another trade, and I was told Wednesday. Of course, if I have unused cash, I could use that.
1) I believe that would be Thursday, not Wednesday, if you did the trade on a Monday.
2) Maybe my account is somehow different because I definitely don't have a waiting period for selling stocks and using those funds to buy other stocks.
In fact, it has to be different because the next day I have access to funds if you use a check (account and tracking numbers); I like to make big purchase with a CC and then pay off the card the next day. I do this to get a couple percent back. I just can't do a wire transfer of the cash, which is fine by me because it's the only way in which I've ever been charged ($25 for wire transfer).
Yeah, he does know what he's talking about. I've followed him for years. Is he right all the time? Of course not! That's impossible. But he's one of the best guys out there.
Even Warren Buffet recently said that he's made major mistakes that cost his company billions in profits. Is he one of the best ones, sure as hell he is!
When you tell people to invest their money into something just to have the bottom fall out you are doing something very different than Warren Buffett making a risk on something.
Now, if Buffett has people that blatantly lied to him about the state of affairs and he lost money that way, then it would be similar to how people believed Cramer was given them facts in whicb they used to make an investment.
That statement is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with manipulation of Apple. There are billions of Apple shares out there, worth about $750 billion. During the period he's talking about, there were about 900 million, worth $400 billion at the low. And $700 billion at the high, or more. Yes, you can manipulate a company worth $1 billion, even one worth $10 billion. But when the number rises to above $100 billion it becomes very difficult. That simp,y too much value to work with. When Ichann bought several billion in Apple stock, the price hardly moved at all. So manipulation of a few pennies is possible, and that's how computer trading works, for a few moments in time, but to move a stock down $300 billion by manipulation is impossible. It's naive to think so.
When you tell people to invest their money into something just to have the bottom fall out you are doing something very different than Warren Buffett making a risk on something.
Now, if Buffett has people that blatantly lied to him about the state of affairs and he lost money that way, then it would be similar to how people believed Cramer was given them facts in whicb they used to make an investment.
I don't even understand what you're saying here.
Are you saying that Cramer told people to invest in things so that the bottom would fall out? Because that's what your statement reads as saying. If you're saying that he's told people to invest in things that happened to fail later, that's something else. But. As I said, no one is right all the time. So you can pick and choose to find all the times he's been wrong. But then, you should also pick and choose all the times he's been right, but that wouldn't be as helpful to your argument.
As far as Buffet goes, he's said in an interview, that HE made decisions that were wrong, not that he was given bad advice, but that HE made the wrong decision. That's hard for you to believe? You think his people lie to him when his company screws up, but not when they do well? That's screwy.
So you think Cramer doesn't know what he's talking about, but that Buffet can't make major mistakes? That's an odd position to take.
Are you saying that Cramer told people to invest in things so that the bottom would fall out? Because that's what your statement reads as saying. If you're saying that he's told people to invest in things that happened to fail later, that's something else. But. As I said, no one is right all the time. So you can pick and choose to find all the times he's been wrong. But then, you should also pick and choose all the times he's been right, but that wouldn't be as helpful to your argument.
As far as Buffet goes, he's said in an interview, that HE made decisions that were wrong, not that he was given bad advice, but that HE made the wrong decision. That's hard for you to believe? You think his people lie to him when his company screws up, but not when they do well? That's screwy.
So you think Cramer doesn't know what he's talking about, but that Buffet can't make major mistakes? That's an odd position to take.
I think Soli was just criticizing Cramer giving out advice, since people giving out free advice are inevitably going to be wrong for some portion of people who take it. No advice is good all the time for everyone.
When I'm wrong about an investment I only want to be answerable to myself. I think Cramer is a fool and people who follow him should instead do their own homework.
I think Soli was just criticizing Cramer giving out advice, since people giving out free advice are inevitably going to be wrong for some portion of people who take it. No advice is good all the time for everyone.
When I'm wrong about an investment I only want to be answerable to myself.
Over the years, there have been many investment shows on Tv and the radio. All of them give out investing advice. This is nothing new. He's claiming that Cramer knows nothing. That's wrong. Everyone is wrong at times. We all are. But Cramer is better than most. It should be obvious that no one should take stock advice without understanding the situation themselves to a certain extent. But most people know nothing about the market.
Cramer, on his show, answers questions that people call in. He's really pretty conservative most of the time. It's his yelling and buzzers that make it seem far out. But if he sat down, and spoke quietly, it would seem more moderate. He's a showman.
Yes, my investments are my responsibility alone. I'm asked advice upon occasions. I almost always say; " Buy Apple, and hold it." People who have followed my advice are very happy.
Oh, one other thing. People who are paid to give out advice are wrong too.
That statement is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with manipulation of Apple. There are billions of Apple shares out there, worth about $750 billion. During the period he's talking about, there were about 900 million, worth $400 billion at the low. And $700 billion at the high, or more. Yes, you can manipulate a company worth $1 billion, even one worth $10 billion. But when the number rises to above $100 billion it becomes very difficult. That simp,y too much value to work with. When Ichann bought several billion in Apple stock, the price hardly moved at all. So manipulation of a few pennies is possible, and that's how computer trading works, for a few moments in time, but to move a stock down $300 billion by manipulation is impossible. It's naive to think so.
It has everything to do with all statements about an entity being too big to ever be affected by hordes of people with the same mindset.
Are you saying that Cramer told people to invest in things so that the bottom would fall out? Because that's what your statement reads as saying. If you're saying that he's told people to invest in things that happened to fail later, that's something else. But. As I said, no one is right all the time. So you can pick and choose to find all the times he's been wrong. But then, you should also pick and choose all the times he's been right, but that wouldn't be as helpful to your argument.
As far as Buffet goes, he's said in an interview, that HE made decisions that were wrong, not that he was given bad advice, but that HE made the wrong decision. That's hard for you to believe? You think his people lie to him when his company screws up, but not when they do well? That's screwy.
So you think Cramer doesn't know what he's talking about, but that Buffet can't make major mistakes? That's an odd position to take.
Cramer made statements of opinion statements of fact which hurt a lot of people. It's ultimately up to those people to not be so naive as to buy into the words of a shyster, but that doesn't mean a shyster gets a free pass because the people he preyed upon were fools.
Jon Stewart takes him to task with clips and statements that his writing staff brilliantly put together. If there are specifics about Stewart's comments that you take issue with I'd be interested to know what they are.
Cramer made statements of opinion statements of fact which hurt a lot of people. It's ultimately up to those people to not be so naive as to buy into the words of a shyster, but that doesn't mean a shyster gets a free pass because the people he preyed upon were fools.
Jon Stewart takes him to task with clips and statements that his writing staff brilliantly put together. If there are specifics about Stewart's comments that you take issue with I'd be interested to know what they are.
I don't think you know what the word shyster means. You're now saying that Cramer deliberately made statements that he knew to be untrue so that he would financially benefit from the results. That's a very serious claim to make.
John Stewart can be fun, at times. And as I said, Cramer does overdo it with the silliness on his show. But his audience seem to like it, and Stewart's satire doesn't mean anything.
I don't think you know what the word shyster means. You're now saying that Cramer deliberately made statements that he knew to be untrue so that he would financially benefit from the results. That's a very serious claim to make.
John Stewart can be fun, at times. And as I said, Cramer does overdo it with the silliness on his show. But his audience seem to like it, and Stewart's satire doesn't mean anything.
I'm saying Cramer deliberately stated either opinions or desires as fact knowing full well that what he was saying might not actually happen. Whether there is some deeper nefarious action going on with Cramer, I don't know, but there is absolutely no reason for you to move the goalposts to include the qualifier, "...so that he would financially benefit from the results," of people losing their livelihood in order the proof that he lied be addressed.
No, it doesn't. Two totally different situations. Nothing whatsoever in common.
[...]
So, exactly what is there in common? Nothing.
For the last time, they have you in common. YOU! You made a statement about Apple being "too big" to be affected by anything. I pointed out the folly of your thinking. I could have referenced Jack and Giant Beanstalk. Would you have then said that Apple has nothing in common with magic beans and giants in living in castles in a cloud. My point is crystal clear: Never assume anything is too big, too rich, too powerful, too popular, or too protected to ever affected by something you consider to be its lesser. Apple will crumble! Perhaps not in our lifetime or our children's children's lifetime, but eventually they will no longer cease to exist in this Universe.
For the last time, they have you in common. YOU! You made a statement about Apple being "too big" to be affected by anything. I pointed out the folly of your thinking. I could have referenced Jack and Giant Beanstalk. Would you have then said that Apple has nothing in common with magic beans and giants in living in castles in a cloud. My point is crystal clear: Never assume anything is too big, too rich, too powerful, too popular, or too protected to ever affected by something you consider to be its lesser. Apple will crumble! Perhaps not in our lifetime or our children's children's lifetime, but eventually they will no longer cease to exist in this Universe.
It's good to keep that in the back of one's mind when making any big decision, I guess. I would not have guessed we'd see the stuff we've already seen in our time on this planet. In fact, if a person were to dwell to much on any one tragedy or event, I'd think the average person would go insane.
Comments
Not even a year ago he said to avoid AAPL and buy IBM.
People like to talk about manipulation, but no one can ever prove it. Apple is too big for its stock to be manipulated. That's myrh. Yes, we have those who are shorts, but they often get caught with their pants down, and then they scramble to cover their positions. I've seen trades of 10 million shares that barely bumped the price.
What really happens is that investment firms have a charter that require them to sell stock when a certain percentage of their investments rise above a particular level. If they are fully loaded on Apple, as they were in late 2012, then they have to unload, which they did, by tax time, because the stock rose by 73%. So at the end of 2012, we saw a large unloading of Apple stock by hedge funds, mostly. That dropped the stock to the high mid 600's. But then, some of the market, seeing that drop, sold down, and shorts came up.
But a main problem was that 2013 was simply not a great year for Apple. Sales were up just a little, profits were down, and few new products came out until the end of the year. We had the questions throughout 2013 of Apple's "innovation crisis". That didn't exactly help. Their phones were losing marketshare worldwide, and iPad sales first began to slow the second half of the year. iTunes sales dropped as well.
So there was no need of the so called manipulation. Events "conspired" all by themselves coincidentally. Overall, 2013 wasn't a great year anywhere.
And the banks were too big to fail? :rolleyes:
I was thinking the same thing myself.
I discussed this with them when I opened the account. They very definitively stated that you can't trade on those funds until they pass through the system. I asked that very question. If I sell a stock on Monday, when can I use those funds to enable another trade, and I was told Wednesday. Of course, if I have unused cash, I could use that.
Yeah, he does know what he's talking about. I've followed him for years. Is he right all the time? Of course not! That's impossible. But he's one of the best guys out there.
Even Warren Buffet recently said that he's made major mistakes that cost his company billions in profits. Is he one of the best ones, sure as hell he is!
Saying to avoid pursuing a stock at any particular time doesn't make him unknowledgable. He's owned a lot of Apple for his charitable trust for years, and consistently states on his show to keep Apple.
I tell people at time to not buy the stock too. Some times it doesn't look to be a good time. That doesn't mean he doesn't support the company. That's simplistic.
One rule I've applied to my investing (this doesn't apply to Apple, by the way), I always assume that the largest and most connected to Washington companies will perform well due to politics. I assume self-interest and legalized corruption will be employed to protect those companies, therefore they are a good investment. This theory has unfortunately proven to be correct more than ever before and all have performed solidly throughout the down economy. I'd never risk a large amount of money betting people will do the right thing, they will always act in their own interest and as long as the outright robbery of investor funds isn't likely, certain companies are virtually guaranteed growth and profits. Since I'm not a big proponent of recommending stocks, I'll just say military contractors and those in the financial services and banking sectors are usually part of my mix.
1) I believe that would be Thursday, not Wednesday, if you did the trade on a Monday.
2) Maybe my account is somehow different because I definitely don't have a waiting period for selling stocks and using those funds to buy other stocks.
In fact, it has to be different because the next day I have access to funds if you use a check (account and tracking numbers); I like to make big purchase with a CC and then pay off the card the next day. I do this to get a couple percent back. I just can't do a wire transfer of the cash, which is fine by me because it's the only way in which I've ever been charged ($25 for wire transfer).
When you tell people to invest their money into something just to have the bottom fall out you are doing something very different than Warren Buffett making a risk on something.
Now, if Buffett has people that blatantly lied to him about the state of affairs and he lost money that way, then it would be similar to how people believed Cramer was given them facts in whicb they used to make an investment.
That statement is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with manipulation of Apple. There are billions of Apple shares out there, worth about $750 billion. During the period he's talking about, there were about 900 million, worth $400 billion at the low. And $700 billion at the high, or more. Yes, you can manipulate a company worth $1 billion, even one worth $10 billion. But when the number rises to above $100 billion it becomes very difficult. That simp,y too much value to work with. When Ichann bought several billion in Apple stock, the price hardly moved at all. So manipulation of a few pennies is possible, and that's how computer trading works, for a few moments in time, but to move a stock down $300 billion by manipulation is impossible. It's naive to think so.
I don't even understand what you're saying here.
Are you saying that Cramer told people to invest in things so that the bottom would fall out? Because that's what your statement reads as saying. If you're saying that he's told people to invest in things that happened to fail later, that's something else. But. As I said, no one is right all the time. So you can pick and choose to find all the times he's been wrong. But then, you should also pick and choose all the times he's been right, but that wouldn't be as helpful to your argument.
As far as Buffet goes, he's said in an interview, that HE made decisions that were wrong, not that he was given bad advice, but that HE made the wrong decision. That's hard for you to believe? You think his people lie to him when his company screws up, but not when they do well? That's screwy.
So you think Cramer doesn't know what he's talking about, but that Buffet can't make major mistakes? That's an odd position to take.
I think Soli was just criticizing Cramer giving out advice, since people giving out free advice are inevitably going to be wrong for some portion of people who take it. No advice is good all the time for everyone.
When I'm wrong about an investment I only want to be answerable to myself. I think Cramer is a fool and people who follow him should instead do their own homework.
Over the years, there have been many investment shows on Tv and the radio. All of them give out investing advice. This is nothing new. He's claiming that Cramer knows nothing. That's wrong. Everyone is wrong at times. We all are. But Cramer is better than most. It should be obvious that no one should take stock advice without understanding the situation themselves to a certain extent. But most people know nothing about the market.
Cramer, on his show, answers questions that people call in. He's really pretty conservative most of the time. It's his yelling and buzzers that make it seem far out. But if he sat down, and spoke quietly, it would seem more moderate. He's a showman.
Yes, my investments are my responsibility alone. I'm asked advice upon occasions. I almost always say; " Buy Apple, and hold it." People who have followed my advice are very happy.
Oh, one other thing. People who are paid to give out advice are wrong too.
It has everything to do with all statements about an entity being too big to ever be affected by hordes of people with the same mindset.
Cramer made statements of opinion statements of fact which hurt a lot of people. It's ultimately up to those people to not be so naive as to buy into the words of a shyster, but that doesn't mean a shyster gets a free pass because the people he preyed upon were fools.
Jon Stewart takes him to task with clips and statements that his writing staff brilliantly put together. If there are specifics about Stewart's comments that you take issue with I'd be interested to know what they are.
No, it doesn't. Two totally different situations. Nothing whatsoever in common.
Is the government investing tens of billions to prevent Apple from failing? No.
Are they investing tens of billions to keep Apple's stock price up? No.
Are they appointing someone to run the company after requiring the resignation of those in charge? No.
Is Apple lending hundreds of billions to businesses and the public? No.
Did Apple make very bad business decisions involving mortgage derivative packages? No.
Is the economy dependent on Apple being solvent, and lending money? No.
So, exactly what is there in common? Nothing.
I don't think you know what the word shyster means. You're now saying that Cramer deliberately made statements that he knew to be untrue so that he would financially benefit from the results. That's a very serious claim to make.
John Stewart can be fun, at times. And as I said, Cramer does overdo it with the silliness on his show. But his audience seem to like it, and Stewart's satire doesn't mean anything.
I'm saying Cramer deliberately stated either opinions or desires as fact knowing full well that what he was saying might not actually happen. Whether there is some deeper nefarious action going on with Cramer, I don't know, but there is absolutely no reason for you to move the goalposts to include the qualifier, "...so that he would financially benefit from the results," of people losing their livelihood in order the proof that he lied be addressed.
For the last time, they have you in common. YOU! You made a statement about Apple being "too big" to be affected by anything. I pointed out the folly of your thinking. I could have referenced Jack and Giant Beanstalk. Would you have then said that Apple has nothing in common with magic beans and giants in living in castles in a cloud.
For the last time, they have you in common. YOU! You made a statement about Apple being "too big" to be affected by anything. I pointed out the folly of your thinking. I could have referenced Jack and Giant Beanstalk. Would you have then said that Apple has nothing in common with magic beans and giants in living in castles in a cloud.
It's good to keep that in the back of one's mind when making any big decision, I guess. I would not have guessed we'd see the stuff we've already seen in our time on this planet. In fact, if a person were to dwell to much on any one tragedy or event, I'd think the average person would go insane.