Comments on: “Mad Money” Speculation http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/ Helping you invest and prosper Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:27:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Investing Intelligently http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-1392 Investing Intelligently Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:21:45 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-1392 <strong>Cramer...</strong> This article, “Cramer Google-Coaster (GOOG)” lists Cramer’s recent recommendations on Google stock: January 3……….Buy…….$435.23 (going to $500) January 4……….Buy…….$445.24 (going to $500) January 13……..Buy……... Cramer…

This article, “Cramer Google-Coaster (GOOG)” lists Cramer’s recent recommendations on Google stock:

January 3……….Buy…….$435.23 (going to $500)
January 4……….Buy…….$445.24 (going to $500)
January 13……..Buy………

]]> By: Toro http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-529 Toro Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:49:50 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-529 CC My answer would be "zero". The Citigroup equities desk reports to their salesforce the stocks Cramer talks about on MadMoney. CC

My answer would be “zero”.

The Citigroup equities desk reports to their salesforce the stocks Cramer talks about on MadMoney.

]]> By: K http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-513 K Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:23:19 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-513 It's just a math thing. The base is so small ($2 range) and so thinly traded (small supply) that any news positive or negative will move the stock greatly as a percentage. To move a $2 stock by 20% is only an in/decrease of $0.40. To move, lets say Google ($466) by 20% requires a $93.20 in/decrease. That's why risktakers love their penny stocks. It’s just a math thing.
The base is so small ($2 range) and so thinly traded (small supply) that any news positive or negative will move the stock greatly as a percentage.
To move a $2 stock by 20% is only an in/decrease of $0.40.
To move, lets say Google ($466) by 20% requires a $93.20 in/decrease.
That’s why risktakers love their penny stocks.

]]> By: Canadian Capitalist http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-504 Canadian Capitalist Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:31:10 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-504 Toro: I have miserably failed to communicate what I meant. I am not saying someone like you, who has researched the company and know the odds of success is making a mistake betting on Zarlink. How many of the "investors" who bought the stock because they heard Cramer talk about it can honestly say that they are buying because on a P/S basis ZL is cheap? Michael: You are right. And I've noticed that a favourable mention in Barron's gives a stock a nice boost too. Toro: I have miserably failed to communicate what I meant. I am not saying someone like you, who has researched the company and know the odds of success is making a mistake betting on Zarlink. How many of the “investors” who bought the stock because they heard Cramer talk about it can honestly say that they are buying because on a P/S basis ZL is cheap?

Michael: You are right. And I’ve noticed that a favourable mention in Barron’s gives a stock a nice boost too.

]]> By: Michael Patzer http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-503 Michael Patzer Sat, 14 Jan 2006 02:29:52 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-503 *Cramer *Cramer

]]> By: Michael Patzer http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-502 Michael Patzer Sat, 14 Jan 2006 02:29:07 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-502 Jim Kramer has that effect. If you watch Mad Money on CNBC you can watch live after-market trades on the ticker. As soon as he mentions a stock symbol, you see countless trades in that company on the ticker. Jim Kramer has that effect. If you watch Mad Money on CNBC you can watch live after-market trades on the ticker. As soon as he mentions a stock symbol, you see countless trades in that company on the ticker.

]]> By: Toro http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-501 Toro Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:53:44 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-501 Oh pish, posh. You guys don't get how semis work. Unless this company is absolutely broken (which it is not), it will trade up with the cycle. The equity last topped up at US$5.76 in Q3/03, when it went to 4x annualized sales per share. It currently trades at 1.5x sales. It can get to 3x sales easity, and it can generate $2 per share in sales if it gets to 70% of its sales a few years back. (SPS is $1.50 now). They'll lift the stock with the group, and the MoMo guys will pile into it as they search for what hasn't gone up as much. Happens every cycle. Besides, the company made money in the second and third quarters of 2004. Oh pish, posh.

You guys don’t get how semis work. Unless this company is absolutely broken (which it is not), it will trade up with the cycle. The equity last topped up at US$5.76 in Q3/03, when it went to 4x annualized sales per share. It currently trades at 1.5x sales. It can get to 3x sales easity, and it can generate $2 per share in sales if it gets to 70% of its sales a few years back. (SPS is $1.50 now). They’ll lift the stock with the group, and the MoMo guys will pile into it as they search for what hasn’t gone up as much. Happens every cycle.

Besides, the company made money in the second and third quarters of 2004.

]]> By: Scott http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-500 Scott Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:32:56 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-500 The madness of the asses usually ends badly. I also find it incredible that people are willing to part with their money so easily. Lets just hope that Cramer pumps some of the positions we own so that we can make a quick 20% in a day. Cheers, Scott The madness of the asses usually ends badly.

I also find it incredible that people are willing to part with their money so easily. Lets just hope that Cramer pumps some of the positions we own so that we can make a quick 20% in a day.

Cheers,

Scott

]]> By: Canadian Capitalist http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-498 Canadian Capitalist Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:46:10 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-498 Scott: I have been following Zarlink for years because it is a local company and I had friends who worked there. And many failures have taught me the importance of looking forward and not through the rear-view mirror. I am not saying Cramer doesn't have a point. The company has a new CEO, it is selling assets and trying to become profitable (forecasting a break-even quarter). In fact, after a long slide, revenues edged up 8% last year. The point I was trying to make in the post was the insanity of viewers who bid up the stock on little or no research. I am certain that there were at least a few "investors" on the buy side of the trade that didn't figure out they were the patsy. Scott: I have been following Zarlink for years because it is a local company and I had friends who worked there. And many failures have taught me the importance of looking forward and not through the rear-view mirror. I am not saying Cramer doesn’t have a point. The company has a new CEO, it is selling assets and trying to become profitable (forecasting a break-even quarter). In fact, after a long slide, revenues edged up 8% last year.

The point I was trying to make in the post was the insanity of viewers who bid up the stock on little or no research. I am certain that there were at least a few “investors” on the buy side of the trade that didn’t figure out they were the patsy.

]]> By: Scott http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/mad-money-speculation/#comment-497 Scott Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:23:12 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=329#comment-497 I am not a Cramer fan by any streatch of the imagination, but I would not blow of his opinion so quickly. The fact that Cramer promoted Zarlink shows that he must have had some reason for doing so, maybe a new technology?. Have you done any research other than a quick yahoo finance search on Zarlinks earnings? As the disclaimar goes past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Zarlink has been a poor performer in the past but this doesn't mean this trend will continue into the future. On a side note if you had purchased Zarlink in the after market the day before you would have made your self have a pretty nice return in a very short time period. I don't know much about Zarlink nor the intellectual or investment capacity of the individuals that watch Cramer's show, but I would suspect that more research is necessary to determine the quality of Zarlink and the sanity of these viewers. Cheers I am not a Cramer fan by any streatch of the imagination, but I would not blow of his opinion so quickly. The fact that Cramer promoted Zarlink shows that he must have had some reason for doing so, maybe a new technology?. Have you done any research other than a quick yahoo finance search on Zarlinks earnings?

As the disclaimar goes past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Zarlink has been a poor performer in the past but this doesn’t mean this trend will continue into the future.

On a side note if you had purchased Zarlink in the after market the day before you would have made your self have a pretty nice return in a very short time period.

I don’t know much about Zarlink nor the intellectual or investment capacity of the individuals that watch Cramer’s show, but I would suspect that more research is necessary to determine the quality of Zarlink and the sanity of these viewers.

Cheers

]]>