- Shopify
- Square
- Wix
- Salesforce
- Twilio
- Etsy
thinks shop possibly undervalued.
fwiw…
11 Likes
Glad to see Jim on board. I think SHOP will be huge long term, but its traded sideways for the past 12 months compared to our other SAAS stocks. I think they will continue doing so until they start to see that magical “revenue growth” climb again.
1 Like
Minor point but it wasn’t his top picks; it was a list of companies that are “empowering portfolio’s”
Here’s the video: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/02/13/cramer-unveils-his-lat…
Sox
2 Likes
2/29/2000
https://www.thestreet.com/story/891820/1/the-winners-of-the-…
"You want winners? You want me to put my Cramer Berkowitz hedge fund hat on and
just discuss what my fund is buying today to try to make money tomorrow and the next
day and the next? You want my top 10 stocks for who is going to make it in the New
World? You know what? I am going to give them to you. Right here. Right now.
OK. Here goes. Write them down – no handouts here!: 724 Solutions ( SVNX),
Ariba ( ARBA), Digital Island ( ISLD), Exodus ( EXDS), InfoSpace.com ( INSP),
Inktomi ( INKT), Mercury Interactive ( MERQ), Sonera ( SNRA), VeriSign ( VRSN)
and Veritas Software ( VRTS).
We are buying some of every one of these this morning as I give this speech. We buy
them every day, particularly if they are down, which, no surprise given what they do,
is very rare. And we will keep doing so until this period is over – and it is very far
from ending. Heck, people are just learning these stories on Wall Street, and the more
they come to learn, the more they love and own! Most of these companies don’t even
have earnings per share, so we won’t have to be constrained by that methodology for
quarters to come.
There, now that that’s done with, can we talk about the methodology that produced those
top 10 so that you can understand how, in a universe of a gazillion stocks, we arrived
at those, so you too can figure it out? I hope we can because I have another 10 and
still another 10 and another. They all do the same thing: They make the Web faster,
cheaper, better and easier to access anywhere, anytime. They allow you to get on the Web
securely anywhere in the world. They make the Web economy the only economy that matters.
That’s all they do.
We try to own every one of them. Every single one. And if I had my druthers, I wouldn’t
own any other stocks in the year 2000. Because these are the only ones worth owning right
now in this extremely difficult, extremely narrow stock market. They are the only ones
that are going higher consistently in good days and bad. I love every one of them, just
as I loathe the rest of the stock universe.
How did this stock market get like this, to where the only people who can make a dime
in it are the people who are interested in the most arcane subject, the moving of data
from one space to another, via strange new machines and software? How did it get to the
point where nothing else matters, most particularly the 90% of the stock market I have
studied for the last 20 years? How did all of that knowledge become totally irrelevant
and the only stocks that work are the stocks of companies that didn’t exist five years
ago and came public in the last two or three years?
Let’s start with the world in the early 21st century, a world where capital is abundant
for a chosen few and nonexistent for just about everybody else. It is a world where
the whole of Wall Street and Silicon Valley is at your fingertips if you are creating
the infrastructure for the New Economy, and a world where neither Wall Street nor
Silicon Valley could give a darn about you if you are using that infrastructure.
Or in other words, we don’t care if General Motors ( GM) and Ford ( F) are going with
Oracle ( ORCL) or with i2 ( ITWO) for their new parts procurement process. We don’t
want to own GM or Ford on any occasion. In fact, we would rather own the loser in
that tech bake-off than the winner in nontech, because in this new world, there is so
much business to be done for the i2s and the Oracles that the capital will remain
plentiful for them, win or lose a particular piece of business.
Just yesterday I found myself wishing I had bought i2 when it lost out to Oracle for
the giant business-to-business contract for the Big Three automakers. Others had the
same idea because i2, the loser Friday, was up much more Monday than GM and Ford could
be this year. i2 can own the world because the company with the access to cheap capital
always wins. And the companies with no access have to lose."
The link below shows how those stocks performed after Cramer recommended them:
https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2015/6/22/saupload_A…
36 Likes
Yeah, it is hard to believe that someone like Cramer would be so unsophisticated in regard. Infospace was simply a promoter’s scheme for the most part. Exodus hosted websites and its expenses rose exactly as fast as did its enormous (and perhaps unprecedented)revenue growth. There was no possibility of turning on the money printing press with Exodus, and Exodus has no pricing power at all.
A few of those companies were bought out, like Inktomi and Ariba, and remain stalwarts of internet infrastructure (even if we don’t think of them anymore).
But whatever they are, virtues or non-virtues, the problem is clear, the companies who had no viable economic model went poof.
Veritas software was recently sold for $9 billion was it? Veritas ended up a disappointment, largely blamed on poor management. Symantecc owned Veritas for many years (perhaps the last 9 to 10 years before selling it) and Symantec was the poor management team I am referencing (this same Symantec is presently Zscaler’s primary competition per Gartner). Veritas was the company best positioned to have been Nutanix but they are not. Veritas was somewhat like VMWare, in that they were a widely distributed storage infrastructure technology. VMWare did not let Nutanix run away with the market, Veritas never even entered the market. Not quite a Xerox thing, but it was a large opportunity Veritas let pass them. Poor Management.
It is why holding for the “long-term” is a flexible term.
Coming out of the bubble (as I was a young welt back then) I ended up buying QCOM and ARM in 2003 - there is always a tomorrow even following that market disaster. Stick with viable economic models and market dominance and leadership. Veritas and Verisign would not have been bad choices either at that point in time…just did not work out for them. So not all of Cramer’s picks were losers per se.
What really mattered is, like Saul does here, what did he do next? QCOM and ARM were great places to move to thereafter - very timely for both of them. 3 years became my hold time for them and it erased all issues from the bubble. I don’t know what Cramer did following the market disaster. Did he recover?
Tinker
3 Likes
2/29/2000
https://www.thestreet.com/story/891820/1/the-winners-of-the-……
This is misinformation at best, disinformation at worst because Cramer – high-twitch trader that he is – wrote a long column less than two months later in mid-April 2000 explaining why he had sold out of all his tech stocks.
You can also find and post that TheStreet.com column here, if you’re concerned about being intellectually honest. Are you going to start trashing Saul for the stocks he sold out of that later went down? Ludicrous, right?!
He correctly went short the market, ended 2000 with an astonishing +38 percent return where the market fell 9%.
'From the day he opened it, in February 1987, until the start of 2001, when he abruptly quit the money-managing business, Cramer achieved a 24 percent return, beating the S&P 500 index by almost 10 points. '
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/magazine/jim-cramer-hits-…
15 Likes
This is misinformation at best, disinformation at worst because Cramer – high-twitch
trader that he is – wrote a long column less than two months later in mid-April 2000
explaining why he had sold out of all his tech stocks.
You can also find and post that TheStreet.com column here, if you’re concerned about being intellectually honest.
Wait a second…so Cramer goes up on a stage in February 2000 and promotes his “Winners of the
New World” stock picks, which he said hewas “buying them every day, particularly if they
are down, which, no surprise given what they do, is very rare. And we will keep doing
so until this period is over – and it is very far from ending” (Cramer’s words from
his speech, not mine.)
Then, 2 months later he dumps everything, and instead decides to short the same stocks he
was promoting as the must-own companies of the “New World”.
…and I’m the intellectually dishonest one?
27 Likes
Booyah!!!
The link below shows how those stocks performed after Cramer recommended them:…
Isn’t it amazing that he still has a TV show and is still treated as a guru with a traceable record like that ???
Saul
7 Likes
Steve and Naj,
Let’s please drop this discussion where it’s at. There’s no benefit in going back and forth about who’s honest/dishonest.
If you’d like to discuss further, please do so off the board.
Thank you.
6 Likes