Exactly. Fundamentals will determine value. Traders wil be traders and investors will be investors, as they should be. When a small investor tries to become a trader, they are not a bull or bear, they resemble pigs. We what happens next. The uptick rule did not make GE trade under $15/share You should read Erik Kolodny's blog.
Some still not getting the fact into the head. Assuming that the uptick rule removal was responsible for banks trouble is like believing that shorting was just existed yesterday. Shorting have been existed long time ago. So what the hell BSC, C and others were healthy for so long? Why didn't the short sellers kill them since long time ago? Why they just getting trouble today? They are getting trouble because they are in trouble due to other reasons than the shorting effect.
Let numbers speak, not your "analysis". Most anaysis out of air are simply wrong. Apprarently Mr. Cramer draw his conclusion based on numbers which is very convincing.
It wasn't an analysis, it's just a common sense. By the way, your Mr. Cramer is less credible than our stock_trader.
ok, numbers. cramer, so called-guru... action alerts portfolio - down more than 35% this year, down overall since its inception 6 years ago. maybe you should listen to someone who...oh, i don't know - actually successfully trades the markets? p.s: cramer's successful ways of trading are well-cited in his excellent book, confessions...get lots of IPOs, advance information on upgrades by paying high commissions, and hire some good traders around you. and when you're panicking and selling out at bottoms, make sure your wife is coming in, making bets well in excess of the margins, to save your firm's ass.
action alerts plus donates thier profit (a very large amout) to chairity in the last two or three years. I think without the donation the AAP will be ahead of the market for quite a few percentage points
if a person put money in the bank over the past 6 years, they made money. if a person put money in cramer the past 6 years, they lost money. AND they had to pay a couple thousand dollars for the privilege. how is this difficult to understand?
Part of the SEC's mission is to maintain orderly and efficient . Liquid markets are efficient markets and they reduce risk, lower transactions costs and decrease the cost of capital for companies. The SEC conducted a series of studies on the uptick rule and found that it had zero effect on liquid stocks because there is always an uptick even when the stock is tanking. In very illiquid stocks it actually reduced liquidity which obviously widened bid/ask spreads and made price moves more erratic. This means that illiquid stocks were made less orderly and less efficient by the uptick rule. Keep in mind, that retail investors are over-represented as a percentage in these very illiquid stocks as compared to more liquid stocks. In addition, many other markets including commodities markets, derivatives markets and ETFs weren't subject to an uptick rule. Nor did most foreign exchanges ever have an uptick rule. For those reasons, the SEC repealed the uptick rule. By removing the uptick rule, the SEC was actually leveling the playing field a bit for the retail guy. Anaconda points out that the uptick rule creates an economic rent for professional traders - a rent which is paid by retail guys. The uptick rule itself is the playing to the interest group, not the elimination of it. Yet, bizarrely, it's the retail guys begging to get the rule re-instated. Cramer is a booyah blithering idiot with the mental capacity of a soft boiled egg.