Enough with the hedge fund coverage
The obsession with the managers' positions each filing is just nonsense.
Here's a visionary memo I am writing now for people in the press one year from now:
"As of today, we will no longer do 'wall-to-wall' coverage of 13F filings, because it doesn't help our viewers or our readers." The visionary memo continues: "This cottage industry of looking at filings, most of which are extremely dated, causes people who aren't sophisticated enough in the process to make wrong moves."
But, because the writer of the memo doesn't want to push back 100%, he adds, "There will be exceptions. We will continue to cover what Warren Buffett buys and sells, because his fund is not a hedge fund darting in and out of stocks. We will also, if we believe it to be the case, cover funds that seem to be struggling, like John Paulson's gold fund. But, beyond this, we are simply going to de-emphasize the breathless reporting on these matters, because at a certain point we have to conclude that it is our equivalent of prurience and nothing more than that."
I know, harsh memo. I am a harsh guy.
Honestly, though, the obsession with this stuff is nonsense. I remember having an assistant fill out these forms and thinking, "Oh yeah, I remember firing that guy and having to dump his portfolio," or, "Gee, I got rid of that position right after this filing was due, but I have to include it."
Plus, let's face it, these filings are really late -- so who knows? I am sure there are plenty of people who are back in who had left a position at the time of the filing.
What do I think makes a story here, then? I think if you can call a manager who bought or sold a significant position and that manager articulates to you why he purchased it or dumped it, then you actually have a story. Of course, this is provided that the person hasn't changed his mind in the interim, thus making the next filing different.
Barring that, even covering the stuff is totally misleading. Did Julian Robertson sell his Apple (AAPL) stake because Apple's bad? Did he sell it because he doesn't like tech? Did he sell it because he wanted Apple TV? Did he sell it because he wanted no exposure to the market? Perhaps because it was down to tag ends? Maybe he wanted a bigger dividend? I mean, honestly, what the heck do we know?
I spend an awful lot of time trying to figure out what makes sense to cover in terms of trying to help people -- and what doesn't make sense. I do it because one of the things that makes me valuable is the perspective I bring as a former hedge fund practitioner. I particularly like to highlight when something is irrelevant or confusing when you hear it.
An example of this is my campaign against risk-on/risk off, because these terms mean nothing whatsoever and it's the kind of jargon that illuminates zilch (see TheStreet). Is risk on Clorox (CLX)? Is it Freeport-McMoRan (FCX)? Is risk off bonds, perhaps the most risky asset out there? Too stupid for words. I had the conviction to call that emperor naked 'cause, what the heck? I am not scared to tell the truth and curate truth.
That's why I am sending out next year's memo in advance. I want to help people, not confuse them. So I have to get people to de-emphasize these almost worthless non-stories unless there is context, rather than it being naked speculation about motives and circumstances. Hey, look at it this way: It's one less unhelpful thing to cover, in light of the idea that there is something helpful out there -- and that is worth finding in order to help people understand, and not be confused, by the money-management process.
Jim Cramer is a co-founder of TheStreet and contributes daily market commentary to the financial news network's sites. Follow his trades for Action Alerts PLUS, which Cramer co-manages as a charitable trust and is long AAPL.
More from TheStreet.com
Yup ABS.....And you "almost always" take the bait...
I was only pulling some off-humor one liners....Kinda like, some Deklenese..
If it makes you happy you can "group" me any way you want. Makes no diff to me..
You can talk about all the rest, but William Jefferson Clinton....Is one of my favorites.
He personally spoke to me in an open field, along a RR track, when campaigning for 2nd. term.
My eldest got his Autograph, shook his hand and spoke briefly with him, during 1st. campaign..
I liked and respected the guy irregardless of any failings or shortcomings..(they all have them).
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"...But the times for us, were pretty GOOD.
Your list is somewhat faulty, but I will only touch on the one that I disagree with..
Clinton DID know where OBL was at, from incoming intelligence;
Gave permission for Cruise Missiles to be fired upon him, without declaring War Act..
OBL had left just minutes before the missiles struck their targets...It had been a "covert action."
He missed him, but don't ever say there were "NO ATTEMPTS".
The minutia of the day-to-day activities of a hedge fund usually aren't a reflection of anything other than 1 specific (and likely secretive) strategy being used by 1 specific guy in 1 specific circumstance at 1 specific point in time for 1 specific reason. And half of these are probably fakes, just to keep competitors guessing.
If Clinton had "drone technology", I'm sure that "mission would have been accomplished" long ago and we wouldn't be argueing/discussing this today..
Maybe the same could be said about Bush also..??
But we all know on "whose watch" the job was finished.
"I am a harsh guy."
LOL......... yeah Bobo........ That is why you play little funny sound clips on your show. Mr. Harsh. Maybe you meant you are a Hash guy.......... now that would make sense.
Let’s be serious. We all know that that a strike like this might happen. Why wasn’t there Republican outcry and demand for investigation after Bush failed to stop the deaths of 2,996 people? No, 9/11 was treated as a terrorist attack, and the country came together.
took place May 12, 2003. Thirty-six were killed, including nine suicide bombers, along with 160 injured. Nine of the dead were American
Two attacks occurred on Bush’s watch on the embassy in Sana’a during 2008. The first, an attempted mortar strike, missed and hit a school. The second resulted in 19 deaths and 16 injuries. Six of those killed were attackers.
As Tapper points out, context of the e-mail chain, as well the context of the e-mail itself, are both at issue here. According to sources, Victoria Nuland was only one of many who expressed concerns about what information, or, of more concern, misinformation, was being disseminated. The CIA had its own internal discussions (and, apparently, disagreements) about whether the Benghazi attack was pre-planned or the result of a political demonstration (which intelligence later confirmed it was not), and the FBI expressed concerns about how much and what information should be made public in light of political sensitivities and the demands of an ongoing investigation. The State Department was not in the forefront demanding “talking points” intended to protect its flank or that of a president in the middle of a reelection campaign.
While pundits and political opponents of the Administration have been busy spinning the ‘interpretation’ of the e-mail by the aforementioned media sources and others, the truth should become clearer upon reading the actual words. As Tapper continues:
CNN’s Jake Tapper has now obtained the sent from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes, to President Obama regarding how to deal with the “tons of wrong information” flooding from and between various government sources and, ultimately, into the media. This is significant because the contents of that e-mail, up to this point, has been interpreted (leaked) by certain news media with a spin suggesting the President was more concerned about saving his and the State Department’s ****, to put it bluntly, than the truth of who or what terrorist groups might have perpetrated the Benghazi attack.
Before we get to the actual e-mail text, let’s look at how just two media sources spun the leaked information on the Ben Rhodes’ e-mail. :
that Rhodes wrote: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.” [... ]
that Rhodes “responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning.” Nuland refers to then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
Whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department’s concerns.
sheldon adelsons missing 100 million .....love it ≥...no war for iran for you old douche bag .....if you are still alive in 4 years you can try giving 200 mill to tub o lard christie !!!
The real republicans are turning away from "benghazi" in droves ...only the ones financed by the nazi loving koch brothers are still plugging away ....the real repubs realize monicas bestie DICK critiquing the Prez for "not being ready on 9/11" makes as much sense as OJ criticising chris brown for smacking around Rihanna ....
Do you all remember when monica abs "promised" last year in a post the there would "be big news next week that would make sure the President Obama would not get a second term" .....
MORE ON MSN MONEY
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
John Stumpf acknowledges that growth has been slow, but he says he's still optimistic.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.