Jim Cramer thinks Cybertruck may not sell even 50K a year... Elon responds: "This is a good omen! Inverse Cramer never fails 😂"

[intimidator]

But why does he think the Payload is less than his ford maverick?

Total made up FUD.

Simply wow. Even a 12 year old would know that the Cybertruck payload will be far bigger than the Ford Maverick's.

Sponsored

 

[davelloydbrown]

I remember watching Cramer during the 2008-2009 market crash basically telling everyone to sell everything- I thought this was extremely irresponsible and cost people a lot of money when the market bottomed in March of 2009 and quickly recovered. He has only gotton worse since.

Isn't responsible journalism supposed to offer both points of view, IE pros and cons? Both Cramer and his co-host seem to be bashing the CT with lies and rumors, guess they are trying to prop up the OEM's who are heavily dependent on trucks and SUVs for their survival.

 

[BillyGee]

 

[cvalue13]

When Elon brought out the Roadster back 15 years ago, Jim Cramer said Tesla would never make it.

to be fair, that was the correct answer

there are a dozen moments in Tesla's early history where they merely, and *barely* , managed to survive

hell, just on this past Q3 call Musk recounted how in 2009 they miraculously managed to get bridge financing at 6PM on Dec. 24th - literally the last hour of the last day possible - and that if they hadn't, then the day after Christmas they would have bounced payroll and never been heard from again

frankly, it was refreshing to hear Musk describe indirectly how he is one of the few founders that doesn't have the typical survivor bias, where years later founders delude themselves into thinking that they're successful because they were better than others

the truth is, start-ups, especially in manufacturing, especially in auto manufacturing, have a near zero chance of survival - and the few that manage to thread the needle are unicorns

so, on a statistical basis, Cramer's** 15 year ago comment is like a Texas hold'em player who can see their hand, the flop, and the turn, and correctly estimate they have a 99% chance of beating the table...

... but then that river card

**by no means am I defending Cramer broadly, I don't follow or care for him and think the broader critiques are all fair - just that this one comment of his in particular that you raise I think was actually statistically so correct that even Cramer could get it right

 

[Arctic_White]

I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong in thinking they'd meet any timelines. We should all know better by now. That's why I have a model Y rn lol

There's a difference between hope and hate being passed of as logical conclusions though. Especially when also spewing fake facts like payload being worse than maverick

Don't ever believe Tesla's timelines!

If they say it's coming out next year, add a few more years.

If Elon says FSD will be solved by next year, add another 5.

But just because timelines are delayed does not mean the product will be bad. Tesla has always delivered, albeit late. If Tesla does not come out with the 500+ mile range variant initially, I'd be very shocked and hugely disapointed.

BTW, Cramer is a joke. Someone created an Inverse Cramer ETF tracker and it's actually outperforming the S&P 500. In other words, you'd do well to do just the opposite of what Cramer says.

 

[Arctic_White]

to be fair, that was the correct answer

there are a dozen moments in Tesla's early history where they merely, and *barely* , managed to survive

hell, just on this past Q3 call Musk recounted how in 2009 they miraculously managed to get bridge financing at 6PM on Dec. 24th - literally the last hour of the last day possible - and that if they hadn't, then the day after Christmas they would have bounced payroll and never been heard from again

frankly, it was refreshing to hear Musk describe indirectly how he is one of the few founders that doesn't have the typical survivor bias, where years later founders delude themselves into thinking that they're successful because they were better than others

the truth is, start-ups, especially in manufacturing, especially in auto manufacturing, have a near zero chance of survival - and the few that manage to thread the needle are unicorns

so, on a statistical basis, Cramer's** 15 year ago comment is like a Texas hold'em player who can see their hand, the flop, and the turn, and correctly estimate they have a 99% chance of beating the table...

... but then that river card

**by no means am I defending Cramer broadly, I don't follow or care for him and think the broader critiques are all fair - just that this one comment of his in particular that you raise I think was actually statistically so correct that even Cramer could get it right

Well said. Cramer's analysis at that time was correct, but the outcome was different. Tesla would have, and should have gone bankrupt were it not for those credits + the low interest rate environment. If either of these two points were different, Tesla would have gone bankrupt at several points from 2010 to 2017.

However, Cramer is a joke now and is purposefully being ignorant or trying to cause confusion by not looking at facts. Thus inverse-Cramer is so popular.

 

[BeastSlayer]

Bloomberg is just as bad and I'm not talking about recommendations because I don't listen to anyone for stock recs. Immersing yourself in any of those news sources can leave you with a distorted view because of what they choose to cover and not cover, in addition to how they cover it.

Sometimes no news is better than listening to hot garbage.

Interesting concepf.

Doing investments without news? And doing well?

I'm glad your darts or crystal ball is working?

 

[HaulingAss]

Interesting concepf.

Doing investments without news? And doing well?

I'm glad your darts or crystal ball is working?

Who said no news?

I use minimal news, relying mostly on SEC filings, actual results and statements of management, combined with general industry news. Mainstream media news is worse than useless, which is why most individual investors and professional fund managers perform worse than throwing darts at the S&P 500.

 

[BeastSlayer]

... most individual investors and professional fund managers perform worse than throwing darts at the S&P 500.

Stop burying yourself in bigger and bigger hole!

Do you have a study to back this up?

And do you realize how the stock marker would have been dead a long time ago with bankruptcies if this is even half true?

 

[HaulingAss]

Do you have a study to back this up?

Yes, everytime I study my brokerage accounts.

And do you realize how the stock marker would have been dead a long time ago with bankruptcies if this is even half true?

Incorrect. You can pick stocks randomly from the S&P 500 and get better returns than the average actively managed stock fund. Warren Buffet famously challenged the entire actively managed fund industry and the resullts were telling:

Buffett's Bet with the Hedge Funds: And the Winner Is … (investopedia.com)

A big part of this is active managers are distracted by news that either doesn't matter or is misleading.

 

[davelloydbrown]

Yes, everytime I study my brokerage accounts.



Incorrect. You can pick stocks randomly from the S&P 500 and get better returns than the average actively managed stock fund. Warren Buffet famously challenged the entire actively managed fund industry and the resullts were telling:

Buffett's Bet with the Hedge Funds: And the Winner Is … (investopedia.com)

A big part of this is active managers are distracted by news that either doesn't matter or is misleading.

The reason that active fund managers can't beat a S&P index is because of their fees.

 

[BeastSlayer]

Yes, everytime I study my brokerage accounts.



Incorrect. You can pick stocks randomly from the S&P 500 and get better returns than the average actively managed stock fund. Warren Buffet famously challenged the entire actively managed fund industry and the resullts were telling:

Buffett's Bet with the Hedge Funds: And the Winner Is … (investopedia.com)

A big part of this is active managers are distracted by news that either doesn't matter or is misleading.

I would have stopped earlier because I a refutation to protect but I didn't realize seeing someone digging himself into a bigger and bigger hole is this much fun, lol.

Really, a research and conclusion is based on your brokerage statement is the evidence that professional investment managers are worst than S&P dart throwers?

And non-related article from Buffet support your argument by mere posting of the link.

How is this for real world logic? Active managers making bad decisions because he is "distracted" would have been fired long time ago and would not have a career in the investing community. Don't you think they have a monthly performance evaluation?

 

[HaulingAss]

The reason that active fund managers can't beat a S&P index is because of their fees.

That's most, but not all of the problem.

 

[Coolbreeze704]

Interesting concepf.

Doing investments without news? And doing well?

I'm glad your darts or crystal ball is working?

My take away is he does not want to lean on resources that can be full of inaccuracy's and misleading agenda's and use resources he trusts which does not have to include programs like Mad Money.

 

[BeastSlayer]

My take away is he does not want to lean on resources that can be full of inaccuracy's and misleading agenda's and use resources he trusts which does not have to include programs like Mad Money.

You are being a good uncle. But that's not what he said.

He generalized CNBC, MSNBC, other news sources and even Bloomberg that do straight business and economic news.

So no thank you and be careful next time when he come running and crying uncle, lol.

Sponsored