I said your logic is awful, which it is. Steve Cohen has been wrong many times in his career. Secondly, I said I think he's probably right. I was pointing out your dumb statement.
My point is that you're a subjective pumper and see only what you want to see; that is, that Steve Cohen invested and he is always right. Look up the meaning of logic.
Of course he can. What kind of awful logic are you using? You've probably also opined things such as, "Jim Cramer is never right."
That being said, I think he'll probably be right. He has gobbled up an insane amount of calls and put many millions on the line doing so.
Um, I don't use Cramer as an investment advisor. I play about 1% of the stocks he recommends, and I only play them after doing plenty of diligence. Additionally, I don't actively follow him, outside of Twitter. But if he's tweeting about a stock I've already considered and several of the other investors I follow are as well, I pay attention and do some DD and more importantly, look at the chart. Only an idiot would invest in a stock based on someone else's recommendations without doing their own DD. Those same people are the kind who blame others when things don't go their way, and they're the kind of people who shouldn't be investing.
Anyway, point being, there's no reason to hate Cramer simply because he said he wouldn't buy the stock at the current price. That's just being whiny. He's entitled to his opinion, and I'm confused as to why it's an issue, since he wasn't even being negative; he was being neutral.
SRPT regularly runs up into quarterly conference calls when an important piece of news pending. Unfortunately, more often than not, a drop occurs after the cc because the news was either a) not good, or b) didn't actually arrive yet. Who knows what happens this time, but personally, I wouldn't look too much into this run-up into Thursday's cc. History tells us time and again that caution is warranted. Just saying...
Cramer is fine. People always get their panties in a huff when he says something they don't agree with.
First of all, he isn't saying anything about the company's fundamentals. Secondly, he almost always tells people to sell a stock after it has had a big run, particularly before an earnings report. It's called protecting profits. In the case, he didn't even say that, he just said he wouldn't buy it. It was a neutral statement.
For the record, I listen to him. And even though I think he's wrong about SQNM and I intend on holding through earnings, as someone who actually follows him and sometimes makes purchases based on his recommendations (after doing my own DD), I feel confident in saying that he's right more than he's wrong. His calls made me a lot of money with RCPT and KMI, to name a few. There are plenty more examples of him being right than there are of him being wrong. Not everybody who says things you don't want to hear is an idiot, believe it or not.
Objectivity is an investor's best friend.
Don't be silly, starfe! Nobody should be adding any bios until it's clear the IBB trainwreck is over. Lot of falling knives out there right now. Better to add natural gas and oil companies at this point. The low for those is probably in.
This is all assuming SRPT submits the NDA correctly, of course, and the FDA decides to file it. I agree with the possible outcomes though if we get an AdCom at the same time as BMRN. No way will the review board approve drisa without also approving etep.
If earnings are good will blow past $5. That's the only thing that matters. The funds buying in over $5 is a bunk theory, like you are saying. They'll buy in because the company is now clearly headed in the right direction without any regard to the share price.
Actually, the stock looks as if it is trading in a a very large bullish wedge. However, the bottom trendline in the wedge does appear to be below $12, so there is more room to move down.
The $5 buy-in is generally complete bunk. Very few funds have hard-and-fast by-laws that will prevent them from buying a stock under $5, particularly if it's already trading on a major exchange such as NASDAQ. But to your point, positive earnings will bring in more institutions, but that will be related to the continued progress being made moreso than the share price. Most funds and institutions have no problem buying a stock under $5, particularly if it's very fundamentally sound.
Why would you ignore those posters who, for the most part, have been correct in what would happen? That's not wise. Listen to both sides, even if the side you don't want to hear is abrasive. People would lose less money if they did this more.
Um, that guy is the absolute biggest pumper on SRPT, and I guarantee that he has no inside info. He's completely full of crapp.