[CNBCfix Fast Money Review Archive — August 2018]
Jim apparently thinks stocks go up or down depending on his cost basis
Pete Najarian on Thursday's (8/30) Halftime Report said something that got the Spider Sense tingling.
Pete stated, "So when we do, and we will, get some sort of a correction along the way, the real key is, do you have the powder to be able to buy it or not."
Hmmmm. That sounds familiar.
It actually sounds a lot like what we heard on Jan. 24, when Scott Wapner quoted Scott Minerd as saying in Davos: "The key is to know when to get out."
That prompted, of all people, Richard Fisher, who's not exactly Bobcat Goldthwait, to chuckle that day, "The key is to get out at the right time. Duh. I mean, we were, we were just laughing about that."
Evidently, Pete believes he does in fact know the timing to be out. Like now.
"Right now I'm probably at 25 or 30% cash, off ... because I do expect it, and I wanna have that ability to jump and have that opportunity," Pete explained Thursday.
Joe Terranova, impressively, pointed out that the only reason Pete is trumpeting the idea of buying a pullback is because he thinks stocks in a correction will just continue higher anyway, in which case, if you're that bullish in general, why are you trying to be a hero and time the market?
Pete didn't say whether the dry powder would be used on a 5% pullback or 10% pullback or 15% pullback or 20% pullback.
Meanwhile, Jim Lebenthal, who wasn't even on the program, felt the need to make a remote appearance to knock a stock he's actually trumpeted most of the year: ROKU. (This writer is long ROKU.)
First, Jim explained to Scott that "Amazon is rumored to be getting into the same business as Roku." And, falling for this historically bad trade, Jim added, "And, you know, that's just a threat that I can't ignore."
Jim even chuckled, "I think Jeff Bezos just got tired of this one day and probably, you know, walking out of a board meeting, sort of threw over his shoulder in an Emperor Palpatine voice, oh, you know what, I think we'll crush Roku today."
Wow. Jeff really does his homework.
Perhaps Jim was selling WBA in June when it plunged 10% in a day because AMZN is supposedly getting into the business. And perhaps he was selling KR at $21 in June 2017 when AMZN bought Whole Foods.
Jim actually asserted, "I'm up almost 40% in 7 months, so why do I need the risk?" News flash: Stocks don't go up or down based on what Jim's basis is. Jim is going to use his ROKU proceeds to buy some stock that someone else has already rung up 40% with. Why should he take that risk?
(Is this how Tepper and Edelman invest? "I'm up 40% in a stock, so it won't go up anymore.")
We'll take the other side of Jim's trade. Either A) Jeff Bezos is blowing money on frivolous ventures or B) something about this space is important. Jim's excited about putting the ROKU proceeds into CAT or CBS shares instead. Doesn't Amazon compete somewhere with National Amusements?
What was BAC’s
multiple in 2007?
Panelists on Wednesday's (8/29) Halftime assured Scott Wapner they still believe in the tech trade.
Congrats.
Another question, one Wapner never asked, came to our attention when panelist after panelist admitted he hasn't been long AMZN.
Why not?
Steve Weiss admitted, "I just can't come and get- get my arms around it."
Then he tried to warn that maybe AMZN will suddenly start getting valued on a "different metric" of earnings. (Zzzzzzzzzzz.)
Jenny Harrington actually claimed "at some point ... it does trade at a market multiple."
When are these people going to learn?
Individual P.E. ratio has nothing to do with stock performance.
It is an effect of demand for the stock. Not a cause.
If picking the best stocks comes down to P.E. ratio ... trust us ... the computer science majors at MIT will figure out an algorithm. You can't win.
P.E. ratio didn't predict what happened to Wall Street banks and GE in 2008 and the coal companies shortly after.
P.E. ratio concerns are associated with spectacular failures, such as many Internet stocks in 2000 or the occasional flop such as that 3-D printing nonsense, or famous tumblers such as UAA, CMG and RIMM. Those were all white-hot at one time and then for whatever reason experienced trouble. That's life. That's how business works.
Investing based on P.E. ratio is about as dumb as a quarterback throwing to his receivers based on whether they are wearing black shoes (make him look slow) or white shoes (make him look over his skis).
It's probably the dumbest, most useless and counterproductive factor for evaluating stocks. #don'twasteyourtime
Weiss claims in every appearance that GOOGL and (sometimes FB or AAPL) is far better value than AMZN. (He's invented a new rationale, expressed Wednesday, that clears him to get long NFLX.) Has he ever bothered to compare GOOGL and AMZN charts over the last 5 years?
Karen Finerman, sadly, unfortunately, makes similar arguments on the 5 p.m. show, gushing about the valuation of GOOGL and FB while waving off any notion of buying AMZN or NFLX.
Pete Najarian on Wednesday's 5 p.m. Fast Money gushed about how MSFT has such a lower P.E. than AMZN. Fine. MSFT is a great company and historically great stock. It's nowhere remotely close to AMZN in terms of popularity. Nobody can stand paying for those software suites every time they buy a computer. It was run by Steve Ballmer for 15 years. Amazon is run by Jeff Bezos. See the differences?
Google and Facebook are indeed phenomenal companies. Why are AMZN's and NFLX's P.E. so much higher than GOOGL's and FB's? We're not psychologists (thank goodness), but the only explanation that makes sense is that while Google and Facebook are very well-liked, AMZN and NFLX are enormously popular, people buy the product regularly and think they're getting a steal. A couple years ago, people on CNBC were regularly questioning why AMZN didn't charge $100 instead of $69 for Prime. That and robust growth resonate with stock-market investors.
Yes, sometimes these stocks go down, too. They don't go down because, as these Halftime panelists and Tim Seymour are always trying to claim, suddenly the stock market decides these names are only worth half the multiple. If the market suddenly decides that half the multiple is appropriate, it's because some perception has changed with the company.
Many folks, including the ones on these shows, confuse P.E. with beta. That's a separate concept. Yes, some high-P.E. names tend to be high-beta. You want to own them when the environment's good and avoid them when the market's going south. That's also true for … basically every stock in existence.
The holy-grail question is what, exactly, does make a stock move higher? Other than improving results, we don't know.
We just know it has nothing to do with P.E. ratio.
Jenny Harrington said on Wednesday's Halftime that she's a "big Square lover," but "not all of us can stomach a 126 times multiple ... no matter how great it is."
TWTR trades at same price as the day Dick Costolo announced resignation, June 11, 2015
A curious debate took place on Tuesday's (8/28) Halftime Report when Stephanie Link seemed to take Amy Raskin's skepticism of the stock market personally.
Joe Terranova opened eyes with his own curious suggestion.
"It probably would be good that we had a pullback in the marketplace," Joe said.
"Why would you get it now," Judge wondered.
"Who knows," Joe answered.
Then Joe practically quoted from this page (see previous below), stating, "I just think the memory of '08, the memory of what happened in 2000, it's still fresh in so many people's mind that I don't think people have embraced this rally just yet."
Well, that's basically 100% correct, but there's a rather more blunt way to put it, which is that everyone has been sitting around for 10 years insisting "I'M NOT GOING TO INVEST IN ANY BUBBLE EVER AGAIN" and so (with the exception of only a couple mega-popular/among-most-popular-of-all-time growth companies) NOBODY is going to pay "high" multiples and so we have absurdly low prices on unbelievable companies such as GOOGL and FB and AAPL that have printed money like nobody even remotely in history all while the government/central bank maintains its since-2008 precedent that markets can't be allowed to crash. (This writer is long FB.)
But given all that, why would it "probably be good" if we had a pullback?
Joe did tout MAR and suggested UAL still isn't past the dragging of the guy off the plane and the dog, and the stock could go to 100; "no one has embraced that story yet." Judge said it's up 28% YTD and "no one's even talking about the guy and the dog."
Joe got tripped up a bit declaring that both longs and shorts are "speculating" on TSLA's price. Judge actually claimed with a straight face that "a big voice on the board" of Tesla could "do a lot."
Joe said TWLO, his great call since Jan. 2, is up 38% this month, but he didn't say that he somehow got wobbly in it a few weeks ago and most recently claimed he's only got 35% of his position left. #overthinkingit
Joe pronounced "Chipotle" as "Chipulte" (sic) again.
Referring to Toyota-Uber, Kourtney Gibson said, "The money is just spewing from every which direction right now."
When does Mike come back to tell us about the rolling bear market or ‘elevated’ risk of ‘imminent’ correction or ‘liquidity’ problem?
The stock market is on fire.
But we'd rather talk — for a moment — about some bearishness.
On May 31, uncorking the dumbest stock-market analysis in years, Mike Wilson declared on the Halftime Report, "I think we're in a rolling bear market ... It's fooling everybody at the index level ... I think it began in December with the peak in valuations ... I think it can last until the end of 2019."
How's that working out.
Wilson said, "This is not 2017 anymore," then condescended, "we're not in Kansas anymore."
Is that right. Where are we, then?
On July 9, Scott Wapner, who somehow is impressed by Wilson's reasoning, informed viewers that Wilson downgraded tech and small caps.
On July 26, Wilson came back on the show and insisted, "There's a rolling bear market going on. ... I know it doesn't look it, and that's the trick, right."
Just 2 weeks ago, Aug. 14, Wilson landed a spot on Fast Money and opted not to say anything about a rolling bear market; instead, there's going to be a sharp pullback, according to Mike, and it's "imminent," according to Melissa Lee's intro. "I do think the risk of a financial accident is elevated right now," Wilson said, predicting "some sort of a financial shock. And it'll be over quickly, but it could, it could be quick. ... And this is the time of year this happens. So just be aware of that. ... The catalyst I'm really worried about in the near-term is liquidity. OK. We're seeing- liquidity has been the problem all year that we've been talking about."
OK. Got it.
Is he seriously making trades on this gibberish?
You can get better market calls from Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
On Aug. 15, however, Pete Najarian of all people was sold. "Mike Wilson's been great by the way. Morgan Stanley. He's talked about this for a while. At some point, we'll get a pullback that might turn into a correction of 10%. He didn't say it's happening today, he didn't say it's happening this week he just said, over this period of 6-8 weeks, expect to see maybe some sort of a pullback or maybe even a correction. He's been right about that."
"He's been right." Stuff it, Pete.
However, it's not just Wilson who hit the panic button way too soon. On June 25, a tough day for stocks, Jon Najarian said he's 77% in cash, "and I'm usually at 5%." Joe Terranova revealed that day, "I bought QQQ puts last week," asserting, "Technology clearly is rolling over." Actually, that was near the short-term low and a great time to buy.
Anyway. On Monday's (8/27) Halftime Report, Joe curiously said, "It always boils down to sentiment. And it comes into, do we have a euphoric environment, or do we have a totally depressed environment?"
Actually, it almost never boils down to that. There's almost never a euphoric environment or totally depressed environment. Just somewhere in between.
Panelists basically blessed the market and the multiple and shunned off any talk of euphoria. They miss the big picture, that there's not going to be euphoria for a long time, because EVERYONE remembers 2008 and 2000 (actually they have sort of dismissed 1987, which A) was a long time ago and B) came on too quickly for anyone to really sidestep), and history always repeats itself and they're just not gonna get fooled again, no sir, and so the stocks with the most euphoric potential are never going to reach euphoria and somehow people believe that FB isn't worth $200 or GOOGL isn't worth $1,500. (This writer is long FB.)
Steve Weiss tried to interrupt Jim Lebenthal over whether a Chinese trade deal could happen without protecting intellectual property, but Jim fended him off.
When Scott Wapner brought up INTC, Jim fired back with a passive-aggressive response stating it's no joke; "I've never felt lousier about being up 38% in a year."
Josh Brown said he's not opposed to TGT, but he's not sure it's a secular story as much as a cyclical story.
Jim seeing the light on INTC
Steve Weiss on Friday's (8/24) Halftime Report suggested that Donald Trump's notion that impeachment would make people poor is a little bit overstated.
Weiss said in the event of impeachment, stocks would trade down "for about 30 seconds" before everyone realized we have a "stable" presidency.
But Weiss doesn't agree with Mike Pence's "social outlook, social policies."
Weiss suggested there could be another 10% in stocks this year; guest host Missy Lee had to clarify that it's "10% left" according to Weiss and not 10% for the whole year.
Weiss made cogent remarks about being long NFLX, but we could make it even simpler: When the FAANG sells, buy it.
In a provocative declaration, Weiss said NFLX has "the best management probably in the entertainment industry."
The seating chart maestro bungled again in placing Weiss and Jim Lebenthal at opposite side of the table (Weiss didn't interrupt enough to prompt Jim to say "Hang on, hang on ... Hold on a second"), but notably, Jim has moved from the denial to acceptance stage that INTC, at least for now, is a dog.
Jim insisted that the stock simply has fits and starts, and now happens to be one of the slow times. Weiss made a curious military rebuttal, stating, "It's like those old Civil War movies. You line up 5 rows, right. Those 5 rows have been shot. Who's the next row to come along and buy this."
Jim said, "I actually don't disagree ... There are a lot of moments like this where I'm listening to you and I'm agreeing with you over the last couple of months, but then lo and behold, the next 6 to 12 months, it performs well ... Let's talk in 6 months." (1. We're sure they will. Perhaps they will be wondering why NFLX was trading below 350 or FB below 200.) (This writer is long FB.) (2. If the show is about making stock picks for 6 months from now, why is it on every day?)
Everyone seemed to agree that the mass of "closet indexers" can't really outperform the passives because of fees, but Weiss, citing David Tepper, Joe Edelman and Paul Singer, called the notion of choosing managers because of fees "completely asinine." (Those choosing Pershing Square might not think so.)
Jim said of GPS, "I don't know how anybody gets sucked into this."
5 p.m. Fast Money produces just 2 cryptogarbage segments in a week (a/k/a how come Bill isn’t having his HLF advisors start shorting bitcoin?)
Somehow, for whatever reason, it caught our attention that Monday's (8/20) Fast Money did not include features on the "cryptocurrency" scene.
Neither did Tuesday's show, although that was largely preempted by news of legal trouble of former Donald Trump associates.
Only on Thursday, late into the program, did Bob Pisani speak about difficulties of cryptocurrency ETFs.
Friday's Halftime Report, guest-hosted by Melissa Lee, teased Lee's hourlong "Bitcoin: Boom or Bust" that airs next week in which a flake is seen jumping on a trampoline in snow. But it's good to see CNBC is doing nighttime documentaries again; at some point, 12 showings of the same "Shark Tank" episode must get old. The same program was teased on the 5 p.m. Fast Money, then Lee brought in a couple of hopeless bitcoin bulls (including Mr. $25,000) (first it was gonna be the new all-time high in July) to talk about how the good times are only just beginning.
Karen says President Pence would not be elected in 2020, seems to indicate Donald Trump is ‘front-runner’
As the news of White House trouble rolled in Tuesday (8/21) afternoon, basically devouring the 5 p.m. Fast Money, Karen Finerman (who looked dynamite in blue) bluntly told guest host Michelle Caruso-Cabrera (equally dynamite) that President Pence "would not get re-elected."
"President Trump is far more charismatic to his base," Finerman said. "Right, to me, I mean, he's gotta be the front-runner at the moment, the Democrats are sort of in disarray. Pence I don't think has anywhere near the charisma that Trump does to his base. So I don't think he would be re-elected."
Well, whether it would be a "re-"election is debatable, given that Pence has only been elected vice president so far.
But Finerman's correct that Democrats are in "disarray." While we happen to like Chuck Schumer, if for no other reason than the entertainment he provides, we also enjoy pointing out the bungling ... the stumbling ... the downright embarrassment ... and expect there's more of that in the near future.
The Halftime Report, guest hosted by Sully, was moderately interesting because Josh Brown led an impressively fierce attack on the buffoonery of the bear market cottage industry, which 1) is nevertheless legitimized constantly on CNBC and 2) is basically equivalent to someone who once won Powerball insisting he knows what this weekend's numbers will be.
Brown made an exceptional point about how people who previously called some market downturn are dying to call the next one because the feeling is something like "dopamine."
Jon Najarian agreed. "We get this every day," Doc explained.
Brown pointed to the 2010 refrain of the "new normal" of low returns and high volatility.
The only thing that was missing that we wanted to hear more of is how the deficit, according to Mark Cuban, is a reason to lighten up on stocks this month.
Sully gave a yeoman effort but got a little flummoxed trying to defend Dom Chu's report about warning signs indentified by the bears that Brown says are just the same observations made since 2010.
Pete, how has that rolling bear market been working out for ya? (Mark, did the deficit go away in 1 day?)
On Wednesday's (8/15) Halftime Report, Scott Wapner actually said with a straight face that Mark Cuban has "a lot of cash on the sideline" because of ... the U.S. deficit.
But the bungle of the day actually came from ... this is hard to believe ... Pete Najarian, who also said with a straight face, somehow, "Mike Wilson's been great by the way. Morgan Stanley. He's talked about this for a while. At some point, we'll get a pullback that might turn into a correction of 10%. He didn't say it's happening today, he didn't say it's happening this week he just said, over this period of 6-8 weeks, expect to see maybe some sort of a pullback or maybe even a correction. He's been right about that."
So when is Mike calling for this correction?
And what has he "been right about"?
Jon Najarian understands much better than Josh Brown that Donald Trump does actually have a bit of a hammer on China's economy. But Brown rebounded with the declaration of the day, correctly calling out the earlier Mark Cuban dialogue, stating, "I don't understand this deficit argument."
Najarian provocatively said Thursday (8/16), "China needs us, much more than we need China here."
Joe Terranova on Thursday actually said "poster childs (sic)."
Is Elon Musk actually funny?
Elon Musk likes to sling the b.s.
But is any of it actually funny?
He seems to think so, whether it's tweets about short sellers or wisecracks about analysts on conference calls. Chevy Chase probably thinks he's funny too; that doesn't necessarily mean he is.
One reason these episodes aren't exactly must-see is because Musk's targets, such as Toni Sacconaghi, aren't exactly mistaken for Lenny Bruce on a regular basis.
Let's put it another way. In the category of designing a car, Musk could surely outperform Sarah Silverman. If he attempted to compete with her at standup comedy, would he even have a chance?
The reaction to Musk's shtick isn't laughter, it's astonishment that a CEO is being this loopy.
Here's the question: Why isn't a TSLA buyout worth $750 a share?
How come we didn’t hear ‘rolling bear market’ this time?
Perpetuating the Dumbest Stock Market Call of Recent Years, Fast Money on Tuesday (8/14) enabled Mike Wilson to come back (it's been a few days since he's been on television) and proclaim a correction ahead.
Melissa Lee introduced this appearance stating Wilson thinks a correction is "imminent." Of course, Wilson didn't actually say that (that's part of the trick, get the TV people to make the dire warning in case it happens but not actually say any more than a lukewarm cautionary stance full of parsing that nobody would be paying any attention to when it doesn't happen), but that didn't stop it from appearing on the screen banner throughout the interview.
Wilson claimed, "I do think the risk of a financial accident is elevated right now." He sorta predicted "some sort of a financial shock. And it'll be over quickly, but it could, it could be quick."
That's interesting. How does he know "it'll be over quickly"?
Notice he said, "And this is the time of year this happens. So just be aware of that." So it's a calendar trade. Every August apparently includes a multiple contraction in tech and consumer discretionary that is "over quickly."
Wilson said, "We made a call to downgrade tech in early July. We weren't expecting Facebook to miss or Netflix to miss, but that happened, and we saw the deterioration." How much deterioration has there been in the Nasdaq composite since early July, from 7,600 to 7,800?
Wilson at one point called semiconductors the "tip of the spear." But then he said, "The catalyst I'm really worried about in the near-term is liquidity. OK. We're seeing- liquidity has been the problem all year that we've been talking about."
We even got a year. "I think this is 1929 1987 2000 2008 1998," Wilson said.
One individual on the panel seconded Wilson's take on semiconductors and suggested the market could "lose" NVDA from a "sentiment standpoint."
TSLA call-seller gets $15,000 gift day before expiration
It was the 14th minute of Thursday's (8/9) Halftime Report when Scott Wapner said, virtually in disbelief, "of all things," that Joe Terranova bought calls Thursday in TSLA.
Joe started to say, "Here is what I have done," but instead he launched into a gripe about the "truthfulness of Elon Musk."
Finally, Joe explained, "I bought 365 calls. I'm basically spending $15,000, which I know I'm gonna lose. I'm gonna lose the $15,000. They're going to expire tomorrow. But this is an exercise in truthfulness. And in reality, Scott, they shouldn't have reopened the stock of Tesla from the other day."
Actually, it sounds more like a bizarre exercise in futility. Apparently the gambit was to buy the calls, publicly pressure Musk to produce the 8K overnight, then cash in.
But as skepticism was already swirling Thursday around the whole episode, it seemed less and less likely by the time Joe spoke that any Tesla financing details would be forthcoming anytime soon.
"What are you trying to do; you're making a trade, or you're making a statement," Wapner questioned.
"Probably making more of a statement," Joe admitted, adding, "I'm only spending $15,000." (Well, wish we could just blow 15,000 to sorta maybe ascertain some stranger's truthfulness, but our budget's a bit tighter.)
Wapner questioned why Joe wouldn't instead be betting on the stock going the other direction, given Joe's complaints, a perfectly valid question except everyone knows Tesla never really goes down, which is why buying the calls actually isn't a bad idea; it's just the duration and argument that's weird. (Actually, spending $15,000 on the stock makes far more sense, but you can't convince people on these programs of that.)
Poor Kari Firestone made the mistake of suggesting Joe was merely "betting."
"I'm not betting!" Joe bellowed, a bit unglued over this bizarre situation. "He has 4 days to file an 8k. He's got 4 days to file an 8k."
Wapner asked Joe if the trade falls apart, would he join a "class-action lawsuit" over the stock price (good Lord, there are no shortage of lawyers willing to file those ... that would be an interesting case; "it's not that the stock fell, it's that my client's calls didn't go up like he expected them to with his 1-day duration").
In a bizarre footnote, Joe then indicated that the Najarians are apparently in the legal-advice business, as Joe for some reason stated that he discussed legal remedies with Pete and Jon before the show (could be like Sullivan & Cromwell's opinion on Herbalife that Carl noticed Ackman was trumpeting at Ira Sohn) (yep that didn't make When the Wolves Bite) and stated, "Yeah, I'll be part of the class-action lawsuit. And I'll know that he's basically an untruthful individual."
On Friday's Halftime, Jim Lebenthal got clipped a couple times by Wapner on underestimating Turkey fallout and whatever the day's news was out of INTC. But Jim more than made up for it on the week with his stellar ROKU call.
Jim knocked one
out of the park on ROKU
(This writer is long ROKU.)
Jim Lebenthal at least twice this week recommended Halftime Report viewers buy ROKU into earnings on Wednesday.
That trade paid off big-time Thursday, when ROKU skyrocketed 20% on a beat and promising outlook (and a CEO appearance on CNBC).
Jim said he's not selling; the stock's in a breakout, and he thinks 60 is in the cards. Pete Najarian said he missed the trade but would wait to buy on a pullback.
We'll try to catch up later with Joe Terranova's complaints about Elon Musk's tweet.
Scott Wapner pronounced ‘Herbalife’ with both hard H and soft H on Fast Money
We said in our review of When the Wolves Bite that Wapner could've provided a teachable moment as to the pronunciation of this company's name, but then again … it seems he may not really be sure himself.
Karen Finerman on the Wednesday (8/8) Fast Money of course decried Elon Musk's tweet, but Guy Adami suggested the Saudis are to Tesla what the Fed is to the S&P 500. On the Halftime Report, Scott Wapner said Mike Wilson is clinging to his rolling bear market theory.
Wonder if Mike Wilson
was listening
Josh Brown on Monday's (8/6) Halftime Report, said, "If you can't recognize that we're in a bull market, I don't- I don't know what- like why you're even doing this for a living."
Steve Weiss admitted, "I think you make new highs," though he insisted, "Inflation's going to happen. It has to."
Jim Lebenthal could only halfheartedly offer that retail earnings (snicker) could be an "interesting tell."
Weiss didn’t get what he ‘needed’ from NFLX but seemed happy that he didn’t get stopped out (a/k/a we were this/close to scoffing at Joe’s trim-TWLO call last week and never had a chance to do the post)
Steve Weiss on Monday's (8/6) Halftime Report confirmed his Friday commentary that he bought FB last week, and "I sold this morning, it was up 4 and change when I sold it." (This writer is long FB.)
But he really raised our eyebrows when he indicated that apparently, the rationale for selling is that it's "kind of crazy" that banks would "trust" Facebook.
Evidently Weiss doesn't see much potential for Facebook to compete against the likes of Chuck Prince ... Jimmy Cayne ... Vikram Pandit ... (oops, forgot, they're not there anymore, and the current guys are actually the greatest CEOs in world history for dealing with all the unfair regulation and oversight from Washington despite the fact they can't articulate any kind of growth plan other than hoping for a steeper yield curve).
Oddly enough, on Friday, Weiss was actually talking down FB, suggesting it needs a "reset" lower than 175.
Weiss on Monday also revealed that, despite what he said last week, he didn't actually get stopped out of NFLX. (What he didn't say Monday about being stopped out was what he said Friday, "On trades you need that, because otherwise they become investments.")
Also Monday, Jim Lebenthal, who had a tough show, said CAT is "priced for a recession."
Mike Santoli said Treasurys are a "massive crowded short."
Jim was asked to opine about Barclays' INTC downgrade. "I do not like this call, and it's not just because it's against the stock that I own. There's no news in here, OK."
Host Scott Wapner correctly asked about "the CEO issue."
"There's NO NEWS on the CEO issue," Jim insisted.
Brian Sullivan suggests last few days of Nasdaq Composite might be like post-1999, is manhandled by Karen Finerman
(This writer is long FB.)
We caught a little bit of CNBC's stock-picking shows on Monday. Thankfully, it was Karen Finerman to the rescue.
After a borderline hysterical hour of value-vs.-growth hand-wringing on the Halftime Report, the 5 p.m. crew opined on Monday's tech selloff, with more hysteria results.
Guy Adami twice uncorked a bizarre fear-monger scenario, referring to FB's bogus-margin-forecast/PR-control-so-Congress-and-EU-don't-get-mad-it's-up-40%-since-Zuck testified slide, suggesting, "Who's to say the broader market couldn't do something along those lines," which he then defined as 5-8% (which is a lot less than FB's slide).
So, of course, we wondered, what is going to happen that will suddenly sink the U.S. stock market by 5/8/20 percent.
Adami again mentioned FB moments later. "It's trying to tell you something ... who's to say a similar move couldn't happen in the broader market in- in the context of a news story coming out," he said.
OK. So Guy must be unloading all his stocks if the whole market is going down 5/8/20, right, assuming he believes what he says? #singlestocksaremorevolatilethanthemarketGuy #threadtheneedlewiththeFastMoneygang
Guest host Brian Sullivan mentioned 1999 (snicker) (that's a buy-buy-buy signal), stating, "A lot of us were here back in 1999 (actually none of them were to our knowledge, at least not on CNBC), when you had a lot of people crowding into the same stocks ... and every cab driver out there would talk to you about them. I felt like it was, it was FAANG-y, kinda the same way." (#Brian1999isnotgoingtohappenagainbecauseeveryoneisafraid1999isgoingtohappenagain)
As of Monday, it's not just FAANG but many other dynamite tech stocks that were ridiculously being given away by algorithms. Karen Finerman, standing tall and stunning in white, correctly stated, "To me, the valuation of Facebook now is attractive. I think it's well overdone."
Not only that, "It wouldn't shock me if this FAANG thing, as quickly as it happened, that it starts to turn around," Karen said. "This FAANG selloff right here, comparing it to 1999, I don't quite get it."
Neither do we. #Whenstupidalgosgiveusgifts,wetakethem.
On the Halftime Report, instead of loading up on tech at gift prices, Steve Weiss (it's not about acronyms or labels, it's about individual stocks) and Jim Lebenthal (value has had false starts before) didn't completely jump aboard the value bandwagon, but Jim ludicrously warned that this time, growth names haven't recovered all their losses in 2 days, so maybe it really is a new value era, and Weiss tried to argue that some of his favorite tech stocks (AAPL and GOOGL) are really "value" stocks and not "growth" stocks.
Joe? Joe was trying to thread the needle, insisting money would be flowing out of tech "because of momentum" and even said he trimmed MSFT and suggested selling TWLO. #It'stheCalloftheYearJoe #Don'tblowit #Thesepricesaregifts #ThisisFacebookJoenotGPRO.
WBA is up 16% since Amazon bought Pillpack June 28, by the way.
If GOOGL is so much better than FB, how come it fell 2.5% Friday while FB fell 0.78%?
TV hosts are a smooth bunch, able to handle all kinds of commotion around them while putting together flawless live broadcasts.
Nevertheless, Scott Wapner succumbed to some of the hysteria suddenly and hilariously gripping the U.S. stock market on Friday, actually asking his Halftime Report panel, "Is Facebook a no-touch right now because you gotta wait and see what happens?" (What exactly will people have to "wait and see" ... personally witness someone logging in to Instagram to make sure it hasn't disappeared? ... Screenshots of ads appearing on the site? ... Vladimir Putin and firms in England revealing to everyone, "Yes, this is how Donald Trump won, all those people in Wisconsin/Ohio/Pennsylvania/Michigan/virtuallyMinnesota were brainwashed by KGB-caliber trickery on Facebook even though Californians and New Yorkers and Illinoisans were too smart to fall for it.") (#shelostthewhitewomenvotebytheway) (This writer is long FB.)
According to our back-of-the-envelope calculations (snicker) based on a supposedly horrid quarterly earnings report, Facebook grossed $200,000 in the time it took to write the above paragraphs.
Rather than pointing out the utter gifts that have been delivered to FAANG-watchers the last 2 weeks, Wapner was fear-mongering the tech sector, rattling off some of Friday's losers, including Intel, and claiming Facebook had "another follow-through on a, on a huge down day."
"Another follow-through." What does that mean? #itwasdown$1.37
#EarthtoScott:ThisisFacebooknotGE
Wapner claimed, "For the first time in a while, real questions about tech." Jim Lebenthal, who on June 18 was saying 1) INTC is in Year 2 of the MSFT-like comeback and 2) you'll be sorry if you didn't buy it at that day's price ($53), for some reason jumped aboard, but Joshua Brown to his credit introduced sanity to the conversation, pointing to "recency bias" and stating, "Are we forgetting what Microsoft and Google had to say, like, 36 hours ago?"
Fending off Jim's Mike Wilson-esque commentary, Brown said the number of earnings beats in tech is "closer to like 85" percent and that "Guidance overall's been great."
It wasn't recency bias but "ownership bias" that was clearly ruining Jon Najarian's week. Najarian, who on Wednesday said it's a "no-brainer" that FB outperforms AMZN over the next 12 months, then freely admitted Thursday he somehow flushed away $50,000 on now-worthless FB calls when he could've just bought the stock and waited (however many months) for the inevitable new all-time high, on Friday pronounced FB as having another "14% lower" to go, while according to Najarian, TWTR suddenly looks "tasty" down $9. And we all know that if Najarian had spent that 50 grand on TWTR 46 calls, he'd be dubbing FB at 174 "manna from heaven."
Tim Seymour, not surprisingly, on the 5 p.m. Fast Money said of FB, "I think it's dead," because of the "disclosure issue" (snicker) and "governance issue" (snicker) and "security's a major cost for these guys going forward" (snicker). (Facebook grossed $41,000 in the time it took Seymour to make that point.)
We'll see what these C/BAC/GS longs have to say when they crawl out of their fallout shelters and FB is back to 190.
Jon Najarian could’ve bought 230 shares of FB on Wednesday with his $50,000, it’d be worth $40,000 now, then back to $50,000 in a few months; instead it’s $0 forever (a/k/a Why are other tech stocks down just because Facebook is spending more money?)
It's borderline hilarious.
On Wednesday's Halftime Report, the Najarians gushed about the greatness of FB, with Jon even suggesting maybe "this thing just goes significantly higher."
Host Scott Wapner asked whether the "better returns over the next year" would come from FB or AMZN. Pete Najarian said with no hesitation, "Facebook." Jon Najarian said "it is a no-brainer, I think."
On Thursday, Jon Najarian could barely conceal the frustration, reverting to options-sales mumbo jumbo in telling Wapner, "The good news is that when you have an option position rather than stock, you lose that option position, I dropped about 50 grand on that, thank you very much, uh, last night, uh, but, uh, it was options, not stock, I controlled about 15,000 shares of stock through those options." (How is he controlling anything if the options are hopelessly out of the money?)
Nearly bungling the obvious question of the day — is FB a buy now? — Wapner only feebly managed to ask Pete Najarian what to do with these shares. "The stock position? I'm holding onto it," Pete said.
Ah, that's interesting. Pete's not selling. As a matter of fact, on Wednesday's Fast Money, with the stock at 197 afterhours, Pete said, "Buy it." (We did. On Thursday. This writer is long FB.)
Oddly, the ability to buy this company at $40 off didn't impress a pair of observers on Thursday's Halftime. Steve Weiss stated, "I don't think you see the quick bounce." Joe Terranova offered, "I think if you're buying it today, you're buying it on the belief that the guidance as it relates to operating margins is too conservative. I don't know whether that's the reality or not." #ThisisFacebookJoenotGoPro
By the way, while chortling about the all-time high on Wednesday afternoon, Jon Najarian again told Scott Wapner that with the stock at 150, "You and I were the only buyers on the desk," except 1) Wapner doesn't make stock calls and 2) Najarian had also called it a buy at higher levels than 150 before it bottomed around that level.
David Seaburg on Thursday's 5 p.m. Fast Money bemoaned of Facebook, "They come out and pull the rug out from investors." OK. They pulled the rug out from the longs. If you weren't long, it's called a gift.
And they said FB was the best FAANG stock because it has the lowest P.E. ratio
Anybody tuning into Thursday's Halftime Report for a credible market assessment surely was reaching for the remote once Mike Wilson claimed again at the 7-minute mark, "There's a rolling bear market going on."
Host Scott Wapner, who allows this refrain every few weeks while looking starry-eyed for the next news report on Bill Ackman, actually mentioned the S&P, Russell and Nasdaq and told Wilson, "That doesn't feel or sound like a quote 'rolling bear market' to me."
"I know it doesn't look it, and that's the trick, right," Wilson explained.
The Nasdaq composite is up for 6 straight years. That's the real trick.
Dan Nathan revealed on the 5 p.m. Fast Money that he buys into the rolling-bear-market concept.