[CNBCfix Fast Money Review Archive — March 2019]
A Lyft for Halftime Report — panel delivers one of the best shows in months
Friday's (3/29) Halftime Report proved a joy to watch.
Judge wasted no time delving into the Lyft IPO, and a wide range of cogent commentary followed.
Steve Weiss, who acknowledged getting shares of the IPO, started things off with this eye-opener: "I actually bought a little more, just a little more at 87. It's always good to show, uh, show the broker that you're an after-market buyer, for IPO- for IPO health, in terms of getting more, uh, stock in future deals."
Hmmmmmm ... notice the rationalization. It wasn't, "I bought a little more at 87; I think this is going straight to 95." It sounded more like, "I'm taking one for the team; make sure I get some Uber shares."
Josh Brown said he's "really really glad" that the IPO went well. But he doesn't want to invest in LYFT; he thinks it's a "taxi company."
While Weiss likes the "duopoly" of ride-sharing, Brown contended that it won't be long before there are other names such as Waymo involved. Weiss protested that those days are years away.
We'll side with Weiss. Brown has talked up autonomous cars for years ... and yet no one, Brown included, has made a convincing case for them. The concept doesn't work on any level. The idea that millennials aren't going to buy cars and just do ride-sharing, that's called a bus. The idea that a driverless car will swing by to pick you up at MetLife Stadium, well, 1) Expect to wait 4 hours after the game and 2) Hope you can find which auxiliary parking lot the vehicle was diverted to by officers, assuming the car can realize it is being diverted by officers. The idea that you'll ride in the car reading a book while doing 65 mph on the interstate, yeah, see how eager someone is to take their hands off the wheel and gas pedal in that situation.
Andrew Ross Sorkin pointed out that for security reasons, people might not like the idea of unoccupied vehicles roaming around airports.
Ron Insana complained about Manhattan potholes, as if that has anything to do with ride-sharing.
Insana mentioned Great Britain's laughable Brexit as "the type of 1997, 1998 event that could also affect Fed policy down the road." The interesting thing about that comment is that those predicting the next calamity always seem to draw a parallel to 2011/2008/2000/1998/1997/1987/1973-74/1929. In 1997 and 1998, was anyone saying (not a real example), "This is gonna be like 1956, when Brazil had that dropoff ..."
Judge devoted a segment to proclaiming Ackman a great investor again.
We wondered if Karen Finerman would be on the 5 p.m. Fast Money. She was. We figured Karen would address what Weiss and the Halftime crew curiously didn't, which is the valuation of LYFT.
Finerman, like everyone else on both shows, said the success of the IPO is good for the market, but, "I look at the numbers, I just- I don't get it. ... Something's gotta give, right."
Finerman said "I don't get it" about 3 or 4 times.
It's almost as if Finerman was stating with a straight face, "I don't get why buyers of the Feb. 4, 1980, Sports Illustrated were looking at these Christie Brinkley pictures instead of reading the Ron Fimrite article on the Moscow Olympics."
We get it. There is interest in this name, and the P.E. ratio ... yes, sorry ... is actually going to be higher than that of GM. It might get higher, and it might get lower. How Finerman, after all these years of watching the stock market, doesn't "get" that this incredibly predictable IPO traded above its offer price and trades at a high P.E. ratio, we don't know.
Judge’s revelation: Decides, ‘This is purely an argument on whether, um, earnings are better or worse than expected ... from now until the end of the year.’ Isn’t that the theme of the stock market every day?
As panelists continue to sit on their hands ("Buy or sell the market? Huh? I dunno ... I'm cautiously something or other ..."), Thursday's (3/28) Halftime Report got a bit of a jolt when Joe Terranova tangled with Rob Sechan over ... the 10-year.
Rob claimed people are buying the 10-year in part "because of relative attractiveness to other, other bonds and other places."
"That's not completely true," Joe butted in.
"Then why is it, Joe," Sechan said.
"There is a lot of hedging going on in the morjage- mortgage market, because people that own mortgage bonds are having the duration changed on them," Joe explained, adding "there's gonna be significant rife- refinancing because you have rates moving so much lower."
Steve Weiss jumped in on Sechan's side and insisted projections about yield are just a "guess."
Weiss asked Joe if Joe would "guarantee" that high yield is a good place. Joe said "yes," based on fundamentals.
Weiss persisted. Joe stated, "I don't guarantee anything."
"So then you're guessing," Weiss insisted.
Joe insisted, "No!"
As for stocks in general, Joe said, "Basically the month of March, you just wanted to survive, for the S&P 500." Then he said, "We really are very fickle," suggesting some people might be disappointed that March didn't produce the gains of January-February.
Nevertheless, Judge said he was "confused" by where Joe stands on the market. Joe said equities are a "sidways market" until there's "clarity."
Joe said there could be a "negative reaction" to TWLO this week in the form of money coming out of that stock and going to Lyft or elsewhere.
Weiss actually said, "Go Duke."
Weiss predicts AAPL announcement
is ‘gonna be a bust’
Much of Monday's (3/25) Halftime was given to Donald Trump's White House remarks, but in a relatively commercial-free (#lostrevenue) episode, Judge's panel was relatively sanguine.
"The market's in a trading range. It goes up; it goes down," said Steve Weiss, who doesn't see a "disaster" and isn't worried about the yield curve.
Weiss said the consumer's in "phenomenal shape."
Pointing to credit markets and others, Joe Terranova offered, "All the asset classes that would signal trouble for the financial markets, they're all higher."
Desperate for drama, Judge reached into his tiresome bag of tricks (Mike Wilson, Jeffrey Gundlach, Scott Minerd but not Ray Dalio this time) and claimed again that Mike Wilson advises remaining defensive.
Josh Brown, who again brushed off the (ludicrous) "panic" some were citing Friday, said, "I'd love to agree with Mike, but then we'd both be wrong. ... We go through this every single year. Um, it's called residual seasonality. You can, you can Google that term."
Bryn Talkington pointed out that "not every inversion has had a recession after it."
Frustrated, Judge asked Jim Cramer if the damage (snicker) from the Fed's December hike is "irreversible" (double snicker). Jim Cramer revisited the "mainstream media" interview of Powell on Oct. 3.
Judge was reduced to grasping for Brexit (snicker) fears. Jim Cramer claimed Great Britain has "4 days worth of food" in the country.
Judge claimed Mike Wilson "nailed the pullback." Did Mike nail his January call of sell S&P 2,600 and wait for the December retest? Or his March 12 call of correction pending at S&P 2,790?
Weiss, who always used to reveal on every other show that "I added to Citi today," said he doesn't see where bank stocks get "alpha."
The 2nd half of the show was another weary go-round on AAPL, which apparently is entering the obviously underinvested "content" space.
Toni said Apple is "certainly starting from behind in terms of its content" but noted the strength of its "installed base."
Moments later, Toni admitted, "I've been struggling to think about, OK, how can this announcement be meaningful."
Weiss flat out predicted Apple's announcement is "gonna be a bust" and that the company needs to get ahead of things rather than playing catch-up.
Judge told Weiss, "You're always the most negative person about- about the company but you always own the stock."
Judge said "vociferous" late in the program.
Joe came through at the end of the show with a recommendation to buy JM Smucker.
S&P up 60 points since Mike Wilson Jedi Mind-Tricked Judge again into believing there’s a pullback coming
Judge warned on Thursday's (3/21) Halftime about possible surprise dovishness on the part of the Fed.
Joe Terranova said the Fed pivoted for one reason: "the wealth effect."
Grandpa Steve Weiss admitted he'd been short the S&P and Russell; "felt like a fool actually afterwards."
Joe LaVorgna, who warned about a flat yield curve, said the stock market is looking for the next Fed move to be a cut.
Ed Yardeni said he needs a "neck brace" to handle the shifting views of the Federal Reserve and affirmed his 3,100 year-end S&P target.
Judge told Pete Najarian that Scott Minerd sees the rally fading while Tom Lee sees lots of gas in the tank. "I think I lean more towards Tom," said Pete.
Kari Firestone said she thinks the market "is gonna have trouble going down here."
Jim: BA news cycle
‘very far from over’
Tuesday's (3/19) Halftime Report wasn't bad but wasn't particularly memorable.
Jim Lebenthal said the only thing that can derail the march to a new S&P high is a reversal by the Fed or China trade negotiatiors, and he doesn't see either happening.
But Ian Winer said China's growth rate is "the bigger risk right now than anything else."
Basically everyone, even Ian Winer, is a buyer of BA, except Jim, who says "the problem is the news cycle is very far from over." Jim prefers CAT and GBX.
Wish they would talk about whether capex has peaked ... or really hasn’t peaked
Thursday's (3/14) Halftime Report was doing great, then the AAPL feature was a clunker.
Oh well.
Jon Najarian said something very interesting regarding BA: "Because in a $380 stock, I don't wanna be in there buying the stock, I'd rather trade the options."
Hmmmmmm ... that takes us back to Feb. 15, when JJ Kinahan said BA might be "a little pricey maybe for some of the retail traders."
That prompted Steve Weiss to pounce on Kinahan and lament that those particular retail traders don't know what they're doing, because the true "price" of a stock is the P.E., not nominal share price. (There's a photo of that moment above.)
"It doesn't matter, if you have $400 in one stock ... or 10 shares of a $40 stock," Weiss explained.
JJ kept protesting that he agrees with Weiss before offering: "Keep in mind 1 thing: People tend to think in 100-lot, round lots, when they go in to trade."
Perhaps Doc falls under that umbrella. Whatever, it seems odd to avoid buying or shorting the stock of a formidable company because of nominal share price while preferring instead a 2-day headline gambit that could easily go bust.
Of course, Larry Culp did another round on CNBC. (Note: This page does not take pleasure in the fact that anyone may be losing money in GE or any other stock; unfortunately it's just true that stocks in the doghouse are the most fun to talk about.)
"I don't get the buy case for the company," offered Steve Weiss.
Joe Terranova made what seems a good point, that Culp was probably trying to prevent a ratings downgrade by delivering a sunny-as-humanly-possible outlook.
In a clumsy exchange, Brenda Vingiello told Weiss she could see a "low-teens valuation" and, when pressed to explain why, she said, "Just based on continued debt paydown" (Zzzzzzzzzzz) (Snicker). She also mentioned lots of "negative chatter" on the name.
Mike Francesa said on Sept. 26, 2017, that he trimmed ALB at 135; now says ‘I’ve never sold it’
Judge on Wednesday's (3/14) Halftime Report said Jeffrey Gundlach is still insisting this is a "bear market" (snicker).
In case that's true, Judge decided to reshare Mike Wilson's warning from a day earlier, insisting Wilson has been "dead right." Jon Najarian somehow agreed; "yes he has." Apparently they were skipping over Mike's sell at 2,600 and wait for December retest call.
Jim Lebenthal offered, "Mike Wilson may well be right," whatever that means.
Steve Weiss insisted, "When you've come this far this fast, it's exuberance. Whether it's justified or not is a different story."
But Weiss was rather optimistic, stating "it was only a matter of time before the FAANGs caught up ... They're still really cheap."
Kristen Bitterly weighed the question of whether the market's gone "too far" or "too fast." Bitterly seemed to endorse the latter but not the former.
Weiss correctly noted that Boeing should've grounded its planes earlier, though he didn't offer the most important reason until the end of his point: What if another 737 Max 8 crashes?
But Doc said it would be "crippling" to Boeing and apparently to airlines too if the 737 Max fleet is grounded.
Jim Lebenthal said he rang the register on ROKU on Wednesday, unloading his entire stake. Jim said it's a "great company," but the shares are just too expensive.
Steve Weiss actually complimented Jim; "you've played this perfectly. You said 70."
Weiss was right. Jim said to hang on when it burst to 60. (This writer has no position in ROKU but has had positions.)
Judge told Jim, "You crushed this."
Nobody questioned why a single analyst call without much of anything new would take a stock down this much.
Judge asked Mike Francesa to opine about a couple of useless NFL players, then failed to question Francesa telling him something different than what he told him a year and a half ago.
Panel gives Mike’s new call
a stiff-arm
Mike Wilson returned to the Halftime Report on Tuesday (3/12), and for a change, Judge apparently let the panelists drop the company line that Mike actually "called" something last year and fire away on the new thesis, which is that, even though Mike now says the lows are in, there's more correction ahead, based on falling margins and capex.
Joe Terranova didn't really challenge anything initially except to ask about Wilson's claim of high cash positions. Wilson claimed they're getting a "real return" (snicker) on cash now, "so they're actually comfortable hanging out."
Later, Joe impressively sought to pin down Mike to declare whether he's underweight right now. Wilson gave a lengthy non-answer.
Wilson tried to claim that he could argue, "Why is the market struggling at 2,800?" Gee, maybe because it's already up 12% for 2019.
Josh Brown scoffed that large cash positions are not the way to build a portfolio and suggested technicals indicate a different outcome than what Wilson is suggesting.
Wilson claimed GDP growth "overheated" last year. Meghan Shue said it was 3% for the whole year, and "I don't really consider that overheating."
Shue suggested we might be in a "bottoming process for global growth." Shue said initially she's cautiously optimistic (yep, when have you ever heard that on the show) on stocks, but by the end of the Wilson segment, Shue sounded practically giddy about U.S. stocks.
Doc told Wilson that China we only keep hearing about China "because the deal isn't done," insisting "China can't be priced in because we have no idea what the deal is yet."
Amy Raskin told Wilson that margins actually haven't rolled over, even though "people have made this call so many times."
Even Judge told Wilson, regarding capex, "Your view is really contrarian to where the mainstream on that seems to be." Apparently backing up Wilson, Amy Raskin insisted "there has not been an underspending in capex," and she said she sent Judge a chart that he could put on the screen. (He didn't.)
Eventually, a frustrated Mike told Brown, "The reality is is that the fundamental analysis that we've been doing for the last 12 months has been spot-on, with respect to the earnings recession, which I don't think anybody else really called for."
Wilson kept scoffing at how he doesn't want to "chase stuff."
In his best moment of the show, Judge, who said "Forgive me for being cynical," asked Phil LeBeau, who's getting a workout this week, if the FAA is avoiding grounding the 737 MAX 8 because of the hit it would bring to an important American manufacturer. Phil actually said no, because he has dealt with the FAA for 20 years and is convinced FAA officials "first and foremost are focused on safety," and he added with a straight face that the FAA doesn't deal in "political calculations."
How about ‘The guy who told you to sell S&P 2,600 and wait for the December retest’?
CNBC announcer Jim Birdsall in the Halftime Report opening on Monday (3/11) said Mike Wilson has "a new note."
If that made you think Wilson would be on Monday's show, you're not alone.
But Judge said 6 minutes in that Wilson would be on Tuesday's show.
Judge described Wilson as "the guy who nailed the, the bear market in the winter," a statement that is inaccurate in probably 3 places.
Later, Judge said Wilson "called the pullback at the end of last year," a reach.
Basically, if Judge ever landed an interview with Dick Fuld, Judge would bill Dick as "The man who inspired the TARP program."
Joe Terranova found it "incredibly remarkable" that a Fed chief was on "60 Minutes," but then Joe made what surely would be the best observation of the program: "10 years from now I suspect, the Federal Reserve will be equally as involved as they are now."
(He could've added that during 2008-09, several important precedents were set that partly established a government-free market partnership when it comes to stocks and that the possibility of another summer of 2008 happening is off the table.)
(However, not sure how the Fed will stop the next Internet-stock bubble; what keeps that in check is only people's memories.)
Judge openly wondered if, because of Jerome Powell's interview, whether Judge and others are shortchanging the economy. "If he's so upbeat, do the rest of us need to get the message here," Judge said.
Judge did ask panelists a great question and one that could/should be asked every program: whether S&P 3,000 is coming before S&P 2,500. Kevin O'Leary and Shannon Saccocia sided with 3,000, but each kind of got squishy on it.
Judge, who tells panelists not to talk over each other, cut off Jim Lebenthal to say something about Mike Wilson when Jim was making a quality point about how earnings will drive the S&P 500. (Yes, Jim was punting on the question, but it was a valid answer.)
Judge said Steve Weiss, who wasn't on the show, bought BA. Joe offered an interesting alternative, SPR, assuming the 737 Max crash is not blamed on the fuselage. Jim said he has to wait for BA to get "cheaper."
In a tedious go-round on AAPL, Judge protested that he's not making calls on the stock; he's posing the question as to whether those waiting for $142 are going to miss it. Kevin O'Leary gushed about how the Samsung phone is as good as his iPhone if not better.
Sarat Sethi actually touted consumer staples (Zzzzzzzzz).
Great discussion, but nobody noticed that the rest of the Buckingham call was ludicrous
After a sleepy chat with Bob Diamond, things got cookin' on Friday's (3/8) Halftime Report.
Judge said Buckingham cut NFLX to neutral with a target of 382 (just clarifying, that's "neutral" with a target still $30 above Thursday's close) (#calledcoveringyourbases).
Judge said "it's an interesting note" that argues 3 headwinds, which Judge said are these: "Sensitivity to any market pullback, uh, new competition, and market volatility that's likely to continue relative to China and the, and the trade fight and a whole bunch of other stuff."
First of all, 1 and 3 are the same thing.
But let's focus on 2 as the panelists did during a crisp and savvy debate.
Jon Najarian told Judge, "Um, I don't think competition is the reason to get out of it, Judge."
Doc said "moat" is a "hack phrase," but he doubts anyone can match Netflix's "critical mass."
Josh Brown questioned why Doc doesn't see Amazon Prime and AT&T/HBO and Disney spending billions in this space. Doc insisted those others have "never done it before."
Brown told Najarian that the HBO app has "tens of millions" of subscribers. "No! No!," Najarian countered. "The burn rate on that thing is incredible."
Brown inadvertently described the flaw in his own argument, saying HBO was making 10 shows a year. "Is Netflix ready for HBO to make 50, a hundred, all over the world? I don't know."
If HBO, part of a debt-laden company, goes from 10 shows to 50 shows, 1) it will be making about 46-47 shows that nobody watches, 2) it will start losing big money, and 3) it won't cause NFLX subscribers who like NFLX shows to drop the service.
Kourtney Gibson correctly pointed out that the question for investors is whether those who own NFLX should sell it or those who don't own it should buy it, but the call is only for "neutral."
Basically, Buckingham is making a risk-off market call; the fact "competition" is embedded between those arguments indicates Buckingham isn't very serious about the competition angle.
Guy Adami makes a good point occasionally on the 5 p.m. show about how NFLX won the "land grab" to get in the streaming space. We'll add that anyone can enter the space, but dislodging a service with hit shows would be very difficult. Najarian's right — and there are probably more things that NFLX can offer that it hasn't just yet. (This writer has no position in NFLX.)
Elsewhere, Steve Weiss said a "long-term" holder in XLNX should hang on, but a trader should sell. That makes no sense. If the stock is going to fall, then the long-term holder should sell now and take the tax gain and make up for it by rebuying lower.
Does transparency
produce income?
Who would've thought that the most polarizing topic on Wednesday's (3/6) Halftime Report would be Larry Culp's transparency?
Jon Najarian contended that "the one positive" (he said that twice) about GE is that "Culp is being very transparent, much more than anybody who has run this company."
"How can you say that??" thundered Steve Weiss, noting Culp "came out not that long ago and drove the stock to the highs."
Judge said he'd side with Doc, that Culp is "incredibly transparent."
We don't recall exactly what Culp said recently to drive the stock higher, so we'll call it a draw.
Meanwhile, Weiss said it's a "stock-picker's market" (snicker), while Judge questioned if the market has gotten over "Fed-driven euphoria."
Joe Terranova observed that the administration had a full house and "kinda screwed that hand up" with its (ludicrously planned and executed) China trade war because it dealt a blow to global growth. (Well, that's what happens when you install Peter Navarro in a high-level government post.)
Steve Liesman warned about the deficit but admitted you'd be very poor if you'd (David Stockman) been betting historically against the economy based on the deficit.
Value investor Jim Lebenthal said ROKU is a "huge momentum trade."
Honestly, it seems like Jim has been predicting a QCOM patent ruling or settlement for literally 5 years; not sure if that's true or just our imagination, but he did it again Wednesday.
Steve Weiss said XPO is "compellingly cheap." That's as close as we got to a P.E. Ratio Trade, but it was fairly benign, so we're going to waive the Boneheaded P.E. Ratio Trade award for a day. (And, we might drop the "Boneheaded" part. It sounded a little harsh in hindsight.)
New feature: Boneheaded P.E. Ratio Trade of the Day
It's time to break new ground.
Given that panelists and guests on the Halftime Report and Fast Money are going to continue to mention P.E. ratios when discussing stocks ... and never be required by Scott or Mel to show an ounce of proof that P.E. ratio is either 1) an indicator or 2) a catalyst of where a stock is going because they can't ... this page will once again take it upon itself to police the dialogue with a new award, Boneheaded P.E. Ratio Trade of the Day.
Tuesday's (3/5) landslide winner was Mark Tepper, who on the 5 p.m. Fast Money uncorked this lunkheaded observation on General Electric:
"When you look at the valuation, I mean, it's basically trading at a, at a similar multiple to a company like Apple ... at a similar multiple, I would much rather own a company like Apple than a company like GE."
While trying to determine what those two observations have to do with each other — it's like saying, "Chevron and Palo Alto Networks are both based in California, and if I have to own a California-based stock, I'd much rather own Palo Alto — we decided that Mark is probably saying too much optimism is still priced into GE.
Happy P.E. ratio hunting.
Question: Why can’t Mel or Judge demand panelists show a correlation between P.E. ratio and where a stock moves? (a/k/a Karen stuns in chic new outfit, hairstyle)
We'd planned to take a pass on Monday's (3/4) 5 p.m. Fast Money, except we noticed that Karen Finerman was knocking everyone's socks off on Closing Bell, which means she would surely be on Fast Money, so we had to tune in.
(Note: Before we get over our skis here, time to haul out the old disclaimer, that we're not trying to overdo it, regarding anyone, just trying to pay a compliment and be nice, sort of "pay forward" the type of remarks Karen makes about Jamie Dimon.) (Then again, we are not Jamie Dimon ... but that doesn't mean we can't return the favor.)
On Fast Money, Karen of course called GOOGL "more attractive" than FB (or other FANGs) and questioned why the former "hasn't gotten more of a lift from, from Lyft, from Waymo, from all the focus on autonomous driving."
And, "The rest of the business is fantastic," Karen said.
Well, hmmmmmmmm ... If the company hasn't gotten a "lift" from its other businesses, then why should we presume such a lift will happen in the next, oh, week/month/year/5 years?
How much money is autonomous driving making these days?
By the way, "The rest of the business" is the whole business: Somebody searching for something on the Internet. If they ever start searching with other tools ...
(This writer is long FB and has no position in GOOGL or the other Alphabet stock.)
At the end of the show, Karen's Final Trade was GOOGL, and she made this curious comment: "It doesn't get the love it deserves, for sure." And why, again, do we expect that it will get this deserved love? And what makes us think it will outperform in the Love Department vs. a stock that Karen thinks is getting too much love?
Judge still Jedi Mind-Tricked
by Mike Wilson
We've been waiting weeks for Judge to bring up Mike Wilson and spin Mike's recent sell-2,600-and-wait-for-December-retest call into a victory.
Monday (3/4) on the Halftime Report, he came close.
Wilson wasn't on the show (the photo above is a file photo), but Judge labeled Wilson to the panel as "Morgan Stanley, our pal, the guy who nailed (sic) the selloff, right, he had the stealth (sic meant "rolling") bell- (sic pronunciation) bear market before you had this pickup. Bottom line, he says: 'We have a hard time getting incrementally bullish on a trade deal from here. Valuations are back near the high end of our forward, uh, 12-month, uh, estimates."
Wow. He has a "hard time" getting "incrementally bullish" on the trade deal.
Stop the presses.
And declare "nailing it" for the next 6 months.
After this decription, Judge questioned if it's "time to bail," but that might be a better question for the show than the market.
Meanwhile, Josh Brown said 2,800 is an "obvious level" for resistance, so, "You're looking at a potential outside day today in the S&P."
Steve Weiss said the WSJ details suggest the China resolution "turns out to be an OK deal," and as for Monday's action, people don't want to be the last to sell the news, and the market's also in a soft spot.
Shannon Saccocia predicted, "This is, you know, not going to end the tension that we have with China over time."
Josh Brown said the parts of the China deal involving autos and LNG are perfect for Donald Trump's base. "An IP transfer deal, no offense, that's a Silicon Valley gift. The Trump base politically, literally doesn't care."
Judge scoffed, "I don't even care politically, I wanna know about what the market-"
"The market is a kindergarten," Brown said.
Later, Steve Liesman showed up and questioned why Judge was having him on the show to analyze Donald Trump's comments Saturday about Jerome Powell.
"I don't know, Scott, I, I think the question is why do you have me on to talk about this," Liesman said.
Josh Brown told Judge, "We could be here all day if we're gonna say what he shouldn't do."
We couldn't help but notice later Monday on Power Lunch that even venerable CNBC fixture Tyler Mathisen was having troubles with the cause-and-effect thing.
Mathisen told James Pethokoukis, "You know, If there was any lesson out of 2016 and out of recent campaigns it's that, for me, if you let your opponent, whether it's the opposing party or the opposing candidate, brand you, you're in deep trouble. And that's what happened I think with Hillary Clinton."
Actually, we think what happened was that she was a much lousier candidate than Democrats realized, and the whole rationale of why she lost is not real analysis, but backfill mumbo jumbo.
This person has been famous and polarizing since 1991 ... did someone not known as a savvy political strategist just "rebrand" her in the last 36 months?
This "opponent branding" nonsense goes back to Watergate, when people actually believed that Nixon's buffoons knocked Ed Muskie out of the race.
Anyway, Mathisen asked Pethokoukis, "What would you say the Democrats need to do to NOT let- to, to come up with a brand that they themselves (sic redundant) invent for themselves."
Jimmy said they're going out of their way to say they're not democratic socialists.
We might have some more on Monday's Halftime/Fast Money. If there's anything worth reporting.
Jim adheres to ‘certain rules’ about price-earnings multiples
On Friday's (3/1) Halftime Report, Jenny Harrington indicated that every pair of months can't look like January-February.
"If we kept up this pace, the market would be up 72% year to date (sic meant to say '72% by year-end')," Harrington said.
Josh Brown praised the breadth of the market, but Joe Terranova questioned what the earnings revisions (Zzzzzzzzz) (snicker) will look like.
"Investors are buying stocks. There's an appetite for stocks," said Rob Sechan, who might want to pass that along to Andy Chase, who said on the show a year ago on April 20, "I've actually come to talking about the stock market saying 'business market' or 'companies' because you say 'the stock market' and people's hair on their neck stands up."
Despite all this cautious optimism, Judge kept trying to question if the stock market needs a "reality check." (Ah. Back to the "euphoria" of a year ago January.)
Judge said maybe some shoddy growth forecasts could happen, though he conceded the Atlanta Fed has "issues not being able to hit the broad side of a barn with a beach ball on the predictions."
Jim Lebenthal said of AAPL, "I think the stock is just stuck right now."
Jim said airlines are "not really where I want to be."
Jim was talking about CRM (and not ROKU) when he said, "I have certain rules about price-to-earnings multiples."
Josh Brown said FL is transcending "the curse of the mall retailer" and said it "probably should get bought at a certain point by somebody that seriously wants to do more ecommerce."
Brown said AMZN has nothing to lose by trying grocery stores; it's "house money," which is an excellent point. That prompted Joe to curiously offer, "Potentially it's positive for REITs. Potentially." That left Jenny Harrington (figuratively) scratching her head; "How do you figure?"
Joe said "if you could wade through the noise" from Democratic candidates about Medicare for all, then UNH is a "great company."