Cramer's advice is a decent guide if you always take the opposite opinion.

The Anti Cramer portfolio is not a sufficient contrarian approach, because the Cramer portfolio also underperforms similar to a random walk. Put another way, the opposite of a random walk is another random walk.

Might be able to make an argument based on Regression Towards the Mean and the fact Cramer picks are "extremes".

Yes, following that guy it is understandable why he would never be a hedge fund manager for a long time. When it comes to investing he is stupid as a brick.

Hedge Fund Managers are also not the brightest flowers:

"The SP 500 Index Out-performed Hedge Funds over the Last 10 Years. And It Wasn’t Even Close": https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-sp-500-index-out-performe...

"How Smart Are the Smart Guys? A Unique View from Hedge Fund Stock Holdings" [PDF]: https://jgriffin.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/smart.pdf

"...Hedge funds exhibit no ability to time sectors or pick better stock styles. Surprisingly, we find only weak evidence of differential ability between hedge funds. Overall, our study raises serious questions about the perceived superior skill of hedge fund managers..."

The hedge funds themselves get rich through fees. The investors get robbed. Not sure why anyone still believes in hedge funds.

But that’s not the benefit of putting your money in a hedge fund at all, the benefit is hedging against losses, so that you don’t have to worry about losing money when everyone else is.

It's literally called a hedge fund, not sure why people would assume they are after the highest & riskiest returns.

Historically, hedging was the reason when the first such funds launched that allowed them to use a specific regulatory loophole. The name has stuck around much more so than the strategy, though, nowadays there are entire classes of hedge funds that don't necessarily work like that anymore (eg long-only, special situations arbitrage, global macro,...). Nowadays it pretty much just means a specific legal structure, if it means anything at all, since it's become such a widely used term.

he was a really good hedge fund manager though

> Let’s not forget the all the blather from Twitter board and leadership how their fiduciary duty was to not sell to Musk at this price.

Is there a source for this? I certainly didn't see it. They considered rejecting the offer, and quickly passed a poison pill provision, but that was about preventing buying the company on the open market instead of making a deal like this. The offer was initially only a very short note, and Twitter decided to sell within 3 days of financing being lined up.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312...