TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says he has no confidence in these hated names, and neither should you.
The financials are flying -- there are finally bids for most of them underneath. Many, including Lehman (NYSE: LEH) (Cramer's Take), are running. What a great time to put the negative cards on the table and put the negatives in perspective. That's right, let's look at the financial Achilles' heels. What could go wrong? In other words, here's the companion piece to Doug Kass' positive conversion. Here's what I am worried about even as Doug thinks everyone's too worried and the bottom is being put in.
To get started, let's look at what's not causing the endless declines in the stocks -- don't worry, we will get to the financial dirty dozen when I finish this preamble.
First, it ain't earnings. Earnings aren't going to be that great. But that's why the S&P is at 14 times. It can go to 12 or 11, or most likely stays at 13-14, but the E goes down (earnings).
Second, it ain't oil. The stocks sensitive to the increase in oil have room to go down, but the price of oil is being factored in slowly but surely.
Third, it isn't inflation or recession. Those two are being baked in each day.
Last year, actually 18 months ago now, James Cramer had enough faith in the Rite Aid Corp (NYSE: RAD) to include it in his 2007 picks. At that time the stock was trading for $5.49 per share. It closed yesterday at $1.56 and is trading further down today.
When I say RAD is wrong, wrong, wrong, I mean it literally. There is a store located a few blocks from my office that I shop at perhaps once a month. Yesterday I bought a few things and was amazed at how bad their accounting was.
My primary mission was to acquire some toothpaste, but there are always a few tempting sale items. When I was checking out I discovered that the sports drink for sale at "5 for $5 dollars" was a mistake and the sign in the store display should have been taken down because the offer had expired. Another item I purchased was marked down from $3.99 to $1.99, great deal! . . . but they told me that the sale price was placed on the wrong shelf for that product and what I wanted was not on sale.
No matter what any CEO, analyst, "guru", "market expert", strategist, fund manager, trader or message board poster says (few show all their trades and investments like me, nor are they up 60% in 2008, see details here), never try to catch a falling knife. Before I list all the current ones, I really have to pound it into your heads that buying these things in hugely uncertain -- and possibly disastrous -- times like these is not only dangerous, it's just plain irresponsible.
Now, I don't want to hear those "I'm a long-term investor in blue-chip stocks" and "these are quality companies trading at discount prices"-type comments. While it's possible these stocks will bounce, the risk-reward ratio is downright awful here, just as its been for the past several months (as I've been warning in posts like this and this).
Don't know where the market is headed? Some people think a full blown crash is possible; some believe this is a good time to buy while others just don't know what to believe. Well, I just don't care and neither should you.
Because if you're like me, you've learned to take everything one high percentage profit trade at a time, whether you're betting on higher or lower prices. That's right, I'm talking about easy individual market inefficiencies like THIS.
As for the markets a whole, it's the same pathetic guessing game it'll always be, filled with plenty of "gurus" with polished-sounding theories where only a few truly brilliant hedge fund managers guess correctly with the rest of us just trying not to pull a Bill Miller (look foolish).
TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says their products just don't have the demand to compete.
General Motors (NYSE: GM) (Cramer's Take) joins the list of unthinkables, the ones that may not be able to make it with its current structure. The ones that basically need to be Chapter 11'd to save the business from dying.
TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says the acquired Bear Stearns portfolio is worth even less than he thought.
How bad was that Bear Stearns portfolio? I am beginning to believe that JPMorgan's (NYSE: JPM) (Cramer's Take) buy of Bear is looking like a big mistake. It can only be justified by what might have been an even bigger problem for JPM -- the collapse of the trades that Bear made, which were being processed by JPM's clearing.
We are now beginning to get a real sense of the worthlessness of the mortgage portfolios. Not that we got any help from the SEC, which has taken a "we don't care what's in the mortgages as long as you tell us you have mortgages" attitude. That's been worthless for investors, and maybe even for JPMorgan.
The losses now exceed $400 billion, according to my modeling (if you simply assumed that 50% of the exotic mortgages that were issued from 2005 to 2007 eventually went into default). That's amazing, but it looks like I dramatically underestimated the losses. UNDERESTIMATED!
The most egregious issuers of these exotic mortgages were Bear, Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) (Cramer's Take) and Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) (Cramer's Take). I believe that JPM has taken in a huge number of uninsurable, non-hedgeable mortgage instruments that are a pure write-off. And that means they are probably underwater on everything they took in.
TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says massive debt at the newspapers means they no longer work as businesses.
Maybe newspapers don't work as businesses. The shocking 10% workforce reduction announced this week by McClatchy (Cramer's Take) (NYSE: MNI), formerly the best-run chain out there, is a reminder that all of these companies have borrowed too much money and don't generate the cash flow to make it work. McClatchy, with an 8% yield, is showing signs of collapsing under its own weight, something that has been exacerbated by Wall of Shame performer Gary Pruitt, a man who is still, amazingly, the CEO.
But all of this was totally predictable. I have never seen an industry attract so many buyers with so much debt and so little equity.
Take Tribune (Cramer's Take). Sam Zell's a smart guy. He let the newspaper employees do the heavy lifting when he bought the Tribune company. That was so smart. He will be out very little if the deal fails. The workers will be out their retirement money. That was a smart deal -- unless you work there -- but I have spoken against that deal so many times I am sick of talking about it.
McClatchy could have weathered this downturn, instead of -- it is a bit unthinkable, but I think it will happen -- defaulting on its debt, if it hadn't been determined to buy a bunch of properties for much more than they are worth. The New York Times (Cramer's Take) (NYSE: NYT) and Gannett (Cramer's Take) (NYSE: GCI) spent a lot of money, but they didn't have to buy back stock. Gannett's 6% yield isn't tempting in the least.
And yet my best indicator, the Standard & Poor's oscillator, which you can order from their Web site, is saying you cannot be short here and should be doing some buying. The oscillator, when it has been at minus 5, has called a bottom almost every time in the last decade, plus or minus a day or two, and a percent or even two, and I have long since learned not to see through it.
This is a deal that should have happened when the Justice Department gave the nod to it. That non-political judgment should have been enough to make it work. But it's been stalled on the FCC's desk since then, and the comments I have heard are incredibly contradictory about when it might be approved, and if it will be approved at all.
FCC chairman Kevin Martin first indicated to people that he didn't even know if the deal would come up any time soon. Then yesterday he said it might come up this month, and they are working hard on it.
TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says that with this bank going back to the well, there are too many questions to risk buying in this space.
Why doesn't Lehman (NYSE: LEH) (Cramer's Take) raise $15 billion? Or $20 billion. How about $30 billion?
Would it then not have to come back to the market? Maybe for $40 billion we could lose what has become a cancer on the market.
The question we all must ask this morning is how bad are the portfolios that these firms are stuck with, and how bad is every attempt to undo them? Where did they come from? Who put them into these bonds? Which clients dumped them on Lehman? Who allowed this? Have they been fired? Why did the firm exude any confidence? Why did it hold on to this stuff for so long? How undercapitalized was it really?
All of these things spring to mind because the previous capital raise, the preferred raise, clearly meant nothing. No more than the raises that Merrill (NYSE: MER) (Cramer's Take) has done and will no doubt have to do more of.
It's the denials that get me. Or the "soft denials," the ones that tell us, "Look, things are fine." Because that's all quicksand.
As I wrote in this article, there's no way you should be buying Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) stock right now. Yes, it could break out to new highs, but until it actually does, it's just a triple-top chart pattern and considering we're talking about a measly 7% gain from here to the break-out level, just wait until it breaches $203 and does so convincingly. After all, if it's meant to fulfill the $300 prophecy as foretold by the oracles (aka market cheerleaders), you'll still have plenty of room to profit, just without all the risk. Yup, even with fundamentally sound companies, it's crucial that you consider technical analysis to your investments, as Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) shareholders learned the hard way after its perfect triple-top back above $700 (a top I called to short based on -- what else? -- technical analysis!).
Even though those are the stocks about which I get most email, they aren't the ones I want to write about today -- because the stocks I like are the ones I talk about in my new internet TV show LiveStock:
(Contact me with any stock market questions you'd like answered on live broadcasts every Friday from 1-2PM which you can view HERE) have been influenced by some kind of temporary catalyst, whether it's an analyst or newsletter recommendation, message board hype, or stock promoter spam. After that's gone, all you have left are struggling small-cap companies looking to raise capital. It's ugly.
TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says lots of names out there have genuine earnings power.
At an investment symposium I attended last night, someone asked me whether I thought Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) (Cramer's Take) was going under. I said, no, no I didn't think so. It's got a great franchise with a good cash position, reduced leverage, much better management than Bear and a buyback that's kicking in that wouldn't if things were as bad as the bears make it out to be.
So, the individual asked, would I buy the stock? I said, "Why the heck would I do that? To catch a 2- or 3-point rally? There is no earnings power at Lehman."
I explained that some stocks are neither longs nor shorts -- that, to me, is Lehman. There's no reason to short it, because I don't think it is going under but many are betting that way, and there is no reason to go long it, because the place is set up for a period of big fees from fixed-income products, from structured products, but clients have at last figured out that they will lose their jobs if they keep buying this nonsense.
TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says observers demand perfection, but the arrows slung at diverse thinking offer lessons in making money.
The level of perfection people demand, the level of performance they say they demand, the insistence on making money in any particular way, these are all part of what it is like to be, well, me.
One of the best calls I have ever had was with Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) (Cramer's Take). It was a happenstance call, as so many really are but pros won't admit that because well, then why pay them? My daughter wanted a second iPod because she had a pink one and needed a blue one. It was that "fashion statement" wakeup call that told me the numbers for iPods in the analysts' reports were way too low.
I pushed the stock hard everywhere. When I got my own show on CNBC, I endlessly lauded Apple in the $70s, $80s and $90s, and made a major statement when I included it in my Four Horsemen of Tech.
At the end of the year I took it off the list, as I did with all the Horsemen except Research In Motion (NASDAQ: RIMM) (Cramer's Take). The $198 price reeked of greed.
David Einhorn has one of the better money management track records of anyone in the business and has also made headlines with his efforts to expose alleged fraud at Allied Capital (NYSE: ALD). If you haven't read his book on that company, it's probably the best investment title of the year.
Einhorn recently sat down for an interview with TheStreet.com (you can watch it below). He's long Target (NYSE: TGT) and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) but is still short some of the badly beaten down financial stocks and credit rating agencies. He's bearish on stocks that are trading at high multiples in anticipation of a second-half recovery, something he is "not so sure about."
Short interest in Countrywide Financial (NYSE:CFC) moved up by a big 26 million shares as of May 15 to 102.4 million compared to the number on April 30. Someone thinks the deal for Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) to take the company over may be in trouble. Shares of a number of other financial companies were also hit hard during the period.
With everyone, including the FBI and US Congress, looking into Countrywide's lending practices and stock sales by management, the short gamble may be a smart one. The troubles at the lender may become so numerous that BAC can't stand the smell.
There may be another, less obvious, reason the the shorts think the CFC/BAC deal is in trouble. That would be Bank of America's share price. Wall Street has lost a lot of confidence in the management of the bank. Over the last three months, BAC shares have done even worse than those of Citigroup (NYSE:C) and much worse than JP Morgan's (NYSE:JPM) shares. The BAC stock is off almost 20% during that period.
It is not clear whether the near-collapse of Bank of America's stock value is due to concerns about the businesses it is in now, or the business it will be in with the buyout of CFC. Either way, Wall Street would be very happy to see a risky deal go away.
No matter what any CEO, analyst, "guru", "market expert", strategist, fund manager, trader or message board poster says (few show all their trades and investments like me, nor are they up 60% in 2008, see details 
The week in preview: New quarter earnings kick-off
Comfort Zone Investing: Keep your recovery expectations real
Will Americans have to slim down to fit into their cars?
