Looking to launch a website on finance and investing, I looked through domain names like intelligentinvestor.com, betterinvesting.com, fastmoney.com, profiteer.com and the likes. And much to my bad luck, none is available. Most have been grabbed by the cybersquatters who don't even have web pages there, or just have ad-links pages.
At first this bothered me, then it made me angry. After all, just because they happened to have access to the Internet first doesn't mean they should deprive the more deserving and genuine people of their fair share of the Internet domains.
But then realization downed on me. Does fool.com really mean anything remotely similar to money? No. Does thestreet.com sound like a good domain name? No (all the domain names with "the", "my", or "your" prefixed before the main name is a desperate attempt to get a domain people would recognize). In fact, some of the names are outright ludicrous. Take for instance, moneycontrol.com. I can understand if they're trying to say take-control-of-your-money-dot-com. But really, moneycontrol.com doesn't sound anything like that. Despite this, this site is very popular. Why? Its the content that matters. Not the fancy name.
What really is happening is this : Domain names are losing their value. I don't type "stockadvisor.com" when I am looking for advise on stocks. I just Google (or Yahoo) "stock advise". And most of the people I know don't either. They just use Search Engines. Search Engines have eroded the value of easy-to-figure-out domain names. Bookmarking has eroded the value of easy-to-remember domain names.
So, in essence, I can build a better website than anyone who has a better domain name, and can find a better domain name than anyone who can build a better website.
B.t.w, if any of you readers can think of any decent name for my investing website, please advise. I'd appreciate it.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Who is Jim Cramer?
Today Jim Cramer recommended selling BJ Services (BJS), saying the stock is good, but he doesn't like it, and people would do well to book profit and get out of it.
Well, I do have BJS, so I thought what the heck.
I did a search on the Internet for "Jim Cramer BJS" to get the story again, and the 4th link caught my attention: http://seekingalpha.com/cramer/on/bjs
This link leads to this page: http://seekingalpha.com/article/15862
Cramer was bullish and bearish on some stocks in Mad Money on 22nd Aug 2006. I thought I'd rather look closely on Cramer's calls. Here's some analysis:
S&P moved from 1298 to 1455. That is a gain of 12.09%. Good. Now see what Cramer recommended, and what happened to them.
The results are in. Cramer, over a 6 month period of time (Aug 22 2006 to Feb 14, 2007) managed winning picks only 9 out of 14 times, an accuracy of 64.28% only. And if you consider that many of his picks rose less than S&P500, his actual gain over S&P500 was a shameful 5 out of 14 times, i.e. 35.71%.
Look at it this way. If you invested $100 in each of the 14 stocks based on Cramer's recommendations on Aug 22, this investment of $1400 would be worth just $1434.13 (Aren't you glad at least you didn't LOSE money?). You would have lost in 5 of the 14 picks. And an average guy picking all the stocks of S&P500 index blindly, would have turned his investment of $1400 into $1569.26.
Go figure. Booyah !
Well, I do have BJS, so I thought what the heck.
I did a search on the Internet for "Jim Cramer BJS" to get the story again, and the 4th link caught my attention: http://seekingalpha.com/cramer/on/bjs
This link leads to this page: http://seekingalpha.com/article/15862
Cramer was bullish and bearish on some stocks in Mad Money on 22nd Aug 2006. I thought I'd rather look closely on Cramer's calls. Here's some analysis:
S&P moved from 1298 to 1455. That is a gain of 12.09%. Good. Now see what Cramer recommended, and what happened to them.
The results are in. Cramer, over a 6 month period of time (Aug 22 2006 to Feb 14, 2007) managed winning picks only 9 out of 14 times, an accuracy of 64.28% only. And if you consider that many of his picks rose less than S&P500, his actual gain over S&P500 was a shameful 5 out of 14 times, i.e. 35.71%.
Look at it this way. If you invested $100 in each of the 14 stocks based on Cramer's recommendations on Aug 22, this investment of $1400 would be worth just $1434.13 (Aren't you glad at least you didn't LOSE money?). You would have lost in 5 of the 14 picks. And an average guy picking all the stocks of S&P500 index blindly, would have turned his investment of $1400 into $1569.26.
Go figure. Booyah !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)