From $250,000 to $10,000 price calls: How market watchers got it wrong with bitcoin in 2022
More Videos
Published
3 years agoon
By
admin
The crypto market has been battered this year, with more than $2 trillion wiped off its value since its peak in Nov. 2021. Cryptocurrencies have been under pressure after the collapse of major exchange FTX.
Jonathan Raa | Nurphoto | Getty Images
2022 marked the start of a new “crypto winter,” with high-profile companies collapsing across the board and prices of digital currencies crashing spectacularly. The events of the year took many investors by surprise and made the task of predicting bitcoin’s price that much harder.
The crypto market was awash with pundits making feverish calls about where bitcoin was heading next. They were often positive, though a few correctly forecast the cryptocurrency sinking below $20,000 a coin.
But many market watchers were caught off guard in what has been a tumultuous year for crypto, with high-profile company and project failures sending shock waves across the industry.
It began in May with the collapse of terraUSD, or UST, an algorithmic stablecoin that was supposed to be pegged one-to-one with the U.S. dollar. Its failure brought down terraUSD’s sister token luna and hit companies with exposure to both cryptocurrencies.
Three Arrows Capital, a hedge fund with bullish views on crypto, plunged into liquidation and filed for bankruptcy because of its exposure to terraUSD.
Then came the November collapse of FTX, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges which was run by Sam Bankman-Fried, an executive who was often in the spotlight. The fallout from FTX continues to ripple across the cryptocurrency industry.
On top of crypto-specific failures, investors have also had to contend with rising interest rates, which have put pressure on risk assets, including stocks and crypto.
Bitcoin has sunk around 75% since reaching its all-time high of nearly $69,000 in November 2021 and more than $2 trillion has been wiped off the value of the entire cryptocurrency market. On Friday, bitcoin was trading at just under $17,000.
Loading chart…
CNBC reached out to the people behind some of the boldest price calls on bitcoin in 2022, asking them how they got it wrong and whether the year’s events have changed their outlook for the world’s largest digital currency.
Tim Draper: $250,000
In 2018, at a tech conference in Amsterdam, Tim Draper predicted bitcoin reaching $250,000 a coin by the end of 2022. The famed Silicon Valley investor wore a purple tie with bitcoin logos, and even performed a rap about the digital currency onstage.
Four years later, it’s looking pretty unlikely Draper’s call will materialize. When asked about his $250,000 target earlier this month, the Draper Associates founder told CNBC $250,000 “is still my number” — but he’s extending his prediction by six months.

“I expect a flight to quality and decentralized crypto like bitcoin, and for some of the weaker coins to become relics,” he told CNBC via email.
Bitcoin would need to rally nearly 1,400% from its current price of just under $17,000 for Draper’s prediction to come true. His rationale is that despite the liquidation of notable players in the market like FTX, there’s still a huge untapped demographic for bitcoin: women.
“My assumption is that, since women control 80% of retail spending and only 1 in 7 bitcoin wallets are currently held by women, the dam is about to break,” Draper said.
Nexo: $100,000
In April, Antoni Trenchev, the CEO of crypto lender Nexo, told CNBC he thought the world’s biggest cryptocurrency could surge above $100,000 “within 12 months.” Though he still has four months to go, Trenchev acknowledges it is improbable that bitcoin will rally that high anytime soon.
Bitcoin “was on a very positive path” with institutional adoption growing, Trenchev says, but “a few major forces interfered,” including an accumulation of leverage, borrowing without collateral or against low-quality collateral, and fraudulent activity.
“I am pleasantly surprised by the stability of crypto prices, but I do not think we are out of the woods yet and that the second and third-order effects are still to play out, so I am somewhat skeptical as to a V-shape recovery,” Trenchev said.
The entrepreneur says he’s also done making bitcoin price predictions. “My advice to everyone, however, remains unchanged,” he added. “Get a single digit percentage point of your investable assets in bitcoin and do not look at it for 5-10 years. Thank me later.”
Guido Buehler: $75,000
On Jan. 12, Guido Buehler, the former CEO of regulated Swiss bank Seba, which is focused on cryptocurrencies, said his company had an “internal valuation model” of between $50,000 and $75,000 for bitcoin in 2022.
Buehler’s reasoning was that institutional investors would help drive the price higher.

At the time, bitcoin was trading at between $42,000 and $45,000. Bitcoin never reached $50,000 in 2022.
The executive, who now runs his own advisory and investment firm, said 2022 has been an “annus horribilis,” in response to CNBC questions about what went wrong with the call.
“The war in Ukraine in February triggered a shock to the paradigm of world order and the financial markets,” Buehler said, citing the consequences of raised market volatility and rising inflation in light of the disruption of commodities like oil.
Another major factor was “the realization that interest rates are still the driver of most asset classes,” including crypto, which “was hard blow for the crypto community, where there has been the belief that this asset class is not correlated to traditional assets.”
Buehler said lack of risk management in the crypto industry, missing regulation and fraud have also been major factors affecting prices.
The executive remains bullish on bitcoin, however, saying it will reach $75,000 “sometime in the future,” but that it is “all a matter of timing.”
“I believe that BTC has proven its robustness throughout all the crisis since 2008 and will continue to do so.”
Paolo Ardoino: $50,000
Paolo Ardoino, chief technology officer of Bitfinex and Tether, told CNBC in April that he expected bitcoin to fall sharply below $40,000 but end the year “well above” $50,000.
“I’m a bullish person on bitcoin … I see so much happening in this industry and so many countries interested in bitcoin adoption that I’m really positive,” he said at the time.

On the day of the interview, bitcoin was trading above $41,000. The first part of Ardoino’s call was correct — bitcoin did fall well below $40,000. But it never recovered.
In a follow-up email this month, Ardoino said he believes in bitcoin’s resilience and the blockchain technology underlying it.
“As mentioned, predictions are hard to make. No one could have predicted or foreseen the number of companies, well regarded by the global community, failing in such a spectacular fashion,” he told CNBC.
“Some legitimate concerns and questions remain around the future of crypto. It might be a volatile industry, but the technologies developed behind it are incredible.”
Deutsche Bank: $28,000
A key theme in 2022 has been bitcoin’s correlation to U.S. stock indexes, especially the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100. In June, Deutsche Bank analysts published a note that said bitcoin could end the year with a price of approximately $27,000. At the time of the note, bitcoin was trading at just over $20,000.
It was based on the belief from Deutsche Bank’s equity analysts that the S&P 500 would jump to $4,750 by year-end.
But that call is unlikely to materialize.
Marion Laboure, one of the authors of Deutsche Bank’s initial report on crypto in June, said the bank now expects bitcoin to end the year around $21,000.
“High inflation, monetary tightening, and slow economic growth have likely put additional downward pressure on the crypto ecosystem,” Laboure told CNBC, adding that more traditional assets such as bonds may begin to look more attractive to investors than bitcoin.
Laboure also said high-profile collapses continue to hit sentiment.
“Every time a major player in the crypto industry fails, the ecosystem suffers a confidence crisis,” she said.
“In addition to the lack of regulation, crypto’s biggest hurdles are transparency, conflicts of interest, liquidity, and the lack of reliable available data. The FTX collapse is a reminder that these problems continue to be unresolved.”
JPMorgan: $13,000
In a Nov. 9 research note, JPMorgan analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou and his team predicted the price of bitcoin would slump to $13,000 “in the coming weeks.” They had the benefit of hindsight after the FTX liquidity crisis, which they said would cause a “new phase of crypto deleveraging,” putting downside pressure on prices.
The cost it takes miners to produce new bitcoins historically acts as a “floor” for bitcoin’s price and is likely to revisit a $13,000 low as seen over the summer months, the analysts said. That’s not as far off bitcoin’s current price as some other predictions, but it’s still much lower than Friday’s price of just under $17,000.
A JPMorgan spokesperson said Panigirtzoglou “isn’t available to comment further” on his research team’s forecast.
Absolute Strategy Research: $13,000
Ian Harnett, co-founder and chief investment officer at macro research firm Absolute Strategy Research, warned in June that the world’s top digital currency was likely to tank as low as $13,000.
Explaining his bearish call at the time, Harnett said that, in crypto rallies past, bitcoin had subsequently tended to fall roughly 80% from all-time highs. In 2018, for instance, the token plummeted close to $3,000 after hitting a peak of nearly $20,000 in late 2017.
Harnett’s target is closer than most, but bitcoin would need to fall another 22% for it to reach that level.

When asked about how he felt about the call today, Harnett said he is “very happy to suggest that we are still in the process of the bitcoin bubble deflating” and that a drop close to $13,000 is still on the cards.
“Bubbles usually see an 80% reversal,” he said in response to emailed questions.
With the U.S. Federal Reserve likely set to raise interest rates further next year, an extended drop below $13,000 to $12,000 or even $10,000 next can’t be ruled out, according to Harnett.
“Sadly, there is no intrinsic valuation model for this asset — indeed, there is no agreement whether it is a commodity or a currency — which means that there is every possibility that this could trade lower if we see tight liquidity conditions and/or a failure of other digital entities / exchanges,” he said.
Mark Mobius: $20,000 then $10,000
Veteran investor Mark Mobius has probably been one of the more accurate predictors of bitcoin.
In May, when the price of bitcoin was above $28,000, he told Financial News that bitcoin would likely fall to $20,000, then bounce, but ultimately move down to $10,000.
Bitcoin did fall below $20,000 in June, and then bounce in August before falling again through the rest of the year.
However, the $10,000 mark was not reached.
Mobius told CNBC he forecasts bitcoin to hit $10,000 in 2023.
Carol Alexander: $10,000
In December 2021, a month on from bitcoin’s all-time high, Carol Alexander, professor of finance at Sussex University, said she expected bitcoin to drop down to $10,000 “or even more” in 2022.
Bitcoin at the time had fallen about 30% from its near $69,000 record. Still, many crypto talking heads at the time were predicting further gains. Alexander was one of the rare voices going against the tide.

“If I were an investor now I would think about coming out of bitcoin soon because its price will probably crash next year,” she said at the time. Her bearish call rested on the idea that bitcoin has little intrinsic value and is mostly used for “speculation.”
Bitcoin didn’t quite slump as low as $10,000 — but Alexander is feeling good about her prediction. “Compared with others’ predictions, mine was by far the closest,” she said in emailed comments to CNBC.
You may like
Technology
CNBC Daily Open: Some hope after last week’s U.S. market rout
Published
6 hours agoon
November 24, 2025By
admin
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on Nov. 21, 2025 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images
Last week on Wall Street, two forces dragged stocks lower: a set of high-stakes numbers from Nvidia and the U.S. jobs report that landed with more heat than expected. But the leaves that remained after hot tea scalded investors seemed to augur good tidings.
Even though Nvidia’s third-quarter results easily breezed past Wall Street’s estimates, they couldn’t quell worries about lofty valuations and an unsustainable bubble inflating in the artificial intelligence sector. The “Magnificent Seven” cohort — save Alphabet — had a losing week.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics added to the pressure. September payrolls rose far more than economists expected, prompting investors to pare back their bets of a December interest rate cut. The timing didn’t help matters, as the report had been delayed and hit just as markets were already on edge.
By Friday’s close, the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average lost roughly 2% for the week, while the Nasdaq Composite tumbled 2.7%.
Still, a flicker of hope appeared on the horizon.
On Friday, New York Federal Reserve President John Williams said that he sees “room” for the central bank to lower interest rates, describing current policy as “modestly restrictive.” His comments caused traders to increase their bets on a December cut to around 70%, up from 44.4% a week ago, according to the CME FedWatch tool.
And despite a broad sell-off in AI stocks last week, Alphabet shares bucked the trend. Investors seemed impressed by its new AI model, Gemini 3, and hopeful that its development of custom chips could rival Nvidia’s in the long run.
Meanwhile, Eli Lilly’s ascent into the $1 trillion valuation club served as a reminder that market leadership doesn’t belong to tech alone. In a market defined by narrow concentration, any sign of broadening strength is a welcome change.
Diversification, even within AI’s sprawling ecosystem, might be exactly what this market needs now.
What you need to know today
And finally…
The Beijing music venue DDC was one of the latest to have to cancel a performance by a Japanese artist on Nov. 20, 2025, in the wake of escalating bilateral tensions.
Screenshot
Japanese concerts in China are getting abruptly canceled as tensions simmer
China’s escalating dispute with Japan reinforces Beijing’s growing economic influence — and penchant for abrupt actions that can create uncertainty for businesses.
Hours before Japanese jazz quintet The Blend was due to perform in Beijing on Thursday, a plainclothesman walked into the DDC music club during a sound check. Then, “the owner of the live house came to me and said: ‘The police has told me tonight is canceled,'” said Christian Petersen-Clausen, a music agent.
— Evelyn Cheng
Correction: This report has been updated to correct the spelling of Eli Lilly.
Technology
Meta halted internal research suggesting social media harm, court filing alleges
Published
6 hours agoon
November 24, 2025By
admin
Meta halted internal research that purportedly showed that people who stopped using Facebook became less depressed and anxious, according to a legal filing that was released on Friday.
The social media giant was alleged to have initiated the study, dubbed Project Mercury, in late 2019 as a way to help it “explore the impact that our apps have on polarization, news consumption, well-being, and daily social interactions,” according to the legal brief, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The filing contains newly unredacted information pertaining to Meta.
The newly released legal brief is related to high-profile multidistrict litigation from a variety of plaintiffs, such as school districts, parents and state attorneys general against social media companies like Meta, Google’s YouTube, Snap and TikTok.
The plaintiffs claim that these businesses were aware that their respective platforms caused various mental health-related harms to children and young adults, but failed to take action and instead misled educators and authorities, among several allegations.
“We strongly disagree with these allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions in an attempt to present a deliberately misleading picture,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement. “The full record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real changes to protect teens—like introducing Teen Accounts with built-in protections and providing parents with controls to manage their teens’ experiences.”
A Google spokesperson said in a statement that “These lawsuits fundamentally misunderstand how YouTube works and the allegations are simply not true.”
“YouTube is a streaming service where people come to watch everything from live sports to podcasts to their favorite creators, primarily on TV screens, not a social network where people go to catch up with friends,” the Google spokesperson said. “We’ve also developed dedicated tools for young people, guided by child safety experts, that give families control.”
Snap and TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The 2019 Meta research was based on a random sample of consumers who stopped their Facebook and Instagram usage for a month, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit alleged that Meta was disappointed that the initial tests of the study showed that people who stopped using Facebook “for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison.”
Meta allegedly chose not to “sound the alarm,” but instead stopped the research, the lawsuit said.
“The company never publicly disclosed the results of its deactivation study,” according to the suit. “Instead, Meta lied to Congress about what it knew.”
The lawsuit cites an unnamed Meta employee who allegedly said, “If the results are bad and we don’t publish and they leak, is it going to look like tobacco companies doing research and knowing cigs were bad and then keeping that info to themselves?”
Stone, in a series of social media posts, pushed back on the lawsuit’s implication that Meta shuttered the internal research after it allegedly showed a causal relationship between its apps and adverse mental-health effects.
Stone characterized the 2019 study as flawed and said it was the reason that the company expressed disappointment. The study, Stone said, merely found that “people who believed using Facebook was bad for them felt better when they stopped using it.”
“This is a confirmation of other public research (“deactivation studies”) out there that demonstrates the same effect,” Stone said in a separate post. “It makes intuitive sense but it doesn’t show anything about the actual effect of using the platform.”
CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed reporting.
Technology
Google’s new AI model puts OpenAI, the great conundrum of this market, on shakier ground
Published
12 hours agoon
November 23, 2025By
admin
Almost every night, for almost a decade, I got a phone call between 7:00 and 7:01 p.m. ET. I didn’t have to look at the three letters on my phone screen to know who was ringing. It was the old man we called Pop, or more like “The Old Man of the Mountain,” as he called himself when we had our grandchildren. Sometimes I tired of the words, but I always took a breath before I hit hello, lest he hear the fatigue in my voice for something I know I would miss dearly one day. “Jamesy,” he would say, “the best one yet.” Always, “the best one yet.” If I have a regret, it’s that I never tape recorded it because I would like to play it between 7:00 and 7:01 p.m. now, every night. But I didn’t. So, call me intrigued, when I saw on my schedule that I would soon be interviewed by two gentlemen, Jack Crivici- Kramer and Nick Martell, on a podcast called “TBOY.” I knew these two as the people who started what I know to be Robinhood Snacks, something I still read midmorning, which is about 6:30 a.m. for the collective slackers I deal with. I had heard of some of their stuff since, but candidly, I didn’t pay close attention — or, at least, close enough attention until I knew I would be interviewed by them on “TBOY.” I have always felt kindred to anyone younger who loves the markets, so I figured this one, this interview, would be the one where they would have actually read my new book, “How to Make Money in Any Market,” and even realize that I was trying to radicalize the public into thinking they could pick a few stocks — five, to be sure — to go with the omnipresent index funds that we are required to take, along with our mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, chicken pox and measles shots. At a time when so much is up for debate, I have a right to argue that you can buy stocks of companies that you can observe. You know, be curious about them, Google them, look at their websites and discover everything that, in many cases, granted them admission to the sainted S & P 500, an active fund that masks itself in passivity. The S & P shot gives you immunity from the downside, at least they claim. However, if the index is all you own, it sure cuts you off the upside, as I endlessly prove. The purveyors of conventional wisdom act as if nothing has happened that could make it easier to pick stocks since since they began their insistence on you checking your brain at the door of your savings — nothing like the web, the chatbots, the bountiful information we all know exists but our financial “betters” still ignore. So, out of deference to the creators of “TBOY,” I decided to do more than show up. I listened to old podcasts. And listened some more. And some more — right through the three hours of time I leave for quiet homework, even before Ragu and Toni get up. No, don’t buy Campbell’s because of those hounds. Rest in peace to my old dog, Nvidia. The TBOY podcast was delicious. Just crisp, funny, smart and on point. Just like young people really interested in the markets can give you. Just as young people want the information now, not in ancient and flat form, but in something that’s much harder and more creative with a staccato, machine-gun style of delivery. As I listened to some recent episodes, I heard one that was so spot on that I found myself thinking I should actually highlight some of their analysis on “Squawk on the Street” before I saw them. Oh, by the way, what does “TBOY” stand for? “The Best One Yet.” So, I knew it was right to be going on this show and, more important, I knew there could be no pride of authorship. The boys behind “TBOY” figured out the great conundrum facing this market, which is the existential nature of OpenAI. More specifically, they realized that OpenAI has pledged to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to beat Alphabet -owned Google with ChatGPT. But it can’t. And it won’t. OpenAI, they said, wants to be Google with comprehension, but we don’t need it because we have Google with Gemini. In other words, Google is already everything OpenAI aspires to be. Released on Tuesday, Google’s latest version of Gemini — its AI chatbot to rival ChatGPT — is remarkably capable, with enhanced reasoning capabilities. Additionally, Gemini 3 demonstrates that the scaling laws of AI are still intact, just as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang has for months insisted was the case in the face of some concern about the pace of improvement for AI models. Soon after the Morning Meeting, I went up to see Nick and Jack at their Nasdaq haunt. They were more than gracious and hilarious, frankly, as I thought they would be, as well as respectful beyond all belief, which I found somewhat embarrassing and totally charming. Before we could sit, I complimented them on their triumphant Google observation. As true students of the game of the book tour, though, they preferred to dive into my book. Right from the get-go, minutes after we were mic’d up, they began to press and press about index funds versus picking stocks. They had read the book well, knew it chapter after chapter, as I always hoped would be the case. It was a joy to have actually knowledgeable interlocutors in this, the final station upon my author’s promotional cross. Candidly and somewhat remorsefully, I thought for sure that during my press tour for the book, there would be actually someone who would challenge me, but you can’t challenge me if you haven’t read it. What can I say? It made me rapturous to actually talk about why you can pick stocks, the comparison to when I began to build a portfolio versus now, and how the index fund predators would never let anyone pick a stock, lest they pick the speculative names like Rigetti Computing , Oklo , Joby Aviation and others like it. I, on the other hand, am happy to “allow” readers to own index funds along with self-directed stocks. Why not? Thoughtful investors, armed with the newfound ease of the homework, might select one or two stocks among five that can be life-changing, like Nvidia was to so many of you. The hour flew by. I demanded more time. They thought I was jesting. I was just so damned happy that they got it — it being the revolution I was trying to start when I wrote this book, a rebellion against the index-fund orthodoxy that, at its core, is an insult to the intelligence of everyday people. But no, it was time to depart. I had to write my show and interview a CEO before that. Plus, this was all transpiring on the day the market had a hideous about-face, with none other than Nvidia leading the way into the abyss of an island reversal, up to down in one horrendous session. When I got back, I thought I should write a segment covering what I thought about TBOY and their thesis of OpenAI being beaten by the revitalized of Google. Then I realized, there was not enough time. And it would be way too linear. The fact is, the biggest crisis this market has — the one that may be TWOY — is the hubris of the individual behind ChatGPT, Sam Altman. This supercilious man believes that if he spends enough money that he doesn’t currently have, he can challenge Google in the biggest vertical in the world, information, and that his knowledge factory will top the one in Mountain View, California. We, the users of Gemini 3, now know it will be a tough climb. OpenAI appears so far behind this new Gemini that Altman may have to pivot and go after the verticals of the other hyperscalers: social media or retail and perhaps even enterprise software. There’s only one problem with a potential pivot. No, make that three. First, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has already decided to spend any challenger to death regardless of what it will do to his stock. Social media, with all of those targeted ad dollars, will always be Meta’s turf. Zuckerberg has the firepower to be sure that’s the case. Second, Amazon is always going to win in retail, it’s only real competitor being Walmart . The new initiative toward same-day grocery delivery only widens its moat to defend against challengers. Plus, cloud unit Amazon Web Services, back in growth mode , spins off enough cash to make going against Amazon’s cyber-stores a fool’s errand. Which leaves one other place to go: the enterprise. In the “Oedipus Rex” of our time, Altman may have no choice but to challenge Microsoft at its own game. The 27% stake that Microsoft has in Altman’s entity might not matter to the man who will eventually recognize how cornered he is. Sure, there are other routes for OpenAI. Altman can buy Reddit, a terrific idea if only to block others from that amazing advertising vehicle and its trove of audience-generated content that is great to train models on. The best of Hobson’s choice: Altman could write a check to Apple to make ChatGPT the pre-loaded AI model on its operating systems. The check will have to be a big one as Gemini is the presumed choice. Sadly, at least for the market, I think he will attack every hyperscaler, given his Alex Karp-like ego. Karp is the longtime CEO and co-founder of Palantir . So what happens if Altman does? No single company has that kind of money needed to attack all comers. I think we got a glimpse of what could occur when we got the gaffe of all tech gaffes: OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar uttering the word “backstop” at a Wall Street Journal conference in early November. The quick denouement: Altman spends so much that perhaps a teetering OpenAI becomes a national champion with government-backed loans, the presumption being that President Donald Trump can’t let it fail. A failure this proportion could set back our whole bulwark against the Chinese in an AI race rife with national security concerns. In that situation, everyone makes out well and the market actually soars. I’ll take it. Or, Microsoft, sensing OpenAI’s peril, knows that the true value of OpenAI is now much lower than anyone thinks, so Microsoft crams its child down and buys it for several hundred billion, a totally satisfactory answer even if it means that Nvidia has one less customer. The market is reassured that the spend was all worth it and everything resumes the upward climb. Another possibility: The market stops allowing Oracle to build new data centers and cuts off OpenAI’s credit, with no one coming to its rescue. In that scenario the worry would be awful: wave after wave of companies producing shortfalls as everything is over-built. That is the Thursday scenario, the one that produced that painful Nvidia reversal after its spectacular earnings report the prior evening. I think the repudiation occurred because of a version of what I just traced out. Part of that version included an April 2000 nightmare, that fateful middle of the month tech estrangement when the money poured out of that group and headed to safety stocks like Johnson & Johnson , Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble , hence our recent buy of the latter because it had been the only one left behind. (Memo to second-guessers: Exiting Johnson & Johnson and Google were huge misses of mine, and I know that well. I just waited for them to come down and they never did). Now we are in a benign period, not that we weren’t when November began and we were told by the calendar investors that we would have a tremendous month. There are plenty of people who still think that we are still in “The Year Of Magical Investing.” These believers will continue to think that’s where we are until the money is taken away, which is what will happen. There are others who are willing to skate past the denouement to where April 2000 resides. There are others who think that they can sell all of the tech giants, except Alphabet and Apple, not a terrible hedge. In the end, though, if things play out as the “TBOY” hosts suggest, we do have to go through some turmoil as OpenAI flails and we wait for the positive – or negative — theses play out. Either way, know this: Alphabet has won in the most logical of battles. Let’s hope that Altman knows Trump and it all works out, as it did with Intel , in the end. (Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust is long META, AMZN, NVDA, AAPL and PG. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Trending
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024
