Amazing, but when the bonds are down this badly, we find ourselves reaching for Net stocks even as we bang out interest rate-sensitive and market-correlated stocks. We can't be oblivious to bonds; that's just being stupid. You ignore bonds at your own peril.
But we have also learned that there are traditional relations between bonds and stocks (when rates go up, stocks get less attractive -- covered
by me in the Best of Cramer column) and then there are the new relations, meaning the Net doesn't trade as a function of bonds.
So we bought more Net even as we booted out some banks and some drugs that we think could trade down while the bonds wallow under the 94 level (cash market, available through a broker).
Why is this so? I think there are two reasons. One is that the e-traders of the world don't respect the old relations between bonds and stocks and think they are irrelevant. Second is that the Net is growing so fast that a tick or two up in the bond market just doesn't mean anything.
Either way the same thing keeps holding true: Right now it is more dangerous to own
. That may not continue to hold true, but it is right for now.
If a six of bottled water costs $2.25 and a six of Coke costs $2, and Coke is sugared water, is Coke losing 25 cents per six pack? This suggested by my trainer,
, in the spirit of April Fool's Day. ... Best wishes to
telecom analyst, who is retiring after making everybody who listened to him a ton of money over the years. A true gent from the old school.
James J. Cramer is manager of a hedge fund and co-founder of TheStreet.com. At time of publication, his fund was long Merrill Lynch and Yahoo!, although positions can change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy or sell stocks. Cramer's writings provide insights into the dynamics of money management and are not a solicitation for transactions. While he cannot provide investment advice or recommendations, he invites you to comment on his column at