SJIM ETF closes as Musk revives inverse Cramer debate

Does inverse Cramer work? Evidence from the SJIM ETF suggests no

Elon Musk’s recent amplification of the “inverse Cramer” meme has revived a long-running question: does simply doing the opposite of a TV pundit’s calls produce excess returns? The closest real-world test case offers little support.

As reported by Cointelegraph, Tuttle Capital’s Inverse Cramer ETF (ticker: SJIM) launched in March 2023, then shut down in February 2024 after losing about 15% and attracting only roughly $2.4 million in assets (https://cointelegraph.com/news/jim-cramer-inverse-etf-shuts-down-10-months-after-launch?utm_source=openai). Those outcomes weaken the claim that systematically fading Jim Cramer’s views is “rarely wrong.” They also highlight how meme strategies can falter when translated into a tradable fund.

As reported by TheStreet, even in periods seen as conducive to the theme, inverse implementations underwhelmed: one comparison showed a Cramer-referenced portfolio down ~0.5% while SJIM was down ~3.1% over a similar window (https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/prominent-investor-defends-jim-cramer-from-fierce-criticism?utm_source=openai). That gap underscores the drag from costs, execution, and timing when turning media soundbites into trades. In short, the empirical record from the ETF itself argues against a robust edge.

What the inverse Cramer strategy is and why Musk’s remark matters

The inverse Cramer concept is straightforward: track a pundit’s bullish and bearish calls, then take the opposite side, ideally in a rules-based, timely way. SJIM attempted to operationalize this by shorting names associated with bullish commentary and taking long exposure opposite to bearish views.

Musk’s remark reflects a popular market narrative that high-profile calls can be contrarian indicators, especially in attention-driven episodes. The observation resonates culturally, but it does not on its own establish statistical reliability across regimes or after costs.

“Inverse Cramer is rarely wrong,” said Elon Musk. The line captures investor sentiment, but the performance record of a live fund test provides a more objective yardstick.

As reported by Decentradge, there have been quarters in which inverse-style baskets modestly outperformed broad indices, suggesting the idea can work episodically (https://decentradge.com/technology/6551/?utm_source=openai). Those instances appear fragile, however, and have not translated into durable, audited outperformance in an investable product.

Practical takeaways and how to evaluate inverse strategies

Key risks: fees, slippage, signal ambiguity, and data lag

Based on analysis from Dr Wealth, management fees near 1.2%, high turnover, and execution slippage can erode any hypothetical alpha from fading televised stock picks (https://drwealth.com/inverse-cramer-etf/?utm_source=openai). The core challenge is translating on-air opinions into a precise, investable, and timely signal without ambiguity or delay.

Signal construction matters: what counts as a “pick,” how long it remains active, and how quickly it can be traded. In volatile conditions, delays between commentary and execution can flip expected payoffs, while tax frictions and borrow constraints compound the hurdle rate.

What evidence to check: SJIM ETF results and Jim Cramer track record

Start with live, auditable results. SJIM’s launch-to-closure performance and limited scale offer concrete evidence of the strategy’s net effect after costs and implementation frictions.

Comparative analyses also matter. The figures cited above show cases where inverse implementations lagged, even when the narrative backdrop seemed favorable.

Together, these datapoints suggest that while contrarian takes can occasionally work, a standing “do-the-opposite” rule has not demonstrated repeatable, net-of-cost outperformance. This discussion is for informational purposes and should not be taken as investment advice.