Jim (cont'd):  

Jim:       We have explained over and over how difficult it is to measure the performance of a TV show host who tells people his opinions... rather than someone who actually runs a portfolio that could be easily measured or benchmarked.

And, frankly, I still have yet to see a methodology that accurately reflects the advice I give... waiting until the stock comes down... you know, holding it until a certain event occurs... were eating the same recommendation over and over again... I think it's impossible... impossible to quantify.

I've explained that the primary focus of the show is educational. It's something I try to work in or tell you every night. My goal is to share in an entertaining way... and I make that point... entertaining...

The insights that I have accumulated in my years as a broker at Goldman Sachs, as a hedge fund manager, and a stock junkie... This is a show about helping you become a better investor... You are going to invest anyway... you're a self-directed investor... I'm just trying to make you a better self-directed investor... a better client. There is no way to measure that... to measure that would've a number... there is no index for that... It is not the intent of the show, despite endless attempts by others to shoehorn performance into the education, entertainment, fun and news mix, okay...

But we now have an independent study that takes a serious stab at it... despite all the flaws I just described in trying to analyze the show... two guys trying to write really a record of what I've done... in so far as it can be measured by these two professors... well they say it's actually good...

And their work asserts that I'm not as crazy as I look...

It shows, among other things, that my performance between July 25, 2005 -- right after the show started -- to December 31, 2007, was excellent...

Let me just quote it... "the cumulative portfolio for the entire period, is 31.75%. That's an annualized return of 12.09%. During the same period, the S&P 500 earned 18.72% cumulative, or 7.35% annualized over the same period"...

I beat every one of those benchmarks... according to the professors... according to them. Now, their methodology I didn't think was perfect... again, because it would really be impossible to measure...

But it's certainly better than most of the attempts that I've seen. Again, I don't run a portfolio of Mad Money... I do run a charitable trust, ActionAlertsPlus.com... which you can track, and that has consistently beat the S&P 500...

I just want to point out the next time some reporter or some magazine or newspaper says that my stock picks are bad... the next time some blogger says that all I do is lose money... remember that there actually is an academic study out there that does hold that the opposite is true, even as again, to me, it is too difficult to really track. They tried it and, if it were awful, I'd have to knowledge that too...

Here's the bottom line...

▼   ▼   ▼   ▼   ▼

Jim's comments AFTER the interview:     I've said over and over again, the show doesn't lend itself to this kind of analysis... Others have tried to assess the effect of the show on stocks... this is a serious attempt at examining how I have done... and it sure seems better... well, how about this... better than a sharp stick in the eye.