Meta Shares Fell 16.52% After Jim Cramer’s “Monster Long” Post

Meta shares dropped 16.52% in the 15 days after Jim Cramer called the stock a “monster long,” turning a confident public endorsement into a snapshot of how quickly market prices can move against a prominent view. The decline took META from $742.96 on October 12 to $620.19 at the October 27 close. That sequence has revived the online “Inverse Cramer” joke, though a short stretch of trading cannot establish that an endorsement caused the fall or that the pattern will repeat.

Cramer’s post followed discussion of user retention data from Muse artificial intelligence. On October 12, he wrote that Meta “continues” and called its shares a “monster long,” signaling his confidence in the company’s longer-term potential. The post is available here. The source article does not provide details about Muse’s retention figures, so the data’s size, methodology and relevance to Meta’s business cannot be assessed from the material reported.

The price move gives a simple way to illustrate the period’s downside. A hypothetical $1,000 position bought at $742.96 would have been worth about $834.80 at the October 27 close, a paper loss of $165.20 before any transaction costs or other considerations. That calculation describes the change between two reported prices; it says nothing about what happened to holders who bought at different times or whether the shares later recovered.

Meta rose 0.29% to $621.97 in Wednesday, October 28 pre-market trading. Against the preceding fall, that was a small move: it left the shares close to the prior session’s $620.19 close and did little to change the period’s overall decline. A single pre-market quote also offers only a limited view of trading, since it is not the same as a completed regular-session close.

Short-term signals and longer-term estimates diverge

The technical readings cited in the source were mixed across timeframes. Measures based mainly on oscillators and moving averages classified META as a “Sell” using its performance over the prior day and week. The monthly readings retrieved from TradingView on October 28, by contrast, showed a “Buy” rating. These labels summarize selected inputs and time periods; they are not a single, unified measure of the company’s prospects.

That timeframe difference matters when interpreting a sharp selloff. Shorter-period indicators can reflect recent price weakness, while a monthly reading may capture a broader stretch of trading. Neither one explains why the price moved, and neither guarantees that the next move will follow the same direction. The source provides no underlying values for the indicators, so readers cannot judge how close the readings were to changing categories or which inputs had the most influence.

Analyst expectations were more positive than the short-term technical picture. The TipRanks consensus cited in the source rated Meta a “Strong Buy” and set a 12-month price target of $852.50, which the source described as 37.46% above the share price used in that estimate. This is a consensus estimate, not an observed outcome. A target depends on analysts’ assumptions and can change as they assess new information; it does not establish where the shares will trade.

The source also describes a broadly positive run of analyst ratings during the week, despite the stock’s second-half-of-October decline. Oppenheimer, Wedbush and Scotiabank were identified as the firms that chose “Hold” rather than “Buy.” That mix shows why it is useful to distinguish individual ratings, aggregate views and price-based indicators: each reflects a different method and horizon, and none removes the uncertainty captured by the falling share price.

For readers tracking Meta, the main development is the sharp gap between Cramer’s long-term confidence and the stock’s subsequent short-term performance. The reported figures establish what happened over those dates; they do not prove a lasting “Inverse Cramer” effect. The next useful comparison will be whether later price action, technical readings and analyst estimates continue to tell different stories, and what evidence each uses to support its view.