Barron's Takes Down Cramer, Again 105 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Once again, Barron's Bill Alpert takes down Jim Cramer (previously). From May-December 2008, Alpert says, Cramer's Buy calls trailed the market by 10%, while his Sells beat by 5% (see this chart). In the aggregate, someone playing every one of Cramer's calls (is there anyone, anywhere that actually does this?) would have fared 5% worse than just stuffing his money in some index fund - minus, of course, the ubiquitous management fees.
If CNBC - which hosts Cramer's Mad Money show among other segments - was evasive last time Alpert stuck it to Jim, this round they're downright dismissive, claiming Alpert is no more than a shill for Fox Business TV (owned by News Corp. (NWS), which also owns Barron's).
"You wrote a premeditated hatchet job to curry favor with your new bosses at News Corp.," said CNBC's Steel on Friday. "[Cramer] doesn't consider you a journalist."
And...
"Barron's and News Corp.'s repeated attempts to take Jim down have been a complete and utter failure."
CNBC counters that Cramer's advice is "nuanced, complex and often qualified on either a future price or a specific market event," noting even the official Mad Money database sometimes misinterprets Cramer - for example, putting down a Buy recommendation when Cramer meant it sarcastically (wow!).
Ok, but Cramer gives his stamp of approval to the Mad Money Performance database, saying, "I turn my performance monitoring over to this unique service and I thank you for taking the time to monitor me, as you should, regularly, to be sure that I am doing my job in trying to make you Mad Money."
CNBC's Steel suggests Barron's Alpert join him in watching six months of recorded shows so that he could decide whether Cramer really meant that viewers should buy or sell a stock, a proposition Alpert ridicules. "CNBC wanted to debate its horse bets after knowing how the races ended."
Noteworthy is Alpert's discussion of the movement of Cramer stock picks and pans before they're hatched - a phenomenon which has led some to question the security surrounding Cramer's show, and whether "information leakage" is allowing those in the know to buy/sell ahead of the crowd.
Our research reveals that the stocks Cramer picks as Buys have been rising versus the market for several days in advance of his show, while his Sells have been falling.
The effect is quite dramatic (see chart): Mad Money Buys rose 4% in the two weeks ahead of their recommendation, while Sells dropped 7% over the same period. CNBC explains that Cramer's picks are primarily momentum plays: "Jim likes to recommend 'what is working.' So it is no surprise there would be movement in these stocks prior to Jim mentioning them." Alpert doesn't outright dispute the theory. But he does wonder why when it comes to Cramer's Lightning Round picks - which deal only with stocks mentioned by call-in watchers - there are almost no market-excess moves before Buys and Sells (see this chart).
Bottom line: "By most measures, Jim Cramer did worse than the market, but CNBC and the TV journalist have taken few steps to clarify his exact performance for his show's growing audience."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Not sure how many people will be shocked by Alpert's research. Nor by CNBC's evasiveness. As Alpert notes, Barron's 2008 recommendations fared no better than Cramer's.
He's obviously annoyed - perhaps justifiably - at being given the runaround, and CNBC's lack of transparency. Still, Barron's and CNBC are in the business of selling a product, a TV show or a magazine, that purportedly makes us better investors - yet both seem to be doing more damage than good.
Guys, how about you stop your bickering - and spend more time helping people make intelligent investment decisions.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 105 comments:
If you feel that Cramer, or ANYONE, is giving bad advice, listen to yourself. Let;s see how well you do.
I can't imagine why anyone would attempt to invest by following Cramer's calls: most investors listen to what analysts and stockwriters have to say and then they make their own decsisions.
There is an element of jealousy in the attacks on Cramer: Jim always has something to say and people listen. Those who either have nothing to say or can't get anyone to listen vent their frustration by attacking someone who is better at publicizing himself than they are.
They would be better off working on having something to say.
There are so many mouth-pieces and talking heads out there that you really have to be careful about who you listen to, if any. Personally, without even getting into the substance of the man, Cramer's histrionic style puts me off completely.
Actually, I wouldn't listen to anyone on CNBC with their own show. Some of the guests are good but you really have to pick and choose. Peter Schiff, Robert Shiller, Marc Zandi, Nouriel Roubini, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, these are the guys I respect.
Listening to Ben Stein or Larry Kudlow will actually make you dumber.
And. American Idol's ratings are down 10% early on in, this, their 8th season. Since Rupert Murdoch said last week he's looking to downsize- he could start with cutting loose Barron's Bill Alpert- and perhaps the American Idol shark who's tired of being jumped.
On Feb 08 06:06 PM EL-GRECO wrote:
> Alan Skoreyko and Bick2 got it exactly right. Which leaves CNBC to
> explain why they don't admit that almost everything they do is for
> their ratings, and not for advice or information.
I like how he tells everybody to "BUY" the highest performer in my portfolio and thus give it that little boost to take it to "eleven."
(Otherwise, I'd consider him just another self-aggrandizing and useless blowhard, if I considered him at all.)
Right or wrong at least he give you his opinion instead of bashing
someone after the fact. How many more of these morons that cashed
in after their company failed are you going to trust? At least he has a wall
of shame and everyone of the CEOs should be giving back their last 2 years of pay for the the way they lead their company into the ground and cost us everything. How much more gloom and doom are you going to listen to ... eveyone else with no positive feedback. At least Cramer will give someone who is doing right by his company a pat on the back
for a good job in a tough market. Who do you think is going to lead us out of this situation .... someone who is negative on eveything or smeone who sees where there is a ray of light and leads you toward it ?
This is over when we tell companies that we invest in that we actually want the CEO to run the company not be a Social Butterfly and guess what if the stock fails you get ZERO ! I have nerver been upset with paying someone who has made me money... isn't that the way it should work? I understand that no one is going to be 100% right all the time but when you net out a positive you go home happy.
When someone goes home with millions and I go home with 0 I have a problem and so should everyone else.
Back to Cramer now that I am off my soapbox at least he gives you the benefit of hearing from the CEOs mouth versus an opinion of someone trying to minipulate the market to their own advantage.
channels when the "broken record" heads start their diatribes. Having been raised on Louis Rukyser, I don't really enjoy his antics. His conclusions, however, are rock solid. I don't miss a Mad Money show.
Tom T is correct
I don't follow Cramer's specific pics immediately but I do what he suggests
Wait 5 days and do your homework!
Also there is an article on Jim's 25 rules of investing also published by SeekingAlpha.
I listen to Jims analysis as one piece of the ever changing puzzle along with authors in SeekingAlpha. He does have balls and anyone who slept in the back seat of his vehicle like I have at times cannot all be wrong.
On Feb 08 06:43 PM TomT wrote:
> At least Cramer comes to work every day with his back bone !
> Right or wrong at least he give you his opinion instead of bashing
>
> someone after the fact. How many more of these morons that cashed
>
> in after their company failed are you going to trust? At least he
> has a wall
> of shame and everyone of the CEOs should be giving back their last
> 2 years of pay for the the way they lead their company into the ground
> and cost us everything. How much more gloom and doom are you going
> to listen to ... eveyone else with no positive feedback. At least
> Cramer will give someone who is doing right by his company a pat
> on the back
> for a good job in a tough market. Who do you think is going to lead
> us out of this situation .... someone who is negative on eveything
> or smeone who sees where there is a ray of light and leads you toward
> it ?
>
> This is over when we tell companies that we invest in that we actually
> want the CEO to run the company not be a Social Butterfly and guess
> what if the stock fails you get ZERO ! I have nerver been upset with
> paying someone who has made me money... isn't that the way it should
> work? I understand that no one is going to be 100% right all the
> time but when you net out a positive you go home happy.
>
> When someone goes home with millions and I go home with 0 I have
> a problem and so should everyone else.
>
> Back to Cramer now that I am off my soapbox at least he gives you
> the benefit of hearing from the CEOs mouth versus an opinion of someone
> trying to minipulate the market to their own advantage.
Cramer is in show biz, a former hedge fund trader at a time when no one could miss. Now, as an entertainer, Cramer should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.
On Feb 08 05:06 PM Ant wrote:
> Besides the fact that Cramer admits that he gets things wrong, who
> on this planet, has called this crazy Market 100% right? This is
> the worst Market in HISTORY! Nostradamus couldn't get every call
> right in this Market.
> If you feel that Cramer, or ANYONE, is giving bad advice, listen
> to yourself. Let;s see how well you do.
The trick is to be bright enough to decide for your self what makes sense and go with that. If you picked a few of his stocks and they went down thats your fault, you chose wrong no one if forcing any ones hand.
I'd like to see anyone else do what he does as well as he does. I like Jim Cramer's Mad Money and I hope the show continues just the way it is.
My dad always told me, 'son, follow the money'.
In December 2007, I was totally incapacitated by a back injury. I watched Cramer, Kudlow, and Fast Money practically every day. I can tell you that Cramer often takes both sides of a bet and then later tells you he picked the right side. I kept a model portfolio of Cramer picks. It is down 55%. Kudlow kept talking about the goldilocks economy and his belief there would be no recession. Fast Money was the funniest. All these people talking a mile a minute made me miss Louis Rukeyser. And I remember Ben Stein soothingly saying that Sub prime was not that big a deal.
Eventually, expensively, I realized it was far better to do independent research and not be swayed by the pundits. I get far better insight from sources like Seeking Alpha.
For all of you that don't believe me, I said the same thing to my UBS bokrer and then their compliance for about 5 years, and they did not believe me either(even though I would tell them about their upgrades and downgrades before they came out with them.) 5 years later, they arrested several individuals for "leaking" research. Disgusting but true.
Cramer, CNBC, Barron's and all the rest sell the same thing: hope. People love to buy hope and everyone likes to think they can make money like Buffet.
A fool and his money are lucky to get together in the first place.
On Feb 08 08:35 PM patp1008 wrote:
> Let's move JC to Nickelodeon----The real program is Fast Money---
> we can put Jeff Macke in his place--- Now there is a guy with no
> BS.
The network allows money managers who are willing to make fools of themselves by touting buying now to do so. But it also brings on the skeptics and lets them issue their cautions.
Human nature being what it is, most viewers listen to the optimists rather than use their heads. Think Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama.
If President Obama can turn Larry Summers into a parrot, why can't CNBC do the same with a Larry Kudlow.
As for Cramer, I find him worth listening to now and then, but I usually turn to Fox News when he comes on. The folks at Fast Money are much better commentators.
Buy you have to do your own research before you speculate. Nobody cares about your money as much as you do.
How come he always has such happy campers calling in on
his show?
First, there is no way the opinion of someone with Cramer's experience and long history of hedge fund success should be summarily dismissed, as some of you have. There is a certain know-it-all arrogance that accompanies such posts.
Second, I do not follow his investment advice, because I don't blindly follow anyone's advice. But I am certainly interested in his opinions, because he was able to make a fortune with his own trading, and because he has real influence on the markets. (He has a following, and that following has their own following of investors who short the bump created by the former. Yes, I understand the irony, but even so, he is influential.) I absolutely want to hear the opinion of proven, successful Wall Street traders. Every single one of them that I can.
Those of you who make the snide remarks about others who have proven themselves-- I would be interested in comparing your record (just for laughs, I would guess) to Cramer's hedge fund record. What Cramer achieved was in real time, with real money. You don't need to follow his advice, but dismissing his opinion (or the opinion of anyone who has proven himself in the real world) is foolish and arrogant.
Besides, I think he is entertaining.
Wow, and you're still paying him? I guess you're not the brightest bulb, then.
I remembered that he mentioned to buy VC when it was $5.00 and now is $0.16 stock.
When he said that "complete stop buying stocks in the next five years" when the market bottomed in November 21, the market rebounded strongly.
Most of the times, you just take the actions complete against Cramer's to win.
He actually made that recommendation on Monday, Oct. 6, before the roof totally fell in. Here's the link.
www.financialdominance.../
On Feb 08 05:06 PM Ant wrote:
> Besides the fact that Cramer admits that he gets things wrong, who
> on this planet, has called this crazy Market 100% right? This is
I wonder just how far this insider trading on unqualified tips will go? Rain Main on big box chain store stocks? Forrest Gump on shrimp fishing stocks? William Shantner on space travel stocks? Benjamin Button on "growth" stocks? (I really like that last one.) I hear all are way up ahead of their announcements by these experts.
However, his 5 second analyses, high speed button pushing, sound effects and "lightning round," and "am I diversified?" are nearly worthless. Far too often, they are most of the show. I get up and leave at that point. I am also sick of "booyahs."
I first started listening to Cramer when quite by accident I stumbled onto his radio show. Day after day he was pounding the table that everyone should get into energy stocks, this was before the big run up in oil. Based on that advice I bought Exxon and watched it double.
When he got his television show, he freely admitted he wanted to add an entertainment value to it, so that more people would watch and perhaps learn the value of investing. The idea worked, how many talking heads behind desks have had shows come and go. Because Cramer is funny and at times controversial he gets viewers, I believe that is the name of the game.
He has had some great calls, he was early in the energy play, he rode the five horeseman of tech for a big gain, his stock of the year Allegheny Technology was a triple and he told people to sell before it sunk back down. He got into the ag play early and rode that up, then told folks to sell after the big run up. He was calling the 100 point gains in Google. He backed Master Card early.
He has gotten some calls wrong, Dicks Sporting Goods, NYSE, Goldman, to name a few. He had folks in Sears early for a huge gain, but didn't get them out.
He also has taken stands on economic and business issues. He was right when he said the Fed was crazy not to cut rates. His Wall of Shame has called out CEO's who are doing a terrible job, most of whom eventually have been fired.
His show has evolved from its early beginning where he came out and touted three or four stocks a show. Now he interviews CEO's and asks tough questions, now when he mentions a stock he may say wait for it to a drop a little then buy it, or he may tell folks. don't buy it tomorrow.
I also give him credit for going to College campuses and enlightening that generation on investing.
Overall he does way more good then bad. Does every stock he mention work out, no. Will you learn something if you watch, yes.
We see and hear it a thousand times a day, nobody knows, if you have enough time just keep book.
Do it yourself, you will feel better.
Theres no research there, its just jumping on a hot stock. Ofcourse now he goes around claiming GOOG as his pick.
He got lucky here because GOOG kept moving. Most other "picks" have already picked by the time he "spots" them.
On Feb 09 10:30 AM User 296829 wrote:
>He was calling the 100 point gains in Google.
This "entertainment" is a passive exercise in time wasting, IMHO. I'll make my investment picks based on my own research, and rise or fall on my own w/o the luxury of having someone to blame if I pick losers.
He also said the dow was going down, and sell it when it was 750!
The only person worth listening to on CNBC is Rick Santelli. Rick is the complete opposite of Cramer, smart, considered, concise, and a class act. just about says it all realy.
News flash - sand on beach. Move along, nothing to see here.
If Cramer recommends a stock and you are interested in it, then that is when your homework begins. If you run out and buy the stock without doing your own research then you are just a "monkey see monkey do idiot" and you will lose money everytime.
On Feb 09 01:21 PM Robert Perrego wrote:
> It has been well known for years that Cramer's picks are nothing
> special and that he says one thing on a stock one day and something
> else the next.
>
> News flash - sand on beach. Move along, nothing to see here.
On Feb 09 10:30 AM User 296829 wrote:
> Reading the above posts it is obvious that most of you are not regular
> viewers of his show.
>
> I first started listening to Cramer when quite by accident I stumbled
> onto his radio show. Day after day he was pounding the table that
> everyone should get into energy stocks, this was before the big run
> up in oil. Based on that advice I bought Exxon and watched it double.
>
>
> When he got his television show, he freely admitted he wanted to
> add an entertainment value to it, so that more people would watch
> and perhaps learn the value of investing. The idea worked, how many
> talking heads behind desks have had shows come and go. Because Cramer
> is funny and at times controversial he gets viewers, I believe that
> is the name of the game.
>
> He has had some great calls, he was early in the energy play, he
> rode the five horeseman of tech for a big gain, his stock of the
> year Allegheny Technology was a triple and he told people to sell
> before it sunk back down. He got into the ag play early and rode
> that up, then told folks to sell after the big run up. He was calling
> the 100 point gains in Google. He backed Master Card early.
>
> He has gotten some calls wrong, Dicks Sporting Goods, NYSE, Goldman,
> to name a few. He had folks in Sears early for a huge gain, but
> didn't get them out.
>
> He also has taken stands on economic and business issues. He was
> right when he said the Fed was crazy not to cut rates. His Wall
> of Shame has called out CEO's who are doing a terrible job, most
> of whom eventually have been fired.
>
> His show has evolved from its early beginning where he came out and
> touted three or four stocks a show. Now he interviews CEO's and
> asks tough questions, now when he mentions a stock he may say wait
> for it to a drop a little then buy it, or he may tell folks. don't
> buy it tomorrow.
>
> I also give him credit for going to College campuses and enlightening
> that generation on investing.
>
> Overall he does way more good then bad. Does every stock he mention
> work out, no. Will you learn something if you watch, yes.
On Feb 08 08:41 PM mr freddo wrote:
> Cramer speaks to the herd. When he talks the herd listens. When
> he finally discovers a stock and touts it, you know that this stock
> is ready for a correction. Therefore, there is some logic to doing
> the opposite of what Cramer recommends.
>
> In December 2007, I was totally incapacitated by a back injury.
> I watched Cramer, Kudlow, and Fast Money practically every day.
> I can tell you that Cramer often takes both sides of a bet and then
> later tells you he picked the right side. I kept a model portfolio
> of Cramer picks. It is down 55%. Kudlow kept talking about the
> goldilocks economy and his belief there would be no recession. Fast
> Money was the funniest. All these people talking a mile a minute
> made me miss Louis Rukeyser. And I remember Ben Stein soothingly
> saying that Sub prime was not that big a deal.
>
> Eventually, expensively, I realized it was far better to do independent
> research and not be swayed by the pundits. I get far better insight
> from sources like Seeking Alpha.
Couldn't have said it any better.
He should have been investigated for the Bear pump and thrown in jail.
On Feb 09 08:29 AM auto44 wrote:
> Wow he sure inspired a lot of comments. Bottom line for me, I think
> Crammer does more damage than good- Bear Sterns recommendatiion,
> especially to less experienced investors. Sure he has guts if you
> made the kind of money he does for showing up you wouldn't be shy
> either.
I particularly hate Erin Burnett- jeez -will they never stop foisting this woman upon us. Cramer never educates his public. He never talk about seriously what one needs to invest - such as an understanding of a balance sheet, how t do a valuation etc. To provide the glib disclaimer of 'do your own research' is the same as Philip Morris telling you cigarrettes are bad for you sell them in millions of locations everywhere. This modern myth that personal responsibility is more important than social responsibility is the keystone to divesting blame for many charlatans in politics and business.
Personally -I would like to see a lot of these shows and networks (Fox,CNBC) etc disappear from programming. We learn nothing, we get a bunch of talking heads -who feel free to be as truthful as Viox commercial and ultimately it hurts a lot of people.
There have been literally millions who have been fleeced of their retirements, savings and future plans -by the last two busts-Tech and this one. Politicians despite Enron, Adelphia etc ad nauseum continued their slap on the wrist policies giving birth to still free Bernie Madoff amongst many others. There are a few of us who remember Keating and Milliken -also slaps on the wrist. You would almost think it is legal to rip of the constituency of politicians as long as they get campaign contributions -after all -everyone has to take 'responsibility' for themselves.
On Feb 08 05:20 PM Tom Armistead wrote:
> Jim Cramer should be regarded more as an entertainer and educator
> than as a stock guru. The lightning round is good theatre, Jim knows
> stocks and the market and you might learn something by watching.
>
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would attempt to invest by following Cramer's
> calls: most investors listen to what analysts and stockwriters have
> to say and then they make their own decsisions.
>
> There is an element of jealousy in the attacks on Cramer: Jim always
> has something to say and people listen. Those who either have nothing
> to say or can't get anyone to listen vent their frustration by attacking
> someone who is better at publicizing himself than they are.
>
>
> They would be better off working on having something to say.
On Feb 10 12:31 AM iyamwutiam wrote:
> CNBC has gotten the general public interested in the market. The
> huge run-up during the tech bubble -ad people watching CNBC more
> than the OJ Simpson trial of years past. For awhile every one was
> doin git and then the bust. They tried to recover and played low
> key. But as you know- they are basically more unethical pushers -
> and it doesn't matter who you talk to on there -Dylan, Maria, JC
> etc -the are all a bunch of pushers.
>
> I particularly hate Erin Burnett- jeez -will they never stop foisting
> this woman upon us. Cramer never educates his public. He never talk
> about seriously what one needs to invest - such as an understanding
> of a balance sheet, how t do a valuation etc. To provide the glib
> disclaimer of 'do your own research' is the same as Philip Morris
> telling you cigarrettes are bad for you sell them in millions of
> locations everywhere. This modern myth that personal responsibility
> is more important than social responsibility is the keystone to divesting
> blame for many charlatans in politics and business.
>
> Personally -I would like to see a lot of these shows and networks
> (Fox,CNBC) etc disappear from programming. We learn nothing, we get
> a bunch of talking heads -who feel free to be as truthful as Viox
> commercial and ultimately it hurts a lot of people.
>
> There have been literally millions who have been fleeced of their
> retirements, savings and future plans -by the last two busts-Tech
> and this one. Politicians despite Enron, Adelphia etc ad nauseum
> continued their slap on the wrist policies giving birth to still
> free Bernie Madoff amongst many others. There are a few of us who
> remember Keating and Milliken -also slaps on the wrist. You would
> almost think it is legal to rip of the constituency of politicians
> as long as they get campaign contributions -after all -everyone has
> to take 'responsibility' for themselves.
>
If you buy and sell based on his gut call em like he sees em with little to no research then you will get what you deserve.....or in other words you will lose money.
Jim is clearly a momentum player. I think that game only works if you are extremely intimate with the long and short term price movements of a given stock and know all there is to know about a company. Then you've got to time things just right and be disciplined. It can be done but not on a wide open show like his.
On Feb 08 05:20 PM Tom Armistead wrote:
> Jim Cramer should be regarded more as an entertainer and educator
> than as a stock guru. The lightning round is good theatre, Jim knows
> stocks and the market and you might learn something by watching.
>
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would attempt to invest by following Cramer's
> calls: most investors listen to what analysts and stockwriters have
> to say and then they make their own decsisions.
>
> There is an element of jealousy in the attacks on Cramer: Jim always
> has something to say and people listen. Those who either have nothing
> to say or can't get anyone to listen vent their frustration by attacking
> someone who is better at publicizing himself than they are.
>
>
> They would be better off working on having something to say.
Having worked in the industry for a while, I have to say that Cramer is a rare breed that may not exist long into the future. Here's a guy with a depth and breadth of knowledge that is huge. He is a virtual one man investment organization: portfolio manager, economist, analyst and showman/salesman. He is as smart as any of the folks on the preceding CNBC hr. show -- Fast Money, but he caters to a different and more common audience.
(I would bet that if Cramer was on the selection committee for a mutual fund, he'd be hell to work for. He knows a lot about everything and has strong and quick opinions. Anyone would be working overtime to answer his many and varied questions.)
A. What I appreciate about Cramer include: his astute macro view at the beginning of the show; his interviews with CEOs and powerful folks influencing Wall St.; his sector trend analyses; and his quick commentary on literally hundreds of stocks that he gets called on. I also appreciate his sharp and well-deserved criticisms of the so called "luminaries" of the financial world -- former SEC Chairman Cox, Treasury Secretary Geithner, tarnished CEOs, and others.
B. What I find negative about Cramer, and this is why I think the average person shouldn't pay attention to the recommendations or look to Cramer for individual investing ideas, is: his frustrating lack of consistency with recommendations (for example, one day CBI is a dream stock, highly touted, and a couple of weeks later CBI is a dog -- Which is it? And so it goes for dozens of recommendations); his opaque analytical madness (are they primarily technical or fundamental? If technical, why not be consistent across every analysis and show an 18 month trend chart first? If he's using a relative strength tool, why not discuss that? And if he's fundamental, then he has to base his analysis on PE PB PEGS and forward projections, as well as management analytics and industry trends.); and his silly propensity to come on stage seemingly ready to take credit for market rises, even when he was pessimistic the night before, and to bash tangible or intangible causes for market downturns on those days when he was especially optimistic the day before. Traders are often wrong, and they take their lumps.
Having detached from Wall St. years ago, I do not really know if good traders come to work with a theme in their head and stick with it, or f they are essentially reactive to indicators all day long. Unfortunately for Cramer, he takes a trader's mentality into a show designed for a non-trading audience. His audience needs steady reliable themes, something that Cramer delivers only part way on, and then muddles with his trader's personality.
(PS: Recommendations to CNBC -- 1. Allocate 15 minutes to "Professor Cramer" as a Harvard educated investment educator, allocate 10 minutes of interviews and market reviews, and 35 minutes to Cramer being Cramer; 2. Post a Cramer's recommendation's scorecard as a segment in the show. Cramer's Wall of Shame was funny, even if cruel. Sometimes self-effacing criticism is necessary, so Cramer needs to caution his viewers that even he belongs on a wall of shame ... it's an accountability thing, which then leads to greater credibility.)
That said, I would agree with some of the posters above that Cramer gets criticized too harshly. Sure, his stock picks probably wouldn't beat the market, but most of the analysts are just as bad, giving "Buy" recommendations near the top of a bubble.
What would his average be if he stopped the Boo ya's? Twice the calls? I want a twelve call show. 2 mins. 10sec/call.
Wouldn't Max Kaiser be perfect as a sidekick? I love the props.
Gong show meets analysis, and slaughter's it.
Bill
Toronto
I agree, Jeff Macke on Fast Money is THE MAN. I love that guy. Straight up.
Can't stand all the female commentators EXCEPT Erin Burnett. Love her.
On Feb 08 05:06 PM Ant wrote:
> Besides the fact that Cramer admits that he gets things wrong, who
> on this planet, has called this crazy Market 100% right? This is
> the worst Market in HISTORY! Nostradamus couldn't get every call
> right in this Market.
> If you feel that Cramer, or ANYONE, is giving bad advice, listen
> to yourself. Let;s see how well you do.
Anyone remember that show he did where he explained how to read the cash flow statement?
Anyone remember him explaining the dividend coverage or debt coverage ratios?
Wow. Sure do get a lot of education watching Cramer.
1. Do your own research and make your own opinions.
2. Expect the majority of speculative plays (like penny stocks) to lose you money, but if they were worth buying in the first place, 1 or 2 could pay off - meaning take a calculated risk as part of your portfolio strategy.
I wouldn't buy, and haven't bought, any of his recommendations, they always appeared to me to be inflated already when he recommended them and I'm always looking for under-appreciated value plays. So I recognize already that is not his style.
He's amusing to watch with a sharp wit, but I couldn't take him for more than a few minutes a week...I often disagree with him on macroeconomic issues.
He made more money for his investors and himself running his hedge fund than any of you will likely ever see. His returns are documented, and they were consistently very good. So, it wasn't just a "lucky year or two". But go ahead, tell the rest of us one more time that his opinions on the market and stocks are worthless-- yet your's is somehow to be seriously considered.
.
~~~~reply~~~~~
Hoping for hanging chads, as we, CNBC??
It's just meant as entertainment, folks. No more, no less. The only problem, of course, is that it is no longer entertaining. Watching has become nails on a chalkboard (while sipping cheap scotch on a lanoliem floor). It's time to put a fork in it, CNBC. Besides, this back and forth HAS to be a whip to Jim; let the man (and us) move on.
""He had folks in Sears early for a huge gain, but didn't get them out.""
-- Didn't get them out... Shouldn't that decision be left up to the individuals that invest? Why would you wait for someone else to tell you when to get out?
Cramer is interesting to watch, but why would you take all that advice as gospel? Following exactly what someone else tells you do isn't doing your homework. It's being a slave.