Stewart vs. Cramer: A Cheap Shot 132 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
I’m a big fan of Jon Stewart. I learn more from the Daily Show than from network newscasts. But his artful skewering of Jim Cramer this past week was a cheap shot, an easy way to blow off populist steam about the financial crisis.
While I agree with Stewart’s overriding premise that major financial media let Americans down almost as much as the financial industry did, bunching Cramer along with the liars and thieves went too far. And it’s ironic to me that Stewart would attack a financial journalist who consistently tries to level the playing field between the “institutional financial complex” and the average investor.
Cramer saw this meltdown coming, and called it before almost anyone else, in his famous “rant” months before the October 2007 market peak. He also suggested people exit the market on “The Today Show” when the Dow was around 10,500. That advice saved a lot of people almost 4,000 points.
Cramer is an easy target because of his bombastic style and because he makes many market and stock recommendations. CNBC is an easy target too; you can pull 20/20-hindsight video clips all day. But did any major financial press see last Fall’s crash coming (after the market had already fallen 25%)? Many experts with great track records didn’t get it right either.
Most of the large financial media are as much a part of the problem as the financial institutions themselves. As Cramer admitted, “we can do a lot better.”
But while the highly publicized “Stewart vs. Cramer” episode will ultimately compel better reporting, I fear it may also further cement black-and-white populist thinking on the financial meltdown. This is a highly complex crisis requiring investors and institutions to make finer shades-of-grey distinctions about what happened, how to fix it, and how to move forward productively.
Perhaps one of the overriding lessons of this crisis is the need to distinguish between real content and window dressing. While I clearly see the clowning Jim Cramer does to be entertaining, I mainly see beyond that to his knowledge, perspective and willingness to call it as he sees it. To me, he’ll always be the guy who “got it” a year before Ben Bernanke did.
Similarly, I hope more average investors will be able to see beyond the reserved, steady and credible persona of many mainstream financial media. During the height of the crisis those media mostly stuck to their persona, when maybe what we really needed was a guy screaming at us.
Disclosure: none
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 132 comments:
then invoking his 75 year old mother and making it sound like cramer ruined her retirement plan. i think the quote was "you used to be able to buy for the long term"... and "you can draw a direct line from guys like you to the guys on wall street... ". yea, and then you can draw a straight line to kevin bacon, it's like magic. in reality, he's so uninformed on who he is actually at "war" with that he doesn't even know that in the first chapter of jim's book he says that "buy and hold" is an investment strategy that will separate you from your money lickety split (not to mention that stuart's misrepresentation of buy and hold is a gross oversimplification of what that really means to value investors).
cramer has always encouraged people to be diversified, to constantly be diligent in managing your stocks and to think for the long term, in particular to start saving young. all sage advice for these times when 401k's and mutual funds are looking less and less reliable.
this is all because of his much reviled "lightning round" but you know what, that's probably the only reason anyone know who jim cramer is. i'm sure he's done the math and decided that the damage to his reputation is worth the viewership... it seems as though poor jim is being defined by the very thing that made him famous... shouting out "buy" and "sell". oh well, i guess it's just a twitter world we live in and everything is defined by the soundbite.
On Mar 15 02:58 AM arnoldsimage wrote:
> you're an idiot.
Jon Stewart was wrong on this, and had no right to attack Cramer as the one who "lost everyone money." Cramer called it a year early, and SAVED a lot of people money. The ones who lost money, don't watch CNBC. Their Investment Advisors should, though.
Cramer is not the problem, he's just a very tiny part in it. I like Seeking Alpha, please live up to your name!
Thanks!
vfcsstockhouse.blogspo...
vfcsnewshouse.blogspot...
Disclosure: About 75% in CEF and 25% in USL.
Notice that in the Cramer - Stewart confrontation, Cramer's criticism of Obama's economic policy was never brought up by Stewart. Cramer should invite Stewart to his program and make that subject, Obama's economic policy, the centerpiece of the discussion.
I now look at Stewart as a hitman for the Obama team & I wouldn't doubt that Carville, Begala, etc. initially urged Stewart to attack Cramer.
The far left groups and Obama himself cannot stand anyone who does not agree with their policies completely.
One can only wonder which of the administration's stooges put in the call to Stewart for a "favor".
But, the gist of it is that the real criminals here that seriously should be hung out to dry, are the fat cat fiancial mortgage guys, not even wall street! Because these are the guys that sold out the U.S. and eventually the whole world by greed and corruption! Then taking bonus money from taxpayers and no one doing anything about it! I cannot understand why these mortgage guys are not being arrested, all their belongings confiscated and sent away forever! They destroyed people no less than Madoff and they are still living it up on taxpayers money while the taxpayers are losing thier jobs, their houses and their savings!! What a friggin bad joke! These guys should be shot and pi**ed on!
Cramer does what he does because people need a guy like him. He helps people not for his own folly but because he can! If he is a bit out there with his antics it is because he likes to do it that way. Is he foolish sometimes, of course he is. Is he right and wrong sometimes, of course he is. There are too many factors driving the markets for anyone, even insiders to know 100% how things will go.
Stewart made a bad decision going after Cramer. He will be defending his stand more than Cramer will!
I saw no cheap shots coming from Stewart. He was honest and truthful. I didn't see Cramer object to much of anything. In fact, Cramer agreed with and admitted to almost everything Stewart was putting out. Cramer was apologetic and contrite. Like a little boy who was sent to the principal's office for misbehaving in class. Stewart showed a clip of Cramer coaching the young Wall Street rookie on how to lie and cheat clients (investors) as a tactic to make more money for himself and his brokerage. The clip speaks for itself. If Cramer wants to be a big time TV star, people like Stewart come with the turf, and Cramer knows it. The writer thinks the "Stewart vs. Cramer" episode will ultimately compel better reporting. Yea....sure. Like a cold day in hell. The CNBC crew are for the most part a bunch of shills for Wall Street and the stock market.
Stewart did not "target" Cramer. Santelli the creep declined an invitation to appear on the Stewart show. In fact, he was scheduled to appear and backed out. Or should I say "chickened out." You know Santelli, he labeled Americans being foreclosed on as a bunch of "losers" Santelli is a coward.
Get this....Stewart, and many Americans are tired of the CNBC crew attacking the President. Tired of those morons blaming the President for a faltering stock market, and all this "socialism" crap talk. It's not even talk, it's BS. The Santelli rant was the last straw. And, Stewart decided to do something about it.
Cramer is a decent guy, I like him. Cramer is no darling to wall street. Cramer often calls out Wall Street. He exposes many of Wall Streets dirty secrets. He advises his viewers to use caution when dealing with Wall Street and the market. Between the lines he tells us how crooked and greedy Wall Street can be. Wall Street does not appreciate Jim Cramer. They liked it better when there was no Jim Cramer. I think Cramer does by far, a lot more good than he could ever do harm. Nobody is perfect. And God knows, when it comes to stocks, no one can make the right call 100% of the time. Not even Cramer.
The guy is a complete moron and deserves every bit of anger and humour heaped apon him. His track record is quite frankly abysmal. When you live by the sword you die by the sword.
The guy flip flops like noone i have ever seen. And to cover up his atrocious record he has the gall to use Warren buffet as an example of getting it wrong!
To even have Warren Buffet and Jim Cramer in the same sentence is hillarious!
His charitable fund, Action Alerts Plus, loses money every year and so do his picks and pans as proven numerous times on Seeking Alpha.
To use another phrase, there's a sucker born every minute. What did you Cramer fans think when he said he would do a better job when pushed by Stewart???
Wake up and smell the dead roses!!!
No stock picker should be humiliated for his bad calls, after all the stock market is a zero sum game and every analyst will be wrong 1/2 of the time. Cramer is slightly below average regarding his stock selections. But the reason Cramer is fair game for Stewart is that he boasts about his good calls and, when pressed about his bad calls, spins them to the point of denying them. And he is here not to only entertain us but also to educate us.
As to John Stewart, I have no idea where he gets off taking on Cramer-and for that matter, it was silly of Cramer to participate in Stewart's sideshow. Stewart has been "The Entertainment Guy" for years and has done an admirable job-if you are into the shallow celebrities of today. Am curious as to what Stewart's credentials are on financial matters and why he would be involved in such things.
It is fine to pan Cramer, but in doing so, you must tell the story of the good things Cramer has done for investors. It seams most reports I see on Cramer are unbalanced against him. Media people have an obligation to report all sides of a person's doings-comments and opinions are done separately. I ought to know-I spent over 30 years working on newspapers.
On Mar 15 08:37 AM Obamitall wrote:
> The whole Stewart thing was nothing more than payback to Cramer for
> his criticism of the Obama administration and its handling of the
> financial mess.
> The far left groups and Obama himself cannot stand anyone who does
> not agree with their policies completely.
> One can only wonder which of the administration's stooges put in
> the call to Stewart for a "favor".
>
>
>
While I don't think Stewart is smart enough about the markets to be the one to Monday morning quarterback ANYONE here, you have to admit...the clips of all these getting it SO wrong are funny and sad to watch.
They are wonderful reminders that, at the end of the day, you have to DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK. You don't buy Bank of America just because Cramer said on TV that it's going to $60.
The moment Stewart downplayed the importance of the stock market as an indicator as to how things are going, he 100% lost me as someone whose opinion matters.
Cramer, Stewart, Limbaugh, SNL...all ENTERTAINMENT. Nothing more. Do your own homework.
1) Cramer provides a valuable service by *always* reminding his audience of due diligence, never taking his advice as gospel and trying to educate his audience. Whether he is right or wrong about specific market events or equities doesn't bother me at all. Until I see him walk on water or dangling from a wooden crucifix I will never blame him for missed or bad calls. After all, in fairness, I don't have enough years left to target all the others that should be criticized *ahead* of him.
2) I've enjoyed Stewart. However his pillorying of Cramer seems rather presumptuous. It's as if he believes that through his exposure to the reported events and public sentiment he is now expert enough to lay blame for the results. That's one hell of an ego.
Allowing that he is a private citizen, as well as an entertainer, he did nothing more that give another public voice to the frustration that many feel. Cramer was the only available "pissing post" and so took it on the chin. I felt a great deal of sympathy for him.
As to Santelli: I like him a lot. He was also "another voice" of what many were feeling. If he chose (wisely) not to be the undeserving target of rantings of an egotistical comedic panderer to populist sentiment (which may be an accurate description of the premise of Stewart's show), I congratulate Santelli. His rant and opting out of Stewart's show does nothing to discredit him either.
3) Why has the most important moment of the whole show has been overlooked? When Stewart suggested that the media was at least partly fault for being "in bed" with financial interests, he was right. He then complained about the lack of investigative reporting. He was right that there are many "showmen", commentators, etc., and few reporters. He asked where was the investigative journalism that was the hallmark of good media in past times.
This was the one potentially useful thing that came out of the show. Where has the true "journalism" and "investigative reporting" gone in our media? The media seems to have forgotten the important role assigned by our founding fathers to it in the preservation of freedom and democracy.
I presume it has gone the way of many useful values in the pursuit of profits - nay, even survival - at the cost of many more important things.
4) Regardless of thoughts to the contrary, it is not just a "financial" crises, it is a societal crises engendered by the wanton abandonment of personal and social values - those that made this country so prosperous and highly-regarded by the world at large through nearly two centuries.
The current situation will bring some of these back to the fore as individuals at all levels are reminded of the results of the abandonment of these values.
Jack Welch recently commented on the stupidity of running a company for purposes of share price. Maybe this is an early vocal harbinger of the "re-education" which will/should take place.
MHO
HardToLove
when you expose yourselves as an entertainer to sell yourself in some manner[book, movie, tv show] on widely syndicated tv, you're exposed. such is life. remember tom selleck stint withe "rosie odonnel show" re. gun control and NRA?
sorry not cramer. a "hedge fund' guy can take it???
On Mar 15 09:50 AM HardToLove wrote:
> A few points here.
>
> 1) Cramer provides a valuable service by *always* reminding his audience
> of due diligence, never taking his advice as gospel and trying to
> educate his audience. Whether he is right or wrong about specific
> market events or equities doesn't bother me at all. Until I see him
> walk on water or dangling from a wooden crucifix I will never blame
> him for missed or bad calls. After all, in fairness, I don't have
> enough years left to target all the others that should be criticized
> *ahead* of him.
>
> 2) I've enjoyed Stewart. However his pillorying of Cramer seems rather
> presumptuous. It's as if he believes that through his exposure to
> the reported events and public sentiment he is now expert enough
> to lay blame for the results. That's one hell of an ego.
>
> Allowing that he is a private citizen, as well as an entertainer,
> he did nothing more that give another public voice to the frustration
> that many feel. Cramer was the only available "pissing post" and
> so took it on the chin. I felt a great deal of sympathy for him.
>
>
> As to Santelli: I like him a lot. He was also "another voice" of
> what many were feeling. If he chose (wisely) not to be the undeserving
> target of rantings of an egotistical comedic panderer to populist
> sentiment (which may be an accurate description of the premise of
> Stewart's show), I congratulate Santelli. His rant and opting out
> of Stewart's show does nothing to discredit him either.
>
> 3) Why has the most important moment of the whole show has been overlooked?
> When Stewart suggested that the media was at least partly fault for
> being "in bed" with financial interests, he was right. He then complained
> about the lack of investigative reporting. He was right that there
> are many "showmen", commentators, etc., and few reporters. He asked
> where was the investigative journalism that was the hallmark of good
> media in past times.
>
> This was the one potentially useful thing that came out of the show.
> Where has the true "journalism" and "investigative reporting" gone
> in our media? The media seems to have forgotten the important role
> assigned by our founding fathers to it in the preservation of freedom
> and democracy.
>
> I presume it has gone the way of many useful values in the pursuit
> of profits - nay, even survival - at the cost of many more important
> things.
>
> 4) Regardless of thoughts to the contrary, it is not just a "financial"
> crises, it is a societal crises engendered by the wanton abandonment
> of personal and social values - those that made this country so prosperous
> and highly-regarded by the world at large through nearly two centuries.
>
>
> The current situation will bring some of these back to the fore as
> individuals at all levels are reminded of the results of the abandonment
> of these values.
>
> Jack Welch recently commented on the stupidity of running a company
> for purposes of share price. Maybe this is an early vocal harbinger
> of the "re-education" which will/should take place.
>
> MHO
> HardToLove
1) Santelli rant.
2) Santelli Daily Show appearance was scheduled, so Stewart put together a montage of some of CNBC's idiocy.
3) CRAMER took personal offense and went on a mini-media blitz against Stewart.
4) Stewart, not previously targeting Cramer in particular, proceeded to make it about Cramer.
5) More back and forth.
6) The interview.
Remember, Stewart said repeatedly, it wasn't about Cramer, it was about how CNBC /marketed/ Cramer's advice as infallible, and how they touted their own network's "expertise" and "analysis" in general -- when the former is indeed fallible and the latter barely exists.
Stewart was simply going after the age-old comedic target: Hypocrisy.
Quite frankly, Cramer put himself in harms way by doing his typical egomaniac thing and assuming Stewart's initial CNBC quip was all about him. But hey, that's part of what makes Jim Cramer entertaining.
I feel like I am living in North Korea. All these Liberals believe Obama is some King or God, that is what is disgraceful and dangerous. Maybe Cramer will take a second look at his liberalism and his pals in that political thinking. Stewart is a JackAss, he was a huge wimp after 9/11. He sat there and cried on TV!!!! What a pussy.
Cramer, who is one of the good guys, essentially took one for the team. The team being the regular talking heads on CNBC, who, it seems to me have some kind of journalistic responsibility. I certainly don't expect the talking head on CNBC to have forecast the financial crisis, but their alternate whining and cheerleading makes me look at the TV and say,"Just shut up and do your job". Unfortunately, in something as important as our financial system, they see their jobs as entertainment, not information.
Right, Obama's CNN Monkey Stewart forgot to remind viewers that CNN (Comedy Central is part of the CNN family) once had a financial news network which crashed and burned duing far less a job at ventilation of financial practices than CNBC. However, Cramer got his for objecting to the Obama administration and Stewart became one more disposable flak. What's going to happen John when the Monkey's music stops?
On Mar 15 08:37 AM ElGordo wrote:
> The only reason Jim Cramer was attacked by Jon Stewart was because
> Cramer became a vocal critic of Barack Obama not because of stock
> picks.
> Notice that in the Cramer - Stewart confrontation, Cramer's criticism
> of Obama's economic policy was never brought up by Stewart. Cramer
> should invite Stewart to his program and make that subject, Obama's
> economic policy, the centerpiece of the discussion.
> I now look at Stewart as a hitman for the Obama team & I wouldn't
> doubt that Carville, Begala, etc. initially urged Stewart to attack
> Cramer.
Stewart was right, about the quality of journalism. Its slowly gone from hard investigative reporting to sensationalist entertainment over the last 30 years or so. We could argue thats what the market wants and so the networks provide it, but that doesn't change the "sound bites on the ground". Its not just MSNBC. Its a broadcasting pandemic.
Cramer was pretty honest. He can't do it all. He is just one guy trying to promote interest in investing and financial education by presenting an entertaining show about investing. Anyone familiar with the psychological methodology employed by Sesame Street to teach preschoolers the alphabet will recognize the same set of tools in use by Cramer.
Stewart said to Cramer that it was not about him, and that it "was unfortunate that he had become the face.."
of the controversy.
I don't believe it was a personal attack. I think it wasopportunism on the part of the networks, and I think the attitudes and demeanor of both participants when they met displayed both a reluctance to go through with it, and resignation to its ratings driven inevitability.
As to exculpating Cramer on the grounds that he was one of the first to start yelling "run away, run away": Long before I became a regular reader of finance/econ blogs (I was initiated by Yves Smith and I am a fan of hers, and give special attention to Menzie Chinn, Jim Hamilton, Steve Waldman, Steven Keen, Buiter, Thoma) I would ocassionaly bump into Cramer on the TV yelling for the Fed to cut interest rates even more - back when Greenspan still had the Fed gig. I am not a reductionist - how we got here resulted from multiple necessary but singularly insufficient causes - but most everyone counts Fed policy in the years up to 2007 as part of the causal chain. So was Cramer just passing out the Kool Aid he enjoyed believing it was good? Or was it his job to know more about it than the people who still want to believe there's a difference between entertainment and information?
Someone elsewhere has pointed out that Stewart functions as a court jester: It's his job to speak truth to power when nobody else safely can - people lose their jobs, or access to their subjects, ya know. The (surprisingly to me) proportion of people who somehow think he just done po'Cramer wrongly is evidence that he's just making explicit what people know but don't want to admit: Something is very wrong with a profession that has failed us TWICE on the two most significant events of our recent history - WMD's in Iraq, and the instablity by design of our economy.
It makes one ask: Just what the hell have journalism students been learning the last 30 years? Is there something wrong with a culture that cannot sustain a profession whose practioners are ethically committed (and financially secure) in telling the truth? Or is the moral: Go along to get along .... unless you can do comedy....
I knew the jig was up when I saw the look on Gibbs' face when asked about the confrontation. A phone call had been made by one of Obama's enforcers.There are incredibly serious power-plays playing out in this country right before our eyes. Personally, I want a Jim Cramer, who actually voted for Obama and gives him credit when he believes credit is due, on the airwaves and providing me with his insight which, by the way, includes much more than just his stock picks.
Thanks Frank!
...
Not true go to their website and it is sdisclosed who owns what, even for Jim Cramer.
After all, the showed a video of Cramer obviously giving illegal advice on how to short sell stock and spread rumors for profit.
Unless you are pissed at John Stewart for exposing the GOP as a group of idiots, why would you defend Cramer?
Sorry--that's how Jack Welch ran GE: "for purposes of share price." GE was famous in Welch's tenure for massaging the numbers to always hit or beat by a penny the consensus expectations. He did many good, strategicallly sound things when he ran GE, but he has no credibility on the subject of not running a company for purposes of share price.
I am surprised and saddened by the number of people who idolize Jack Welch. He is not a man of high principal, as demonstrated by his affair with a woman interviewing him for Harvard Business Review. That broke up his marriage. His current pontificating is difficult to fathom.
I don't assign blame/responsibility for people's losses in the market nearly as much as I do the left leaning media who makes an effort to protect their chosen ones...and unfortunately we'll never hear about the number of times the left ignored warnings and fought changes that would have protected our investments...wouldn't be as entertaining as pillaring a messager!
Stewart's initial target was CNBC, but it became a better story to focus on Cramer. We can certainly see that all of the CNBC shows are dominated by talking heads telling you where to invest your money. Who would watch a show that day after day told you to get out of the market? Where would they get CEO guests to come on and tell you NOT to invest in their company? Yes, CNBC is the eternal optimist because it profits their business.
They are now convenient targets for our anger. Instead, why are we not asking our government to take responsibility for allowing this catastrophy to occur?
I agree, why was Jim so meek and mild! If someone blindsided me as he did Cramer I would want a little piece of him. I have made a lot of money starting with Cramer's advice and then agreeing or disagreeing with him based on my research.
Cramer is nothing more,nothing less than a reflection of markets and the people who mistakingly think a schill will make them rich. The market is incredibly avle to predict the future. The huge universe of participants somehow always get it right. That is the real genius of our system. Individuals rarely if ever beat this phenomena over time.
John Stewart is a phoney!! He pretends to be superior,smarter,more clever than everyone.He,in fact,is no different than Cramer. Some might say his schtick is cruel ans serves no one but himself. The fact is tha he makes his money precisely as Cramer does. The difference is that Cramer knows who he is and Stewart laughingly takes himself seriously.
This is America. You don't have to watch or listen to either of these clowns. You do so by choice. That we take them seriously and act on what they say is the sad reality of who we are,not them. Americans feel they are "entitled". They want something for nothing. If you want to hate someone,look in the mirror. The fact that 2.3 million ppeople tuned in to see Stewart make disrobe Cramer speaks for itself.
On Mar 15 09:22 AM peapack@verizon.net wrote:
> Cramer has made huge contributions to investor awareness through
> his show and his books. He surely has faults, but he has helped many
> investors. As the author said Cramer was way ahead of almost everybody
> else in calling our economic mess and what would happen if the Fed
> and government did not heed his advice. Cramer has consistantly offered
> measures for regulators to take to improve the investing world for
> the average person, and he has put to shame many executives who have
> underperformed.
>
> As to John Stewart, I have no idea where he gets off taking on Cramer-and
> for that matter, it was silly of Cramer to participate in Stewart's
> sideshow. Stewart has been "The Entertainment Guy" for years and
> has done an admirable job-if you are into the shallow celebrities
> of today. Am curious as to what Stewart's credentials are on financial
> matters and why he would be involved in such things.
>
> It is fine to pan Cramer, but in doing so, you must tell the story
> of the good things Cramer has done for investors. It seams most reports
> I see on Cramer are unbalanced against him. Media people have an
> obligation to report all sides of a person's doings-comments and
> opinions are done separately. I ought to know-I spent over 30 years
> working on newspapers.
Jon Stewart is a pompous ass. He spends his life tearing people down. He feigns elitism when in fact he is just the latest version of Tom Snyder or the cadere of barricuda that proceeded him. Sarcasm is the cruelest form of humor and Steart revels in it. He thinks he is better,smarter,above the rest. In fact,he is just a self serving talking head who makes his moneymaking fun of everyone else.
No, I watch CNBC because I think the women are prettier. Yes, I am a sexist pig, but I dont care
I waited a year to hear someone bring up the pending mortgage and real estate meltdown, and Jim was the one that did it. Stewart is out of his mind.
Please keep up the good work Jim. And, maybe next time, don't hold back - it is not becoming. Put Stewart on a new "Bad Commentators" list and go after him like you do CEOs.
Thanks for the article
have attacked Jim Cramer if Cramer hadn't said
some criticism of the "Obama stimulus" packages
even though Cramer is correct.
…a pro Cramer article with a predominately pro Cramer comment response on a pro Cramer website…
…‘back up the truck’ and get ‘all aboard’ ‘cause this place is truly a Cramer ‘house of pleasure’!!!
On Mar 15 01:42 PM David Van Knapp wrote:
> "Jack Welch recently commented on the stupidity of running a company
> for purposes of share price. Maybe this is an early vocal harbinger
> of the "re-education" which will/should take place."
>
> Sorry--that's how Jack Welch ran GE: "for purposes of share price."
> GE was famous in Welch's tenure for massaging the numbers to always
> hit or beat by a penny the consensus expectations. He did many good,
> strategicallly sound things when he ran GE, but he has no credibility
> on the subject of not running a company for purposes of share price.
Hmmm. First, I was aware of both the positive and negative takes on Jack Welch. But for my purposes, that does not matter. His prominence and sentiment is all that matters for my purpose.
Whether from a former saint or felon, the statement about managing to share price demonstrates a *possible* beginning of re-education. I just hope that a new trend has begun.
>
> I am surprised and saddened by the number of people who idolize Jack
> Welch. He is not a man of high principal, as demonstrated by his
> affair with a woman interviewing him for Harvard Business Review.
> That broke up his marriage. His current pontificating is difficult
> to fathom.
Quoting an old adage, "There's no smoker like a reformed smoker". Jack must have been *SMOKIN'* (thanks to Jim Carry in "the Mask"). ;-)
Age and experience can do funny things to young men, besides turn them into old men. It may increase wisdom. If I discount all possible present and future good because of past mistakes, I do a disservice to others and to myself. But as with the trust betrayed by one's offspring, it does take time for trust to be regained. So I do understand your skepticism.
Folks like you and I have the luxury of having most of our past mistakes remain "private". It makes it easier for us to get over them.
HardToLove
I became skeptical of Cramer after the sound effects and kids in their twenties calling in with a cultish chant.
Stewart, thank goodness, contributed to the downfall of Bush. His crusade has changed focus, however, and Cramer was ripe for picking. Let's hope Rushbaugh is next.
Let's give due credit to Jim that he had the balls to go on that show.I would not like to take on Stewart.
On Mar 15 04:03 PM $bruised wrote:
> I've taken a nasty hit like most everyone here.I blame only myself.
>
> I became skeptical of Cramer after the sound effects and kids in
> their twenties calling in with a cultish chant.
Yep. That shows he could be sharper. After all, no one can compete with the Michael Strahan "BOOYAH". Cramer should have gotten the rights to it and used it nightly.
Don't let the showmanship put you off though. Every good public orator speaks to his audience. In today's world, lack of the various props would reduce his audience to mostly old farts, like myself, and leave the younger generation completely out of the picture.
If there is to be any hope for that generation, one must use techniques that draw them into the process.
> <snip>
HardToLove
Stewart's prosecution did seem misdirected at Cramer, whose show is like an open forum for ideas (albeit mainly his own). The people watching the show and investing should be able to form their own opinions. In Stewart's defense, he did say it was not all about Cramer.
The only thing that surprised me were clips of Cramer off-air in which he seemed to be describing how he could move the stock price of Apple and how they could not openly talk about shorting the market.
On Mar 15 01:17 PM Paul H. M. wrote:
> I think most people who are defending Cramer are just angry because
> McCain lost, and are taking it out on anybody who is not brainwashed
> by the GOP.
>
> After all, the showed a video of Cramer obviously giving illegal
> advice on how to short sell stock and spread rumors for profit.<br/>
>
> Unless you are pissed at John Stewart for exposing the GOP as a group
> of idiots, why would you defend Cramer?
Shiela Bair appeared on Cramer's show and Kudlow and said as recently as a year ago that this banking problem is minor. She said that it was nothing compared to the S+L crisis and NOTHING to worry about. She is the head of the FDIC. Bill Seidman who ran the Resolution Trust Corporation and was arguably a hero said the very same things. I saw both more than once make these very statements on CNBC. I made investments based on what they said as if they didn't know then who would? The rest is history and now Bair is wanting to spend hundreds of Billions to "save the system" and Seidman wants to "Nationalize the banks". I could go on and on but I think the case is made. Why do these shows and people go unfettered? Why is there no consequence for their actions and lies? Dan Dorfman was basically drawn and quatered for touting deals etc. Cramer,Kudlow and the like go scott free. To the best of my knowledge not one of the "money Honey's" or the ret of the cnbc people have a financial degree of any kind. Thyey wontanly talk and comment as experts and it is allowed. These people are giving financial advise without any training to do so. At least Santelli was a trader.
John Stewart and Kieth Olberman are two of a kind. They are angry,cruel,self serving McCarthy's who slander at will. Where the hell is the FCC? Where are the regulator's. Both of these laughable pundits are left wing liberals and shills for the Democrats. What is the difference between them and the hate jocks on radio? Stewart and Olberman use broadcast t.v. to incite hatred, promote left wing politics and class warfare.
If t.v. is a measure of this country then we are about to implode. I believe these people are pariah's who live off of America's fear and hatred. They should not have a platform to spread their bitterness and should be held accountable for the lies and slander they use every day. Freedom of speech is one thing but these people promote hatrted and cynicism which is supposed to be regulated by the FCC.
There have been people ruined,people slandered and harm done to millions by all of the above and they should be held accountable.
No one jumped on the bandwagon when Cramer hollered about the uptike rule removal. Oh wait Bernanke is trying to have it reinstated now. That is like closing the barn door after the horse runs away.
"This is a highly complex crisis requiring investors and institutions to make finer shades-of-grey distinctions about what happened, how to fix it, and how to move forward productively."
That may be true: But it is not how a system of retributive justice works. The damage done by this crisis -- call it what you will -- is incalculable. World-wide damage comes with a "Made in USA" label. Damage is spread in every country, many cities and towns, families, individuals, etc. Nothing can be aggregated across so many units.
Many people may blame Madoff. While he is certainly a big-time crook, he is also a victim of the crisis, without which his scheme might not have come to light.
The Obama administration is making a big mistake in not finding people to blame. People hate; many love to hate, need to hate, want to hate. If the Obama administration doesn't give people appropriate targets for their hatred, the hatred may well turn to the Obama administration.
lighten up, frank. this would have been a one-bit segment had cramer and cnbc not gotten all bent out of shape and dismissed stewart as an insignificant clown. it looks like they called him out and he answered. and BOY DID HE ANSWER. i think that they will leave well enough alone this time. 3 spankings is about all they can take.
On Mar 15 01:13 PM Dave Shafer wrote:
> Unfortunately it has come to the fact that a comedy show is the only
> one that will address the elephant in the room [whether it is pandering
> politicians, lack of accountability, or lack of real journalism].
> This time it was the fact that a channel's propoganda clearly indicated
> it will report on financial things, give good advice, keep the consumer
> informed, etc. The truth is it does none of that and only wants to
> increase its viewership. That truth should have been what Jon Stewart
> was about, unfortunately, it turned into a populist rant devoid of
> any connection to the reality of what happened. Love Stewart's show,
> but in this he blew it. Totally agree with the author of this post.
what the hell is wrong with you people?? geez.
On Mar 15 01:13 PM Dave Shafer wrote:
> Unfortunately it has come to the fact that a comedy show is the only
> one that will address the elephant in the room [whether it is pandering
> politicians, lack of accountability, or lack of real journalism].
> This time it was the fact that a channel's propoganda clearly indicated
> it will report on financial things, give good advice, keep the consumer
> informed, etc. The truth is it does none of that and only wants to
> increase its viewership. That truth should have been what Jon Stewart
> was about, unfortunately, it turned into a populist rant devoid of
> any connection to the reality of what happened. Love Stewart's show,
> but in this he blew it. Totally agree with the author of this post.
Stewart wants the news media to be more than overhyping stenographers for what politicians and CEOs say. He wants an advererial media. Cramer should know better. His first job out of Harvard was as a beat reporter. I hope he showed initiative in that job. If he did, perhaps he can do the same in the future
I am always impressed that CNBC try's to report professional opinions as what they are. Their own staff is fairly neutral.
Jon Stewart has little qualification to be judging Cramer. Stewart ought to stick to Comedy.
Are you kidding me? Everytime Greenspan would try to slow things down a bit Cramer would jump around like a crazed chimp. Greenspan caused much of our mess and if Cramer had his way it would be much, much worse.
And I ask you: how many times has this incompetent called the market bottom so far since the highs of 2007?
Cramer was the wrong target. I like the Stewart show but increasingly as he has touted his "not news but entertainment" values so he has sought to become more "man of the people and truth" relevant. This lack of clarity is a well practised tool of parody. Many very funny comedians have used it. Guests know (or occasionally in the practice of the art, do not know) that the intention is to poke fun at them. Point out the contradictions or make them up. Stewart is loosing sight of this. Why is that? Because he is popular and increasingly those with a message are willing to go on the show because an appearance benefits them. Increasingly he has guests on the show to faun over them and poke fun at the guests enemies thereby making the guest "right". True parody which in my opinion Stewart has stopped practising on guests he likes does not make this distinction. It parodies everything.
As far as I know, Cramer is a professional stock picker whose personal wealth rises and falls on the decisions he daily airs. Good enough to get his own show. He entertains with his style because independent, outside mainstream characters appeal to us. Cramer is not the buffed presentational face of CNBC. However perhaps he was the only one willing to turn up.
Wrong target, on the wrong show for the right reasons. When is Stewart getting his own hard news program to complete his transformation?
He says stay away from stocks for 5 years and then every day he marches right out and pitches stocks, and trots out CEO after CEO of tanking companies to pitch their wares - since his "sell and stay away for 5 years" he has had the CEO of FWLT on 2 or more likely 3 times that I have seen, and that stock has fallen from 40 to the teens in that time frame.
On Mar 15 08:05 AM VFC wrote:
> I'm not sure that Stewart went too far. As Cramer has gotten bigger
> and bigger, he's begun to feel as if he is untouchable. As an entertainer,
> as Cramer is, he needs to be able to take the blows a lot better
> than he has. He is not the champion of the little guy, as he claims
> to be, he's strictly an entertainer and people should not trade on
> his advice. If they followed him, they'd all be out of the market
> still in five years, long after the inevitable recovery would have
> recouped losses.
> vfcsstockhouse.blogspo...
> vfcsnewshouse.blogspot...
Crammer and Kudlow, are both idiots.
Jon did you get in on this civil rights attorney's financial call? Did the liberals dare to follow their Messiah's call and put money in the financial institution that they despise? Could this be the reason the market finally had its first an up week since Mr Obama's crowning.
Here is a tuff question-- you must make a 25,000 dollar investment and it must be made with the advise from only one of the 3 people .
Who would you choose ?
Jim Cramer-- who did have a career in the financial world
Mr. Obama-- a civil rights attorney
Jon Stewart --- the lifetime award as a comic/comedian
As for me I would do my own research and have total responsibility for this the results of this investment.
Just like I pick my own beer !!!
Cheers DuffBeer
CNBC is garbage. I've watched since it was FNN; but it is no longer watchable. Just a bunch of talking heads screaming their opinions. Who is Carusao Cabrero, kernan, Kudlow, Gasparino to be giving their opinions. They are liars and right wing flaks for GE, that is what they are. Kudlow is the biggest joke. They are totally unprofessional and they try to manipulate the market and American political opinion everyday. It is truly disgusting what this country allows as supposed news-an
absolute joke that supposed news programs are just allowed to spread lies with no one calling them on it.
1. The financial journalist establishment has generally done a mediocre job of critical, investigative reporting.
2. CNBC hypes itself as the best, proclaiming a higher standard than they live up to.
3. The reading/viewing population has built up this vague sense of being betrayed by said establishment.
4. The market crash made many people mad. They don't know at who or at what, but they're mad.
5. Stewart is not the world's finest financial reporter.
6. But he was in the right place at the right time, and the only one verbalizing what said population felt. It struck a nerve.
7. Cramer made a tactical error, stepping into the lion's den. It showed unexpected guts, but reinforced the lack of preparation of said financial journalists, of which he is one. He got outclassed by a comedian in preparation and common sense.
Yeah, Stewart took cheap shots, but there were too many hits. These hits were not Cramer's bad individual picks, they struck at not being thorough, passing off lazy, superficial analysis for in-depth expertise.
What amazes me most of all is that no other journalist of any stripe did the homework Stewart (a comedian, for crying in a bucket) did. I would have expected this from 60 Minutes or one of their peers. Where were they???
But Stewart knew what would "work"-- a populist rant about Wall Street crooks, with a Wall Street celebrity sitting right in front of him.
Cramer was agreeing with Stewart, but that did not matter. It was about bringing someone down. Those videos Stewart showed were prepared for whenever the moment came that Cramer made his defense. (It reminded me of Barry Scheck in the OJ trial..."There! There! How about THAT, Mr Fung ?")Stewart knew that moment would come, and he would be ready. If Stewart were a real journalist (and not just someone who plays a journalist on TV), he might recognize it as "yellow journalism".
Stewart did not show any knowledge or insight into what happened to cause the financial crisi-- there is no evidence he has any. But he knows how to make compelling TV.
Get the TRUTH!
deepcapture.com
You are the clueless one!
Some people may dismiss Cramer's show as entertainment but lot of folks act on his prescriptions immediately, hence the effect he has on the stocks that he recommends on his show. When you clearly have the kind of power that he has, you have to be a lot more responsible in your behaviour than a clown like, say, Jon Stewart.
But the issue really isn't Cramer. He is probably the best and most conscientious of the CNBCers... it is they who seem to spend all of their time kissing up to CEO's so they can get access rather than doing a proper job of reporting. They are pretty much the journalistic versions of the lobbiests that those same CEO's hire in Washington except that they get paid a lot less.
Personally, I'd replace the whole CNBC crew with Cramer, Stewart and their crews. Things would be a lot livelier and a lot more honest.
On Mar 15 05:51 AM eatthis wrote:
> i used to like stewart (more of a colbert fan), but the cramer thing
> was so overly pious and self serving it made me want to puke. the
> whole part about, "guys like you knew what the banks were doing",
> i mean seriously, people seem to think he was telling "the man" off?
> if cramer was only so well informed...
>
> then invoking his 75 year old mother and making it sound like cramer
> ruined her retirement plan. i think the quote was "you used to be
> able to buy for the long term"... and "you can draw a direct line
> from guys like you to the guys on wall street... ". yea, and then
> you can draw a straight line to kevin bacon, it's like magic. in
> reality, he's so uninformed on who he is actually at "war" with that
> he doesn't even know that in the first chapter of jim's book he says
> that "buy and hold" is an investment strategy that will separate
> you from your money lickety split (not to mention that stuart's misrepresentation
> of buy and hold is a gross oversimplification of what that really
> means to value investors).
>
> cramer has always encouraged people to be diversified, to constantly
> be diligent in managing your stocks and to think for the long term,
> in particular to start saving young. all sage advice for these times
> when 401k's and mutual funds are looking less and less reliable.
>
>
> this is all because of his much reviled "lightning round" but you
> know what, that's probably the only reason anyone know who jim cramer
> is. i'm sure he's done the math and decided that the damage to his
> reputation is worth the viewership... it seems as though poor jim
> is being defined by the very thing that made him famous... shouting
> out "buy" and "sell". oh well, i guess it's just a twitter world
> we live in and everything is defined by the soundbite.
>
> On Mar 15 02:58 AM arnoldsimage wrote:
Did Cramer really do anything unethical or illegal? No, I don't think so? He was just wrong on a lot of stock calls but he has a lot of company in that regard. He was ahead of the Fed on the arc of this crisis.
I believe that Cramer's mistake is to try to make a show every day. He can't help but get caught up in the moment. His advice gets skittish, short sighted, and contradictory.
What the average investor needs to know about Cramer is that his popularity is his undoing in that his advice becomes the herd's knowledge. And as we all know, the herd gets slaughtered.
Get a life. So an investor spokesperson got lampooned. Ohh its the end of the investing world. It was funny and Cramer even had some fun with it. So take a breath, relax, and watch Cramer on CNBC if you like.
As the old saying goes, 'Some days you eat the bear and some days the bear eats you' Kit Karma Coffee House
Cramer offers up a lot of swill amid of few good pieces of advice on his edutainment show. It's easy to cherry-pick a couple of bad Cramer moments to make the guy look like a fool. Very few on Wall Street, even the best and most ethical people, saw this downturn coming or recognized its swiftness. But Cramer was right in his criticism of the Obama administration, and their lack of focus on the banks and the economy. Wouldn't it be easy to pull a "Jon Stewart" on little Timmy Geithner or Barney Frank if you comb the archives for all the stupid and outrageously inaccurate things they've said the past several years? 20/20 hindsight can turn even second-rate comedians into righteous political warriors.
Cramer offers up a lot of swill amid of few good pieces of advice on his edutainment show. It's easy to cherry-pick a couple of bad Cramer moments to make the guy look like a fool. Very few on Wall Street, even the best and most ethical people, saw this downturn coming or recognized its swiftness. But Cramer was right in his criticism of the Obama administration, and their lack of focus on the banks and the economy. Wouldn't it be easy to pull a "Jon Stewart" on little Timmy Geithner or Barney Frank if you comb the archives for all the stupid and outrageously inaccurate things they've said the past several years? 20/20 hindsight can turn even second-rate comedians into righteous political warriors.
has all the young stupid Americans eating out of his
hands. On the other hand I now know why Cramer is a bleeding heart liberal. I sure wouldn't want him in a fox hole with me. What a wimp. He turns on anyone.
God Bless Rich Santelli a great American who says what he believes and screw the media. He also sticks to his guns and is very consistent with his philosophy. He also is a big fan of Frank Capra movies. Another great American.
On Mar 16 03:20 AM mr freddo wrote:
>
> Did Cramer really do anything unethical or illegal? No, I don't think
> so?
You mean outside of admitting that he used to manipulate the market when he was a hedge fund manager?
www.washingtonpost.com...
Cramer couldn't make the call daylight after darkness never mind a market turn. And Stewart has an army of writers that found an opportunity to exploit.
Barons evaluted cramer objectively and his advice is terrible. But fun to watch just don't base a trade on anything he says.
Somebody figured it out which caused the Europeans to try to cash out and then the house of cards crumbled.
Bush gave us fair warning in 2003 but everybody thought he was an idiot and ignored him.
On Mar 16 09:49 AM dolan wrote:
> I think it's ridiculous that Cramer being villianized simply because
> people have so much pent up anger regarding their losses in the market,
> job losses or maybe just the general state of the economy. Everyone
> keeps mentioning Cramer stock picks. While as was mentioned earlier
> the stock picks as tracked by Motley Fool are better then most, they
> really dont account for a large portion of what he offers on his
> show. Cramer constantly preaches tools such as buy and homework,
> diversification is the only free lunch and using dividend yeilds
> to protect your investments amongst many others. These tried and
> true strategies are good reminders to the average investor and he
> helps his viewers to build a good basis of financial/market knowledge.
> Honestly I really dont know how those things can be questioned. Also
> one of the best aspects of the show is that in sharp the political
> media coverage we receive, Cramer never allows his own affiliations
> to cloud his suggestions. This has been clearly demonstrated by his
> slamming of both the previous administration and the current one.
> In fact I have never seen a media personality more willing to acknowledge
> his own mistakes and attempt to be fair and honest in his assessments.
> Anyone who watches Mad Money would clearly recognized that Cramer
> regularly beats himself up (on air) about any wrong decisions or
> bad stock calls and Stewart took advantage of his humanity and humility
> and used the opportunity to blame and vilify him. The market and
> macroeconomic picture is constantly changing and for Stewart or whomever
> in the media to take little sound bites and try to claim that that's
> what Cramer offers on a nightly basis is just wrong. Cramer has countless
> causes such as the restoration of the uptick rule and the banning
> of inverse ETFs (SKF,FAZ etc), that had they been adopted earlier
> would have had a major impact on the situation we are currently in.
> Although he does stock picks, he has never encouraged anyone to act
> simply on what he says. On the contrary he forbids people to act
> without doing their own due diligence and homework. But unfortunately
> people frequently dont choose to do that and then are unwilling to
> take responsibility for their own financial decisions. Anyone who
> acted based some sort of feeling or sound bite of what they may have
> heard on CNBC or anywhere else frankly gets what they deserve. Especially
> because if they were to follow the Mad Money on a regular basis could
> clearly see that Cramer emphasizes the potential pitfalls of the
> market and how to preserve capital in this type of market. Stewart's
> comment about his mother was the most ridiculous point of the entire
> interview. If his mother lost money then she should've read Cramer's
> books. Had she done that she wouldve never made the decisions that
> Stewart claims she made. It's so ridiculous how people's opinions
> of the interview are based on the fact that Cramer spoke with humility,
> clearly regretting any missteps he may have caused people to make
> (typical Cramer) and Stewart went in with guns blazing. And some
> say Fire Cramer! Ridiculous. He stands in sharp contrast to the majority
> of ridiculous one sided media information we receive.
C'mon people! For real!
Cramer took one on the chin for the financial news industry as a whole. Unfortunately for him, as he manned up. It looks, at first pass, like an attack on Cramer alone. Bit Stewart repeatedly said that was not the point. It was a failure of the financial industry as a whole that was the point of Stewart's anger.
Repeatedly, Stewart said that this was not about Cramer, to the point of saying, 'look, this is as Carly Simon says, this song ain't about you.' Stewart's complaints started a few weeks early with a deserved overall criticism of the financial news industry in general with, as any good expository writing has, some specific examples. Cramer took repeated exception on several CNBC affiliate shows, and like the prariedog that sticks his head up, got his head taken off. There were a lot of cowardly lil' dogs that kept their heads down.
Cramer claims with one hand to be an "entertainer", while with the other hand, he proclaims himself as an expert. Repeated clips show a somber Cramer dancing up to and possibly over the line of breaking SEC rules and saying that the SEC is too ignorant to realize when it does happen.
Cramer acknowledges on the Stewart show that CEOs have lied to his face on a national financial show, Cramer failed to report that to his audience.
Cramer acknowledges being aware of the huge leverage ratios that investment banks were responsible for, yet he did not share that information with his fan base.
Yes, there are more sophisticated investors using more sophisticated sources to make their choices.
Cramer is the source for the masses. It is not a fine tuned instrument. Yet, he throws out picks and pans as if these are well thought out and he fails in epic fashion to educate his audience about the looming precipice the market is charging towards.
Why is this?
Easy answer. How many CEOs and CFOs would come on Cramer's show if he called them on their puffery?
There absence would hurt apparent value of Cramer's on air content.
How many financial institutions would advertise on the CNBC if Cramer regularly pointed out the nature of the fabric of the emperor's new clothes? Not a great number is my conjecture.
Stewart's point wasn't the ratio of hits to misses on individual stock picks, but the overall dismal failure of the financial news networks to provide the mass consumer market with real knowledge, all the while, promoting a buy and hold stratagy that the financial industry as a hold does not practice.
Eat this, you have pointed out that Cramer doesn't support that policy himself. He needed to sing that out loudly and clearly on his broadcasts instead of saving that info for the individuals that forked over $24.99 for his book.
On Mar 15 05:51 AM eatthis wrote:
> i used to like stewart (more of a colbert fan), but the cramer thing
> was so overly pious and self serving it made me want to puke. the
> whole part about, "guys like you knew what the banks were doing",
> i mean seriously, people seem to think he was telling "the man" off?
> if cramer was only so well informed...
>
> then invoking his 75 year old mother and making it sound like cramer
> ruined her retirement plan. i think the quote was "you used to be
> able to buy for the long term"... and "you can draw a direct line
> from guys like you to the guys on wall street... ". yea, and then
> you can draw a straight line to kevin bacon, it's like magic. in
> reality, he's so uninformed on who he is actually at "war" with that
> he doesn't even know that in the first chapter of jim's book he says
> that "buy and hold" is an investment strategy that will separate
> you from your money lickety split (not to mention that stuart's misrepresentation
> of buy and hold is a gross oversimplification of what that really
> means to value investors).
>
> cramer has always encouraged people to be diversified, to constantly
> be diligent in managing your stocks and to think for the long term,
> in particular to start saving young. all sage advice for these times
> when 401k's and mutual funds are looking less and less reliable.
>
>
> this is all because of his much reviled "lightning round" but you
> know what, that's probably the only reason anyone know who jim cramer
> is. i'm sure he's done the math and decided that the damage to his
> reputation is worth the viewership... it seems as though poor jim
> is being defined by the very thing that made him famous... shouting
> out "buy" and "sell". oh well, i guess it's just a twitter world
> we live in and everything is defined by the soundbite.
>
> On Mar 15 02:58 AM arnoldsimage wrote:
Thank you for a prompt and courteous reply.
I believe you are missing Stewart's point. Stewart's whole contention was that shows like Cramer's shouldn't be infotainment, shouldn't be infomercials, but be real honest to goodness journalism. It proports to be valid financial news on one hand to gain viewership, yet claims existance in the entertainment world when necessary for self-protection.
You, as a sophistcated investor, recognize this and aren't swayed by the content of Cramer's show. Unfortunately,this is not so for the less knowledgable. Mad Money targets an unsophisticated audience to whom it give entertaining "advice" about a vital area of economic life.
The second part of Stewart's criticism was this; Cramer's show creates a curtain that hides a world of "high" finance that the average 401K investor has no knowledge of. Behind this curtain exist legal, near legal, and illegal shennanigans the likes of which the working joe has no idea of. These financial 'games' occur with the average investors funds, without his knowledge, but with him bearing the risk. When it works, the back room finance fellow makes a killing and the front room client has no knowledge what happened. When the whole thing goes south, the back room guy only collects his exorbenant fee and bonus while the 401K guy goes broke.
That is what the Financial Network News industry as a whole has not told the financial network news consumer.
Not just Cramer is at fault here.
Finally, shows of Cramer's nature could be more of a financial "Sesame Street", educating the neophite, rather than exploiting him for the benefit of the network's sponsors.
Thanks for reading the rant.
As Stewart so rightly pointed out, "This isn't a 'F'n joke."
On Mar 16 01:38 PM UserThunderBolt wrote:
> The idea that the financial pres "let" people down misses the point.
> First and foremost, CNBC & all the rest of the media are in the
> same category as Jon Stewart. They are infotainment. Nothing more.
You're one president late in making that call, buddy.
On Mar 15 09:13 AM Iphufoth wrote:
> Cramer was singled out by the bleeding heart liberals. Why? He has
> been warning everyone to "Obama Proof" your portfolio. He made fun
> of this moron President
Neither of these people are to be taken seriously and yet here I see a whole parade of people defending one or the other.
Everyone take a deep breath and remember Carville's famous guiding principle: IT'S THE COMEDY, STUPID!
This is Jim Cramer's job. To interview, investigate and give his best opinion on what stocks he thought were strong. He didn't do his job and his network is a joke. They interviewed CEO's, CFO's and never once asked a tough question. If they did they never followed it up with another probing question. This is journalism 101.
Stewart even said it was unfortunate that Cramer had become the figurehead and I believe it. John Stewart may be the host of a comdey news show but they do better reporting(aside from the skits) then the major networks which is pathetic.
I do have to give Cramer some credit. He took it like a man by showing up and eating his humble pie unlike that idiot Santelli. Santelli of course would never show his face on that show. He would get destroyed before getting on stage. Jon's a comedian but the man isn't stupid.
While Jon Stewart's hammering was entertaining, it was also off base. Jon isn't any financial or political genius by any stretch of the imagination. His strengths are humor and capitalizing on the misled Bubbas that actually tune in less for humor and more for political indoctrination. These are the grassroots of the fascist party of America.
On Mar 15 08:02 AM User 376665 wrote:
> Whoever wrote the article, please do your research on the real owners
> of America and the world. What you witnessed between Stewart and
> Cramer is just the tipe of the ice-berg. Cramer will be scapegoated
> for sure and most likely end up in jail. But what bothers me is that
> it will just stop there, no one will go after the puppet masters
> that control and feed information to such people as Cramer.
>
> Cramer is not the problem, he's just a very tiny part in it. I like
> Seeking Alpha, please live up to your name!
>
> Thanks!
I bought 25000 at $2.75-$3.00 a shares of Barclays Bank (BCS) the day Cramer open is mouth on CNBC
Today close is $5.75
The company is at -85% of 52 week high with PE of "1" ?
With Dividend coming....this year...not like BAC or Citi in 3 years???? But Cramer want you to buy them?
The CEO just put this in the news recently...
"We have committed to recommencing dividend payments during the second half of 2009. Thereafter, and as
previously announced, dividend payments will be made on a quarterly basis. We will set out our dividend policy
at the Annual General Meeting in April." John S.Varley CEO
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Barclays (BCS): “No! We are talking about a bank that is in grave trouble. No European banks are investible, nor do I want to invest in any of their securities.”
www.thestreet.com/stor...
Cramer: Dangerous Debt
01/26/09 - 09:52 AM EST
Random musings: Barclays(BCS Quote - Cramer on BCS - Stock Picks) makes it? They actually didn't blow up? It's interesting to see what happens to a bank when it reports decent numbers. It can go higher.
Now this....
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Barclays (BCS): “Such a sell it's scary…”???
www.thedailyshow.com/f...
On Mar 15 06:46 PM beachcruiser wrote:
> One has to question all of these shows on the basis of responsibility.
> The Ceo's that appeared on Cramer either lied or were under the influence
> of something as they said their companies were just fine. It is history
> that some imploded within weeks.These shows are supposed to derve
> a public purpose yet,willingly or stupidly they have served as a
> platform for at best fraud. Cramer is touted by himself and CNBC
> as "a genius". Sure, I am too. He willingly and foolishly hurt a
> lot of people badly and to the best of my knowledge no one has been
> held accountable. It wasn't just the CEO of Wachovia,Angelo Mozillo,the
> Ceo's of Fannie and Freddie and the financial institutions. It was
> his "buddy" Mel Kamrmazan ceo of Sirius and numerous others that
> Cramer welcomed and vouched for. Cramer swore to their integrity
> and and prowess. It was naausiating how he kissed up to them. He
> brags about his expertise but did NOT know enough to even qusetion
> anything that was said. Even the common man,with NO Expertise in
> finance would wonder how these companies were viable with the already
> disclosed billions of write downs and the "shadow market". How can
> anyone defend him or anyone defend the fraid perpetrated on all of
> us?
> Shiela Bair appeared on Cramer's show and Kudlow and said as recently
> as a year ago that this banking problem is minor. She said that it
> was nothing compared to the S+L crisis and NOTHING to worry about.
> She is the head of the FDIC. Bill Seidman who ran the Resolution
> Trust Corporation and was arguably a hero said the very same things.
> I saw both more than once make these very statements on CNBC. I made
> investments based on what they said as if they didn't know then who
> would? The rest is history and now Bair is wanting to spend hundreds
> of Billions to "save the system" and Seidman wants to "Nationalize
> the banks". I could go on and on but I think the case is made. Why
> do these shows and people go unfettered? Why is there no consequence
> for their actions and lies? Dan Dorfman was basically drawn and quatered
> for touting deals etc. Cramer,Kudlow and the like go scott free.
> To the best of my knowledge not one of the "money Honey's" or the
> ret of the cnbc people have a financial degree of any kind. Thyey
> wontanly talk and comment as experts and it is allowed. These people
> are giving financial advise without any training to do so. At least
> Santelli was a trader.
> John Stewart and Kieth Olberman are two of a kind. They are angry,cruel,self
> serving McCarthy's who slander at will. Where the hell is the FCC?
> Where are the regulator's. Both of these laughable pundits are left
> wing liberals and shills for the Democrats. What is the difference
> between them and the hate jocks on radio? Stewart and Olberman use
> broadcast t.v. to incite hatred, promote left wing politics and class
> warfare.
> If t.v. is a measure of this country then we are about to implode.
> I believe these people are pariah's who live off of America's fear
> and hatred. They should not have a platform to spread their bitterness
> and should be held accountable for the lies and slander they use
> every day. Freedom of speech is one thing but these people promote
> hatrted and cynicism which is supposed to be regulated by the FCC.
>
> There have been people ruined,people slandered and harm done to millions
> by all of the above and they should be held accountable.
Let's name some other winners
rememeber he wrote GOOG on his forehead when it was 600-700! How many investors have been crushed by that call
Remember when he strongly recommended GOOG at 200 when it was at its all time high? How many investors did very well by that call?
Everything that goes up will also come back down. Take Cramer's recommendations when they make sense to you (nobody would buy everything he recommends) and always carry a trailing stop order. The trailing stop will get you out before you get hurt too bad. If your stock advances 10%, you've locked in a profit.
Remember when he strongly recommended GOOG at 200 when it was at its all time high? How many investors did very well by that call?
Everything that goes up will also come back down. Take Cramer's recommendations when they make sense to you (nobody would buy everything he recommends) and always carry a trailing stop order. The trailing stop will get you out before you get hurt too bad. If your stock advances 10%, you've locked in a profit.
On Mar 15 05:51 AM eatthis wrote:
> i used to like stewart (more of a colbert fan), but the cramer thing
> was so overly pious and self serving it made me want to puke. the
> whole part about, "guys like you knew what the banks were doing",
> i mean seriously, people seem to think he was telling "the man" off?
> if cramer was only so well informed...
>
> then invoking his 75 year old mother and making it sound like cramer
> ruined her retirement plan. i think the quote was "you used to be
> able to buy for the long term"... and "you can draw a direct line
> from guys like you to the guys on wall street... ". yea, and then
> you can draw a straight line to kevin bacon, it's like magic. in
> reality, he's so uninformed on who he is actually at "war" with that
> he doesn't even know that in the first chapter of jim's book he says
> that "buy and hold" is an investment strategy that will separate
> you from your money lickety split (not to mention that stuart's misrepresentation
> of buy and hold is a gross oversimplification of what that really
> means to value investors).
>
> cramer has always encouraged people to be diversified, to constantly
> be diligent in managing your stocks and to think for the long term,
> in particular to start saving young. all sage advice for these times
> when 401k's and mutual funds are looking less and less reliable.
>
>
> this is all because of his much reviled "lightning round" but you
> know what, that's probably the only reason anyone know who jim cramer
> is. i'm sure he's done the math and decided that the damage to his
> reputation is worth the viewership... it seems as though poor jim
> is being defined by the very thing that made him famous... shouting
> out "buy" and "sell". oh well, i guess it's just a twitter world
> we live in and everything is defined by the soundbite.
>
> On Mar 15 02:58 AM arnoldsimage wrote:
LV
Stewart performs a valuable and entertaining function by shooting spitballs at politicians, business leaders and celebrities, highlighting their misdeeds. His expectation that Cramer should have gone Mike Wallace or Michael Moore on the finance world is crazy. It's a little like Cramer hammering Stewart for not breaking the Guantanemo Bay story and taking down the Bush administration.
Stewart should focus on the people who really were responsible for protecting the investors, not his fellow-entertainer from the finance world