http://www.gainerstoday.com/cramer-bear-stearns-Stock-Market-Picks

That being said, the first segment of his show does have lots of value by exposing the flip-flops of politicians, as well as the fact that most legitimate news is shrill echoing of sound bites.
The interview segment with a friendly subject is fine; the equivalent maybe of Letterman or Leno. But if, during his confrontational interviews, he or his viewers think that he’s some sort of hard-hitting, investigative reporter speaking up for the little guy, then they’re fooling themselves.
Regarding the Cramer interview in particular, which I watched on YouTube, the whole premise that there is this master class of traders and investors and CEO’s that were all in cahoots against us commoners by “stealing our 401k’s” and that is pure hogwash. The idea that somehow CNBC was ALSO complicit in this scam is even more ridiculous. Look at the publicly filed holdings of all the CEOs and top executives of ALL the failed or failing firms. Bear Stearns, Lehman, Citi, AIG, on and on and on. All the executives had huge portions of their own money in company stock, and they didn’t have to do that.
They were stupid yes, but they themselves believed what they were selling; it was a bubble, not a scam.

1)People want to believe there is a way to “beat the market” and Cramer is just another media celebrity willing to serve up his entree of investment junk food.

2) The media will broadcast what increases viewership so they can increase ad rates.

3) Nobody saw this coming as swiftly and as sharp as it came. Though there were many indicators, nobody expected the carnage to be this deep and this wide. There was literally no place to hide except in government bonds. Nobody, especially the media could be faulted for that.

In the end, most financial media teaches people to do what Wall Street brokers have brainwashed people into doing over decades of training. They tell you to watch the markets every day, or every minute in some cases. The best thing that could happen to the stock exchanges is that 1) they move it to someplace remote like Fargo, ND, leaving behind the hyper New York floor traders who think the world lives or dies by their split second decisions and 2) they open the trading floor for one day a week. The markets don’t need to move every second of the day.

You’re naive to think that regular folks can so easily over come the far more abundant so called professionals advising that buying a house is one of the smartest things you can do even if that is not so. Instead of being so hard on others, you should find yourself lucky enough to have had more foresight then others who perhaps don’t possess then same wisdom as yourself.

Shaun Connell writes, “Yes, lot’s of smart people said that buying a house was “always” great choice. However, anyone who seriously spent a few hours researching “debt” and “financial advice” would have known that the anti-debt crowd existed.”

In my view, stock shorting makes the concept of investing a joke. When you short a stock you are not investing in something. You are gambling. Worst you are rooting for the failure of companies and people who really are trying to invest in something. Since that is allowed, the over all concept of investing is gone and we are left with nothing more then gambling.

Another problem is with Brokerages who keep thinking of all these different trading schemes. There only motive is to make a profit off trades and could care less if a market is up or down.

But the “loser” quote was by Rick wasn’t about the homeowners slipping up on some complicated financial topic: they knew that there was -some- risk, or else they didn’t look into it enough by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless, they took on the risk. They should have to eat the risk. THAT is what the quote was about.

Sorry, but yes, they took a risk, and the notion that they shouldn’t pay for it while those who decided to be more frugal should…well, that’s BS. (The policy is — not you, JD. You’re anything but. ;-p)

Yes, lot’s of smart people said that buying a house was “always” great choice. However, anyone who seriously spent a few hours researching “debt” and “financial advice” would have known that the anti-debt crowd existed.

I turned down an opportunity about a year ago that several friends offered me. They bought a house. Even my dad said I was being silly not to chime in and buy. I said no, because debt was too risky — I wasn’t even into personal finance at the time.

Still, even if everyone said something was true doesn’t mean that the people making the choice should be immune to the consequences of the financial risk. Especially not through tons of “free money” that will hurt everyone in the long run.

As far as “financial advice”, Jim Cramer and those similar should instantly resign and apologize. They should also give at least some sort of disclaimer that they are focused on entertainment and hype as opposed to real financial advice.

There’s no telling how many lives they have ruined. It’s sad. Still, Rick Santelli shouldn’t be grouped with them automatically, nor should his political comments be grouped with their financial predictions.

That is certainly not obvious to me when reading an article such as “Why You Shouldn’t Keep a Mortgage Just for the Tax Deduction”, until I get to the fine print disclaimer at the bottom of the page (which is almost exactly the same as the Mad Money trailer).

I don’t see any fundamental difference between what you (or any PF bloggers) do and what CNBC talking heads do, so I find your criticism strange. The big media networks have stricter journalistic standards, fact checking, etc.; the PF bloggers have more personal touch. At the end both are thinly veiled entertainment.

And I have no issue with either one.

I mean really ask — most news shows may ask tough questions, but it is in a way that the interviewee can find a way to dismiss the pointed criticism (usually, with humor).

However, I really am just an average guy, and I make that clear all the time. I am not an expert, and I do not claim to be one. I do not pretend to offer financial advice. I share what I learn and what I do, but that is it.

Yes, people should be critical of dollar-cost averaging (I’ve shared arguments against it), buy-and-hold, and ignoring financial news. However, from what I have read, research support each of these as the most effective strategies. Not always effective, but the most effective.

The three things you cite are three things I believe to be important to investment success based on my reading. But that doesn’t mean that I’m right. You (and everyone else reading this) should do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

This blog’s readers should be critical of what is advocated on this blog:
- dollar-cost averaging
- buy-and-hold (“Is short-term market movement really important if you won’t retire for 30 years?”)
- it pays to ignore financial news

In one blog entry, the author claims “Remember: I’m just an average guy”, and in the next, he’s dispensing investment advices.

Cramer often has shows dedicated to why people should stay out of the stock market. He gives detailed advice as to who should be trading, and the prerequisites include $10,000 at least in a S&P 500 index fund, various forms of insurance such as long-term disability and health, and no debt. In fact, based off of his advice I have chosen to NOT invest in individual stocks. Of course, he gets it wrong sometimes. And of course, people should listen to his stock picks carefully and skeptically. But based off of his own criteria the only people who should be following his stock advice are people who are already doing well financially.

Stewart took issue with the “losers’ mortgages” statement: How is it that home buyers (mostly average people with no knowledge of the inner workings of finance) are “losers” for believing the financial advice that home prices will always increase, while on CNBC the “experts” had no idea of the coming economic collapse? I’m sure Stewart would have debated this issue with directly with Santelli, but after cancelling the appearance, the Daily Show decided to have fun with the entire CNBC network (Cramer included).

The Daily Show segment showed many clips of erroneous CNBC advice, attempting to point out that they are losers as well. Unfortunately, Cramer took exception to some of the scenes (like where he was recommending Bear Stearns three days before its collapse) and the whole thing escalated, resulting in the Cramer appearance on the Daily Show.

So if you haven’t seen any of the segments, it’s not like Stewart just went out and attacked Cramer. It mostly stemmed from
1. Santelli’s comment about “loser’s mortgages”
2. Santelli’s last minute cancellation on the Daily Show
3. A segment attacking CNBC
4. Cramer’s responses on NBC platforms (he was on the Today Show and I believe the View)
5. The appearance on the Daily Show

The point Stewart was trying to make is that of all people, CNBC (who advertises as “financial news you can trust,” or something to that effect) should have known what was going on — not the “losers” with mortgages.

Um, hello? Tobacco? Alcohol? Illegal drugs? Gambling? Prostitution?

All this debate about whether Jon Stewart was dodging responsibility with his fall-back “I’m a comedian” position … I think the more interesting question is, why do so many people want things that are bad for them?

People know – one presumes, on some level, they really do know – that being in debt is bad for them. And yet there were actually people using home equity loans to buy stocks. Home equity loans are DEBT.

So yes, one can discuss for days whether News media versus Entertainment media is a valid distinction, or whether News media should publish disclaimers on everything they present, etc etc ad nauseum, but when Cramer said “there’s a market for it” he was absolutely correct. There is a market for junk. Why else is Paris Hilton a “star”?

I think our current national conversation should be more about the whys and wherefores of the junk market (why people buy crap) and less about by-the-second updates on financial/political/whatever activity.

A huge percentage of young America gets their news from the Daily Show exclusively. Jon Stewart does include parody, but he also includes a good deal of analysis. All television news these days is part news, part entertainment. Why shouldn’t Jon Stewart fall under the same scrutiny as, say, “The Today Show”.

While he claims his show is “just a comedy show” – it is clearly more than that. It is a provocative and satirical analysis of world events. (And I love it – watch it every night I am awake that late) But as such, I think he should be just as open to criticism of his bias and his own hypocrisy.

But, of course, journalism is not mere entertainment. If it were, the press would not be accorded special rights and protections in the Bill of Rights. Journalism is different from entertainment because it is assumed to serve a higher purpose and to adhere to standards of truth and accountability. When people watch TV personalities on a network that calls itself a “news” network, they expect and assume those standards, and there’s nothing unreasonable about those expectations despite Cramer’s cavalier attitude toward the veracity of the information given on CNBC. If CNBC really is just entertainment, then this, in a way, is really a “truth in advertising” issue.

CNBC is the financial equivalent of the WWF … Network news is WWF with less makeup … And talk radio is WWF with violence (albeit verbal).

The credibility of the “information industry” (and that name should just set off all sorts of alarms by itself) just hasn’t been there for a long time …

That’s my take as well; he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

But if they are then why would they have Cramer on the show? Tucker Carlson? Where’s the comedy in this?

I didn’t see much comedy!

John Stewart is hiding behind comedy (and does a good job with the comedy in my opinion) to not take any of the blame for what he says!

There is tonnes of articles where Cramer has royally screwed up, but its not really about him but the networks that facilitate this type of hype to pump up their own positions.

Hopefully people that invest will see that when it comes to money, you cannot trust anyone but your self.

Thanks for pointing out the link of Cramer’s Meltdown. I think Cramer is a shrewd man and very smart. It has to be tough to fill his infotainment show each day. His books are very good.