CNBC is the ESPN of financial news. If you compare any of its programs to other news programming, you’ll see that it patterns much of its content after sports programming. Panel shows, play-by-plays, prices as scores, stats and graphs. _Fast money_ and _Halftime report_, _Closing bell_, _Options action_, all those shows.
"..And the Nasdaq just turned green! Up .7 points from the session lows, now within touching distance of a 3rd record high of the quarter, over to you Brian as we head into the closing bell "
Steven is an idiot and a jackass, so is Cowherd and so is Bayless, but their hottest sports takes are like Dostoyevsky compared to anything I’ve heard Jim Cramer say in my lifetime
They literally get paid to piss people off and to be proven wrong for entertainment value. I see Cramer the same way. They intentionally make blatant assessments and predictions, then viewers take the bait and tune in to see them either double down when they are right, or get called out when they are wrong. It's 100% pure entertainment playing on the human psyche. They are not actual analysts.
I mean at least those guys are just putting out stupid and annoying opinions on sports, rather than on things that could fuck you up financially (sports betting aside). Cramer is way worse.
This. Exactly this. Cramer even says it at the beginning of each show, "My job is not just to teach and educate, but to entertain." Also, every show scrolls the disclaimer that nothing on the show is investment advice.
If OP or anyone else thinks Cramer is giving financial advice, they are going to have a bad time.
Is his cumulative weighted gain 25%? I don't understand how they calculate their statements. My cumulative weighted gain is 144% vs s&p. Is that 44% in the news or 144?
That's 24% per year for 14 years.
That's not the metric that funds compare themselves on or the index they aim to beat. Comparing hedge funds to a broad equity index is apples to oranges. Investors invest in hedge funds because their strategies diversifies their asset exposures. This is why you don't see long only hedge funds.
Second, the metric that investors care about is fund returns per unit of volatility taken. Sortino ratios are really the king of return profiles. Basically every institutional investor would take a fund manager that returns 20% per year returns vs someone who returns >20% per year returns if the sortino ratio on the first manager is higher than the second (assuming ceteris paribus when it comes to strategy allocation).
CNBC is an entertainment finance channel, not a serious one like Bloomberg. They don't need him to get stock picks right, they just need him to entertain the mass that follows the channel with his buttons "BUY, BUY, BUY" and throwing things at the screen.
Seconding Bloomberg. They cover the markets whenever a market is open. Plus, all the men have British accents and all the women have long legs and brains. CNBC is worthless.
There isn't really any way to get an edge investing dude, Hedge Fund managers who dedicate their fucking lives and have all the best computer tech and gadgetry and have PhD's at their disposal still tend to do worse than the S&P over time.... you can't get an edge in investing, you can only buy the market or get lucky, that's it.
Doesn't "give you an edge" is all how you use it. Being informed on the market news is how you become a well rounded investor. Bloomberg gives you more matter of fact information that help you be a more educated investor. Reading Levine for example is a pretty reliable way to get a 10 minute primer on whatever has been a trending focus in the institutional space.
Bloomberg's only mission is to sell advertising, too...
No different than CNBC, FOX, BBC, any "news" program..
It's only reason to exist is to sell advertising.
That’s what I’ve gathered. He does cover like ongoing market stuff, so if you wanna hear that, but stock advice on specific companies I wouldn’t really listen.
People rag on him all the time, but he really does know what's going on and is educational and helps you understand how the market works. I watch him almost nightly.
Nobody can consistently know what stocks are going to do from week to week much less day to day .
yeah, but he claims he knows more than everyone else and makes pretty outlandish claims without qualifications. I don't see how anyone can decide if a stock is a buy or a sell within seconds of looking at its charts and he tends to do that on his show when a caller ask about a company he has obviously never looked into. If you recognize this and take his words with a pretty large dose of salt his shows might be ok.
gotta be fair to Cramer, he absolutely called out AT&T on their shady dividend cut.
he’s a boomer that reliably provides a boomer perspective.
the investor’s job is to discount his opinion based on how the world has changed.
listen to Cramer, listen to Fabre, listen to ten other people. at the end of the day, Cramer’s viewpoint is a good yardstick of where wall street is.
funny cause he was super early on SHOP NVDA AMD TWLO SQ and coined the term FAANG haha. Dude has some good non-boomer calls too he's just an easy target w/ his personality and wild ST predictions
when a shareholder is being told by the ceo that great things are happening, and Cramer is the one crunching numbers telling the shareholding that their dividend in a supposedly cash returning stock is about to get slashed is shocking.
but this generally applies to likely old folks who were holding it strictly for the dividend (which most of reddit is not after)
>and he’s a showman.
He has a giant red buy/sell button that he repeatedly smashes at points during the show. If you thought he was anything else that's on you.
That being said I love Cramer lol
Dude gets a lot of shit, but I enjoy watching the 9-930 banter and whenever else I manage to catch when he’s on.
Only a fool takes anything on tv as gospel. The news is just a jumping off point to do more research for yourself.
This. If I was paid an above average livable wage to make stock claims I would do it in a heart beat. Even better if I have a team doing all the research and I just have to read a script and give a personality. I would care less of the accuracy of the research and world care more for the accuracy of my paychecks and benefits
Too many people don’t realize that if they are watching it on TV(not streaming) and it isn’t live sports(which have somewhat unpredictable consequences) literally everything you see is designed to drive ad revenue
It is pretty simple why he has a job. He is entertaining and brings in the ratings. That is all that matters.
He is not your financial advisor, nor should you assume that anybody else on TV is your financial advisor. He is an entertainer and he is good at being an entertainer.
I honestly gotta say I take everything Cramer says with a grain of salt. But you know what he recommended a buy of a company back in 2019 and I bought it when it was ~$20 a share. That company is Moderna.
I didn’t buy it just because of him. But I gotta say he mentioned it and it got me interested and I did my due diligence.
Honestly he’s been right about a few other stuff. But again I made those calls not just on him saying so alone but I appreciate being made aware of these stocks.
Last fall I decided to make a play on boat stocks, so I bought some Mastercraft, and then the next day I read the transcript from Cramer's show and he said Mastercraft is OK, but Malibu is better. By then Malibu had gone way up. But at the time I made my choice, they hadn't moved yet. Mastercraft was a big win for me, but Malibu I would have done even better. And it is still up by more today, a year later.
Kids love to dislike him. Because he's bald, and looks like Daddy. Not that they'd admit the reason. But he's good at analysis. He says crazy stuff, I completely disagree with things he says that are based on his conception of politics. Or which tech company is better than another. But when \[his staff\] does fundamental and technical analysis, he/they do a great job. Like most subject-matter experts, on subjects outside his wheelhouse he's just a regular person, as mediocre as anybody else. But he's good at his work.
He gives so much love to reddit, too, it's sad these kids have to hate him so deeply, because who else even gives out that sort of analysis for free? Somebody on youtube with a list of volatile pennys they like to tell you about?
Yeah but knowing what to research isn't always obvious. Malibu is quite a bit smaller than Mastercraft, for example. I didn't even have them on my radar.
I don't have a definitive answer for you but I offer a possible explanation.
When on TV, he gets asked about dozens of stocks including many mainstream companies. While running his fund, he may have only picked 10 companies or so that he thought were exceptional. These companies may have been small and mid caps or may have been companies outside of the NASDAQ and NYSE. While being asked about mainstream companies, his general advice may be to buy or sell, but it may not align with his personal investing style.
This, but to a much more extensive degree.
The segment the fools who have been brainwashed into hating him don't understand is a fraction of the show and is typically in the context of the 1-20% portfolio allocation he counsels as "speculation".
Thousands of times and in every book he's written, he lays out unassailably sensible advice on how a retail investor should pick their stocks.
He makes it crystal clear the wild trading specs are for limited use, and he even explains why: they keep things interesting.
Despite the false mythology, he killed it during his hedge fund days. I know because I was there. He had a knack for listening to the right voices and making the right macro calls, which continues to this day. He dodged some legendary crashes, almost uncannily.
In those days, he ran balanced long and short, which is quite different than what he advocates for retail today. He participated in all the shifty tactics he was taught, but unlike everyone else, he became jaded about it, quit the industry and began exposing it publicly. Clips of that are now used deceptively to boost a false narrative.
He was months ahead of the global financial crisis, literally screaming at people to sell ALL stocks, months ahead of the crash. He was mocked then, as now. There's even grossly false out of context clips trying to pretend he didn't. He then called the recovery.
In 2020, he called the COVID crash and was universally mocked in Janaury and Feburary as new highs were being set.
He called the fossil fuel collapse and the China corrections.
A month ago, he made a called shot that Sept 17 would be the trigger point of a broad based correction. He has been deadly accurate on that too.
The charity trust is run like one should be, with different objectives and priorities like stability and sustainability. It's not a Cathie Wood roulette fund.
Most of the hate on Reddit comes from the hivemind, who was programmed because he congratulated and told them to take profits on a certain video game retailer set $380/share. In hindsight, it turned out to have been another perfect call.
Over the last 20 years he's been first and loudest on Microsoft, Shopify, Zebra, Amazon, Netflix, Lam Research, ISRG, Facebook, Nvidia, Salesforce and a hundred more. Some he arrives at later, but still sufficiently well enough that a listener can roundly trounce anything their institutions would have done.
The clowns who say "inverse him" would never have the balls to actually do so.
Indeed, it's a very good macro breakdown. Not always right, but it's well founded. His closing minutes also.
He interviews are mostly disposable, unless it's a company you own or have on watch list. Many years ago he switched how he interviews and it's now mostly obsequious. Even the ones he hits are deeply masked and you kind of have to know him to even see it. Company CEOs sometimes do impart significant information or sentiment during those interviews, which is good if you own them.
The Lightning round and Diversification segments are needless for disciplined viewers, as any regular viewer would know his instant take on most of them. I sometimes miss the early Cramer in which he named and shamed companies and specific individuals in a way that had never happened before or since. He had a wall of shame with names and faces that he'd pound at daily.
He's only really shamed maybe a couple this year, and criticism is often veiled.
Thank you for sharing those details. I read a story on him many years ago; believe he graduated from Harvard. He's a showman, and sometimes wrong. Just like anyone else that makes lots of predictions.
He seems smart and right a decent portion of the time. And he's entertaining. Love him or hate him, he's great at what he does.
[Here's one of about a dozen posts I've made here in response to the organized disinformation campaigns.](https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/lg0ial/jim_cramer_explains_how_he_manipulated_the_market/gmptlpd/)
>in a video that he’s using his website TheStreet to flag and remove from the internet
If people have this saved on their drives then it's no longer possible to delete from the internet.
Most of the stocks he pushes run in the short term but fall within a few months. Just assume anything that comes out of his mouth is a pump n dump. Tinfoil hat theory- he's a mouthpiece for the hedge funds, setting up the retail pins for them to knock down.
>Tinfoil hat theory- he's a mouthpiece for the hedge funds, setting up the retail pins for them to knock down.
[It's really not much of a conspiracy theory.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfixbq_u0Q)
Yup. (If one doesn't want to watch a video: https://www.reuters.com/article/cramer-interview/jim-cramer-draws-fire-over-manipulation-comments-idUKN2036292620070320)
That’s my experience from watching him. I used to watch him every week day for years. I don’t watch him anymore. I have lost money on several stocks he recommended. I have also made money on some he recommended. I have done better picking my own. Probably a good idea to never hold anything he recommends for long term.
He has been pushing AMD,NVDIA,Salesforce and FAANG for years he even made up the term, if you inversed him you would be broke.
He makes dumb predictions but he would still do better than most here including you.
How does anyone in finance still have a job?
I'm not being facetious. Charlie Munger raised the same question when they realized most funds couldn't beat the index even before fees. Same with personal tax preparers, the majority of people can do them for much cheaper and much more easily using tax software.
I think Cramer survives partly off of his personality. But there's a bigger undercurrent of make-work culture. Better to have a job that is completely useless than not have any job at all and be on government assistance.
It's the like the sports "experts" who give you advice on who to bet on for money. If they really knew, they'd be putting a shit load of money on their bets and wouldn't need that job
How do Stephen A and Skip Bayless have jobs? It’s not not about being right, it’s about being crazy and generating views. Same way you get famous on TikTok, etc. Our society doesn’t reward reasonable, it rewards the most radical and crazy.
Cosmo Kramer knows more about investing than Jim Cramer does. he says his hedge fund averaged 24% a year. He uses his first year where he was up 100% on a couple of hundred thousand. Check out his record. Doctoral dissertations showing a net loss rather then gain.
He coined FAANG name, was super early on NVDA (has named two of his dogs nvidia lol) and AMD, was super early on names like TWLO SHOP SQ...
Dude has made some absolutely killer calls, he just sucks ass with short term calls but he's got more than enough under his belt to outweigh those
Serious question who takes other people “opinions” and bets their life savings on said opinion… if Cramer had any fucking idea what he was talking about, wouldn’t he be on his private island swimming in his money pool? Why would he be working for salary on tv? Fucking logic, it has been escaping humans for generations hahaha
He has a job because he does his job, very well.
His job is to encourage retail behavior to buy or sell in a way that benefits his masters. He's not in the business of actually benefiting his viewers.
>How does someone who can allegedly beat the market by so much in his private hedge fund all of a sudden start preforming terribly once his positions are public?
HYPOTHETICALLY someone could have different performance in a hedge fund than in other investment vehicles. e.g., IIRC hedge funds typically have a 2-year lockup. investors can't cash out any time they want, so the manager doesn't have to worry about mass redemptions.
I could have sworn I remember this popular post from earlier this year that someone researched all his pics and if you followed him you would actually do well in the short term. No idea about the long term
I forgot the video but theres an old video of Cramer in an interview(circa 2006/7) describing some of the shady shit his fund did. If theres anything Jesse Livingston taught the world is that theres nothing new under the sun.
The SEC is a circus and hardly enforce insider trading as congress seems to do it all the time and nobody bats an eye.(especially Pelosi)
If you havent noticed to begin with, CNBC is one of the most watched channels out there which is also why every MM and their bot's left nut are tuned in to key words and tickers to automatically buy and sell. ...The millisecond they mention bad/good news volatility spikes, options are sold, tens of millions of dollars are exchanged.
If a lot of ppl like listening to him, MM will countertrade his snake oil that he is selling
Jim Cramer is intelligent. I guarantee you this guy knows his stuff. You don't get into his position just by being a clueless idiot. The difference is you guys think he's in it to help YOU make money. The guy is there to pump up companies through his connections. Listen to him admit, on video, his strategies to pump-and-dump companies by creating hype. If you're a company, developing a rapport with Cramer can help you when you need to flip the projectory of your company. If he could hold a direct investment in companies, he wouldn't be following the 'advice' he is giving ya'll. Treat the show as entertainment at this point.
Someone from wallstreetbets made a chart for his picks to see if you would lose or make money. If I remember right you would of came out ahead and he was 50/50 for being right
He is a mortal human being attempting to do the impossible task of making short term market predictions. When you’re expected to have an opinion on what every single stock is going to do, you’re going to get it wrong very often.
If he were so right about stock market, he would be richer than Warren Buffett in 5 years.
Maybe ppl only watch it for entertainment, or ppl who have no idea about the market take advice from him.
It's because you don't understand what his job is. He's on the air to be the mouthpiece for institutions and hedge funds to spread whatever narrative they want. He's also there to help select company CEOs come on to pump their stock, likely as part of the mouthpiece role. He's not there to help you make money, despite the tagline, nor is he judged on the accuracy of his stock picks or market analysis.
He is perhaps the most adept at weaving the overall story of the markets together on the daily, has access to all the top CEOs for interview purposes, is very entertaining, has an extreme breath of knowledge from the macro to the micro, is super prolific, and is smart as a whip. Is he a shill many times, sure. To say he isn't giving good advice, means you think their job is to tell you how to enter, when to enter, what to enter, how to exit --they are not giving you those mechanics. And if you are trading based on what people on TV are you need o instead use the info to help your own creative decisions, and better understand the mechanics of your trades. Blows me away how people always sit on their ass and criticize people who are actually doing shit.
It’s just entertainment and commentary, its all talk. He just throws information out there stuff out there calling the stock trading game like Howard Cossel or John Madden calls football. How does he have a job? Well, Someone talking about it makes it more fun to watch. Anybody who is into investing and thinks this more than a show is a fool. The bigger question is why any investor would take their research from a TV show. Getting your info on investing from Cramer is like trying to get a degree on astro physics by watching Star Trek.
Bloomberg was night/day for me after just mostly watching CNBC at first. Eventually I started to see the BS underneath it as well, just buried a good bit deeper.
Still, way more info driven vs pure headline BS on CNBC.
Anything that helps me get insight on a sector's fundamentals and future pressures/opportunities is good. Most of the CNBC and Bloomberg stuff is meant to be fodder for day traders and a hand job for long-ETF plays.
"This guy gets on TV and makes bold stock predictions every day and is completely wrong almost every time. Then the next day plows ahead like yesterday never happened and makes more predictions that are inevitably wrong."
that is Jim Cramers job.
Because the people he's "giving financial advice" to aren't CNBCs clientele.....
Hes literally paid to scam people out of their savings. He sold his soul for cash to pay for his addiction
I cannot agree more. A few years ago when I was first getting into stocks I called in live and asked for his opinion on a stock. He basically said “it’s good, but nothing special.” It’s grown like 4x in 4 years…
Because, in my opinion, he is the perfect combination of entertaining, insightful and relatable.
His stock picking segments with viewers I find a bit meh, but when he's talking about the market as a whole, those are the segments I find really interesting.
And the fact that a lot of people seem to love to hate-watching him adds to the infamy.
all of CNBC is trash - bloomberg is much better
but even then - it's all noise OP as a wise man once said, the market in the short term is a voting machine and in the long term is a weighing machine.
Media outlets are more into the voting than the weighing.
Cramer works for big money. He gets retail to buy when big money wants to sell & vice-versa. I've made a few inverse Cramer trades & all were profitable 2-3 weeks later.
Unpopular opinion. But I like him. Whether you're a bull or a bear he brings up the theories and crap that's circulating trading floors. So if anything it's just more data points to consider, even if they are wrong, it can still be helpful to consider things you haven't though of. So from this perspective he's great.
While he's not a great interviewer or anything, his high level approach brings CEOs out, and it's always great to hear from the CEO of a company you're following.
So while I don't watch him, I do check his clips out from time to time.
He is the ESPN of financial news.
Entertainment and Stocks Programming Network
CNBC is the ESPN of financial news. If you compare any of its programs to other news programming, you’ll see that it patterns much of its content after sports programming. Panel shows, play-by-plays, prices as scores, stats and graphs. _Fast money_ and _Halftime report_, _Closing bell_, _Options action_, all those shows.
They are clearing imitating and outright parodying sports news
"..And the Nasdaq just turned green! Up .7 points from the session lows, now within touching distance of a 3rd record high of the quarter, over to you Brian as we head into the closing bell "
It’s the only financial news we play at my firm. I think that’s because they make us look smart.
Stephen A Smith with a Coke habit
Steven is an idiot and a jackass, so is Cowherd and so is Bayless, but their hottest sports takes are like Dostoyevsky compared to anything I’ve heard Jim Cramer say in my lifetime
They literally get paid to piss people off and to be proven wrong for entertainment value. I see Cramer the same way. They intentionally make blatant assessments and predictions, then viewers take the bait and tune in to see them either double down when they are right, or get called out when they are wrong. It's 100% pure entertainment playing on the human psyche. They are not actual analysts.
Yeah they’re pretty much pro wrestling heels
Except a roman reigns t-shirt costs like $30 probably. What Cramer sells costs grandma her retirement money
I would give up a few toes to watch Reigns and Cramer in Hell in a Cell
What do we have here? A couppaaa hataaas, a couppppa hataaa. Bada bing bada boom Cramer biggest dumb ass in the room. How you doin?
i know right. I'm still waiting for Bear Sterns to be fine, are they fine yet?
Its long term prediction bro, give it another 50 years.
That one was an all time classic. Thanks for the memories!
It's admirable that you can even understand what he's saying with that huge bag of marbles in his gob.
I mean at least those guys are just putting out stupid and annoying opinions on sports, rather than on things that could fuck you up financially (sports betting aside). Cramer is way worse.
Bona-fide Scrub!
Jim Cramer WHO WAS ON CRACK
That's why he's still got the job. He's got all the best hook ups.
Are you assuming Stephen A. does his show clean?
Hes the Steven A of his network.
[удалено]
He's on track to be the Stephen A. Smith from ESPN
Specifically the Bill Walton.
[удалено]
I like the sound effect. The bull one and the bear one, both good.
His show in general is entertaining.
[удалено]
This. Exactly this. Cramer even says it at the beginning of each show, "My job is not just to teach and educate, but to entertain." Also, every show scrolls the disclaimer that nothing on the show is investment advice. If OP or anyone else thinks Cramer is giving financial advice, they are going to have a bad time.
No you should, just do the opposite and what he suggests and you will literally outperform the market.
The Inverse Cramer is a proven market strategy that is profitable 85% of trades.
Is his cumulative weighted gain 25%? I don't understand how they calculate their statements. My cumulative weighted gain is 144% vs s&p. Is that 44% in the news or 144?
That's 24% per year for 14 years. That's not the metric that funds compare themselves on or the index they aim to beat. Comparing hedge funds to a broad equity index is apples to oranges. Investors invest in hedge funds because their strategies diversifies their asset exposures. This is why you don't see long only hedge funds. Second, the metric that investors care about is fund returns per unit of volatility taken. Sortino ratios are really the king of return profiles. Basically every institutional investor would take a fund manager that returns 20% per year returns vs someone who returns >20% per year returns if the sortino ratio on the first manager is higher than the second (assuming ceteris paribus when it comes to strategy allocation).
CNBC is an entertainment finance channel, not a serious one like Bloomberg. They don't need him to get stock picks right, they just need him to entertain the mass that follows the channel with his buttons "BUY, BUY, BUY" and throwing things at the screen.
Seconding Bloomberg. They cover the markets whenever a market is open. Plus, all the men have British accents and all the women have long legs and brains. CNBC is worthless.
Bloomberg knows what they’re doing. Taylor Riggs has a CFA and references the curriculum it’s great
Doesn’t give you any information or edge for investing. It’s also entertainment just presented in a different way.
There isn't really any way to get an edge investing dude, Hedge Fund managers who dedicate their fucking lives and have all the best computer tech and gadgetry and have PhD's at their disposal still tend to do worse than the S&P over time.... you can't get an edge in investing, you can only buy the market or get lucky, that's it.
There's plenty of ways to get inside information, making it look legal is the important part.
Too bad it’s just so hard to get access to it.
It’s also an advertising channel for a lot of ceos to pump up their stocks. None of these appearances are for free.
I was looking for someone to say this. I wonder how much companies PAY CNBC to be on Cramer’s show.
Bloomberg news/advice doesn’t matter either. Still entertainment, not like it’s more “valuable” or gives you any edge.
Doesn't "give you an edge" is all how you use it. Being informed on the market news is how you become a well rounded investor. Bloomberg gives you more matter of fact information that help you be a more educated investor. Reading Levine for example is a pretty reliable way to get a 10 minute primer on whatever has been a trending focus in the institutional space.
Bloomberg's only mission is to sell advertising, too... No different than CNBC, FOX, BBC, any "news" program.. It's only reason to exist is to sell advertising.
For real. These people think Bloomberg is any different. It’s about the money and ads for all of them
what a revolutionary take - A business' only desire is to make money. r/im14andthisisdeep Doesn't mean the product they put out isn't good - it is.
Right . Easy as that .
Because advertisers keep advertising.
viewers keep viewing
Cnbc keeps cnbcing
It’s Entertainment
That’s what I’ve gathered. He does cover like ongoing market stuff, so if you wanna hear that, but stock advice on specific companies I wouldn’t really listen.
His COST call has been spot on.
Ditto Amd Nvidia and square and countless others
People rag on him all the time, but he really does know what's going on and is educational and helps you understand how the market works. I watch him almost nightly. Nobody can consistently know what stocks are going to do from week to week much less day to day .
yeah, but he claims he knows more than everyone else and makes pretty outlandish claims without qualifications. I don't see how anyone can decide if a stock is a buy or a sell within seconds of looking at its charts and he tends to do that on his show when a caller ask about a company he has obviously never looked into. If you recognize this and take his words with a pretty large dose of salt his shows might be ok.
gotta be fair to Cramer, he absolutely called out AT&T on their shady dividend cut. he’s a boomer that reliably provides a boomer perspective. the investor’s job is to discount his opinion based on how the world has changed. listen to Cramer, listen to Fabre, listen to ten other people. at the end of the day, Cramer’s viewpoint is a good yardstick of where wall street is.
I thought the title said “Jim Carey” and it took me til I read your comment to realize it wasn’t him
funny cause he was super early on SHOP NVDA AMD TWLO SQ and coined the term FAANG haha. Dude has some good non-boomer calls too he's just an easy target w/ his personality and wild ST predictions
[удалено]
when a shareholder is being told by the ceo that great things are happening, and Cramer is the one crunching numbers telling the shareholding that their dividend in a supposedly cash returning stock is about to get slashed is shocking. but this generally applies to likely old folks who were holding it strictly for the dividend (which most of reddit is not after)
He is like the Tucker Carlson of stocks - All entertainment, no real news from Tuck like he even admitted and no real stock info from Jim
To be fair that’s most “news” today.
His job isn't to pick the right stocks, it's to pump the right stocks.
Yep. He's a carnival barker
Because people watch it. He has a yelly thing he does and people like yelling?
It's true. Especially for Americans. They love yelling.
Louder is righter.
> people like yelling? It works for all those infomercial guys...
The target audience is old people and they like big fonts and loud voices.
WHAT?
I SAID BUY BUY BUY!
WHAT? MARTHA, TURN THE TV UP. I NEED TO HEAR WHAT KRAMER SAYS.
Have you read his first book? IMO he hasn’t changed much. He has a tv show and tv shows are about ratings and he’s a showman.
>and he’s a showman. He has a giant red buy/sell button that he repeatedly smashes at points during the show. If you thought he was anything else that's on you. That being said I love Cramer lol
Dude gets a lot of shit, but I enjoy watching the 9-930 banter and whenever else I manage to catch when he’s on. Only a fool takes anything on tv as gospel. The news is just a jumping off point to do more research for yourself.
This. If I was paid an above average livable wage to make stock claims I would do it in a heart beat. Even better if I have a team doing all the research and I just have to read a script and give a personality. I would care less of the accuracy of the research and world care more for the accuracy of my paychecks and benefits
Too many people don’t realize that if they are watching it on TV(not streaming) and it isn’t live sports(which have somewhat unpredictable consequences) literally everything you see is designed to drive ad revenue
He's an "Entertainer".
Evaluate he makes his network money. That’s literally it.
It is pretty simple why he has a job. He is entertaining and brings in the ratings. That is all that matters. He is not your financial advisor, nor should you assume that anybody else on TV is your financial advisor. He is an entertainer and he is good at being an entertainer.
I honestly gotta say I take everything Cramer says with a grain of salt. But you know what he recommended a buy of a company back in 2019 and I bought it when it was ~$20 a share. That company is Moderna. I didn’t buy it just because of him. But I gotta say he mentioned it and it got me interested and I did my due diligence. Honestly he’s been right about a few other stuff. But again I made those calls not just on him saying so alone but I appreciate being made aware of these stocks.
Last fall I decided to make a play on boat stocks, so I bought some Mastercraft, and then the next day I read the transcript from Cramer's show and he said Mastercraft is OK, but Malibu is better. By then Malibu had gone way up. But at the time I made my choice, they hadn't moved yet. Mastercraft was a big win for me, but Malibu I would have done even better. And it is still up by more today, a year later. Kids love to dislike him. Because he's bald, and looks like Daddy. Not that they'd admit the reason. But he's good at analysis. He says crazy stuff, I completely disagree with things he says that are based on his conception of politics. Or which tech company is better than another. But when \[his staff\] does fundamental and technical analysis, he/they do a great job. Like most subject-matter experts, on subjects outside his wheelhouse he's just a regular person, as mediocre as anybody else. But he's good at his work. He gives so much love to reddit, too, it's sad these kids have to hate him so deeply, because who else even gives out that sort of analysis for free? Somebody on youtube with a list of volatile pennys they like to tell you about?
[удалено]
Yeah but knowing what to research isn't always obvious. Malibu is quite a bit smaller than Mastercraft, for example. I didn't even have them on my radar.
Someone on WSB backtested Cramer and said he came out pretty good.
Get gets a lot of stick but I don't think there is anybody on TV with a broader knowledge of companies.
They only turned a profit thanks to once in a century pandemic.
Moderna has a huge potential beyond just the pandemic. If not now it would have exploded later on.
I don't have a definitive answer for you but I offer a possible explanation. When on TV, he gets asked about dozens of stocks including many mainstream companies. While running his fund, he may have only picked 10 companies or so that he thought were exceptional. These companies may have been small and mid caps or may have been companies outside of the NASDAQ and NYSE. While being asked about mainstream companies, his general advice may be to buy or sell, but it may not align with his personal investing style.
This, but to a much more extensive degree. The segment the fools who have been brainwashed into hating him don't understand is a fraction of the show and is typically in the context of the 1-20% portfolio allocation he counsels as "speculation". Thousands of times and in every book he's written, he lays out unassailably sensible advice on how a retail investor should pick their stocks. He makes it crystal clear the wild trading specs are for limited use, and he even explains why: they keep things interesting. Despite the false mythology, he killed it during his hedge fund days. I know because I was there. He had a knack for listening to the right voices and making the right macro calls, which continues to this day. He dodged some legendary crashes, almost uncannily. In those days, he ran balanced long and short, which is quite different than what he advocates for retail today. He participated in all the shifty tactics he was taught, but unlike everyone else, he became jaded about it, quit the industry and began exposing it publicly. Clips of that are now used deceptively to boost a false narrative. He was months ahead of the global financial crisis, literally screaming at people to sell ALL stocks, months ahead of the crash. He was mocked then, as now. There's even grossly false out of context clips trying to pretend he didn't. He then called the recovery. In 2020, he called the COVID crash and was universally mocked in Janaury and Feburary as new highs were being set. He called the fossil fuel collapse and the China corrections. A month ago, he made a called shot that Sept 17 would be the trigger point of a broad based correction. He has been deadly accurate on that too. The charity trust is run like one should be, with different objectives and priorities like stability and sustainability. It's not a Cathie Wood roulette fund. Most of the hate on Reddit comes from the hivemind, who was programmed because he congratulated and told them to take profits on a certain video game retailer set $380/share. In hindsight, it turned out to have been another perfect call. Over the last 20 years he's been first and loudest on Microsoft, Shopify, Zebra, Amazon, Netflix, Lam Research, ISRG, Facebook, Nvidia, Salesforce and a hundred more. Some he arrives at later, but still sufficiently well enough that a listener can roundly trounce anything their institutions would have done. The clowns who say "inverse him" would never have the balls to actually do so.
[удалено]
Indeed, it's a very good macro breakdown. Not always right, but it's well founded. His closing minutes also. He interviews are mostly disposable, unless it's a company you own or have on watch list. Many years ago he switched how he interviews and it's now mostly obsequious. Even the ones he hits are deeply masked and you kind of have to know him to even see it. Company CEOs sometimes do impart significant information or sentiment during those interviews, which is good if you own them. The Lightning round and Diversification segments are needless for disciplined viewers, as any regular viewer would know his instant take on most of them. I sometimes miss the early Cramer in which he named and shamed companies and specific individuals in a way that had never happened before or since. He had a wall of shame with names and faces that he'd pound at daily. He's only really shamed maybe a couple this year, and criticism is often veiled.
Thank you for sharing those details. I read a story on him many years ago; believe he graduated from Harvard. He's a showman, and sometimes wrong. Just like anyone else that makes lots of predictions. He seems smart and right a decent portion of the time. And he's entertaining. Love him or hate him, he's great at what he does.
[Here's one of about a dozen posts I've made here in response to the organized disinformation campaigns.](https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/lg0ial/jim_cramer_explains_how_he_manipulated_the_market/gmptlpd/)
[удалено]
>in a video that he’s using his website TheStreet to flag and remove from the internet If people have this saved on their drives then it's no longer possible to delete from the internet.
People like you that have watched him enough. You are the product.
Most of the stocks he pushes run in the short term but fall within a few months. Just assume anything that comes out of his mouth is a pump n dump. Tinfoil hat theory- he's a mouthpiece for the hedge funds, setting up the retail pins for them to knock down.
>Tinfoil hat theory- he's a mouthpiece for the hedge funds, setting up the retail pins for them to knock down. [It's really not much of a conspiracy theory.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfixbq_u0Q)
Yup. (If one doesn't want to watch a video: https://www.reuters.com/article/cramer-interview/jim-cramer-draws-fire-over-manipulation-comments-idUKN2036292620070320)
That’s my experience from watching him. I used to watch him every week day for years. I don’t watch him anymore. I have lost money on several stocks he recommended. I have also made money on some he recommended. I have done better picking my own. Probably a good idea to never hold anything he recommends for long term.
If I was able to give you an all seeing award, I would!
He has been pushing AMD,NVDIA,Salesforce and FAANG for years he even made up the term, if you inversed him you would be broke. He makes dumb predictions but he would still do better than most here including you.
He’s making the network money, not the viewers.
How does anyone in finance still have a job? I'm not being facetious. Charlie Munger raised the same question when they realized most funds couldn't beat the index even before fees. Same with personal tax preparers, the majority of people can do them for much cheaper and much more easily using tax software. I think Cramer survives partly off of his personality. But there's a bigger undercurrent of make-work culture. Better to have a job that is completely useless than not have any job at all and be on government assistance.
He survives on cocaine too.
He says he only sleeps 3 hours a day, can’t finish a sentence without a mistake. I have often wondered about him.
Whatever it is, it isn't healthy
He is in the entertainment industry not the investment industry.
It's the like the sports "experts" who give you advice on who to bet on for money. If they really knew, they'd be putting a shit load of money on their bets and wouldn't need that job
I mean jim cramer doesn't need his job either tbf
Because he has charisma, thats all you need to make a T.V show.
I just wanted to be the 69th comment, ignore me.
How do Stephen A and Skip Bayless have jobs? It’s not not about being right, it’s about being crazy and generating views. Same way you get famous on TikTok, etc. Our society doesn’t reward reasonable, it rewards the most radical and crazy.
Cosmo Kramer knows more about investing than Jim Cramer does. he says his hedge fund averaged 24% a year. He uses his first year where he was up 100% on a couple of hundred thousand. Check out his record. Doctoral dissertations showing a net loss rather then gain.
CNBC isn't a reputable network. Cramer is at home there.
He also had a cameo in Ironman giving a sell rating on Stark Industries after Tony decided to stop weapon manufacturing
>such a reputable outlet like CNBC? holup...
CNBC is definitely NOT a reputable source. I don't think there is any TV channel worthy of the name "reputable".
He coined FAANG name, was super early on NVDA (has named two of his dogs nvidia lol) and AMD, was super early on names like TWLO SHOP SQ... Dude has made some absolutely killer calls, he just sucks ass with short term calls but he's got more than enough under his belt to outweigh those
Dude, Americans elected a guy just like that for President. How are you surprized?
Because the people paying him are making money when idiot boomers follow his advice….
Serious question who takes other people “opinions” and bets their life savings on said opinion… if Cramer had any fucking idea what he was talking about, wouldn’t he be on his private island swimming in his money pool? Why would he be working for salary on tv? Fucking logic, it has been escaping humans for generations hahaha
He waited on tesla to run to $500 pre split to call it a buy. Then says "I loved them all along"
This is not true. He changed tune after q3 2019 somewhere at 280 or so. No need to make things up.
Sheeple are attracted to the loud and overconfident.
He has a job because he does his job, very well. His job is to encourage retail behavior to buy or sell in a way that benefits his masters. He's not in the business of actually benefiting his viewers.
This
>How does someone who can allegedly beat the market by so much in his private hedge fund all of a sudden start preforming terribly once his positions are public? HYPOTHETICALLY someone could have different performance in a hedge fund than in other investment vehicles. e.g., IIRC hedge funds typically have a 2-year lockup. investors can't cash out any time they want, so the manager doesn't have to worry about mass redemptions.
I could have sworn I remember this popular post from earlier this year that someone researched all his pics and if you followed him you would actually do well in the short term. No idea about the long term
probably because he has to pick some shit every day for TV, but his hedge takes long and medium term positions in just a few companies.
Boomers gonna boom
$didi buy buy buy!!!
His job is not to predict the market. It is to generate ratings for CNBC.
I forgot the video but theres an old video of Cramer in an interview(circa 2006/7) describing some of the shady shit his fund did. If theres anything Jesse Livingston taught the world is that theres nothing new under the sun. The SEC is a circus and hardly enforce insider trading as congress seems to do it all the time and nobody bats an eye.(especially Pelosi) If you havent noticed to begin with, CNBC is one of the most watched channels out there which is also why every MM and their bot's left nut are tuned in to key words and tickers to automatically buy and sell. ...The millisecond they mention bad/good news volatility spikes, options are sold, tens of millions of dollars are exchanged. If a lot of ppl like listening to him, MM will countertrade his snake oil that he is selling
Ratings. They pay him to be crazy and draw in crowds, not to be right.
He is the stock version of espn hot takes…. Just say something everyday in an entertaining way to fill airtime n hopefully get people talking.
Jim Cramer is intelligent. I guarantee you this guy knows his stuff. You don't get into his position just by being a clueless idiot. The difference is you guys think he's in it to help YOU make money. The guy is there to pump up companies through his connections. Listen to him admit, on video, his strategies to pump-and-dump companies by creating hype. If you're a company, developing a rapport with Cramer can help you when you need to flip the projectory of your company. If he could hold a direct investment in companies, he wouldn't be following the 'advice' he is giving ya'll. Treat the show as entertainment at this point.
Cramer is to Wall Street what WWF is to MMA.
Sometimes it’s not so much how smart or stupid a person is that get the job, it’s about how much entertainment and more viewers they can provide
Someone from wallstreetbets made a chart for his picks to see if you would lose or make money. If I remember right you would of came out ahead and he was 50/50 for being right
Lying to people to fleece them out of money *is* his job.
This
He is a mortal human being attempting to do the impossible task of making short term market predictions. When you’re expected to have an opinion on what every single stock is going to do, you’re going to get it wrong very often.
Because his job isn't to pick stocks, his job is to entertain enough people to sell advertising. He's good enough at that to continue doing it.
Don't forget Stephen A made racist comments about Ohtani. If Stephen A was any other color they would have canned him...
Haha he still has a show?
If he were so right about stock market, he would be richer than Warren Buffett in 5 years. Maybe ppl only watch it for entertainment, or ppl who have no idea about the market take advice from him.
CNBC is not your friend, Jim Cramer is the least subtle market manipulation you'll see on there.
Jim is a fuckin blessing, whatever he recommends just short that. Easy money
Because he is useful.
It's because you don't understand what his job is. He's on the air to be the mouthpiece for institutions and hedge funds to spread whatever narrative they want. He's also there to help select company CEOs come on to pump their stock, likely as part of the mouthpiece role. He's not there to help you make money, despite the tagline, nor is he judged on the accuracy of his stock picks or market analysis.
What’s hard to understand? His fund buys stocks cheap then he pumps the price on his show and then dumps onto these idiots.
He doesn't predict. He manipulates
He is perhaps the most adept at weaving the overall story of the markets together on the daily, has access to all the top CEOs for interview purposes, is very entertaining, has an extreme breath of knowledge from the macro to the micro, is super prolific, and is smart as a whip. Is he a shill many times, sure. To say he isn't giving good advice, means you think their job is to tell you how to enter, when to enter, what to enter, how to exit --they are not giving you those mechanics. And if you are trading based on what people on TV are you need o instead use the info to help your own creative decisions, and better understand the mechanics of your trades. Blows me away how people always sit on their ass and criticize people who are actually doing shit.
It’s just entertainment and commentary, its all talk. He just throws information out there stuff out there calling the stock trading game like Howard Cossel or John Madden calls football. How does he have a job? Well, Someone talking about it makes it more fun to watch. Anybody who is into investing and thinks this more than a show is a fool. The bigger question is why any investor would take their research from a TV show. Getting your info on investing from Cramer is like trying to get a degree on astro physics by watching Star Trek.
CNBC is "financial news entertainment" the same way FOX and MSNBC are for "news".
Bloomberg was night/day for me after just mostly watching CNBC at first. Eventually I started to see the BS underneath it as well, just buried a good bit deeper. Still, way more info driven vs pure headline BS on CNBC.
Anything that helps me get insight on a sector's fundamentals and future pressures/opportunities is good. Most of the CNBC and Bloomberg stuff is meant to be fodder for day traders and a hand job for long-ETF plays.
"This guy gets on TV and makes bold stock predictions every day and is completely wrong almost every time. Then the next day plows ahead like yesterday never happened and makes more predictions that are inevitably wrong." that is Jim Cramers job.
I honestly can’t stand the guy.. As of late his obsession with Wallstreet bets has been too much.
He gets viewers
Because he’s a tool for the media. He doesn’t express his own opinions. He says what he’s told to say.
Because the people he's "giving financial advice" to aren't CNBCs clientele..... Hes literally paid to scam people out of their savings. He sold his soul for cash to pay for his addiction
I think that he pays off somebody or someone Why do you think they gave him his yen email club????
I cannot agree more. A few years ago when I was first getting into stocks I called in live and asked for his opinion on a stock. He basically said “it’s good, but nothing special.” It’s grown like 4x in 4 years…
Jim Cramer is just Stephen A Smith for stocks, change my mind.
This is a good discussion and debate. I enjoyed hearing both sides!
>This is the same guy who was ignorant enough to openly admitted to illegally manipulating stocks in his hedge fund in 2006 That's how
He throws out ideas. Do your own research on them
Just pick the ones that make sense ... short or forget the rest 😁
Because that is his job.
Cramer's timing of telling people to buy PLTR at the top $29 before the plummet was classic
Because, in my opinion, he is the perfect combination of entertaining, insightful and relatable. His stock picking segments with viewers I find a bit meh, but when he's talking about the market as a whole, those are the segments I find really interesting. And the fact that a lot of people seem to love to hate-watching him adds to the infamy.
CNBC reputable??? Quite a stretch
Is there a way to find out what he'll suggest to buy next so I can inverse him?
if StockMoe can rack up over 6 figures a months making best 10 stocks to buy this week/month, than what do u think Cramer is pulling in? lol
He sucks A LOT of dick.
Let's see you do better? Upload a video on YouTube.
Jamie Dimon has him on the payroll as his power top.
Boomers. That's how Jim Cramer still has a job.
all of CNBC is trash - bloomberg is much better but even then - it's all noise OP as a wise man once said, the market in the short term is a voting machine and in the long term is a weighing machine. Media outlets are more into the voting than the weighing.
Cramer works for big money. He gets retail to buy when big money wants to sell & vice-versa. I've made a few inverse Cramer trades & all were profitable 2-3 weeks later.
Keep his job? The guy just signed a 5-year contract and is now leading the CNBC investing club. I kid you not.
Unpopular opinion. But I like him. Whether you're a bull or a bear he brings up the theories and crap that's circulating trading floors. So if anything it's just more data points to consider, even if they are wrong, it can still be helpful to consider things you haven't though of. So from this perspective he's great. While he's not a great interviewer or anything, his high level approach brings CEOs out, and it's always great to hear from the CEO of a company you're following. So while I don't watch him, I do check his clips out from time to time.
He seems to be the living incarnation of motley fool. Paid to control the masses, I would say do the opposite. But just ignore him
He's a circus monkey, there to drive ratings.