All these guys on CNBC and in the financial services industry are complete hacks...




...They get paid tons of money to give advice based on herd dynamics and not on any particular insight or expertise. They are no more qualified to discuss the market than Tarot card readers are to predict the future.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2009 12:25PM by WashingTone Locian.

Missing from your clip is his remark insinuating that Obama needed to concentrate more on the economy instead of "stem cells". I think he let his Irish Katholic upbringing slip through.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Missing from your clip is his remark insinuating
> that Obama needed to concentrate more on the
> economy instead of "stem cells". I think he let
> his Irish Katholic upbringing slip through.


I don't think people in the media understand how the Presidency works. The President doesn't sit there and do everything himself. He has a cabinet full of Secretaries who do that. Treasury is working on the bank bailout stuff. HHS is working on health care reform. DoD is working on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Apparently they really believe that "The One" or "That One" does everything.

I saw Cramer on the today show and they played a clip of The Dailey Show where Jon Stewart was mocking his "buy" reco on Lehman before they went BK. He came off as a stammering dolt.

Cramer vs. Cramer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw Cramer on the today show and they played a
> clip of The Dailey Show where Jon Stewart was
> mocking his "buy" reco on Lehman before they went
> BK. He came off as a stammering dolt.


I posted a link to it up top.

Yeah, he's an idiot. He isn't much different than a psychic. Throw enough shit out there, something you say is bound to be right. Just don't invest based on all of the other shit that is wrong.

I remember seeing him all bug eyed and coked out of his mind being interviewed on CNN as to why the price of oil was through the roof. He tried to defend it saying it was "supply and demand that has it at $150 a barrel and rising."

Another reason not to waste your time with cable 'news' or 'finance' programs.

Charlie Rose has had some interesting interviews with some of the big-whigs you dont see on TV much. If you are up that late (11pm)..you should try and catch him on PBS

All you need to know about cramer:

http://www.deepcapture.com/jim-cramer-is-a-complicated-man/

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charlie Rose has had some interesting interviews
> with some of the big-whigs you dont see on TV
> much. If you are up that late (11pm)..you should
> try and catch him on PBS


I hate Charlie Rose. He is worse than Mike O'Meara and Glenn Beck when it comes to asking 12-part questions and answering 11 of the 12 himself. Terrible interviewer. How he got a reputation for being a good one is beyond me.

I don't particularly like Cramer and rarely watch him ( I did check out that deepcapture website last month), but I find it comical that NBC is now publicly humiliating him. Talk about transparency!

oaktonmom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't particularly like Cramer and rarely watch
> him ( I did check out that deepcapture website
> last month), but I find it comical that NBC is now
> publicly humiliating him. Talk about transparency!


Yeah. It's funny how NBC is going along with it on the Today Show. Seems to me like NBC is sending him a message. If worse comes to worse, he can go to Fox Business Network and compete with the psychics and "Fox Trots."

I hate how all of his callers insist on saying "BOOO-YAH!" It's like I'm watching Sportscenter 1992 re-runs.

Cramer is on Martha Stewart now (2-3 pm) learning how to make Bananna Cream Pie. He is scheduled to be on Jon Stewart tonight. Great entertainment. Don't read anything else into it except ratings for all.

simply another attempt to discredit anyone who criticizes Dear Leader

hop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> simply another attempt to discredit anyone who
> criticizes Dear Leader


I just find it interesting that virtually all of the economists and analysts who are saying Obama's plan won't work are the same ones who said the economy was fine back in August. Ever get the idea these idiots don't have any idea of what they are talking about?

FYI - Cramer will be on the Daily Show for a showdown with Jon Stewart.

Damn...I want John Stewart for President! He is skewring Cramer left and right! hat was the best interview I have ever seen on TV in a very long time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2009 11:32PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Missing from your clip is his remark insinuating
> that Obama needed to concentrate more on the
> economy instead of "stem cells". I think he let
> his Irish Katholic upbringing slip through.


Hey vince, i dont know if u noticed, but u spelled catholic wrong, its a C not a K.

Catholics against embrionic stem research is correctly spelled with a "k". That's the same katholic church that claims their world is coming to an end by taking the control of their parishioners money aout of the hands of the priest....loyal to rome!

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15325

Another calculated PR move by both Crammer and Stewart to be the next Octo Mom. Reality TV at it's best/

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 01:01PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince wrote:
> "I think he let his Irish Katholic upbringing slip
> through."
> ____________
>
> Vince, the guy is Jewish. And, you are a bigot!
>
>
>
> Vince wrote:
> "I want John Stewart for President!"
> ____________
>
> I want Vince deported.


Everyone's Irish in March! and Catholic!

Jon absolutely creamed Cramer on his show last night. Props to Cramer for taking his lumps sort of like a man... (Im trying to get congress to make illegal short up-tics (that he abused himself)).

The uptick rule is meaningless in 1-penny bid/ask spreads. It may slow down short selling slightly but it is in NO WAY as effective as it was when it was in force when stocks were traded in quarters.

I'm fine with bringing back uptick as long as long buys require a downtick. There's no reason to make the system unfair, it is supposed to be an OPEN MARKET. Shorting stock is not abusive, it is a way to make money in down markets. I did it myself on financials to hedge my losses in the broader market.

Rather than concentrate on useless stuff like the uptick rule, they should concentrate on things that ARE damaging and unfair, such as naked short selling.

If you have not viewed the Stewart interview it is a MUST WATCH!

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no reason to
> make the system unfair, it is supposed to be an
> OPEN MARKET.


It's not an Open Market. It is open to abuse from Index Arbitrage when trading programs overtake the market based on pre-determined technical targets. That's how you get these huge swings in the market. If it were actually people doing the trading, some common sense might prevail. You need stop-gaps to cool things off so that traders can adjust accordingly.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have not viewed the Stewart interview it is
> a MUST WATCH!






This may all be a PR stunt, but if somebody in CNBC's marketing dept. thought this was a good idea, they should be fired.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 10:03AM by WashingTone Locian.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There's no reason to
> > make the system unfair, it is supposed to be an
> > OPEN MARKET.
>
>
> It's not an Open Market. It is open to abuse from
> Index Arbitrage when trading programs overtake the
> market based on pre-determined technical targets.
> That's how you get these huge swings in the
> market. If it were actually people doing the
> trading, some common sense might prevail. You need
> stop-gaps to cool things off so that traders can
> adjust accordingly.

If you believe that, then why object to downtick rules while implementing uptick rules? Why only allow the market to artificially trade up? That is as dangerous (some say more) than allowing it to artificially gap down.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pgens Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There's no reason to
> > > make the system unfair, it is supposed to be
> an
> > > OPEN MARKET.
> >
> >
> > It's not an Open Market. It is open to abuse
> from
> > Index Arbitrage when trading programs overtake
> the
> > market based on pre-determined technical
> targets.
> > That's how you get these huge swings in the
> > market. If it were actually people doing the
> > trading, some common sense might prevail. You
> need
> > stop-gaps to cool things off so that traders
> can
> > adjust accordingly.
>
> If you believe that, then why object to downtick
> rules while implementing uptick rules? Why only
> allow the market to artificially trade up? That
> is as dangerous (some say more) than allowing it
> to artificially gap down.

I have no problem applying these gaps equally. There is (or used to be) a 50-point break on the market. Not sure if it is still there, but if it is, it would accomplish what you are saying.

That interview last night was the most sober I've seen Jon Stewart in a long time. He went about 20 minutes with nary a joke or laugh. He was dead serious pretty much the whole time. It's a must watch and Jon makes some very valid points, especially about how the networks should be more responsible in their reporting. Bravo, Jon!

Wonder if he feels the same way about the networks' coverage of Obama?

oaktonmom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wonder if he feels the same way about the
> networks' coverage of Obama?


I think Stewart's whole point is to call these idiots out on CNBC who are being critical of homeowners making stupid decisions when they, themselves, were part of the problem.

Lots of people have been critical of Obama, including Alan Greenspan and Paul Krugman. I don't see Stewart doing extensive hatchet jobs on them.

I loved his remark about how off the mark it was to blame mortgage holders when the insurance/finance companies were leveraged 30-35 times their cash assets!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 09:05PM by Vince(1).

in case you missed it....


http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20090313_jon_stewarts_not_buying_what_jim_cramers_seliing/

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in case you missed it....
>
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20090313_jon_
> stewarts_not_buying_what_jim_cramers_seliing/



This serves CNBC right for hyping this shit. I hope the SEC comes down on these bastards and CNBC throws Cramer overboard in a vain attempt to save themselves.

Yes, indict everyone at CNBC. Throw all the NEWS REPORTERS into jail. After all, they didn't catch what the REGULATORS were supposed to do!

Why isn't the head of the SEC on the show to answer for why guys like Madoff got away with bilking people for billions? Why aren't Todd and Schumer on the show to answer for their crimes in encouraging agencies to give people loans who shouldn't get them? It's like blaming the Washington Post for Watergate, reporting on the event instead of acting as law enforcement to stop it?

Nowhere in the piece did Stewart credit Cramer for telling everyone in August 2008 (when the S&P was in the 1200's), to sell off anything in the stock market they would need the money for in the next five years. Anyone listening to that call would have avoided a further 40% drop in their equity investments.

Let's get real here, CRAMER didn't let the investment banks lever up that much, legislators enabled the regulators to set those parameters as acceptable.

All true statments...and I agree those truly responsible should be investigated and prosecuted. And I am sure a lot of the exchange is merely grandstanding....but as Stewart explaind..what generated his angst was the Santini mightier then thou outburst on the Chicago trading floor that infuriated him. It was Santini who was/is ready to throw a lot of homeowners under the wheels...and his rant "Obama....Can you hear USSS!!!" was absolutley discusting. People like him should have been shouting like that about the insurance/finance companies just as loud. Honest attempts by the President to solve a problem he didnt create is worthy of discussion...but not by the types who blindly looked the other way and were nothing more then the mouth piece for Wall Street.

And isn't it lovely that even today this happens:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29697096/

AIG did us more harm than any other commercial venture in this mess.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And isn't it lovely that even today this happens:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29697096/
>
> AIG did us more harm than any other commercial
> venture in this mess.


I could give a rat's ass if somebody made their sales target for AIG and "deserves" a bonus. BULLSHIT! If the government hadn't intervened, AIG would be gone and these douchebags wouldn't even HAVE JOBS! And don't give me this shit about keeping "good people." The unemployment lines in New York are full of "good people," who would die for jobs that didn't pay millions in bonuses.

The Administration needs to stop pussy-footing around and put a boot on the neck of these fuckers at AIG. Take it over and fire senior management. That will send a clear message to all these bastards at BoA, Citigroup, etc. Get your shit in line, or expect the same.

Unfortunately in this case it isn't so easy, but the number for the bonuses came way down from earlier reports. Apparently there were legal agreements in place, my guess is a pay-per-performance compensation model that pays out a commission of some kind based on sales. I don't have as much of a problem with that because 1) usually in these cases that is how people get paid, as opposed to a fixed and stable amount, and 2) incentives need to exist for employees to increase business in order for the business to survive. We want these companies to eventually NOT be on the public dole, and to do that they need to survive.

But mostly my position is that it is cheaper for us as taxpayers to let the contractual compensation go than spend three times that fighting lawsuits.

I worry that the term "bonus" is being used in cases where performance pay is included as a component of compensation. If a person received a $50k performance compensation on top of a 50k base salary, that isn't evil when compared to a base salary of $100k and no bonus structure where an employee can have so-so performance and get that amount.

This is a separate issue from the absolutely evil and criminal practices of decision-makers at AIG who underwrote insurance without even a joke of asset backing. Those people should be clapped in irons and dragged through the streets for us with our now-201k's to spit on and throw rocks at before they are drowned in Lake Fairfax.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2009 01:23PM by pgens.

pgens Wrote:

>
> I worry that the term "bonus" is being used in
> cases where performance pay is included as a
> component of compensation. If a person received a
> $50k performance compensation on top of a 50k base
> salary, that isn't evil when compared to a base
> salary of $100k and no bonus structure where an
> employee can have so-so performance and get that
> amount.


Yeah they performed so well they performed us all into a depressed economy. Thanks cheers, great, now give up the performance pay cuz their performance was atrocious.