Defending Jim Cramer's Bear Stearns' call

Agreed except lots o dumb people out there don't know the difference!

Tim
http://www.timothysykes.com

Unbelievable the media coverage on this one, telling us “NO, NO, NO…do not sell, the company is healthy”. I guess when a guy like Bud Fox is sniffin’ around, the writing is on the wall. I wish I was paying more attention to that…hindsite is 20/20.

http://www.socoolaz.com/article.cfm?articleID=30193

Uh, no....that's not true. Bear is not/was not a "bank" in the sense that we think of it. Tell me something, how many Bear Steans Banks you seen on the corner down the street? Oh, that's right....none! It is an Investment Bank stupid. Mom and Dad didn't have a checking and savings with BS ok? Cramer was talking about the stock, period.

If he was talking about Bear Stearns as a brokerage account, why did they bother to show the stock chart?

Fact remains that the email is unclear and could be interpreted either way.

If anything, this is a great example of why an this unnuanced program does a tremendous disservice.

Zac,

I do agree the clip is more about investment accounts than the stock. However, this was indeed a bad call on Cramers part for several reasons.

1) He clearly states that BSC is going to be fine and viewers should not be panicing. The implication is for shareholders as much as it is brokerage accounts, although I did not know they have retail brokerage accounts?
2) He shows a BSC stock chart, that, at a minimum, has the implication that the stock is part of the discussion.
3) It is his duty to be clear, not leave novice investors to guess what he is referring too. Perhaps stating the question in more certain terms would have been helpful.
4) We all make bad calls including Cramer, but he has a far greater responsiblity knowing full well that investors are acting on his comments -- whether that is wise is a different question, but he knows they do.

If you change the question from whether he was speaking about the stock or brokerage accounts... to whether his comments did some harm, I think you would agree, he probably did some harm.

You are WRONG! Cramers web site (thestreet.com) had a "BUY" signal for the stock on last Tuesday. After the implosion yesterday they retroactively removed the "BUY" from their web site leaving a gap between the previous and next transaction.
They are intentionally misinforming the public. He should run for public office - what a politician.

See this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=772PXNSrSiI&feature=user

He showed the stock chart. Why if he wasn't talking about the stock?
Why didn't he talk about being bailed out if you had a bank account if that's what he meant?
Why does he web site have a "BUY" on that day and then it disappeared after the crash? He revised history.

Watch the video people. This defense of Cramer will only work on people who don't know the facts.
It's typical political spin.

People that have to yell to try and get their point accross are useless. The fact is that the stock chart was shown. Cramer and the other loud mouth bozos that make money off people dumb enough to listen to them, talk like this intentionally so they always have an out. Bottom line - anyone who listens to people like Cramer should just conribute their money to some good charitable organizations rather then throw their money away in the market.

You're wrong and an idiot.

The phrase "Do not take your money out..." used in the context of an emailer asking for stock advise has nothing to do with making a withdrawal. The emailer was clearly concerned about money he had invested in the stock, not some account.

Retard!
Retard!

Having been a fan of sports and horseracing for years, I've recently become a fan of financial programs. I've learned that prognosticators and analysts generally don't fare much better than the general public.

Jim Cramer is an entertainer. He gives his point of view, but gives no guarantees. My guess is that he makes more money from CNBC and selling his books than he ever would in the stock market.

If you base your financial decisions on what some chimp on the TV says, you're in for a bumpy ride.

From what I heard, if you had followed Cramer's advice you would have lost all your money!

STAY AWAY FROM THE BEAR !

http://www.madmoneyfund.blogspot.com/

This is stupid.

Why did they show the stock chart? Uhm, maybe because it's a finance show? What else are they going to show when talking about a company? A picture of the headquarters? They've got to show something, so why not show the stock chart? When they're talking about a new Microsoft OS, they show the Microsoft chart. When they're talking about a CEO resigning, they show a stock chart. It's a FINANCE SHOW people. Of course they're going to show the stock chart.

It sure is fun to beat up on someone popular, but if you watch the clip, it really is quite clear. The viewer's question was obviously regarding what to do with the money in their brokerage accounts, and Jim correctly advised them that their money is fine, and that Bear Stearns liquidity was safe because they'd likely get bought out. Lo and behold, they did indeed get bought out. Where's the problem here?

Anyone who thinks Jim Cramer was not wrong on this, please answer the following questions:
1. I thought he had a stock show.
2. Why is the 52 week stock chart posted on the screen during his show if the question had nothing to do with the stock?
3. "Bear Stearns is fine!!!". Do I really have to explain this one.
4. Since the FDIC insures accounts up to $100,000 why would the question even be relevent if it was liquidity issues he was 100% talking about unless the writer had over $100,000 in the account? (which Cramer never mentioned)
He got it wrong... badly... and is now twisting things around. At the very least he was very ambiguous in his answer.
He is very charismatic, but I have read a study or two that shows his picks fair no better than the market (and that was before this fiasco)

"Since the FDIC insures accounts up to $100,000 why would the question even be relevent if it was liquidity issues he was 100% talking about unless the writer had over $100,000 in the account? (which Cramer never mentioned)"

The FDIC does not insure brokerage accounts.