AOL Money & Finance

Cramer on BloggingStocks: Stop Moralizing

More

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says it's just not an investable way of thinking.

Why is it such a bad idea to buy stocks if the worst is over? Why is it considered so heretical? One reason could be that there's too much moralizing going on among the stock pickers and the pundits these days. Yesterday, for example, I heard so many people blasting the government for coming to the aid of the Hartfords (NYSE: HIG) (Cramer's Take) and Lincolns (NYSE: LNC) (Cramer's Take) and Principals (NYSE: PFG) (Cramer's Take) that you would have thought that people wanted these companies to fail.

As someone who has been an unusually vocal critic of these companies -- and they have been in the sell block for months from me -- I don't understand why anyone would be angry at the government's decision if they actually wanted all stocks to go higher. Taking the issues of Lincoln and Hartford off the table is something that makes you say "the worst is over," and if we don't get the worst over, why wouldn't we go back to Roubini territory?

A bottom is murky and ugly, and many strange and bad things happen. Some people manage to steal companies, others get subsidies or bailouts, there's no justice to what happens. I mean, why should companies that invested badly or are not good at their job be bailed out?

But that's what happens. It keeps things from falling apart. Who cares about justice if your litmus test is making money? If you decide not to buy these stocks because "it shouldn't have happened," how are you helping yourself?

Drop the moralizing. All of these stocks were open wounds to the market. Not only was it likely that one of these would default but it was also likely that they couldn't pay off for some of their policy holders. It was one of the market's biggest fears. Plus, these companies were endlessly selling stocks and bonds they owned to stay alive. That should stop, too.

The market's better today for it. Stop being angry about this bailout or the others. Recognize that we would be substantially lower without it. Don't rationalize that you shouldn't invest because ultimately we will be worse for this and we should have let these companies go. If we had done that, we would not be able to hold 5,300.

If you are short, that's the home run. If you are one of the dyed-in-the-wool bears, you needed the government not to do this and you need lots of banks to fail the stress test.

To listen to the moralizing people, you would think that we would be "out of this" if the government did nothing to solve the problems. I have no evidence whatsoever to believe in that view.

And it is certainly not an investable way of thinking.

At the time of publication, Cramer had no positions in the stocks mentioned. Jim Cramer is co-founder and chairman of TheStreet.com. He contributes daily market commentary for TheStreet.com's sites and serves as an adviser to the company's CEO.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Symbol Lookup
IndexesChangePrice
DJIA-17.2410,433.71
NASDAQ-6.832,169.18
S&P 500-0.591,105.65

Last updated: November 25, 2009: 07:01 AM

BloggingStocks Exclusives

Hot Stocks

DailyFinance Headlines

Latest from BloggingBuyouts

TheFlyOnTheWall.com Headlines

BioHealth Investor Headlines

WalletPop Headlines

My Portfolios

Track your stocks here!

Find out why more people track their portfolios on AOL Money & Finance then anywhere else.

BloggingStocks Partners

More from AOL Money & Finance

WalletPop Headlines