It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by DarkSecret
Actually if you look at what Cramer's demographics were............. he had a major following of college kids.............. so YES - they looked to Cramer for HONEST investment advice!
I have to say.......... what you posted.......... gets me very upset........... that is like blaming a victim of phyiscal abuse for getting the physical abuse - and NOT the person doing the abusing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by wonderworld
Cramer was blown away that rock solid companies that could never go sour went sour. None of us could have predicted the severity of either wall street or main street taking such a hit. The smart guys took their money out of stocks in October 2007. There were a few who saw this coming, as well as lots of government officials, who in fact caused it. The average guy continued to believe everything would continue to go up in value, homes, stocks, BANKS, the root of our society. I still say give Cramer a break on this one. He doesnt have a crystal ball. I can think of a couple MSN money editors who did worse.
The first lesson I had in securities law was given me by Gordon Macklin, a revered figure within modern Wall Street history: he built NASDAQ, and was the Co-CEO of Hambrecht & Quist. I was fortunate enough to have Mr Macklin as a kind of Dutch Uncle to me from the time that I was a teenager until his passing in early 2007. When I was a lad I once asked Mr. Macklin, “Do companies ever do this-or-that in order to make their stocks go up?” Macklin replied, “There is one thing you need to know about securities law: anytime someone purposefully does something in order to make a stock go up or go down, he is doing something illegal. You can go to law school and study it for years, but that’s what it boils down to. You make bets on stocks, but you never purposefully make the price of a stock move in either direction. It’s manipulation. It’s illegal. That is the first thing you need to know about the stock market.”
Years later I went to work for one of the great Graham-Dodd value investors of Wall Street. From the behavior of him and those in his firm the same lesson was reinforced, and I internalized it to the point that it would have seemed strange even to mention it. In fact, I would put it on par with knowledge among health care workers that one is supposed to wash one’s hands between seeing patients, and when I left Wall Street I would have supposed it as rare to find someone there who did not know that one does not purposefully move the prices of stocks as it would be to find a nurse who did not know about germs.
Jim Cramer has spent his investing career manipulating stock prices up and down, and his career as a journalist explaining how he does it. Thus to this untutored eye, Cramer’s public statements appear to be confessions of wildly illegal acts. So my second prefatory remark is that Jim Cramer’s continued freedom bewilders me.
Friday brought more tumult for CNBC anchor Jim Cramer, when the chief executive of his online financial news site, The Street.com, resigned.
The company announced Friday that Thomas Clarke, TheStreet.com’s CEO for the past decade, would be leaving, effective immediately. He’s been temporarily replaced by Daryl Otte, a longtime director on the company’s board, who will serve as chief until the search committee, which he is leading, finds a new CEO.
Outsized TV personality and chairman of the board Jim Cramer issued a boilerplate statement on Mr. Clarke’s departure, saying only, “I want to thank Tom for his long-time service to the Company and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.”
The abrupt nature of Mr. Clarke’s departure only adds to the company’s troubles in the current bear market. Its stock dropped below $2 per share this week, down from $9.50 per share a year ago.
The stock in recent years had traded as high as $16 per share in December of 2007, but has suffered with the decline in the media and advertising markets. Its success was tied closely to Mr. Cramer’s popularity, and the recent heavy criticism of his bombastic television personality may be reflected in the company’s performance.