To "OldTrader",
The problem with Cramer-lovers is that you don't seem to see the big picture.
You see, even IF you believe that Jim was talking about "keeping your money" in Bear Stearns, you have to believe something very fantastic. Bear Stearns does not operate like a commericial bank. The only folks who could "have their money" in Bear Stearns would be non-retail or "little guy" investors. Not the sort that email Jim for advice.
But, let's go with your assumption.
I'll grant you all that if you want. You're still left with Jim POUNDING THE TABLE to BUY BSC at an average price of $80 or so.
So, okay, fine, Jim's just a horrible stock picker. Cool.
Then, the NEXT MONDAY Jim says that BSC is "worthless" and calls it a SELL. At... $4 and change.
Thus, once again, your 90% losses in BSC long now would be 125% losses SHORT thanks to Jim's "prescient" call to SELL BSC at - ahem - THE LOW.
Lost in all this is Jim's later backtracking where he claims that he "told people" the "the fed" would "bail out" the "hedgies".
That, is, a BALD FACED LIE. At no time did Jim ever say any of that. What Jim said on his show dated March 11, 2008 is that Bear Stearns was "fine", but, at no time did he mention "the fed" or getting "bailed out" with the "hedgies".
Jim flat-out, catagorically LIED about that to cover his horrific "advice".
Furthermore, and this is the most important part, Bear Stearns was NOT fine. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
In fact, if "the fed" did not - literally - bail out Bear Stearns, they would have GONE UNDER. Literally GONE DOWN THE DRAIN.
That was the thing that Jim said was "silly" etc. But, ironically, it was the precise thing that happened.
The only way you can spin Jim's lies, horrific calls, and, terrible advice on Bear Stearns (NYSE:BSC) in a positive light is if you are a buffoon who ignores facts and has an agenda of some sort.
Finally, the issue of whether TheStreet.com and Jim are in communication on what his "picks" are or "are not", is interesting. You argue that it was all some kind of goofy mix up.
Really? Well, if it happened with BSC, I wonder how many other of these "mixups" have occured. Just how much of what happens at TheStreet.com is a product of faux pas'?
The sad part about all this is that CNBC props up Jim Cramer as some sort of stock-picking dynamo. Truth is, he sucks. Flat out. And, worse yet, his brand of lies, flip-flops, and, shim-shammery is exactly what's wrong with wallstreet.
Oh yeah, one more thing: What kind of coward does it take to hide behind "misunderstandings", your employees who apparently can't figure out what you mean, a staff who screens all your calls save the "booyah, Jim, you're my hero" variety, a network that turns a blind eye to your actual record, and, an unwitting group of numbskulls (Cramericans) who can't seem to put two and two together with their "big chief pad" and purple crayon.
A real, honest, straightforward man of integrity would not allow CNBC to run articles that claim he "got it 100% right" on BSC. An honest man with any amount of scruples would, at the very least, say:
Folks, I told you to buy BSC at an average price of $80. Those trades were all disasters. I'm sorry I got it so wrong. And, my sell call at $4 and change was worse on a percent basis. Regardless of what others may say, I got BSC wrong. I'll try to do more homework next time and be more clear in my guidance.
Is that, OldTrader, too much to ask?
Sincerely,
Don Harrold
http://www.donharrold.net
Quote from OldTrader:
OK, so the bottom line is that the staff at TheStreet.com placed BSC on a list with a buy recommendation on 3/11. This is from Harrold's video. So in other words, the staff puts it there, not Cramer.
Now, since you guys like to make things up, let me do the same. Suppose the staff saw Cramer's show on 3/11. And suppose they had the same reaction as all of you guys. LOL! Suppose they in effect said, "he recommended BSC, let's put it on the list".
Now, chances are Cramer doesn't review everything they do. Except in this case, the video starts making the rounds AFTER BSC collapses. He finds out about the list with BSC on it. He has them remove it claiming that wasn't what he said on the show.
Now, did it happen that way? I don't know. But it's plausible.
So it seems to me that Harrold really doesn't have much more than he had to begin with on his original video.
You know I find it very amusing that in order to string this Cramer up, what we gotta do is change around the meaning of words on the original video, and then link it to a recommendation he supposedly made based on the same video as interpreted by his staff. Let the hangin' party continue.
OldTrader
