Is J. Cramer's stint at CNBC over?

G

garfangle

Jim Cramer, outspoking markets commentator for CNBC's Kudlow and Cramer, is a director and major shareholder of theStreet.com, a firm he co-founded. Regularly on the program he tells viewers that he owns or is going to acquire certain securities that are a result of his RealMoney.com stock selector service. However, according to the NY Times, CNBC has now implemented a new policy that forbids individual ownership of stocks (though funds are okay) for its managers and news staff and their spouses and dependants for the purpose of avoiding a potential conflict of interest (See story link (reg req.)).

Since I assume that Cramer is not about to give up his lucrative RealMoney.com service will he have to quit CNBC as a host (though he still might come on as a guest)? Can he go back to Fox where he once had a show (that got into some controversy about his touting of theStreet.com as a stock pick)? Might he have to camp out at CNNfn or (god forbid) PBS's Wall Street Week with Fortune? His run as a tv personality might be over. Which is too bad.
 
Quote from garfangle:

CNBC has now implemented a new policy that forbids individual ownership of stocks (though funds are okay) for its managers and news staff and their spouses and dependants for the purpose of avoiding a potential conflict of interest (See story link (reg req.)).

... His run as a tv personality might be over
More...
Well, as long as you're looking for conjecture, here's a couple of thoughts:

1. Cramer could be given some sort of classification, i.e., "guest editorialist", for which the new rule does not apply;

2. Cramer could have his holdings in a non-individual entity and so bypass the rule;

3. Maybe CNBC wanted a way to get rid him.
 
If that article is correct, then your right, Cramers gonna face a very tough choice because I cannot see him giving up being able to own individual securities. On the other hand he seems to have a lot of fun with the Kudlow and Cramer thing.

I wonder if CNBC is shooting themselves in the foot somewhat here. I mean to ban "spouses and dependents" as well from owning securities other than from their employers.

Even considering the medium, that is a bit draconian if you ask me.





:mad:
 
Quote from gms:

Well, as long as you're looking for conjecture, here's a couple of thoughts:

1. Cramer could be given some sort of classification, i.e., "guest editorialist", for which the new rule does not apply;

2. Cramer could have his holdings in a non-individual entity and so bypass the rule;

3. Maybe CNBC wanted a way to get rid him.
More...

I doubt CNBC own rules would permit him to be a major component of a show and still adhere to the policy, regardless of classification.

If his holdings were in a blind trust then his RealMoney.com service would be finished as he could not use it as a stock selector tool either for himself or his subscribers.

I don't know about the ratings of the show.
 
Another possibility not brought up yet is that he himself lobbied heavily for CNBC to implement this policy so that it would give him a plausible reason to end the horrendous track record that he has racked up so far.

Free of having to say what he bought when, he can do what he does best. Rant and rave about everything under the sun and then to only revisit the successes at a later time. Diabolical! :cool:
 
Quote from vhehn:

cramer loves tv. i think he would do almost anything to be on tv so he can stroke that ego.
More...

agree otherwise if he has any shame he wouldn't be on at all.
 
Quote from Babak:

Another possibility not brought up yet is that he himself lobbied heavily for CNBC to implement this policy so that it would give him a plausible reason to end the horrendous track record that he has racked up so far.

Free of having to say what he bought when, he can do what he does best. Rant and rave about everything under the sun and then to only revisit the successes at a later time. Diabolical! :cool:
More...

What horrendous track record? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top