Jon Stewart Just Crucified Cramer & CNBC

[Sandybestdog]

Quote from destroyerofall:

Hey moron Cramer said to buy at 14000 and his comment about selling for the next 5 years came when the DOW was more around 10000, NOT 12000, OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AND THEN HE TELLS PEOLPLE ABOUT 10 TIMES AFTER THAT COMMENT, THE BOTTOM IS IN....

WHY WOULD HE SAY SELL EVERYTHING YOU NEED FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS, THEN CALL A BOTTOM 3 MONTHS LATER DUM DUM???

And even more, your asking how many calls John Stewart has made???? JOHN STEWART AINT THE ONE BEING CALLED A GURU ON MSNBC, OR HAVING AD AFTER AD BEING RUN ON MSNBC SAYING.... IN JOHN STEWART WE TRUST.

And succesfully ran a hedge fund??? Yea I'm sure many people on ET could do that as well, if they had the funds to manipulate volume like Cramer has admitted. I also believe I read somewhere he used MSNBC commentators like Bob Pisani, to put out false information. DUM DUM.


And let me add even more, BEFORE HE SAID SELL EVERYTHING YOU NEED FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS, HE KEPT SAYING THE BOTTOM WAS IN AT 13000, 12000,11000, 10000 THEN HE TOLD EVERYONE TO SELL.

HERE YA GO SANDY, SO SLEEP WELL AT NITE MASTERBATING TO YOUR BOY JIM CRAMER

http://gawker.com/5169531/the-jim-cramer-indictment-five-more-counts

So you’re bashing someone for making a call in the past, based on what happened in the future?

Why don’t you show us all your trading account? I wonder whose is bigger, yours or Cramer’s?

Nobody can critisize Stewart for making bad calls because he hasn’t done anything. All he does is run his mouth, just like you.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Well said. If being an "expert" was in itself a salvation from the ravages of randomness then we'd see Billy Packer sitting in a Vegas casino making billions betting on NCAA games.

Once again not to be a prick-which I am-but many people on this thread just don't get it. By mere virtue of the blame climate being in place-and that the market anticipated the high tax/anti-capitalism culture ahead of time is why sellers overwhelmed buyers the past four months. Those of you applauding Stewart are stuck in the minutia. The "story" isn't Cramer being a tool, that's a given. The real story is that the MSM even cares about this Stewart vs. Cramer showdown. Lest any of you forget this started out as Stewart going after Santelli. Why did Stewart take on Rick? Because Santelli dared to oppose the trillion dollar "stimulus". Cramer is the sideshow. The war against anti big government speculators is the Main Event. The Obama administration publicly criticized Santelli and days later Stewart goes after Santelli. Not cool unless you happen to be some totalitarian, socialist fuck who condones the media segueing from watchdog to Obama mouthpiece

As a few of you know I'm starting a live video fund. My biggest play will be shorting Treasury securities. No need to rehash the reasons-they're obvious. But on a macro level I'm preemptively scared for my safety and freedom for being known as an outspoken critic of Big Brother. Mark my words if ZB futures trade 65 we'll see Congressional witch hunts targeting those "anti-patriots" who sold out the "American people" by profiting on Treasury shorts.

So while it's fine to think the Stewart bit was funny and that Cramer "got what he deserves" look beyond the comedy at the big picture. A leftest comic went after Rick Santelli because Santelli opposed an Obama policy initiative. If you're a trader, a capitalist and in opposition to creeping socialism then you'd best move beyond laughing at Stewart and his ilk and begin fearing them.

Your view on treasuries isn't exactly 'revolutionary' nor radical, as everyone from Jim Rogers to Bill Gross to Warren Buffet has publicly said U.S. treasuries are one of the biggest bubbles of all time at present.

You insinuate that Buffet and Gross should fear for their safety.

Oh, Julian Robertson told CNBC during his interview with Erin Burnett that shorting U.S. treasuries would be his 'play of the decade' going forward, when asked what his single best strategy for making coin would be.

 

[dafeeder]

I think its' funny what Crammer said about how he use to manipulate some futures markets. Things like that happen all the time and it's really a joke that the CFTC can't or won't do anything about it.

 

[WaveStrider]

Well, as Stewart says, his "snake-oil" is clearly labeled as such, whereas CNBC's anchors' are not. But they are both shilling in their own way.

But Stewart's approach is self-admittedly populist. When Enron traders were laughing about taking money from "Grandma" in the California blackouts, it's doubtful "Grandma" knew what was going on, so Stewart directs his commentary at people who just see the lights are going on and off for some reason even though their electricity bill keeps going up...

Cramer actually looked worried when Stewart played his past vid. It looked like his commentary career flashed before his eyes.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from dafeeder:

I think its' funny what Crammer said about how he use to manipulate some futures markets. Things like that happen all the time and it's really a joke that the CFTC can't or won't do anything about it.

I think he said they would use futures to cause certain behaviors in stocks prices.

Much different then manipulation of futures .

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

I've long believed a big reason why many Forbes List billionaires are outspoken liberals is so they don't become Public Enemy #1 in a class war.

Damn right I think if some guy like Peter Schiff makes 10 billion on a Treasury crash that he'll be hung in effigy. Do you think if Long Bonds go to 16% that Congress and the Administration are going to allow some anti-government, short Bonds fund manager to be a media darling? Yea, right.

As far as your examples: Jim Rogers-who left the country as has Robertson-has been bearish Treasuries since the day he was born and Gross despite his public statements is the longest he's been since 2007.
March 10 (Bloomberg) -- Bill Gross, manager of Pacific Investment Management Co.’s $138 billion Total Return Fund, increased his holdings of U.S. government debt to 15 percent in February, the highest percentage since July 2007.

Pimco’s founder and co-chief investment officer bought government debt after holding a negative position through purchases of derivatives, futures or shorting Treasuries in January. Gross also boosted the world’s biggest bond fund’s holdings in mortgage-backed securities to 86 percent of total assets, up from 83 percent last month, according to the Newport Beach, California-based company’s Web site.

While the government debt category includes Treasuries, Gross has said in the past that Pimco is not interested in buying the securities. In February, Gross said it was “incumbent” upon the Federal Reserve to buy Treasuries but that he wouldn’t follow the central bank’s lead. Gross missed out on the biggest Treasury market rally in 14 years in 2008, saying that yields were too low because inflation will accelerate as the deficit surges.

“We wouldn’t buy Treasuries but we would buy bonds that are correlated and related to Treasuries with a higher yield,” Gross said in a Feb. 5 interview on Bloomberg Television.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMpM68VCgbe4&refer=home

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Your view on treasuries isn't exactly 'revolutionary' nor radical, as everyone from Jim Rogers to Bill Gross to Warren Buffet has publicly said U.S. treasuries are one of the biggest bubbles of all time at present.

You insinuate that Buffet and Gross should fear for their safety.

Oh, Julian Robertson told CNBC during his interview with Erin Burnett that shorting U.S. treasuries would be his 'play of the decade' going forward, when asked what his single best strategy for making coin would be.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Somewhat along the same lines. This is from Monday's IBD-delivered today:

Harassing A Lawman
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Last Tuesday, the Justice Department notified Joe Arpaio, the top lawman in Maricopa County, Ariz., including Phoenix, that his department is under investigation for "patterns" of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures. The letter offered zero specifics.

But we'd guess those specifics closely match the radical agenda of community organizers like La Raza, ACORN and other government-funded immigration lobbyists, all of whom launched a coordinated campaign "message" at about the same time.

Congress, meanwhile, has a witch hunt of its own going against Arpaio that popped up about the same time. This too is strange, because Arpaio has been at it since 1993 and hasn't changed a bit.

Sure, like Rush Limbaugh, Arpaio's an easy target. He's bombastic and carries out his duties with gusto. That's why he's popular with Arizona voters and a target of open-border activists.

We trust that Sheriff Arpaio is more than able to defend himself against these vague allegations. But to go after him at a time like this also strikes us as being an egregiously misplaced priority.

As everyone knows, there's a war coming up from Mexico that is fast spilling over into the United States. Arpaio's Phoenix now has the second-highest kidnapping rate in the world. It's a war all right, linked to the very smuggling crimes that Arpaio is fighting.

Going after him now sends a disturbing message about U.S. priorities to Mexico's organized criminals. They'll profit from an enfeebled law enforcement effort in that state, which is what this Justice bid would do.

Arpaio's department is the largest participant in the 287(g) federal program that lets local police departments help enforce federal immigration laws. His deputies cooperate with federal agencies, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that break up smuggling rings. Since 2006, Arpaio has handed over 22,616 illegal immigrants to Immigration for deportation.

Maricopa deputies have also cracked down on those who ship illegal immigrants to sweatshops and other slave settings — scooping up 1,250 of them. The deputies enforce federal law as well by turning in illegal immigrants who commit other crimes — about 1,582 in all.

While Arpaio annoys the illegal immigration lobby, he frightens Mexico's smugglers and cuts into their business. The reality is that by going after him with lawsuits, smugglers get a very big obstacle to their U.S. operations removed.

Make no mistake: The violent criminal enterprises Mexico is fighting are the same ones smuggling meth, cocaine and illegal immigrants.

At best, whoever wants Joe in jail over civil rights violations doesn't think the laws Arpaio struggles to enforce are as important as satisfying special interest groups.

It amounts to politics at the expense of national security. And wittingly or not, it does the cartels' bidding. Using the fig leaf of "human rights violations" to defang the cops is something Medellin cartel cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar pioneered at the height of his power in the early 1990s. It ought to be seen for the ruse that it is.

Copyright 2000-2009 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. Click here for copyright permissions!
Copyright 2000-2009 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.

 

[nravo]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Well said. If being an "expert" was in itself a salvation from the ravages of randomness then we'd see Billy Packer sitting in a Vegas casino making billions betting on NCAA games.

Once again not to be a prick-which I am-but many people on this thread just don't get it. By mere virtue of the blame climate being in place-and that the market anticipated the high tax/anti-capitalism culture ahead of time is why sellers overwhelmed buyers the past four months. Those of you applauding Stewart are stuck in the minutia. The "story" isn't Cramer being a tool, that's a given. The real story is that the MSM even cares about this Stewart vs. Cramer showdown. Lest any of you forget this started out as Stewart going after Santelli. Why did Stewart take on Rick? Because Santelli dared to oppose the trillion dollar "stimulus". Cramer is the sideshow. The war against anti big government speculators is the Main Event. The Obama administration publicly criticized Santelli and days later Stewart goes after Santelli. Not cool unless you happen to be some totalitarian, socialist fuck who condones the media segueing from watchdog to Obama mouthpiece

As a few of you know I'm starting a live video fund. My biggest play will be shorting Treasury securities. No need to rehash the reasons-they're obvious. But on a macro level I'm preemptively scared for my safety and freedom for being known as an outspoken critic of Big Brother. Mark my words if ZB futures trade 65 we'll see Congressional witch hunts targeting those "anti-patriots" who sold out the "American people" by profiting on Treasury shorts.

So while it's fine to think the Stewart bit was funny and that Cramer "got what he deserves" look beyond the comedy at the big picture. A leftest comic went after Rick Santelli because Santelli opposed an Obama policy initiative. If you're a trader, a capitalist and in opposition to creeping socialism then you'd best move beyond laughing at Stewart and his ilk and begin fearing them.

Ok, you're a trader: How far out should I short Treasuries, not futures; I don't want the big leverage or the roll to deal with, considering it's a crowded trade and is gonna require some patience. I'd rather just short some actual bonds, put them away and da-da. Caveats to doing this with bonds as opposed to futures? I want to do the flip side of being long Treasuries in 1982, which made some people quite wealthy but over several, many actually, years.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

A couple of suggestions. Shorting "cash" bonds is a bitch-especially because it's a negative carry trade. You'll be charged interest. Of course the futures basis reflects that too. If you can open a futures account or already have one there's a couple of lower risk alternatives than being a naked futures short. One is to put on a yield curve steepener. Neat that you mentioned crowded trades because these are all too crowded at this moment for my liking but shorting 30's against 5's unweighted will create a net short with less exposure than a naked short. Also a strat I use every now and then is selling an OTM call and using the proceeds to buy an OTM put. You'll be short some fraction of a delta depending on strikes, expiration etc. Unless the market rips really hard again below 3% you won't see your short calls in the money and on a break you'll become a futures short.

Quote from nravo:

Ok, you're a trader: How far out should I short Treasuries, not futures; I don't want the big leverage or the roll to deal with, considering it's a crowded trade and is gonna require some patience. I'd rather just short some actual bonds, put them away and da-da. Caveats to doing this with bonds as opposed to futures? I want to do the flip side of being long Treasuries in 1982, which made some people quite wealthy but over several, many actually, years.

 

[nravo]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

A couple of suggestions. Shorting "cash" bonds is a bitch-especially because it's a negative carry trade. You'll be charged interest. Of course the futures basis reflects that too. If you can open a futures account or already have one there's a couple of lower risk alternatives than being a naked futures short. One is to put on a yield curve steepener. Neat that you mentioned crowded trades because these are all too crowded at this moment for my liking but shorting 30's against 5's unweighted will create a net short with less exposure than a naked short. Also a strat I use every now and then is selling an OTM call and using the proceeds to buy an OTM put. You'll be short some fraction of a delta depending on strikes, expiration etc. Unless the market rips really hard again below 3% you won't see your short calls in the money and on a break you'll become a futures short.

Let me ponder. Yeah, the carry has kept me out of the cash market; I can't see how you make money except on short-term swings. As a long-term hold position, this gets more problematic. But thanks. Still thinking ... The ETFs are a waste, I assume, in more ways than one.