Proof Of Cramer Manipulation

[michaelscott]

There is no question of illegality, it is illegal. The SEC had made attempts to prosecute a few people from CNBC in the 90s. Cramer has even received a few subpoenas in the past.

However, the SEC is nothing more then a Sheriff in a wild west town of 125 years ago. It has limited resources and is politically motivated. As well, when you take a case to trial then you run the risk of a judge defining the securities laws. Then you have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I watch stocks trade everyday and have been doing this now for many years. In order for a stock's volume to suddenly increase 3 times the normal average, you need a volatility event. When there is no news or no obvious reason and then suddenly its mentioned on a tv show later on, then that appears very suspicious. When it happens time and time again, over and over again, then I believe it more then a coincidence.

Quote from sprstpd:

Yes, the question is if that is illegal. If it is, it should be very easy to track who it is.

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from michaelscott:

However, the SEC is nothing more then a Sheriff in a wild west town of 125 years ago. It has limited resources and is politically motivated. As well, when you take a case to trial then you run the risk of a judge defining the securities laws. Then you have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It would be so easy to find all bidders above the close on SPAR 15 minutes before Cramer's Thursday evening show. Just track the ARCA and INET orders that happened then. I'm sure any investigator could take it from there.

 

[flytiger]

A famous reporter told me. " The SEC is created to protect Wall St., and (whatever the old SIA has become) lobbies for it.

You now know the rules. If they fool you, your fault.

 

[SteveD]

When the gate is pulled down, the bell is clanging and the whistle is screaming in pain.....

If you stand on the tracks, ignoring the facts,...

DON'T BLAME THE WRECK ON THE TRAIN...



SteveD

 

[biggerfish]

Quote from michaelscott:

... However, the SEC is nothing more then a Sheriff in a wild west town of 125 years ago.
It has limited resources and is politically motivated.
As well, when you take a case to trial then you run the risk of a judge defining the securities laws.
Then you have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt...

Quote from flytiger:

A famous reporter told me. " The SEC is created to protect Wall St., and (whatever the old SIA has become) lobbies for it.

You now know the rules. If they fool you, your fault.

Hands up, Cramer!

What We Do: Intro

 

[Tarl_Cabot]

There is no question of illegality, it is illegal. The SEC had made attempts to prosecute a few people from CNBC in the 90s.

That may have been prior to the adoption of the disclosures and warnings. Every time Cramer appears on CNBC, they show and read aloud the disclosure (reproduced prior in this thread), which includes "the information and recommendations may have been previously disseminated".

 

[Sbelmont]

Quote from RL8093:

I believe you're incorrect. Trusts can be setup in a number of ways with various rules for disbursements. Being dead is not necessarily one of those rules...

For a charitable trust, the disbursements need to go to qualified charities [hence the name]

Thanks for the info. I'm always skeptical of trusts. Just look at the supposed "blind" trust that Senator Bill Frist used. He was directing the trading in the damn thing!!