Proof Of Cramer Manipulation

Other hedge funds and institutional traders are out to get Cramer now.

Like an idiot, he spoke in plain english terms about the tip of the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg regarding games big fish play to game the markets.

But it was enough to make the front page of several papers, and onto youtube.com

Now, probably 97% of the people seeing the clip or reading his excerpts have NO CLUE to this day what he is talking about, in terms of the mechanics, but 3% do, and the 97% are being told, in direct terms, that there's dishonesty on Wall Street, and that Wall Street and stock trading is corrupt!!! :eek:


So, yeah. Look for Cramer to be taken down by the prevailing powers that try to nurture an image of Wall Street as an honest arbitrager of almost perfectly efficient markets, free for all to participate in, with no one possessing the upper hand.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Other hedge funds and institutional traders are out to get Cramer now.

Like an idiot, he spoke in plain english terms about the tip of the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg regarding games big fish play to game the markets.

But it was enough to make the front page of several papers, and onto youtube.com

Now, probably 97% of the people seeing the clip or reading his excerpts have NO CLUE to this day what he is talking about, in terms of the mechanics, but 3% do, and the 97% are being told, in direct terms, that there's dishonesty on Wall Street, and that Wall Street and stock trading is corrupt!!! :eek:




So, yeah. Look for Cramer to be taken down by the prevailing powers that try to nurture an image of Wall Street as an honest arbitrager of almost perfectly efficient markets, free for all to participate in, with no one possessing the upper hand.
More...

Total agreement here. As they say, "he stepped on his dick". I can't wait to find out what the hell he was thinking. But it's been 44 years, and we still don't know who killed Kennedy.
 
I really don't see a what the big deal is with the Cramer video. He was mostly trying to promote his Wallstreet Confidential program by ranting about the big bad secrets, that those fat cats on wall street don't want you to know about (SARCASM).

Does some of what he described occur? Probably? Does any of it have a big enough of an effect to hurt retail investors aka the little guys aka main street in the long run? Probably not. He's talking about creating a negative sentiment for one day out of the year, with one stock. This can be done, yes, hell single institutions, if they so wanted, could probably manipulate a stock for more than a day, but end the end you loose when you get the ego to think that you can control a market. I hate to burst the bubble for the conspiracy enthusiasts, but anyone on wall street would tell you, that thinking you can control the market is a quick way to blow-up.

It seems that most of these people are using naked short-selling as a scape-goat for their inabilities and failures as traders/investors. 99% of the time you read about a "short selling conspiracy" or naked shorting, it's a truly poor company and management that's actually to blame. Let's take this case.. BRLC. .

BRLC's CEO Appeared on Mad Money on 3/27 after the close I believe.

On 3/28/07 BRLC announced that they had raised $15.5 million through the sale of 211,817 warrants exercisable at $8.78 and more importantly the sale of 2,118,172 shares of common stock at $7.32, a small discount to the 3/27 closing price of $7.93, and a larger discount to $8.35, the opening price per share of 3/28 benefiting from the Mad Money appearance pop.

So far there hasn't been an 8k filed for the PIPE (private investment in public equity), but the press release states that the investors included "an entity controlled by John Jung-Jyh Wu, President and CEO of TCV Group, the company's (BRLC's) primary supplier of plastic injection molding parts, and WeTech Electronics Limited of Singapore, a provider of electronic components for Syntax-Brillian's award-winning Olevia branded TVs." If you've read some of the other research out there, you'll know that one of the primary issues raised by BRLC bears is BRLC's relationships with their suppliers, and how their suppliers have provided BRLC with rebates for price protection in order for BRLC to actually sell these TVs at a profit.

The pop to $8.35 after the Mad Money appearance left the investors in the PIPE with an immediate profit of $1.03 per share or $2,181,717.16 on the stocks, and getting the warrants a whole lot closer to their exercise price of $8.78.

But then realizing these facts would be too difficult for investors to realize that they picked a dud, and the company itself is the one that's hurting the "little guys". Far easier to participate in some collective delusions, and discuss Cramer's supposed manipulations. These people are beyond help.
 
It seems that most of these people are using naked short-selling as a scape-goat
More...
Or it could simply actually be naked short selling, especially when the float is smaller than the shares short.
Every time there is a major market rally, BRLC starts going down within seconds.
But BRLC is on the SHO list, so it is illegal to short it.
Gee, how does that happen ??
 
Quote from Tarl_Cabot:

Or it could simply actually be naked short selling, especially when the float is smaller than the shares short.
Every time there is a major market rally, BRLC starts going down within seconds.
But BRLC is on the SHO list, so it is illegal to short it.
Gee, how does that happen ??
More...

Because they do it anyway. Read the document I provided. There is so much money to be made, they fake locates, and use the system to kite the borrows. Easy, and everybody knows it. Now there is a scary thought. Everybody knows it. What's that telling you?
 
Quote from Bearbelly:

I only watched part of the show once but Im pretty sure at the beginning of the show they clearly
stated that the information Cramer was going to give out may have already been given to others.
More...
cramer_pic.jpg


Correct. Scrolling at the start of CNBC's "Mad Money" is this attorney-combed-periodically-tweaked viewer caveat:

"All opinions expressed by Jim Cramer on this show are solely Cramer’s opinions and do not reflect the opinions of CNBC, NBC UNIVERSAL or their parent company or affiliates, and may have been previously disseminated by Cramer on radio, internet or another medium. Cramer’s opinions are based upon information he considers reliable, but neither CNBC nor its affiliates and/or subsidiaries warrant its completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such. Cramer’s statements and opinions are subject to change without notice. No part of Cramer’s compensation from CNBC is related to the specific opinions he expresses. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Cramer nor CNBC guarantees any specific outcome or profit. You should be aware of the real risk of loss in following any strategy or investment discussed on the show. Strategies or investments discussed may fluctuate in price or value. Investors may get back less than invested. Investments or strategies mentioned in this show may not be suitable for you. This material does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation or needs and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for you. You must make an independent decision regarding investments or strategies mentioned on the show. Before acting on information in the show, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and strongly consider seeking advice from your own financial or investment adviser."
 
Ok, I have more proof.

On Weds night a guest had mentioned SPAR and then on Thursday night, Cramer featured it.

On Tuesday, there was a price blip on heavy volume and no news. On Thursday, the stock was up 5% on heavy volume (3 times the regular average volume). Again, there was no particular news that would have been responsible for the blip.
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top