Proof Of Cramer Manipulation

[Tarl_Cabot]

If you read the post above your last one, you'll understand the point is that "who cares?" and "so what?".

You could have a program on HBO or Showtime that entirely consisted of beautiful large breasted women with the names of stock symbols painted on their naked bodies.

I can guarantee that those stocks would go up the next day.

It would not be illegal for people to know earlier which symbols would be painted.

And so what ?

If someone makes money off of fools legally, and with full disclosure (see the post above yours), then so what ?

 

[michaelscott]

The point of this thread is to create a collection of "coincidences" that revolve around Jim Cramer's Mad Money picks to illustrate that the show is all about manipulating stocks and not about educating the retail investor/trader.

If you dont care for this thread, then you have the option not to read it. Since you have read and responded throughout this entire thread, it is obvious that you do care about the information that is within it.

 

[Tarl_Cabot]

Threads don't always revolve around the intentions of the thread starter (for better or worse).

PS Your last example is not a very good one (probably because you did not watch the show). Likely sequence of events:

Tuesday - Indiana University students buy SPAR, hoping they can get their guy on the show.

Wednesday - Indiana University student succeeds in getting on the show, and mentioning SPAR. Jim has never heard of it (which he admitted).

Thursday - Jim, always looking for something to fill up 45 minutes 5 times a week, decides that SPAR is interesting enough to talk about that day.

PPS Note: Human Beings are actually capable of having more than one motivation ! Shock ! For example, I may take someone to dinner at a great restaurant, and I can be interested in eating great food and talking to an interesting person asd well.

In other words, Jim may actually be interested in educating retail investors (which he does, I can give examples), and also be interested in giving tips to friends.

 

[Triple X]

SPAR looks like an accident waiting to happen. It's up from 7 within the last 52 weeks. I would never touch a stock up that much within a year. The book value is less than 5 bucks. Cramer is no better than a monkey throwing darts at a stock table, imo.

 

[xiaodre]

I don't get it. A TV show features a stock, and the general public now gets excited about an opportunity to buy it. So they want to buy, demand exceeds supply, and the stock goes up.

What's the objection?

On that chart the stock went up $1 before the show, and another 50c after...is that your objection?

Or is it that the stock was mentioned on the TV show?

Quote from michaelscott:

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.

 

[archon]

Cramer is always going on about his "charitable trust." He makes it sound like the earnings from his holdings are all going to charity. However, from what I understand of trusts, that only happens when he dies. Until then, he is free to take any profits that he wants from his charitable trust.

Am I correct on this? If so, how can CNBC still allow him on the air when he is recommending stocks that he has positions in?

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from michaelscott:

Ok, I have more proof.

I believe the real jackasses are the people buying SPAR on at $26+ in Thursday evening afterhours 15 minutes before his show even airs (5:45pm EST). It is obvious someone knows the symbols he is going to pump before he talks about them.

 

[Tarl_Cabot]

Quote from sprstpd:

I believe the real jackasses are the people buying SPAR on at $26+ in Thursday evening afterhours 15 minutes before his show even airs (5:45pm EST). It is obvious someone knows the symbols he is going to pump before he talks about them.

Everyone in the room in the studio where it is filmed, everyone who proofreads the scripts, maybe someone at Kinko's who made copies of the scripts, etc.

This is not the CIA, it is a TV show, it is not secret.

 

[RL8093]

Quote from archon:

Cramer is always going on about his "charitable trust." He makes it sound like the earnings from his holdings are all going to charity. However, from what I understand of trusts, that only happens when he dies. Until then, he is free to take any profits that he wants from his charitable trust.

Am I correct on this?

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]

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from Tarl_Cabot:

Everyone in the room in the studio where it is filmed, everyone who proofreads the scripts, maybe someone at Kinko's who made copies of the scripts, etc.

This is not the CIA, it is a TV show, it is not secret.

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