I've seen this video posted a ton, who cares. If you buy and sell based on Jim Cramer's opinion then you deserve to loose your money. Sorry its blunt but i know ET is smarter then that.
I posted this in the other thread about jc's bad call but here goes again. Here is the link to mad money go to tuesday march 11 where recommends buying bear stearns common stock. This and the video should be enough to put a lawsuit on Cramer. http://www.cramers-mad-money.com/
There is an obsession on ET with Cramer.He just does not figure in anything I think or do. What the f**k is wrong with some people? Cramer is TV performer - and a TV performer will be feed crap because real players of substance, either known or behind the scenes, would no way confide in any such person. Is there any chance of Cramer followers on ET waking up to this?
I've answered that. No SEC regulated equity account has seen a loss due to insolvency of said broker. It's ludicrous to insinuate that his "liquidity" comment has anything to do with the ability of the caller to wire out. That's the problem -- $18B in wires going out in a single day. BSC NEVER halted client liquidations. Both clowns, the caller and Cramer, were referring to the liquidity of Bear relative to solvency/insolvency and it's implications on the share price. Bear loses ability to fund it's positions and it's in liquidation. Share price goes to single digits but the BSC client hasn't lost a dime as a result of BSC's failure. The same cannot be said of the holder of the common stock. That is why Cramer produced a chart of BSC stock. Regardless, Cramer was incorrect however you care to interpret it; the wrong interpretation, or mine.
The point is not whether any "SEC regulated account" has seen a loss due to insolvency. The point is whether one of the viewers of a show like Cramers might have been concerned about liquidity. For instance, I read quite a number of posts yesterday between here and another site where people WERE concerned, where people wired out money out of IB out of their fear. Now you're gonna tell me that all of Cramers viewers are "rational", that this fear might not have been on someone's mind because no one ever had a loss due to insolvency??? C'mon now. You can do better than that. All that's happened here is that YOU put your own frame of reference on the question, and decided what the viewer asked rather than what the words actually said. Look, it makes no difference to me. Cramer gives plenty of bad advice all the time. That I would agree with. Evidently he even recommends Bear on January 11. I just don't happen to think that the topic of this particular video was whether to sell the stock or not. That's not what the words said. It was whether to take the money out of Bear due to liquidity concerns. OldTrader
Continue to be oblivious to the obvious. I am sure he made reference to the stock chart to make the case for his views on Bear's Prime Brokerage client liquidity and their ability to wire out. Yeah, sure he did. If the caller was concerned about his Bear account he should have asked that question. Which is more likely? A BSC PB client concerned with wiring out or a BSC shareholder concerned about the stock price? You proved my assertion that no client of Bear was risking their AUM due to insolvency. You're sticking to YOUR frame of reference, which is ridiculous. Regardless of the caller's intentions -- Cramer was obviously referring to the outlook on the share price. He produced a chart of BSC, enough said.
If you sold yesterday you were screwed, which is worse you not knowing what to do, or you and your broker being clueless? http://www.thestreet.com/quote/BSC.html
No, I'm not sticking to a frame of reference. I'm sticking to what was actually said, and what was printed in their box on the left of the video. YOU on the other hand are citing what someone could have known, might have known, perhaps should have known, a chart that was not referred to and could easily just be part of the process of the show, in short, everything EXCEPT what was actually said. What you did was make up the question that the viewer "should" have been asking, and then fit cramer's answer into that question, pull in the chart prop...and bingo. LOL! Geezuz, and you call me ridiculous? Do you often have conversations with yourself? The good news though. Almost everyone on ET agrees with you. That should give you some comfort. OldTrader
He produced a stock chart to make his case; that's all the proof you need regarding his intent. Give it a rest old man. Cut your losses and move on.
In my mind the stock chart was definitely the key to what cramer was thinking. If he was talking about having an account at bear stearns he would have said don't worry you are insured.