LOL, you kind of left out the most important part. BEAR IS NOT IN TROUBLE. Are you seriously going to tell me if you were a follower of cramer that it would not ease your mind about the stock. Would not a potential buyout even make you want to hold the stock for a premium? He hits his followers with two things. Reassurance and buyout. Two things that get the uninformed salivating. And what is worse, he even gets you to think you are SILLY for even thinking it.
I can't really argue with anything you say here. It all supports your opinion, and on this part I can totally understand your position even though I don't agree with it.
No intent to leave it out. But by the way, it was right around that time that I heard Swartz, the CEO, say they were not in trouble. In fact, I think it was after that. You know, I listened in on the conference call that Bear put on Friday, well after the Cramer comments. They had it all together according to them. What it shows you is that it's all a moving picture. Remember, we had a billionaire ride this stock down too. Ace Greenberg rode it down. Gotta tell ya, a lot of very knowledgable people rode this one down. I presume they all thought Bear was not in trouble. I'm not here to make excuses for Cramer....it's his TV show. I know I damn sure wouldn't want that job. All I'm posting about here is my opinion about the video. That's it. OldTrader
Can't argue with anything you say here either. Yes many people were wrong on this one. I guess people expect more from cramer because of his supposed "inside" information. He should man up to the situation, but instead he pretends like he never made the call. That is my biggest problem with him. I can't stand the guy anyway, he gives me a headache.
key point in this post: cramer reco'd bear, on march 11, on his OWN VIDEO SHOW wall street confidential - not solely mad money. old trader - you mentioned before that you don't watch, nor follow cramer. i stopped watching for the most part, but do follow him - he pumps life into some stocks, sometimes giving unsustainable pops, and i'll short them. that's my background. on this situation, there are a few 'other' circumstances: -> he's on record as saying BUY bear multiple times in the days and weeks BEFORE march 11. on march 6, he said that they had a great name but was hard to buy banks in this environment. -> he has, in the past, been super-duper explicit when he feels there's a problem with the common stock. nearly his entire show revolves around common exclusively, but occasionally he will say something like "ford? avoid the stock, it's terrible - but get the (preferred? i forget or debt) that's the good move." -> he's on record many times as saying that the rumors surrounding bear aren't true. at the end of january, in multiple videos / articles, cramer touted bear for takeover and on jan 28 said "banks have bottomed...if the fed doesn't screw it up, BAC...will move higher" video from TSCM, 3/11, wall street confidential: http://www.thestreet.com/_rms/s/cra...eo/cramermarketupdates/10407225.html#10407225 bear denies lack of liquidity, cramer what do you think? "bsc in a very difficult situation; i knew they were in talks to be acquired...my sources indicate that bear is totally solvent...my understanding is that bear is not in trouble...(citing lehman in '98 buying back stock when they had rumors)..." "the two points i want to make are <b>that bear is not in trouble; i want to make that point vociferously</b>..." "bear is now one of these companies that's selling well below book...normally with a brokerage i want to buy in the money calls...i'm a little gunshy at this point, but i know that i would buy a small position in bear options because it's too low, it fell too fast, and i don't want to buy a position when the stock is up." "everyone needs to understand that you can rumor stocks down but it's harder to do that when we're -8 on the s&p oscillator." and as i mentioned in this thread, cramer has tried weaseling out of bad calls before. to do so again would be COMPLETELY within the norm for him. i included some of the ones i know of above (in the thread), but i'm sure there are plenty of others.
I hate Cramer with a passion, but I can see the case that he was talking about account holders (and not the common stock) in that video. Also, I can see how the people in the graphics department were fooled into putting up the BSC chart even though Cramer might not have intended this. However, given Cramer's past of basically talking both sides of an issue so that he can be "right" 100% of the time, I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. At the very least he should have made it specifically clear what he intended to say because of the potentially catastrophic nature of BSC. For him to hide behind this ambiguity makes him a spineless charlatan in my eyes.
Yeah, the chances are huge that Cramer didn't understand the potentially catastrophic nature of BSC. As I mentioned earlier, last Friday Bear had a conference call which I attended, and which would have really upset you guys if this Cramer thing upsets you. During that call, the CEO Swartz was asked about the book value, whether it was still verifiably $80 per share. He said yes it was, without question. At the time of this conference call, Bear had lost half it's value and was trading around mid 30s. The bottom line here is that the way this thing unraveled was unbelievable, with this Swartz guy talking it up all the way down. Anyone listening to him never sold a share, I will guarantee you. That doesn't give Cramer an out either. But if you're a guy who's into fundamentals, and sitting on the outside like he is, and like we are, you're not going to be able to forecast an event like this. In fact, even the insiders didn't appear to forecast it. The difference is that Cramer is high profile because of his TV show. And you always have to hate it when he has the potential to influence alot of smaller type investors, and then gives them some bad info. I have no doubt that he recommended the stock at some other point, even if he didn't recommend it specifically in the video. Hell, he's done it before, on many other stocks. They just weren't quite so dramatic as Bear. OldTrader
1. I agree with Old Trader that the viewer was probably refering to funds deposited with Bear rather than shares. "Pull my money out of Bear?" as opposed to key words like "sell" , "stock", "own" ect. 2. LMAO that folks on ET would would label Cramer viewers as "pikers". Black pots and kettles. 3. It's CNBC production that put up a chart of BSC common, not Cramer. 4. My guess is even if the caller had said he owned BSC shares Cramer still would've been over the top bullish on the position. But that assumption on my part is speculative.
Cramer's credibility problem stems from the fact that he tells the viewer "no no no,Bear Stearns is fine" ! whether the guy meant cash or stock is irrelevent,Cramer stated that BEAR WAS FINE. also when he brags that he was right about assuming they would get bought out,i HIGHLY doubt that he thought it would be bought out at less than 60 bucks per share. CRAMER was DEAD wrong. he Never should have said "bear stearns was fine". Cramer should stop with the semantics.
Whether Cramer meant "keep your money at Bear, it is safe" OR "... don't sell your BSC stock" ... either way, he was WRONG. Don't let Outcome bias effect your judgment. The caller's funds were at grave risk - Bear narrowly escaped Chapter 11. Caller may have had Forex, OTC derivative, Bear private bonds, cash, who knows what ... His funds were at grave risk. Cramer was DEAD WRONG.