Quite obviously your are privy to his personal (and by this I mean not his wife's) trading results. Better light up another one, your current one is going out... FOS factor-9 Scotty... PS. Please keep ET a Spam-Free-Zone. Thank you for your co-operation :eek:
LOL. 1). Assumptions on your behalf. 2). I gather you understand the use of smilies in posts, maybe you should re-read mine 3). Hey don't knock it till you tried it. And the better the party/shag the better the trades the following day. I mean look at JM, he trades the NQ drunk, shags fat chicks and still cleans up cashola-wize!
ET is spam free. When you sign up for ET, which is FREE, you know that there are ADVERTISERS who PAY to be here.
Yep... Look people, he is just like any other guru out there. They don't make money trading... They make it off of the gullible masses who follow them.
It is not fine if the people who follow them lose money. Of course, everyone takes responsibility for his or her actions, but I still believe that gurus too need to be held accountable for their actions particularly if they resort to false advertising and hyping. Having said that, if Cramer were any good his track record would be enough to judge him as an advisor, but apparently he has nothing to brag about in this department so he uses other means to attract his followers ... Precisely as any other fake guru out there... They so easy to spot and yet so many people fall for them.
Strictly speaking, this applies only if the guru is charging the recipients for his advice. Cramer isn't charging the recipients, his boss is charging the show's sponsors for their ads. Cramer's advice is worth exactly what the listeners pay for it: zero. If they are foolish enough to believe it is worth more than that, they have no real recourse when they lose.
I don't think that you really have any recourse in real life, statistically speaking most gurus whether they charge their clients or not go unpunished when their clients lose. Incidentally, I am only after punishing scam artists who doctor their results and not those vendors who provide honest information about their system performance. If their system loses, well that happens, but if it was a scam to start with then the law should intervene, but this is not so common in the world we live in.
I used to think he was just a blowhard, but a friend convinced me to listen to him long enough to figure out his schtick. Cramer has a documented record making excess returns for many years. He's extremely knowledgeable about a lot of different stocks, and understands markets. That being said, I have often faded the people who buy his recommendations during his show since most of the info on his show is a repeat of stuff from his website. My one big loss with this strategy (VLO) wiped out all my profits fading his picks in after hours trading. My conclusion about the guy is he does the show because he really enjoys it and wants to be known as someone who helps the average guy. His ego is ever-present ("I used to fire guys just for sport") so I don't think I'd want to work for him. He is usually fun and often funny. Even my 9 month old puppy perks up when he is on. She stares at him intently while he yells, especially when he shouts, "No!No!No!No!No!" or "Sell! Sell!Sell! Sell!Sell!" I have found that obedience training my dog immediately after the show is much easier, so he does have some merit in my book.
True but we weren't discussing real life, we were discussing what "should be." My point was, even in your ideal world, Cramer should not be punished regardless of whether he's scamming because nobody paid for his advice. I'm not saying his followers deserve to lose but I do find it hard to sympathize with anybody in this day and age who actually believes that some clown on a TV show is going to give them something for nothing. They paid for nothing, they got equal value in return. Lesson learned ... or not, as the case may be.
I am not saying he should be punished either as there are no grounds for that. The law should punish vendors and advisors who make false claims, which in many a case like that is not properly enforced. I am not aware of Cramer making such claims. I however don't find him better than any other talking head, no matter what he may think of himself. I also believe that unless he or anyone else shows a decent track record they should not be followed, but obviously I don't think that law should address this issue. How you waste your money is up to you, but if you spend your money on something that turned out to be a fake product then you are entitled to seeking damages.