Proof Of Cramer Manipulation

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by michaelscott, Mar 27, 2007.

  1. There is no question of illegality, it is illegal. The SEC had made attempts to prosecute a few people from CNBC in the 90s. Cramer has even received a few subpoenas in the past.

    However, the SEC is nothing more then a Sheriff in a wild west town of 125 years ago. It has limited resources and is politically motivated. As well, when you take a case to trial then you run the risk of a judge defining the securities laws. Then you have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I watch stocks trade everyday and have been doing this now for many years. In order for a stock's volume to suddenly increase 3 times the normal average, you need a volatility event. When there is no news or no obvious reason and then suddenly its mentioned on a tv show later on, then that appears very suspicious. When it happens time and time again, over and over again, then I believe it more then a coincidence.

     
    #41     Apr 8, 2007
  2. sprstpd

    sprstpd

    It would be so easy to find all bidders above the close on SPAR 15 minutes before Cramer's Thursday evening show. Just track the ARCA and INET orders that happened then. I'm sure any investigator could take it from there.
     
    #42     Apr 8, 2007
  3. A famous reporter told me. " The SEC is created to protect Wall St., and (whatever the old SIA has become) lobbies for it.

    You now know the rules. If they fool you, your fault.
     
    #43     Apr 8, 2007
  4. SteveD

    SteveD

    When the gate is pulled down, the bell is clanging and the whistle is screaming in pain.....

    If you stand on the tracks, ignoring the facts,...

    DON'T BLAME THE WRECK ON THE TRAIN...



    SteveD
     
    #44     Apr 8, 2007
  5. Hands up, Cramer!
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG]:D
    What We Do: Intro
     
    #45     Apr 8, 2007
  6. That may have been prior to the adoption of the disclosures and warnings. Every time Cramer appears on CNBC, they show and read aloud the disclosure (reproduced prior in this thread), which includes "the information and recommendations may have been previously disseminated".
     
    #46     Apr 8, 2007
  7. Thanks for the info. I'm always skeptical of trusts. Just look at the supposed "blind" trust that Senator Bill Frist used. He was directing the trading in the damn thing!!
     
    #47     Apr 11, 2007