KO : Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

[Gator95]

Saw it. Thought it was brilliant. Stewart (and/or his writers and background researchers) put Cramer in an undefenseable position: either (1) the financial reporters on CNBC knew exactly what was going on and that it would all come tumbling down sooner or later, but they didn't bother to tell the public but instead hyped investments or (2) the financial reporters, including Cramer, at CNBC don't really have any more of a clue what is going to happen in the future for an individual investment or the overall market than anyone else does.

Given how the marketing division of CNBC has been hyping their expertise, Cramer couldn't very well claim (2), so he was backed into a corner without a good answer. Kudos to Cramer for even trying though.

FWIW, I think the real answer is (2). The innerworkings of, for example, of AIG were probably so opaque that even the CEO probably didn't really understand the game that the London investment arm was playing- or at least the risk it was taking. If the top executives are clueless on the details, hard to expect Cramer to know about them... but that is exactly how CNBC marketing hypes their show.

Stewart exploited the disconnect between what CNBC was trying to sell itself as and what it really is.

[Crash2510]

I found the interview to be very interesting. I think the interview was far from a blindside. Cramer is intelligent and even martha stewart told him to be ready. I thought it was good to see somebody hold him and others like him accountable.

Dkerfoot I don't believe stewart is trying to tell us how to think, but is at least presenting us with another way to think. He is biased, but find me a news network that doesn't have some bias. Someone has to be held accountable for what happened because you can not tell me that someone did not see this coming.

Admittedly Cramer is probably not to the best person to blame, but I doubt Stewart would get some of the higher ups on his show. He used cramer as the face of this entire problem and even said "this is not about you," but you can't blame stewart for getting a little angry when people lie right to him on a face to face interview.

[Crash2510]

So John Stewart blindsides Cramer with his 20-20 hindsight. Not impressed.

we must remember that although this may have been hindsight for Stewart who is not a stock broker or investment banker. But someone has to ask the tough questions to those people for which it was not hindsight.

[JR]

He used cramer as the face of this entire problem and even said "this is not about you," but you can't blame stewart for getting a little angry when people lie right to him on a face to face interview.

I'm a big John Stewart fan. But I had a problem with him trying to hold Cramer responsible for the whole network. He'd question him directly, then when Cramer would man up, he'd say "Well, I really mean the network".

It was bait an switch questioning, IMO.

JR

[cgallery]

we must remember that although this may have been hindsight for Stewart who is not a stock broker or investment banker. But someone has to ask the tough questions to those people for which it was not hindsight.

To the best of my knowledge, the only people that knew it was coming were a half dozen or so hedge funds. They made the appropriate trades and profited handsomely.

Cramer had no idea. Buffet had no idea. Bernanke, either.

[cgallery]

Someone has to be held accountable for what happened because you can not tell me that someone did not see this coming.

The problem with that logic is that sure bets are easy to profit from. If I know oil is going to go through the roof in the next two years, I can make a killing by leveraging my cash in the futures. Likewise, if I know gold is going to collapse, I can profit that information in ten different ways.

I reject the notion that people in the financial sector saw this coming. Otherwise they'd be sitting on mountains of profits.

There are some hedge fund managers, by the way, that did see it coming and did make huge profits. But they are the exception, not the rule.

[Alex Franke]

To the best of my knowledge, the only people that knew it was coming were a half dozen or so hedge funds. They made the appropriate trades and profited handsomely.

Cramer had no idea. Buffet had no idea. Bernanke, either.

I think Stewart's point was something to the effect of, "You're a money guy, and you know how other money guys game the system. When you start seeing investment banks reporting leverage at 30 times equity, doesn't it raise a red flag, and don't you have a responsibility to try to figure out what's really going on and report on it?"

I think the answer is different for "you = Cramer" versus "you = your network".

And maybe his answer would have been, "No, my responsibility is to entertain people with my opinions" and that would have been fine. Of course if he did feel like something was fishy, then he should have said so. But I can't imagine he did.

[Crash2510]

There are some hedge fund managers, by the way, that did see it coming and did make huge profits. But they are the exception, not the rule.

I know what you are saying and i know that those are the same hedge fund managers that drove this bubble up and bailed out before it burst. Obviously, stewart is not going to get to interview these guys, but he did get a chance to interview a former hedge manager, Cramer, and asked the tough questions. Cramer did the same things that these hedge fund managers did. Cramer lied about it Stewart caught him. If Cramer didn't lie, I don't think he would have attacked him like that, but when somebody looks me in the face and lies I tend to get a little peeved.

I encourage you to watch the entire interview on the daily shows site, and cramer's entire segment on market manipulation. It makes me sick that these guys were allowed to get away with this.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_173824.html

[jussi]

I didn't have a problem with Stewart with putting Kramer in his place, he more than deserves it. I just wish he'd do the same thing with people who were more responsible for this recession, like Barney Frank. Oh wait he's a Dem.

[cgallery]

Cramer did the same things that these hedge fund managers did. Cramer lied about it Stewart caught him. If Cramer didn't lie, I don't think he would have attacked him like that, but when somebody looks me in the face and lies I tend to get a little peeved.

I honestly feel that the tape they showed of Cramer was nothing more than a man boasting of capabilities he doesn't have, never did.

I realize the SEC has let a lot of people down lately. But they are not completely ineffectual. They can and regularly do catch 4th-party insider trading. And if you manipulate an investment vehicle, you will raise the ire of other investors that want to know why their stock is falling. The SEC doesn't need to be watching, the company (Apple, in Cramer's case) or other investors will bring it to the SEC.

Hedge funds profit from identifying unsustainable market imbalances and using leverage on their trades. In the case of Lehman, for instance, they simply purchased the credit default swaps that were cheap and had huge payouts that were priced low because "Lehman will never default."

Did they (hedge funds) give Lehman a push? Undoubetly. Would it have happened anyway? Absolutely.

This isn't the work of Dr. Evil. It is the result of government policies that interfered with a complex system that had been in equilibrium for decades (the mortgage markets). This is the result of policy makers that didn't understand the ramifications of even marginal increases in default rates. And it is the result of other government agencies that looked the other way when subprime lenders started lending money for mortgages with no money down and no proof of income.

Blaming this mess on CNBC, though, just doesn't make sense. The WSJ missed it, too. So did Forbes and BusinessWeek. Nobody saw it except a few people that understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Uncle Cracker]

Nobody saw it except a few people that understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Too bad, because there's a lot of people that could use some free lunches about now...

[JR]

Too bad, because there's a lot of people that could use some free lunches about now...

Too true, but it seems that sentiment is out of favor. Nowadays we say, "No lunchpail bailouts! Those people failed to manage their lunch money. Why should I put up my money for a bunch of lunch losers? If they couldn't afford to eat they should have starved!"

JR

[Uncle Cracker]

Didn't mean feed the fat cats... It's the working wage earners that could use a bailout.