Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

[I KNOW IT ALL]

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Stop talking about Cramer. This isn't about Cramer.

I'm talking about a institutionalized approach of reporting on the market that isn't honest.

What isn't honest about it? How exactly did these institutions benefit from "tricking" the public?

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

What isn't honest about it? How exactly did these institutions benefit from "tricking" the public?

The financial institution gets investors. They get capital with which to trade.

[The Unseen]

this thread is biconversational.

Every man dreams of a thread that goes both ways

[iowatreat54]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

Journalism does not have that responsibility and hasn't for years. It is a business. It is driven by capitalism. This is how virtually all media operates.

Should CNBC start Cramer's show by saying how he's a mediocre financial analyst? Come on... It's like when you buy a mutual fund. Do you think the fund managers are telling you how they underperformed the S&P 500 the past 10 years or are they telling you about how great they are? When you go to buy that Ferrari, are they telling you about how expensive it is to upkeep it or are they telling you how fast it can go?

No, it's the fact that a channel like CNBC represents themselves as this objective media source that brings information to the public, when actually they are making an ESPN like shift toward audience appeasement and making money.

Again, and I don't know how you aren't grasping this concept, the beef isn't with Cramer or the financial analysts/advisers themselves. It is with CNBC. CNBC is not a salesman. Their job isn't to sell the stock market to the public. Their job is to inform the public. If they want to establish themselves as a channel that wants to present their own views, advice, etc. that is fine. But the fact is that they continue to maintain that they are an object media source for providing information, which is misrepresentation on their part.

[I KNOW IT ALL]

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

The financial institution gets investors. They get capital with which to trade.

Right, the financial institutions are in a great situation right now...

Anyways...what did financial news networks lie to the public about?

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

Right, the financial institutions are in a great situation right now...

Anyways...what did financial news networks lie to the public about?

It wasn't bold-faced lies. It was omission of the truth. It was complicity with the people who didn't need information. It was keeping the actual information from the people that did need it. It's not that difficult to understand and I'm done explaining it.

[I KNOW IT ALL]

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

No, it's the fact that a channel like CNBC represents themselves as this objective media source that brings information to the public, when actually they are making an ESPN like shift toward audience appeasement and making money.

Again, and I don't know how you aren't grasping this concept, the beef isn't with Cramer or the financial analysts/advisers themselves. It is with CNBC. CNBC is not a salesman. Their job isn't to sell the stock market to the public. Their job is to inform the public. If they want to establish themselves as a channel that wants to present their own views, advice, etc. that is fine. But the fact is that they continue to maintain that they are an object media source for providing information, which is misrepresentation on their part.

Huh? They provide commentary on the market. What is wrong with that? Of course it's going to be an opinion. How can you talk about the stock market without giving an opinion? You either think you should buy, hold, or sell. That's it. Can you name a stock show that isn't based entirely on opinion? They're all people just giving their opinion on the market.

[Whistler6]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

I was defending the other guy's point who said he doesn't like in your face commentators, which is what Jon Stewart was last night...

Yes, that was my point... I like Jon Stewart, but I don't like the way he sounded last night. It was Joy Behar, Ann Coulter esque

[I KNOW IT ALL]

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

It wasn't bold-faced lies. It was omission of the truth. It was complicity with the people who didn't need information. It was keeping the actual information from the people that did need it. It's not that difficult to understand and I'm done explaining it.

And what information did they omit?...

If you actually made a point instead of just vaguely rambling about things...

[Crickett]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

Leverage is an interesting thing because it doesn't mean much when you take it out of context and say things like 35:1. Those are just buzzwords. 35:1 could be an acceptable amount of leverage. It could be low, or it could be high, it depends on the situation.

AAA mortgages are the best kind of mortgages. I think the term you are looking for is "subprime mortgages". A fair amount of people did see the problem with subprime mortgages, but I don't think they really foresaw the ripple effect on the economy they would have.

Thinking that 35:1 leverage is acceptable is a large part of how we got here.

And no, I was thinking of AAA mortgages. The best kind. Unfortunately, the "subprime mortgages" were AAA rated mortgages. Nobody looked at that and thought something smelled iffy about it.

[iowatreat54]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

Huh? They provide commentary on the market. What is wrong with that? Of course it's going to be an opinion. How can you talk about the stock market without giving an opinion? You either think you should buy, hold, or sell. That's it. Can you name a stock show that isn't based entirely on opinion? They're all people just giving their opinion on the market.

How is someone like Cramer telling people what to do commentary? Like I said, people are dumb and that's part of the problem, but it's also that CNBC is benefiting from it. They are promoting the notion that what Cramer is saying is the truth and is right. That is not commentary. That is just having a show to attract viewers. Commentary would be telling people what actually is happening/happened, or offering opinions on facts. Not opinions on future events. That is predicting and guessing. Commentary is perfectly acceptable for a media source.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

And what information did they omit?...

They're journalists. They're supposed to be the connect between the uninformed investor and the financial system. Instead, they filled up days with soft interviews with business execs, many of whom were engaged in wholly illegal behavior, they spent loads of time hyping up the reputations and accuracy of certain "experts" well beyond what was realistic, and they decidedly took of the role of convincing people that everything was fine when many things were not fine.

The clips Stewart showed of Cramer are interesting, because that's the Cramer who was only speaking like that because he didn't expect that footage to be broadcast. That was a brutally honest Cramer who told us exactly why and how business executives are slipping by enforcement of the rules. That is what journalists who cover financial news should be doing. Instead, they readily accept their role in the perpetuation of what is often a very broken system. It's very disappointing to see someone shirk the chance to make an actual difference.

[I KNOW IT ALL]

Originally Posted by Crickett

Thinking that 35:1 leverage is acceptable is a large part of how we got here.

And no, I was thinking of AAA mortgages. The best kind. Unfortunately, the "subprime mortgages" were AAA rated mortgages. Nobody looked at that and thought something smelled iffy about it.

Yes, some subprime mortgages were rated investment grade (not likely AAA) due to problems with regulators, credit rating agencies, and investment banks. However, at the time the investment banks were putting forth a good argument for why they were investment grade. Overcollaterization and willing equity investors made it seem like a foolproof plan. It wasn't.

[I KNOW IT ALL]

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

How is someone like Cramer telling people what to do commentary? Like I said, people are dumb and that's part of the problem, but it's also that CNBC is benefiting from it. They are promoting the notion that what Cramer is saying is the truth and is right. That is not commentary. That is just having a show to attract viewers. Commentary would be telling people what actually is happening/happened, or offering opinions on facts. Not opinions on future events. That is predicting and guessing. Commentary is perfectly acceptable for a media source.

So again, you're saying giving stock advice should not be allowed on TV?

[I KNOW IT ALL]

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

They're journalists. They're supposed to be the connect between the uninformed investor and the financial system. Instead, they filled up days with soft interviews with business execs, many of whom were engaged in wholly illegal behavior, they spent loads of time hyping up the reputations and accuracy of certain "experts" well beyond what was realistic, and they decidedly took of the role of convincing people that everything was fine when many things were not fine.

The clips Stewart showed of Cramer are interesting, because that's the Cramer who was only speaking like that because he didn't expect that footage to be broadcast. That was a brutally honest Cramer who told us exactly why and how business executives are slipping by enforcement of the rules. That is what journalists who cover financial news should be doing. Instead, they readily accept their role in the perpetuation of what is often a very broken system. It's very disappointing to see someone shirk the chance to make an actual difference.

Huh? Cramer was not talking about business executives. He was talking about hedge fund manager. It has to do with SHORT-TERM manipulation of the market and had absolutely nothing to do with the current financial crisis.

So again, your point about Cramer engaging in people who he knew were engaged in illegal activity is completely false. He was interviewing executives who were respected businessmen.

[Boston]

Even Abra's like, WTF?

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

Huh? Cramer was not talking about business executives. He was talking about hedge fund manager. It has to do with SHORT-TERM manipulation of the market and had absolutely nothing to do with the current financial crisis.

Please stop missing what I mean. Please.

First off, short-term manipulation of the market and the mindset that brings can easily lead to long term crisis.

Second off, all I said was that having a group of journalists that know the inner workings of the financial system only really means anything if those people use that knowledge to inform people about what is really going on, instead of making potshot predictions. I used Cramer's candid nature in those videos to illustrate the way I feel a financial reporting network should actually report.

[Crickett]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

Yes, some subprime mortgages were rated investment grade (not likely AAA) due to problems with regulators, credit rating agencies, and investment banks. However, at the time the investment banks were putting forth a good argument for why they were investment grade. Overcollaterization and willing equity investors made it seem like a foolproof plan. It wasn't.

........

For all of the talk about how so few people know anything about the market, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you? How do you think the whole housing bubble expanded so much? Why it was so much worse than say the internet bubble? These mortgages were carved up into the safe, moderate and risky. And then they all got triple A ratings and were used as backing for mortgage backed securities. And then the risky got carved up (securitized) into risky safe, risky moderate and very risky. And they all got triple A ratings and were used for mortgage backed securities. And so on. And people looked, saw the triple A rating, and as you did just now, said "oh, thats the highest rating". Not bothering to take the closer look at what was actually backing the securities they were buying. After all, triple A rating. And this is why during the later part of 2008, people were so afraid to get back in. Because all of these triple A rated mortgage backed securities that weren't really worth anything, well, nobody knew what anything was really worth anymore.

But oh, it gets worse. Because then from these mortgage backed securities, you get derivatives of these securities. And derivatives of the derivatives of the securities. And derivatives of the derivatives of the derivatives of mortgage back securities. on and on it went and nobody was actually bothering to do the due diligence to realize they built a skyscraper 50:1 stories tall on a cardboard foundation any more than they did the due diligence to find out if people starting dot coms had any kind of business experience or knowhow.

The amount that had to be written off due to loss of value in subprime mortgage based securities was a half trilliion dollars.


BY AUGUST

[I KNOW IT ALL]

Originally Posted by Crickett

........

For all of the talk about how so few people know anything about the market, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you? How do you think the whole housing bubble expanded so much? Why it was so much worse than say the internet bubble? These mortgages were carved up into the safe, moderate and risky. And then they all got triple A ratings and were used as backing for mortgage backed securities. And then the risky got carved up (securitized) into risky safe, risky moderate and very risky. And they all got triple A ratings and were used for mortgage backed securities. And so on. And people looked, saw the triple A rating, and as you did just now, said "oh, thats the highest rating". Not bothering to take the closer look at what was actually backing the securities they were buying. After all, triple A rating. And this is why during the later part of 2008, people were so afraid to get back in. Because all of these triple A rated mortgage backed securities that weren't really worth anything, well, nobody knew what anything was really worth anymore.

But oh, it gets worse. Because then from these mortgage backed securities, you get derivatives of these securities. And derivatives of the derivatives of the securities. And derivatives of the derivatives of the derivatives of mortgage back securities. on and on it went and nobody was actually bothering to do the due diligence to realize they built a skyscraper 50:1 stories tall on a cardboard foundation any more than they did the due diligence to find out if people starting dot coms had any kind of business experience or knowhow.

The amount that had to be written off due to loss of value in subprime mortgage based securities was a half trilliion dollars.


BY AUGUST

No, not all the subprime mortgages were AAA. Here's something from NYT:

The secret sauce is that the S.P.V. would float 12 classes of bonds, from triple-A to a lowly Ba1. The highest-rated bonds would have first priority on the cash received from mortgage holders until they were fully paid, then the next tier of bonds, then the next and so on. The bonds at the bottom of the pile got the highest interest rate, but if homeowners defaulted, they would absorb the first losses.

[Crickett]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

No, not all the subprime mortgages were AAA. Here's something from NYT:

The ones from homeowners who hadn't previously defaulted were. Or at the very least a great deal of them were.

[someone447]

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Please stop missing what I mean. Please.

First off, short-term manipulation of the market and the mindset that brings can easily lead to long term crisis.

Second off, all I said was that having a group of journalists that know the inner workings of the financial system only really means anything if those people use that knowledge to inform people about what is really going on, instead of making potshot predictions. I used Cramer's candid nature in those videos to illustrate the way I feel a financial reporting network should actually report.

I've realized it is pointless to argue with him, he just completely glosses over your arguments and tries to argue a point you never made.

[someone447]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

Journalism does not have that responsibility and hasn't for years. It is a business. It is driven by capitalism. This is how virtually all media operates.

Should CNBC start Cramer's show by saying how he's a mediocre financial analyst? Come on... It's like when you buy a mutual fund. Do you think the fund managers are telling you how they underperformed the S&P 500 the past 10 years or are they telling you about how great they are? When you go to buy that Ferrari, are they telling you about how expensive it is to upkeep it or are they telling you how fast it can go?

Journalists do have that responsibility, but the haven't lived up to that responsibility in years. The failure of our MSM to be actual journalists is what is going to bring down the MSM establishment. People still want their news to be reported by journalists, and for those journalists to have journalistic integrity. Internet news sources who act like real journalists will destroy the MSM, and I can't wait for it to happen.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

No, not all the subprime mortgages were AAA. Here's something from NYT:

AIG owned the company that gives those ratings and AIG had a AAA rating.

[awfullyquiet]

Originally Posted by Brent

AIG owned the company that gives those ratings and AIG had a AAA rating.

is that like being in bed with your neighbor or yourself? i can never remember.

either way, the fact is is that, CNBC did it's job of becoming the fox news of financial reporting. becoming flashy. in your face. without much substance or style.

i think the terms fair and balanced come to mind.

re: omissions.

stewart did a fantastic cut up job of trying to point out that it's NOT just omissions, but pure complacency on the heels of any investigative journalism from a financial standpoint. i know when things look pretty good, no one wants to hear about doom and gloom. it does bad in the ratings!

the fact that CNBC claims to have answers in a pre-collapse market after seeing the just pure glossing over the .com era (8 years ago), the enron era (5 years ago)... you'd think that people would look a little better on tv and actually try to guess what happens in the future correctly based on solid reasoning if only to go back and say. HEY. LOOK AT ME. I WAS RIGHT. GIVE ME MONEY GIVE ME A BIG CONTRACT FOR BEING A RIGHT TALKING HEAD NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM IM GONNA GO INFLATE MY EGO A BIT WITH MY SWEDISH ***** PUMP. that doesn't happen. when you're co-opted to tell everyone exactly what the corporations would like you to believe because it keeps executives in their job instead of providing a company with financial merit and transparency. you fail to do your job as a journalist. you are becoming a telephone, not a journalist. y

this brings me to my next point.

how much of our country, our economy, is controlled by the media portrayal of concepts and issues? how deadlocked are we by having such a powerful system in the first amendment?

only as powerful as we let them be. inform yourself with a vast base knowledge. it's the most powerful tool you have.