Dow Jones’ Paul Vigna has had it up to here with James Cramer.

Yesterday, in a post titled Jim Cramer is an Insufferable Jackass, Vigna laces into the C-man for “bad calls” and other issues. With great chivalry, he defends the honor of (the fair maiden) Kelly Evans who, despite her apparent youthfulness, needs no defending.

It is an interesting battle — as much for what it says as what it doesn’t.

Let’s start with Vigna:

“I studiously avoid watching Jim Cramer. It’s not that he’s a stupid man, he’s a very smart man. It’s not that he isn’t a successful man, he a very successful. It’s not that he makes bad calls. Well, it’s not solely that he makes bad calls.

It’s that he’s an insufferable jackass.

So last night he’s on his show, trying to convince his viewers not to panic and to stay with stocks, and he rips Kelly Evans over her Ahead of the Tape column yesterday about auto-parts stores. Now, whether or not Kelly’s right or wrong can’t be decided in one day. Whether or not anybody who writes a column or hosts a show for a living can ever be 100% right isn’t the point either.”

I must say this: Cramer was decades ahead of everyone else when it came to understanding the value of financial news on the web. That you are reading this on a blog — that you even read financial blogs –  is indirectly a tribute to Cramer’s prescience. There are literally 1000s of sites that can trace their lineage to TheStreet.com. The TSCM alumnus are an extremely distinguished group of journalists (like Jesse Eisinger and Aaron Task) and scribblers (like Jeff Matthews and myself).

That said, I understand Vigna’s complaint. Most market professionals find the show tough to watch, but then again, we are not Mad Money‘s target demographic. Its audience are mom and pop investors and financially curious college students — not pros running money.

As to Paul’s complaint about JC: I personally know and like both men. I’m a fan of DJMT, I was after DJ to make it blog for years.

But I wonder if Paul isn’t tilting at windmills.

Why?

Based on all appearances, Cramer is bullet proof.

Think about this.

He has survived relentless and often well founded criticism. Despite the structure of the show — its a mile wide and an inch deep — he has a strong and loyal following. Everyone takes potshots at him. Barron’s trashed him (they got banned from CNBC for their trouble) and Jon Stewart immolated him; TDS is the closest thing to Kryptonite to Cramer. Yet he survived a lethal dose of Stewart that would have destroyed Superman. Others continue to take pot shots at him. Still, after everything that has been thrown at Cramer, he has survived and even thrived.

The Cramer abides.

The show chugs along, viewers continue to come along for the ride. Despite everything that has come and gone with Mad Money, it survives. Cramer went from Harvard Law to Goldman Sachs to running a hedge fund to CNBC.  That CV is as close to a front row seat to Wall Street as most viewers will ever get. To many viewers, that access is its inherent appeal.

Meanwhile, Cramer continues to garner media coverage, viewers, and influence. Until no one cares what Jim said last night, he will continue to be a force. Unless and until viewers abandon the show, or he gets bored with the grind of cranking it out 5 nights a week, there will be no stopping Jim Cramer.

Kinda like Cher and post apocalyptic cockroaches.

Category: Financial Press, Really, really bad calls, Television

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

47 Responses to “The Cramer Abides”

  1. wally says:

    He’s an entertainer… Beck, Palin, Lady GaGa… this is entertainment and it is (relatively) free. Try to analyze that kind of stuff based on facts and you miss the point.

  2. Nuggz says:

    The seminal failure for Cramer is his understanding of petroleum resources and extraction. Bakken, Alberta tar sands, etc..ain’t gonna do it.

    In the end, it’s all about oil…petroleum trumps everything. And to listen to CEOs in that industry is an exercise in extreme foolishness.

    Otherwise, I find him rather erudite.

  3. Bruman says:

    I never pay attention to his specific stock calls, but I do like two things:

    1) His analysis of the macro picture is often informative, particularly as he drills down to sector-by-sector analysis.

    2) Every once in a while, there’s a financial principle that comes out on his show that I realize I learned but have stopped paying attention to (I am trying to think of a specific example now, but am coming up blank). So it’s nice to get those occasional reminders… it’s like the thrill of learning something new, except you already learned it before. :-)

    And, don’t forget South Park’s great spoof of Cramer… very classic!

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/36270643/South_Park_Spoofs_Cramer

  4. A says:

    People interested in Cramer’s perspective would be better off reading his books. That way, there’s no emotional nonsense impacting the message (ie: silly buzzers & bells). At least with the books, you can follow Mark Twain’s advice: if you fell the need to speculate, go lie down until the feeling disappears.

    Always remember: the definition of Finance, is the transfer of wealth to the rich and cunning, from the rest of us. Consumer ignorance is highly profitable.

  5. curbyourrisk says:

    Due to my attempt to control my temper for the rrest of the morning, I am going to refrain from commenting about Jim Cramer at this time.

    I due request the ability to go off on the total waste of sperm at some time in the future. (damn….I thought I could do it.)

  6. budhak0n says:

    Cramer rules. You have to have the ability to be WRONG, if you’re ever going to be believable.

    First off , if you’re claiming you’re above the fray because you’re a “professional” and don’t dabble in such things then you’ve already exposed yourself.

    Nobody is above the fray and NOBODY gets through life without putting their feet in their mouths.

    That is unless they sit skulking in the shadows complaining about what other people have said.

    Cramer is voicing opinions. Anybody who is watching him expecing him to be 100% right doesn’t get the game from the get go.

    You don’t have to like his opinions. You don’t have to hate his opinions. He just wants you to watch.

  7. uzer says:

    “Kinda like Cher and post apocalyptic cockroaches.”

    This reminded me of my favorite Bloom County comic strip featuring Opus the penguin and Milquetoast the cockroach: Pssst! Penguin! You guys worried about nuclear war, eh?
    Well, we cockroaches aren’t! We’re all for it! Heck…! We’re 657% less vulnerable to extremes of heat, cold or nuclear radiation than any other being on earth!
    So push the button, you suicidal goons! We’re indestructible!
    (Swack!)

    (I couldn’t find the graphics to go with the captions, but the last frame was the only one that really counted :-)

  8. TizzyD says:

    Buy! Sell! Booyah! Wheeeeeeeee!

    Little bald man makes me laugh!

    While my wallet weeps.

  9. tonyarko says:

    Mad Money sits in last place for Cable News programs in the 6pm time slot. His show is literally the worst one on TV. He pulls less than Headline News, wherever that airs.

    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/02/28/cable-news-ratings-for-friday-february-25-2011/83994

  10. Treatise says:

    Come on, guys. Jimbo was all over that natural gas call when we can import as much as we want from Canada. Meanwhile Chesapeake has branched into oil. Maybe that’s what he meant.

  11. carleric says:

    I once read a Cramer book…in retrospect I must have been sorely in need of something to read and had nothing else available. It ws free or a loaner. I was struck by how incredibly naive Cramer is/was about other people. He will believe anything. The problem is he passes this blind enthusiasm for anyone who speaks to him along to his followers. Remember his labeling of Angelo Mozilo as a financial genius. How did that work out for his fans? I thnk he is an obnoxious clown in most respects but some people watch his show. Heck I even go by his site (the free side) to see if Doug Kass has any commentary available. Jim is pretty much a waste of time in my opinion but whatever floats your boat.

  12. Transor Z says:

    TDs’s takedown of Cramer was largely as the poster child of all that was wrong with “financial journalism” and its shameless, unaccountable pimping in the lead-up to the crisis.

    I will go further than BR and assert that Cramer is a quintessentially American type that will never go away. He’s an avatar of the American huckster, right up there with Ron Popeil and P.T. Barnum.

    As much as I support greater consumer protections in the finance industry, the God-given right to fleece suckers culls the herd.

  13. cognos says:

    Im a professional investor… so I cannot really stand to watch Cramer.

    That said, I wonder if his “bad calls” really outweigh his “good calls”?

    1. He has been very bullish throughout this rally (makes up for alot, maybe anything?)
    2. He said after Bear collapsed – “they know nothing!” — about how the Fed, Paulson, Bank Regulators did not understand how bad the crisis would be. Intellectually… this is a massive 10x trade.

    He was CORRECT on both of those… Its hard to weigh those 2 down with anything.

  14. bonerici says:

    cramer is great. his buttons his buzzers, the shouting the rolled up sleeves all that garbage is actually detrimental to the greater point and that is he gives excellent macro advise. Like, why do we diversify, and never take anyone’s advice, always do your own analysis, and if you’re a beginner in a stock market, limit your investments, because if you are doing your own analysis you don’t have time to invest in a million stocks, technical analysis is garbage, the only reason technical analysis works is that other people do it and that’s why it might affect the market, fundamental analysis is king. It’s not the little daily ups and downs that matter, it’s finding a stock that is worth a lot and holding on to it. Shorting stocks is a difficult game, because it relies on timing the market something which is nearly impossible to do.

    So his advice is excellent. But what do you do to fill the other 90% of the show? Well, pick stocks! It’s fun, and that’s what he does, he does the lightning round and fills out most of the show with all these kinds of stock picks, but that’s filler. This daily up and down of the market, trying to find reasons for every uptick and downtick that’s not important, but he does it to fill in the show plus viewers love this daily stuff.

    If cramer just did his macro stuff every day there would be no more show after about 1 week. Even on web sites that try to do macro stuff like the motley fool, they end up doing all these micro stock picks, why? You got to fill space, and you fill it with micro analysis.

    Barry has the best web site for financial on the planet, but even he does the micro stuff, he goes off and does a chart on a weekly drop or gain, why? You got to fill space.

    Cramer is doing a show every day of the week, every week of the year, and he is doing an excellent job. Most of what he says is filler, but that’s what happens when you do a TV show.

    All this hate on cramer, I understand, it’s because instead of hiding, he puts his stock picks out in the air, and people delight in smashing all his stock picks. But his advice is the best there is on tv.

    Trust nobody, do your analysis, learn to understand how to read the financial reports of the companies you invest in, don’t try to invest in too many companies, because you need time to understand the companies you do invest in, it’s all really quite excellent.

  15. Nuggz says:

    “No one has every lost a penny underestimating the ignorance of society”

    Speaking of American hucksterism….

    Please consider:

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/01/news/companies/gas_price_hike_impact_on_february_auto_sales/index.htm

  16. James says:

    I was a big fan of theStreet.com from the beginning, and rode that site and Cramer through the bubble and bust. I will always have a soft spot for him in my heart because he was so much of the story of this period. God knows he’s had his share of bad calls (especially concerning the Internet bubble), but Cramer’s Cramer and you take him for what he is IMO. His broad resume, as BR says, speaks for itself. He’s been around long enough by now that you should understand the downside to his calls.

    A couple of the key blogs I follow today, including this one, can trace their lineage to theStreet.com. I use to enjoy BR on theStreet.com, and have followed him here where he’s really come into his own. And one of the primary reasons I like BR is the same thing that attracted me to Cramer – he speaks his mind.

  17. AHodge says:

    I confess a shameful occasional taste for Cramer, mainly on mute.
    This is ok
    in a Financial Times interview he bizarrely confesses ashamed of HIMSELF on TV. ”I remain completely and utterly repulsive to myself.” ”It’s nightmarish… ‘All I do from the moment it starts is say, How could I have done that? Don’t I have any self-respect?”
    his regular viewers ought to ask themselves the same Q
    as they appear to be so not in on the joke

    Amish hedge fund guy well meaning behind his childish antics?
    Never aggressive to others like a normal trader,
    let Jon Stewart deservedly whip his rear end.
    The only stock I bought partly on his view was Boeing in mid 2009 which was a dog.
    Accounting rarely an issue for him.
    he doesnt know squat about bank accounting.
    He will in 2009 recommend buying some mortgage clearing banks if the FASB relaxes what marking there is.
    bottom line– there is no one with their own investment show worth listening to

  18. AHodge says:

    i mean never aggressive to anyone in the room, he rants all the time about the absent

  19. martin66 says:

    I second James and BR. I too have followed Cramer since the founding of Thestreet.com. While my approach to investing could not be more dissimilar from his, I give him his due for calling like he sees them.

  20. curbyourrisk says:

    Cognos….He also recommended buying Bear.

    He also bought into the Lehman hype.

    He was also a fan of AIG for a really long time…I believe all the way down.

    He was also a fan of GM….and the new GM…..

    He is also an Eagles fan…..

  21. VennData says:

    The lesson from Jim Cramer’s ‘Mad Money is that this former Goldman Sachs, former hedgie can’t beat the market when he exposes his picks to the light of the day. He has no trading costs, no liquidity issues and can turn on a dime. Since he can’t beat the market in this fantasy lab (television,) neither can you.

    The corollary is that the funny-professor style of his show mirrors for money managers how insipid their processes are for picking and choosing stocks, that also do not outperform.

    Laugh, or cry at him, but learn – and that’s what JC claims to want you to do – that you will not beat the market, so buy the indicies and save your “hour of homework a week per stock” for something you really can make money at.

  22. RC says:

    Its fashionable to bash Cramer. If you want to show that you are somehow high up in the WallStreet/Finance priesthood, then gratuitous attacks on Cramer are a must.

    I am a HUGE huge fan of Jon Stewart, but his attack on Cramer was shameful. Jon Stewart somehow wanted to pin the whole financial meltdown on Cramer’s shoulders.
    (And, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s shows have the smartest writers on TV period)

    If one makes as many calls as Cramer makes, there are going to be some whoppers. But he has made some great calls too.

    Would you rather listen to John Mauldin and his politically colored financial commentary that would have make you miss a 75%, once in a generation, upswing ??

  23. The SEC should look a bit more closely at what Cramer’s show, in the interest of investor protection.

    He may be entertaining to some, but the very idea that you spend less time researching a pair of shoes you want to buy than one of his stock picks, is undeniably harmful to what you refer to as his target audience.

    As a retail investor, investing your hard earned savings should be an exercise in thoughtfulness rather than entertainment.

    It should be interesting to see if he survives the next crash (the dot com boom knocked him out for a while, but 2008 did not, is this just another manifestation of easy money this time?) – the next time he goes off the air, that will definitely be a signal to buy at a bottom!

  24. Lugnut says:

    So a Harvard guy with a successful career at Goldman, and one of the original investing blogs is a highly mediocre stock picker. The larger lesson is, its a tough business for the pros. How are you going to do?

  25. wally says:

    “If one makes as many calls as Cramer makes, there are going to be some whoppers. But he has made some great calls too.”

    The very definition of ‘random’.

  26. Bob A says:

    you can’t argue with that…
    other that perhaps to say it’s far too kind

    “… he’s an insufferable jackass. “

  27. Livermore Shimervore says:

    Cramer seems to push the idea that folks should be chasing individual stocks. I sometimes wonder how many of these listeners skip funds due to limited means and just go for the hadful of stocks they love.
    Do they know that hitting the bull’s eye is unecessary when all you really need is to be on the dart board (funds)?
    Also he strictly avoids discussion of shorting stocks. I find this odd…. the idea that you should be only ‘net long or out’ on a particular stock — and consequently need to rely soley on your ability know when to take profits– well that really seems like the worst of both worlds. But then again if the retail investor knew how one dimensional a strategy that avoids shorting entirely really was well who would the big dogs have to scalp when the top was in?

  28. b_thunder says:

    Even if you leave alone numerous “Bear Sterns is FINE!” moments, the show itself has DRAMATICALLY changed:
    Until a few months ago Cramer was “pushing” 3-4 stock per night, and then used to do the call-in segment, now the show consists of 12min of self-aggrandizing (bear bashing) speech, often without a sigle stock mention. The next 2 segments are INFOMERCIALS with various CEOs (and we all know they simply unable to tell the lie and are 100% unbiased towards their business.) That is followed by the call-in segment, and sometimes he “pushes” a stock based on its chart.
    IMHO, he no longer even puts (no, not his money) his opinions on the line! CEOs can go to the “wall of shame”, call-in segment – Cramer has no time for “deep” analysis, charts – he always says he’s a “fundamentalist.”
    Is Cramer out of stock ideas? (i.e. every single “researcher” including his nephew left the show?)
    Is Cramer no longer willing to put his own name on the line, and lines up CEOs instead?
    Since the audience has shrunk significantly since last year, do the CEOs he’s promoting pay CNBC?

    I have no idea, but i watch him…. for about 15min per week!

  29. jb.mcmunn says:

    “Kinda like Cher and post apocalyptic cockroaches.”

    You forgot Keith Richards. Even the cockroaches are amazed.

    I guess Cramer is an example of how well hedge fund managers do when they have to play by the rules like the rest of us. Cheating is not the same as smart.

  30. gordo365 says:

    Its as if a super smart, Harvard educated, wall street insider said “I can’t get rich beating the market. I’m more likely to get rich starting a TV show.”

    Maybe the “I can’t get rich beating the market” lesson is the take away here :)

  31. louis says:

    I read a book of his also , it was mind numbing. The same stuff over and over. You can tell the difference BR. I think at least you actually wrote your book instead of an intern? Once you get to where he is you ride it out until you are irrelevant and cannot sell anymore Etrade accounts.

  32. gordo365 says:

    RC – which is more shameful?

    a) Cramer’s schtick directed to investing neophytes – which is almost certain to cause them to loose money – or

    b) Jon Stewart calling him on it?

  33. I don’t watch Cramer. He’s just a symptom, though, not the problem. The problem is the idea that with practically no effort (turning on a TV?), people believe they can find “investments” that will make them rich. Perhaps some do, but it ain’t the people watching Cramer. It’s the Wall Street insiders that Cramer once was and that now scorn or ignore him.

    While get-rich-quick investment schemes have been around since the first time a harvest produced a bit more food than was consumed (providing something with which to invest) it has only been since the eighties or so that the idea got rolling that anyone could funnel their little slice of surplus into stock investments such that they could make money without working, same as the rich people. The idea peaked so far as stocks were concerned sometime in 2000 when dotcoms imploded, to be replaced by transferance of the idiot notion to real estate. You’d think people would have finally realized the folly of the idea after real estate crashed, too. But it appears not. So people, especially baby boomers whose whole lives have been about getting something for nothing, have apparently jumped back in. And through it all, sometimes right and mostly wrong, like a broken clock on the wall, has been Cramer. It’s hard to admire someone that makes money by exploiting the stupidity, greed and avarice of human beings, but there it is.

  34. DSS10 says:

    Cramer, as financial analyst is an unmitigated disaster with out a speck of insight or worthwhile information that is of value to either an intuitional or individual investor. He has done so much more harm than good in that (C)NBC has promoted as an expert, giving him creditability on both CNBC and NBC national programming, while his individual stock picks have been so off base (Does anyone remember his great Lucent calls?) that when I have watched his show I throw up just a little bit in my mouth. His market analysis is pretty much canned and stale if you read the wall street journal or have Bloomberg access. The sad thing is that there were allot of “average” investors who have lost large portions of their 401K’s and college funds due to this clown who has no financial exposure due to the legal disclaimer at the beginning show. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had clients say that they were investing in total out right financial disasters because of his “insight or analysis.” In medicine they say “do no harm” which is a good approach to any business or professional relationship but I can’t for the life of me understand how he can get up day after day and do his little song and dance with a straight face. It’s painful. He may sell books, and provide some funny entertainment value with his horns and sirens but he could do that without the pretense of offering financial advice or commentary.

    That aside, from what I understand, he works hard, he is focused and is very motivated at trying to produce the best performance he can provide which is commendable but that will never make up for his huge professional moral blind spot.

  35. RC says:

    RC – which is more shameful?

    a) Cramer’s schtick directed to investing neophytes – which is almost certain to cause them to loose money – or

    b) Jon Stewart calling him on it?

    How can you claim “almost certail to loose money”? His show is sort of talk show about stocks where he clearly mentions that its one of objectives is entertainment.
    Jon Stewart at his sanctimonious worst tried to pin all blame of the financial crisis on Cramer’s shoulders.
    There are many finance professionals who completely and utterly missed the crisis, yet Jon Stewart didnt take their commentary and try to put blame on them. Cramer was easy. Thats why it was a cheap shot.

    Jon Stewart’s brother is in management of NYSE, and we have not seen a story of how the exchanges have sold access to high frequency traders causing the odds to go against small investors even more. Yet the brother is not called to be ambushed on the show about behavior of for-profit stock exchanges.

  36. gordo365 says:

    RC – I’m just saying that some people (like my elderly parents) mistake the content of his entertainment, that includes specific guidance about when to buy and sell specific stocks, as investment advice.

    Are you suggesting that if you generally do what Cramer recommends on his show – that you would be likely to make money?

  37. genomik says:

    I love the Daily show and Colbert but when the Daily show had Cramer on his show, hat in hand, saying he was sorry, that was my tell for the bottom of the market. Ironically Cramer has spent alot of time talking about capitulation and that marks the bottom of a market. So many friends were all saying that week “Did you see Cramer get killed by Stewart? That must really make Cramer feel bad” I went that week and started buying stock! If you look at the charts u will see the correlation is magnificent! Within two weeks of those shows the bottom was put in. Just like Cramer says so often. Epic!

    ~~~

    BR: Pretty close to the bottom: March 11
    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/thursday-cramer-goes-on-the-daily-show/

  38. forwhomthebelltolls says:

    I spent the early part of my working life as a broker. I did well at it and actually enjoyed the business but I didn’t aspire to be any of my peers so I left. (Following my grandfathers advice of always working with people that you respect and wish to emulate).

    One of the many things that never ceased to amaze me was that customers just wanted someone to listen to. It never really mattered whether I was right or wrong, the only thing that mattered was that I made my point with conviction. That was enough. I was typically parroting something that one of my analysts said because they were well-credentialed and were supposed to have been smarter than I was. They did a poor job of turning their analysis into a sales pitch and that’s where I took over.

    No matter how wealthy you are there is always a certain mount of trepidation in doing anything with your money, other than locking it in a fireproof safe. The salesperson’s is to get you over that fear. The way he does this is to have an opinion on everything and say it loudly. This is what Cramer does and he’s excellent at it.

    This is not to say he’s disengenous. I don’t think that at all. Quite to the contrary, the very best salesmen believe their own story. Cramer believes his own story and gets people over their fear of the unknown. Whether that’s to their own detriment or not, well that may be a different matter.

  39. PDS says:

    Kramer…..he’s CNBC’s Charlie Sheen…great for ratings…bad for investors who watch….

    with all the investment advice he provides…shouldn’t he be registered as an RIA with SEC????

  40. PDS says:

    BTW BR….since u r a thestreet.com alumnus, apparent Kramer fan and CNBC rock star…could u answer the following:

    has thestreet led by Mr Kramer resolved their differences from last year with the SEC over reporting discrepancies

    and

    can u as a CNBC star, describe/clarify/put in more transparent light the relationship between all of Mr Kramer’s thestreet.com employees…eg Mr Altucher….and how it is they are all over CNBC airwaves everyday??? is there a quid pro quo?..shouldn’t that obvious relationship between CNBC and Mr Kramer’s company be disclosed….if u don’t allow your readers to see this post I will assume you have the answers but don’t want to share them

  41. quaternion says:

    My big gripe about Cramer is that there’s no simple, systematic way to ascertain the value of his advice. To the best of my knowledge, he doesn’t track on his website how his stock recommendations fare over my time — if he wants to be taken seriously as an investment adviser, shouldn’t he do that? My deepest apologies to him, and to all, if, in fact, he does that.

  42. Joe Friday says:

    BR: “He has survived relentless and often well founded criticism. Despite the structure of the show — its a mile wide and an inch deep — he has a strong and loyal following.”

    That doesn’t mean he isn’t still an ‘insufferable jackass’.

  43. Jack says:

    Alumni, maybe even alumnae. Never alumnuses

    ~~~

    BR: I wrote “alumnus”

  44. Joe says:

    James J. Cramer is to Wall Street what Liebfraumilch is to wine. Both are an easy introduction into what can be an incredibly arcane and imposing genre if you were to start off with a dive into the deep end. Of course, once you actually learn something, you tend not to look back. But that’s what all the other Real Money contributors and alumni are all about.

    You have to assimilate what you can use and discard what is just flat wrong or what is right but you yourself can’t use from everyone you try to learn from.

    I’ll cheerfully buy Jim a meal and acknowledge my gratitude for what he does and has done. That said, he has his limits as we all do and if you can’t learn what those limits are and move on, it’s a non optimum situation indeed. I got no problem with that…….

  45. Joe

    That is an excellent analogy

  46. dfstone32 says:

    Altucher’s Cramer defense here: http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/01/10-things-i-learned-working-with-jim-cramer/

    Altucher’s a good writer so it’s decent read.

    It really says a lot about Cramer that he went on Stewart at all.

    If people lose money based on Cramer’s advice, it’s their fault not Cramer’s.

  47. Opinionator says:

    Cramer is at least as good as the people Kudlow brings on his show, and the desk at Fast Money, so why the criticism? When he digs down into a company his analysis is better than most people would do. I don’t know why he gets so much static.

    OK. He’s probably bipolar. So what?

    If he’s insecure, that’s no reason to hate the guy.

    I wish he’d tone it down, too. It would make the show more watchable. But he is who he is, and few people on Wall Street are as interesting.