From Jim Cramer appearing on Meet the Press:
"The CEOs I talk to, they’re hiring. They’re hiring in Brazil, they’re hiring in Russia, China. Why are they hiring in those countries? Because it’s steady, we know what to get from the government. It’s a rather — it’s rather quizzical that we know what the Communists will give us but we don’t know what the capitalists will give us."
From Jim Bianco (another Wall Street investor) via Big Picture blog:
"Let us get this straight, in corrupt and Communist countries companies are hiring. They have transparency … that the government can nationalize your company whenever they want and execute you if you complain. Here we are paralyzed because we don’t know whether our tax rate will be 40% or 42% next year"
TW: The sentiment expressed by Cramer is not unique. Wall Street and conventional American business folks are the whiniest bunch of bitches of all-time. Last summer and fall, you may recall Cramer on TV literally pounding the table demanding government intervention. Now that Armageddon (apparently) is averted, he is leading the charge back to laissez-faire. Meanwhile, heaven forbid the wealthy go back to 2000 tax rates or face any regulations to prevent the next crisis.
Showing posts with label Jim Cramer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Cramer. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
I Will Take Our Folks Over Theirs
TW: This probably is best categorized as live by the sword, die by the sword. But Barry Ritholz runs a pretty good financial blog and has written a book, Bailout Nation. He shares some of what he is learning about publishing. We know Oprah can make or break a book, but so can Jon Stewart and now Glenn Beck although presumably with very different demographics. So there you have it Stewart/Oprah v. Beck...you know where my preference rests.
From the Big Picture Blog:
"Yesterday’s lunch meeting with the folks at Borders HQ in Detroit was quite interesting.
I was over-caffeinated, and essentially babbled away for 2 hours. I did manage to remember to ask a few questions, and learned quite a bit. It was an education for me in a real “Art meets Commerce” kind of way.
There is the creation of content, and then there is the selling of that content. They are two utterly different worlds, bound by a small overlap. (Picture a 2 circle Venn Diagram, with a rather smallish “c”). Quite fascinating to me, as I know little of the publishing/book selling universe, especially in the midst of a severe recession.
We discussed the book, purchase promotions, driving traffic to stores and websites, the Bailout Nation blog (coming soon!), and a bunch of other related things.
They asked me what shows I wanted to do to promote the book, and I gave them the full run down. What really surprised me was their reactions to two of the quasi-news opinion programs — The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and The Glen Beck Program.
After Oprah, these two are (apparently) amongst the biggest book sellers on TV. Like Oprah, Glenn Beck has a loyal audience, is perceived as very sincere — and moves books.
But the most intriguing “inside baseball” stuff we discussed was the impact of The Daily Show on book sales — in particular, two recent books that were the subject of big TDS segments. These were mentioned as prime examples of the power of Jon Stewart.
The first is House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street by William D. Cohan. After Stewart raved about the book (”Helluva book — you made finance read like a suspense novel”) when Cohan was on the show April 9th, sales of the book in stores tripled. They have been strong ever since.
The second example was the infamous James Cramer appearance on TDS on March12th. According to the people I had lunch with yesterday, the very next day, sales of Cramer’s book Jim Cramer’s Real Money: Sane Investing in an Insane World went into free fall. They absolutely plummeted — and they haven’t recovered since.
And that’s the power of TDS . . ."
From the Big Picture Blog:
"Yesterday’s lunch meeting with the folks at Borders HQ in Detroit was quite interesting.
I was over-caffeinated, and essentially babbled away for 2 hours. I did manage to remember to ask a few questions, and learned quite a bit. It was an education for me in a real “Art meets Commerce” kind of way.
There is the creation of content, and then there is the selling of that content. They are two utterly different worlds, bound by a small overlap. (Picture a 2 circle Venn Diagram, with a rather smallish “c”). Quite fascinating to me, as I know little of the publishing/book selling universe, especially in the midst of a severe recession.
We discussed the book, purchase promotions, driving traffic to stores and websites, the Bailout Nation blog (coming soon!), and a bunch of other related things.
They asked me what shows I wanted to do to promote the book, and I gave them the full run down. What really surprised me was their reactions to two of the quasi-news opinion programs — The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and The Glen Beck Program.
After Oprah, these two are (apparently) amongst the biggest book sellers on TV. Like Oprah, Glenn Beck has a loyal audience, is perceived as very sincere — and moves books.
But the most intriguing “inside baseball” stuff we discussed was the impact of The Daily Show on book sales — in particular, two recent books that were the subject of big TDS segments. These were mentioned as prime examples of the power of Jon Stewart.
The first is House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street by William D. Cohan. After Stewart raved about the book (”Helluva book — you made finance read like a suspense novel”) when Cohan was on the show April 9th, sales of the book in stores tripled. They have been strong ever since.
The second example was the infamous James Cramer appearance on TDS on March12th. According to the people I had lunch with yesterday, the very next day, sales of Cramer’s book Jim Cramer’s Real Money: Sane Investing in an Insane World went into free fall. They absolutely plummeted — and they haven’t recovered since.
And that’s the power of TDS . . ."
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Angry And the Self-Loathing
TW: With all of the videos of Stewart I post, I suppose I owe my two cents on the Cramer event. It was surprising for sure. I expected either a dull somewhat awkward fandango with little said or a smarmy insider, "we can fight, but we have made up" fest. Instead Cramer became Stewart's punching bag which ultimately is unfortunate.
I have listened to much Cramer over the years, I actually like him as he unlike almost all others of his ilk has in fact taken more of a populist tilt trying to provide "insider" perspectives while understanding most do not have them. He is self-aware, recognizing his primary CNBC show is just that, a show, where he spends as much or more time entertaining than analyzing.
Cramer's problem, amongst others, is that many of the paradigms upon which he built his financial career have been torn asunder. When the economy and the financial system are crashing many of those tricks of the trade no longer apply particularly well. When the economy and the financial system are crashing many of those personal relationships and sources of trust fall apart. The net result is that Cramer appears to be using a 20th century cookbook during a 21st century crisis.
I do not question Cramer's motives at this point merely his relevance.
Stewarts broadsides attacked not only Cramer's motives but made Cramer the poster child for all of the world's financial problems. For whatever reasons, Cramer sat there and took it (he tends toward self-flagellation anyway, he is a compulsive with all the associated baggage). Cramer is partially reflective of the problems but as Stewart mentioned at the very end not really the proper vessel for the frustrations.
Cramer for instance is not a Maria Bartiromo whose sole purpose in professional life appears to be landing interviews with top CEOs then asking soporific questions meant not to inform but to propagandize. Cramer is not a Larry Kudlow whose only role is to proselytize with evangelical fervor about the great American capitalist society whose promised land is within reach if only more tax cuts, less regulation and continued obeisance are provided to the great titans of wealth and prosperity. Cramer is not the producer that substitutes the steady relentless cacophony of a dozen voices at a time for actual analysis yet claims it means something. Cramer is not the mountainously arrogant executive who concocted serial means by which to grossly overpay himself during the good times.
Those folks are the ones to me who more aptly and metaphorically represent the failure of American style capitalism over the past thirty years. Something rotten has taken root and we are far from defining the full breadth of its tentacles and depth of its impact. Stewart clearly has tapped a vein of resentment, like all resentments it bears much truth but also some ignorance. There are many folks I would like to see hoisted upon their respective petards, Cramer is just not anywhere near the front of that line.
I have listened to much Cramer over the years, I actually like him as he unlike almost all others of his ilk has in fact taken more of a populist tilt trying to provide "insider" perspectives while understanding most do not have them. He is self-aware, recognizing his primary CNBC show is just that, a show, where he spends as much or more time entertaining than analyzing.
Cramer's problem, amongst others, is that many of the paradigms upon which he built his financial career have been torn asunder. When the economy and the financial system are crashing many of those tricks of the trade no longer apply particularly well. When the economy and the financial system are crashing many of those personal relationships and sources of trust fall apart. The net result is that Cramer appears to be using a 20th century cookbook during a 21st century crisis.
I do not question Cramer's motives at this point merely his relevance.
Stewarts broadsides attacked not only Cramer's motives but made Cramer the poster child for all of the world's financial problems. For whatever reasons, Cramer sat there and took it (he tends toward self-flagellation anyway, he is a compulsive with all the associated baggage). Cramer is partially reflective of the problems but as Stewart mentioned at the very end not really the proper vessel for the frustrations.
Cramer for instance is not a Maria Bartiromo whose sole purpose in professional life appears to be landing interviews with top CEOs then asking soporific questions meant not to inform but to propagandize. Cramer is not a Larry Kudlow whose only role is to proselytize with evangelical fervor about the great American capitalist society whose promised land is within reach if only more tax cuts, less regulation and continued obeisance are provided to the great titans of wealth and prosperity. Cramer is not the producer that substitutes the steady relentless cacophony of a dozen voices at a time for actual analysis yet claims it means something. Cramer is not the mountainously arrogant executive who concocted serial means by which to grossly overpay himself during the good times.
Those folks are the ones to me who more aptly and metaphorically represent the failure of American style capitalism over the past thirty years. Something rotten has taken root and we are far from defining the full breadth of its tentacles and depth of its impact. Stewart clearly has tapped a vein of resentment, like all resentments it bears much truth but also some ignorance. There are many folks I would like to see hoisted upon their respective petards, Cramer is just not anywhere near the front of that line.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
It Won't Stop...
TW: Entertainers love nothing better than a controversy to boost their mutual ratings. But then that is the point, they are entertainers, they both acknowledge it in their own ways. Cramer is set to appear on the Stewart show Thursday night to continue the mutually beneficial process.
The ultimate point is that media in general is built for entertainment not information, we should all act accordingly. That folks listen to a Limbaugh or a Hannity or an Olbermann to actually obtain information is depressing. They are entertainers nothing more or less.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Takedown And the Counterattack
TW: The tricky part for Cramer is that he has acknowledged many times that his schtick is also entertainment else if he actually tried to hold dialogue on say tier one capital ratios few would watch. Re Scarbourough, I would suggest he watch any Fox "News" show to ascertain whether Stewart is so unusual. When someone attacks a show on the COMEDY channel for a being a comedy, you know they are reaching, but again why is it that comedians are able to dissect what MSM either cannot or will not?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Why Health Care Reform Is Perhaps a Bridge Too Far
TW: The rockets, mortars, IEDs, and ultimately nukes will be deployed against efforts by Obama and others to reform health care. IF he is able to accomplish significant reform he should receive a Nobel prize in economics and peace.
This piece by the Jim Cramer (who btw has been HORRIBLE since the market turned south) epitomizes the challenges Obama faces. Cramer mentions companies were "raking it in" with certain plans which Obama seeks to reform but then rails against Obama for reducing their profits. There in lies the rub, your health care expense is someone elses profit.
We have lived a Ponzi scheme in real estate, a Ponzi scheme in internet stocks, while it is not a Ponzi scheme per se; the interests aligned to keep health care costs expanding in perpetuity are even more powerful.
From Jim Cramer:
"Talk about the opposite of President Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama campaigned on the idea of reining in health care costs. Clinton even went so far as to go to Merck's headquarters and rail against big pharma, something that exceeded any of the tough talk of Obama.
But once Clinton came in, his health care plans were so diffuse and convoluted, it turned out to be all bluster. The stocks rallied and rallied, his bashing turned out to be a great opportunity to buy just about every private enterprise having to do with health care, from devices and pharmaceuticals to health maintenance organizations and cost containers.
Wow, what a difference! Obama, it turns out, meant it!
He's waging war against the health maintenance organizations, the cost containers. He's changing the rules on Medicare in a way that Humananever thought was possible. He's destroying the margins of Aetna and Cigna. These companies, particularly Humana, have this tremendous Medicare senior plans where they were just raking it in and were subsidized by the government.
em>
So now they are coming for everything in the sector, as reimbursements could be cut for everything. That means some pain in Genzyme, which has high-priced drugs that may not be protected. And some heart assists, like St. Jude, which have been doing excellently, are getting killed. Drug stocks -- no one thinks they can get through unscathed now.
It didn't help that Express Scriptsem> sees some weakness, as people might even be cutting back on taking drugs! Nasty.
This group's been a lone winner. It might regain luster if we can find out that the war is just against this health care cost containment group, which Obama said didn't cut costs or contain anything. In fact, he came perilously close to saying that this group is just a tax on the system,
...Health care had been a safe haven from the awful economy. That might be true, but now we see it's no safe haven from Obama.
The worst dreams of the capitalists are being realized; stocks just got even more unsafe than they were before this budget came out."
This piece by the Jim Cramer (who btw has been HORRIBLE since the market turned south) epitomizes the challenges Obama faces. Cramer mentions companies were "raking it in" with certain plans which Obama seeks to reform but then rails against Obama for reducing their profits. There in lies the rub, your health care expense is someone elses profit.
We have lived a Ponzi scheme in real estate, a Ponzi scheme in internet stocks, while it is not a Ponzi scheme per se; the interests aligned to keep health care costs expanding in perpetuity are even more powerful.
From Jim Cramer:
"Talk about the opposite of President Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama campaigned on the idea of reining in health care costs. Clinton even went so far as to go to Merck's headquarters and rail against big pharma, something that exceeded any of the tough talk of Obama.
But once Clinton came in, his health care plans were so diffuse and convoluted, it turned out to be all bluster. The stocks rallied and rallied, his bashing turned out to be a great opportunity to buy just about every private enterprise having to do with health care, from devices and pharmaceuticals to health maintenance organizations and cost containers.
Wow, what a difference! Obama, it turns out, meant it!
He's waging war against the health maintenance organizations, the cost containers. He's changing the rules on Medicare in a way that Humananever thought was possible. He's destroying the margins of Aetna and Cigna. These companies, particularly Humana, have this tremendous Medicare senior plans where they were just raking it in and were subsidized by the government.
em>
So now they are coming for everything in the sector, as reimbursements could be cut for everything. That means some pain in Genzyme, which has high-priced drugs that may not be protected. And some heart assists, like St. Jude, which have been doing excellently, are getting killed. Drug stocks -- no one thinks they can get through unscathed now.
It didn't help that Express Scriptsem> sees some weakness, as people might even be cutting back on taking drugs! Nasty.
This group's been a lone winner. It might regain luster if we can find out that the war is just against this health care cost containment group, which Obama said didn't cut costs or contain anything. In fact, he came perilously close to saying that this group is just a tax on the system,
...Health care had been a safe haven from the awful economy. That might be true, but now we see it's no safe haven from Obama.
The worst dreams of the capitalists are being realized; stocks just got even more unsafe than they were before this budget came out."
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Republican Mess: When Cutting Taxes With Abandon And Refusing To Regulate and Oversee Do Not Get It Done
The Republican economic policies are not complex: cut taxes, cut regulation. Simple to say, simple to understand and very effective electorally.
Many of you bemoan the potential Obama tax hikes on those earning over $250K per year. I would argue that you and everyone else is suffering from far more "taxing" challenges than a potential limited increase to that portion of your earnings greater than $250K.
To say the least, Jim Cramer, CNBC "Mad Money", is prone to hyperbole but he has been all over this financial crisis since its start a year ago. A portion of his latest rant:
"We all know it. All of us. We know that the subprime mortgages that Lehman (LEH - commentary - Cramer's Take) wrote in Europe have come back to haunt them. We know that AIG (AIG - commentary - Cramer's Take) insured a lot of bad paper over in Europe when it decided to "avoid" the U.S. Subprime financial insurance, if you can call its multi-billion-dollar exposure "avoidance."
We know that Washington Mutual (WM - commentary - Cramer's Take) can't absorb the losses itself. We know that Downey (DSL - commentary - Cramer's Take) and Corus (CORS - commentary - Cramer's Take) and BankUnited (BKUNA - commentary - Cramer's Take) can't raise the money they need.
We know all of these things. I think the federal government does, too. We lived in an unregulated time where everyone acted badly and no one protected anyone, and now these institutions have to be dealt with in a way that is the least painful of all the painful ways.
Of course, though, this government has no desire to deal with things until guys like Bill Gross or the Chinese government say, "We are done buying your paper," when it came to Fannie Mae (FNM - commentary - Cramer's Take). I guess they want a run at the bank of Washington Mutual and they want customers to stop doing business with Lehman before that's sold for scrap, although I must say that the Bear deal worked pretty well for everybody except Bear shareholders. "
Many of you bemoan the potential Obama tax hikes on those earning over $250K per year. I would argue that you and everyone else is suffering from far more "taxing" challenges than a potential limited increase to that portion of your earnings greater than $250K.
To say the least, Jim Cramer, CNBC "Mad Money", is prone to hyperbole but he has been all over this financial crisis since its start a year ago. A portion of his latest rant:
"We all know it. All of us. We know that the subprime mortgages that Lehman (LEH - commentary - Cramer's Take) wrote in Europe have come back to haunt them. We know that AIG (AIG - commentary - Cramer's Take) insured a lot of bad paper over in Europe when it decided to "avoid" the U.S. Subprime financial insurance, if you can call its multi-billion-dollar exposure "avoidance."
We know that Washington Mutual (WM - commentary - Cramer's Take) can't absorb the losses itself. We know that Downey (DSL - commentary - Cramer's Take) and Corus (CORS - commentary - Cramer's Take) and BankUnited (BKUNA - commentary - Cramer's Take) can't raise the money they need.
We know all of these things. I think the federal government does, too. We lived in an unregulated time where everyone acted badly and no one protected anyone, and now these institutions have to be dealt with in a way that is the least painful of all the painful ways.
Of course, though, this government has no desire to deal with things until guys like Bill Gross or the Chinese government say, "We are done buying your paper," when it came to Fannie Mae (FNM - commentary - Cramer's Take). I guess they want a run at the bank of Washington Mutual and they want customers to stop doing business with Lehman before that's sold for scrap, although I must say that the Bear deal worked pretty well for everybody except Bear shareholders. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)