Jim Cramer finally officially eliminated himself from any serious discussion about any economic issue, forever. I know, to many he eliminated himself a long time ago with his ludicrous housing is bottoming call a year ago, but for some reason he is still being hailed as some type of guru on CNBC. It is easy to do a hit piece on Cramer, I know, but this time he has gone a bit too far.
First, he claims he told people to sell last week before the big selloff on Friday, he did not on his Mad Money program. Second, he ran a piece tonight HERE, claiming he is giving you tomorrows headlines today, at 6 PM, what good is that, about the housing data tomorrow. Guess what he said? It is going to be bad. Really, no one had any idea since the data has been horrible for how long now? Not to mention everyone is expecting the data to be bad so even I am not convinced it will be the catalyst it should be. Regardless, the insanity doesn’t end there, it gets better.
He claims he gets his information from the home builders who sell thousands of homes and have been extremely negative on housing versus economists who own only one home. He goes on to say how overly optimistic economists are and so forth which is not shocking to anyone since they have all overestimated the economic data we have seen recently and, frankly, he had also overestimated the data as well. Basically, he is jumping on the bandwagon which means the data is probably going to be better than we all think to begin with because Cramer is the freaking kiss of death for everything, seriously, he is. But it gets even better!
Cramer goes on to say that the poor housing data doesn’t mean anything because it is such a small part of GDP. He said; “Housing, he added, is not a big percentage of the economy and said executives who have appeared onMad Moneyhave moved “well past” housing as the drivers of their earnings.” WHAT!? OK, housing is not a big part of the economy, sure, I guess that depends on exactly how you define housing. Sales or residential investment account for about 5% of GDP, but I would hardly call that inconsequential. However, it is the services that go into housing that is the driver of GDP growth, like appliances, materials, jobs, etc. which account for about 12-13% of total GDP. That is a combined total of 17 to 18% of GDP that is impacted by the housing market being in the tank, conservatively, according to the NAHB. That is not inconsequential to the economy and that is something that companies cannot just “move past” in their earnings cycle.
The reason housing is such a big deal is because it touches so many parts of the economy and when housing falters so does the broader economy, obviously. To discount weak housing data from the overall economy or to not know how big housing is within the overall economy is incredulous. This matters because this impacts people’s lives, especially when construction workers are one of the largest segment of the workforce unemployed right now, and shows that this person has no business talking about broader economic issues. I respect the fund manager and he has one hell of a track record, but as a macro guy or a guy putting the pieces together to figure out what the economy looks like he is officially, totally, disqualified now. His horrible housing call a year ago combined with not knowing how important or big housing is today proves it.
I said it on Friday, I wonder how Jim Cramer will revise what he says when there is a bounce in the markets from his; “Don’t buy until Dow 9000” call. Well, we certainly did not have to wait long for the mighty Cramer to revise his history, yet again, and spin “what he meant to say was” moment. As it turns out Cramer meant to say that if Trichet did not do anything he would not buy until Dow 9,000, but that is not what he really said.
Anyone who watches his show, I only do at night when I am going to bed because I like to laugh before I sleep, knows that this guy says one thing, will be wrong and will then “remind” you of what he said. Unfortunately, he reminds you of the complete opposite of what he says, almost every time. I think he forgets that video is forever or something because I am not sure how he thinks he can spin what he says when he is on tape saying pretty much the opposite of what he says he said. Cramer was a great money manager and a great self promoter, but as far as “looking out for you,” well, I think Congress looks out for you more than Mr. Cramer and that ain’t saying much.
This is not the first time he has done this and will not be the last time either. It kills me that he just slams bears and short sellers when he also sold short and was not an investor in his hedge fund. He also wants you to believe that the markets should go straight up and never down, unreal. What I find humorous is that he thinks the fundamentals are “great,” even in Europe. In May 7th he says Europe fundamentals are junk, but on May 10th the fundamentals are great, huh? He was extremely bearish on May 7th and bullish on May 10th, huh? Make up your mind. I am bearish on the markets, but like individual companies, what does that make me? I think a realist, but Cramer is just a damn phony.
The EU is in for some awesome austerity in the near future and the EU is 20% of the world GDP. If they are going to be thrown into a recession because of austerity, let’s just call it higher taxes, that will be a drag on the world economy, right? How can this Mad Money guru not know this? If you watch the full May 7th video he talks about the 290K employment report, how can he not see the 188K phony birth/death model addition? How can he not discount Census hiring, 66K temporary jobs? On top of another 26K actual temporary jobs in the private sector? Let’s face it, this guy is a headline reader and not a fact checker. I am not sure why he gets under my skin, perhaps it is because he acts like he is looking out for you when he is not and knows nothing about macro events. Most of all, he rejects what he actually said and replaces it with what he thinks he said. Some people have a word for that, it begins with an L.
Here is what he said May 10th:
Compare that with what he said on May 7th and you be the judge:
We all know the answer to that question, but he really has taken the cake today. As Goldman defends itself against this lawsuit Cramer had a piece on CNBC titled “Cramer: Goldman Invested Own Money in CDO.” In this article he cites an unnamed source, which is the first red flag, that stated Goldman did not short this CDO. Well, who cares as that is not the allegation. The allegation is that Goldman allowed Paulson to pick out lousy mortgages to short, in order to create the synthetic CDO, and did not disclose to investors that this CDO was created by a guy who wanted to short the market. The charges claim that the marketing of this CDO was said to have been picked by an “independent” third party which is patently false, unless Paulson & Co. wanted to lose money. As an aside, this is right about the time Goldman started to short the sub-prime market according to my sources, you know, publically available information.
The question is about whether Goldman did this, I think they did, and what other banks might have done the same thing, they all copy each other and the synthetic CDO market was a very esoteric vehicle to invest in. The CDO market was also controlled by a few main banks, Goldman, Morgan, BoA, Deutsche Bank, Citi and a few others. These banks kept the prices of the CDS swaps low, meaning the buyers, i.e. Paulson, was not making any money, as the market was collapsing which shows that the banks were deluding themselves about the reality of the market. Most CDO’s only needed a 5% default rate to blow up, banks did not move the prices of the CDS’s in the buyers favor until well after that 5% default rate, read The Big Short to verify. In other words, these guys controlled the market, created a product they knew was crap (the short sellers picked what they wanted to short!) and then sold these synthetic products to unwitting clients, they had to invest in some of them because by 2007 all the suckers were less likely to buy synthetic products.
My point is simple, no one claimed Goldman shorted this specific CDO, but misled investors to buy it by distorting the facts about it. Are they guilty? More than likely, but I am sure the case will be settled with admission of guilt. Does this mean AIG and other investors might have a claim? Yup, so go buy some GS Cramer, I am sure he will tell you that later tonight. Did other banks do the same thing? More than likely. It is hard to believe GS was the only bank that did this when they were a relatively small player in that business, compared to Citi, Merrill Lynch and others. Does Cramer grasp those facts or thoughts? I don’t think so.
After all, this is the guy who thinks the market going up every day for a month and a half is a good thing. Then again, Cramer, whose selective memory will omit this in a week or tonight, did this on his show last night:
I guess Cramer never made money shorting stocks… yeah right. I respect Cramer the hedge fund manager, but this other guy, what he turned into, is disingenuous.
I was a bit desperate tonight for entertainment before the ball drops and happened to tune into Mad Money, I am sure Cramer is please as I single handedly increased his ratings from 1 to 2. Regardless, tonight I realized why I stopped watching this guy. He has no sense of decency, memory or humility whatsoever. In fact, all he does is revise his picks, his history and track record all the time. I will post videos to prove it in a little bit.
Tonight he was talking about retirement, which is a joke since he ignored what I rightfully pointed out is the most important thing in retirement planning, the sequence of returns, oh well, why let the facts, oh forget it. Anyhow, here is what you need to remember about good old Jim, he invested in the greatest bull market ever, yes he was a hell of a fund manager, but regardless it was also the greatest bull market ever, and he rarely held positions for very long. If you doubt this then go read Trading with the Enemy which was written by a guy who worked for Jim, apparently Jim is not a nice guy, go figure.
My point is Jim knows nothing about retirement planning because it is a totally different ballgame than trading stocks. It involves a complex range of skills sets and knowledge that not just any person has, sorry, but it’s true. This does not mean I am not a guru and I am not claiming this, but I do consult in this area and speak with experts all the time so I have a good grasp on the topic. Anyhow, tonight Jim claims that he “loves” index funds, but does he really?
It is true he used to tell people to invest in these funds until they built up $10K to trade stocks. However, earlier this year he got rather upset at a guest on CNBC, I am searching for the video, where he went off on the guy saying that anyone who invested and held, i.e. buy and hold investing in index type funds, were losers, literally, because they got killed over the last 12 years. At that time the markets were at historic lows so we were at levels not seen in over a decade. At that time he advocated being active in your account and moving money, which has always been my belief as I believe that passive and active management performance is cyclical. I guess he changed his mind since the market recovered though because now you should own index funds and then add stocks after awhile.
This man must confuse the hell out of his viewers. I mean, one day he is telling you to buy dividend stocks, then buy internet stocks, wait, now buy Best Buy before the earnings and the next day he is saying never buy a stock before the quarterly earnings and now he is saying that your core holdings should be index funds? If you are confused, so am I, but that is what the man said, so don’t blame me. The kicker is his disclaimer is that he is merely trying to entertain you, but here is what I just cannot figure out. If he is entertaining us and we really should not take him seriously, you should never take an entertainer seriously in my book, then why is he dispensing buy and sell recommendations on stocks?
Worse yet, why is the advice he’s giving one night in direct conflict with the advice he has given the night before? Honestly, I am not trying to give him a hard time, but I have a real problem with people revising their history, especially when it is on TV and it is easily searchable. If a broker or a financial advisor acted like that or dispensed advise like that FINRA would slap them so hard it would not be funny, but not commentators, even though the history of what they said is recorded. It is just unreal that this type of behavior can continue and no one says anything about it. I don’t care if the advice is bad, hell Suze Orman says lose your house before you even think about tapping your IRA for an emergency, yeah, that makes sense, everyone gives bad advice, but don’t cover it up.
Be the First to Comment 
Subscribe to Annuity IQ's Feed
