Most people who dislike Cramer do so because of specific times he has been wrong about specific stocks. This tells me two things:

(1) People care more about localized PAIN than about averages; and
(2) People don’t take responsibility for their own decisions; they’d rather blame an advice-giver instead of blaming their own lack of knowledge.

For example, Cramer has only actively recommended 3 of my 12 holdings, but I did not buy them because of his advice. I bought them because I did my homework on them and they were sound investments.

However, my overall portfolio follows various principles Cramer recommends, which I have mostly followed, and I therefore take personal responsibility for how it turns out, rather than crediting him or blaming him for how the specific stocks do. I *DO* credit him with educating me well. I am currently beating the market as I follow his principles, but that need not continue for me to know I am doing well, as much of the portfolio is defensive (because it’s diversified!), which Cramer would vigorously approve of.

[[That’s his target...Guys who act tough and live their lives vicariously...partially college-educated (in other words, they started college but never finished), work a middling job (middle income earners), and are usually married. Age range is late-30s to mid-40s. In other words, a**h***s and d*****bags who live beyond their means and are looking for the easy way out. I don’t know one serious investor who watches Cramer.]]

This is both unfairly negative and false. If you actually watched his show, you would hear:
(1) Both men and women;
(2) Young (pre-, in-, and post-college), middle-aged, and older (just before retirement);
(3) Clearly experienced investors and clear inexperienced investors.

Cramer appeals to a very broad demographic, and is always careful to tell people only what they seem to be ready to learn. He doesn’t talk over their heads, and he errs on the conservative, “safe” side, especially when the person asking appears less experienced.

Furthermore, when he believes he doesn’t know, he always says, “You know what? I’m going to go do my homework on that, and get back to you about it later.” And he does. I’ve watched him do it repeatedly.

A big thanks to angelo for pointing out:

[[anyone who bases their investment decisions on a 10 second televised blurt said by _anyone_, deserves to lose their money. It doesn’t matter who the speaker is nor how “qualified” they are. If you are that impulsive, you should have someone whom you trust to help you overcome that trait.]]

What a vivid way to hold people responsible for their own decisions.

Your comparison to Sports Center is exactly right. That’s his target demographic. Guys who act tough and live their lives vicariously through what they see on TV. They’re partially college-educated (in other words, they started college but never finished), work a middling job (middle income earners), and are usually married. Age range is late-30s to mid-40s. In other words, a**h***s and d*****bags who live beyond their means and are looking for the easy way out. I don’t know one serious investor who watches Cramer.

My main reason for not supporting Cramer? He’s a big “cap and trade” supporter. Second, he was a hedge fund guy. He was betting AGAINST the market. No thanks.

Bear Stearns account holders are no less rich than they were before the ~90% drop in Bear Stearns stock. Unless, of course they happened to own a bunch of that stock. Account holders and stock holders are different.

As far as “buying individual stock is like gambling.” That’s true, the word you are thinking of is “speculation.”

And furthermore, anyone who bases their investment decisions on a 10 second televised blurt said by _anyone_, deserves to lose their money. It doesn’t matter who the speaker is nor how “qualified” they are. If you are that impulsive, you should have someone whom you trust to help you overcome that trait.

From the website:

Cramer had a VIP caller for Friday’s Mad Mail: Peter from Illinois, the viewer who wrote the now-infamous Bear Stearns question back on March 10. He vindicated Cramer from all the misreported accounts of the Mad Money host’s call from that day: “My question was specifically about the assets that were in my different accounts. It had nothing to do with the equity BSC.” Hence, Cramer’s answer that the money of Bear Stearn’s clients was safe.

I’m sure theres a video of this somewhere.

Plus, he then goes on to advocate index funds for the average investor.

Seems you either love the guy or hate him. As for this discussion and everyone’s opinion on the “lighting round” clip.

Here’s a somewhat noob’s opinion. They guy is entertaining, for younger generations he gets us motivated to look into investing into our future via stocks, funds and other options. I speak for myself, but would guess there are many other noob’s of the younger generation who would agree when I say, I don’t make financial/trade decisions based on anyone person’s opinion especially if those opinions are formulated in under a minute.
Those that do make such decisions based on opinions formulated in a whirlwind environment such as the “lighting round” fall under the “there is a sucker born every minute” category. Those that believe the majority of Cramers followers make such decisions are probably not far behind. If we did we wouldn’t be watching the show and it would be cancelled.

Now back to one noob’s opinion of the Clip. He didn’t say anything that would make me buy the “BS” stock, didn’t say anything that would me sell “BS”the stock if I owned it. I did hear him say (BS) might be ripe for a takeover, which would make me do some serious research if I owned it.

One last note: Hmm, wonder why it’s called lighting round? Must be because all the picks are hot and ready to explode!

LoL
Noob: 101

You hit it right on the mark. These so called investment Guru’s often don’t even see things comings. How is it that Cramer is advising people that Bear Stearns was in fine shape yet the average Joe like myself watch the news and see that Bear Stearns is asking for a bail out.

I like to watch him to see if his head might explode during the show, but I would never buy a stock based on his rants.

Yes, the hedge funds who used Bear as a prime broker are not going to lose anything. Yes, the counterparties on Bear’s credit default swaps aren’t going to have face defaults of their own. And so on. These people are not the people writing into, or watching (seriously), Cramer’s show about stock-picking.

The questioner actually correctly identified the problem (or the perceived problem) that led to the stock value’s complete collapse. Cramer was wrong, but he’s obviously convinced that a good chunk of his audience is ignorant enough that if he says something that *sounds* plausible, they won’t be able to figure out they’re being lied to.

Also note this isn’t in the stockpicking Lightning Round section. I know he does get things wrong here and there but this is not one of those times.

TV is entertainment, designed to get ratings so the network can sell advertising. (disclaimer: I work in advertising, so this is my paycheck).

Books are entertainment, designed to provide good reviews, word-of-mouth, and dustcover copy.

So the hyperkinetic world of his TV show is there for a reason, and the generally high quality of information in his books is also there for a reason. I watch the show to be entertained (and take it seriously when he says don’t rush out and buy anything he recommends) and read his books to be informed.

Bear Stearns isn’t a bank. It’s an investment bank. Bear Stearns doesn’t have a retail brokerage arm. It only offers prime brokerage (i.e., for hedge funds). RETAIL CUSTOMERS DO NOT NORMALLY HAVE CASH DEPOSITS WITH BEAR STEARNS, NOR ARE THEIR FUNDS INVESTED THERE. Bear Stearns doesn’t ordinarily offer those services! The only way your average joe stock-picker is going to have direct exposure to BS is if he owns the stock. So, yes, on Cramer’s *stock-picking* show for the average investor, he was talking about *stock*. Not whether your deposited funds are safe (there aren’t any) or whether it’s okay to use them as a broker (because retail customers don’t). And certainly not whether sophisticated i-banks should keep using BS as a prime broker.

It’s really hard to feel bad for folks who buy based on Cramer’s “lightening round” and lose money. Being utterly retarded, they would have found some other way to piss it away without him.

I never really liked nor listened to investors who recommend a stock. I’m much more interested in their stock-picking strategy.