Talk:Mad Money/Archives/2013

Criticism Section
Since I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, I decided to voice my opinion in the discussion section instead of editing the article directly. The last point in the criticism section concerning Jim's call for the federal reserve to cut interest rates is stated in a way that misrepresents his opinion. The article links his call for a fed rate cut to him asking for a bail out of hedge funds. This is a gross misinterpretation. He did call for a rate cut, but the statement concerning hedge funds is not correct, and has nothing to do with his opinion. You can check me on this by reading some of Jim's articles on www.thestreet.com and www.realmoney.com. Jim wanted a rate cut because the credit markets were stalled, not to bail out hedge funds. In addition, the notion that a rate cut would bail out the hedge funds at this point is incorrect to begin with. With a lower interest rate, the yen will become stronger against the dollar, causing more pain to hedge funds involved in the infamous yen carry trade. Also, a lot of hedge funds are short the market right now, and will lose money after the fed cut and equity prices jumped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.100.135 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "However, according to YourMoneyWatch.com, Mr. Cramer's "portfolio" of stocks mentioned on the show outranks the S&P 500 index over the 2006 year."
 * This statement is incorrect. The site listed shows Cramer's portfolio behind all the major indexes for 2006, 2007 and since the show aired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.117.40 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I am trying to add this passage to the criticism section but it keeps getting removed. I don't understand what if wrong with it since I am providing a plausible explanation as to why cramer's stock picks may underperform the market.


 * One possible explanation as to why Cramer's picks may underperform the market indexes is that Cramer frequently justifies his recommendations based on future growth prospects. However, if the Semi-strong or strong efficient market hypothesis is true this perceived knowledge Cramer has is already priced into the stock by the time he recommends it, thus limiting any further gains. Semi-strong form efficiency implies that Fundamental analysis techniques will not be able to reliably produce excess returns, and Cramer often bases his recommendations on fundamental analysis. ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stock trad3r (talk • contribs) 18:50, August 24, 2007 (UTC)


 * I would remove it - this passage seems to fit the Fundamental Analysis page much better. Also, if the semi-strong form efficiency principle applies, how do you explain the fact that many, many, many "fundamental" investors have beaten the bejeesus out of every other market index? And I'm not talking just about BRKA either - check out Longleaf Partners for example. Yes, the U.S. stock market - particularly the large cap segment of it - is very efficient, and it's hard to beat it, but it's by no means impossible... Agorboun 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point of the passage is to give a possible explanation using economic theory as to why Cramer's picks may underperform. It isn't intended to be completely definitive. If eight paragraphs can be devoted to the 2006 back to school section why not devote just one paragraph to this? Many fundamental investors do beat the market but many also don't like Cramer. Stock_Trad3r


 * Because the "Back to School" section describes something while the semi-strong form efficiency bit speculates. Last time I checked, speculation wasn't encouraged in encyclopaedic articles. And yes, it's speculation - while the passage in question is somewhat applicable to fundamental investing in general (provided one believes the EMT holds true), one cannot extrapolate it to Cramer all that easily. BECAUSE of other fundamental investors who have, over time, beaten the "market". One can just as easily explain the underperformance of Cramer's picks by saying that Cramer is simply a sucky stock picker, fundamental or otherwise. And it will hold just as much, if not more, validity as the semi-strong form efficiency version.


 * And correct me if I'm wrong, but the section in question is entitled "Criticism", not "Criticism and Rebuttals". Agorboun 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point it doesn't matter how I defend my contribution. The editors are hellbent on removing it. Maybe while I'm at it I'll add another four paragraphs to the 'back to school' section since heaven forbid we allow originality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stock trad3r (talk • contribs) 04:08, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this is an encyclopedia, not an open forum. But by all means, be original. Write a separate, well-argued, expanded article on possible reasons why Cramer's stock picking skills seem to be sub-par, at best. Apply the EMT, if you want. Some behavioural finance can also be useful. Publish it. I'll can give you a list of publications that might be interested. Then link to it here. Otherwise, refer to this page. Agorboun 05:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Criticism" sections are normally frowned upon in Wikipedia articles. To create neutrality I added a "Praise" section; however, it would probably be best if both "external reviews" were deleted and somehow integrated into the article. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for Cramer's Underperforming -- Reverted for the Following Reasons
I removed the two paragraph explanation that the IP 24.6.164.191 put in to explain the criticism of Cramer because, first and foremost, it was written in an unencyclopedic manner and didn't explain itself properly. The first explanation needs to be made in a more detailed manner. It doesn't make sense as it was written. The second explanation says: if the efficient market theory holds (which many believe it does)... This is colloquial writing and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Also, how many people are included in "many"?? Here, "many" is a peacock word and also unappropriate for this site. Many people also do not believe efficient market theory works -- in fact, there's quite a bit of evidence to disprove it from being anywhere close to a fullproof explanation for the markets. And efficient market theory can be qualified by certian rules and regulations, so you must specify what level of effient market theory you're advocating.

By and large, if you write your reasons in a manner fit for an economic journal (or an encyclopedia), then inclusion is possible. But editors will have to revert your work if it's written in the manner it was. ask123 17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI: An unregistered user has been continually adding original research to the criticism section that is not verified by reliable sources. Up to this point, s/he has been using the following IPs:


 * 75.62.5.23
 * 69.244.147.111
 * 70.18.59.100


 * If you are this person, you must understand that continually re-posting the same paragraph that has been deleted over and over again is not productive. That paragraph will keep on getting deleted if you make edits that ignore Wikipedia policy. Please abide by Wiki policy -- it's a simple set of rules aimed at keeping this site accurate and neutral. If you do, there should be no problem with your editing. Also, make use of talk pages. Notice that the deletion of your paragraph has been noted here for many days. Thanks.
 * Cheers, ask123 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Segments, Misc.
Some notes from a frequent "Mad Money" watcher and infrequent Wikipedia editor:

First, the "rest of" segments are ordered haphazardly and should be generally retooled, in relative order to how often they appear on the show. Here would be how I would order them:


 * Other Featured Segments: On The Line/Executive Decision (these can be joined as they are basically the same segment), Outrage Of The Day (Cramer devotes part of or the entire segment to call someone out who is outside of the corporate world, generally a politician), Wall Of Shame (a rotating list of CEOs that Cramer believes are so bad that their continued employment is a net loss to shareholders)


 * Other Weekly Segments: Cramer Vs. Cramer, The Week That Was, Speculation Friday (a speculative stock Cramer saves for Friday to allow his viewers the entire weekend to research it)


 * Occasional Segments: Know Your IPO, Pin Action, Under The Radar


 * Segments in Specials: Am I Nuts?, Student Stock Pitch, From The Floor Up (a live interview with Bob Pisani live at the NYSE discussing the mood on the trading floor; used exclusively during the two-week "Mad Money At The Half" run during the 2008 Olympics)


 * Discontinued Segments: Pick Of The Week, Beating The Racket, Danger Zone, Pimpin' All Over The World (segments featuring international stocks aren't highlighted anymore), Stump The Cramer

Other miscellaneous items, in order of appearance:
 * I'm almost positive the bulls, bears, and pigs are made of foam rubber and not plastic (in fact, the later segment with the monkey says so). Some of them are painted gold.  The specific actions he did with them two years ago are probably no longer relevant.
 * He sold the original "lovey blanket" and Louisville Slugger through an online auction. He has a much smaller red and yellow prop bat.
 * He has not had the Uncle Ben's prop on set for months due to his ongoing public disapproval of Chairman Bernanke.
 * The Lightning Round has been the D-Block (fourth segment) since the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September 2008.
 * The Lightning Round does not appear in every show. On days when Cramer is sick, on vacation, or when the market is closed on holiday, prerecorded shows are aired that have general advice, usually taken from one of Cramer's books.  Since they're recorded well in advance, none of the segments feature immediate stock advice, and the Lightning Round is completely removed.
 * The Lightning Round now appears well after :25 to :30, as explained previously. Also, even before being moved to the D-Block, the Lightning Round had been aired after 6:30 ET to prevent after-hours traders from playing his Lightning Round picks.
 * Head writer Cliff Mason is also the co-writer of Cramer's last two books, and also Cramer's nephew.
 * "Mad Money: It's A Family Affair" should probably be moved to the Main Event segment.
 * During its two-week, eight-episode run, "Mad Money At The Half" introduced several new segments: From The Floor Up, Executive Decision, and Outrage Of The Day.

Finally, the production team behind "Mad Money" produced a one-hour special called "The American Dream with Jim Cramer" for NBC. The special was taped during the NASCAR events at Lowe's Motor Speedway in Charlotte in May 2008 and aired July 13, 2008. It featured interviews with drivers Carl Edwards and Kyle Busch. Citation: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20080522nbc01

Thanks for reading. Marchron (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to fraud allegations of Goldman Sacs
This is one giant runon sentence, and I question the sources. Please review before it goes back up, if ever at all. Whoever put this up must of failed the 3rd grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.91.29 (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)