Why would anyone be outraged at a TV stock market analyst?

[dem629]

Anyone who doesn't pay attention to this (which has aired on each show since at least 2005) has only themselves to blame. Especially the last line, which only an idiot would need to be told.

"All opinions expressed by Jim Cramer on this show are solely his and do not reflect the opinions of CNBC, NBC UNIVERSAL or their parent company or affiliates. Cramer's opinions are based upon information he considers reliable, but neither CNBC nor its affiliates and/or subsidiaries warrant its completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such. Cramer's statements and opinions are subject to change without notice. No part of Cramer's compensation from CNBC is related to the specific opinions he expresses.

"Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Cramer nor CNBC guarantees any specific outcome or profit. You should be aware of the real risk of loss in following any strategy or investment discussed on the show. Strategies or investments discussed may fluctuate in price or value. Investors may get back less than invested.

"Investments or strategies mentioned in this show may not be suitable for you. This material does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation or needs and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for you. You must make an independent decision regarding investments or strategies mentioned on the show.

"Before acting on information in the show, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and strongly consider seeking advice from your own financial or investment adviser."

[Bake]

1. Anybody who bought because a stock was being pushed by a TV analyst is an idiot.

I mean, really. C'mon. Nobody in his/her right mind would buy stock based on a TV analyst.

Bake

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Concerning any particular stock tip - it is nonsense.

Concerning the overall thrust of the show, deliberately lying about the state of the markets, giving advice which the analyst would not himself take because of his knowledge of the truth behind it -
THAT is cause for outrage.

It's the same basic principle as the Enron execs encouraging employees to buy up Enron stock, while they were themselves unloading it. It is patently dishonest.

[dem629]

8. Would a personal adviser have told them that?

Too bad they didn't bother to find out.

[TwilightZone]

3. Perhaps because they sell themselves as experts.

It's like anything media-related. Determining the legitimacy of the source is up to the viewer. That being said, if someone continually declares themselves to be experts, it is not difficult to see why someone who is less financially-inclined might look to them for advice.

Should anyone take their advice seriously? Of course not, but then we can see through the facade.

[dem629]

6. It's still the fault of the morons who invest based on a TV show.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. The fact that marks fall for a con does not absolve the con man. nt

[TwilightZone]

16. Oh, I don't disagree.

My point is that the media spends a lot of time and effort making themselves appear credible, so it's not all that surprising that some people end up influenced by that effort.

[daleo]

4. If they're not meant to be taken seriously, why have the network?

Sure, people have to think for themselves, but that doesn't absolve stock jobbers and other "persuaders" of their moral (and sometimes legal) responsibility to be honest.

[dem629]

5. "People have to think for themselves, but..."

But...They don't if someone on TV tells them something?

[daleo]

12. Some people get captivated by the magic eye

Not everyone is all that bright, and older people can sometimes lose their judgment on financial matters (I have seen it up close). So, TV shows claiming to give business advice have an obligation to be honest and serious, and not hide behind "we are all just entertainers".

[TexasObserver]

7. I wouldn't mind so much if they used a more accurate name than "stock market analysts."

I have the name "Wall Street CEO Fluffers" in mind, but that's my personal choice for them.

[GreenTea]

9. LOL! Yep...that's the point, a disclaimer, LOL!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ddeclue]

10. Disclaimers? Bullshit! They aren't a "get out of jail free card".

Of COURSE there are plenty of people who never see those disclaimers and they are NEVER as prominent as all the hype proclaiming what a wonderful source of news and information CNBC is. It's hardly on the same basis as those ads I hate from big pharma companies pushing their drugs - at least about 15 percent of their ad time is spent on the disclaimers and they only do this because the FDA makes them do it. CNBC probably spends 0.1% of their air time making disclaimers.

I really hate lawyers who think they can put the disclaimers in the small print which say "any resemblance that anything I just said has to the truth is purely coincidental and you shouldn't believe a word I say" and think this is really enough to be doing the right thing by the viewing public.

It's bullshit and you know it.

If these people are going to portray themselves 99.9% of the time as a "news network" and then try to cover their ass with a very much less than prominent disclaimer in the small print 0.1% of the time then they really don't deserve my sympathy. That's like lying about someone on page one above the fold in the A section and then coming back 3 weeks later and "correcting the record" on page A21 at the bottom of the page in the corrections section.

These people are shills for the corporatocracy and deserve the pillorying they've gotten.

[walldude]

13. No one was.

The outrage was over Rick Santelli's calling people who lost their homes losers while his wall street buddies cheered in the background. Jon Stewart used Jim Cramer's propping up of Bear Sterns as an example of the talking heads getting it wrong. Cramer then went on every talk show that would take him to berate Jon Stewart. So Stewart had him on so he could explain to him that this was never about him. Apparently he didn't get it. Neither did you.

[Mike 03]

14. Because many "stock tips" don't come with disclaimers and because it's true, many people are

idiots.

To me, anybody who didn't see this crisis coming is an idiot. That probably includes a lot of nice, well-meaning people who just have no expertise in the markets but believe what investors tell them that over a fifteen year period markets always rise, no matter what.

On top of that you have the famous Ibbotson study that nearly every single analyst or financial advisor in the world tries to push on people who don't know about investing.

It's like getting mad at people who go to a doctor for medical advice and are fooled by what they say.

Many people believe that these "expert investors" are supposed to know the markets.

[wiggs]

15. Watch the Steward/Cramer interview. You could very well ask the same

question about Judith Miller and the Times in their Iraq reporting, disclaimer or no.

[AndrewP]

17. I was pissed off when I found out that the vitamins that Hulk Hogan told me to take were actually

steriods.