CNBC’s ‘Professional BS Artist’ Jim Cramer Praised Another Bank, Stock Plunged 65% Three Days Later

I wonder how you get a job as a “talking head” it doesn’t seem like you ever have to be right

Just look at the gals on the View.

“Is there a point where his employer discusses his obvious incompetent status with him?”

Good point - but I think CNBC’s leadership is driven more by viewership totals than Cramer’s accuracy in stock picking.

Cramer is nothing more than an establishment piece of chit. He gets paid to intentionally lie. It hurts ignorant people and allows the establishment to profit. Should you expect anything different from Comcrap?

It's so sad, when alleged conservatives defend the dumbing down of America.

Vasquez or Vazquez...it still spells IGNORANT.

Playing Monday Morning Quarterback against Cramer (who's been a left wing blowhard for decades) is like shooting fish in a barrel. ChatGPT could have written that article.

And let's be precise. I'm not talking about what Cramer said. I'm talking about what Vazquez wrote:

He bizarrely called the stock “cheap,” despite it trading at around $320 a share at the time.

If Vazquez knew what it means for a stock to be "cheap" he'd have never written such nonsense.

Clearly, he hasn't a clue what "cheap stock" means. Nor, it would appear, does his editor or anyone in the publishing chain at NewsBusters. They let that whopper ride...TWICE!

In fact, this suggests that the READERSHIP of NewsBusters is clueless. Apparently, nobody complained. Or maybe they did, and NewsBusters decided it's better to not acknowledge that one of their writes is a dolt. Either way, it's a bad look.

And we are supposed to excuse this, because...what? Dems Bad?

I get that there is a battle for the soul of America, and not everyone is perfect. Fair enough. Perhaps you think I'm making much ado about nothing. Ok. However, standing by and letting this easily-fixable (and whopper of an) error get published (twice) allows the Other Side to mock our "crack reporter" and "new conservative media"...and slime our intellect simultaneously. Deplorablism isn't about embracing a D minus grasp of world.

Markets work best when there is a swift and accurate dissemination of information. Self-policing corrects errors, which improves discourse.

Would you prefer that I simply embrace error?

“I’m wondering if this guy secretly is giving messages to certain people to get out of certain investments.”
_____________________________

It’s all but a certainty if i had to guess!

Do you realize how idiotic you sound? The article was directly addressing what Cramer said, and thenceforth you’re also addressing what he said by re-contextualizing what he meant by the word “cheap.” You’ve essentially eliminated any chance at nuance because you just want to strain out a gnat. $320 a share in retrospect was NOT “cheap” especially because it already lost a sizable amoount of value in its bnond portfolio in 2022 (https://www.barrons.com/articles/svb-silicon-valley-bank-rates-securities-693c931c). The view now is that SVB stock was overvalued, which is why the shorts made a mint when it tanked (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-news-today-03-09-2023/card/short-interest-in-svb-financial-was-large-as-of-last-month-YwrTIqVpmzS60UGSBpce). Investor Jeremy Grantham literally called the SVB one of the “overpriced stock bubbles,” which means that the price at which it was trading at the time was not justified in retrospect. (link: https://fortune.com/2023/03/10/silicon-valley-bank-failure-jeremy-grantham-warns-overpriced-bubbles/amp/}.

Also, the article is not the only source to make the connection between Cramer’s “cheap” comment and the stock price it was trading at the time.

Here’s NY POST: “’The stock is still cheap,’ Cramer said. At the time, SVB Financial was trading at $320.40 a share.” https://nypost.com/2023/03/10/cnbcs-jim-cramer-touted-silicon-valley-bank-stock/

Here’s The Street: “A month ago the Mad Money host pumped the stock on his show, calling investing in the bank ‘compelling’ and ‘cheap’ while it was trading at $320 per share.” https://www.thestreet.com/personalities/jim-cramer-sees-key-investing-advice-in-svb-fallout

You’re throwing ad hominems around for what? The article just simply pointed out an irony that other sources pointed out. THAT WAS IT. It literally had NOTHING to do with all the complexities that constitute what in fact makes a company stock “cheap” or “expensive.”

The only “dolt” here is the one throwing around insults and putting a magnifying glass to ONE sentence pointing out an irony for NOTHING. As I said, take a break from the internet.

It's not my fault people can't do basic research, nor that they want to invoke the Chewbacca Defense.

It's very simple. Vazquez wrote-

He bizarrely called the stock “cheap,” despite it trading at around $320 a share at the time.

Twice.

No mention of the dividend discount model, future earnings power, the time series of prices, or any context. Just price and cheap.

Same with The Street and NY Post. Parenthetically, it would appear nobody does their own journalism anymore - one dope writes a story and others repeat it slavishly.

NASDAQ disagrees with Vazquez. As does anyone who passed Finance 101.

Thank you for your explanation.

Probably told what to pimp, for instance Shannon Saccocia who is/was an CIO at SVB Private in Wealth Management is also a CNBC contributor.

'Teardrop emoji....'