Allan Roth

The Irrational Investor
Click Here

In Defense of Cramer — Why We Need CNBC’s Mad Money

By Allan Roth | Jun 11, 2009 |

Sure, CNBC’s Mad Money host Jim Cramer encourages investors to treat their nest eggs like poker chips, but that just means we need him now more than ever.

I’m admittedly not his biggest fan. Once I compared him to SpongeBob Square Pants, a cartoon character that never knows what’s going on, which made Cramer a human cartoon that thinks he knows what’s going on. Unfortunately, Cramer’s sound effects and antics are aimed at pulling his audience onto the crazy train with him. That said, Cramer is also a virtuoso at playing on our irrational emotions. I’ll tell you how he does it, and why I hope Mad Money is around for many years to come.

They Call it Mad Money for a Reason

I was watching Cramer earlier this week as he discussed whether we’re in a bull market or just a rally in a bear market. This debate is particularly important for those who try to time the market as they did last October. That was when Cramer came to the sudden realization — after the plunge, of course — that money needed in the next five years was too risky to be in the stock market and  urged his listeners to get out. I think Cramer appeals to what author Jason Zweig calls our emotional “reflexive brain” better than anyone I know. Zweig’s book, Your Money and Your Brain, brilliantly explains why all the Cramers out there have jobs.

In his usual sleeves-rolled-up, in-your-face, carnival barker style, Cramer’s response to those questioning whether we were in an actual bull market or a rally was “shut up” — a phrase he repeated multiple times for emphasis. He followed up with a little past-predicting by noting that the Nasdaq was up the second highest of any year in the last dismal decade, which when it’s all said and done means a whole lot of nothing.

Why We Need Jim Cramer

Like the sun rising in the east, we can always count on Jim Cramer to make calls like “No no no — Bear Stearns is not in trouble,” to get out of the market after a plunge and get back in after a bull. Paul Farrell at Dow Jones MarketWatch has done a comparison of Cramer’s picks to seven others in his Lazy Portfolios, my son’s Second Grader Portfolio among them, in which Cramer lost badly. Yet ineffectual as he continues to be, the bottom line is that we need Jim Cramer and all of the Wall Street gurus.

The reason is this: If investors all invested rationally, no one would try to time the market, as research shows that the more we trade, the lower our returns. That knowledge would drastically lower the volume of trading in stocks and mutual funds and markets would come to a virtual standstill.

In my opinion, by encouraging his viewers to buy hot stocks and move in and out of the market, Jim Cramer does more than anyone on Wall Street to keep markets efficient. That trading volume keeps the market going and is critical to allowing the market to function. Unintentional though it may be, Cramer creates the market mechanism that allows long-term investors to profit from the foolishness of those who think they know what the near term future holds or what the next hot stock will be. Without that mechanism, the landscape of investing would be a pretty barren place.

So I thank Cramer, and his viewers, for the free ride they are giving to long-term rational investors. Without them, and the 95 percent of active investors who believe they are above average, we would have to pay the penalties of market timing or make our brokers rich.

Jim Cramer gets a hefty paycheck for the “education and entertainment” he provides. I think he deserves every penny he makes. Here’s hoping CNBC’s Mad Money ratings go even higher!

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    Eric Schurenberg

    06/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: In Defense of Cramer - Why We Need CNBC's Mad Money

    This is a great post, Allan. We do need Cramer and active investors. Without them, indexing wouldn't make sense.

  •  
    2

    Allan Roth

    06/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: In Defense of Cramer - Why We Need CNBC's Mad Money

    I once had lunch with a Wall Street analyst. In an arrogant manner, I told him I didn't believe in what he did - which was picking which stocks to buy and sell. He looked at me as if I was crazy and said that analysts like him were the ones that made the market work.

    He was 100% right and really put me in my place. I belive in him now.

  •  
    3

    john.keefe

    06/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: In Defense of Cramer - Why We Need CNBC's Mad Money

    Hello Allan,

    I watch Jim Cramer a lot. I watched him this evening - June 15, the biggest drop in 3 or 9 months or whatever - the S&P 500 was down 2.38%.

    His explanation for the drop was "technical" - by that I mean the charts: "a gap between the 10 month and 5 month moving averages on the S&P" - or something like that. Not the economy, not interest rates, not corporate earnings -- rather, the crossing of two lines with hypothetical importance.

    I was a Wall Street analyst for a dozen or so years, studied all of this stuff, and so have a healthy skepticism for every method of analysis. (Call me, we'll have lunch.)

    That said, the market needs points of view, such as Cramer's. An impulsive idea can lead to a profitable conclusion -- it happens all the time. That is what makes a market.

    John Keefe MoneyWatch / The Macro View

  •  
    4

    Allan Roth

    06/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: In Defense of Cramer - Why We Need CNBC's Mad Money

    Hi John,

    As a certified math geek, I wish technical analysis worked because I can build a spreadsheet that would dazzle. Unfortunately, it would predict the stock market every bit as good as a Wiji Board.

    I'm thinking of circulating a petition to get Cramer a raise at CNBC. You sign and I'll buy lunch!

  •  
    5

    daveprog2@...

    06/30/09 | Report as spam

    RE: In Defense of Cramer - Why We Need CNBC's Mad Money

    You actually found 4 of your own co-workers to post replies, this is not smart. If you must use your co workers, please have them use alliases -ok mate! You can also appear on more web searches if you use adult references such as Ron Jeremy.
    Only a used car salesman needs to wrongly quote a "source." What a tool! Why don't you reference American Idol as a source for Wall Street "buy and don't bother me investing."
    The name is MAD MONEY because you do it with your "mad money" not your nest egg. At least pay attention.

  •  
    6

    Allan Roth

    07/06/09 | Report as spam

    RE: In Defense of Cramer - Why We Need CNBC's Mad Money

    Thanks for your comment Dave. So you are against honesty that people should post under their real names? Are you also arguing against the raise I'm advocating for Carmer?

    Whether it's "mad money" or one's entire savings, followers of Cramer help make the market work. If you are one, I owe you a big "thank you."

  •  
    7

    ceh4702

    07/09/09 | Report as spam

    RE: In Defense of Cramer - Why We Need CNBC's Mad Money

    I like watching cramer because he explains what is going on in a way that you can actually understand in plain english. He also often points out he gets some newsletters and journals that most people do not get except that those that know about them. While Cramer has some good ideas he uses a lot of different resources and explains his reasoning. I would say his show is a good starting point for a starting investor.

    He often points out his own errors and points out most investors are lucky to be correct 45% of the time. It takes a long time to really understand how the market works and what should be going through your head when you pick investments and what the diff between an investment and a trade is.

    I like the Kutlow report(Spell) also. I like the way he yells at everyone. I wonder if he needs a hearing Aide.

  •  
    8

    Allan Roth

    07/10/09 | Report as spam

    RE: In Defense of Cramer - Why We Need CNBC's Mad Money

    ceh4702,

    I'm happy you like watching Cramer and think you understand what he's saying. Logical reasoning does not make for sound investing.

    Take Harry Dent - I liked his reasoning a few years ago when he predicted Dow 40,000. His reasoning today for Dow 3,800 also makes sense. I'd be broke if I invested based on everything that seemed logical.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Allan Roth

Allan S. Roth is the founder of Wealth Logic, an hourly based financial planning and investment advisory firm that advises clients with portfolios ranging from $10,000 to $50 million. He is mocked on a semi-regular basis by some financial professionals for his hourly fee model and its obvious inability to make him rich.

Roth is also the author of How A Second Grader Beats Wall Street. He teaches behavioral finance at the University of Denver and is an adjunct faculty member at Colorado College.

Allan Roth

Allan Roth has a lot of credentials (CFP, CPA, MBA) and business experience (McKinsey consulting and officers of mega-billion dollar companies). But he insists that said credentials and business experience do not interfere with his ability to keep investing simple.

Roth has worked with many a lawyer over the years, so he feels compelled to note that his columns are not meant as specific investment advice, especially since any such advice would need to take into account such things as each reader’s willingness and need to take risk, which can vary significantly. His columns will specifically avoid such foolishness as predicting the next “hot stock” or what the stock market will do next month. Roth’s goal is never to be confused with Jim Cramer.

Click Here
track your portfolio