Talk:Jim Cramer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

got married until?

"Cramer got married in 1988 to his wife, who he used to call the Trading Godess until their first of two daughters was born in July 1991." What does this sentence mean? CDA 00:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It means that Cramer's wife stopped stock trading. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 01:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

His daughters names are Cece and Emma. By all indications he is still married. He still calls her "The Trading Goddess" on a near weekly basis on his show, "Mad Money." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.128.59 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-26

car with an ax

This sentence was removed: "While living in Los Angeles, he went on vacation to Las Vegas and lost lots of money, and his house was burglarized, so he lived at an acquaintance's home and in his car with an ax and a gun. On top of it, he got hepatitis." It's not well written, but if any of it is true I think it should be included.

Yeah, it's mostly true, though I think he was on assignment for his newspaper when he was burglarized. He lived in his car for five months and he had an axe, a gun and a bottle of Jack Daniels. He said that just this weekend on Tim Russert's CNBC interview show. Readparse 08:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and that part of life is covered to some extent in his book Confessions of a Street Addict. I'll try to find my copy and see what I can confirm/add/delete. Readparse 08:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It never says in his book that he got hepatitis, just a liver problem. There are a myriad of things that could be. He was also not on vacation in Las Vegas, but covering a news story at the behest of his boss.

According to Confessions, the Las Vegas bit is false - he was sent to cover a shooting in San Diego for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner (pp.4-6). The burglary/axe/car/gun part is true - from page 6 in Confessions:"All I had left to my name was what was in my car, a sport jacket, my .22, and the old Boy Scout hatchet... (later down the page) ...I slept in the back seat of my Ford Fairmont for the next nine months, with intermittent stays at friends' apartments..." I've paraphrased some of this information and included it in this article. --Georgeryp 02:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Video

Wasn't there a video of Cramer on this page at one point? Shouldn't it be brought back, as it really explains him well. Kaiser matias 04:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to shave - why?

confusing: the article says that he has uncertain superstituous reasons why he won't go clean-shaven, but at the end of the same paragraph it says he is concerned his children wouldn't recognize him without his facial hair. Which is it? 199.214.26.118 20:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Selling Ben & Jerry's ice cream?

Someone needs to verify this statement or remove it completely:

He learned the value of a dollar by selling Ben & Jerry's through an ice cream vending service at Veterans Stadium during Philadelphia Phillies games.

According to the article, Ben and Jerry's, the company was founded in 1978. Cramer would have been 24 at the time and already graduated from Harvard. Alcarillo 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it as it is not sourced. Their is a claim on his IMDB entry referenced here that he sold ice cream at Phillies games. That's all. Piperdown 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remove the {{Disputed|date=March 2008}} tag. Alcarillo 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

okay, great

YouTube video of Cramer

Does this really need to be on here? It is a very interesting video to watch but I don't know if it even needs to be mentioned in a biographical article. To the best of my knowledge, what Cramer describes doing isn't illegal, which is what this paragraph in the article states. Heavy buying or selling/short selling in the futures to get the cash market to open higher or lower isn't illegal. Maybe a bit manipulative or shady, but not illegal. Clinevol98 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the story is taking off. Reuters has a long article on it with quotes from laywers, hedge fund managers, references to possible regulatory involvement. It should probably stay as it's getting coverage from major news orgs. It could turn out to later merit its own "controversy" section, or if the story fizzles out, should probably just stay as it is now, a relatively small blurb in the criticism section.Piperdown 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok; thanks for pointing that out. Didn't know it was getting mention in the mainstream press. It should stay then. However, as I said in that previous message, the techniques Cramer describes doing with regards to "manipulating" the futures aren't illegal. In the video, Cramer recommends hedge fund managers do these things because they are legal. Clinevol98 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Clinevol98, apologize for the removal of the YouTube video that is the central story of this piece, but at first take, YouTube video links are probably 100% disallowed on wikipedia as it opens up a pandora's box of video's sourced anonymously. Of course, many reliable news sources are linking to it in their articles, so perhaps that would allow the link to the video. Or perhaps we should just let the RS links be used, then readers can find the youtube link from those RS pages. I would anticipate wikipedia someday soon having a "bot" that would delete youtube video links from wiki entries, imho.Piperdown 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...I figured it would be OK because the Reuters article had a link to the video. Clinevol98 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

TV shows referenced

There are several references to a Tim Russert Show. (example: <ref>Tim Russert Show, July 14, 2007.</ref>). Are these references citations?

1. They don't give links to reputable and enduring online material
2. They don't give information about how to actually obtain the material to verify that it actually supports the statements it is supposed to be supporting.

Should these statements be marked "citation needed"

Sounds like it could have been an interesting interview, but there's not any more information than that here. Should we take these Tim Russert citations out?
--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know...in many articles, for example, I see citations to newspaper/magazine articles or news reports that aired on CNN or other broadcast networks. I haven't seen too much debate around those (although I could be very mistaken). Vik

They might be expanded to better meet style guidelines, but at the basic level, they are perfectly appropriate citations. Citations certainly don't have to be to material that endures on-line; if so, printed books under copyright, or old newspaper articles, would not be considered appropriate citations. It does need to be a reputable source. However, I don't think anyone (other than maybe particular fans of Scooter Libby) is suggesting that Russert is not considered a credible journalist, so I think that bar is cleared.

It's also not the responsibility of the citation to provide detailed instructions for how to obtain the material. You just need to be specific enough about what the material is that someone doing their own research can adequately identify it. Saying the Tim Russert show and providing a specific date does exactly that. Again, the citation might be enhanced sytle-wise by noting CNBC as the network or giving time index info or other details. But the basic requirement has been met in that enough information is provided that if I want to research it myself, I very easily can: contact CNBC (so again, adding CNBC to the citation would probably be good) and ask to obtain a copy of the show (or transcript thereof) that aired that date. Mwelch 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

lost tracking

How much of the oft touted Cramer results in running a hedge fud at Godman Sachs was the result of simply tracking along/surfing with the traders at Goldman Sachs and so surfing their knowledge AND then how much was the result of the Cramer different and so new analysis ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.67.21 (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear Stearns recommendation

I have attempted to rewrite the section about Cramer's comments on Bear Stearns on 3/11/2008 in a neutral tone that does not express a point of view. I have read quite a bit about this controversy, and it seems to me that there is some real ambiguity as to what Cramer really meant here. I have presented both points of view - ie, whether Cramer was making a recommendation on BSC common stock, or whether he was advising the viewer on whether to withdraw money from a Bear Stearns brokerage account. Please leave comments here or on my talk page if you think this is not fair. Thanks! Diablo1024 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job, thanks! Vik (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority of people believe that Cramer is just back tracking on his awful reccomendation. Heck, I would too if I was suppose to be a stock guru and made such a bad call. In the wall street community, most believe that Jim thought that BSC stock would jump up due to a buy out, however, he did not realize that BSC was in such a dire situation and would instead be sold at a $2/share fire sale. Keep in mind, if Jim is telling the truth, why would he reccommend BSC stock as a "Buy" that same day? And the caller never said anything about a brokerage account, why would Jim talk about brokerage accounts on his stock show then? This just flys in the face of what Jim is saying now. Just because Jim says so, doesn't make it the truth. Jeff Skilling of Enron still claims to this day that he committed no fraud what so ever, should we edit his wiki entry to neutralize or weaken the claims of accounting fraud?Colemangracie (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This site is not for reporting what "the majority of people believe." Your version presents a point of view and is not neutral. My version states the facts, acknowledges that there is a disagreement, and allows the reader to decide for him/herself. Diablo1024 (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Diablo is being generous here, and he's bending over backwards to be NPOV. If you actually watch the whole video instead of just the "no no no" portion, it's pretty clear that Cramer was just telling the guy not close his account with Bear. As Cramer pointed out later, the account was guaranteed by the Fed, and in fact the caller would not have lost any money had he followed Cramer's advice. Also, I don't know that he recommended BSC stock that day. Does anyone have evidence of this, such as a video of Cramer recommending it? Citing a web site from some random guy who casually tracks stocks that Cramer talk about does not qualify imho. We should try to be a little more careful before trashing Cramer's reputation. Ceresly (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to dispute you or anything, but I watched the whole program and I don't see how it was clear the caller was talking about a brokerage account. It is ambigious at best as the caller never specifies stock holdings or a brokerage account. Cramer is also not clear as to what he is refering to either in his response.151.151.21.104 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that someone added this: "In any case of the above statements, Cramer's advice was extremely risky: if he meant what he claims he meant, then he recommended to leave one's money in a bank that a few days later would become subject to a classic run-on-the-bank." This is very POV imho. I would also contest its veracity. Can we at least agree that it doesn't belong in what is supposed to be a NPOV article? Ceresly (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its POV, because factually it is a bad recommendation considering the situation. Cramer could not have known the Fed would back up JP Morgan. Considering that many brokerage accounts in IBs have millions of dollars worth of funds in them, it is very very risky advice. The only thing I could see changing is the wording from "Cramer's advice was extremely risky" to "Cramer's advice is considered to be extremely risky."Growler998 (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"In any case of the above statements, Cramer's advice was extremely risky: if he meant what he claims he meant, then he recommended to leave one's money in a bank that a few days later would become subject to a classic run-on-the-bank. Cramer could not have known at the time he was making his comments that the Federal Reserve would directly or indirectly bail out Bear Stearns. Had the Fed not guaranteed the JP Morgan Chase transaction, Bear Stearns would have gone bankrupt and people taking Cramer's advice would have lost all money except for the amounts guaranteed by the FDIC and the SIPC." These are speculative comments about a hypothetical event that did not occur. IF Bear had gone bankrupt, THEN the advice would have been bad. But it didn't go bankrupt - Cramer was right in predicting that the company would be bought out and everyone's accounts would be fine. I don't think we should punish him for making the right call (assuming he was talking about a brokerage account and not the stock) in a risky situation.

In response to the paragraph above. The measure needs to be the information Cramer was working with at the time he made the comments. He said the bank will not go out of business, so the brokerage account is save. He was wrong on that. He did not know that the company would be bailed out. Without bailout the caller would have lost his money. So calling the section cited above and taken out of the page "speculative comments about a hypothetical event" is technically inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logozamba (talk • contribs) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He said the bank would not go out of business and he was correct. He did not know for sure that the company would be acquired, but recommendations like this are always made with incomplete information. I just don't think we should say it's a bad recommendation because something bad COULD have happened but DIDN'T. (Sorry forgot to sign above comment, but that was mine too.) Diablo1024 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The viewer's account is not in jeopardy. That is a factual and accurate statement. Diablo1024 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok let's see if this language is acceptable to you guys. I said the viewer would not have lost money by keeping his Bear account, and that the account is not in jeopardy given the terms of the takeover agreement. I believe these are factual statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diablo1024 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, deposit accounts were safe after the fact, however Jim made his original statements on March 11th so he could not have known that the time that accounts would be completely safe. Keep in mind if the Fed had not assumed BSC's risk, BSC would have gone bankrupt.Growler998 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is speculation. No one knows for sure what would have happened if the Fed and JPMorgan had not stepped in. What you are saying is equivalent to saying: "Analyst A recommended Company B as a buy two days before it was acquired by Company C. The recommendation was good, however, Analyst A could not have known about the acquisition before he made the recommendation, therefore it was a bad recommendation." Cramer said the deposits would be safe, and they were. Anything beyond that is speculation. Diablo1024 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at

Diablo1024, I can see your good intentions, but the fact that Bear Stearns would have gone bankrupt without Fed in intervention is not speculation. If it were speculation, the Fed would have done something that is outside of its mandate, i.e. illegal. That something would be: subsidize the acquisition of one commercial bank by another. I think we can exclude the option that the Fed did something illegal. Certainly, Jim would not have counted on that. So any way you look at it, Bear Stearns was not bailed out because the Fed wanted to give money away to JPMorgan.

22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that Cramer himself is saying he made that call because he knew JP Morgan would gurantee deposit accounts, however, there are issues contrary to this such as said example. On a section discussing possible intrepretations of his comment, this is very important piece of information to consider. The reader can decide for himself what Jim meant after taking into account the information surronding his statement and his defense of it.Growler998 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He is not saying anything like he "knew JPMorgan would guarantee deposit accounts." He is saying, in the worst case, they would be taken over by someone, and remain solvent. This is exactly what happened. You don't need to point out that Jim Cramer is unable to see the future - this is not new information. He made the comments before the merger or its terms was announced - that is already quite clear from the article. We don't need to speculate about what might have happened if the merger had not occurred. Also see this article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3K784kZkB1Q which says that Bear had tons of liquidity ($17 bil) at the time when Cramer made the comments, and that rumors and speculation may have lead to Bear's fall. If you can document that Bear would definitely or likely have not paid back brokerage account assets had the merger not gone through, I would like to see it. Thanks. Diablo1024 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you even watched Jim Cramer's show after BSC went down? When questioned, Cramer has stated that he made a good recommendation since he knew the Fed would gurantee the money. I agree he didn't say on March 11th, but on March 17th, Cramer defended his statement on the 11th by saying that he knew the Fed would gurantee the money. His words were, "No, I said to keep your money in the accounts because the Federal Reserve is guaranteeing the money." How would he know that on March 11th considering the bailout plan was not intiated and finalized on Sunday the 16th? Do you know what happens in an event of bankruptcy? There are many articles about BSC going bankrupt if not for the JPM buyout intiated with the Fed. You can look up bankruptcy to see what happens to bank depositers. As everyone knows, in our banking system, no bank has enough reserves to pay back all its depositers so in the event of a bankruptcy, depositers will not get their money from the bank, but from the government instead (up to the insured amount). I'm putting it back up.Growler998 (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this should stay in light of the circumstances.69.251.141.89 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Growler, can you cite the exact words or a video of Cramer saying that about the Fed and Bear? I think Cramer understands bankruptcy and the US financial system very well - I would be surprised if he said anything inaccurate about it. Also, why are you surprised that Cramer knows the details on the 17th, when the filings were finalized over the weekend (16th)? Also, perhaps you can cite evidence that banking customers do not get their money back in case of bankruptcy? Account holders have a very senior position in their own assets at a custodian bank - above stock holders, bond holders, basically everyone else. You can think about it this way: if you park your car at a garage, and the garage goes bankrupt, you would still expect to get your car back - the garage can't sell it, because they don't own it. I realize that banks lend out a lot of the money they take as deposits, but this does not mean the account holders will never get the money back. It just means that the bank has to call in its debts. This can be a complicated process, but saying that account holders would not have gotten anything back aside from the insured maximums really is just speculation. I won't edit the page further until we come to an agreement on this. Diablo1024 (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable here, I think Growler is saying that Cramer is defending his remarks on March 11th by saying that he advice was not bad because he knew money would be guranteed by the Fed, which we know is very unlikely because the deal was finalized on the 16th, yet he claims he knew on the 11th. In his appearences since the BSC collaspe, he has stated this several times on his show and on interviews. Also, I don't think any bank in the world could pay off it depositors in the event of bankruptcy, as most banks do not have enough funds to cover even 10% of depositors if they were forced to pay without additional deposits from depositors(even Bank of America). Think of it as a lending exchange. I'm changing the language to "highly unlikely that all depositers would receive the their funds, although it would most likely be impossible if BSC were to go bankrupt (too many liabilities).151.151.73.170 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I made the changes.151.151.73.170 (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable and back up our claims by citing sources. Banks are required to keep 10% of deposits; they can lend out the other 90%. This doesn't meant the money disappears - they are owed it by other people. Let's say you lend me $10, and I lend $9 of it to Bob. If you want your $10 back, I can give you $1 of it right away, but I have to get the other $9 back from Bob before I can give it back to you. That doesn't mean you'll never get it though. IMO you shouldn't make a claim like "depositors would not have gotten their money back" with nothing to back it up.

Heh, I just noticed that Diablo is going under the IP of 216.112.127.34 in an attempt to white wash Cramer's Bear recommendation. I wonder if Cramer has favorable ties VERMILLION ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC. That being said, saying that depositors may have not gotten their money back is a very reasonable and accurate statement.Colemangracie (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no ties to Cramer and I am not trying to whitewash anything. You think "saying that depositors may have not gotten their money back is a very reasonable and accurate statement". But you need to prove this otherwise it is just speculation, and we have agreed that speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. Diablo1024 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"However, Cramer would not have known at the time that he was making his comments that the Federal Reserve would assume the risk of Bear Stean's less liquid assets. Had the Fed not guaranteed the JP Morgan Chase transaction, Bear Stearns would likely have gone bankrupt and brokerage account holders might have lost money except for the amounts guaranteed by the FDIC ($100,000 in deposit accounts) and the SIPC ($500,000 in brokerage accounts)." Cramer made the CORRECT prediction that the Fed would not let a major bank fail, and that if Bear stock got cheap enough, a competitor would buy them. Of course he didn't KNOW ahead of time exactly what would happen. That's why it's called a PREDICTION. I still don't understand why you are trying to get on Cramer's case here for making the correct prediction... Diablo1024 (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please look up bank run. Now please prove to me that Bear has enough cash to pay off all its depositors in the event of a bankruptcy. Secondly, you are saying that Cramer based his prediction on the Fed bailing out Bear,but he never said that on March 11th. He said that after the fact on the 17th. This section is about his comments on March 11th.Colemangracie (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of what a bank run is, thank you. I can't prove that Bear had enough cash to pay off depositors, and you can't prove that they didn't have enough cash. It is speculation, and that is why it has no place here. What he said on March 11th is that a Bear depositor would not lose money, and this was correct. We don't know exactly what led him to this conclusion, although he mentioned Bear as a takeover target, which was also accurate. Don't you agree that it's speculation? Diablo1024 (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

However, Cramer has used the Fed gurantee as his defense since his original statement. However, as we all know, that his chronologically impossible, so it is relevant and belongs in the article.Colemangracie (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong about this. It is possible to ANTICIPATE the Fed defending a company before the Fed actually ANNOUNCES that it is doing so. Right? Diablo1024 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure its possible, however, Cramer said "Bear Stearns is fine", leads me to believe the company was fine. A statement like that shows he didn't a possible bankruptcy.Colemangracie (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that is a good point. I think he probably didn't think things at Bear were as bad as they were. But do you agree that Bear's exact financial status, and their ability to repay deposit/brokerage account holders, is something we can't know exactly and shouldn't speculate about? Diablo1024 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the statement as it reads now (with all the changes) is not stating that Bear definately would not pay back its depositors, but rather a possible situation. I agree, its not something we should speculate about, but the statement now has a more flatter tone than it did originally so it looks good to me as it stands. Thanks for the inputColemangracie (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough of the bear stearns talk, this is gone on long enough. Please stop!!

Image copyright problem with Image:Mad Money.jpg

The image Image:Mad Money.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Header for archiving purposes

The following passage suggests that the Federal Reserve lowered fed funds and discount rates imply because Jim Cramer wanted them to be lowered: August 2007, Cramer called for the Federal Reserve to support hedge funds that were losing money in the Subprime mortgage financial crisis, prompting Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, to accuse Cramer of advocating an offensive and catastrophic "socialism for capitalists". [26] However, within weeks the Fed had lowered the short term interest discount rate by 0.5% as Cramer had requested on his Stop Trading segment. 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: So, it is obvious that the Fed moved because they (a) wanted to please Cramer, (b) feared Cramer so much (e.g. they may have feared that he would get MAD at them), or there is possibility (c): that the paragraph above is completely useless. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hedge Fund Performanace

A reference is needed for the claims made in Investor section, particularly that his "only losing year was 1998" though it "was disastrous for many in the industry". Overall, 1998 was a great year for stocks considering the NASDAQ went from 1600 to 2400 and the S&P went from 95 to 125. Reading Cramer letters from that period reveal he was heavily invested in the .com bubble and I don't see how he couldn't have lost his shirt with the NASDAQ crash during 2000 to 2001 -- and depending on when he closed the hedge fund in 2001, results could even have been worse. Is there a explanation as to why he "retired" from the hedge fund in 2001? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

=Birthdate

On his show "Mad Money", in the November 19th, 2008 episode, Jim Cramer stated that he was 63. Therefore I edited his birthdate from 1955m to 1945. Most websites list him born on 1955, except imdb which accurately lists him at 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mookiebomber (talk • contribs) 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

On today's episode of Mad Money (January 27, 2009), Cramer says: "I was 45 when this RTC [Resolution Trust Corporation, 1980] happened, and I remember it like it were yesterday. You know, I'm like Benjamin Button: 63 years old today, but you might find me at 54, on February 10th. <Explicit Wink>" That wink certainly felt to be aimed at all the misinformation on the internet about his age being thought to be Feb. 10th, 1955.

In the last few weeks he has been referring to himself as being 63, but he's also said 64. Personally, I think he looks young for 63, but he could be 'well-preserved', as he has said on his show.

I haven't changed the page because I have no exact birthdate, but all evidence from his show points to the fact that he was NOT born in 1955, but closer to 1945. Pedalpounder (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, if he was born in 1945, then he was 32 when he graduated from college. I think it's much more likely that he was 22 when he graduated from college, which is the typical age of college graduation (figuring high school graduation at 18, followed by four years of college). That would set his birth year as 1955. If he was really born in 1945, what did he do during his 20's? --JHP (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Early Background

The article says Cramer is from a poor working class background. In his autobiography Confessions of a Street Addict, he maintains that he came from a comfortable middle-class background. Could someone please look into this further. Z80x86 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Perhaps you should edit that line yourself, as you are already familiar with a conflicting reference from his book. Edit the line and cite the book, I'd say. Piperdown 04:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He claimed to be 62 yet again tonight on his show!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.232.99 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That 1955 birthdate can't possibly be accurate; I don't care what that cited article says. I have heard him repeatedly refer to himself as a 63 year old on his show over the period of two months. If he isn't the authority, who is? Nobody in this day and age makes himself out to be 10 years older than he is after the age of 14. CorlyssD (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)CorlyssD

I am watching his show, and he just made reference to his page on wikipedia, saying that he goes in and changes his age to the correct age (64) and people change it back to the wrong age. 98.161.52.114 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat

The fact that he's a fan of the game of Monopoly and the Philadelphia Eagles is very chatty, and clutters up the article. I think there's a lot of other stuff here that could also be usefully removed to make a more concise and impactful article. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Journalist Career/Ted Bundy Connection

"Living almost next door to the Chi Omega sorority house and Florida State University, he was one of the first on the scene after serial killer Ted Bundy attacked four women, killing two of them in 1978." This assertion was confirmed by Jim Cramer in an interview on The Howard Stern Show on 4th Feb 2008. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

I removed this sentence per the wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Also, the main point of the sentence appears to be about capitalism and the stock market, it probably belongs in one of those articles, not as a cursory note in Cramer's bio.

Some say that Cramer typifies the issue that management guru Peter Drucker identified when Drucker noted that higher rewards for trading activities than for productive activities are a sign of decadence in the economic culture. Others say that he feeds that trend while ostensibly exposing it.

Drucker sounds a bit Marxist in the quote. Too removed from the means of production? 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

investigation

what's up with the sec subpoena?? there's only a sentence about it on here. is there any background/context avaliable?--216.165.11.242 11:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to the Overstock.com / Gradient subpoenas? I know Cramer and Herb Greenberg (MarketWatch writer and appears on CNBC ) commented on the air about their subpoenas months ago. They seemed to think it was rediculous of Overstock to go after journalists as a scapegoat for its stock performance / issues with naked shorts. See [1] [2] --George3 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up this section because the links to sources were broken or irrelevant to truth. There is now truth. No personal opinions allowed. Please refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tycoon24 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cramer's Religion

I don't think it is proper to include the reference to Cramer's religion, that he received a "bar mitzvah gift". Is that of any importance? Would it be mentioned if it was a "confirmation gift"?--Tomstoner 17:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty worthless speculation. "Cramer" (or "Kramer") is a common Jewish surname, like Goldstein or Reuben. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone of the bio

The fact that much or all of the bio was written by a fan doesn't bother me, but I don't think it should be that obvious. Unecessary superlatives like 'unmistakable' and 'encyclopedic' push it a little over the top, and the phrase 'learned the value of a dollar' is a nice thing to say but has no place in a fact-based article. Furthermore, I don't doubt that Mad Money is CNBC's most popular show based one or more measuring sticks, but those measuring sticks should be specified. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Needed?

"Criticism of Jim Cramer has also expanded to the Internet."

Is there ANYTHING that isn't criticized on the internet?!--KingZog 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Divorce to Karen Backfich?

Is there a reference to the divorce? I can't find that anywhere on the net 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Error or Vandalism

Just wanted to point out that in the beginning of the Bio, it states, "Jim Cramer grew up in the town of Berlin,Germany, outside Tokoyo." I don't know if this is an error or if someone tried to vandalize the page. Just pointing that out. Thanks. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed from Category:American lawyers (for now)

I temporarily removed this article from Category:American lawyers because it never mentions the subject actually practicing law. He graduated law school, but it sounds like he went straight from that into banking and investing as opposed to attorney work. If the article is later expanded to mention him specifically practicing law at some point, then go ahead and place it in the appropriate subcategory of Category:American lawyers by state for whichever state he primarily practiced.Dugwiki 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

cramer says several times on his show that he never practiced law after law school 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In his book he says he did internships at law firms and decribes it as horrible and not at all what he wanted to do with his life, so he started taking classes at the business school concurrently. He got his law degree, but never practiced and dreaded failing at trading and having to go back to law to make a living. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Errors

The article has several errors. It states, "... strongly promotes portfolio diversification (generally five stocks, believing that most individuals do not have time to research more than five,)" Five stocks is not typically considered a diversified portfolio, so recommending having only five stocks would be an argument against diversification. A citation or quote should be provided to back up this assertion.

The article says, "They have two daughters called Bilqueez and Hoot.". According to numerous articles in the press, one of his daughters is named Emma. Googling these names and "Jim Cramer" does not turn up any hits. A citation or quote should be provided for this too.

Concerning diversification, Cramer promotes a portfolio of stocks with little to negative correlation. Though he does not clarify whether the correlations are qualitatively determined, and thus implied by the nature of the stock, or are statistically derived, Cramer espouses diversification despite his low recommended portfolio size.

The article states "Despite Cramer's lofty claims for his hedge fund's returns, there has never been any independent audit of those returns." The results of every stock mentioned on air is recorded and searchable on the webpage http://madmoney.thestreet.com/. This has nothing to do with his hedge fund which he managed in the 90s!

"It is a little-known fact that Jerry Seinfeld modelled the character of Cosmo Kramer, his neighbor in the famous sitcom, after Jim, although the resemblance of the name is definitely a hint." I have never head this before. Cosmo Kramer was based on Kenny Kramer, a freind of Seinfeld co-creator Larry David. How is Jim Kramer in any way like Cosmo Kramer in the first place?

Fixed context of word choice and provided full quote from source for the section "Market Manipulation: TheStreet.com Interview" Tycoon24 (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cramerwatch.org

Should that really be mentioned. The site compares Cramer to a random-selection over 30 days... things would be different if they compared over a quarter, or year or 18 months. I don't think cramer is making reccomendations based on short term.

Jim Cramer makes recommendations for the longer term. A random-selection over 30 days is inappropriate to use as a reference, especially within Jim Cramer's biography. There are thousands of websites that talk about Jim Cramer on the Internet, simply because a site mentions Jim Cramer in a very opinionated manner does not mean it belongs on his Wikipedia biography article. Such poor sources should be--and will be--removed. As per guidelines on a living person's biography when editing Wikipedia. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Age

He stated his age tonight (10/12/06) as 62- if born Feb 1955 I think he'd be 51- exaggeration of his age (my suspicion)?

He said "my 62-year old demographic" or something like that -- I think it's more of a self-deprecating joke on his older attitude towards things. He's said it before. Google "jim cramer" 1955, there are other references than Wikipedia. Dze27 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned that he's 62-years old again on today's episode (Nov 11th)... Vikramsidhu 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

On 12/28/2006 and 12/29/2006 he referred to himself as being 62. This cannot be true given other known details of his bio such as graduation date from Harvard College. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.0.14 (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

He stated that the 62 year old thing was a joke on the air.

In his book he says that he jokingly claims to be 62 on air in order to appear youthful to the TV audiences. 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

uncited criticism (WP:BLP)

Needs to be cited before it can be readded. Savidan 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Critics often use the nickname "The Weathervane" to describe Cramer, whose outlook will rapidly oscillate between bearish and bullish following the prevailing market sentiment .

He is also said to have exhibited a violent temper at his hedge fund, characterized by screaming at his employees and throwing telephones and computers when he was unhappy with his results. In his interview with 60 Minutes, Cramer admits to having had a problem with his temper, and after speaking with his father (who said he would outlive Cramer if things continued as they were) Cramer left the hedge fund business. Cramer's reputation as having an anger-management problem has helped him in creating Mad Money, though, as it moves away from typical CNBC programming.

Criticism of Cramer has also expanded to the Internet. A number of websites have sprung up with the intention of tracking Cramer’s recommendations. Some are merely blogs that vent frustrations against Cramer, his onscreen persona, and the stock picks made in the ‘Lightning Round’ of his CNBC show. Other sites go further and analyze Cramer’s stock picks in some detail. Some of the more creative websites use complex programs to track and compare recommendations with the performance of the overall market.

Despite Cramer's lofty claims for his hedge fund's returns, there has never been any independent audit of those returns.

Under Controversy, I am deleting "Trading With The Enemy" and "Market Manipulation: TheStreet.com Interview" for the reason mentioned above. The sources are blogs venting frustration on Jim Cramer without true facts. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tycoon24 -- I don't believe that your removal of the information was justified -- it was backed up by several reliable sources. I believe that your removal of that content is biased in favor of Mr. Cramer. Please remember to try to keep your views neutral when editing on Wikipedia. Thanks, Matt (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I left it there, however, I did clean up the SEC Subpoena section because there was a broken link. The link was removed and the article section cleaned up. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a reliable source link, verifying Jim Cramer's appearance in Iron Man. Tycoon24 (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

the user williamrobinsonb created the following section:

(Crammer speak) - - - Cramer speak is taking over, - - CRAMERICA: The term given by Jim Crammer to the following of people who study and use Jim Cramer’s methods of stock picking or just tune in and enjoy the show. - - CRAMERICAN: The term given to an individual who use Jim Cramer’s methods of stock picking or just enjoys the show. - - CRAMICIOUS: A stock that meets Jim’s criteria to qualify for one of Jim’s three distinct categories of stocks. - - CRAMICIOUSNESS: a term used to evaluate the viability of a stock pick or a person’s ability to pick good stocks ready to pop, or go up in value. - - - CRAMICIOUSNESS and CRAMICIOUS were coined by author poet and professional investor William R Robinson on February 09 2007

I took this out for the unprofessional tone, no source, and self-admitted original research.Thepatriots 09:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Trading With The Enemy because the only source is a link to someone with a opinion. There are no facts relevant to the false accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tycoon24 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting Market Manipulation: TheStreet.com Interview because there is not a single source that sites true, government enforcement or allegations. The entire section is fabricated from a couple of links to articles ranting about Jim Cramer. There is nothing relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tycoon24 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia site for Jim Cramer is NOT a source to bash on Jim Cramer. Please refrain from adding false or hatred-like links to articles or blogs that have little relevance to Jim Cramer's career or character. I am cleaning up this entire page to make it more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tycoon24 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

= Clean up of article

Did some editing of the biography section, which is in need of some overhauling. Corrected some sentence structure, rearranged some awkward sentences, and modified the Mad Money show section to a more neutral description that's less promotional than the previous section, which seems to have been cut and pasted from the CNBC promo. This whole entry could use a lot more TLC, and there are many more subjects postive and not so much, to add to Jim's entry. Also a lot more citing of sources could be done. Piperdown 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

--- Article is not encyclopedic --- Trivia section is filled with non-facts. This article is a joke. Encyclopedia entries are not TV Show advertisements, Tabloid style rumor mongering about celebrities, etc. Now it's a playground for drunken falstaffs to see how much they can get away with in editing it. Unreal.Piperdown 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

-- link to MySpsce page removed (Not Jim Cramer's myspace page --

Page has this disclaimer on it:

Thank you for visiting Jim Cramer’s official MySpace page. Please be advised that Mr. Cramer does not maintain this account or read the messages sent to it. However, he does visit the page from time to time, so please feel free to leave a comment or add him as a friend. Thanks for visiting! Cramerica, Jim, Jim Cramer, JJC, Mr. BOOYAH, your friend. I started to invest fresh out of college with a few hundred bucks to my name and piles of credit card bills. In the 25 years since then, I..ve made millions of dollars for lots of people (including myself)... I became one of Wall Street most successful hedge fund managers before I co-founded a company called TheStreet.com, Inc. In 1996, which went public in 1999. At TheStreet.com, Inc. I created ActionAlerts PLUS, a personal portfolio open to the public for educational purposes via subscription, the proceeds of which go to a charitable Trust as of March 2005.

so someone is this MySpace page is not directly edited or controlled by jim cramer, so does not qualify WP:RS Piperdown 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Article should be fair and balanced --

If people believe that Jerry Seinfeld has built Cosmo Kramer after Jim, they should be able to say so. After all, this is America. They should be able to express whatever they believe and not be censured. It has to be fair and balanced.

-- re: the above authorless comment: Wikipedia edits require WP:RS for statements of fact --

If you have a WP:RS saying that Jerry based Kramer on Jim, you're welcome under WP rules to edit as such. Do you think you are funny or something? This isn't "America", in fact you are posting from the UK ironically, it's Wikipedia which reguires "reliable sources" as they define it. Piperdown 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

-- re: re: --

Do you have a problem with fair and balanced?

I cleaned up SEC Subpoena because all of the links to sources were broken, except for a single source to thestreet.com. So I created a more legit argument using the actual--and only--source regarding this incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tycoon24 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Who keeps un-fixing "SEC Subpoena"? Please check the links before changing the information I fix. THE LINK USING THIS SOURCE IS BROKEN:

I am re-fixing SEC Subpoena. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Most Enduring?

Since this show started on March 14, 2005 only (see Mad Money), it is premature to claim that it is "one of the most enduring shows" on CNBC.

Good point, that could even be looked at as a left handed compliment, since CNBC has a sketchy track record with shows lasting more than 6 months other than their 6am-4pm market coverage. McEnroe, Dennis Miller, etc. So Mad Money's a grandfather on CNBC ;-) Piperdown 01:52, 25 March 2007 (U

I believe he was interviewed by kiplinger's personal finance magazine sometime in the past 2 years, in which he discusses several of the topics mentioned.

Yes, fine, and what is the relation of your comment to the above discussed? 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I fully admit that I don't have the heart to remove the current picture -- I'm laughing too much at it. Jauerback 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I laughed and I removed. While this site is often a joke, it's not supposed to be one. Sorry, taking this seriously for a few minutes. Funny how BLP vandalism can last so long on wikipedia, ain't it? Yet another example of why anonymous editing of biographies (or anything else that purports to be factual) shouldn't be allowed. Piperdown 02:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't everything on Wikipedia purport to be factual? --Thesilence 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is supposed to be factual. I am going to follow Jim Cramer's wikipedia page and make sure facts are only submitted to it. No more vandalism is allowed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tycoon24 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Who can tell me if this picture , or this one, or this picture is OK to use for Jim Cramer's Wikipedia article? I realize they are from other Web sites, so a little more clarification on this would be cool. Otherwise, I could just look it up. Thanks! Tycoon24 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No Idea!!

You have no idea how bad this article is! No IDEA!!!

Then why don't you start fixing it up, or at the very least providing suggestions on what you feel needs improvements. Comments with !!! at the end like that are not very helpful Vik

BTW, cute parody (not)Vik

I like the parody. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that, why isn't that mentioned in the article? That definitely seems noteworthy. 129.59.83.180 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fixing this article. No longer will Jim Cramer's Wikipedia page be a source of venting frustration about Jim Cramer. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think Jim Cramer's Rant Heard Round the World is noteworthy. I'll I can put something together and add it; after all, it is mainstream news and possibly one of Jim Cramer's most widely known rants. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion note

I have deleted this sentence from the Bear Stearns section, since it displays a mild bias, and adds nothing to the discussion 'Additionally, Cramer defines "mad money" as the money one "can use to invest in stocks ... not retirement money, which you want in 401K or an IRA, a savings account, bonds, or the most conservative of dividend-paying stocks."'

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

In accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons I will remove any contentious material about Jim Cramer that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.

I'm going to remove this line, "He was a guest on the Howard Stern Show on Sirius Satellite Radio on February 4, 2008, where he stripped naked in response to a lost bet with Howard Stern." There is no source to this quote. Nor is there even a conjectural interpretation of a source. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is strong controversy whether or not this line should remain under SEC Subpoena, "The allegations had been raised publicly and in a lawsuit against Gradient by Overstock.com chief executive Patrick M. Byrne. In May 2007, it was revealed that the SEC had subpoenaed Byrne in May 2006, in connection with an investigation of the company." - The Wikipedia Review I agree with the issues presented in the Wikipedia Review forum regarding this sentence and its libelous intent. It should not be exist in Jim Cramer's biography. It doesn't belong here and has nothing to do with Jim Cramer. It was put in as a revenge rebuttal by Weiss during his Samiharris-Mantanmoreland sockshow. This is against Wikipedia rules on biographies of living persons. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also evidence that the section under Controversy, "Trading With The Enemy" is a contentious critique of Jim Cramer. The author of the article notes that, "While working towards a graduate degree in the mid-1990s, the reporter worked in an administrative capacity for Goldman Sachs as a temporary employee." It also states that "Maier was fired from his employment." The entire section Trading With The Enemy is a personal rebuttal targeting Jim Cramer for whatever reason or disagreements the author had with Jim Cramer while working with him years ago. This is in violation of a reliable source and cannot be used in Jim Cramer's biography. It must be removed immediately. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Also - the section Market Manipulation: TheStreet.com Interview needs review. I will look into it and who the author is, because it seems for years nobody was willing to do so. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

SEC changing position is libelous?

Ok, I'm going to post this to the WP:3O board here in just a minute. What I'm trying to do here is create a recap of the conversation between me and Tycoon24 over whether the information he removed from this article is considered libelous:

(the first statement comes after he had been issued numerous warnings, including a warning for possible 3RR violation; to clarify the 3RR "violation" you're suggesting I did, please see "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" above. I was in accordance with Wikipedia rules by removing such poorly sourced material on Jim Cramer's biography page. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC) ):

Hey, Matt, you're not a machine. Instead of repeating what you've already told me, you can say 'thanks' since I pointed out the broken link that was re-added to the SEC subpoena section. So I re-edited the section to take out the broken link you added. If I went over the three-revert rule in order to fix what was broken - I apologize. But stop adding the broken link if that's you. It's no longer funny. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not funny. The reason you took out the link to biz.yahoo.com was because it was broken, right? You didn't bother to notice that I had replaced it with a link to another website that still had the same copy of the article posted. I'd appreciate it if you'd revert back to that one. Thanks, Matt (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt, there is absolutely nothing in the article link that you added to the SEC subpoena section that mentions Jim Cramer. My removal of that link is justified for that reason. Your source is not only irrelevant, but it doesn't belong in Jim Cramer's biography. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, I will report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The article I fixed made the point that "In April 2006, the SEC announced a new policy on subpoenaing journalists, saying it would avoid issuing subpoenas 'that might impair the news gathering and reporting functions'." Forgive me, but I fail to see how that's libelous. Matt (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Then add your sentence to the SEC or Christopher Cox article. The problem is that it doesn't belong in the Jim Cramer biography article. It has nothing to do with him. Unless your article somehow references that the very reason the SEC changed the rule was because of Jim Cramer, then by adding it to Jim Cramer's biography you are creating a libelous perception that he is the cause of the rule change. Your article doesn't state that as a reason, so it belongs elsewhere. Not in Jim Cramer's biography. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that fits the definition of libel at all. If you're going to create the perception that the SEC changed their position at least in part because of Cramer's actions, then the outcome would be that Cramer fought the SEC and won. Again, I don't see how that's libelous. Matt (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I didn't create any perception that the SEC changed their position at least in part because of Cramer's actions. Like you said, we can only use sources that are associated with the person. This is especially true (and more strict) when editing a live person's biography. You should know this. The only available source that uses Jim Cramer's name in association with the SEC Subpoena is the one that is currently on Jim Cramer's page. If I (or you) were to add more information regarding the SEC subpoena onto Jim Cramer's biography article, it is creating a perception that Jim Cramer is somehow in a conspiracy with the SEC's actions to drop the charges. Jim Cramer's biography is not a place for conspiracy theorists. Unless there is evidence from reputable sources that Jim Cramer is a part of the SEC's actions, it doesn't belong there. If you want to add the SEC information to Wikipedia, add it to the Christopher Cox article or the SEC page. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see above section Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material too, as there appears to have been repeated and multiple violations against Wikipedia rules for biographies of living persons. It seems these violations have been going on for some time within Jim Cramer's Wikipedia biography, which leads me to believe most of the Criticism is either invalid, embellished, or outright lies as a personal rebuttal against Jim Cramer. These sources must be taken out of Jim Cramer's biography page immediately as they are violating Wikipedia rules. The 3RR violation does not apply to such edits. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mad Money

There is misleading text under the section Mad Money. The text, "Mad Money is also well known for over-the-top antics such as Cramer throwing chairs..." is false. Never, not once, have I seen Jim Cramer throw a chair on Mad Money. If there is a source to verify this information, it can stay. Otherwise, I will remove it if no source is given soon. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the line, "throwing chairs..." due to lack or source. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, Cramer had thrown chairs in the past to start the Lightning Round. ViperSnake151 12:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cramer's Rebuttal to Criticism and Controversy

I added a section to balance the fairness of Jim Cramer's biography. It seems a very large portion of his biography was dedicated for "controversy" and "criticism" against Jim Cramer. So I collected information from various reliable sources that have been published over time, in attempt to balance the attacks with counter-arguments from each side. Ranging from The White House criticism to Wachovia and Bear Stearns, this should cover a lot of controversy against Cramer as well the responses he provides. Tycoon24 (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be interesting how you "balance" the butt-whupping Jon Stewart just gave Cramer on Comedy Central. --Kudzu1 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ouch I visited this page earlier before that and saw the show... Damn, however to his credit, Cramer DID agree with some of the criticisms, perhaps that can be the balance. -Just a random passer IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.23 (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cramer's on-air meltdown of August 2007

Google keywords: "jim cramer" bernanke http://www.cnbc.com/id/20111570 http://polizeros.com/2007/08/06/jim-cramer-meltdown-aka-armageddon/

This at the time was all over the internet. I would like to see if someone knowledgeable would include it in this article. It would be beneficial to the article to discuss whether Cramer continued the themes of this outburst in more muted form or simply dropped the ideas over the next year until the collapse of 2009.

Talkpage and BLP

I cleaned up some stuff on the talkpage, including: adding a header to the first paragraph so the table of contents shows appropriately, adjusting the header level of many of the sections so the TOC tracks them correctly, and removing a bunch of stuff that violates BLP. I'd recommend to anyone editing this page that they read the biographies of living people policy closely. Violating the policy repeatedly could result in an immediate block and a ban from editing a particular article, set of articles or all BLPs.

As for the content I just removed from the article... We simply can't say someone lied with only a link to a video as a source. If some newspaper or other reliable source claims he lied, then we could discuss including "lied, according to X Times." Please don't reinsert it. Avruch ^T 22:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jim Cramer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

verifyable should be spelled verifiable.

Last edited at 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)