TV investment shows

[sandybeth]

Is it a big waste of time to watch TV shows like Susie Ormand, Cramer
and Fast Money? How good is the advice/info they give, for the most
part?
SandyBeth

 

[camgere]

Is it a big waste of time to watch TV shows like Susie Ormand, Cramer
and Fast Money?  How good is the advice/info they give, for the most
part?
SandyBeth

Let's see what Jim Cramer says about his own advise (his disclaimer):

None of the information contained on this site or in any of his shows,
(Mad Money, Stop Trading or RealMoney) constitutes a recommendation by
Mr. Cramer, TheStreet.com, this site (Cramers-Mad-Money.com) or CNBC
that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction, or
investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You must
always make your own decisions when decide to invest in any particular
asset weather it is a stock, security or otherwise that may be
mentioned on this site. Neither this site nor anyone in affiliation of
this site guarantees any specific outcome or profit, and you should be
aware of the real risk of loss in following any investments discussed
on this site (Cramers-Mad-Money.com). As with any stock the price will
go up and down and it is possible for you to get back less than you
invested. Please note this risk and that this site, its owner and
affiliates recommend that you seek advice from your personal financial
advisor.
This site has no affiliation with CNBC, Mad Money, Stop Trading,
RealMoney, thestreet.com, or Jim Cramer and is not liable for any of
the reccomendations given on this site.

Prediciting the future is notoriously difficult.

There are two kinds of events in life:deterministic and random. A
10:1 gear train is pretty deterministic. The weather or the number of
baby boomers to die each year is random (and may be described by
statistics well to some extent). You can determine the price at which
you will buy a stock. You can't determine the price you wil sell at
unless it happens to show up. You generally can't determine the
dividends. Investing is strongly affected by random events and will
never be a slam dunk.

 

[Elle]

If time allows think that it's a good idea to read and
listen to Suze Orman (TV and books), Clark Howard (radio and
books?), Dave Ramsey (radio and books?), and Scott Burns
(newspaper and other?). I do not agree with every bit of
advice each gives, but the overlap tends to indicate where
there is consensus. The non-overlap is thought provoking and
IMO helps with decision-making. All are focused on financial
planning in general.

Jim Cramer does not seem in the same category as those
above. This goes for his media vehicles such as
thestreet.com. He's focused on individual stock picking
advice and IMO shamelessly promoting himself, for profit,
through antics related to stock picking and easily
misinterpreted by the less informed.

 

[Will Trice]

Is it a big waste of time to watch TV shows like Susie Ormand, Cramer
and Fast Money? How good is the advice/info they give, for the most
part?

I like Cramer for the entertainment value. However, I've tracked a few
of his ideas that sounded good to me, but none of them panned out (this
is not to say that none of his ideas pan out).

-Will

william dot trice at ngc dot com

 

[PeterL]

Is it a big waste of time to watch TV shows like Susie Ormand, Cramer
and Fast Money?  How good is the advice/info they give, for the most
part?
SandyBeth

Ormand does not do an investment show. It's more of a financial
management show. She doesn't tell people how to invest, just how not
to overspend.

 

[kastnna]

Is it a big waste of time to watch TV shows like Susie Ormand, Cramer
and Fast Money?  How good is the advice/info they give, for the most
part?
SandyBeth

My $0.02:

It depends on what information you want to glean from the programs.
For basic financial management Suze provides a primer that is
GENERALLY accurate. However, if you apply her advice to your exact
situation, and your situation is not perfectly typical, you may find
yourself "mis-invested". Suze acknowledges this and is even guilty of
it herself (she is invested almost entirely in treasuries).

Does she give bad advice? No. Is it always applicable to your
situation? A resounding NO!

Admittedly, Suze rubs me wrong because of her stance that nobody
should EVER buy a variable annuity. That's simply wrong (google:
NIMCRUT). She may be right 95% of the time on that one, but that other
5% done a dis-service. That's why I claim she is good in general. She
is not a substitute for certified financial planning.

Cramer is a story of "the guy with the loudest voice gets the most
attention". Will pinpointed the problem with Cramer when he stated,
"I've tracked a few of his ideas that sounded good to me, but none of
them panned out (this is not to say that none of his ideas pan out)."
Textbook example of the efficient market theory and active investing.

 

[John A. Weeks III]

Suze acknowledges this and is even guilty of
it herself (she is invested almost entirely in treasuries).

I see that as good, not bad. If you have a base that is greater
than critical mass, you should invest that base conservatively.
After all, Suze once had a broker mis-invest her money, and she
lost her entire fortune on a market downturn. You can expect
that she knows very well what her current risk tollerance is
as a result of that experience.

-john-

 

[Rich Carreiro]

yourself "mis-invested". Suze acknowledges this and is even guilty of
it herself (she is invested almost entirely in treasuries).

Presumably, the goal of a rational investor isn't to end up with the
most money possible, but to achieve lasting financial independence
(reminds me of the people who mistakenly put minimizing taxes above
maximizing after-tax return).

If one has enough assets such that investing them entirely in US
Treasuries throws off enough income to provide lasting financial
independence, then doing so is an excellent idea, not a bad one.
You're financially independent. Why risk that by making unneeded
investments in risky assets?

I've thought about this myself -- if I ever won some mega-jackpot like
PowerBall, many tens of millions of dollars are going to go into
Treasuries -- so that even if I somehow managed to lose all the other
money, I'd still be able to indefinitely live quite comfortably on
what those Treasuries throw off.

 

[kastnna]

 Suze acknowledges this and is even guilty of
it herself (she is invested almost entirely in treasuries).

I see that as good, not bad.  If you have a base that is greater
than critical mass, you should invest that base conservatively.
After all, Suze once had a broker mis-invest her money, and she
lost her entire fortune on a market downturn.  You can expect
that she knows very well what her current risk tollerance is
as a result of that experience.[/QUOTE]

I see her investment decision as suitable also. That's my point. It's
prudent, yet it's contrary to her normal advice. Why? Because she's
not the typical investor. A small percentage of her viewers are also
not typical. THEY (but not the majority) need to take her advice with
a grain of salt.

I say again, Suze gives perfectly acceptable advice IN GENERAL
(afterall what more could we ask than that?). However, she is not a
substitute for individually tailored and unique professional advice
(or even learning all the ins and outs of your personal situation on
your own).

 

[Elizabeth Richardson]

Does she give bad advice? No. Is it always applicable to your
situation? A resounding NO!

My observation on Suze Orman. I stopped watching/listening to her back in
2000, when she observed that while the general investment advice is to buy
low and sell high, she recognized that prices were indeed high at the time.
Her advice? Buy high and sell higher! Yes, she, at least occasionally, gives
bad advice.

Cramer is a story of "the guy with the loudest voice gets the most
attention".

No doubt about this. Above, Will observed he likes Cramer for the
entertainment value. I don't watch Cramer because I don't call it
entertainment to have some guy yelling at me. There is no reason to spend
any portion of my life having someone yell at me. I am astounded that he has
even one viewer.

Elizabeth Richardson

 

[kastnna]

I've thought about this myself -- if I ever won some mega-jackpot like
PowerBall, many tens of millions of dollars are going to go into
Treasuries -- so that even if I somehow managed to lose all the other
money, I'd still be able to indefinitely live quite comfortably on
what those Treasuries throw off.

I would do the same Rich and I think Suze is also proper in doing so.
I did not intend to imply her investment was unsuitable for her just
that her advice is not universally applicable.

 

[John A. Weeks III]

I see that as good, not bad.  If you have a base that is greater
than critical mass, you should invest that base conservatively.
After all, Suze once had a broker mis-invest her money, and she
lost her entire fortune on a market downturn.  You can expect
that she knows very well what her current risk tollerance is
as a result of that experience.

I see her investment decision as suitable also. That's my point. It's
prudent, yet it's contrary to her normal advice. Why? Because she's
not the typical investor. A small percentage of her viewers are also
not typical. THEY (but not the majority) need to take her advice with
a grain of salt.

I say again, Suze gives perfectly acceptable advice IN GENERAL
(afterall what more could we ask than that?). However, she is not a
substitute for individually tailored and unique professional advice
(or even learning all the ins and outs of your personal situation on
your own).[/QUOTE]

I guess I take a somewhat pragmatic view of the issue. The few
people that really need a customized financial plan are most
likely going to know who they are. And if they don't know, then
they are not likely to be candidates for doing something exotic.

In the long run, I think just about everyone can benefit from
the core of what Suze advocates, and that is living within your
means and saving for retirement. I think far more people can
benefit by doing that than can benefit by paying big money to
perform financial gymnastics.

-john-

 

[kastnna]

I guess I take a somewhat pragmatic view of the issue.  The few
people that really need a customized financial plan are most
likely going to know who they are.  And if they don't know, then
they are not likely to be candidates for doing something exotic.

In the long run, I think just about everyone can benefit from
the core of what Suze advocates, and that is living within your
means and saving for retirement.  I think far more people can
benefit by doing that than can benefit by paying big money to
perform financial gymnastics.

Well put and agreed John. I look at it this way, far fewer people
would harmed by following Suze's advice than would be harmed if they
followed the opposite of her advice. For that reason she is decidedly
good for us.

But I believe the average poster on this group is above "J6P" level
simply by virtue proactively being here. Given that, they are more
likely to fall into an "exotic" position. Therefore I say "take with a
grain of salt".

 

[Elle]

For basic financial management Suze provides a primer that
is
GENERALLY accurate. However, if you apply her advice to
your exact
situation, and your situation is not perfectly typical,
you may find
yourself "mis-invested". Suze acknowledges this and is
even guilty of
it herself (she is invested almost entirely in
treasuries).

It seems to me your subsequent remarks recant the last
sentence above. Like others, I agree she is guilty of
nothing but investing per her own risk tolerance.

Per
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/magazine/25wwlnq4.t.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=suze+orman&oref=slogin ,
Orman's portfolio breakdown is more like:

$24 million in AAA muni bonds
$1 million in stocks
$7 million in real estate

The link above quotes her as saying that has a million in
stocks, because, "if I lose a million dollars, I don't
personally care." This supports the contention that she is
invested per her risk tolerance.

Admittedly, Suze rubs me wrong because of her stance that
nobody
should EVER buy a variable annuity. That's simply wrong
(google:
NIMCRUT).

Her site on annuities does not seem to be as black-and-white
as you insist. See
http://www.suzeorman.com/igsbase/ig...D=84&SnavID=29&TnavID=&AreasofExpertiseID=107

 

[M.Balarama]

Is it a big waste of time to watch TV shows like Susie Ormand, Cramer
and Fast Money? How good is the advice/info they give, for the most
part?
SandyBeth

I made some really big money from Wall street week with Louis Reykeser-and
made still -he told me 6 or so years ago to get into commodities-so I bought
oil-which is doing well -I have not found another show since then- but I
sometimes watch Cramer and mad money
but I am way overweighted in oil right now

 

[Tad Borek]

Is it a big waste of time to watch TV shows like Susie Ormand, Cramer
and Fast Money? How good is the advice/info they give, for the most
part?

My issue with them is that the "information density" is very low - same
problem TV news has. You can get less from watching the Weather Channel
or network news for 1/2 hour than from spending a few minutes on the
internet. I'll take the extra 26 minutes a day please!

For most people learning about mutual funds and insurance is not
entertainment, it's on par with figuring out how to file your taxes. You
want to do it as efficiently as possible, and get to more enjoyable
things. And you can get so much more information from reading, in much
less time.

And if Suze answering questions about variable annuities qualifies as
entertainment...well maybe it's time for some serious reflection, a new
hobby, a Netflix subscription, or all of the above!

I don't think it applies to Suze, but many of the money shows by nature
focus on investments du jour instead of the long-term strategies most
people will do better with. When someone on TV barks about a stock that
just popped or gold or whatever, it lends legitimacy to the idea that
you need to care, and react to it.

-Tad

 

[Will Trice]

Above, Will observed he likes Cramer for the
entertainment value. I don't watch Cramer because I don't call it
entertainment to have some guy yelling at me. There is no reason to spend
any portion of my life having someone yell at me. I am astounded that he has
even one viewer.

I call this entertainment, but my wife agrees with you...

-Will

william dot trice at ngc dot com

 

[dumbstruck]

I made some really big money from Wall street week with Louis Reykeser-and
made still -he told me 6 or so years ago to get into commodities-so I bought
oil-which is doing well -I have not found another show since then- but I
sometimes watch Cramer and mad money

The follow on to Louis Reykeser program on CNBC may as well be "Kudlow
and Company", although as someone said the info density is low and
admittedly the yell-fests can be a distracting annoyance. Kudlow had
taken over the banner of against-the-grain optimism in the last 5
years of market growth, and following the sector advice, etc would
have lead you to a vortex of high returns. Now overly immersed
political commentary so maybe best handled by recording and later
skipping to the market highlights.

"Suze" is a mess re: investments - her editor must clean up her book
advice. She's made specific fund ticker recommendations on-air along
with rationale that didn't match the ticker. And the rationale itself
being a mistaken interpretation of old platitudes that then backfire
for her over time, which she eventually changes for another mistake!
Much of the rest is a freak show of people who've made reckless self
destructive decisions, so hard to get interested in despite some
useful tax and misc info.

"Cramer" sometimes has a good capsule of market trends in the first
couple minutes. Maybe once a week he adds some useful rules of thumb
on investing. His interaction with callers may be the most annoying
rituals on TV, possibly to make it unseemly for them to be frank and
say the reason they are calling is his recommended stock has gone way
underwater for that caller. Not that Cramer picks are mainly bad, but
if you pay attention the calls often seem to be about stocks he pumped
but went really down. He plays the tough guy, but has repeatedly been
a cry baby running for defensive stocks at countless little blips on
the long past uptrend.

"Fast Money" combines a quite unpromising format with a neer-do-well
host, and somehow comes up with entertainment and value! I'm a little
disoriented by this, but kudos to Dylan and the way it seems to give
quite useful sector calls and explanation/education even when
discussing stock details that I wouldn't ordinarily care about. Try
their free "word on the street" podcast by seaching for cnbc in Itunes
- isn't at least the beginning provocative and useful for close market
watchers?

There is also the Bloomberg channel, which is improving from a slow
start. Best of all is CNBC Europe from London, like Geoff Cutmore's
Euro Squawkbox program. The web mainly seems to list some novelty
stuff from him like http://www.cnbc.com/id/16266794/site/14081545/ but
it is a class act. His probes into US and world markets makes the US
side of CNBC seem in comparison like a tribe of jabbering monkeys
trying to make sense out of an Apollo moon launch. Geoff's show, on
the other hand, is more like watching the same launch in the
insightful company of the late Werner von Braun while sipping your
favorite beverage.

 

[W. Wells]

Cramer mostly likes to hear himself talk.

My $0.02:

It depends on what information you want to glean from the programs.
For basic financial management Suze provides a primer that is
GENERALLY accurate. However, if you apply her advice to your exact
situation, and your situation is not perfectly typical, you may find
yourself "mis-invested". Suze acknowledges this and is even guilty of
it herself (she is invested almost entirely in treasuries).

Does she give bad advice? No. Is it always applicable to your
situation? A resounding NO!

Admittedly, Suze rubs me wrong because of her stance that nobody
should EVER buy a variable annuity. That's simply wrong (google:
NIMCRUT). She may be right 95% of the time on that one, but that other
5% done a dis-service. That's why I claim she is good in general. She
is not a substitute for certified financial planning.

Cramer is a story of "the guy with the loudest voice gets the most
attention". Will pinpointed the problem with Cramer when he stated,
"I've tracked a few of his ideas that sounded good to me, but none of
them panned out (this is not to say that none of his ideas pan out)."
Textbook example of the efficient market theory and active investing.

 

[Justin]

Elle wrote on [Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:47:16 -0600]:

It seems to me your subsequent remarks recant the last
sentence above. Like others, I agree she is guilty of
nothing but investing per her own risk tolerance.

Or perhaps that she has enough money and is now only trying to keep
ahead of inflation, with no need to take as much risk as her risk
tolerance might be.