Cramer Versus Cramer Part 3 -- The Uptick Rule

Last blog post, we reviewed some important moments of Jon Stewart's interview of Jim Cramer following their rather public feud. The post was dedicated to amplifying an important question Stewart asked Cramer. Now, it's important to discuss Cramer's response.

Cramer: Okay. First, my first reaction is absolutely we could do better. Absolutely. There's shenanigans and we should call them out. Everyone should. I should do a better job at it. But my second thing is, I talk about the shorts every single night. I got people in Congress who I've been working with trying to get the uptick rule [see first 1:40 of the clip below]. It's a technical thing but it would cut down a lot of the games that you are talking about.

The uptick rule was introduced by Securities and Exchange Commission in 1938 as a solution to the bear raids (see previous post) being used during that period. The intention of the uptick rule was to make it difficult for excessive short selling. An uptick occurs when a stock trades upward. The uptick rule stated that short sales could only be made on stocks with an uptick or if the stock price remained the same provided that it is higher than the last posted price.

This has been helpful because when one trader or hedge fund takes a large short position, nothing will stop the whole group from leaping on board and driving that stock down. With short selling, the investor is selling first and then buying back at a later date. If everybody is short selling, there is a high volume of selling going on, pushing the stock down. The company, which very well might have solid fundamentals, is being reduced to rubble as traders and/or hedge fund managers place their short sales like flies hovering around a steak that has been left outside during a hot summer day. Yes Yes Yes, folks. An awful simile, isn't it? The point is, if the short sellers cannot move when the stock price is going down, the stock's cascading descent is slowed considerably.

It was revoked in 2007. While there is a great deal of conjecture as to why, the official reason was to analyze how the markets did without the uptick rule. The rule had existed for decades, and the underlying rationale was that it quite possible made no difference. Behind the scenes, however, there was a great deal of talk that lobbying from private interest groups were at play. Those against it felt that there was no proof that it prevented a stock from plummeting. Others went further, claiming that it deterred all forms of short selling even during an uptick and prevented proper price discovery, which is considered an abhorrent thought by many.

Although the relevance of the uptick rule on the markets, particularly a bear market is subject to debate. Regardless, the public outcry to reimplement the uptick rule has grown so strong that Congress has no choice but to act. Whether the solution is reimplementing the uptick rule as it was before or in some other form, it has yet to be decided.

I'd like to end this series of posts, which were inspired by the Cramer Vs. Stewart interview, with a clip from Jim Cramer . Like I said, I've never been a fan of his on-screen persona, but this clip contradicts what Jon Stewart was accusing him of, which was basically ignoring the plight of the retail investor. Watch the first 1:40 of the clip. He describes the bear raid and then promotes the use of the uptick rule, an argument he could have presented more passionately on The Daily Show.

No matter how bad his recommendations have been (and trust me, they have been bad), his intentions shouldn't be construed as malicious.

Cramer Versus Cramer Part 2 -- A Bear Raid

In my last post, I expressed a great deal of frustration with the lost opportunity Cramer and Stewart passed up to educate an engaged audience. Probably one of the more notable examples of this came when Jon Stewart presented Jim Cramer with video clips of himself from 2006. The Daily Show pointed out segments like:

Cramer: You know a lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity beforehand that could drive the futures. It doesn't take much money.

Cramer: I would encourage anyone who is in the hedge fund unit 'do it' because it is legal. It is a very quick way to make the money and very satisfying. By the way, no one else in the world would ever admit that...

What was he talking about? You can tell Stewart's entire 'beef' of the interview lay in getting Cramer to justify such comments. Of course, Cramer didn't. Neither really explained what he was talking about. It was just assumed it was understood.

I thought it would useful to do a quick breakdown of this dialogue. Stewart was trying to motivate Cramer to discuss a "bear raid." A strategy, although more common during the early 20th century, that involves taking large short positions (and/or colluding with others to take large short positions) and spreading unflattering rumours of the target firm with the set goal of dragging the share price down. The group profits between the original share price and the price that the share price has been dragged down to. This brings a "surer thing" to big-wig traders and hedge funds, while leaving the retail investor, saturated in the buy-and-hold philosophy, out to dry.

A recent example that comes to mind of rumours being spread in the market to get a share price down was when rumours were flying that a healthy Steve Jobs was terminally ill. Every time those rumours gained traction, it sent Apple shares down. There is a great deal of speculation attributing these unsubstantiated rumours to hedge funds. While, today, the poor Jobs has actually taken time off to deal with some sort of illness, traders and hedge funds managers, I believe, have been poking at his health for years.

An unusual thing was that Cramer in the 2006 video commented this behaviour was perfectly legal, which is not entirely true as it might represent securities fraud.

Next blog post we'll review Cramer's response, mentioning a little thing called the "uptick rule." Huh? Uptick rule?

Cramer Versus Cramer Part 1

Do you remember watching an entire show at a particular time to wait for a particular segment? It really almost feels like something our great grandpappies did. Comedy aside...today, we can simply be alerted to snippets of information by our peers or by certain publications and the relevant piece can easily be found online. Such was the case this weekend when a brilliant pathologist friend of mine took me through clip by clip of the battle between The Daily Show's Jon Stewart and Mad Money's Jim Cramer. Now, this had been the news of the week all last week. Had this been a past era (and by "past era," I mean a few years ago), the favoured water cooler conversation of the moment would totally have been missed by myself.

It all began with the Daily Show putting together a very effective onslaught of CNBC's coverage of the financial markets. The piece was a substitue to a cancelled guest appearance by CNBC's Rick Santelli, who was due to explain his opposition and subsequent reporting of homeowners being saved from foreclosure with government bailout funds. Part of the collage of attacks were clips of Mad Money's Jim Cramer giving bad calls on Bear Stearns and Bank of America. Cramer, taking exception to the comments, went on a media blitz undermining Stewart, and we had ourselves one of the more compelling media personality rivalries this year.

Stewart's attack was legitimate and eloquent. It made a point stressed by investor advocates for years: the ineffective coverage of news organizations. Numerous clips were played illustrating the CNBC's staff lack of effective reporting and greater priority being placed on being the mouthpiece for the companies they were reporting on than any sort of investigative journalism. However, Stewart's observations was hardly old news. For example, it was Vanity Fair that first commented on the suspicious Enron, not the Wall Street Journal or Financial Times.

It was Cramer's appearance on the Daily Show after much bickering back and forth that I want to draw attention to. The two men were given a huge audience to discuss incredibly important issues, and Cramer simply chose to be Jon Stewart's punching bag, acknowledging everything coming out of Stewart's mouth while not taking an opportunity to amplify the issues. My personal resentment of the show, Mad Money, has existed since the show came out. But, in all fairness, Cramer failed to point out his definition of Mad Money, which was "...not retirement money, which you want in 401K or an IRA, a savings account, bonds or the most conservative of dividend-paying stocks." Furthermore, the challenge of having an avenue in which everyday you are putting a buy or sell recommendation on a stock to be evaluated by a broader public is a tough gig. Nobody else does it (not on such a grand scale anyway). Cramer's past hits and misses is noted at the end of each show, and his lack of success can easily be evaluated. Mutual fund managers do have to provide disclosure on their top holdings but not in real time, and hedge fund managers do not have to talk about it at all.

For all my criticisms of "Mad Money," Cramer should have pointed out that the show does succeed in giving people a way to educate themselves about the markets in an entertaining manner. For every verdict Cramer renders on a company, he does talk about his reasons and about the company themselves. It has made people more engaged, increasing their IQ of publicly-traded companies. Of course his theatrics and yelling, while aggravating myself, also did entertain his audience bringing an audience bored with the normal presentation of business reporting into the mix.

This all being said, my love for the Daily Show and Jon Stewart is quite strong, as watching these clips did provide a sense of satisfaction. Vital issues for investor (and this means all of us) rights were being presented to a mainstream audience. There seems to be a definite interest for business news to not spark widespread selling, and this does mislead the public. Stewart was right to define the participants in the markets into two groups: the retail investors saving for retirement and the cowboys (and girls) on the institutional side. Keep up the good work guys.

My next blog post is going to be about the behaviour of hedge funds in this whole mess. During the interview, Cramer, a former hedge fund manager, was questioned about the comments he made in an interview several years ago. Neither of the two gentlemen fully explained the issue. Stay tuned.

If you guys have not checked out the interview yet, follow this link:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/best-of/jim-cramer-interview-uncut/#clip149637