Something rather extraordinary occurred last December which had extremely ominous implications for stock investors around the world, but got totally ignored by the media.
In fact, if not for a recent video posting at YouTube, and a March 20 article in the New York Post, these spectacular revelations would still be well under the radar.
On December 22, CNBC’s James Cramer did a web interview for TheStreet.com TV. In it, he told TSC’s executive editor Aaron Task about how he used to manipulate stocks and the market when he was a hedge fund manager, and explained how such people today can’t “do anything remotely truthful” if they want to make money (video available here).
As TSC reported in a recap at its website the same day (emphasis added throughout):
It doesn't take much money to sway the stock market, Jim Cramer said on TheStreet.com TV's Wall Street Confidential video Webcast Friday.
In fact, when Cramer was short stock during his hedge fund days, meaning he was betting the stocks would fall, he would look to create a level of activity beforehand that could drive the futures lower, he told Aaron Task, the host of Wall Street Confidential.
Although the intricacies discussed might be a tad technical, what Cramer was admitting was how he and other hedge fund managers can manipulate stocks during the day for their own financial gain, and potentially your detriment. In fact, he was encouraging traders to do it if they currently aren’t:
And sometimes, hedge fund investors boost the futures to create a false sense of excitement that can quickly turn negative when the sellers come in, Cramer said. He encouraged anyone in the hedge fund game to follow this strategy, as it's legal and a "very quick way to make money."
Cramer then gave a specific example of how he would manipulate a rather well-known stock:
Similarly, it's important for market players who are short Apple (AAPL) to spread rumors that Verizon (VZ) and AT&T (T) don't like Apple's new phone.
Cramer said Apple is an "ideal short," and said if he were short the stock, he would call six trading desks and say he just got off with his contact at Verizon, who said that the company has no room for Apple.
"It's a very effective way to keep a stock down," he said. "What's important when you're in the hedge fund mode is to not do anything remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view."
So, Cramer was advising people who were betting that Apple shares would decline to call stock trading desks and lie.
Shocking, yes? Yet, a LexisNexis search identified that not one major media outlet covered this story when it occurred.
Now, you might be wondering why they should have. After all, people are manipulating stocks all the time. Why’s this anything new?
Well, hedge funds are continually taking on a larger and larger role in the trading of stocks, bonds, and commodities. As a result, they have a huge impact on the price of virtually all investments on the landscape, as well as what you're paying for gasoline to drive your car, electricity to power your house, and food to put on your dining room table.
For instance, there are many experts who believe that hedge funds have a huge impact on oil and gas futures, and that the retail price on both would be significantly lower if not for these speculators.
Certainly, that’s debatable. However, these funds operate with huge leverage, meaning that they mostly are using borrowed money from banks and investment houses for their transactions. And, when they get in trouble, as in the case of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, they can be responsible for huge declines in stocks just because they’re on the wrong side of the market.
Consider that in October 1987, the world got its first glimpse of what can happen when computers take over equity trading, and large investment groups are on the wrong side of the market. Today, the number of such funds dwarfs what existed twenty years ago. As a result, any information about how these funds work, especially coming from an insider like Cramer, needs to be disseminated to the public.
After all, one of the basic tenets of capitalism is caveat emptor. However, how is the buyer to beware if the media aren’t disseminating all the information available?
*****Update: The Corporate Crime Reporter has more on this issue here. Also, according to CCR, Cramer was on with Don Imus this morning making some apologies about all this now that it has come to light (h/t TVNewser):
A contrite and nervous sounding Cramer told MSNBC’s Don Imus that “mistakes were made” when he appeared on the internet business television show claiming that hedge fund managers were manipulating the market, through both legal and illegal means, making disparaging remarks about his fellow financial journalists at CNBC and the Wall Street Journal, encouraging market players to engage in illegal activity – and implying that he too engaged in illegal activity when he was in the hedge fund business.
“I have to either shut up or get better at telling what I did or didn’t do,” Cramer told Imus. “I didn’t do a good job at distinguishing between the two.”
Did he engage in illegal activity?
“I was saying – I have to show you the scams that other people do,” Cramer told Imus. “I have to show you how Wall Street really works. I didn’t say it right. I have to get better at saying it. I did not do the stuff. But I didn’t say it right.”
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is probably the most fas
March 22, 2007 - 13:40 ET by blarsenThis is probably the most fascinating story on NB, but where's the liberal bias?
Sounds very much like the movie "Trading Places".
Don't be silly, if he were
March 22, 2007 - 13:47 ET by MightyMouthDon't be silly, if he were a conservative, he would have been drawn and quartered by the MSM already.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MightyMouth
March 22, 2007 - 13:56 ET by Noel SheppardMM,
Well, this could be part of it. After all, Cramer is a Democrat, and admitted so on "The Chris Matthews Show" a few weeks ago. Is this a factor? Well, if Lawrence Kudlow had made these statements, would they have been buried for three months? I don't think so. ns
blarsen
March 22, 2007 - 13:48 ET by Noel Sheppardblarsen,
This is much more serious than "Trading Places," for those folks were just front-running news that they had prior information on. In a lot of ways, that's much less deplorable than this kind of manipulation, for here, influential traders are lying to others in order to move markets.
Furthermore, in "Trading Places," the OJ contracts would have moved after the crop report regardless of what information the "brothers" had before its release. As such, they weren't responsible for creating the fluctuation in price. Instead, they just capitalized -- or tried to -- on what they expected the fluctuation would be once everybody else learned the news.
Also, hedge funds are doing the same thing with commodities. You right now are probably paying more for gas, natural gas, electricity, heating oil, and a number of food products than you would if not for excessive speculation by hedge funds.
Now, there are those who will debate this. However, as a former arbitrager and commodities trader, I don't agree with them. ns
Noel:I also trade in commod
March 23, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Tom PaineNoel:
I also trade in commodities, although my little investment club isn't in the same league as you used to be in. I think your analysis of Trading Places is spot on (although the market in the movie didn't seem to have any daily limits on them).
The problem I see with these major hedge funds is that they have the power to move the marktes just by making a play. My three corn contracts won't even cause a ripple, but a big player becomes the 800 lb gorilla. I also agree with your analysis of our increased spot prices based on the manipultion of the speculators. Case in point, even as we had plenty of gasoline to go around, oil prices are artifucilly high because of the pressure of the futures market. Corn prices are now in the stratosphere because of the emerging (and government manipulated) market for ethanol. This will have a ripple effect on our entire food supply.
I used to think that Cramer was a quirky but successful trader, but now it seems he was on the stock market equivalent of steroids.
Cramer's admission
March 22, 2007 - 14:40 ET by Ten7sThanks for giving this story some attention, Noel. I was surprised that it didn't get any in the MSM. My guess is that regular journalists haven't a clue, and those covering business and mkts are like the "three monkeys" (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) as far as mkts are concerned. But I'm afraid that Cramer's admission only scratches the surface. I can't even begin to imagine the scale, scope and kinds of shenanigans that could be occurring among traders, asset managers, etc.
I'm no expert, but at the very least, it looks like a credit problem from top-to-bottom. When I saw the sub prime collapse, it made me start thinking about mkts. I looked and got an idea of how over-leveraged our markets are. Then, I looked at the Shanghai mkt, other Asian mkts, the Mexican mkt, my word! Now, how about the derivatives and hedge funds? How does one go about getting an overall handle on those? What a mess!
I always had a gut feeling th
March 22, 2007 - 14:43 ET by Mr. KafirI always had a gut feeling that this guy was a bloviating nutjob, a cacaphonous demogogue. It appears I was right.
I always had a gut feeling th
March 22, 2007 - 14:43 ET by Mr. KafirI always had a gut feeling that this guy was a bloviating nutjob, a cacaphonous demogogue. It appears I was right.
I missed Imus this morning (i
March 22, 2007 - 14:48 ET by bigtimerI missed Imus this morning (intentionally), this I would of liked to heard.
I have heard Cramer talk about Hedge Funds before and how they work and are manipulated on Wall Street.
Soros anyone?
I first heard about this stor
March 22, 2007 - 14:56 ET by Clear thinkerI first heard about this story earlier this morning and I have to tell everyone, it shook me a little. My first reaction was 'oh crap' because I worried this would gain momentum and really screw with the markets. Right now I'm torn between finding out what he meant and wanting to keep it quiet. I'm guessing others like myself that invest in the markets that you have the same feelings.
However, because he's a Democrat the cover-up and twisting will start before the day ends.
I know there are some here that actually know the markets intimately, so I have a Q for you... could this be trouble for the markets?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Three quick steps to become r
March 22, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Airforce_5_OThree quick steps to become rich as a Liberal:
1. Cheat at the stock market and get a TV show.
2. Become an alarmist eco-nut bag on Global Warming.
3. Become a Politician and get rich on the Tax payers from California.
Looks like a sound plan to me.
Cramer's Confession Confusion
March 22, 2007 - 15:19 ET by CTYou all must see that you have to forgive Cramer his confession confusion, after all he is an admitted Liberal Democratic. How is he supposed to know right from wrong much less comprehend it?
Since I broke this one on N
March 22, 2007 - 16:57 ET by sarcasmoSince I broke this one on NB a couple of days ago, I'm going to claim the Shrubster's arm-strain with a pat on my own back. More seriously, I'll point-out this Cramer affair is FAR from the only story of great import that's been totally-ignored by financial "journalists." One "unimportant" example: the IMF is FINALLY changing its rules, to prevent the double counting of gold leased by central banks.
Some of us have, for years, considered this a news story. I know, what idiots we obviously-are not to trust the central bankers of big governments...
JMR
Noel, right after the words
March 22, 2007 - 17:18 ET by sarcasmoNoel, right after the words "Long Term Capital Management," I think you may have mis-spelled the word "taxpayers," substituting the word "they" instead. You might wish to correct that error, speaking as a taxpayer who deeply wishes your "they" weren't an error...
JMR
This will just raise Cramer`s
March 22, 2007 - 18:24 ET by chessplayerThis will just raise Cramer`s standing in the eyes of libs.
Sarc
March 22, 2007 - 19:57 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
I don't agree, for the taxpayers weren't responsible for the stock market's decline. They ended up bearing the brunt of the bailout burden, but didn't cause the selloff. Nice try, though. :-)
BTW: Could you tell us exactly how much that bailout cost taxpayers in specific dollar terms? Please be as precise as possible. ns
"nice try" back atcha
March 22, 2007 - 20:52 ET by sarcasmoI disagree totally. But "nice try" back atcha. Taxpayers, like it or not, and not LTCM, are the ones who will ultimately be held responsible for the mismanagement of LTCM. As for cost, it's hard to say how much this socialist move cost when the perps spent so long trying to deny the later-proved fact that they were massively-short gold. Being precise at all -- especially about this event -- assumes honesty and open-ness in the process of this bailout via the Fed printing money (& making secret promises I'm sure) to remove the shorts, so the taxpayers who'll really learn about this are now just kids. No dice for me-guessing, I have no idea how bad it really was. But if they were as rumored short 4 hundred metric tons of gold at that ~$300/oz time, it wasn't cheap to prevent a derivatives-crisis, and some people say there's still manipulation going on today which began with the LTCM scandal
JMR
If you have read Cramer's boo
March 22, 2007 - 21:38 ET by jdhawkIf you have read Cramer's book, "Confessions of a Street Addict", you would know that things didn't work out well for him as a hedge fund manager. Also, just to invest in a hedge fund you have to be weathly. So, let's not get too concerned for hedge funds and their investors. Does that mean that I would like to see more transparency in this area of the industry? The answer is yes.
Meanwhile, I have to ask anyone, what is the number to the "trading desk?" In other words, while there are trading desks at the major brokerage firms and banks, a phone call to them is not going to do squat unless there is some actual truth to a story. And, you can bet that it will be verified before action is taken.
Moreover, actual traders don't rely on rumor and innuendo, but trade using rather sophisticated mathematical models (you want a high paying job as a math or physics PHD, this is your industry). Although there are exceptions, the majority of traders make money for their firm by betting upticks and downticks of tenths of a point coupled with high volume.
Also, nearly all trading is done electronically. That is, from the time a investor/trader (that could be you) enters a trade at a brokerage web site until it is executed the only human manipulating the trade is your fingers on the key board of your computer.
Does that mean that fraud and manipulation don't occur? Of course not. However, the greater majority of that which does occur is in penny stocks. Those stocks trading below $5 with a couple of million share float on the market. If one was to attempt the same manipulation that occurs regularly with these stocks with say an Apple, they would have to have deep pockets indeed. For example, Apple trades around 34 million shares a day. Just to buy or sell 5% of that volume in a given trading day, you would have to have about 2 million dollars. Given that the stock typically moves less than a dollar a day up or down, your 5% may not budge the stock price in any event.
Meanwhile, all these "manipulators" are making the price difference between bid and ask very narrow. Without "them" to "make a market" the gap between the bid and ask price of the stock would be rather large. In fact, in the bond market, where there is typically far less volume per any given issue that is the case.
What does all of the above come down to? Well, if you are a long term investor (this should be you), nothing. If you regularly put money in a 401k or IRA and invest in an index fund over the long haul, 20, 30, or 40 years, you are going to average about 8-12% return on your investment. Coupled with the power of compound interest, that could amount to a samll fortune and hedge fund managers and their investors be damned!
JD
March 22, 2007 - 22:05 ET by Noel SheppardJD,
Actually, as a former arbitrageur, I don't agree with a lot of what you said.
First off, any decent sized fund manager -- be it mutual or hedge -- has contacts at all the block trading desks. Each firm -- Merrill, Goldman, Morgan, etc. -- has block traders responsible for making markets in certain stocks. These folks do indeed have size to buy and sell below and above the market respectively.
Some of this "size" is for institutional clients. But, also, they have a proprietary position for the firm they represent. As such, if you are a well-regarded hedgy, you have the personal phone numbers of each of these traders, and what you say to them can impact their decisions. As I spent time on such desks, I know this as a fact.
Does any of this mean a lot to the small investor over the long term? Well, yes, for a number of reasons.
As I mentioned, this isn't only going on in stocks. I quite honestly believe that the speculation in oil likely has added at least $20/bbl to the current price, maybe more. And, the speculation in gasoline might add $.50/gallon wholesale or more. This is real money to you and I.
Furthermore, the speculation in corn for example, and its relation to ethanol, is driving up prices on a variety of foods.
Finally, all of the leverage in the hedgies could at some point cause a meltdown similar to what we saw in 1987. For myself, one such one-day decline was enough in my lifetime. ns
JD...Thank you for that expla
March 23, 2007 - 11:31 ET by Clear thinkerJD...
Thank you for that explanation. I have what I consider a serious amount of money tied up in investments but am not an expert on the markets. My investments are left to professionals (fingers crossed) so I am at their mercy. Your explanation has calmed my fears. Now if I can get through what Noel wrote in response to you, I may not have to shoot myself.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.