Talk:Jim Cramer

Stock pick history

Comment below from User:173.77.18.3, moved from article to talk. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how much money Cramer makes on the show? This is not charity work, neither is the sale of the books. The public should have the right to know because if his stock picks aren't relevant to his earnings but just the amount of time he is on television, then people ought to know and factor that in to listening to his advice. from User:173.77.18.3

Middle Name

The question of Cramer's middle name has come up once in a while. WP:RS show it simply as middle initial "J." and nothing more. If anyone can show "Joseph" and verify same, let them do it. Otherwise, please leave it as "J". --S. Rich (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear Stearns Debate

This stuff is not encyclopedic. So what if he made good or bad calls? Every stock picker has good ones and bad ones. In fact, any picker who gets above .500 is doing well. When they go beyond .500 into the .600 or .700 range, they are doing fantastic. With this in mind, giving us the debate as to Bear Stearns or any other pick is meaningless. And with Cramer, given the volume of picks that he produces in the Lightening Round, featured stories, or Charitable Trust picks, there is no end to the number of "selected controversies" to present. In doing so, we are WP:Cherry-picking whenever such-and-such stock pick is noted or not noted in the article. This stuff should be deleted. (After writing the above I noted we had an archive. In my quick review, the archive did not address the non-encyclopedic nature of the tagged sections. My comments stand.) --S. Rich (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject matter is encyclopedic. The section title of "Selected Controversies" is obviously not encyclopedic (it signals an agenda), and should be reduced to just "Controversies" 67.190.104.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Material is encyclopedic if it is notable. The stock picking stuff, which is part of the Cramer article, is a sidelight to his history, work, media presentation. Again, every stockpicker has good and bad calls, so including some of Cramer's is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem. --S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Charitable Trust Info

76.88.156.123 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

the info for the charitable trust is incorrect. the time frame and interest calculations are incorrect. as far as i can tell the stock picks that he makes on his show are not exactly the same as the stocks that he buys and sells in his charitable trust. i don't know if anyone (even cramer himself) knows what the total annualized return on the trust is (if he does, i don't think he has published it). one of the sources is a dead link. here's the pdf (pictures may be missing): http://www.npr.org/blogs/globalpoolofmoney/images/2009/05/bolster.pdf

Performance of stock picks -- unencyclopedic

Cramer has been in the stock picking business for years and made hundreds, if not thousands, of stock picks. Certainly some of them are going to sour, as he well admits. For us to include this section simply allows disgruntled editors to find the bad picks and post them. This section should be deleted for several reasons: WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Let's delete it.--S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this decision. This section in its current form is ridiculous. --SubSeven (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Cramer has 112 editors watching his article. Let's hear from some more of them.--S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Silence is golden. I'm taking out the stock picking stuff.--S. Rich (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)