Jon Stewart Lays Smackdown on CNBC

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:31 - By The David

On Wednesday, Jon Stewart took on CNBC. He was the winner by unanimous decision.

His original intent was to interview Rick Santelli, the analyst who called for a “Chicago Tea Party”. For those not familiar with Santelli, he became a poster boy for anger on Wall Street when he rallied against Obama’s mortgage plan, live from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange:

How about this, President and new administration – why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the internet, as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages? This is America!

How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom, and can’t pay their bills, raise your hands.  President Obama, are you listening?

Santelli was supposed to appear on the show last Friday, but cancelled at the last minute. I was disappointed, and apparently so was Jon Stewart. Here is his response to Santelli’s rant:

Yeah man! Wall Street is mad as hell! And they’re not going to take it anymore. Unless by “it”, you mean $2 trillion in their own bailout money. That, they’ll take…

But see, Rick Santelli is angry that these loser homeowners are going to get bailed out. He believes in personal responsibility. He believes in not rewarding the losers for missing all the warning signs.

I mean, for God’s sake, the guy works at CNBC! They’re the best of the best!

So to all you dumb*ss homeowners out there who let your optimism and bad judgement blind you into accepting money that was offered to you from banks, educate yourselves!

After Santelli bailed, The Daily Show decided to do an investigative piece on CNBC’s investment advice. The findings were less than flattering.

They ran through some of CNBC’s least-greatest hits, and then showed what happened afterwards. Here are the highlights:

 

March 11th, 2008 – Jim Cramer

  • Prediction: “Bear Stearns is fine – do not take your money out! If there’s one take away, it’s that Bear Stearns is not in trouble.”
  • Actual: Bear Stearns went under six days later.

June 5th, 2008 – Power Lunch

  • Prediction: “[Lehman Brothers is no Bear Stearns]. You can’t compare Bear management and Lehman management. Lehman management is incredibly engaged and responsive.”
  • Actual: Lehman Brothers went under three months later.

April 17th, 2008 – Squawk on the Street

  • Prediction: “Will Merrill need to raise capital? No. That continues to be the refrain from management, from Mr. Thain. They raised $12.8 billion in capital, $4.2 of that was excess capital. No need to raise capital says Merrill Lynch.”
  • Actual: Five months later, Merrill Lynch ran out of capital. It is now owned by Bank of America.

October 4th, 2007 – Jim Cramer

  • Prediction: “Bank of America is now the cheapest and the best. And I have to admit, that as much as I like Wachovia, I think Bank of America is going to 60 in a heartbeat.”
  • Action: As of [Wednesday], Bank of America trades under $4

December 5th, 2007 – Home Front

  • Prediction: “What [AIG] is saying now is that their sub-prime losses or exposure, whatever’s going to happen to them. Is very manageable. Does it mean that they’re not going bankupt? Obviously they’re not, they’re the biggest insurance company in the world.
  • Actual: Federal bailout money for AIG – $85 billion in September, $37.8 billion more in October, $30 billion more on Monday.

October 31st, 2007 – Jim Cramer

  • Prediction: “You should be buying things, and accept that they’re overvalued, and accept that they’re going to keep going higher. I know that sounds irresponsible, but that’s how you make the money.”

February 1st, 2008 – Jim Cramer

  • Prediction: “That’s why the market just won’t quit, no matter how poorly the actual companies are doing.”

April 16th, 2008 – Kudlow and Company

  • Prediction: “The worst of this sub-prime business is over.”

June 13th, 2008 – Jim Cramer

  • Prediction: “Very simply, I believe that it’s time to buy, buy, buy!”

November 4th, 2008 – Fast Money

  • Prediction: “The fundamentals are coming back into play. I think people are starting to get their confidence back.”

 

It was fun watching someone take CNBC’s talking heads down a notch. They’re great at sound bytes, but not so much when it comes to advice. I’m glad someone finally called them out on it.

I’m not an expert, but I think Jon Stewart best summed up their knowledge and expertise when he said:

If I’d only followed CNBC’s advice, I’d have a million dollars today – provided that I started with one hundred million.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Tipd
  • Digg
  • TwitThis
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Propeller
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Related posts:

  1. Jim Cramer Responds to Jon Stewart
  2. Cramer vs. Stewart – Official Debate Scorecard
  3. Jim Cramer’s Latest Feud
  4. How Much is $787 Billion?

You can leave a response below, or trackback from your own site.
  • Notice how Jim Cramer is a part of many of those highlights? He needs to be taken off of that network! I remember a few months ago when I read that his 'recommendations' didn't even beat the S&P. He actually underperformed it by quite a few percentage points!

    I also LOVED the end of the clip when the guy said he loved being a millionaire and Jon said, "f&*$ you"! That was a classic!
  • I laughed harder than I've laughed in months when Jon said "F*** you!", especially because it's what I was thinking too. I also liked that he said he wasn't sure who deserved to be in jail more, the anchor or the billionaire thief.

    It's ridiculous how much credibility Cramer has. I do believe that he has some good advice at times (like when he told people to sell stocks if they needed the money in the next few years...if that's the case, they shouldn't have bought stocks anyway).

    But unfortunately him - and these other snake oil salesmen - are in positions where they can beat their chests when they're right, and then blame the government and the economy when they're wrong.

    And it's sad, because I'm sure there are a lot of people that thought they were doing the right thing by following his advice, and they're probably ruined as a result.

    I used to work with someone who was extremely intelligent, but he still listened to every word that Cramer said and considered him an expert. I couldn't believe it.
  • Jon's got a point; more than one, actually. You can't lay all the blame at the foot of the lenders though. Hundreds of thousands of people, often with complicity of dishonest mortgage brokers, bought homes they could ill afford to. They knew this going in, yet they counted on continuing real estate appreciation to cover them. In many cases they did this using low or no doc financing so they didn't have to worry about the minor technicality of their income level.

    Why should all of the rest of have to subsidize their greed and stupidity? I bought a house by making a budget and looking at how much they could actually spend on housing. They rolled the 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 3 car garage, bonus room, slab granite counter top, stainless appliance dice and lost. Why should I have to take away from the budget for my 1,400 sq foot house to pay for their excesses?

    For those who bought responsibility, lived within their means, and lost their job due to the economic downturn that's one thing. They should have some options. For the others....they can kiss my a**. Thank You.
  • You can't blame just one person. Everyone in the financial, housing, lending (etc...) industries benefited from it, and they rode it as far and hard as they could.

    I don't think we should have to subsidize so many people. It's only natural that some things will have to go under as the economy corrects itself. Unfortunately, some businesses, banks, homeowners are in a position where it doesn't make sense to help them (from a financial point of view, not a moral point of view)

    I just don't see how the government can magically absorb all these losses.

    And i did buy responsibly. Even though I bought right before the crash, I'm still very happy with my house, and it's potential as a long term investment.

    Thanks for the comment!
  • I saw that Jon Stewart show also, and loved it too. It helps to see the absurdity of the talking heads predicting the ups and downs of the market in a humorous light. I admit, I'm addicted to CNBC. But the reality is, they, like most market commentators, scream buy, buy, buy when the market is rising and sell, sell, sell when the market is tanking. Talk about the bandwagon effect! I have to remember it's entertainment, not respectable advice!

    On another note, I have to open my big fat mouth here on the subject of "irresponsible homeowners over extending themselves." I think people should be very careful here with the finger wagging. I purchased my first home in 1991 in much the same manner as these "irresponsible buyers," with 10% down, a variable rate mortgage, and a hefty mortgage--the most the bank would lend me.

    The last 18 years have been very good for the real estate market and I was able to upsize homes many times while increasing my equity over the long run. But it could have just as easily gone the other way, with, say a job loss, catastrophic health problem, or tanking economy. Then Rick Santelli would be calling me irresponsible for doing it that way, but right now he just thinks I'm savvy.

    "Irresponsible" homebuyers pushing it to the limit are nothing new, it's just that in the past the market and the economy just worked to make them (us) look like brilliant real estate investors when it could have just as easily gone the other way.
  • Good point on irresponsible home owners. Greed is nothing new, and in the past it did work out. Something different happened this time though.

    And as far as irresponsible behavior goes, I think Santelli used to be a derivatives trader, and derivatives were responsible for helping the market spiral out of control. The amount of bad mortgages wasn't nearly enough to account for the crash by themselves.

    I agree about the talking heads...it's easy enough to say buy when things are going up, and sell on the way down. The hard part is figuring out when do switch from buying to selling, or vice versa.

    Any more, I have trouble watching any 24 hour news station. I think it tends to actually make peopleless informed.
  • There are many people to blame - I think lenders and borrowers share equal blame being honest. The borrowers have to look at themselves to a degree.
    Frank @ Debt Advice
blog comments powered by Disqus