I had to do a double-take when I saw CNBC’s Rick Santelli on a Web site hawking a $1,300 “how to get rich trading” seminar.
Here’s the lede of the marketing copy for “LIVN Live Trading Seminar”:
Dear Trader: I have achieved total financial independence. In fact, I have generated $1,900,336.82 in just the past 4 years trading S&P futures, relying on (what I believe to be) simple methods that you can use for your own electronic trading (almost immediately).
And best of all…mastering the game of trading has given me the ability to generate money almost at will…
And if you asked me what’s the ONE THING that has made this possible I’d say it’s my discovering the unique mindset and methods of true trading millionaires…
I believe this mindset is so easy to “get” it will shock and delight you.

I mean, pardon me if I’m reminded of nothing so much as those late-night infomercials for get-rich-in-real-estate seminars. A video on the site, which looks like it was designed by someone who’s never touched an HTML editor, shows a brief clip of Santelli talking about how news affects trading.
The seminar is given by Larry Levin, a trader on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which is where Santelli broadcasts from the trading floor. Levin has occasionally appeared on CNBC. Not only does the site wave the Santelli flag in a bid to increase its own credibility, it also makes numerous mentions of CNBC.
Now this is hardly the biggest deal, but Santelli’s appearance at the seminar and in its marketing raises some obvious questions, which I put to CNBC spokesman Brian Steel. If Santelli got paid for his appearance, for instance, that would be problematic, to say the least, since journalists shouldn’t take money from organizations involved in their areas of coverage.
Steel told me CNBC policy prohibits its journalists from “accept(ing) appearance or speaking fees to participate in for profit seminars or conferences nor are they allowed to accept speaking or appearance fees to attend events sponsored by for profit companies or companies that engage in lobbying activities.” He says Santelli wasn’t paid for his appearance.
When asked if Santelli’s appearance was vetted by CNBC and if it approves of its reporters appearing at events like this, Steel said he doesn’t comment on internal discussions.
I also pointed out that CNBC’s brand name was being used to hawk Levin’s product and asked if that was okay with CNBC and was the product something it wanted to be associated with. Steel said “Larry Levin is in the process of removing any mention of Rick’s appearance or his likeness from his website nor will he be selling DVD’s that contains footage of Rick.”
As of right now, Levin’s entire website, sotseminar.com, has been taken down. I had already taken a couple of screen shots, so you can get a feel for the site:

And, for now anyway, you can see Google’s cached version of the site here.
Again, I’ve had my beefs with Santelli before, but this one isn’t a federal case. It’s just a reminder that journalists need to be careful about their speaking appearances. Speaking to a charity or school is one thing. Talking to a seminar that’ll be hawked for $1,300 is another.
Santelli is supposed to cover these guys, not help them make money.
I know larry and I know Rick, and I also taught at the CME for over 12 years. Larry's use of Rick was a "cheap shot" at the hard working instructors at the Merc. Before Larry I ran Commodity Boot Camp and we only used reporters to explain how reports reach the public. Most of the public wish they never heard of commodities since most of them never see a profit. The leverage, pie in the sky promises, and the old hard sell make it almost impossible for the average viewer to turn a profit. Larry knows this and also knows he pays pennies for commissions while the public pays two and four times as much. Futures have there place in a portfolio...but it is speculation and not investing.
neal weintraub
Commodity trading advisor
yourfilled@yahoo.com
#1 Posted by neal weintraub, CJR on Fri 10 Jul 2009 at 06:29 PM
Santelli and any imagined improprieties are only of interest to liberal journalists because he hasn't been bending over forwards in support of the Obama spending spree.
#2 Posted by Liberal Fascists, CJR on Sat 11 Jul 2009 at 06:37 AM
Like Mr. Weintraub I know both men and there was nothing wrong happening here. Mr. Santelli appeared at a trading seminar to help a friend - Larry. What the hell is wrong with that? And Larry does not promote investing; give me a break, it is speculation indeed.
Moreover, Liberal Fascists' post above is correct!
#3 Posted by Frank Schmoltz, CJR on Sat 11 Jul 2009 at 11:02 AM
Mr Chittum has had a bug up his rear about Santelli ever since his profile went through the roof after criticizing team Obama in such a public forum.
I believe George Orwell called it “two minutes of hate”
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sat 11 Jul 2009 at 06:02 PM
Matters of this kind would not occur if journalists (those investigating stories, reporting the news in print or on radio and TV, producing, directing, editing, etc.) were required to be licensed. To gain certification, candidates would have to intern for a period of time and pass a state/national exam that would include questions on professional ethics. Upon successfully completing the test, they would have to sign an affidavit to uphold standards of professional journalism and to remain independent from any influencing entities. And finally, journalist would be required to renew their certificate every 2-3 years and to accrue 24-36 learning units (LUs) during the certificate period. Failure to comply with professional standards of practice would make the certificate holder subject to disciplinary action.
With certification, Santelli and CNBC both would not have found themselves in such a compromised position.
Journalists have evolved to be extensions of business as corporations bought up the news outlets. The principal source of ethics and standards that journalists are compelled to adhere to are handed down by the executives and managers of multinational corporations with a little from history thrown in. With the advances internet news sources have made in recent years, journalism appears to this lay person as something more like the wild, wild west. Almost anything goes.
Certifying journalists would go a long way to bringing us more accurate, objective and complete news even from that arena.
#5 Posted by Leonard Marsh, CJR on Tue 14 Jul 2009 at 01:55 PM
". It’s just a reminder that journalists need to be careful about their speaking appearances."
When did Santelli earn the designation of a journalist. Talking head maybe, but journalist implies that he reports the facts of a current event so that the public might be better informed. Does that sound like Santellil? The man is nothing more than one of the many spin meisters with an ideological twist with which to "flavor" a story.
#6 Posted by Jack, CJR on Wed 15 Jul 2009 at 09:14 AM
Leonard and Jack, seems to me that if the Columbia Journalism Review did their research that Mr. Santelli would not be the focus of their article.Mr.Levin lead people to believe something that was not true by the false editing of his video.He realized the air of his ways and removed it.It's kinda like you putting the Dear Trader lede in the box above. Are you trying to atribute that to Santelli? You should review the practices of your own institute. Mr. Santelli deserves a written retraction. BTY where were you Columbia Review when Playboy wrote the false article about Santelli they had to retract? Last Jack, Santelli does report the facts,called market numbers,doesn't get more factual then that!
#7 Posted by Lynne, CJR on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 02:41 PM
Ryan Chittum sounds like your backtracking on your article,and at the same time your being sleazy and not owning up to your bad journalism. It's really bottom of the barrel to post screen shots about something you were wrong about to begin with. I think your so-called beefs with Santelli(more garbage I'm sure)is your motivation. You are a poor excuse for a journalist, and this pathetic article by no means is even close to a retraction, just more slander of Mr. Santelli.I can only hope the Columbia Review is doing their job and tracking the garbage you write!
#8 Posted by Lynne, CJR on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 02:59 PM
Uh, what? Backtracking?
#9 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 03:04 PM
"Mr. Santelli appeared at a trading seminar to help a friend - Larry. What the hell is wrong with that?"
He participated in hawking what's essentially, if not literally, a scam? I guess that's okay, because the suckers weren't his friends like Larry is. He also attached whatever credibility CNBC and the word "journalist" has to a business enterprise. I don't really see how his doing it for free (if that's really the case) justifies any of that.
Ryan Chittum clearly is not attributing the "Dear Trader" to Santelli. Right above the box, he writes "Here’s the lede of the marketing copy for 'LIVN Live Trading Seminar.'”
#10 Posted by mongoose, CJR on Mon 10 Aug 2009 at 12:59 AM