Also Barron’s unfairly moves the bar in discussing the performance of the CNBC list. After grudgingly conceding the 1.2 percent out-performance, Barron’s adds: “More important, the stocks fell short of the S&P by a statistically significant 2.2% through last week,” meaning August 18. But the period under review was January 1 through July 31, 2007.
That’s a gratuitous shot. Barron’s should have stuck to the parameters of the discussion.
Finally, the piece refers in passing to Cramer’s “then-wife, Karen;” the couple is still married. This gaffe is unrelated to the main thrust of the piece and was no doubt unintentional, but explains some of the lingering animus in the CNBC camp.
In the end, was the Barron’s piece a hatchet job, as CNBC contends? No, it really was not.
So, was CNBC wrong to throw Barron’s off the air? Actually, no. It’s its air.
Did CNBC behave unprofessionally, as Barron’s contends? No—except to the extent that its own policies force it into disingenuous arguments about what is and isn’t a “pick.”
This is the contradiction that the Barron’s story, and the subsequent fallout, have exposed. It’s up to CNBC to resolve it.
Its a very odd battle -- this stuff is infotainment.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/barrons-vs-cramer-part-ii/
Posted by Barry Ritholtz on Mon 9 Feb 2009 at 12:47 PM
I think the Barron's-Cramer dispute matters a lot. While Cramer's jokey style is meant to act as a kind of disclaimer, he stands for a serious principle: that ordinary people trading at home can outperform the market. For most people, for most fund-managers, this is not true. It is a Wall Street myth, and not a harmless one. Jim should track his own results--using criteria of his choosing--and post them. Then people will have enough information to figure it out on their own. Until then, Barron's or someone else will have to do it.
Posted by Dean Starkman on Tue 10 Feb 2009 at 07:15 AM