Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (18132)	9/8/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: kingfisher	Respond to of 116960

It is time for readers to get more sophisticated about the news. Wrong! Rear Echelon Revelations: Ulterior Motives By James J. Cramer 9/8/98 9:26 PM ET We take things way too literally. We listen to Greenspan on C-Span and we think that's all there is to it. We read that Rubin is unhappy with Miyazawa and we decide the rift is too big to heal. We hear some guy on the floor doesn't like the tape and we think, hmmm, things must be bad. The reality is very different. Maybe last Friday a New York Times reporter bounced some thoughts off Greenspan in a "for background" situation in which Greenspan acknowledged he might ease if things continue to roll over. Maybe Rubin wants the world to know Japan is not playing ball because Japan hates it when Americans look like they are bossing Japanese politicians and bankers around. Maybe Miyazawa and Rubin see eye-to-eye -- but it is in no one's interest for that to come out because Miyazawa wants it that way. Maybe the guy on the floor of the exchange is short up the wazoo and is trying to make his position come to life. Maybe people say what they have to say in order to make money, even if it's shading what's really going on. Part of our job at TheStreet.com is to see through the news, because nobody else does it. Occasionally a smart commentator will ask someone, "Are you short that position?" when the commentator is bashing the dollar, or "Are you long Chase [CMB:NYSE]?" when the analyst praises the bank. For the most part, however, we are a trusting people, and we believe that there is a certain amount of "citizenship" to what is said. I like to look behind the news. I have written for The New York Times and I know the standards the paper has. It doesn't idly suggest in the top right-hand column that the Fed will ease without first making sure that someone from the Fed won't be surprised. And Rubin is way too smart to simply bash the Japanese openly without some other quid pro quo. Most importantly, we all have to start looking at these talking heads more objectively. I am not saying that Stan Druckenmiller used his "melt up" comments to blow out of common stocks. That's too dark and sinister even for this Manchurian Candidate supporter. But I am saying that just because you heard Greenspan on C-Span doesn't mean you got the full story. The papers and the television are used by powerful people to get out the information that they want heard. In politics, we take this for a given. But somehow, when we talk about money, we figure that nobody would possibly lie or fudge or distort. That's nonsense. I am highly sensitive to this and always start out by saying, "I am long this," or "I am talking my position," to any reporter I speak to. I bring my position sheets on "Squawk Box" to point out when I am long or short, so no one can think I am unbiased. I disclose every position, even if it is mentioned only in passing. It's time for others to do what I do. And it is time for readers to get more sophisticated about the news. Don't presume anything but "agenda" when you hear someone at 3:20 p.m. sum up how the day may end. If you hear somebody say, "The action looks good, but it isn't really," presume that someone is short, unless proven otherwise. Most important, when you hear some commentator say before the bell, "So-and-so stock will be weak today," remember that someone speaking to that commentator wants that said and that you are supposed to act on that remark in order for the source to have his way with the news. You are supposed to panic so that source can cover. Don't be fooled. This is a high-stakes game. Be more skeptical. Until you see everywhere the level of disclosure that TheStreet.com uses, hope for the best but presume the worst. James J. Cramer is manager of a hedge fund and co-chairman of TheStreet.com. At the time of publication, the fund was long Chase, although positions may change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy or sell stocks. Cramer's writings provide insights into the dynamics of money management and are not a solicitation for transactions. While he cannot provide investment advice or recommendations, he invites you to comment on his column by sending a letter to TheStreet.com at letters@thestreet.com. See Also WRONG! REAR ECHELON REVELATIONS Those Illusory 6-Point Gains 9/8/98 4 PM WRONG! DISPATCHES FROM THE FRONT The Bears Are Pressing 9/8/98 2 PM WRONG! TACTICS AND STRATEGIES Going Back to Cyclicals 9/8/98 8 AM WRONG! REAR ECHELON REVELATIONS ARCHIVE Cramer's FAQ ÿÿc 1998 TheStreet.com, All Rights Reserved.TOPÿÿ\|ÿÿABOUTÿUSÿÿ\|ÿÿCONTENTSÿÿ\|ÿÿSUBSCRIBEÿÿ\|ÿÿADVERTISEÿÿ\|ÿÿTRADEÿONLINEÿÿ\|ÿÿFEEDBACKÿÿ\|ÿÿSEARCHÿÿ\|ÿÿHELP

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (18132)	9/26/1999 8:58:00 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116960

Bull market vs. bull Investors more than lucky clever and rational minds don't rule Wall Street, group contends By Al Lewis Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer (prize quote - author speaking of AMZN) Cognitive illusions Investment decisions are colored not only by emotions but by what Thaler calls cognitive illusions. He asks his students to imagine a 2-mile-long length of railroad track attached to the ground at both ends. He then asks if the track gets hot and expands by one inch, how high will the track bow at its center?(cont) insidedenver.com