Write to CNBC

So they can't do it on TV but you can do it on streeteasy?

I agree with you in principle. That being said, its not a question of 2008 worse than 1937, its a question of relative worth of 1937 over 1936 and 2008 over 2007.

We should ban short selling too. No way the market is going down for any valid reaon.

If the market is going down for an "invalid" reason, then don't worry. You haven't loss the money until you sell at that price. Hell, if you're that confident, double down.

S&P 500 is now at 12-13x 2008 earnings ... but is that really that low (yes, lower than historical norms) when you consider how much corporate profits might fall.

"you can do it on streeteasy?"

I was waiting for that one! You can't talk down the price of an illiquid asset, can you? You haven't seen prices plummet have you? And I have an audience of 200, not 200,000.

"We should ban short selling too"

That won't work.

"its a question of relative worth of 1937 over 1936 and 2008 over 2007."

I don't know what that means. I'm talking about percentage points.

"Hell, if you're that confident, double down."

I have, but they're over the top.

"when you consider how much corporate profits might fall"

Perhaps. "We have nothing to fear" - and that's what's driving this.

stevejhx...you're right..cable is trying to out do each other with the fear factor. MSNBC was over the top.

Does anyone actually listen to those douche nozzles on Fast Money (aka Short Bus Money)? All of the commentators on that show work / worked at shit bucket shops and one of the bald commentators even has a rat tail "skullet" (bald with a mullet).

"Does anyone actually listen to those douche nozzles"

Actually, they do.

it's true people do listen ... the average investor is not that sophisticated.

glad i got out of the market in July 2007 when the credit crisis really began .. the writing was on the wall!

"stevejhx...you're right..cable is trying to out do each other with the fear factor. MSNBC was over the top."

That's how the news has drawn viewers for some time now. They know it works to scare people to watch, to over do things. It means money for them. They won't change.

I don't mean to get into a flame war here, Steve, but as the poster above alluded, you, of all people, should be the last to complain about paranoia creating a self-perpetuating price problem.

Wasn't it you who has SCREAMED on this site time and time again that properties WILL (not may, but will) decline 50 - 70% in value? Haven't you been blissfully blathering on ad nauseum about the massive declines all NYC real estate owners are about to suffer?

Free speech, you might respond, and you're right. But free speech has screaming-fire-in-the-theater limitations. CNBC's blabber airs for an hour and then it's gone - your doomsday predictions live on in writing in perpetuity on this site. You may think you're impacting a small audience, but there are probably a lot more lurkers than posters on this site...they read what you write, tey copy the same info elsewhere, act to protect their assets...everything has far-reaching repercussions and unforeseen consequences.

I don't have any money in the stock market but have a ton in the real estate market. I don't particularly like it when selfish people eager for attention or ratings rant on about impending doom in any market, whether I'm invested in it or not. But I believe in everyone's right to say whatever the hell they want, so I never lambasted you for spreading panic in your end-of-the-world posts. The fact that you only find such behavior objectionable when it has the potential to depreciate an asset that you are personally invested in is highly hypocritical.

steve, you have made specific predictions of how low the Dow will go - give it a rest

It isn't even that steve has been saying real estate would decline
He also suggested that better returns could be achieved in the equity markets and stated that it was lower risk to do so.
He also, along with a couple others like Eddie and dco, like to incessently post new discussion topics about the decline of Wall Street or the markets. Often steve isn't doing it to be against the market, rather to be against real estate, but how he can claim there is a link and then disavow it, I don't understand.
Steve is also the guy who for the past half dozen years, presumably until this year, earned SIXTY PERCENT ANNUAL RETURNS, yes you read that right.
I believe that steve is well intentioned and a decent person (although he would fail the airplane test miserably); however, to avoid hypocrisy, sometimes it makes sense to take a few deep breaths, count to ten, and stop being so angry before actually considering hitting the POST button

So what's the problem with telling people facts ? The fact is that if you have any money in the market you might need within the next 5yrs, then you need to pull it out or be prepared to lose it.

I don't see it a fear factor, I see it for what it is and let's face it, it's not looking very good but remember, we still have all dem fur-rin investors count on saving the day by buying a lot of way overprice NYC apts, condo and the likes, right ?

Heh Heh Heh Heh, NYC and Irvine, CA is getting ready to get a serious taste of what the rest of America is going through but at a whole nudder level. The worst is still yet to come and sadly, it's coming.

"So what's the problem with telling people facts ?"
Exactly. The fact is that NYC RE was at unprecedented prices due to a bubble fueled by profiteering bankers and speculators and greased by brokers. The flawed underpinnings of this valuation were correctly identified by Steve when it was very unpopular to do so. He only had to be so adamant because of those who ridiculed him or those who thought like he did. Posting concern about a downwardly spiraling market that seems to defy curret economic conditions in his estimation shouldn't be met with derision because he was right about real estate.

I agree brokersjokers. Steve has true insight. So what if he lost some money in the markets, how could he know that the FED would keep changing the rules and screwing everything up. On the markets Steve is correct as he was in real estate.

i really feel sorry for you steve if you had parked your money in the stock market while waiting for real estate values to decline to a rent-own ratio of 12 or whatever, so that you could jump back into real-estate at the bottom. if that was your plan you really should have had your money in us treasuries or money markets. the recent precipitous stock market declines are due primarily to hedge fund redemptions causing forced liquidation of assets, as the smart money pulls out of hedge funds and pours into us treasuries. furthermore, the institutional buyers (private equity, pension funds, etc) that would normally provide support are sitting on the sidelines while the governments of the US and EU cobble together a coherent plan to address not only short-term liquidity concerns but long-term solvency issues that will arise if housing prices continue to decline. but as with all crises, this will pass. in fact, it would probably pass faster if the US and EU governments would just come up with a coordinated plan, and say, "that's it folks! after this, no more bailouts, you're on your own".

by the way, i have cnbc on constantly and i haven't heard anyone say anything about a 1930's type depression. 1980's type S&L crisis, yes. 1930's, no. i would spend more time paying attention to your portfolio and less time on streeteasy. organizing a write-in campaign to cnbc is just sad.

Steve, you sound a little scared that soon you will have nothing, just what you hoped for people that owned or invested in real estate, except my apartments aren't managed by greedy fools who get 12 million golden parachutes when their company fails, I manage them and don't lie to myself about what they are worth, and don't use smoke and mirrors to fool the entire world, and have tennants pay my costs, and never, never buy new construction.

"you of all people, should be the last to complain about paranoia creating a self-perpetuating price problem."

There is a marked difference between making a prediction about the fundamentals of an illiquid market in a forum with 200 readers, and putting on shows entitled, "Is Your Money Safe?" in a highly liquid market. That's my concern.

I have always maintained that falling property prices would affect very few people - only those who recently purchased at the top and are forced to sell. That is not the case with the stock market.

"i haven't heard anyone say anything about a 1930's type depression."

If you look at how far the market has fallen this year, it makes it the third worst one-year decline on record, after 1929 and 1937. Just a fact.

"So what if he lost some money in the markets, how could he know that the FED would keep changing the rules and screwing everything up."

Of course I lost money in the markets - who knew the idiots would let Lehman fail? That's when I started to lose money: when everybody started losing confidence. Now look at the consequence. Perhaps someone should have realized what was going to happen to housing prices as I did. Then we wouldn't have these problems today.

"He also suggested that better returns could be achieved in the equity markets"

Over time that is true.

"and stated that it was lower risk to do so."

Never. I said the risk was the same, but manifests itself differently: volatility in the equity markets, long-term downward trend in real estate.

I said that owner-occupied residential real estate was not a source of wealth. And you know what? It's not.

"by the way, i have cnbc on constantly and i haven't heard anyone say anything about a 1930's type depression. 1980's type S&L crisis, yes. 1930's, no."

I'm not sure if it's Steve and/or others, but in fact the words "the worst _____ since The Great Depression" have figured prominently in his/their descriptions on streeteasy threads about why the local New York economy is going into the toilet, with highly paid Wall Street types losing their skins and making real estate affordable for more New Yorkers. I'm afraid this has to be the most self-contradicting emotion I've heard yet, "Please stop talking gloom and doom about the economy and our investments!" This thread is digging itself deeper into a hole.

I'm not very smart, and I haven't read all the posts on this thread, and I certainly don't understand all those fancy things like financial markets and money and stuff, but didn't we as a country manufacture things in 1937, and sell them around the (albeit depressed) world. And didn't we have a robust and modern highly-productive agricultural sector (albeit with dustbowl problems) in 1937, at a time when the rest of the allegedly developed world used horses and donkeys and the like?

Today we don't produce anything, and our service-based economy seems to have become adept at exporting those services.

So what surprises you about the grotesquely inflated stock market deflating so rapidly?

Anyway, I'm just a dumb country boy from the Upper West Side, so really what do I know?

"I have always maintained that falling property prices would affect very few people - only those who recently purchased at the top and are forced to sell."

So, if I bought last year, and I am not forced to sell, I am fine, right? Even if your call for 50% down comes true?

"If you look at how far the market has fallen this year, it makes it the third worst one-year decline on record, after 1929 and 1937. Just a fact."

And you are complaining about that? Looking at the markets and market sentiment, we are days away from possibly the greatest buying opportunity of our life-times. I have teased you about holding your 2X BRIC funds through this melt-down, but you have been right in principle. Problem is, you were way early, and got caught in the deflation of some pretty big bubbles. It's going to take you a lot longer to recoupe the losses. But recoupe them you will.

"Perhaps someone should have realized what was going to happen to housing prices as I did. Then we wouldn't have these problems today."

Someone pointed it out, but I gotta ask myself: how did you fail to put two-and-two together. What did you think was going to happen? RE down 30-40-50% nationwide, but the economy and the stock markets will keep booming? The crisis would not spread around the world? Financials are (or at least "used to be") over 20% of the S&P. There were no clues before the LEH Chapter 11 to get out of the market?

"Never. I said the risk was the same, but manifests itself differently: volatility in the equity markets, long-term downward trend in real estate."

The risks are distinctly not the same. Different asset classes, different risks, different returns, different upsides, different downsides...

so should CNBC stop saying anything about this Great Depression scenario, then?

Never. I said the risk was the same, but manifests itself differently: volatility in the equity markets, long-term downward trend in real estate.

that is a disingenuous statement. There is no long term downward trend in real estate. Even you have never made such a postulation and frankly, it isn't mathematically possible. There may be a prolonged medium term downturn but to say investing or purchasing real estate will over any long-term period be a loser isn't true and can't be true.

Also, you said that owner-occupied residential real estate was not a source of wealth - yes. But you also said that renting is always better than buying. Always. Also, an impossibility.

You can not come to any forum, 200 or 2 million and criticize markets, and then turn around and blame others for doing the same.

I think you all have got it wrong. CNBC isn't even close to understanding how bad this market is going to get. With or without CNBC, Wall Street is where the order flow comes from - so please don't think your 500 share market order matters . Short selling, also, you should understand very clearly, has nothing to do with it, because it IS currently BANNED on the financials until midnight tomorrow. One of the BIGGEST problems is that there are no shorts to cover!!!! Try and understand that, I'll say it again: There are NO SHORTS TO COVER!! That is where the support comes from. Steve, you are clueless and get a kick out of being a contrarian. Real Estate is too expensive because the politicians legislated that it become that way. The price to pay to correct the direction of Fannie and Freddie to issue 45% subrime loans is FAR GREATER than any economic tragedy that has ever existed. The correction of the excesses in non subrime areas ($1 million for a 1 bedroom) will be much more painful, btw, than the rest of the country will experience.

this from AP re: the Prez debates:

"Obama answers by calling our current situation the worst finanacial crisis since the Great Depression."

Should we all urge Obama to stop saying this so that the markets don't fare even worse and we so we don't needlessly lose more of our investments' value?

"Should we all urge Obama to stop saying this so that the markets don't fare even worse and we so we don't needlessly lose more of our investments' value?"

The problem with the statement is that it wasn't followed by "and the Rebuplicans put us in this crisis." Unless it's a jab at the GOP though, the statment should never be uttered on TV by anyone.

I knew you were scared Steve...relax...or maybe not...Time magazine may be right, this may be another depression.

the S&P is only down 36% from its highs we may need to go down further...please stop causing panic on the boards

you know as well as anyone they're just setting up management so they can set their shorts before the "horror headlines." Oh yeh, DTCC can't trace said shorts, if the price is right of course. c'mon gurl.

So you guys dont think the hedge funds are the ones who are bring the market down right now? Right now Hedge funds are shoring up cash for redemptions. The Hedge funds move the market more then these shows do. They can sell 1-5 million shares to dump a stock. Right now fear is the worst enemy. Did you see BoFAs 3rd quarter earnings? If they are having trouble who else will be in the financials everyone is worried about the next shoe to drop.

I am in the market now and it is brutal but right now I am in it for the long term. If you are young and dont need your money tomorrow what difference does it make. However, if you are retiring tomorrow or need the money next year to buy a home I would be concerned. If more financials put out troubling numbers such as increased credit card defaults (Which I think is the next shoe to drop) the dow will continue to go lower.

So when CNBC or anyone else says "the fundamentals of our economy are just fine" I gather steve and others would applaud???

Since steve is a renter, he has no problem talking down real estate with doomsday projections, but since he is also an equity investor, he has issues with CNBC talking negatively about the market. You really have to question everything this guy says.

"So, if I bought last year, and I am not forced to sell, I am fine, right? Even if your call for 50% down comes true?"

Absolutely, given a long-term horizon. Real estate is a long-term asset; it's foolish to buy it for short-term purposes.

"There is no long term downward trend in real estate."

Yes there is and has been on multiple occasions. The 1970's, early 1980's are a prime case of real estate declining in value for 10 years on a nominal basis.

"Even you have never made such a postulation and frankly, it isn't mathematically possible."

Look at the Case-Shiller index.

"There may be a prolonged medium term downturn but to say investing or purchasing real estate will over any long-term period be a loser isn't true and can't be true."

It can be true. Investment real estate is a different issue, but owner-occupied residential real estate rises or falls in conjunction with incomes and leverage.

"Also, you said that owner-occupied residential real estate was not a source of wealth - yes. But you also said that renting is always better than buying. Always. Also, an impossibility."

Not an impossibility. If it (as it often is) cheaper to rent than to buy, then renting is better. Buying real estate is nothing more than capitalizing rent payments and amortizing them over time.

"One of the BIGGEST problems is that there are no shorts to cover!!!! That is where the support comes from. Steve, you are clueless and get a kick out of being a contrarian."

Actually, I quite well understand that and I agree - instituting the short ban only caused longs not to enter the market because they had no way to hedge their bet. What I have always maintained is that they should reinstitute the uptick rule and monitor naked shorting. Shorting is a necessary part of market functionality.

"I knew you were scared Steve"

I don't know what "scared" is the word I'd use, flmd. Concerned, but even if I lost every penny I have in the stock market (which I won't) I can still pay my bills on a daily basis and am in no risk of losing my job. Read or watch any expert - the stock market was (and maybe it will stop with today's rate cut) running on pure fear, with prices set at levels expecting the Great Depression that CNBC and others have been shouting about. Those who do don't understand what the Depression was all about, how it happened, and how governments have pumped liquidity in all forms back into the money markets. That's why it can't happen.

"the fundamentals of our economy are just fine" I gather steve and others would applaud???"

I have no problems saying the truth. I have problems with instilling fear in a liquid asset class. It leads to a crowd psychology. Read today's New York Times.

"Absolutely, given a long-term horizon. Real estate is a long-term asset; it's foolish to buy it for short-term purposes."

Quite the change of tune from previous posts. I remember a number of posts like "RE will not appreciate forever", "anybody who buys now is an idiot", "long term horizon is meaningless because we can't predict the future 5 years out, let alone 20-30", "anyone with a 20-30 year time horizon is stupid" and the like... But you are now saying that if one loves a place and can afford it, he should go ahead and buy it because he is going to be fine in the long run?

Long term downtrend in real estate on multiple occasions in the 1970s and 1980s?

Maybe you lost the definition of long-term.

"Absolutely, given a long-term horizon. Real estate is a long-term asset; it's foolish to buy it for short-term purposes."

That is what I have always said.

"RE will not appreciate forever"

That is true, but I don't recall saying it.

"anybody who buys now is an idiot"

That was Eddie Wilson's post, not mine.

"long term horizon is meaningless because we can't predict the future 5 years out, let alone 20-30"

Never said such a thing.

"anyone with a 20-30 year time horizon is stupid"

Never said such a thing.

"But you are now saying that if one loves a place and can afford it, he should go ahead and buy it because he is going to be fine in the long run?"

That is what I have ALWAYS said, and posted it as recently as a few days ago.

BGaria, you'd better go back and review the posts, and ascribe them to the proper person.

"Maybe you lost the definition of long-term."

Anything over 5-10 years is long-term. It is impossible to extrapolate beyond a 5 year horizon. Ask central planners.

Let me clarify: "long term horizon is meaningless." I did not ever say that. I said what I said above, that it's not possible to make a long-term prediction based on extrapolations. Do I know what housing prices will be in 20 years? No, nor can I make an accurate prediction. Ditto any other prices. I can make an educated guess about a month from now, however.

steve, some excellent stuff in there. I don't think you've always been that explicit about your views re: long-term RE, but you're right, most of those posts belong to Eddie, dco, et al. What is your beef with CNBC though? Do you really think that many people are divesting themselves because of what's on tv? At this point, what's the difference between a bottom of 9,000 or say, 8,000? Eventually, we'll hit a bottom and pull out of this, but I think it's a bit much to spark a letter-writing campaign. If anything, CNBC would be encouraged it's pulling in viewers, no?

"At this point, what's the difference between a bottom of 9,000 or say, 8,000?"

11%.

My beef with CNBC is that they are focusing on the negative in a highly liquid market. Of course it's the natural thing to do, but there are other equally good stories - value investing - for example, that could be broadcast, or how this "downturn" compares to, say, the 1937 stock market crash, the second worst ever, which is, in fact, how much equities have lost in the past year.

I do think that with all the liquidity in the system - look at the M2 and M3 - there is enormous reflation pressure in the market. Today's interest rate reduction sends a powerful message that it might not be such a good idea to be on the downside of a trade, as you'll have to fight every central bank in the world, with unlimited printing presses.

I think that after tomorrow, holding a short position will be very dangerous as the central banks have all but said outright that they will not let a depression happen, and they will calm the financial markets.

BTW I (and many others) complained about the treatment of my girlfriend, Hillary, during the primary season, and MSNBC changed its editorial focus. Sometimes you can be so involved in a line of argument, that you forget what your line of argument is.

"11%."

Well, I walked right into that one. I should have expected the snark. Seriously though, people who make money in the stock market do so partially due to other investors making bad bets. Selling off right now is most likely a bad bet, but to those who hold on, the exact bottom isn't hugely important, because the market will recover. You think CNBC will continue with the doom and gloom when that happens? That was my point. As for Hillary, I applaud the efforts but they didn't really change the results (that's my Machiavellian take on it anyway).

"Sometimes you can be so involved in a line of argument, that you forget what your line of argument is."

Think about that a moment, Steve. There is no difference between the tone of your posts, including about subjects other than real estate, and the wrost panic-inspiring pulp TV commentaries. You're just saying something like that you didn't eat salmon last night, that you were eating fish.

"There is no difference between the tone of your posts, including about subjects other than real estate, and the wrost panic-inspiring pulp TV commentaries."

I will grant you this, lowery - I did post negative articles, but it was to counter all those who as recently as a few months ago were predicting ever-increasing rises in property prices, or who denied that Wall Street had anything to do with those prices.

That, however, is a far cry from broadcasting news such as, "Fear of contagion," "Fear of a global meltdown," "Fear of a depression." Broadcasting fear is what Orson Wells did in "War of the Worlds." What Franklin Roosevelt did was say, "Things are bad, but they will get better."

CNBC is saying, "Things are bad, and we're afraid they'll get worse."

In other words, I have no problem if you publish a forecast for a slowing economy by the IMF. No problem if you say BAC's earnings disappointed. No problem saying that the outlook for retail stocks isn't good. But I do have a problem if you broadcast fear.

That is my point.

a couple of points: 1) CNBC covers the opinions of many value investors - saw one this morning discussing getting back into financials. I kind of shuddered, but hey...

2) CNBC alone does not generate enough household ratings to drive the stock market. It's true they are on in every CEO's office and every trading floor (not that there are that many left), but these are more sophisticated investors.

Trying to reverse the stock market by writing to CNBC is like trying to drive down the real estate market by relentlessly posting to streeteasy; it's not going to make a difference. Until investors witness stability and short-term credit, money will be parked on the sidelines.

Ok, so we all get it. Steve was right on real estate in nyc but not so right on the markets. But as anyone who has any net long position in the markets knows, you were not right either. A lot of very smart, long term investors have been housed by this market downturn. Savvy hedgies with great LT records have been smoked. "Let he who has not lost money throw the first stone"

Though I agree w/ BGaria, not sure why you didn't put two and two together. If we enter huge housing correction with accompanying credit crisis, how could US/Europe economies and therefore markets not feel the pain. Moreover, how could emerg mkts do well if 2/3 of the global economy is shrinking and commodity demand falls off a cliff as a result? This whole decoupling thing was B.S. from start to finish. In an extreme correction, correlations across asssets with low correlation increases dramatically.

I don't think CNBC is causing this fear, but simply verbalizing it. Not to reiterate all of them here, but we all know things are bad and could get worse. I don't think we are anywhere close to a depression and I think the market will recover in spades in 2/3 years from where it is today, be it BRIC or otherwise. But I'm not at all convinced things will not be down another 5-10% by end of month.

I have to call bull here steve. Most of the people you argued with in the past were not "predicting ever-increasing rises in property prices", but rather challenging the legitimacy of your 50% correction theory. In most cases, you posted incessantly to argue against fictional bulls that somewhere said "prices would go up forever". In other cases, you just argued with yourself.

“Ok, so we all get it. Steve was right on real estate in nyc but not so right on the markets.”

Special_K, no I’m not sure I get it. What exactly was steve right about concerning real estate?

"Special_K, no I’m not sure I get it. What exactly was steve right about concerning real estate? "

Fair enough real estate hasn't fallen significantly yet in nyc. maybe i should have said, i believe he will be right.

well, steve, I think Special_K and BGaria are making my point to you a little more directly than I am - expecting for real estate to tank while your more liquid investments fare well was wishful thinking, like someone hoping for sticker prices to go down and for mortgage rates to also go down - it's interest that you have several times said that you "needlessly" lost money - no one needs to lose money, and I think you are implying by that word that it's not your fault, it's all other people's doing, and that your own choices and judgments have nothing to do with it - also, I have said to you before that I too find the pricing of real estate very interesting and that rent/buy is a symptom of market out of balance, but you don't seem open to exploring that line of thought if it doesn't support your claims to be always 100% correct - once again, the micromarket I know personally from painful experience, coops in S'side Qns, topped out well BELOW what you cite as normal/optimal ratios, and bottom out at a whopping 5x. If there is some immutable law of the universe saying that 12x is an efficient relationship between cost to own and cost to rent, then coops in Sunnyside will hold their present sticker-price values no matter what, since they are in the range of 12-14x.

Two things I do not fault your posts with: (1) thoughts/theories to be unique and original with you; or (2) that they have any influence on the real estate market.

I agree that the majority sentiment expressed up till recently was pshaw, Manhattan real estate is immune, but snide remarks about granite countertops do nothing to further any discussion. It's more interesting when people find their commonalities and divergences and how really all of us intersect, rather than live in polar extremes.

Steve - Your concern over fear drastically affecting the market is valid and I agree with you. The talking heads need to be more responsible (good luck with that / doesn't Blodgett have a show?).

This is part of the reason that I have tried to communicate more of a moderate voice about the fall tha will happen in RE. I agree with almost everything you have said about it. I just feel that there has been a bit too much hype on how extreme it can get.

That said, the stock market is a different thing and there is an immediacy to people's fears that can ruin companies that had no business being ruined.

I am all for freedom of speech and an exchange of ideas, but when you get paid a lot of money to shoot your mouth off and people take your advice (whether or not you are offering it) you have some responsibility to try not to act like an idiot.

Patrick Bateman - nice use of the phrase "douche nozzle". I will steal that from you, but will make sure to give you credit.

I hope people are watching and/or listening to CNBC today - the tone has changed, even after a day as dismal as today. They haven't said "depression," they've barely said "fear." They're reporting rather than panicking - the good news and the bad. They're focusing on putting things into perspective, even when they're bad, and discussing fundamentals.

All that is good and fair reporting. My complaint was the gloom-and-doom-how-much-lower-is-it-going-to-go subtext they've been bombarding us with.

And they preempted Cramer tonight.

You're welcome.

idiot, Cramer was off for Yom Kippur.

Cramer answered to God, not to stevejhx

What an ego.

Cramer has an ego, and a track record and media empire.

steve, lol, you really outdid yourself

Contact Information:
900 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
United States
201-735-2622

CNBC Viewer Services:
1-877-251-5685

CNBC is comprised of idiotic, imbalanced to the left crappy "reporters". I switched to Bloomberg for more balance.

I sometimes watch Fox Business.

While we are at it, can we also write to Fox News and tell them to stop bashing Obama?

Maybe next Jewish holiday Steve can get it done for you.

So steve is claiming he changed CNBC's reporting bias via email? Well in that case I'm going to email Syria and tell them they need to stop interfering in Lebanon. Does anyone have al-Assad's email address?

This is a sad desperate discussion

It's more ironic then sad.

stevejhx the Manhattan RE doombringer saying "I've just sent emails to CNBC and Fast Money telling them to stop talking the stock market into a nosedive." Do we have a right to ask the same on this board?

Cramer who "had a meltdown on the same CNBC" in Aug 2007 basically warning everyone who was listening that this was coming (and selling all his real estate) is ridiculed on other threads for "bad predictions".

Anyway, as I recall CNBC was a great contrarian indicator of at least short term bottoms in the last recession. I know I sold into the fear last time (after seeing it on TV every day) when i should have been buying.

Must email to them

stevejhx
about 6 months ago
ignore this person
report abuse I hope people are watching and/or listening to CNBC today - the tone has changed, even after a day as dismal as today. They haven't said "depression," they've barely said "fear." They're reporting rather than panicking - the good news and the bad. They're focusing on putting things into perspective, even when they're bad, and discussing fundamentals.

All that is good and fair reporting. My complaint was the gloom-and-doom-how-much-lower-is-it-going-to-go subtext they've been bombarding us with.

And they preempted Cramer tonight.

You're welcome.

urnfna
about 6 months ago
ignore this person
report abuse idiot, Cramer was off for Yom Kippur.

Cramer answered to God, not to stevejhx

What an ego.

Hey, I got him off the air this year. No help to any of you or stevejhx.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/14924-keep-jim-cramer-off-cnbc-and-mad-money

Is Cramer on the air right now? Couldn't stevejhx get him off the air again this year?