"I wonder if there is a record of how much money Cramer made in salary, bonuses and fees as a hedge fund manager versus his "great" stock picking ability. I have a strong suspicion he made more in fees."

Is this english you retard? Do you even understand how a hedge fund works? Jim Cramer ran a fund for 14 years and during that time compounded at 24% after fees, thats almost double the return of the S&P during the same time frame.

Jim Cramer's side (freak) show is the result of CNBC's attitude...mainly to entertain without regard to the financial well being of the viewers. There should be a disclaimer stating that the information given is for entertainment purposes only and that, in all likelhood, you will do as well or better following the advice of dart-throwing monkeys. Of course, (for the guys) one can always turn down the volume and just look at Maria.

It is easy to make a flippant remark about someone without really studying that person carefully.
Although his fast talking and antics and plays on words are typical of Pennsylvanians, New Jerseyites, and other NEasterners, his advice is sound if you read his books, study his books, and really listen to him on his show. It is really easy to judge him based on what you see on TV. I've been watching his show ever since it started on CNBC, and he has made me some Mad Money. While my IRA went down the drain with the CANSLIM Mutual fund (I've always had a lot of respect for O'Neill, but he needs someone else to manage his fund), Cramer made me money in my other account and made up for what I lost. But...I had to listen to him everyday and not just buy any and everything he recommended. He clearly tells you not to buy like every other buffoon the day after he recommends a stock, and he clearly tells you to buy using limits several days after and ONLY AFTER you've done your own research.
You are starting to look like a buffoon yourself.
Listen to every single thing Cramer says, and you'll see he is not a dork. You are.

My comment above might be misunderstood as cracking on Pennsylvanians, New Jersey residents or North Easterners, but it is actually a HUGE compliment. I spent 10 years in New Jersey and absolutely loved the way they play around with words and expressions up there. You guys rock. Just wanted to clarify that so as not to step on any footsies.

Hyper-active Cramer is a good example of what it takes now-a-days to keep the public interested in the stock market. It's just another warning sign for all the "buy & hold" investors out there.

1) Name calling, grammar and typo's seem to be the first point of contention of the less astute and less informed reader...followed by their own poor showing.

2) There has never been any independent nor audited documentation of Cramer's claimed lofty hedge fund returns.

3) Some of the more creative web sites use complex programs to track and compare recommendations with the performance of the overall market. One such site, CramerWatch.org, actually pits Jim Cramer’s recommendations against a monkey that makes buy or sell recommendations at random on Cramer's picks. It is claimed that the monkey does just about as well as Cramer.

4) According to a detailed SEC Staff Report (Sept 2003), most hedge funds have two financing components: (1) a 1 to 2 percent asset-based investment management fee (similar to mutual funds), and (2) an incentive allocation, which tend to be “20 percent” of “the hedge fund’s net investment income, realized capital gains and unrealized capital appreciation.”

5) The asset management fee comes off the top and the claimed 24% would be after trading transaction fees not "his fees" and taxes and capital gains.

6) Buffoon: a person who amuses others by ridiculous behavior; Synonyms: clown, merry andrew

7) I give Cramer credit for his ideas and he is an interesting guy to listen too -- entertaining, yes...but any money you make from his comments are to your credit not his.

I learn more from his shows where he discusses admitted mistakes (it takes a big person to admit their investment blunders) and my own to make me a better investor. Very few people will admit when they are wrong.

5) The asset management fee comes off the top and the claimed 24% would be after trading transaction fees not "his fees" and taxes and capital gains.

this is incorrect, the return for his fund (as well as every fund I have seen, and I work for one) is listed "net of ALL fees", that includes the management fee as well as the 20% carry he earned on all profits....

So Jon, by your reckoning, Cramer's 14 year24% average return (which I do not accept) does account for fees so we should add them back to get his gross average that would be over 30% return for 14 years running...IT DOES SEEM SPECTACULAR, better than Buffett or anything else I have ever heard of that is legal. BTW: The point I made in #4 is from Cramer himself, not my explanation.

That's pretty funny...people hacking on others for grammar errors while they have blatant grammar errors of their own.
He he.

This whole Cramer-bashing thing is old. Everyone likes to follow stocks that he picked in 2000 or even earlier and point out that they've fallen off 5000% or something ridiculous like that. If you know anything about his methods then you would know that he probably hasn't owned any of these stocks for 10 years, as CramerWatch.org and Barron's would like you to believe.

I find it most amusing that everyone likes to pick on him for stocks he picked PRE dot-com bubble and they make no light of the fact that he came amazingly close to calling the top in the market in 2000 and turned around and made money shorting the very stocks that he rode on the way up. CNBC wouldn't continually stick Cramer's 24% return in your face if it wasn't true. You can say that Cramer runs a dog-and-pony show; CNBC doesn't.

The people who bash Cramer are the same people who watch the stock market once a month and pick and choose when to point out his recommendations. If you're basing your judgement on his "Lightning Round" picks, you're obviously grasping for straws. The Lightning Round is a gimmic and he even does that fairly well. Probably better than 99% of the population. He highlights 2-5 stocks every day and those stocks go up religiously after his mention (and then pull back with the typical Cramer spike) and he is fairly good at telling you when to dump the stock as well. I've never lost money with Cramer's picks and if you do your homework before and after you buy, you won't either.

Hey, whats wrong with Cramer or the monkey? In fact, have them both on the show pitted against each other.

Now that would be must see TV!

The way I see it, Cramer doesn't mean to literally pick stocks, he's trying to teach people how to pick them. He just doesn't have time for all the nuances on TV.