Any time Erin Burnett tells a guest “You will not be back, you have to be more polite than that” you know the “guest” is telling the truth, the one commodity rarely if ever discussed on General Electric’s circus station. Enter (or rather, exit) R&R Consulting’s Sylvain Raynes, a structured finance expert, who at 3:10 into the clip takes on what he calls the “public relations officers” for Goldman, and asks “is it all right if I am a little critical?” Apparently the answer is no. First, Sylvain completely destroys Cramer’s false “breaking news” about Goldman being long Abacus, using the same logic we discussed earlier: “It’s quite possible that Goldman had an equity position, they probably wrote it off on the closing date. So they stood to lose a few million and make a few hundred million… Goldman was clearly in the know, they knew what they were doing. In fact, if they are defending themselves against a fraud charge they will have to make a case that they didn’t know. I think too highly of Goldman Sachs to think that they didn’t know what they were doing… These deals were made to be shorted.” And the kicker “We don’t have time to go into details, I want to remain shallow in deference to Mr. Cramer.” At which point all hell breaks loose and the Goldman alumni just blow their collective lids. Best CNBC comedy since the Pisani-Liesman/Jeff Macke chronicles. Gotta see the video http://www.benzinga.com/228517/who-is-sylvain-raynes-and-how-did-he-make-it-on-cnbc
Actually, after watching that, I agree with Erin. His snide remarks were not necessary to making his point. It’s one thing to call Cramer a PR guy for Goldman, but when he said he’d “be shallow in deference to Mr. Cramer,” he was clearly gunning for a fight, and not a fight based just on facts. Having said that, the substance of his analysis was worth hearing. And it’s pretty obvious that he “doesn’t do politics,” because a good deal of politics is about being able to state your differences without calling your opposition idiots, crooks, etc… at least not if they are in the room (or on tv with you).
that guy thinks really highly of himself.
I am SHOCKED!!! Do people really watch CNBC? Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel have more intellectual AND educational value than CNBC.
Yeah that was pretty lame but the guy should have wised up as well, she did give him a warning after the “GS PR” comment.
M. Raynes wrote a series of very interesting online articles that can be read on Quantnet, and although he asked for it, I think that his interview answer / attitude were consistent with the man (or at least the image that I have of the man from what I’ve read from him / about him). This being said, I though it was a pretty funny moment. J.
DiehardValueInvestor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am SHOCKED!!! Do people really watch CNBC? > Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel have more > intellectual AND educational value than CNBC. Heh ever watch faux business reports? Pravda… Sadly we dont really have much choice in the US. Thats why I stick to BBC, Euronews etc. for more objective reporting.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, after watching that, I agree with Erin. > His snide remarks were not necessary to making his > point. disagree - I’m not a huge fan of Kramer on tv and especially wasn’t on friday. the only reason he was on tv was to back goldman, not to give impartial instight. its credible to back your buddy when he gets it in the stomach, but not when the friend brings it on himself. the ‘snide remarks’ made me smile a little - i guess you can’t call them d-bags if they’re clearing your trades (kramer) these deals were made to be shorted which is exactly why its fraud. they created pools to clients specs and then sold out pieces to guys further down the line to get f’d - hard. if you look at the investment guidelines of the pools they don’t specify a particular rating of debt to replacing maturing peices, meaning lower-rated stuff would be put back in simply because its cheaper. goldman, of course, knew this. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arFjbsBO7BS8&pos=10 the sec must have something big on paulson to have them turn over so much info to them that implicates goldman so clearly. i’m also sure the shredders are working overtime.
DiehardValueInvestor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am SHOCKED!!! Do people really watch CNBC? > Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel have more > intellectual AND educational value than CNBC. actually everyone on our trading floor watches it everyday and i think some other banks do too
They probably watch it for factual things though, like earning reports, government monetary policy announcements or what key players in the market are saying. Not for speculative bickering and debating.
Reggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They probably watch it for factual things though, > like earning reports, government monetary policy > announcements or what key players in the market > are saying. Not for speculative bickering and > debating. Doesn’t Bloomberg exist for that exact reason?
Yeah it does, which is why I’m curious as to why traders are watching CNBC?
We also had it on when I was a trader (only exception was during the 2004 and 2006 Olympics, and the 2006 World Cup). I guess that’s the default option if you have a TV in the office, although we had it on mute and only put the volume on when Santelli was talking about the bond market.
Uhmm yesterday when the news came out, CNBC ticker on Goldman stock was as fast any quote around the world. CNBC breaks news very fast. You just filter out the crap. Been on 3 trading desks, all of them had CNBC on them. Last year during the TARP and Lehman bailout times, again CNBC broke that news right away. As well they have Vanguard, Bill Gross, El-Erian, Soros, Zell on there when big news days are coming out. You always listen when those guys speak.
The world needs more people like Sylvain Raynes. Smart, controversial, argumentative (although to me seems to be a little bit under the influence of a tranquilizer or something). What’s the use of these pseudo-discussions anyhow if all you get is Kramer’s opinion but almost zero additional input of any value? It is truly disturbing that only those opinions count that are the same as theirs. If you are only allowed to stay in the show if you suck up to Kramer and Erin, then I wouldn’t care to appear on it. Also, we need to reinstate a culture where everybody - including those who beg to differ - can at least finish their sentence. Kramer can speak as much as he likes after the SHOW.
Erin has called people names in the past without objections. The different in this case is the person called the name was a CNBC “star”
I havent watched CNBC in a while, but didnt realize that they let people get stoned and share their opinions. Highly amusing