Cramer: I'll Keep Banging the Uptick Drum

It was a cause I didn't want to take up. I didn't want to take it up because I knew the short-sellers would paint me as a naïve, clueless defender of the bull, and the long owners wouldn't really understand the idiosyncrasies of the subject. It was a cause I knew the brokers would never defend because their best business that is left is prime brokerage, and they need giant hedge funds to trade with them and can't risk alienating them.

I am talking about the uptick rule, the 70-year-old rule put in by the SEC to stop the process of "raiding" stocks, meaning sending them down by knocking all bids down underneath to where panic could and would ensue.

Today's typical. The Journal breaks its seeming 10-year embargo on mentioning me or my show with a piece that basically says I have no idea what I am talking about and am a fool to bring it up. It quotes James Bianco, from Bianco Research right after me saying, "Anyone who thinks the removal of this rule is somehow causing havoc in the financial markets is hopelessly lost in the bark of one tree and may never be able to see the forest." He then goes on to say, "To suggest that the removal of this rule is causing the markets to go down is to loudly announce, "I don't understand the credit crisis and I am incapable of ever understanding it.'"

Put aside for the moment that Mario Gabelli and Marty Whitman are quoted as saying that it has never been easier to knock down stocks and that bear raiding's become incredible easy. The idea that I am loudly announcing that I don't understand the credit crisis and am incapable of understanding it is ludicrous. Was there anyone out there who more loudly announced this credit crisis before it happened than I did?

I knew this would happen. I knew that I would be regarded as a someone over his head who was attacking the people, not the fundamentals, and people would accuse me of being oblivious to the fundamentals.

Now, here is what you need to know. I have spent the better part of a year telling you that many, many firms would not make it. I have gone out of a limb and predicted that Washington Mutual (WM Quote) could go and that Wachovia's (WB Quote) in trouble and that Thornburg (TMA Quote) might go under. I have questioned the solvency of Citigroup (C Quote) and talked openly about how Merrill (MER Quote) and Lehman (LEH Quote) needed capital or else. After reading an email on my show that asked if someone's deposits were safe in Bear (BSC Quote), I chose not to help cause a run on Bear's deposits by saying that they would be safe. Three days later with the stock at $37, down 20 from when I said the deposit was safe, I called the Bear Stearns stock worthless. Doesn't matter; I have been endlessly pilloried for being positive on Bear.

In short, as someone with a huge pulpit, I have done my very best to show all of the flaws of the system and to recommend only Hudson City Bancorp (HCBK Quote) before Bear and JPMorgan (JPM Quote) after.

And now, because of this cause, I am labeled a foolish apologist and cheerleader of the financials and a blamer of the shorts. Where were these critics when I started screaming about these problems and openly criticizing the Fed and the administration? Oh, and now Jim Chanos has even gone as far as claiming I libeled short-sellers in an obvious attempt to get me fired at CNBC -- the note went right to management. And I like Chanos!

But ever since I started this cause, I have been inundated behind the scenes with people who have been in the business for years -- some of them professional short-sellers -- who know that this cause is just. They email me every day. They see me on the street. They call me in to talk about it. The fact that they won't go public is bad, but they have me and they know I will do it despite the catcalls and the derision because I know the truth.