Mad Mail: Is Pepsi "Indestructible"?
Dear Jim: I would just like to say that I believe some of your viewers don't seem to understand what your show is all about. I certainly don't treat your advice as a "command" to go buy the stock. You provide your viewers a "start point" for their homework, not the "end point." You provide a great service by evaluating the thousands of stocks that are out there and then winnowing it down to a handful of recommendations. --Bill
Cramer says: “Actually, I disagree with you … I think all the viewers do [understand]. I think it’s the media that doesn’t.”
Hey Cramer! Lately you've mentioned picking up the "indestructible" stocks, like Altria and Coca-Cola , but I haven't heard any mention on Pepsi -- has PEP fallen out of favor in Cramerica, or are KO & MO the best-of-breed you want as we had towards a possible recession? --Mike
Cramer says:Pepsi is “fine” but has higher raw costs than Coke, whose CFO said on Mad Money that its commodity costs have peaked. Nevertheless, Pepsi is doing a “darn good job.”
Booyah Cramer!: Huge baby-crying-Cramer-sound-board-effect for Nastech . With the news of Proctor & Gamble pulling out of the PTH1-34 deal, I developed a curiosity around these speculative companies. When one considers buying into a spec, should the weight of revenue from the partnerships of bigger companies be a strong factor? In other words, should we be more cautious of those companies relying on a large percentage of revenue or general financial stability coming from the partnership of a larger company than those that rely on revenue strictly from its client base? --JB
Cramer says: “No. What attracted me to Nastech was the Procter & Gamble relationship.” The fact that CEO Dr. Stephen Quay didn’t know Procter wanted to terminate the deal when he was on Mad Money two weeks ago “shows how dangerous” NSTK was.
Jim's charitable trust owns Altria.
Questions for Cramer? firstname.lastname@example.org
Questions, comments, suggestions for the Mad Money website? email@example.com