>> of exposure to our stock markets. the dow dropping 62 points. s&p slipping .55%. the nasdaq slipping merely .35% despite dire predictions last night about where we were heading and at one time we were up before heavy profit taking at the end of the day. hardly a rendezvous with deadly destiny. the disappointing news about cyprus and the run on the atm came over saturday and i decided that while very negative, no denying it, it wouldn't impact our market that much because we are now way past the days when europe can lord it over our markets. sunday i went over to tavarian which i own with other guys in new jersey and see how breakfast was going and i happened to bump into stewart hoffman, the chief economist from pnc financial services group who was staying overnight at our joint, thanks to the innkeeper, her and her husband michael run a tight ship and i just carry out the bags.
when i asked stewart what was he thinking about cyprus and the atm bank lines and the tax scheme where they essentially bang the depositors for money. they violated the sacrosanct compact, i told him, that was meant to protect those deposits. stewart's all about common sense. he didn't think all of that much about the cyprus story. more importantly, he was hoping we wouldn't make too of it on this show because it would blow over since cyprus was a special case that couldn't easily be extrapolated and maybe even rally a little. then i went home after having some breakfast and i set out to study the charts and more on this later and settled in for serious ncaa bracketology while watching the canes play the tar heels. i tried to stay focused on march madness but i began to get bombarded by emails from bears worldwide -- [ shots fired ]
brown bears, kodiaks, even koalas, telling me, this is it, jim, this is the big kahuna that i was being way too glib about the confiscation scheme that would rock my world. i knew not to dismiss the darn cyprus situation. i actually bothered to argue back, silly me. first i offered the standard polite rebuttals that cyprus is a dot on a map, best known for being a favorite island of churchill's as well as for its key role in russian money laundering. i protested that this moronic plan is a one-off because the banking system is a big joke anyway. ♪ >> and while, sure, the heavy handed way the regulators were getting involved seemed wrong to me, it wasn't evident this method would spread violently to the rest of europe. yeah, they shouldn't be taxing these cypriots, just the hot money that came in from russia, and the whole thing is being handled as stupid as our own sequester is being done here, and i wasn't budging from the
idea that this story wouldn't cost a major and lasting decline. i'm not that keen on many stocks at this moment and i remain in the camp that i'm willing to miss any upside from here because the markets moved way too far, too fast for my taste. it is too treacherous for me. even though i'm not that bullish and even as we sold more stock today for my charitable trust, it didn't matter. these guys wanted me to be overbearish and they just kept coming at me. let me give you a little volley and tennis action here. let me tell you how the volley is played out. first, the bears, what they say, they say -- what happens if there are runs on the poorly capitalized spanish banks? my return! that's what people said would happen last may when the banks were teetering and the money soon flowed right back. the stock of banco santander that everyone was so afraid of back then came out to be a tremendous buy.
once the sanctity of the deposit is violated who knows what can happen? any account can be confiscated and it's no longer a worry about return on capital. it's about a return of capital! ♪ my return. don't be ridiculous. the cypriot banking system was rotten to the core. a place for the russians to hide money from the government. if these banks were in the united states they would have been seized a long time ago so any testament to the cluelessness and phony supervision of the brain dead european regulators that it ever got out of hand like this. service. we're in big trouble. who knows? it could happen here probably around the corner. and that's when i blew my top. first, our banks are the best regulated in the world despite what senator elizabeth warren and chief prosecutor -- i'm sorry, chief reporter gretchen morganson from the new york times might tell us. it's not going to happen here and while i think it's always right to worry about the italian banks because they're poorly capitalized, i'm not going to saber rattle and make you
fearful of wells fargo or huntington bancorp or first horizon or j.p. morgan. love 40, i say. no, no, game! at that point it was my turn to serve. i had no more patience. to each and every bear and by my account there were a dozen of them, i ask what does the cyprus crisis have to do with the price to earnings multiple of bristol-myers? now, mind you, there's nothing, nothing at all that the intelligentsia despises more than my bristol-myers card that i played for so many years. as outrageous as the scheme in cyprus might be and it is outrageous because the average cypriot shouldn't be collateral damage in attacks on russian depositors, the average portfolio manager simply doesn't give a darn about it. he's hoping the market can come down so he can buy stocks like bristol-myers. as plain a stock as there is in the universe. good balance sheet and decent pipeline and nice yield and none of it will be impacted by the
long lines at the cypriot atm machine and that's why they want it. in fact, i bet that when some of these portfolio managers heard that there was a crisis in cyprus, they probably worried about the dividend of cyprus semiconductor, and it's pretty steep. i wasn't done and the next stage, i question how well the negatives were doing this year. were they underperforming? were they behind the benchmark &p 500? were they short? did they have too much cash and needed a price break to put the money to work, and get exposure before the end of the quarter to show investors they weren't totally asleep at the wheel and so negative they didn't see anything good coming. were they wrong for the last 2,000, maybe 3,000 points? yeah, it got personal all right. i didn't want it to get personal. no, because then i couldn't even have time to figure out whether i should take a chance on gonzaga or a long slight like lasalle and i picked georgetown
because our executive producer went there and nova, because as far as i'm concerned it's still 1985. i get up at 3:55 a.m., okay, bears, i'm all hands on deck here and see what was on the tube. looking for long lines in atms in italy and maybe a little spain and go to google where they look down and see everything, but that's actually old stuff and i was getting ready to see the 3%-5% declines that everyone told me had to happen. they were, like, spamming me with this thing. no, nothing. and then i came to work and went over to the floor of the exchange and nothing, no panic on the floor. although i did hear several commentators come on our air and say that this is it, this is the end, the end, my friend, the end of the banking system as we know it, as if actually it didn't end four years ago. i was prepared to talk about how our markets are strong when squawk on the street started and the declines you're seeing won't cause us to go down 2% to 3% as my bearish pals told me would happen.
but we didn't even get a big sell-off in europe. we opened down hard, ended up in the green and gave it up near the bell and it was a garden variety give up and probably not dumb and nothing catastrophic like i'm supposed to have down my back. now, mind you, i come back and say the cypriot is stupid after the same thing happened in iceland and ireland and i still have issues with this market and you'll hear it in a few minutes, but it looks like the bears overplayed their hands or their paws. they are so desperate to get the market down that they would not let the facts of this little nation get in the way of the big, positive story. >> sure, sure. there's plenty wrong, but here's the bottom line. the cyprus crisis coming up to european crises that amounted to boys who repeatedly cried wolf couldn't get the crash going today that so many of my
e-mailers need to justify their negative positions and their actual short positions. what can i say? i have an idea. they should go to pick the baskets of the tourists in jellystone national park and the pickings aren't like the hideously executed cyprus bailout and it would have let me have a nice, quiet sunday afternoon to fill out my brackets and the possibility, you heard it first, of a louisville victory in the big dance. alan in new york. alan? >> what's shaking jim? boo-yah from nyc. >> you're right across the river! i can see you. what's going on? >> as you probably know citigroup has upgraded verizon to a buy, and my question is verizon is trying to acquire the 45% of vodafone and vodafone pays a better dividend of 5.53%, versus verizon with the 4.29%
how would you play the acquisition? >> just be clear. citigroup in that piece and i was chatting with the deal guys because the deal and the street merged. everyone says this deal will happen. my friend david faber says there's a lot of chatter and where there's smoke there may be a little fire. it might be like popcorn in the microwave. own vodafone for the fundamentals and i would prefer at&t here because if the verizon deal doesn't happen, verizon goes back to $45. all right, the bears are overplayed at least for today. tomorrow is a new bad day, right? cyprus couldn't stir up the panic that some people really needed and it doesn't mean i'm sounding the all clear. just the opposite, stick around. there's something else you need to keep an eye on. "mad money" will be right back. serious signal? the market may have ignored the shot from cyprus, but cramer could have found a warning sign that could be more dire than a mediterranean isle.
find out how you should prepare. later, game time. cramer has a new take on an old family past time. new this week, he's taking a look at companies with a stranglehold on their industries that may give their stocks a boost. tonight jim's checking out the friendly skies to find out if it's time to take off. plus, food fight. your local supermarket has turned into a battleground for organic food producers, but their struggle for shelf space could be your chance to cash in. cramer price checks two top names to find out which could satisfy your portfolio. all coming up on "mad money." don't miss a second of "mad money." follow @jimcramer on twitter. have a question? tweet cramer #madtweets. send jim an email to firstname.lastname@example.org or give us a call at 1-800-743-cnbc.
i just spent the whole top of the show telling you why we didn't panic over cyprus, right? we didn't do that. >> no! >> you know what i didn't do? i didn't tell you to buy the whole market, that's what. >> don't buy. don't buy. >> i'm sticking by my proposition that i can't join in the buying of most stocks up here, and we did pick some small for the charitable trust and we ended up being net sellers on the day because i don't like to buy into parabolic markets. that's why we lowered our exposure for the trust. while i'm not a chartist, each weekend i pore over these hand-delivered charts. i'm looking for anomalies, for opportunities. this comes from a career where i ignored the charts, but my partner on the trading desk, lived by them. she'll go through these things endlessly looking for breakouts and ooh, there's a breakdown, and then tell me to find out why. fundamentally, why could that stock be breaking out and why is that stock languishing and that would be after she ordered me to
get her one of the soft pretzels or paper plates and remember when you can still eat a lot an would pick out ten longs and ten shorts and so i can nail down a thesis and she would then go to work buying or shorting the stocks. she must have done something right because we compounded 24% annually after all fees while the s&p went 8% per year and it was worth some sword of methodology. those days are over and i still can't stay away from the charts and this weekend i didn't like what i saw. when karen and i worked together there would be moments where she would say holy cow, although she wouldn't use the term cow, there are almost no buyable charts at all. she would use a word that i only heard in eighth grade science class, the last science class i had, the chart has gone parabolic. did i ever claim to work at the jet propulsion lab? what it meant was that stocks had started to go up in pretty
much a very steep slope. this is a parabola. so steep that the angle is getting a little dangerous if you're all the way up here, right? here it's still pretty good and you get there and it's a nice place to plunge, right? and you got to wait so that time would pass and it wouldn't be such a steep parabola. she wasn't saying that we were going to crash at all. she wasn't saying the companies weren't any good. she was simply stating that it leaves little room for error particularly when you're in the straight-up portion of the parabola. it's plenty of them as this list of parabolic stocks that i wrote down shows. this is incredible. i know. i hadn't really had this many stocks in parabola motion and they've risen the highest and the hardest and the ones taking the cake are the insurers and the banks, some of the
transports. those insurers and bank stocks were strong for much of the day. i can see karen saying okay, what do all of those stocks have in common, jim, and what could be driving the insurers and the banks into this incredible parabola, and i know what the answer is and that's why i'm not that positive. the answer is higher interest rates. yeah. i think interest rates are going higher. that's what the stocks are telling me because these are all companies that do better when rates go up. the insurers for the investment portfolios that begin to generate a much better return, and they make the money from jacking up the premiums, and not only that, but a lot of the insurers have these horrid investments in their portfolios and at one time seeming insolvent that are now coming back to life and the banks, i've been saying it over and over again that the banks are the place to be because they'll begin the long war, particularly commercial real estate and they will make loans that will boost their earnings per share, and i also think that if i'm right that rates go higher and, well,
regardless of what the fed tries to do, the banks will make more on that spread between what they pay as depositor and the rates that they get to charge borrowers and the yield curve will get better. the transports are going higher because business will get better. we have them for the whole s&p 500 and what the s&p will earn in aggregate and that's a true sign of improvement. we're having terrific retail sales, and i think we'll find that it's accelerating the oil and gas business that's creating more jobs. quite simply our country is doing better than many think and that's what the charts are saying. the charts that looked most dangerous and the most toppy as karen would call them, finishing after finishing their parabolas coming down here. okay. they're the charts of the companies that do best in a recession. i'm trying to -- there we go. after you finish the parabola you kind of get a little
weakness right there and the charts of the colgates and the cloroxes and the kelloggs and the kimberly-clarks, they look like they finished the parabola. mcdonald's, pepsico, proctor, even j & j looks like they're finishing and the businesses look like they're getting stronger, because they will not have as good year over year comparisons as the banks, insurers or transports and plus these consumer product companies are doing better overseas and the euro is being killed against the dollar meaning that their translation of weak euros into strong dollars, that's going to hurt their business. foreign earnings will be horrendous and it's far worse than people are coming down. the numbers need to come down for the companies and i'm concerned if i see the strength in the economy and i see the stocks of companies that benefit from higher rates benefit than the ones getting hurt, then the
fed's got to see it, too, right? i think we've come a long way when the fed was clueless and ben bernanke knew nothing. here's the bottom line. the charts say higher rates are coming and they're coming faster than we realize because of a rising economy. that's not going to be slowed by cyprus in particular or europe or even china. that means you got to sell the consumer packaged goods and wait for a price break to buy the insurers like the metlife. sure, the charts can be wrong, but not every single one of them. stay with cramer. coming up, game time. cramer's got a new take on an old favorite family pastime. all this week, he's taking a look at companies with a stranglehold on their industries that may give their stocks a boost. tonight jim's checking out the friendly skies to find out if it's time to take off.
[singing] hoveround takes me where i wanna go... where will it send me... one call to hoveround and you'll be singing too! pick up the phone and call hoveround, the premier power chair. hoveround makes it easier than any other power chair. hoveround is more maneuverable to get you through the tightest doors and hallways. more reliable. hoveround employees build your chair, deliver your chair, and will service your chair for as long as you own your chair. most importantly, 9 out of 10 people got their hoveround for little or no cost.
call now for your free dvd and information kit. you don't really have to give up living, because you don't have your legs. hoveround replaced the legs. and now every hoveround comes with this handy tote bag and cup holder for access to your favorite items. and right now, get this limited edition hoveround america travel mug free with your hoveround delivery. [singing] hoveround takes me where i wanna go. call or log on to hoveround.com to find out where a hoveround can take you!
believe it or not, you want to educate yourself about business you can learn a heck of a lot from monopoly, the fabulous board game that i used to win at almost all of the time as a kid mostly because my family didn't want to deal with me being a sore loser. confidentially, i did like to turn the board over and stomp out of the room in tears if i lost! >> wow! >> so i don't blame them for letting me win. you remember how monopoly works, right? when someone lands on the space they owe you 25 smackers monopoly money, but -- oh, it's chinese money. it's probably worth a fortune, but if you own all four railroads and if you have a monopoly on the rail business in this imaginary world, and another player lands on them, then you have to pay the guy $200. that's a fortune, right? that's a fortune. what the heck does this have to do with the real world or the real stock market? simple.
it teaches us that as companies have more market share and less competition they can make their customers pay them a heck of a lot more money like the railroads. a monopoly is a wonderful business model. in reality they're either illegal or heavily regulated by the government, but there's something close to a monopoly, something similar that allows companies to jack up prices just like you can force people to pay more when you have all four railroads on the monopoly board. it's called oligopoly, where a handful of companies control an entire industry. it's a concept we'll be talking about all week here on "mad money" because the oligopoly business model is so fantastic that we'll develop an oligopoly series. when you have a nice, stable slap-happy oligopoly with three or four companies with high barriers to entry or competitors simply afraid to jump in the space that makes for some terrific performing stocks.
so what's the first industry in our board game of oligopoly? i you to understand just how powerful this is, which is why tonight we'll start with an emerging oligopoly, a business that was so downright horrible because it was wracked by ruinous competition. i'm talking about, of course -- ♪ >> the airlines! >> i went positive on the airlines for the first time since the 1980s because this sector is becoming a beautiful oligopoly. in the old days most airline stocks were literally uninvestable and it was not a viable industry. there was way too much competition and it forced the airlines to charge consumers less money to the point where the profits were anathema to the group. a whole lifetime and the airlines had no profits whatsoever. bankruptcies were business as usual. hey, listen, let's face it. competition is great for consumers, man, but is it terrible for business and for businesses and shareholders. i used to joke that the companies had no right to be public and no more than the red cross, united way and the sierra
club and they made the tremendous support in congress. the airline industry has been transformed into something that is actually worth betting on, thanks to the power of oligopoly! since 2005 we've seen a host of airlines either disappear, there have been more than a dozen bankruptcies got swallowed up by others. in 2011 southwest swallowed up airtran and just last month we learned that u.s. airways is merging with amr, the parent of american airlines, hence why i told you to buy u.s. airways on march 5th for a 17% gain in two weeks and nearly 2% today. i believe it will be given the justice department seal of approval, well, they approved all of these other transactions you will have three big players dominating the whole industry, to include the next biggest airline, southwest and the top four players will control 80% of passenger revenues by volume. that's the very definition of an
oligopoly. you land on it and you'll pay an awful lot of money. they have much higher barriers to entry than they did nine or ten years ago and they'll make it far more difficult to borrow money. boeing and airbus, the two big makers of commercial aircraft. see the indonesian deal that went to airbus? they can't build them fast enough and even the currently grounded dreamliner, and unlike the old days when they would overproduce aircraft. that makes it harder for a new guy to undercut the existing players and the prices like jetblue did in 1998. there hasn't been a meaningful u.s. airline start-up in years. even without the pending merger of amr and us airways, it's done an enormous amount of good. delta said the march quarter will be profitable and something you rarely see because the first quarter of the year is the hardest of the airlines. the last time they had a profitable march quarter was 2000 and back then jet fuel cost 62 cents a gallon and it was radically more expensive and 3 1/4 a gallon and that's a $2 headwind for delta and they're still going to be able to make
some money this quarter. not bad. all of this consolidation has a lot of airlines like delta to layoff thousands of employees and take out excess capacity by reducing the number of hub airports while also raising airfares and charging customers additional fees. if you want to understand the power of the new airline, oligopoly, you know what you've got to do. you've got to listen to the critics, the american antitrust institute in the business travel coalition came out with a report last year that talked about, and i quote, troubling metamorphosis of the industry from one in which hub airports were designed to accommodate multiple competing airlines to a few large closed systems that are virtually impermeable to the competition. wow! impermeable to the competition, could there be a better endorsement for the big airline stocks? after the delta, northwest and
united continental mergers, those airlines had larger than average airfare increases. competition decreased markedly. okay. not so good if you want to fly, but holy cow, is that fabulisimo if you own airline stocks! ♪ hallelujah >> if you own delta, united or continental that's super good news. the same thing will happen after us airways merge with amr. we came out after the u.s. airways and amr deal it was titled and i quote, service cuts may follow merger of airlines, end quote. the times quoted a transportation economist who said, quote, it's much easier to have tacit collusion, tacit collusion, emphasis me, with just three airlines, end quote. how many other slap happy
industries do you know where companies can tacitly collude to raise prices without going to some hotel room to get the job done properly. what's the best way to play airline oligopoly besides getting the board game? you know why i like u.s. airways to play with amr as amr is currently in bankruptcy. delta is in excellent shape. they only have one deal with one unionized work group, the pilots which they have a decent relationship with so i'm not worried. united continental also works and we're seeing synergy and the corporate focus makes it a good bet where the environment is growing. if you had to own an airline it should be alaska air because there's no more competition and it looks more and more like alaska air it has a beautiful balance sheet and beautiful growth prospects and they have decent fuel hedges and plus, they're still working through the benefits of the airtran composition and just last week we heard from the ceo of spirit airlines right here, that's the best-run low-cost player in the sector with terrific growth.
remember, the ceo of save -- yeah, the cool symbol -- despite his low-cost structure, he's not competing with the majors. he's adopted what i call a wee willie keeler hit them where they ain't strategy. just google it. here's the bottom line, in the real world, we might not be able to invest in genuine unfettered, gorgeous monopolies like the rails, but oligopoly is the next best thing, and the airline business is the newest oligopoly out there. i like the three big boys the best, delta, united continental and especially u.s. airways, although up here we can wait for the pullback before we pull the trigger. do not pass go and do not collect $200 until you own an airline. tim in florida, please. tim? >> boo-yah, mr. cramer. >> boo-yah, tim. >> i have fedex and ups, i believe fedex will be reporting on wednesday. i was wondering your take as far as dumping more money in both of
them even as u.s. postal service is going to do away with their saturday delivery. >> tell me something i don't know. everybody in the world knows that. that's like a well known thing so you have no real edge there. my charitable trust owns ups. i don't like to own a stock that will report that has had a huge run-up, so let's keep your bat on your shoulder and maybe better prices await. i want to go to jerry in new hampshire. jerry? >> hey, jim. i bought it at $34 a share and a juicy 4% dividend. thank you, jim. >> you're welcome. >> i'm retired so i like eaton's 4% dividend yield. when i bought it in october 2011. do i hold eaton at the current 2.7% dividend yield or do i sell eaton and ring the register? >> i think about this constantly because my charitable trust owns it.
when i call it ahy, an accidentally high yield and that's from matt who writes the show. here's the problem. i think eaton is a great stock, but i am never going to tell someone, no one got hurt taking a profit. sell half and let the rest run. all week we are celebrating the goodness of oligopolies. yes! the less competition the airlines make it a better place to invest. delta, united continental and best of breed u.s. airways. i've got to tell you, don't pass go just yet. maybe wait for a little pullback! stay with cramer. jim cramer, you're one of my heros. >> i look forward to your show every week night. >> thank you so much for helping beginning investors like me. >> when you talk about the markets, i just believe that you're spot on. >> oh i love it. thank you so much, every night we watch you. i have learned and earned!
it is time -- it is time for the lightning round on cramer's "mad money,". play until we hear this sound and then lightning round is over. >> we'll start with andrew in new york. andrew! >> hi, this is andrew. how are you? >> how are you, buddy? >> i need to get some boo-yah. >> boo-yah. >> web md. wbmd. >> expensive and it doesn't make a lot of money there. it is up huge. no, we're going to say ka-ching, ka-ching! let's go to van in washington. van? >> hi, boo-yah, mr. cramer, this is van from washington. >> how are you doing? >> good. thank you for taking my call. our stock is westport innovations. >> yeah. we had the company on. the stock has just run. i am neutral on the stock and i'll tell you why i'm neutral.
in the end i'm worried about the speculation in the market and let's wait for it to come down before we pull the trigger. let's go to joey in pennsylvania. >> cramer, i have 14 days until phillies baseball b-b-boo-yah. >> i got cliff lee and doc can throw faster than 90 miles an hour boo-yah. what's up? which stock? >> itg. >> it's okay. that's okay. that's all right, that stock. >> buy, buy, buy! >> i like that business, it's doing well. let's go to rick in west virginia. rick? >> yeah, jimmy. first, i want to give you a big mountain state yee haw. >> i'll give you a geno boo yah. >> who knows? anybody could. all right. listen, i have a question on j&j. i'm really kind of concerned about some class action suits. it looks like they're coming
down the pike and the hip replacements and i don't know, buy, sell, hold. >> let's look at it like this. i think that j & j is a fabulous company with a new ceo and they're putting the past behind them. the company made a lot of mistakes. i am hoping that this stock actually comes down after the fed speaks because i want to pull the trigger. it's too high right now, but i think your worries will be overblown, as bad as it does look, and it does look bad. let's go to antonio in virginia. antonio? >> yes. >> go ahead, antonio. >> hey, jim, i love the show. >> thank you. >> i just want to know how do you feel about angie's list? is it a buy? >> i'm looking at ebay coming down and i'm not liking yelp and i can't get any pin action. i'm not a buyer of angie's. i'm not a buyer of annie's or angies. john in pennsylvania. >> calgon carbon. >> always a bridesmaid, and never a bride. it makes a certain kind of chemical. you know what? i think this stock has always been inexpensive and i don't want to own the stock. let's go to charlie in new jersey.
charlie? >> how's it going, jim? >> what's up? >> i'm looking at intc, intel. >> i like intel. it's got a 4% yield. i know people think the capital costs will go way up and i think the second half will be stronger for intel than people realize and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of the lightning round. >> the lightning round is sponsored by td ameritrade. coming up, food fight. your local supermarket has turned into a battleground for organic food producers, but their struggle for shelf space could be your chance to cash in. cramer price checks the two top names to find out which could satisfy your portfolio. me where i wanna go... where will it send me... one call to hoveround and you'll be singing too! pick up the phone and call hoveround, the premier power chair.
hoveround makes it easier than any other power chair. hoveround is more maneuverable to get you through the tightest doors and hallways. more reliable. hoveround employees build your chair, deliver your chair, and will service your chair for as long as you own your chair. most importantly, 9 out of 10 people got their hoveround for little or no cost. call now for your free dvd and information kit. you don't really have to give up living, because you don't have your legs. hoveround replaced the legs. and now every hoveround comes with this handy tote bag and cup holder for access to your favorite items. and right now, get this limited edition hoveround america travel mug free with your hoveround delivery. [singing] hoveround takes me where i wanna go. call or log on to hoveround.com to find out where a hoveround can take you!
desperate to eat healthy. you give them good-tasting food that is also good for you and they will pay up for it. as much as i like the theme, there's no denying that the two main organic food companies i follow, hains celestial and annie's have stumbled badly of late, but you know what? in this market, we like stocks that have stumbled. at a moment when so many stocks are at or near the 52-week highs i like the fact that hain and annie's are many points off their highs, and given that you're all so busy filling out your brackets, we should do bracketology now. first round style and match hain celestial versus annie's. what's behind some of these recent sell-offs? let's take annie's first. back on january 22nd annie's had to recall its frozen pizzas due to the possible presence of flexible metal mesh in its food caused by a faulty screen at a third-party flour mill. metal mesh.
not a topping on one of my pizza, double cheese pizza with the works, but not the metal works? no metal was actually found in annie's products, though. anyway, the stock got hit and it fell 10.6% on the day and while shares rebounded of late at 39 bucks, they're still nine points off their highs and there's hain celestial, and they got hit by a scathing report. they found two high levels of pesticides and carcinogens in hain's teas and the company received two prior letters for quality control in the tea busines. and they called the organic growth into question, and the acquisitions. the report slammed the ceo for selling the stock at what it claims were questionable moments over the last 21 months. oh, man, hain stock fell 4.7% on the news and it's almost completely recovered because j.p. morgan came out with research as refuting the bears' report as being bogus. i'm with j.p. morgan on this.
last time they inspected hain's facilities they found zero problems. the organic sales growth came in 11.2%, much higher than the negative reports and he's simply been exercising his stock options at almost the last possible month before they expire and frankly, that's a very common practice. the truth is as i see it is that both hain and annie's are good companies, but only one of them is worth owning right here. since the beginning of the year, annie's has run up while hain has lagged just 5% and it's all grown and at the moment the laggard is the one to buy and hain is superior to annie and some of this is pure valuation and annie sells for the 39 times next year's earnings and it has the 22% growth rate. even the most bullish growth oriented hedge funds won't pay more than twice the company's growth rate which in annie's
case will be 44 times earnings and that's a wee little bit from where it's trading right now. compare that to hain. hain looks like an absurd bargain and they have a 17% long-term growth rate and the price to earnings multiple is half the size of annie's with the stock selling for less than 20 times earnings and we're investing in the underlying companies future earnings and you're simply getting a much better bargain here and it's not just about valuation. hain is the larger player and it's more diversified and it benefits from the scale. the company totally dominates the natural organic food aisle and not just in places like whole foods and united natural. hain is dramatically expanding to new retailers domestically and new countries abroad. the company gets half of that from the uk where hain is growing rapidly and it's moving aggressively into canada and europe and hain is taking over conventional grocery stores and
as well as big box stores like target, walmart, costco and sam's club. they're all doing well, and that's a very big reason why whole foods has been under pressure just so you know lately. here's the bottom line. if you're looking for the best health food play right now, i think hain celestial is the way to go with a stock off its highs yet much cheaper than annie's. the group is in a funk and i don't expect a big turnaround and i do expect them to come out of it without problems and annie's, i think it's time to head back to school. "mad money" is right back.
what's cheap versus what's expensive? today goldman sachs downgraded kimberly-clark, the maker of kleenex, a company that i've liked since 1985 when i first started using it as they say in the biz with my clients at goldman. i found the downgrade painful, but unlike the last time goldman sachs downgraded it, this time they're probably right. kimberly-clark and heinz were two of my favorite stocks to recommend when i started, because they came of age during a period when the japanese were ascending and we feared them everywhere we looked except in the kitchen and in the bathroom. we could not envision a scenario where heinz would be replaced by mitsubishi ketchup and kleenex would be trumped by sumitomo tissues. the two omnipotent conglomerates that strode the world with majesty and power. heinz and kimberly were safe havens and heinz stayed dominant
right until the end and the end being warren buffett's take on the company, and he's always loved iconic brands and few are as iconic as heinz. one of them is kleenex which, of course, is a name that called people -- that people call all tissues including the ones i now buy from costco, it seems every bit as good as the kimberly-clark version, much cheaper. it's xerox. i liked kimberly-clark as more than just a superior product. the social contract that i like so much with an aggressive buyback and know ever-increasing dividend. say that the company can't afford to enforce the contract, i regard the stocks with 445 million shares to 493 million shares in just a few years' time to be asign of a meaningful buyback, not a phony one that does nothing except make up for options granted to the management. the 81-cent dividend is nothing to sneeze at, but in the end as great as kimberly-clark is the
company grows at 7%, but selling for 17 times earnings. i don't like recommending stocks with a price-to-earnings ratio at more than price the earnings growth rate. the stock has moved up so much that it yields only 3.5%. hey, that's a nice thing now, but it's not what i would call floor by any means now. except versus others in the cohort, and certainly not much if rates do go up and that's why i share goldman's sentiment that it's time to part ways with the terrific stock, right now like kimberly-clark and they don't move lower and a better entry point awaits and i can't recall another time when it was this expensive and i can't buy the darn thing anymore. i spent time analyzing what my charitable trust did right and wrong. one of my mistakes was to pay too much for companies that were slow and that's what goldman sachs says is possible. thus, even kleenex at a certain price is too expensive and as i dab my eyes, i say so long for now to this long-standing recommendation. and please, kimberly, don't get a takeover bid without me.