happened whenyin 2008 and 2009 when selling began fore selling which took stocks down to absurdly cheap levels back in the generational low in march of 2009. the reverse happened in 2012 when those who bet against european stocks, almost all stocks, particularly the financials, had their heads handed to them when the european

central bank put its foot down on the short-sellers necks and re-inflated stock prices by backstopping financial institutions and lending money all over the place. the bank stocks soared. it didn't matter whether they were solvent or insolvent, they all flew up together. i know you have never shorted a stock. but in the investing world dominated by hedge funds, most which have to make bets against whole stocks and whole markets every day, their influence must be taken into account when we figure out how a stock is different from the company underneath. when lots of shorts pile into a stock and get hit with unexpected good news from the company, you can get what is known as a short squeeze, that propels the stock to the absurd heights that short sellers have to buy in order to admit defeat and cause up their positions. a lot of people feel that's what happened to tesla. okay. the elon musk company. remember, the market is a market which means it is dominated by supply and demand. so when there is not enough supply of a given stock or kind of stock to satisfy that demand,

you could see a stock rise beyond what you'd expect based on the fundamentals of the companies. when there is too much supply relative to demand, then shares get hammered well beyond you might have thought they could go. we saw a lot of this with the super hot areas like the chinese internet ipos in 2010/2011. at first these deals were staggering to give you this incredible performance. everyone got so excited. they wanted nothing but china. but the gains became smaller and smaller and smaller as we got more chinese.coms coming public. ultimately, they flooded the market with their supply. the same thing happened at the end of our dot-com boom at the turn of the century. and the deluge of social media in 2011 and 2012 we saw it again. no chinese deal was worth participating. supply was way too heavy and demand way too heavy. the ipos reached their lowest level in 2012, only two deals completed, an 83% decline from 2011.

95% decline from 2010. yes, in the end, the buyers are the social media out of the shoot and the groupons and the zingas. they were crushed by insider bailing seemingly at any price imaginable. super hot stocks became super cold ones simply because the public was first fascinated and then turned on them with a vengeance that i haven't seen since 2001. of course the fundamentals were never any good to begin with, but boy did they have buzz. so the bottom line, recognize that what's happening with your stocks doesn't always necessarily reflect what's going on with the underlying business and use that fact to your advantage. don't get freaked out about it. when a company in terrific shape sees its stocks smashed, that could be an amazing buy opportunity. just remember that it can sometimes take a long time for the action in the stock to sync up with the performance of the company it represents a tiny piece of.

that way you won't be frustrated with what you thought should happen immediately after you heard fabulous news. instead, you can wait until the market gets smart and rewards your stock with the move it deserves. let's go to dave in virginia, please. dave. >> caller: yes, how are you today, jim? >> i'm real good. how about you? >> caller: i'm doing real well. i have a question for you about after-market trading. i was curious what exactly is it? who gets to participate in it? what are the ups and downs of it? >> anyone can participate. if you have a broker that allows you to buy and sell, the market doesn't close anymore at 4. there's bids and there is offers. i don't like it because it's unregulated so to speak. there is not a lot of depth to the market. you could end up buying something too high and selling it too low. i don't encourage it. i encourage homework, no snap judgments. stay away. jay in texas. jay! >> caller: boo-yah, jim, from south texas. >> how are you? >> caller: just fine, thank you. the question i have for you, jim, is if there's distribution

in a stock throughout the day, meaning more sellers than buyers, how is it that many times the stock can defy gravity and close up for the day? >> well, i mean, the sellers do sometimes complete and while the sellers are selling, buyers are lining -- buyers get lined up by brokers who say i have a big seller, i have a big seller. so what happens the stock goes down and then when the final piece trades, all these buyers converge and they end up overwhelming that last piece and the stock goes higher. that's what happens time and time again. look, sometimes the stock's performance doesn't match the company's underlying business. i know that can shock you. and it can take a while for the two to sync up. if you get a bargain, be patient, wait, your rewards will beckon. "mad money" will be right back. don't miss a second of "mad money." follow @jimcramer on twitter. have a question?

tweet cramer at #madtweets. send him an e-mail at cnbc.com or give us a call at 1-800-743-cnbc. madmoney.cnbc.com.

they purport to represent. i know this confuses you mightily. i read your e-mail. i see it, jim cramer on twitter. i know this bothers you immensely. i talked about the need to get familiar with how stocks trade. you need to learn more about the traders who drive stocks in different directions. they need to watch short-term moves and stock prices. take advantage, rather than pretending like so many pundits do that the short term gyrations are beneath their notice and they will somehow pollute your gains. may we never be so self important or arrogant around here as the entry and exit

points don't matter. they control the ability to outperform the market. they control how much money we make. they affect our profit margins. we care more about the prices at the supermarket sometimes than we do about the price of stocks we buy. that's plain wrong. so how do we square the idea when you buy a stock its prices the become unglued from the fundamentals of the company. how do you balance that? my insistence is you do your homework, read quarterly conference calls, transcripts, quarterly filings, myriads of pieces now readily available on the web to keep current with the companies. stock price you think are going to bounce around anyway. if they're often at the mercy of macrofactors, etfs, the companies can't control. does that sound familiar? or stocks held hostage by big institutions like hedge funds that trade them, why am i giving you this focus on learning? learning as much as you can about the underlying company? why? the homework is onerous and the least interesting in the process, the fundamentals matter a whole lot. the reason we focus on the

fundamentals is just about anyone can understand can do it. the information is readily available. you may think the homework is tedious and boring, it is easy compared to predicting so much of what's out there that simply is unknowable. this stuff is available. it wasn't when i got in the business. investors are looking for a leg up, an edge, over everybody else. that will never change. not all advantages are on the same scale. by following my homework regimen, you should have an edge over the people that trade the stocks you follow. how on earth is that possible? your homework involves looking at publicly available information. anyone can check it out. according to some economists and armchair investors, the very fact that the information is out there means it should already be baked in, that's the term, baked into the stock. meaning the share price should reflect what you know from your research. we know that's not how the market really works. lots of people are real lazy. lots of money managers are

technicians, they are just looking at the charts to dismiss the fundamentals. if you keep up with this information, you will know more about a stock than most of the professionals do, although they will never admit that. and if that's not an edge, i don't know what is. homework is about taking control of your own financial destiny, eliminating as much emotion as possible. i know i'll get results, not any results, but the very factual, very objective kind. it doesn't fall prey to fears of fiscal cliff, a sequester to your stock worries, or a federal reserve minutes. it don't mean a thing to your position. maybe the homework won't always give you that much of an edge. won't give you enough information to tell you which direction the stock will ultimately head. maybe it won't protect you from the whims of children in washington, d.c. who play with the economy willie nilly. but learning about companies isn't an all or nothing proposition.

i don't think familiarizing yourself with a company should ever be dismissed as less than useful just because it doesn't immediately translate into immediate profit and remember, ultimately, as i said at the top of this special show, stocks do tend to drift back into line with where they deserve. they do sink, ultimately. given how the underlying companies are doing. in addition to knowing pertinent things about a business, you can assume that your stock will probably end up within a certain price range, but you got to wait long enough. you got to let it percolate. on top of that, as long as you keep up with the homework, you have a good, clean way to decide whether or not to cut your losses in a stock that isn't working. and that's an incredibly valuable tool. especially when you claw your way back if your stock went down because of a typical mark market sell-off. you need to know enough whether you should be a buyer, you need to know whether opportunity's really knocking or is your head about to be knocked to the canvass. on the other hand, it will give you the conviction to stay in a good stock that's been hammered

by the market for the wrong reasons. either way, you always know why you are buying or selling something. you won't be beholden to anyone but yourself when it comes to your investment decisions. you can think over time how many stocks have dropped, not just because of a quick decline and you wish you had bought them, but you didn't know the fundamentals so you couldn't. the better you are at avoiding stocks in a risk/reward changing from good to bad or bad to good, the courtesy of the homework, you will be able make more calculated, intelligent risks, be more aggressive with your risks. they are of paramount importance when it comes to investing in stocks. the tension between needing to protect your capital and risking that capital in order to make money. even though these skills are handy, they aren't what most people call compelling. they may not give you the total picture you need to get where you want to go. as for the boredom factor, let my take care of that. i spent years trying to make investing more accessible, more

interesting, more intriguing if not entertaining. no sin given that so many focus on scaring you out of your shoes. i think i have shown i will do anything to keep investors engaged with their money, especially on this show. i have come out on the set and filmed while wearing a hazmat suit. not to compare hazmat to hasboro or mattel. i have taken a nap on a cozy bed at cheerio, explaining the virtues of general mills, driven on to set by a lawn mower to intrigue you to look into john deere. i can't put a figure on the expensive gizmos i've wrecked. i've tried to catch an airplane to show you the insides of a brand new boeing, and, yes, i chipped my tooth telling you not to touch krispy kreme with a ten-foot pole. i ate dog food. i am not concerned too many of you skipped the homework because you lacked the proper motivation, interest, or enthusiasm.

i will make the stock interesting to you. we have ways of making you motivated. the bottom line is, it is important for you to know why you are doing all this work. what the point is. it's a way for you to build conviction in your stocks. it's a way to get an edge, one that's totally legal, even in the most volatile or calm of markets. in the era where so many panic at the sight of the president coming on the podium or the speaker of the house giving a press conference, you need to know that it might be a buying opportunity and not just a selling one like the panickers all around you. i need to go to tom in florida. tom. >> caller: hey, jim, a big boo-yah to you. hey, jim, in january, i invested deep in the honey when the stock was at 43. the stock still seems to be going strong and i'm up 104%. should i close out or hold on? >> what you do is sell common stock against it in a spread up top.

in other words, tomorrow you sell a quarter position in common stock and keep selling on the way up. then if the stock takes a sudden downdraft, you buy the stock back and you continue to play with the call. that's how i like to use that strategy. okay, i need you to stop panicking. or if there isn't panic, i need you to take advantage of it. the only way to do that is to do the homework. the conviction gives you an edge. after the break, i'll try to make you more money.

[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! i want to tell you about a tool that can help you make money quickly but also carries a certain amount of risk and can be trouble if you don't know what you're doing. investing in initial public offerings, ipos. it's impossible to ignore the ipo opportunity that is

presented themselves in the last couple years, including the deals. many have gone to a premium and are red hot from the moment they are born and others that fizzle from the opening bell. these are led n particular, by technology and social media names. which have been led with exceptional hype and not enough. hype doesn't begin to surround the buzz. maybe hyper-hype for a company that does, indeed, have excellent long-term prospects. sure, ipos are sexy. they are talked about endlessly. you are hardly told what to do with them. i will teach you the basics. when you know how to tell the difference about an about to be public company that will soar and one that could quick go down in flames, let's say you will have the potential to rake in some serious profits. the lure of ipos is when you nail it, when you get in on the right one, you can have gains of 20, 30, even 100% in a day, in a few minute's time. the instantaneous nature of

these profits make it incredibly attractive, but they can cause you to invest in initial public offerings that end up stinking up the room. as helpful as the profits can be, don't let the brokers trick you into believing buying every ipo is a way to make money and the real challenge is to make sure your broker can fenagle you some shares, wrong, wrong, wrong. the investment banks will always try to slip in clunkers after they've molded you into thinking all the deals work. partially because the new public offerings tends to be all over the map, partially because there simply isn't that much available beyond that prospectus that most people don't read. it's a question of luck. and that is also wrong. i think you can accurately figure out which ipos you can write off as uninvestable and which ones deserve to be bought. buy, buy, buy!

you can separate the ipo wheat from the chaffe. it isn't about luck. it's about analysis. the kind of homework professional money managers do all the time and i advocate endlessly and tirelessly on the show. i know the pros have it right because every day i would analyze stocks the exact same way in my old hedge fund and that's still how i do it. i made a boat load of money for myself and my clients at my old hedge fund by investing in ipos. i want you to know exactly how i did it so you can do it yourself. here's inside information you need to know about ipos. i think the investment banks have their own agenda, one i believe is often as much about bringing regular people, retail investors like you back into the game as it is about helping their clients raise money in the equity markets. one of the things i learned on walmart hocking stocks and buying bonds at goldman sachs and managing money for myself and for the rich people in my hedge fund is when the market turns south, when it becomes really difficult to make money and people start to sell, sell, sell, you know, sell all the stocks together? what do those brokers like to do? they like to throw investors

easy wins, lay-up ipos that are intentionally underpriced so they will pop when the shares start trading. why do i think they will short change their investment banking clients? it's just as important to their brokers, the other clients, the ones who may pay commissions when they trade stocks keep interested in the market. and from most investors they gain from a sweet underpriced ipo or often are offering a great reason to feel good about being in the stock market about owning these stocks, about buying stocks. when times are tough, the brokers want to entice you back into the stockmarket. hey, that makes a lot of sense, right? they got to figure out ways, their business depends on you buying and the investors selling. by the way, the companies don't mind this, as long as too much stock isn't given away. for the anatomy of ipos, i need you to looked a linkedin and

groupon that rose 109% and 39% in the first day of trading. there is also no doubt that the issue was the artificial way they were priced. putting out very little stock, a sliver. knowing that it would cause a big pop and creating a bubble all by itself. the brokers knew these stocks would be hot because of the evaluations through social media and hype through the group. they knew if they offered a limited number of shares and set the pricing below the hyped valuation levels, demand would overwhelm supply. even those these were well-known companies, the brokers tightly controlled the supply, partially to accounts they believe would not put the stock and gave out to the large mutual funds that they'd be able to start, but not finish their outside positions. that way the mutual funds appetites would be whetted. they would come into the secondary market, they would bid linkedin up and get the rest of the positions in, that's why linkedin kept soaring. never forget the trick to a successful ipo is this rationing process. the syndicate desks, they're the ones who allocate the stock to

the potential stockholders. they know how much the big funds, mutual funds, ultimately need to be able have enough linked in to impact their own performance. so what the syndicate does is they give them a percentage. sometimes a third, half of what they need to own. what is half of a full position that forces the client's hands to finish in the open market. of course, they could flip the positions themselves, but brokers have ways to monitor who takes that quick money. they may not be allowed to get big allocations the next time around. you benefit, though the syndicate desks save some stock as the brokers know the retail investors are likely to hold on to stock and not play that flipper game. i am actually indifferent to whether you do either. my goal, is try to help you make money. the one thing i don't think you should do ever is go into the aftermarket, that's okay, listen to me. i don't want you to go into the after market meaning i don't want you to buy the ipo on the after market after trading. particularly at inflated valuation levels, if you don't

get in on the deal. just forget about it. okay? i got staggering statistics that show you you are almost always a sure loser if you buy a hot stock after trades with only a couple stocks allowing you to make money after several months, and most gigantic losers that can destroy your nestegg. sure, linkedin, a total winner. groupon still remains in the doghouse as so many of the shooting stars now of the bygone era. the odds favor losing not making money in after-market investing in ipos. trust me in that, i've done the work. remember you don't need to buy a lot of stock well above the offering price in order to be assured you have enough shares. you can pick and choose provided you do enough business in the after service program. in the after market, wait until you get a reasonable industry price and performance details before coming in, okay? like with facebook in the fall of 2012. when everyone feared there would be a ton of insider selling, when the company got religious about going global. that was the time to buy, not sell.

as the weakest hands were gone, people jumped in to do buying. here's the bottom line, ipos can be a great way to make money. if you are not in the know, it can be a treacherous path. remember the big guys do not necessarily have you the home gamer in mind. so beware and trust me, never, ever buy in the after market. for every one winner, there are ten losers. don't be a sucker. stay with cramer.

dealing with ipos can be difficult and dangerous because the prospect of instant gains is so enticing the euphoria can cloud your better judgment. as everyone who got in the aborted facebook deal knows all too well. that's why you need a consistent method to make sure you don't get torn to pieces by something you don't understand, a deal you can't fathom or make heads or

tails of. so here's your primer on an analyzing smoking hot deals and ice cold deals, the safer and the dangerous. the first and most important thing i look for with an ipo isn't what the company does, believe it or not. it's the company's pedigree, yes, the blood lines. i care about who the executives are, who the investors are, but most important, who the brokers doing the deals are. the first cohort the managers, can often be a relatively unknown group of people. strangely, it's the least important part of the pedigree, education. here's why, it's very interesting. many of the best deals represent technology companies, including social media. those companies revolve around an invention much more than a management team. if you looked at google's management team, for example, you would have avoided this ipo like the plague. think about it. who the heck are larry paige and sirgay brint? they were a couple 20-something wild men. that's not particularly

encouraging, is it? those relatively new kids on the block have proven themselves as new young innovators as they will do, too. do you know anything other than mark zuckerberg other than he wore a hoodie and was with two other tall guys? my second check works are the investors? it's more of a negative check, a disqualifier, if you will, than a positive one. i'm concerned about you getting caught up in another investment. one funded by private equity companies simply anxious to cash in on a better market. private equity companies, they have bought dozens of companies the last few years. in many cases, they paid far too much for them. they badly need to offload them into the open market to get them off the books. some of them will barely be profitable, others will simply be stinkers that the brokers will hope to entice you to pick up. the way i see it, the private equity ipos almost as a rule are difficult to judge.

i'm not being that pejorative. some will work. but they're difficult. this brings up another aspect, recognize that just because a company can be publicly traded, that doesn't mean it can't be a piece of junk. there are plenty of companies that will translate into a sham. some of the smaller social media names fit this category. the regulators don't have a mandate to judge the quality of the business ipos. they just make companies disclose as many facts and financials as possible so you can judge yourself, at home. the brokers, at least when dealing with private equity firms, they got a conflict there. they do so much business with these outfits that they're hard to say no to. the brokerage houses get immense amount of money when they take a company private and more fees when they spun off as a public entity again, large fees associated with the ipo. remember, that i buy back a lot of debt and refinance like you do at home. i think that's why the investment bankers bend over favor to favor the private

equity firm rather than the brokerage clients who are buying them. if you see the private investors are becoming public, let's call it a yellow flag. it would be a red flag if there has been a lot of bad deals. third, i look at the brokerage houses bringing the deal. now this is really important. i want them to be major firms. yes, you may not like them. along the line of goldman sachs and j.p. morgan, why does this matter? these firms have their reputations on the line with that view. that makes them less willing to bring up a clunker in public just for the fees. once you've cleared the private equity hurdle, you can write it as a fairly good seal of approval for the enterprise. don't be all that jaded, people. i know many are and it's wrong. why do i think this? let me tell you a story. in the 1980s, as a young broker, at the goldman sachs, i had personally helped brooke with the finances of the people behind a young company start up

really by some brilliant inventors out of m.i.t. it's called thinking machines. this company's claim to fame was it had the faster computer in the land. one capable of calculating data faster than any other machine. i remember dow jones used it. it was so good for their back office and stuff. i had done so much work with the principals, that when they decided to bring the company public, i was able to convince them to use goldman sachs as their deal manager, it was a big plum. there is only one problem. i couldn't convince goldman sachs to put its name on the deal, despite the immense fees that the ipo brings to a firm. the analysts at the time who followed the company for goldman sachs, he poured over the financials, he looked at the product and he made a judgment. he made a judgment that the company while having short-term momentum, most definitely, would not have any staying power. that was a gas. oh, man, i was looking at a big pay day. i stood to make a big six-figure ticket for bringing the deal to

goldman sachs. this analyst, though, he simply wouldn't budge, reminding me that this was the goldman sachs, not some schlop firm that put its name on any company just because it was hot. sure enough we passed. in a couple years, the company failed. a victim of better technology and poor financial management. >> the house of pain! >> so take it from me, that's why the broker's pedigree matters and i would pass on deals you never heard of or have little or unsuccessful track records. avoiding the smaller ones helps you to weed out the failures. in the heyday of the social media, every firm good and bad got caught up. so there are never assurances in the overheated market, but checking the deal remains integral to a good ipo. look, nothing is perfect. that's why i have a checklist. hopefully, one of these will flag you.

here's the bottom line. only going through that three-step betting process would i consider what the company does. imagine or the mix, how it has done in the past. in part, because it is so difficult to judge these issues. i would rather use the quick filter i went through before i crack the books on a company. something i'll teach you to do after the break.

[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!

ah, we've reached the final step. how to analyze the actual company coming public. here you have to assess what the company makes. you have to ask if it's profitable. most important, if you are thinking of hanging onto the stock after the deal, you need to know how big its end markets are. that's so crucial. this isn't that different from analyzing other stock except you have less information to go on. most of the information comes from the prospectus. under armor of crocks, it can be difficult to figure out what the company makes if it involves a sophisticated product, especially with technology. these technology companies like those ones checked to broadband or optimization or networking, semi conductor minimization, no

wonder why warren buffet said, don't go there. if a company coming public makes a consumer product. first you have to ask yourself, is it a product you like? this isn't the only question but it does matter. take it back to a thing called heelies, a shoe with wheels. that was a fad. as a parent i absolutely despised it. i predicted it would jump when it gained public. it had a lot of buzz. the craze would soon pass. then it would be a long decline that took it to as low as a dollar and change a few years later. on the other hand, when the company has a good product, one you like, one that is profitable and many ipos aren't and have solid financials, then you can catch the gains from the first day, the initial public pop, and then from an extended run afterwards. that's what happened with the under armor u.a. ipo. on the first day it popped, 12-25, i urged people to hang on. you have to take something off

the table. remember it's doubled. even at that higher price, under armour was valued the same as nike. even though it had a much higher growth rate. that's a classic example of stock market mispricing that worked to your advantage. once in a while you get a price blessed ipo, lots of room to run and a great brokerage house sponsor. a yoga based apparel company that goldman sachs bought at $18 in 2007. the stocks continued to grow because of the gigantic addressable market that was initially just women that performed yoga. now it extended to all women and athletes. not just women athletes and some men, too. some of the best ones from 2012 are organic food maker anny's. bnny. five below. an internet software guidewire. gwre. they all fit the three-prong

test. in all these cases, the trick is to recognize the size of the market, the power of the competitors and try to figure out how the company coming public is valuable to similar players. deals like under armour and lulu lemon, which are priced at significant factors belotulelei the growth rate are significant ones. they tend to be the good ones but they are rare, indeed. bottom line, to an looiz an ipo, including the obtrusive tech following product companies, look at the competitors to see whether the company is profitable. make sure of the broker's pedigree, then you will know whether it's worth it to put in for the deal. "mad money" is back after the break.

well, cramerica, it's time for your tweets. first from @clarkevans3 who writes the following, why don't more companies split the stock? you are so on point here, clark. i've got to tell you, one of the great things about some of the stocks i follow when they do split the stock, like a salesforce.com, they get a lot of liquidity. it makes it so it doesn't trade so herky-jerky. coca-cola likes to split its stock. that's good. those that get to 300-$400. they should split it. it doesn't create value but it does make it so individuals are much less scared of a stock. maybe that's enough. no value created, but very pro retail.

and here's one from @tswizlewizle who writes, advice for a young person, what's the best strategy of investing small amounts at a time, quantity or value? i like to pick stocks that are below 10 for my first stock and buy five shares. that way i get to feel if pain if it goes down, i can buy more if it goes down. it's easier, only later do i get up to stocks? i know it shouldn't matter what the dollar amount is. i know what you think. you don't think like a yale professor who's trying to analyze stocks. you think like i do when i started. you want a little capital, be able to buy five shares. that's the way to play it. another tweet from @harrisonfresh. this says diversified among asset classes or just stocks? which should i be most concerned with? boo-yah, norcal. okay. here's what i care about. i care about baskets. it can be etfs. i don't like etfs. i like to pick the individual stock or it can be individual

stocks. remember, you have to think about what they do. i care about the end market. that's why i do diversification. if everybody's end market has to do with finance or technology, then you end up being hurt. so consider who the customer is if you are unsure whether to diversify. the next tweet comes to us from pgallagher15. what's the best investment book i read? one from wall street "beat the street." two, those are peter lench books. they're really terrific. i think those are great places to get started. let's go to @jehamilton. how many hours do you sleep each night? i tend to get three our four hours a night. friday and saturday i sleep twice or three times. that i believe, i know it sound fanciful that you save up the sleep. if you get a lot of sleep on saturday night, you don't need to get a lot on sunday or monday and i don't. another great tweet comes from,

boo-yah, jim, just finished your book. "you got screwed." great book. just as relevant today as when you wrote it. i thought it would be popular. a lot of people didn't like the title. i remember saying, cramer, why did you call it this for? it was spot-on how wall street sometimes can stab you right in the face as well as in the back. "mad money" is back after the break.

i like to say there's always a bull market somewhere and i promise to find it just for you right here on "mad money." i'm jim cramer. coming up on "the suze orman show," why i'm concerned about the real estate market now. also, we have a negative worth of about $17,000. yet -- okay. you ask me, "can i afford it?" >> i would like a two-week trip to london. this is my first vacation since 2007. >> you worked so hard. you got through graduate school.