my mission is simple, to make you money. i'm here to level the playing field for all investors. there's always a bull market somewhere, and i promise to help you find it. "mad money" starts now. hey, i'm cramer. welcome to mad money. welcome to cramerica. other people want to make friends. i'm just trying to make you money. my job is to educate you, call me, 1-800-743-cnbc. investing, it isn't easy, but it can be easier and less daunting with a little instruction. the whole business of managing your money is made much more confusing and difficult because

of the arcane terminology and wall street gibberish you hear every day. if you aren't clued in it can sound like the pros are speaking an entirely different language. there's an entire industry of people that want you happily convinced that investing is too hard. that regular people can't do it and the safest thing is to give your money to a pro. maybe that's the right thing for some of you, but if you put in the effort and do your homework, you can do as well as the professionals. many of the pros are about getting your fees. more interested in taking your money than making you money and that often keeps you ignorant about the market so you stay in their stock chains. their chains are strong. they're like the wizard of oz. they don't want you to peek behind the curtain or understand because if you did, you'd take control of your own finances and pick your own stocks and not pay somebody fees to do the things you're perfectly capable of doing yourself. that's where i am come in.

tonight i'm pulling back the curtain and explaining everything because while it can sound complex, it's not rocket science or brain surgery. you don't need to go to business school to understand it. you can comprehend the vocabulary we throw around as long as you have a translator, a coach like me that can explain what the darn words mean. think of my as a defector, somebody that plays for the other team managing the money of other people's money in my hedge fund, but is now teaching you to navigate through the stock market here on "mad money." to be a great investor you have to break the wall street code and i'm here to help you crack it. tonight i'm giving you my wall street gibberish to plain english dictionary. it's the glossary of the terms you must understand to manage your own portfolio. words and concepts they don't want you to get your heads around because that might make you feel empowered enough to

pull your money out of their mutual funds and coffers and stop handing over your fees and commissions. even if you're a pro, you may not know enough. so take advantage of my experience to give yourself an extra edge. let's start with idea that go hand in hand. secular and cyclical. you hear them all the time but nobody ever bothers to explain what they mean, even when they are crucial when coming to picking stocks. cyclical, nothing to do with the spin cycle in your washing machine or ring cycle. not necessarily my classical music but not bad. secular isn't about the separation of church and state or one of my idols first cracked that joke. we say cyclical if it needs a strong economy to grow. it depends on the business cycle. machinery companies fall in this categories along with bhp,

billiton, dow chemical, ppg. these companies are all hostage to the economy. when it heats up they earn more money and we're willing to pay more for their earnings. and when it slows down and they shift into recession mode, they earn less money. a secular growth company is where the earnings are coming in regardless of the economy's overall health. think of anything you drink, smoke, or eat or use as a medication. consumer staples like proctor & gamble, general mills, kellogg's, pfizers. these are the classic recession-proof stocks you want to buy when the economy slows down and investors flock to stocks with safe consistent earnings. you don't stop eating food or brushing your teeth because of a recession. so why is the secular versus cyclic cyclical difference so important? why is it the first piece of wall street jargon i'm translating for you? it helps you figure out how much money companies will earn. it matters to the guys that have so much money to throw around

that they're buying and selling stocks up and down which is determining where prices go in the short term. it's about when to buy and sell stocks based on how the economies around the world are doing. this is what drives the decision making process. about 50% of any stock's performance comes from its sector which is the segment of the economy a stock falls into. tech, energy, machinery, health care, finances. and when it comes to sectors, much are driven by whether they fall into the secular or cyclical camps. it's going to be a camp that in this particular market is going to get hammered when growth slows. secular, won't really impact it. you don't want to own much in the way of cyclicals when the economy isn't good. their earnings often do and can fall apart because they can't make their estimates. as they have during every slowdown in the last decade and there's nothing you can do about it. by the same token when business heats up and they're doing well, nobody wants to own those boring recession-proof ones.

they don't want secular growth like cereal. and you won't make much money in them during these periods either. this can help you understand another piece of investing technology, a rotation. that's when money flows out of one of the two groups and into the other. and there's little sectors within those big groups. this is probably completely antithetical about how you have been told to invest. if you're going to pick your own stocks, which you're not supposed to be able to beat the market. you're supposed to lose money. you should find high quality companies and stick with them and if you hold out long enough you'll make money. this is the philosophy of buy and hold that i spend time trying to debunk. a zombie ideology that refuses to die even though it's been discredited by the market's performance. i explain that in my books. getting back to even, those are all about trying to deal with volatile tough markets and stocks hold up when we finally

get back to even. once you recognize how powerful the distinction is, you can see why buy and hold is so silly. you need to prepare to lose money in the cyclicals. you may be in the wrong sector in the wrong time. that doesn't mean you should play the rotation game and only own the group that's in style. not at all, actually. remember the need for diversity. do it when no more than 20% of your portfolio is in any sector. that way you won't get annihilated if a sector rotation takes down your cyclical stock and you'll have some holding up better or making you money at the same time. diversification. free lunch. investing isn't easy but it doesn't have to be mystifying. you just need to know the language. know the difference between

secular and cyclical. recognize the sector rotation when you see one and always stay diversified. gary in indiana, gary. >> caller: hey, jim, booyah. >> booyah. >> caller: this is gary ward from indianapolis, indiana. i'm a first time caller and a long time viewer. i thank you for your help. >> you're welcome. i'm glad you called. >> caller: my question is when is it advantageous to purchase preferred stock over common stock or vice versa. >> preferred i like to use when i see the yield be well in extreme -- well in excess of what i can get from a risk-free treasure, and at the same time it's safe. that's when i use preferred. common stock i'm trying to get capital appreciation and sometimes also capital preservation. there's two different things. preferred is a fixed income instrument where i can pick up extra yield than i can get from treasuries. dave in california, dave. >> caller: this is dave in sunny california. >> what's on your mind. >> caller: how do you come across a company that's a growing company, doing all the

right things for investors to what we call get uplifting to go from nasdaq pink sheets or the otc market to the new york stock exchange. >> this is all an odds game and the odds do not favor those companies do well. they didn't get to the pink sheets or go into olivion because they were doing well. i always look at the odds and i don't think the odds favor those situations so i pass up on what could be attractive opportunities to be able to avoid the dozens of unattractive ones. it's key to mastering the market. and it's the key to your financial future. "mad money" will be right back. don't miss a second of "mad money." follow @jimcramer on twitter. have a question, tweet cramer, #madtweets. send an e-mail to madmoney@cnbc.com or give us a call. 1-800-743-cnbc. miss something? head to madmoney.cnbc.com.

mad money is quickly approaching our 2,000th show. why do i come in here every night? to level the playing field, to fight for you. to remind you that the american dream is alive and well and you have a fighting chance against the big guys. to celebrate our 2,000th show, i want to know why you watch. so i asked why 2 k? why is "mad money" important to you. >> boo-yah, jim. thanks for all you do for us little guys. >> i love it for the incredible ideas and insights. >> i love it. >> thanks for giving great advice. >> show me. make a video. tweet it. share it on facebook. use the #mmwhy2k and we might use it on the air. >> can i get a boo-yah!

are you long america? >> my life story can be your life story. >> you can start with nothing in america and create the american dream.

does it ever seem like the ticker is speaking tongues? yes. so i'm helping you translate the cryptic and unfathomable terminology that makes owning stocks so difficult. i'm giving you the phrase book to navigate your way through investing. consider it the televised encyclopedia of cramerica. the process of speaking stocks shouldn't be as difficult as people say. it's not like conducting triple bypass heart surgery yourself. you don't have to be steven hawking or albert einstein to understand the stuff. but with the way pros talk about stocks, i bet even einstein would have a tough time figuring out what they're saying. i just explained the difference between cyclical companies versus the secular names, toothpaste, corn flakes, middle class grows all over the world

and they need more toothpaste and cereal, expanding at the same pace, regardless of where we are in the business cycle. then do the reverse as it starts to pick up steam if you want to outperform. you don't have to do it, but if you want to outperform you do it. this is the play book that all the hedge funds use and even though the hedge funds can behave like herd animals, their play book nevertheless works. the reason for that has to do with another piece of wall street gibberish lexicon that you must know and that's the price to earnings multiple often heard of as the p/e multiple or just the multiple. they all refer to the same thing and it's a cornerstone of how we value stock. when they talk about a stock undervalued or overvalued they're talking about the multiple. when they say that pepsico is more expensive than coca-cola. they don't mean how it's

trading, the share price tells you nothing about a stock's valuation, vis-a-vis another stock. to make comparisons you have to take a step back. when you buy a stock, you're actually paying for a small piece of a company's future earnings. so to value a stock look at where it's trading relative to the others in the earnings per share category, which is eps and that's what the multiple allows you to do. here's the basic algebra. not even math. any fourth grader can do. the share price, p, is equals to the earnings per share, e times the multiple m, the multiple tells you how much they're willing to pay for the earning. we don't care that coca-cola is at 55. we care that it sells for 15 times earning. pepsico may be at 5. the multiple is the special sauce of valuation. the main ingredient? growth. how much bigger the earnings will be next year than they were

last year and the year after that and the year after that and so on. the stock with companies with faster growth get rewarded with higher multiples. it's about what we're willing to pay for earnings and the more rapidly a business grows the bigger its future earnings will be. let's take one. let's say it sells for 24 times earnings. that doesn't make it more expensive than a slow but steady grower at 14 times earnings. chipotle has a higher growth rate. 24% say pepsico's 8%. here's where it gets interesting. multiples aren't static. in different markets people pay more or less for the same amount of earnings. when they pay more, we call it multiple expansion. when they pay less it's called multiple contraction. two more terms that are more complicated than they are. that's what hedge funds are trying to do when they play a sector rotation. they don't want to be in an earnings contraction situation. the earnings aren't static either. when you buy a stock you're either making a bet that the e or the m part of the equation is heading higher. what goes into the e or earnings?

how do you make sure they're increasing and aren't about to collapse? when you hear people talking about a company's bottom line or profits or net income, they all mean the same thing. that's the earnings. we call it the bottom line because it's the bottom figure on a company's income statement. to figure out how quickly the company's earnings could grow in the future, you have to look for clues in their quarterly reports. you need to look at the top line, another unnecessary piece of wall street gibberish that's unchangeable with wall street or sales. all mean the same thing. you want to see strong revenue growth. this is the key to the ability of most businesses to sustain sustainability to grow their earnings long term. and that's why it's important for younger, smaller companies to have a fast growing revenue streak and investors will pay up for what's known as accelerating revenue growth. the holy grail. it means the sales are growing at a higher rate. with a more mature company it should be able to by cutting costs and return them in the form of a dividend or buy back

although dividends are more attractive because they put money back in your pockets beyond the top line and bottom line. it's crucial to consider the gross margin which is not discussing but marginal. it tells you every -- what percentage of every dollar of sales is profit. it's important to figure out how much money a company can make. you have to consider the competition, the cost of production, the cost of doing business in general. businesses with cut throat competition like supermarkets or airlines have terrible margins. although a virtual mop monopoly like microsoft. take the oil business where they swing up and down with the price of crude. you need to know the vocabulary. look at the priced to earnings, the growth rate, the top line, the bottom line and most importantly, perhaps, the gross margins. after the break, i'll try to make you more money.

i want to know why you, the citizens of cramerica watch. why is "mad money" important to you? >> boo-yah, jim. >> i love mad money for the incredible ideas and insight jim offers. >> thanks for giving great advice. >> show me. make a video, tweet it. share it on facebook. use mmy2k and we might just use it on the air. >> can i get a boo-yah!

i'm going to penn and teller mode demystifying the overly complicated wall street gibberish you hear all the time but may not ever understand. the host overused, underexplained terms in the investing business and turning it into language you can understand. consider this show your wall street to english dictionary. a televised glossary to help you navigate your way through tough markets and more important, the tough sounding terminology that keeps so many people out of stocks or makes them scared and buffaloes them. the fact is all of this investment terminology sounds difficult because the pros that speak wall street gibberish fluently, they want it to sound difficult. they want you terrified and feeling ignorant and at a complete loss when managing your own money. judging what i read on twitter, @jimcramer and you know i go there all the time. the arrogant self-centered managers, let's just say, they are winning. my mission is to do just the opposite of theirs. i'm here to enlighten you

because i know that you can do better for yourself than the professionals who just want your fees and commissions and i know you can top them. i don't want the fees or commissions by the way. i don't want that at all. i'm not managing anyone else's money and i don't own stocks except for my charitable trust. so i give away my winnings, 1.8 million to charity. it's not enough to come out here and tell you which stock i like because you can't own them if you can't understand them. knowing what you own is a must. it's one of my cardinal rules. if you don't have a good grasp of how your holdings make their money, what stock, what the companies do of the stocks that you own, you won't have any idea what to do when the stocks turn against you and at some point they will turn against you. you can't know when the hold them and know when to fold them in the words of stocks age kenny rogers unless you know what it is you're actually holding and what might make you want to fold, in this case, sell the stock, along with what would make you, if it's intact. buy, buy, buy.

now the fact is the profusion of terminology on wall street makes it harder to know what you own. let's continue with another important piece of verbiage hardly explained even though it's used constantly, risk/reward. it defines the short-term stock picking that the professionals do. what does it mean? let's break it down. assessing risk is about figuring out the down side. how much you potentially stand to lose. how far it can fall in the near term. assessing the reward is about figuring out how the upside looks. how many points of gains the stock could give you. too many people only focus on the potential upside and that is a grave error. it's more important for you to understand the risks side of the reward because the pain from a big loss. >> the house of pain. >> hurts a lot more than the pleasure from an equivalent sized gain. >> house of pleasure. >> how do you figure it out? these are determined by two different cohorts of investors.

the reward is determined by how much growth oriented money matchers are willing to pay. and the risk is what they would be willing to pay on the way down. they create the bottom. you need to consider where though value -- the value guys will start buying on the way down. you need to figure out where they'll start selling. i usually boil it down to something quick and dirty like five up, three down. but how do i get there? how do you know where growth managering will start selling and then start buying. you need to know how they fit. that requires interpreting another, growth at a reasonable price. that defines this. we call it garb. when we talk about growth at a reasonable price or garp that's a method of analyzing stocks. by comparing a stock's growth rate to its price to earnings multiple. you need to be able to look at the world according to garp. you want to learn more from

peter lynch go to amazon and buy "one up and buy the street." that's the most inspirational books that are what i teach here than i have ever read elsewhere. one up on wall street and beat the street by peter lynch at amazon. this is a rule of thumb that never let me down, a rule that can really help us figure out when a stock is overvalued or undervalued based on what they the growth and money managers would be willing to pay. listen, if the stock has a price to earnings multiple that is lower than it's growth rate, that's the definition of cheap. any stock that is selling at a multiple which is twice the size of its growth rate or greater is probably too expensive and should be sold. so if a stock is trading at 20 times earnings and has a growth rate of 10% it won't go higher than that. it's reached the two times growth ceiling. here's another piece of gibberish that can help you

simplify, it's the p.e.g. ratio, price to earnings to growth rate. a peg of one or less is extremely cheap. and two or higher is prohibitively expensive. a high octane super fast grower like google could sell for 30 times earnings and be inexpensive because it had a 30% long-term growth rate giving it a p.e.g. ratio of one. right at the cheap end of the spectrum and the growth was accelerating sending the stock to new high after new high. that's how that happened. where do i come up with these observations? where are these observations from? the value investors that will be attracted to selling stocks at p.e.g.s of one or less, they create the floor. they're looking for a p.e.g. of one or less. you should be able to find a buyer for stocks multiples at or below its growth rate. the growth investors who are buying high multiple stocks hardly ever pay more than twice the growth rate, a p.e.g. of 2 which means that no way the stocks can go higher except for the real cold stocks.

if you stick with the example of google back when it still had a major growth mojo, the 30% long-term growth rate, it would be a sell if it traded up to 60 times earnings as i learned over and over again when this show began. like any of my methods, this is a rough approximation. it's useful, especially when trying to figure out the risk/reward. it's not always right. a lot of times the stock will get cheap based on earnings estimates because they need to be cut like the banks and brokers before the financial crisis or it will look cheep relative to its growth rate. like dell in 2000-2003. as its competitors copied the business model and ate into its earnings power. in these cases, the stock could trade well below the one time growth and p.e.g. could keep sinking. the fact it looks cheap is not a buy signal. the best time to buy cyclical types is when the multiples have gotten expensive and earnings estimates need to be raised to catch up with reality.

one other thing about risk when you hear the terms risk on and risk off, ignore them. that was gibberish that came in 2010 and went away in 2012. periodically peaks its ugly head and i just have to bash the darn thing. they are trading to buy aggressive stocks and switch to bonds. i'm glad it was debunked early on. it is practically banished from the discourse, circa 2011 and 2012. it hurt people. know what you own and know what others will pay for it. you need to understand the risk/reward and potential down side and upside before you purchase anything. figuring out where they put the ceiling and where they put in the floor. jim in new hampshire, jim. >> caller: mr. cramer. greetings and boo-yah from the live fair, die state of new hampshire. >> new hampshire rocks. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, hey, i got a question about stop orders. i know you're big on stop orders. one of the things that i played

with is trailing stops. say you had a stock at 100. one of the things i have done is like a three tiered approach that may have a $5 increment so i don't get stopped out at all once. seems like something like that strategy works. i'd love to hear your thoughts on that. >> that's a pretty good idea. as you know, this idea that you get stopped and it hits it and next thing you know it comes right back up, that's bad for me but if you do it in pieces that's the stage that i like. i like that method. i'm not going to endorse it for my own but if it makes you comfortable it's good. to do anything in stages is the right thing for me. jim in new york, jim. >> caller: i'd like to know what's the drawbacks of owning stocks that's held by a holding company? >> well, it's very hard to bring up the value of assets that are in a holding company and we don't really necessarily know what they are. things can be opaque. if they're not opaque we can

make a judgment. berkshire hathaway. if they are, like some of the real estate investment trusts, i don't touch them. let's go to john in texas. >> caller: greetings from austin. i have all of your books. watch the show every day live and record it and admire your energy level. >> thank you very much. >> caller: no problem. my question about your ongoing suggestion to buy stock shares in increments. >> right. >> caller: i understand why, but doesn't that eat up commission money even though it can offset capital gains or losses? what's your take on that? >> my feeling is strong on this. when i got in commissions were about quadruple what they are now and i recommended that strategy because i didn't want people to do it all at once and then get confused and lose interest or hate the market. so it's even better now with the commission rates low. so i'm not going to back away from my view. commission rates are low enough to do that trading and not hurt yourself. nick in new jersey, nick. >> caller: hey, cramer, big boo-yah from new jersey. >> love it. >> caller: i want to give a

shoutout to my brother overseas in the navy. >> thank him for serving. >> caller: i work for a financial institution that has a holding policy on all securities purchased for associates. what strategy should i apply when sourcing out a new stock knowing i have to limit when i can pull the trigger -- >> you don't want to trade. you cannot trade. you have to find long-term investments. i'd want to find stocks that have tremendous upside that are risky. you have your whole life to make it back if it turns out to be a bomb. go for the riskiest good stocks you can find and let her rip. talk the talk. i'm translating tonight. wall street to english. risk/reward, upside and down side, the trick, know what you own. more importantly, know what others will pay for it. stay with cramer. >> keep up with cramer all day long. follow @jimcramer on twitter and tweet your questions, #madtweets.

jim cramer, you're one of my heroes. >> i look forward to your show every weeknight. >> thank you for helping beginning investors like me. >> when you talk about the

market, i believe you're spot on. >> i love it. thank you so much. every night we watch you. i have learned and earned. lost in translation. managing your own money is a whole lot less daunting than it seems when you have a translator. someone like me that can help you decode the arcane and intentionally sometimes obscure terminology the pros use to talk about stocks. that's why i'm giving you my wall street to english dictionary so you can see through the mysteries and understand the essentials of investing. so far i've been explaining complicated jargon that are nevertheless essential to making money in the market. but the difficulty goes in two different directions. there's many concepts that are misleadingly complicated, but also terms much less simple than they appear. take the notion of a trade verses the notion of an investment.

a lot of people say they're interchangeable. couldn't be further from the truth people. they're distinct and in the immortal words of the '90s stock gurus offspring, you have to keep them separated. isn't this just splitting hairs? something not recommended for the focciclely challenged like myself. no, a trade is not the same as an investment. if you turn a trade into an investment, then in true mr. t fashion, i love the best of the rockys, rocky 3, my prediction for your portfolio is pain! when you buy a stock as a trade you're buying it for something you think will drive the stock higher. maybe it will report quarterly results and deliver better than expected earnings. there's too much confusion which can cause it to get globbered even with stellar numbers. the catalyst could be news about some event you are predicting. for example if you are dealing

with pharma stocks, there's data about clinical development. if the fda decides to approve a given treatment. these are data points that can send a stock soaring higher if they go your way. so when you make a trade, going into it, you need to know there's a moment to buy forever the catalyst and a moment, most importantly that people seem to get wrong, to sell, sell, sell after the catalyst happens. sometimes your trades won't work. the event won't happen or the data point is less positive than you expected. either way, when you buy a stock as a trade, it has a limited shelf life. there's a brief window when you want to own it. once the window passes you must sell, sell, sell. hopefully you'll be right about it and if you wrack up nice gains, if that happens, there's no point in sticking around. ring the register. lock in your profits before they evaporate. but if it turns out wrong you still need to -- sell, sell, sell. when you buy bottled milk, you don't drink it after the

expiration date. you throw it away. you can't buy more and call it a investment because you have no reason to own the stock and you never ever should own anything without a reason. i have watched an endless parade of people lose money by turning trades into investments. they come up with alibis for staying in a stock long after its expiration date to fool themselves into thinking they're doing the right thing. without a catalyst you don't have a trade. if you find yourself in that position you better sell and cut your losses. an investment is based on a long-term thesis. the idea that it can make serious money over an extended period of time for you. you're not just banking on one specific catalyst. you're expecting many good things will happen in the company's not too distant future. that's not an excuse to buy a stock and forget about it. but investments can go wrong too. which is why i always tell you to do the homework. it would be great if you can spend an hour. but you have to be sure the story is intact. but it does mean that when a stock you like as an investment goes down in the short-term, it makes more sense to buy.

as long as the fundamentals are still sound. then sell. you don't ring the register after the first time the stock jumps in price. you're looking for larger gains over a longer period of time. i made this mistake for apple which i bought for my charitable trust before the iphone was in steve job's eyes and the ipad was a distant dream and then i sold it after a quick five-point gain. i threw the investment thesis out the window for a profit that was tiny relative to gains you would have received. not all wall street gibberish is complicated. some of it is simple. like the distinction between a trade and investment. remember they are not the same and it's a big mistake to turn a trade based on a catalyst, whether successful or unsuccessful into an investment which will most likely fail. stay with cramer. boo yampt cramerica. "mad money" is quickly prurchg 2,000th show. why do i come here every night? to level the playing field. to fight for you and remind you the american dream is alive and

well. you have a fighting chance against the big guys. to celebrate, i want to know why you, the citizens of cramerica watch. so i why, why 2 k. why is mad money important to you. >> boo-yah, jim. thanks for all you do for us little guys. >> i love the incredible insight jim offers. >> thanks for giving great advice. >> show me. make a video. tweet it. share it on facebook. hoos the #mmwhy2k and we just might use it on the air. >> can i get a boo-yah!

welcome back to the wall street gibberish to plain

english translation guide edition of "mad money." i have been explaining financial concepts and jargon to help you become a better investor and make the whole process of managing your own money less daunting. what else do you need to know? here's one of the less understood terms in the business, it's the correction. it's when after the market has been roaring it turns around and gets crushed. maybe a decline of 10% making you feel like the world is ending and the sky is falling and you never want to own stock again for the rest of your life. that's the wrong reaction. it may feel horrible but they can come back from corrections. they bounce back all the time. especially off a major run. when the market goes on a 56-game hitting streak and then doesn't get on base the next day, it doesn't mean you don't make money again. it doesn't mean all your earnings will be pulverized. it is just what happens when you go up too far, too fast and that's why you should expect corrections. they can happen to an individual stock, the index, the whole market. it can even happen to bonds. and you most likely never see them coming as people didn't see

them at various times in the last couple of years so you shouldn't beat yourself up for not anticipating them. selloffs are a natural feature of the landscape. we don't have to like them but we do need to acknowledge that they will happen no matter what. you shouldn't get flustered or worse, here's what you never must do. you must never panic when they inevitably smack you in the face. finally one last piece of investing vocabulary and that's the idea of execution. this is a tough one because this is subjective but when we talk about execution, we mean management's ability to follow through with its plans. there's all kinds of risks associated with execution. and cost controls. the number of ways a bad management team can screw up are infinite. that's one of the reasons i like companies with proven management teams because they're less likely to make these kinds of unforced errors. it's a big reason why it's so important for you to pay attention when i bring ceos on the show. nobody knows a company better than the people running it and since you can't get them on the

phone yourself you want to see what they have to say on "mad money." this is also crucial when it comes to understanding why it's worth paying up. the top players were almost always proven executives. they're almost more expensive than the cheaper competitors, but they're worth every penny. a good management team is less likely to make mistakes. more important, less likely to get buried by big problems and more likely to figure out how to solve them. here's the bottom line. don't be afraid of corrections or intimidated by people who use the word. a sharp selloff after a big rally is something you must build in and expect. even though it's hard to quantify, execution is as crucial a factor when it comes to picking stocks. you want companies with proven seasoned management, teams less likely to drop the ball, factor them in and when we get the correction, you'll do better than most. russ in new jersey. >> caller: hey, a boo-yah to you.

>> 206 boo-yah. what's going on. >> caller: i have a question about buying a good stock that's as high. you say to wait for a pull back downturn or market correction, 5% or so, but what's the time horizon on that correction? a day, week, month, quarter? how do you identify when to pull the trigger? >> that's a great question because i talk about time and price. the price won't get there until we go out in time but i like to stick by the 5% to 7%. that's where you start. 10 or 12% you buy more. leave room and then don't worry about the time. just worry about the price. words, words, corrections. corrections can be scary people. but expect them. don't fear them, and execution, it's critical. stay with cramer.

we have got to get to the tweets you have been sending me @jimcramer #madtweets. our first tweet writes, hey,

jim, when did you start investing? >> i started in 1979 when i was working for a magazine. we had just started it. i got a couple of bucks and i decided i am going to go buy a stock that i read about in "forbes" magazine. i bought american ag ronomices, a big orange grove and next week they had a big frost and i lost almost everything. our next tweet says -- i am a teacher and i use your it is time for the lightning round in facts time. am i violating trademark laws? only if you say, are you ready, skidaddy. the next one, what to do next with my personal "mad money" fund. pay taxes, capital gains, taxes are low. used to be really high. don't fear the tax man, make money. discretionary. now a tweet from @invisible

brand, go to cboe.com. they have a great site. everything you need to know and learn is on that site. it's a remarkable resource. here's a tweet from @jaytweets5. thank you jim for always looking out to us. you are the best thing that ever happened to mom and pop investors like myself. dick grasso, talking about mom and pop investors, how they are. where are the grassos of our day? we don't have them. arthur levitt, former s.e.c. head. another guy that felt like i do. i was one of like a gazillion who thinks like this. now i'm a force of one. force of ten? no, just one. @shawngraph tweets, hey, just to let you know the people in the world have such nice things to say about you. i hope to meet you one day. i go down constantly because my daughter goes to tulane and i'm a very proud dad. let me leave it at that because she'll be embarrassed.

let's go to a tweet, what is better, buying diversified etf or diversified closed end mutual fund. appreciate some feedback. first of all, a little warning here. right now. etfs that are thinly traded, we're done with them. no more. they're too dangerous. we like the xps. we just want you to have exposure to the market. the s&p 500 etf does everything you need. stick with cramer. "mad money" is quickly approaching our 2,000th show. why do i come here every night? to level the playing field. to fight for you. to remind you that the american dream is alive and well. that you have a fighting chance against the big guys. to celebrate our 2,000th show, i want to know why you, the citizens of cramerica watch. so i ask, why2k? why is mad money important to you. >> thanks for all you do for us little guys. >> i love mad money for the incredible ideas and insight jim offers. >> i love it. >> thanks for giving great

advice. >> show me. send me a vine, make me a video, tweet it. sthair on facebook. use #mmwhy2k and we just might use it on the air. >> can i get a boo-yah!

stay connected to cramer on madmoney.cnbc.com. encyclopedia cramerica strikes and you're better for it. there's always a bull market somewhere. i promise to find it right here for you on "mad money." i'm jim cramer and i will see you next time. get you to spend money you don't have. also... when i look at your money, you know what scares me is that you have $11 right now -- $11 in your emergency fund. >> we truly need help. >> and you ask me, "can i afford it?" >> i would love to spend between $1,200 and $1,500 on a miniature red poodle puppy. >> that's the cutest, little thing i ever saw.