now. >> i want you to buy fedex. i'll save all explanations for steve grasso. >> i love the pharmaceutical space. pfizer is going higher. >> i'm melissa lee, 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 save you a little money. my job is not just to entertain you but to educate and teach you. so call me at 1-800-743-cnbc. or tweet me @jimcramer. for the longest time, there really weren't many hazardous stocks in this stock market. simply some stocks that did

nothing, some stocks that went up slowly and then there were stocks that seemed to soar by the day! ♪ hallelujah >> even at the recession, dow jumping 87 points, nasdaq declining .03%, many of you may have taken a hit to your portfolio. because you owned a stock that's plain toxic to your net worth. yes, we now have hazardous stocks. tonight, let's explore the right and wrong stocks for this moment. what's the definition of a stock that can do no right in this market? how about a stock that could do no wrong before the market changes stripes this year? and what's a stock that could do no wrong these days? you guessed it. it's a stock that has done kind of nothing for the ages. let's start with the losers because i'm a huge believer in the notion that your winners will take care of themselves if you can isolate the losers and cordon them off, which, by the way is exactly what the dow and s&p are doing despite the commentary! right now we've got three different kinds of stocks that are hazardous to your wealth.

the first group is what i call the amazon army. how do companies enlist in the army? swear to grow revenues fast and don't worry about turning a profit. since for a long time the market rewarded companies provided they had excellent revenue growth. remember how people used to yap on tv, companies that showed big earnings per share increases and not sales gains? because those earnings weren't supposed to be real done by buybacks, by firings. these were the same people who clambered to join amazon's army of high fliers. how can you blame them? who can blame them? amazon managed to put up terrific sales numbers. so if you only cared about revenue growth, amazon was for you. it was created for you. i can tell you many a merchant complained to me offline about how unfair it was they had to play by the rules of disciplined capital allocation, making sure they both produced consistent profits and then returned a lot of the profits to shareholders via dividends and buybacks, yet

amazon could show loss after loss and stock could still roar. i chalked it up to jealous. but maybe they're just being real. lately, with the economy improving, many companies have started doing better on both the top and bottom lines. when was the last time you heard anyone talk about owning walmart or target. two of the biggest retailers on earth with stocks that have been treading water. now, though, i think things have begun to improve for both of those companies. i think you're going to see a sustained uptick in sales like amazon, but also unlike amazon earnings. amazon only gives you strong sales. plus, many of the shareholders who piled into amazon were never comfortable with owning the shares anyway. they just wanted to be able to beat the averages. it was a way to beat the averages. they were hidden in the army and now they've gone awol simply because the stocks stopped going up. if it stopped going higher, what's the point of sticking with it? that's what they do. obviously there's none, judging by the action. here's what's important. amazon itself did nothing wrong.

in fact, it did exactly what it has always done when it reported on friday. the company blew the doors off the sales number. don't let anyone tell you otherwise. they didn't listen to the call if they didn't. and it's been heavy to grow out its business especially in china. i think they thought that's what would send the stock higher. but it was the hedge funds and their analyst friends that jolted amazon, not the other way around. i'm begging you to understand this concept because you may own shares in a company that got hammered today and the crime was that it followed the amazon model and didn't care about profits, just opportunities. marching this whole army off a cliff and really doesn't matter what the companies say. they're doing exactly what was desired of them before the shocking turn from sales to profits grip the market. any stock in an area where there have been a ton of initial public offerings, consider them land mines that dilute the space while arming competitors with new capital. take the rubicon project.

the stock, not an experiment, a stock, that was down more than almost any other, falling more than 16%, even though as analysts rolled out buy ratings on the newly public enterprise. they pushed it, recommended buying it. you wouldn't think that, given the stock fell $3.19. you think they would sell, sell, sell. here's what i came up with. two competitors waiting in the wings that will come public in the next month or two, and they're in the exact same space, tools for internet advertising. i think the owners are just trying to get out ahead of the ipo posse. as both competitors have similar projects and i know many people would say superior performance. dilution by ipo. of course, it doesn't help that some kinds of stocks that are the same ones being diluted by more ipos belong to companies with massive insider selling. so there's new stock coming out all over the place. finally, there's the third hazardous group of stocks, the biotechs, some of which tried to find their footing today. this market was incredibly kind

to biotechs and biotech ipos for several years now. the proliferation of biotech deals lately has burned through a ton of capital, though. especially since they're all in that formative stage, just ideas. plus, there's an amazon factor here, too. much of the money migrated from big old boring pharma. but have you noticed how big pharma is not all that boring. pfizer might be buying astrazeneca. merck might be splitting up. people talking about buying the consumer product business. allergen rallied after getting a monster takeover bid. that's talks surrounding virtually every major drug company i know. who needs expensive high-flying drug developers when there's so much good happening to the cheap, big old pharmas. at the same time the model went belly up, the ipos came marching in and over the cliff and big pharma came roaring back to life. the shocking decline in interest rates, which created an environment where any stock with a good yield even if the company's not doing that well is

worth owning. that's how the utilities can have a great run. even though there's no lift in the business. it's how proctor & gamble and mcdonald's probably two of the biggest earnings disappointors in the dow have been some of the best performing. people want the safety and yield that proctor and mcdonald's offer. and right now, they're willing to sacrifice, yes, growth in order to contain it. what can we make these trajectories change? what could reverse them? we're beginning to take a look at the charts or momentum later in the show. look, it can change, i know it can. i think any change will have to be a function of time, price and healing. meaning momentum stocks have to go low enough that insiders stop selling and start buying which encourages beleaguered institutions to come back and do buying themselves. until then, we could get a bounce. that bounce will be viewed as another opportunity to sell these now hated stocks like the bounce we had at the opening. did you see they were like heat-seeking missiles coming after these stocks. as for the stocks being bought.

all right. go back to 2000. if you look at what stocks perform best after the nasdaq began in the crash of 2000. it was the utilities, drugs, classic growth, retailers and industrials. that's exactly what's working today. that's what's been working for several weeks. so i suspect this move can last a lot longer than many think. stocks could do no wrong a few months ago, can do no right now and vice versa. some of the stocks thrown out today didn't deserve to be. i'm certain that some of the stocks that were bid up are beyond where they should be. still, though, these kinds of moves go to extremes before they correct. and history says, we haven't yet reached those levels of extreme. let's take some questions. wipe don't we go to danielle in kansas. danielle? >> caller: boo-yah, jim, from kansas. recently darden restaurants announced a spin-off of the chain followed by a drop in profits year-over-year. should investors be more

concerned with darden's future and lesser known restaurants such as yard house and capital grill? or more concerned with the spineoff to come? >> thank you for that question. what they have to be concerned about is management seeming not knowing what they're doing because the real problem is red lobster. and olive garden's not that great either. got to get management to fix it, not break it off or spin it off. let's go to jason in new jersey. jason? >> caller: hey, jim, how are you? >> how are you, jason? >> caller: good. watching your shows at the end of the crazy trading days lately is the only thing that relieves my stress. >> i have to tell you, that's good, because it's about as stressful as ever to do this show. thank you very much. >> caller: it's crazy. the old days all over again. and today's stress is groupon. just when i think it made a base at 740, 730, boom, it's the ugly girl at the dance. what is going on? >> groupon, actually, did not make the quarter, missed the

quarter. typically, it would snap back in the old market. in the new market, when someone misses the quarter, there's no coming back until they report a better one. you're going to have to wait until groupon reports again. right now, we're seeing a market of extremes. the stocks that can do no wrong, stocks that can do no right and vice versa. hey, on "mad money" tonight, big trouble for one of the biggest banks today. golden opportunity or the latest scandal nail in the coffin for the whole group? why don't we go off the charts to see if there's babies or at least maybe one baby being thrown out with the bath water. more "mad money" after the break. coming up -- rest, relaxation and returns? from lake tahoe to thailand, online start-up home away has added innovation to your vacation. but the company's latest trip, a 30% selloff from its highs has

been anything but first class. was it always overvalued? or is this your chance to book a spot in the stock? don't miss a second of "mad money." follow @jimcramer on twitter. have a question? tweet cramer #madtweets. send jim an e-mail to madmoney@cnbc.com. or give us a call at 1-800-743-cnbc. miss something? head to madmoney.cnbc.com. honestly, i'm pouring everything i have into this place.

that's why i got a new windows 2 in 1. it has exactly what i need for half of what i thought i'd pay. and i don't need to be online for it to work. it runs office, so i can do schedules and budgets and even menu changes. but it's fun, too -- with touch, and tons of great apps for stuff like music, 'cause a good playlist is good for business. i need the boss's signature for this. i'm the boss. ♪ honestly ♪ i wanna see you be brave

♪ honestly man: we know when parents and teachers work together... woman: our schools get stronger. man: as superintendent of public education, that's been tom torlakson's approach. woman: torlakson has supported legislation to guarantee spending decisions about our education tax dollars are made by parents, teachers and the local community... and not by sacramento politicians. and we need to keep that legislation on track. man: so tell tom torlakson to keep fighting for local control of school funding decisions.

embarrassing? disappointing? foolish or just par for the course? that's gripped me since the shocking news that bank of america discovered an error in one of the submissions to the federal government. an error which will now cause the company to suspend its dividend increase and its $4 billion stock buyback. those jewels that we just got. it's ridiculous that bank of america didn't discover this error earlier. especially since this mistake caused the bank to overstate its capital when it applied to the government for permission to return capital to shareholders. the miscalculation revolved

around the realize -- issued by merrill lynch, remember them? the predecessor of the current bank of america. dating back as many as five years, maybe more. when i first heard the news, i almost fell out of my chair. how could they be a bunch of bone heads? why did i ever trust them? but before and after the latest quarterly report, so excited about getting that dividend boost and a buyback. now, i am not absolving bank of america from this stupid error. the overstatement of capital is shockingly preposterous. although, if there's a silver lining, if you back out the silver statement, enough capital to pass stress tests. although, you know what, i'm no longer as comfortable with that level if the bank has to write a huge check to the feds for past transgressions, which i think they will have to. and unfortunately because of this mistake, shareholders like my charitable trust which bought more stock because of the expected good news of buybacks

and dividends have been totally disappointed by these guys. because these enticements aren't going to come back any time soon. but here's what's really got me steamed, frankly. you should feel mad at me about, i'm a chump. it's become pretty darn obvious that large banks which do more than just lending simply can't be run effectively anymore. they're not only too big to fail, they're too big to manage. jamie dimon was led astray in a multibillion dollar loss that couldn't be spotted by the ceo and his top team in new york? if a brilliant sharp-eyed banking captain can't see a whale in his midst, maybe no boat is safe. how about citigroup? the test that bank of america passed with the erroneous submission because of regulatory issues that we can probably presume include the recent discovery of a $400 million alleged fraud link to one of the clients. when i googled the client after the alleged fraud was exposed, i saw a whole host of articles

about the finances well -- written well before the suspected fraud was discovered. maybe citi needs to google the clients before lending them money? or are things so desperate they've compromised their ability to think clearly? bank of america, citigroup and jpmorgan are not terrible companies. they have smart people who work there. but these institutions have gotten too hard to figure out and big to keep track of. the error had to do with a structured note, which in english having created them, sold them and bought them means really hard to decipher custom made bond that has bells and whistles. just consider the bond as something made by dr. frankenstein. who the heck knew what it could do? who knew what it might be worth? these problems seem endenimic, which means how cheap the bank stops look, and they do look cheap, they've been seductive to me, they aren't going to get a decent valuation unless all they do is what we used to think they did. take in deposits, loan money

against the deposits and charge high fees. and anything more than that and this bank of america travesty, i think you're going to have to take a pass. let's go to paul in minnesota, please, paul? >> caller: jim? >> paul. >> caller: just seeing what you think. snv. they announced reverse 7/1 stock split recently. they going to go through it? >> it's not a great bank. but i have been waiting -- i recommended it as a spec in the $ 2 level. it would be good. but banking has gotten so tough, i would ring the register on it. i don't want to be there. it's not good enough. there are a lot of good-quality banks not getting a bid. i'm not going to give it to a bad one. larry in massachusetts, larry? >> caller: hey, jim, i'll tell you, i can't cut up an avocado these days without thinking about you. >> well, i was slicing limes on friday and saturday! holy cow, the place was jumping! what's up? >> glad to hear it. hey, you went out to dream force with the most complimentary

attitude. november is november, may is may. a lot of us are experiencing our own reverse seasonal disorder about software as a disservice. i think you believe in the best of breed names, now we need to pick through the rubble. do you believe that stocks such as marcetto are going to be the pets.com sock puppets or are they broken stock? >> i think marketo is not as good in workday. it's going to come down to competition and who has enough -- who has raised enough money to be able to compete. but workday is on a priced -- enterprise divided by sales is the most expensive. that's why i always said it's the most expensive. i think these companies are going to keep correcting. going to keep correcting because insiders want to go. they've got the wrong shareholder base. but they are not -- workday is not a money-losing company. it has operating cash flow.

it can do the job, but the stock's not done falling yet. it will bounce if you're in it and you want to get out, you can get out at a higher price than you got out today. too big to fail and too big to manage? these big bank problems have seen business as usual. regardless of how cheap the cohort looks, at least for now, take a pass. for all that the real banks. up next, millions of americans will head out for r & r this summer. is there a way to invest? don't move, more "mad money" after the break. and later -- like it's 1999? cher had the hottest song. and dot com stocks were dancing all over wall street. >> market had a record day. >> but it wasn't long until the bubble burst on the entire party. will some of today's biggest momentum names suffer the same fate? fate? [ male announcer ] the wright brothers started in a garage.

mattel started in a garage. disney started in a garage. amazon started in a garage. ♪ the ramones started in a garage. my point? some of the most innovative things in the world come out of american garages. introducing the lighter, faster cadillac cts. 2014 motor trend car of the year. ain't garages great?

for $175 dollars a month? so our business can be on at&t's network yup. all five of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month. low dues... great terms... let's close. new at&t mobile share value plans. our best value plans ever for business. [ banker ] sydney needed some financial guidance so she could take her dream to the next level. so we talked about her options.

her valuable assets were staying. and selling her car wouldn't fly. we helped sydney manage her debt and prioritize her goals, so she could really turn up the volume on her dreams today...and tomorrow. so let's see what we can do about that... remodel. motorcycle. [ female announcer ] some questions take more than a bank. they take a banker. make a my financial priorities appointment today. because when people talk, great things happen. there's something very important you have to know about the once beloved momentum names. many of these companies are not necessarily responsible for their own weaknesses. just like in 2000, a lot of weak-handed shareholders who bought the stocks because they were going higher. a huge number went out because they never had a reason for owning these names in the first place. but how much longer will these stocks have to get punished that are making money? i'll get to that later in the show. for now, a specific example, take homeaway. i think homeaway has a terrific

business and the world's largest online marketplace for vacation rentals. and this company's quite profitable. not only is homeaway profitable, but the company reported better than expected quarter last thursday after the close. earned 5 cents a share on a 2 cent beat. rising 33% year-over-year. paid listings were up by 28%. imagine we gave upside guidance for the next quarter and full year. homeaway got obliterated in a single session. that's not because there was something secretly wrong with the quarter. the quarter was darn good. a very out of favor sector and they don't care about the numbers right now. because this company has real earnings, there'll come a moment where the stock has come too cheap and you'll have an opportunity to buy on the way down. before that happens, you have to understand what you should be buying. let's take a look with the co-founder and ceo of homeaway. welcome back to "mad money." >> always a pleasure, jim. thanks for that wonderful intro. >> absolutely, brian. you know, i just -- because i know you and know you as a businessman. you have to sense that there is just this moment right now where

if you had put up even -- i'm not kidding. if you'd been even 20% better earnings, do you think it would have mattered at this moment given the cohort you're in? >> well, i think we're seeing with us and a lot of other companies that, you know, stock movements don't tend to be correlated to the fundamentals. it's an overall sector rotation, i suppose and you're probably right. >> and it's going. i think some of the sector rotation makes sense to me because a lot of companies are losing money. the companies that are profitable are the ones i think the market will come back to when it calms down. >> sure. this isn't 1999. i lived through that where most of these companies weren't profitable. you've got so many internet companies like homeaway that are asset light businesses, they make a lot of money. they have access to global markets because they're digital businesses. and for that reason, they're going to continue growing for a long time. >> i thought one of the features on the conference call was a secular tail wind i didn't know about. 47% increase in vacation home

purchases between 2011, 2013 and 89% are renting it out. this has become quite a business for the regular person. >> yeah, we were shocked to see that. this is from the national association of realtors, they tend to be a year behind. that 47% growth rate was from 2011 to 2013. but that's actually astounding, these markets have been shrinking for a number of years after 2008. but as you say, the biggest stat to us we're amazed by is when we survey people buying vacation homes, almost 90% say they're going to eventually rent them out. and that is a huge, huge population of potential properties. >> well, do you think it's possible because the homeaway notion is in people's heads. if you have to hire some manager to do it and you're back and forth with that person versus being able to list it. the net has removed the friction for people renting. >> yeah, it has. but, you know, you should also be aware that about 36% of our business comes from property managers. so we're a marketing venue. we're the biggest in the world.

we do deal primarily with individual owners. but more and more, the professional managers come to us, as well, and depends on somebody's situation. if you've got a property and don't have the time to manage it, you may hire a manager to take care of logistics, but they, in turn, will put it in a marketplace like homeaway to get bookings. >> airbnb does more. that's one of the reasons i don't suspect they'll have legal issues in terms of who is the manager and who is the actual buyer so to speak. >> well, one of the primary differences is something called merchant record where when people buy travel on home away, they're actually paying owners directly where as a site like airbnb, they're collecting the money. that's similar except for booking.com. they're not collecting the money, it's going direct to the hotel. that does create a different kind of liability if you're selling the product yourself versus being a third party that's really a marketing venue. >> definitely.

now to me, it's good enough that i want to not use some of the other sites if you were to incorporate restaurants. if you were to incorporate comments, then i wouldn't need on my cell phone, i could just have you instead of yelp, instead of open table. i mean, you clearly have to be thinking about that. device is better than what you're using it for now. >> yeah, you know, did just make an acquisition in the first quarter of a great little company that has a mobile app that we're going to be integrating to our own app. that when you rent a house from us and go on vacation, it's not only going to tell you about everything you need to know about the house, like, for example, how to turn on the complex audio system, but it's also going to include local restaurant recommendations and things to do by the people who own these homes who actually live in these markets. and frankly, you know, know a lot about those things. we're pretty excited to move into that space, as well. >> okay. and talk about the glad to have you vacation rental purchase that you made. >> yes. >> that was defining for you

guys. >> yes. so that is that application. and i think why it is a bit defining for us. we spent most of our years as a young company really trying to just build our marketplace and expand globally and get as many listings as we possibly can. now that we're the market leader, we're starting to focus on the user experience and making the process for the consumer as easy as possible. and i think if you've ever rented a house, you know how they have those big binders that tell you about everything from turning the heat on to turn on the television to where you find the towels. all of that's packaged in these neat little mobile app that will be specific to every house that you rent on home away. and i think it's going to dramatically enhance the ease of use of people renting houses versus going to a hotel, for example. >> no, i totally agree, i thought it was a terrific acquisition. and one day that companies that will be rewarded for making money not just for having good sales. thank you for coming on the show. >> thank you, jim. >> there's going to be a tiering, guys. it's not yet.

the first ones in the stock are going to go down, will be companies like brian's that are actually making money, okay. not everybody is losing money. some companies, by the way, we're going to find out in a moment are making huge amounts of money and being thrown away. homeaway, stay with cramer. coming up -- sour pickle? b & g foods disappointed investors after reporting. and its stock has gotten creamed so far this year. but over the past five years, it's up over 500%. could its savory set of beloved brands still give you a dash of cash? cramer sits down with the ceo.

how much longer do the once loved now hated momentum stocks have to be punished before they can start to rebound? if you're asking yourself that question, i'm afraid you're not going to particularly like the answer. at least according to the charts i'm about to show you. because as much as it pains me to say so, this momentum meltdown has a great deal in common with the dot com collapse that we saw back in 2000. except this time, i don't think

it will spread to the rest of the market. it hasn't. in other words, i don't think we're going to see widespread pain. if history's any guide, then the high-flying biotechs, internet plays and cloud-based software stocks could, indeed, have further to fall. we're going off the charts. charts don't have a lot of emotion to them. to show you the similarities between the momentum meltdown of 2014 and the dot com bust of 2000. and to see if there's anything we can learn from the comparison. after going through a huge number of charts this weekend, collins has come up with a simple rule that can help guide you through this difficult period. but first, we need to go through the charts. the charts tell the story. first of all, in order to get a sense of what it means that the momentum stocks could be repeating the same story we saw in 2000. you need to know what happened back then in 2000. take a look at this chart of some of the biggest names in tech at the dawn of the new millennium. talking about cisco, priceline,

amazon, icge. collins points out these stocks had explosive moves higher in 1999 and 2000. just like we've seen with the software of service names lately. and one quarter into the year 2000, the wheels came off. and by the end of 2001, most of the gigantic gains had evaporated. normally with this massive decline, you'd expect an oversold bounce. but that's not how things played out. during the dot com collapse. take a look at this chart to see what came after the crash. nothing. nothing at all. i mean, after getting crushed the, high flyers flat lined for years and years. collins points out that anyone who bought these stocks, well, i've got to tell you, you know, thinking they would, you know, get a rebound back, they ended up wallowing in misery for a long time. remember, this is not emotional. we're just looking at it clinically. these are pictures. the lesson 2000 from the chart perspective is that once these

red hot stocks give up, there is no coming back. granted priceline did recover, became unbelievable stocks. that took many years to unfold and before they managed to rebound, they stayed in the house of pain for a long time and you might not want to live there for a while. collins thinks the action in many of the momentum names. amazon, facebook, yelp along with big movers like himax, tech, biomarin, just like in 2000, moved higher. you can see the same pattern in the newly public names. let's go over twitter, okay. fireeye, workday, channel advisory, software as a service. again, not so good, right? stocks had a very successful ipo followed by big runs and being put through the meat grinder. what can we learn clinically from the parallels to the 2000

tech crash? take a gander at the weekly chart. cienna a fiberoptics network company hot in 2000, starting to talk about ramping up cell phone and digital first for mobile. look at this, this is versus yelp, okay. and you know i think yelp is a big company. we're talking about whether it's a good stock. collins points out that in early 2001 when ciena had more room to fall, the stock price fell below its blue 40-week moving average. shortly thereafter, ciena experiences a bearish crossover where its longer term 40-week moving average crossed above the shorter term 20 week. see that? got that? and that is something chartists view as being extremely negative. collins notes that yelp has fallen below two of these moving averages, yet to be hit with the

bearish crossover. so there is, you know, it could go either way. but remember, if it goes that way, not so good. what did it mean for ciena back in 2001? great growth company. ciena dropped from 1,000 to 500, after the stock fell below the 40-week moving average, plummeted from 500 to 17, 96% decline in one year. now, here's the key. when collins looked through the charts of amazon, many others from back in 2000, he saw the same pattern. take a look at amazon from back then. stock falls below the 40, right here. the 40-week goes above the 20. just that pattern again, right? and then the stock falls off a cliff. and this is amazon, now, again, if you held on to it, you did great. most people didn't. from that point on, amazon never closed above the 40-week moving average for two years until it finally bottoms and recovers in early 2002. so for collins -- fall below the

40-week moving average, there's no coming back. the 40, okay. and once the momentum stock falls below that level, absolutely must not buy it. at the same time, if the 40 m e moving average crosses above the 20-week, collins thinks major, major red flag. with that in mind, take a look at this weekly chart of linkedin. even though the stock is now 40% below its high, collins points out that it's both below the 40-week moving average and it's experienced the bearish crossover. he predicts more pain, linkedin, 2000, a 40% decline can become 80%, 90% or 99% decline. those sound a little extreme given that linkedin is actually a good company, profitable. just as there are many momentum names that have fallen below the 40-week moving average, there are some that manage to hold up above this level. and those could be the exceptions to the hideous decline. this is what i'm focused on right now. take a look at facebook's chart. collins points out that facebook

is one of the rare momentum stock that's up huge and still holding above its 40-week moving average. to collins, suggest the stock is in a much less dire position. isn't that interesting? it has accelerating profit growth and sells at 22 times 2016 earnings. here's the bottom line, for now, we need to accept that the once loved momentum stocks, and it's foolish to try to catch them yet. if collins is right this decline is echoes of the year 2000, then any momentum stock that's fallen below the 40-week moving average should be treated as a goner. his chart work and believe me, the charts are playing a huge role right now suggest that coming back from that kind of decline can take years and years. i personally think not all of these stocks are the same and that some, particularly those associated with extremely profitable companies will break this pattern and eventually if not entirely. however, i totally understand how the chart bath water is bringing down everything. including some babies that will

resurface only after the shellacking's run its course. don't move. the "lightning round" is next. o.

♪ "first day of my life" by bright eyes ♪ o.

you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen.

it is time -- it is time for the "lightning round" on cramer's "mad money." rapid-fire calls. say the name of the stock, play until the sound, and then the "lightning round" is over. are you ready, ske-daddy, time for the "lightning round" on cramer's "mad money." john in pennsylvania, john? >> caller: boo-yah, jim. john from pennsylvania. how are you? >> good, how are you? >> caller: i've been watching you, you've been teaching me exactly what -- i've been doing homework and you're teaching me. >> well, i'm trying to stay one step ahead of the posse like everybody else. what's up? >> caller: i've been trading, trading etfs.

pretty volatile. actually the market where it started is where -- where i started it is now. but i've been doing orders and i've been doing a spread of like $5 and actually been doing, you know, doing pretty well with it. >> okay. >> i actually got carried away -- well, not carried away but excited and took a gamble. i bought it before the earnings came out thinking i'd take a 4%, 5%. >> right. well, the quarter was not a great quarter, but the company's going to have a better 2015 than 2014. i know that seems far from now, that's the way i like to think about it, i think you're okay with qualcomm. let's go to florida. julian? >> caller: boo-yah, jim from palm beach. >> what's up? >> caller: i want to know about my stock. >> we've got intel yielding 3%, going to have a better 2015 than 2014, i'd rather see you in that. >> caller: hey, how are you, jim? >> all right, how about you,

nell? >> caller: good, thank you. pleasure talking with you again. give me your expertise on approach resources. >> it needs more sponsorship because those are both terrific. i don't understand why it trades so poorly v. it's a good spec, it needs backing, no sponsorship. let's go to sidney in virginia. sidney? >> caller: boo-yah from richmond, virginia. >> good to have you. >> caller: thank you, i know you never said trade the stocks. but last thursday, one on my watch list fell back tremendously after reported earnings. i listened to the conference call that night, and i think it's a broken stock, not a broken company. i have made a limited order like you said. is verizon a good -- >> i was on that call, too. i thought it was a good -- t-mobile is going to report later in the week. they're probably going to do some bashing of verizon.

that yield is terrific. i like that stock, like that call. ernie in california, ernie? >> caller: this is ernie from california, beg big boo-yah, ji. >> what's going on? >> caller: i had a question here on one of them here. i have -- >> i like the snack business, it's a good business. i think you're in good shape mondelez. i think the stock goes higher. let's go to john in massachusetts. john? >> caller: good evening, cramer. actually, my question is i actually invest in a company by the name of fhir. >> a lot of people believe shire is being rumored, you get that great tax inversion. you should listen to david faber every morning, he knows it more than anyone else in the world. and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of the "lightning round." >> the "lightning round" is sponsored by td ameritrade.

♪ like, really big... then expanded? ♪ or their new product tanked? ♪ or not? what if they embrace new technology instead? ♪ imagine a company's future with the future of trading. company profile. a research tool on thinkorswim. from td ameritrade. everything looking good. ♪ velocity 1,200 feet per second. [ man #2 ] you're looking great to us, eagle. ♪ 2,000 feet. ♪ still looking very good. 1,400 feet. [ male announcer ] a funny thing happens when you shoot for the moon. ahh, that's affirmative. [ male announcer ] you get there. you're a go for landing, over. [ male announcer ] the all new cadillac cts, the 2014 motor trend car of the year.

in a market that's thirsting for yield, could this be the moment to circle back to b & g foods? bgs for you home gamers. the house of brands you probably recognize as cream of wheat, b & g pickles, and many, many more. it's a slow and steady food company, bountiful dividend that yields 4.4%. at a time when investors are snatching up bonds, 3.5%, b & g

dividends seems downright divine. a track record of buying brands and breathing new life into them. they snapped up specialty brands earlier this month. we'll find out more about that because you may not know those brands. as much as i like the dividend and the company strategy, the business has been not so hot lately. stock roughly flat over the last year for a couple of missed quarters. just reported again back on april 16th. and while the company delivered a 4 cent miss with lower than expected revenues still increased by 15.7% year-over-year, there were some bright spots, their values have improved thus far in april. the business could be turning and the downturn might have been the weather. the dividend could be terrific, too terrific to ignore. let's check in with the president and ceo of b & g foods and find out more about the quarter and where his company is headed. welcome back to "mad money." i've got to tell you. good to see you on the good days and bad days. one thing i love about you, you said something that people don't say in their conference calls. you said the results were

disappointing. you were not happy with what you delivered. >> that's exactly right. we try to be forthright on the conference call. when you do well, you do well, if you do poorly you explain why. >> but you did make it clear, look the law sales aren't coming back. at least the trajectory coming out. the first was easter moved way late into april. those sales have come back. about 75% of the lost volume in the fourth quarter came back. the other part of the volume that isn't coming back is all the volume due to storms. especially in our food service business, we saw that restaurant traffic down and our sales were down commensurately. >> people don't understand, you do direct supplier to the restaurant and if the restaurants were closed for bad weather, you didn't sell anything. >> our sales to those guys are a

great barometer of how their business is doing. >> now, as both the supporter and critic, i look at your company and i think, wow, i love all these new businesses. i want to talk about bear creek, but your base business i liked so much, the cream of wheat, they are just not doing that well. are there some things that maybe now that you've got new good guys maybe it's time to let go? >> well, actually the brands we let go are the smaller brands that some of which are eroding a little bit and are very strong in the northeast where the supermarket customers are having their problems. that's where the volume issues are. i would never let go of ortega unless somebody made me an outrageous offer. >> fair enough. >> it's a great brand, we've grown it tremendously over the years, a lot of innovation around it. cream of wheat is a good, solid profitable brand. we've had trouble growing that brand, much beyond what it was when we bought it. but it still yields. we bought it, yielded 50 cents on the dollar, it's still doing

that. nothing wrong with a brand like that. >> now, i couldn't discern among the analyst community and you whether you feel like that maybe you strayed too far into snacks? >> well, we did take a foray into snacks. we saw some great buys in snacks. if you look at the portfolio, we paid 8 to 8 1/2 times for the purchases that we did. some higher, some lower. it's been an economical buy, and it's a buy into an area where we see when you want to talk about growth in the food business, growth is in snacks, not in the mainstream grocery products, if you will. and so to the extent you care about growth in our context, we wanted to participate in that part of the business, as well. >> okay, the last big acquisition is big. made me feel like well, maybe i've got to tell people to be careful because i know you don't like that much debt. to buy at bear creek, should you be issuing equity here? >> that's a possibility down the road.

we don't think we've gotten full realization of the value of making the purchase that we made. we bought this thing at about 7 1/2 times ebitda, valuation is close to 13 times ebitda. you know, so it's a very accretive acquisition right out of the box. we love this brand because it's a nice niche player in the soup business. really has that part of the category pretty much to itself. and the management team has done a great job with it in terms of making it a profitable business. our guidance on this was 85 million in sales, 20 million in ebitda. those are great margins. >> well, to listen to that makes many e feel like people at all concerned with the downturn that the dividend is in trouble. you have tons of coverage. >> that's -- by far, they should not be concerned about the dividend. what really needs to be understood about our company, it's a cash flow machine. you know, we turn a great deal of the ebitda into free cash flow and we send about 60% of that free cash flow out as dividend. there's a big cushion in terms of the free cash flow left over

in the business. and we've tried to be very consistent in terms of as we do accretive deals, keep on increasing that dividend, keep that return to the shareholders consistent. >> well, that's why i'm sticking by it. i think, look, this is what people need in this market. had you not had bad weather, your stock would be like one of the crazy stocks. and i'm not talking about the softwares and service. i mean the consumer products goods companies not doing as well as you that keep going higher. thank you so much for coming on. really appreciate it. that's david wenner. he's on when it's great, on when it's not so great. but the consistency of this company is remarkable. i think it belongs in your portfolio. stay with cramer. huh, 15 minutes could save you 15% or more

on car insurance. everybody knows that. well, did you know that game show hosts should only host game shows? samantha, do you take kevin as your lawfully wedded husband... or would you rather have a new caaaaaar!!!! say hello to the season's hottest convertible... ohhh....and say goodbye to samantha. [ male announcer ] geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more.

tonight's show kind of a microcosm for what's going on in the market. on the one hand, b & g foods, didn't do that great of a quarter, but does have that 4% dividend. it's consistent and could get better. that stock's going higher. on the other hand, you have a company like homeaway. it blew away the numbers but spending more to get the business to grow. and it's in that whole sector we describe as being crazy wild internet, even though it isn't.

that stock probably has lower to go before it stabilizes. i know it seems absurd. homeaway great growth, b & g, not great growth, but that's the one i want. there's always a bull market somewhere, i promise to try to find it for you here on "mad money." i'm jim cramer. see you tomorrow. >> it is both legal and lethal. seven pounds of metal and plastic... that fire a bullet at roughly 3,000 feet per second. it's called the ar-15. [ shell casing clinks ] to some, it is a brilliant piece of engineering, a modern sporting rifle, and a symbol of one of america's most basic freedoms. >> thank god for america! >> all: pass the law! >> to others, the ar-15 is an obscenity, an assault weapon with no justifiable place in civilian hands. >> you don't need an ar-15.