baby. >> winner. >> pfizer. >> that's a different thing. >> heim melissa lee. see you back here tomorrow for more "fast." moantime, don't go anywhere. [ bell ringing ] 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. 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 save you some money. my job isn't just to entertain but to educate and teach you. call me at 1-800-743-cnbc. or tweet me @jimcramer. why is investing so difficult? why can't everyone just make money owning stocks given that

the market bias has generally been over done. the number one reason -- risk. not just the risk that you bought stocks and they went down like today. dow sank. s&p lost more than 1% moving into the red for the year. nasdaq fell .98%. no. it's the risk that something might change after you bought a stock. something fundamental that upset it is apple cart of investing. we know many of the variables, both of the macro or geopolitical and cyclical and the micro, factors impacting individual companieses can change. hardly a day goes by without a fed official saying something that can slam the market like fed chief janet yellen bolstered it when she said she would be judicious about raising interest rates. the banks can cause turmoil and

lower prices. obviously an earnings shortfall cannot -- today we saw another kind of risk. we saw government risk. and in many ways it is the most painful [ house of pain ] of all. it can obliterate your capital in a heartbeat. [ gunshot ] [ labored breathing ] >> all week i'm focused on these because i don't want you to ever think investing is easy. something that happens after big runs like those from the bottom week of february. i didn't think the government would be as considerate as it was in delivering governmental risk on a silver platter like last night when the treasury department promulgated rules that put the kibosh on a huge merger.

a nonchalant moving of the goal posts i think that caused allergan stock to get annihilated. in fact, treasury did this after offering the rules it tossed aside. let's start with the notion of what the pfizer allergan tie-up was about. in a legal way take advantage of lower tax rate they have because it is down overseas . this is there is no law that says they can't do it. the lack of laws let them do it. i thought that was ridiculous, frankly and the treasury secretary could and should issue rules to block ib version ifs he wanted to. when i got to interview the treasury secretary two years ago i pressed him about why they didn't do something. rule making given that the invert ed companies were still u.s. based, not based overseas. it seems silly he didn't just

change the regs to make the inversions almost impossible to do. take a listen. why can't you say we are looking at the substantial interest provision? every one of the companies thinking about invert ing now is a mail drop in either switzerland or dublin. >> there are obscure provisions in the tax code. we don't believe we have the authority to address this question through administrative action. if we did, we would be doing more. that's why legislation is needed. it's why we proposed it in the budget. i think there are limits to what we can do without legislative action. it is important that this issue be address. we are seeing an uptick in activity of greater interest of companies moving overseas. >> okay. now you have heard that. from that footage it seemed to me like the statements were a reluctant green light to merge away. it wasn't within treasury's purview or the irs regulation to

block inversions. just that of congress. but not that long after, the secretary offered and used the irs to do what i suggested. rather than waiting for them to act as he said he had no legal authority to do so he issued notices about how to structure a deal in order to avoid running afoul of other regulations. the result, pfizer decided to buy allergan in a structure designed specifically to adhere to what the treasury department said were the new rules that would allow certain inversions to occur. you know what? i was dubious. i was dubious about whether the goth would go back on its word. that was back in february of this year. we interviewed brent saunders here the ceo of allergan to see if the deal -- to spread where the sto should have been and where the stock was -- you know what? that told me something funny was

happening. put it that way. he assured us that all was well. >> the treasury issued two notices. we followed those. they are promulgating those regulations. we think this is america and once you have a law there should be certainty. for them to change it in the ninth inning seems unfair. that said the deal will go through. >> i don't think so. it isn't because he differed again. this time basically crafting a new rule that might as well be designed to stop the deal from getting done. i don't want to over simplify. by instituting a three-year look-back clause lou made a regulation that applied just to allergan. we ought to call it the anti-pfizer/allergan regulation.

the brent saunders you believe in might be old fashioned or maybe i was naive. knowing he worked with lawyerses to know the deal was done legally didn't matter. the government changed the rules overnight to penalize old behavior, not stop new behavior. that seems -- to me. when cnbc contacted the office to see how it contradicted what i showed you the office said, i quote, this is the third time we have taken administrative action to address inversion since the 2014 conference. to me that's not responsive. it seems like circular reasoning. maybe in washington that's how it goes. businesses often complain governmental uncertainty like what happened here causes real pain. i can tell you that the uncertainty certainly reverberates in stocks given my charitable trust at action

owners plus.com has stock in allergan. it closed down almost 15%. the trust, i talked about it on "squawk on the street." the guys who own allergan and were short pfizer to take advantage of the spread i mengtsed earlier between where the stock is and where they knew the deal couldn't get done. they were forced to blow out their positions at any price. allergan stock tumbled. i think this destruction of capital in allergan should serve as a warning to you at home that the government can be a powerful opponent to your wealth creation. if the treasury can change the rules after reassuring parties that it wouldn't, if it can

craft rules that companies are meant to follow and remake the rule that is a given company is violating them that fact makes all stocks worth a little bit less in my eyes even as the government says we have leeway to change. they give themselves an out. some of this is a judgment call. we are learning the justice department may block bak baker-hughes from merging with halliburton. i nearly suggested schlumberger. they could have a long drawn out battle for approval with the government and that would allow schlumberger to benefit. i think that or my charitable trust wouldn't have been so aggressive with schlumberger in the first place. there was bad advice about how the deal could play out. we have been paying higher ticket prices for flights. you better believe the anti-trust division is more

serious. if you own the stock of a company doing everything right and by the book you should have certain investable expectations like allergan could close the deal with pfizer. government risk, we always need to worry that may not be the case. just ask brent saunders. after today, i have to believe he'll tell you that. vick in new jersey. >> caller: hey, jim. big fan of the show. >> thank you. >> caller: my question is regarding the twitter stock. i have been reading some negative reviews. i wanted to get your long-term opinion on the twitter stock and the second part is what do you think of the management change at twitter will do for the company? >> this is a simple question. if twitter grows the stock goes higher. if it doesn't grow it doesn't go higher. just because they announce deals, make statements, doesn't make the stock go higher.

i bet you're surprised it didn't go higher but with growth it goes higher. otherwise, no. bernie in new jersey. >> caller: hi, jim. my name is bernie and i'm in new jersey, yes. >> yes. >> caller: i have a question for you. i bought nike calls september 65s prior to -- the day of earnings. obviously the stock has tanked. i was curious how you feel about the company in general? >> i thought it was way over done. nike is a stock you buy it, put it away, listen to the call. they are a really great company. i didn't see anything that made me not like nike stock other than the fact it was up ahead. that's all that happened here. perhaps the american investors -- maybe i believe in an old-fashioned world. there could be government risk involved in invest. in some ways that's the most painful risk of all. that's why i spent so much time talking about allergan and pfizer. tonight, paypal revolutionized

how the world drops coin. why is the stock so slow rising? and mcdonald's has been a fast food phenom for decades but a burger chab is beating it. i'll reveal who ahead. i'm breaking down bio tech in the off the charts segment. why don't you stick with cramer? >> announcer: 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.

why the heck is the stock of paypal so polarizing? [ buy, buy, buy ] [ sell, sell, sell ] ever since it was spun off from ebay nine months ago it is one of the most divisive stocks on wall street. legions of supporters and

passionate detractors. rg regular viewers know i'm a fan. we own it for action owners plus.com. put out a lot of bulletins about it. there is no shortage of haters. [ booing ] with the title of chief hater going to gene munster. hi, hater. the influential tech analyst at piper jaffrey whose crusade against paypal is beyond passionate into borderline obsessive territory. however before we can get into why i believe i'm write about the stock and why it is worth owning we have to understand what makes it controversial. i'm not talking about the bold decision despite expansion plans in north carolina after a religious freedom law. for those of you who aren't up

to date with technology, paypal is an extremely popular online and mobile payments platform run by dan schulman who took the ceo spot after serving as the head of online. for years paypal was buried within the larger entity that was e ebay. last july ebay spun it off taking it from [ house of pain ] to the house of pleasure. they would be in a position to deal as a stand alone entity. unfortunately paypal didn't get as much credit as we thought it should have. the stock trading above the spin off. it's up. still below where it was when it started. in late january it support ed te

second quarter. the total volumele of payments grew by 23%. would have been 29%. the company handling over 1.4 billion transactions during the quarter. management guay robust guidance and and the board of directors announced a $2 billion buy back. clearly they think the stock is under valued. if we take a kentucky view and go with the lowest earnings out there for 2017, paypal is trading around 23 times next year's numbers. if you take the average, the consensus, more like 22 times. it sounds expensive, wait a second. think about the growth rate. think about the peg rate. see where it is valued versus growth. given the company has 18.7% long

term growth rate. s that's fairly cheap. especially when you consider that visa also creates -- visa, hardly. also trades at 24 times next year's numbers despite slower growth. did you ever notice hat guys go like this like there is something? paypal's numbers are unambiguously strong. not many companies give you consistent 15% plus sales growth. if you, like me, believe the dollar has peaked and will only get weaker paypal's numbers get stronger as the company takes a hit. there's the bull case. even though the analyst community has been generally bullish on the stock there have been loud bearish voices from the get-go. right out of the gate paypal got buy ratings. goldman sachs, jpmorgan, wells fargo. there were also prominent [ sell, sell, sell ] calls like the one from isi

evercore and piper jaffrey where paypal is covered by the hater in chief. it was abuyed at 40 so the change wasn't particularly comforting. paypal was spun off in july. a month later the whole stock market got hit with a truly vicious sell off. s&p 500 fallinger more than 11% in two weeks time and growth stocks getting hit harder. so paypal tumbled down to 30 bucks in late september, but it was no fault of its own. what investors do when a stock goes from 40 to 30 in months. well, you know what? they listen to the one analyst who initiated coverage with a $30 price target. that was gene munster. paypal got slammed because of

market wide beating had taken place and really not specific to the fundamentals of paypal. munster who is a very smart guy, and i like on so many stocks is now viewed as the ax on paypal. that means the analyst who knows it best. he's a respected guy. that's right that he's respected. paypal is a difficult stock for wall street to get its head around. its hard to put it in a box. is paypal a financial company? a financial tech company? an internet company? clearly it's a hybrid. how do you figure out what channels to assign? munster and piper jeffrey is a good example. he's a tech analyst. when you look at the coverage university he inherited paypal because it was part of ebay. however, you don't see any other payment processors or financials of any stripe in his universe.

do you know what else you don't see? any other underweight or sell ratings. of the 26 stocks he follows, paypal is the only one he dislikes. everything is overweight or neutral. his analysts tend to have one. right out of the gate he judged paypal through the lens of a tech company. he didn't like it. he slapped a sell on it and has dug in his heels. his thesis was paypal was up against more competitive threats. apple pay, android, google and he expected the competition would cause the margins to shrink. i think these might be over hyped at this point. apple pay and android pay. they have been devastating. paypal's core business is online payments. he can't see why he'd own paypal over those. paypal isn't in the same business. they are more like visa or

master card. tossing out nuggets about why he still dislikes it. every time he says something. he came out with three separate notes. he wrote notes saying temper your enthusiasm. alphabet won't buy paypal. talk about a strong man. i'm close to paypal. i haven't heard a soul whispered about what it was supposed to buy. what a stretch to say something negative because the stock was going higher. there is one loud negative voice who is smart, nailed the stock out of the gate and is taken more seriously than i think frankly he should be. again, i like it. the bottom line, paypal might be one of the most misunderstood stories out there. one well respected internet analyst keeps attacking a payment processing company

that's really not in his ken. at the end of the day i believe the strong fundamentals will triumph and paypal stock will head higher, something the company agrees with or it wouldn't be a monster buyer of its own stock. more "mad money" ahead. who is eating mcdonald's lunch? the one burger chain able to with stand the onslaught of the golden arches. i will tell you who next and biotech has stabilized after a free fall. what's next? i'm tackling the techs. and oil traded near one month lows today. could investment in the oil patch take you down a slippery slope or are there bargains to be found? i'll reveal. stick with cramer.

since last fall, mcdonald's has been taking share and taking names all across the fast food industry. thanks to the leadership of ceo steve easterbrook and his roll-out of the all-day breakfast menu that put the competition in a world of hurt. not to mention a value menu that launched at the beginning of the year. the stock of mcdonald's -- oh, my -- has rallied more than 35% since the initial all-day breakfast announcement. remember when people didn't think it mattered? this is very much a zero sum game. during the same period of time many other fast food stocks have

gotten hammered. look at that house of pain of jack in the box. there is one burger chain that seemingly is not feeling any competitive pain at all right here and now. and that's -- sonic. sonic! it reported an impressive quarter last week despite the fact they offer many of the same core items as mcdonald's. burgers, fries and shakes. somehow they have transcend ed a difficult environment. sonic stock is only a buck off the all-time highs. which begs the question -- a week ago the company delivered truly stellar results. it was after the close. i said holy cow. they posted a beat off a 16 cent

basis. higher than expected revenue. terrific 6.5 same store sales growth. unusual for a restaurant which crushed the 1.6% number wall street was looking for. better than expectations. came in higher than the numbers from mcdonald's over the same period despite much more difficult comparisons. sonic gave robust guidance forecasting earnings growth for 2016. they were looking for 16 to 20% and a projection of four to six percent same store sales for the year. extraordinary given the overlap, menus and concept. yep. in an industry where virtually every player seems like a victim of mcdonald's we saw no sign of victimization in sonic's numbers. how did they do it? some of the success has to do with the nature of the beast. unlike many fast casual chains sonic operates in a specific niche, in an environment that's

health conscious these days, increasingly so, sonic is synonymous with indulgence. and they are sticking with it. the company is working to create a quality menu with affordable offerings that appeal to the value conscious consumer even if it is not remotely healthy. how do you know sonic? watch the commercials with the two guys in the car chowing down on burgers, fries, guzzling gigantic milk shakes. these aren't two buff fitness pros sipping beet and carrot smoothies with a heap of quinoa over kale. there will be a market for delicious food that's bad for arteries. sonic is delicious food that's bad for arteries. at the same time, sonic is a come telling concept from other fast food joints. not just a drive-thru. it's a drive-in. while 3500 locations might seem like a lot they are mostly in the south so the company has

room to expand in our great nation. the company has 107 new store commitments and expect 175 by the end of the 2016 fiscal year. sonic is good at building excitement for new stores advertising in local areas before they open in a new location. that gives them the edge versus every other burger joint with its head handed to it by mcdonald's. sonic has been smart and selective about using promotions. the ceo, a smart man acknowledged that the industry has become competitive. more and more peers pushing value offerings. unlike jack in the box which conceded defeat and said they would get promotional sonic has a measured approach. hudson talked about a long-term approach. rather than short-term deals to drive traffic. instead of cutting prices he's focused on the consumer's perception of value. for example he mentioned, i quote, even as we have done things that increased the cost

of expensive product like going from ice milk to ice cream, steps like that, we have seen consumer perception of value we offer, in fact, improve over time. sonic is all about making people feel they are getting a good deal on quality food and that strategy is working. as someone who loves sonic, i can tell you it is. in terms of specific promotions rather than discounts across the board sonic is targeted going after parts that might be neglected otherwise like the $3 breakfast options to bring people in during the morning or the half price creamery milk shakes after 8:00 p.m. put it together and you have a brand that can go toe to toe with steve easterbrook's mcdonald's which is why sonic is still worth owning. even up here. with the stock at 23 times next year's earningsest mats. when you consider the long term growth rate that price to earnings multiple is inexpensive. dare i say, a value? sonic knows the stock is cheap so the company is right there

buying back stock with you. something cliff hudson told you on the show he would be doing when we interviewed him in may of last year. since then sonic gave you a 17% gain. in the last two quarters they have at least 72 million both of stock. this is a small cap company. 4% of market cap. bottom line is while so many players in fast food are pummel ed by the resurgence of mcdonald's with the all day breakfast and new menu sonic has been able to offer customers quality food at affordable prices, the essence of value and by having a drive in concept that differentiates them from the industry and, yes, by being so tasty. this is a well-run company. i bet the stock continues to run. why don't we take questions? sergei in new york. sergei. >> caller: hey, jim. it's serge. boo-yah. >> what's up? >> caller: i see there is weakness in the restaurant space. there is a stock i like.

will we see new lows on buffalo wild wings? >> this stock has not kept pace with the market. i think we just got march madness. i saw the stock go down after march madness. i am going to tell you that i don't think it is the right time now for buffalo wild wings. there is others in better. not many companies can raise past the resurgence of mcdonald's. but sonic can. i think the company has room to run. there is more "mad money" ahead. the biotech has shown signs of life. i will see if the uptick continues and looking for plays in the patch? i will tell you who can weather the storm. plus have your questions ready. i'm taking your calls in the lightning round. so why don't you stick with cramer!

♪ the new craftsman pro series riding mowers. now available with power steering. so you can turn with ease. available with the tightest turning radius in the industry. and powerful v twin engines with up to 26 horsepower. because the beer you drink after you mow your lawn tastes better than the beer you drink after someone else mows your lawn. craftsman. when it matters.

if you look back at the long term charts last summer the run came to a halt. since then biotechs have had brutal declines in the second half of 2015.

for months the group was a short seller's paradise. in recent week it is biotechs have stabilized, gain ground which beg it is question if the stocks could come roaring up or at least have they been derisked to the point where the sector no longer feels like a mine field. it's not like pharma is in the blast zone. shattered pfizer causing it to drop. we are drilling down on a specific subset here. she's seeing major signs that the vicious correction in biotech has at least come to an end. look at the weekly chart of the i shares bioshares etf. that's the main one. it points out the down side

pattern here appears to have. with the ibb trading sideways since february. we have two major patterns in play. first a simple double bottom. the double bottom suggests gains in the wings. what bolsters the confidence is the second big pattern. one based on personal meth dolg. he's the me dooefl god father of math who considered 23.6, 38.2%, 50, 61.8 and 100%. they repeat over and over both in nature like patterns in snail shells, flowers, pine cones. and in the stocks. we don't know why but it happens. they can run them through the prism of ratios to find key

levels where the security might change its trajectory. in the case of ibb there is a major question of the relationships right below where the biotech hit bottom in february. we have to go back a little bit. running between 227 and 242. okay. in short they provided a powerful floor of support that held even amid panicked selling at the beginning of the year. remember how bad? at the same time they made the lows as it was testing the fourth week moving average, a terrific floor of support. that's the blue line. made the low right there. that's a key support. when they saw the pattern in the big picture she decided to investigate. in order to find out if it also popped up in the charts of the big companies. let's start by checking out the daily chart of biogen with a major multiple score and a

bountiful top line for alzheimer's even as the stock is down nearly 45%. from the all-time high a year ago. they noticed quite a bit of support near the lows from february and march. that's where we'll drill down. the stock bottomed above the floor. the neat thing is they can analyze both the y axis, price, and the x axis, time. basically she looks at the duration of past and runs it through the ratios to see if there are crucial dates coming up. sure enough, with biogen there was a cluster of timing cycles due from march 16 through march 18. so it is no coincidence the lows were smack in the middle on the 17th. just like with the ibb this is a nice double bottom pattern.

most people think the stock will go lower. she believes it can rally. she said she would be a buyer on pull backs. using the same logic that identified where it was likely to bottom she says yishl targets of 283 and maybe 294. 10% gain at these levels. if bioge n, all bets are off. i have to admit the trust is tempted. but these charts make the trust want to buy more. i want to wait and see if the line holds. it's important. how about regeneron we followed since it was a $5 stock. there are fabulous stocks thanks to the macular degeneration drug. since last summer the stock was put through the meat grinder along with the rest of the

group. take a gander at the daily chart. okay? like the others, regeneron made a double bottom which keeps coming up in february and march. it looks to be breaking up to the upside. last week it took out a prior high at 384. the fact it bounced after it test ed the floor of support between 331 and 338 makes it more confident on a pull back. as long as it holds out above the march 17 low of 348 she believes it can keep high. she wouldn't be surprised if the stock rallies to 499506. that would be a hundred point gain from where it trades. i like this. dove tails nicely with the new drug. it went up big last week. now celgene, host of very exciting new products in the pipeline. brodin didn't spot anything

compelling on the chart. she went to a 30 minute chart where each tick is half an hour of trading. she sees a nice bullish pattern and the ratio suggests it could climb to 105, 107 or 114. that would be a big move. not all the charts are looking good. consider the daily pictograph and the action in gilead. given that the stock bottomed on february 2 and it is already rebounded from 82 to 95, big missouri. she thinks we missed the boat. she says it is legitimate to buy into weakness, she favors the other three over this one. you're getting in closer to the ground floor for the rallies. let me give you the bottom line here. the chart as interpreted by carol brodin said it is safe to come out and buy biotechses again.

she likes biogen, re generon and celgene and you could get pull backs as long as the democratic primary continues and hillary clinton, the presumptive nominee feels the need to protect her left flank by bashing high drug prices and the companies that generate them.

>> announcer: lightning round is sponsored by td ameritrade. it is time. it is time for the lightning round. you say the name of the stock. i don't know the calls or the name of the stock ahead of time. i tell you whether to buy or sell. when you hear this sound -- [ buzzer ] -- then the lightning round is over. nice score. are you ready, skee-daddy? time for the lightning round on cramer's "mad money." i like to start with charlie in washington. charlie? >> caller: hello, cramer. do we have to worry about starbucks or the oval office? >> i like the fact that it's far away and i want to buy some below 55. dave in illinois. dave. >> caller: dr. cramer. >> yes. >> caller: highly regarded by the street.com ibm watson and i like tele flex. >> i do, too. it is literally almost around the corner from where i grew up.

medical device company with good products, single use. that's a great formula for making money. emily in arkansas. emily. >> caller: jim, my percentage -- in semiconductor. >> i have been let down, too. i'm surprised the stock is as low as it is. it has the stock dividend. i don't want you to give up on it. it ran up to 14. that was the chance to sell. did i sell? did i tell people to sell? no. i got it wrong. my bad. how about connor in florida. connor? >> caller: hi, jim. how are you? >> i'm all right. how are you? >> caller: i'm good. whiting. oil is good. >> whiting fit it is depiction of what steve told me the other day. the asset s are too expensive out of the ground. don't buy. bob in new jersey. bob. >> caller: hey, jim. i know you don't care for the banks now. there is an attractive deutsch bank very cheap with almost a 5% yield. >> no, still too risky for me.

bu [ buzzer ] don't want to be there. too much risk. anne-marie in, no. >> caller: i need your help. can't figure out where to sell stanley -- black -- whatever it is. >> stanley black & decker. home depot business is good. tools are good. my trust owns it. no. don't sell the stock. stanley works is good. under a hundred i would buy, buy, buy. gary in nevada. gary. >> caller: from las vegas, jim. >> back in vegas. >> caller: my stock is avis budget group. since hotels, airlines and theme parks are doing well i want to know your thoughts. >> the group is competitive again. no to avis. that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of the lightning round. >> announcer: the lightning round is sponsored by td ameritrade. me move stuff,

what are you working on? let me show you. okay. our thinkorswim trading platform aggregates all the options data you need in one place and lets you visualize that information for any options series. okay, cool. hang on a second. you can even see the anticipated range of a stock expecting earnings. impressive... what's up, tim. td ameritrade. came courtesy of james and patricia thompson. this tv? margaret and tom lee. the championship game ball? that was sebastian diaz. good guy. and all i had to do was ask for their money and pretend i was investing it. their life savings is now my lifestyle. female announcer: don't let someone else live the life you're saving for. find out if you're dealing with a registered investment professional at investor.gov. it's a great first step toward protecting your money. before you invest, investor.gov.

where are all the deals in the oil patch? we keep waiting. stocks drift down. they have all the great assets. they sell for a fraction of what they once did. where are the buyers who were supposed to be waiting in the wings with tons of cash and fabulous balance sheets? what are they waiting for? >> they aren't waiting. they don't care. why? steve chasen said it best when

we asked about why there were no jer mergers since the downturn started when he was on kwoez sta squawk street yesterday. >> the asset equality of most of the companies in trouble is poor. they have evens, maybe $80 oil. nobody needs to buy $80 oil break even properties. >> how true. according to rbn energy my most trusted authority on oil and gas. author of tom know effect, only a dozen or so counties produce oil at a profit in this country. needless to say the distressed companies in the oil patch don't have assets or they wouldn't be distressed. second? >> they have lousy balance sheets f. you buy them you are stuck with a lousy balance sheet. >> you know that an outfit like occidental could refinance this expensive debt at low interest rates but why bother if the

prospects aren't good? third -- >> third reason is a lot of optimism still by the managements that they are going to -- you know, it will be okay in six months if they can just make it. >> this is dead right. i cannot believe how optimistic most oil people are about crude making a huge come back in a short time. it's true there is a lot of fall off in u.s. oil production and we could be producing a million fewer barrels per day than the roughly 9 million per year we generate. other countries like iran are making up for it. oil men in the united states seem almost optimistic oil can double in a year's time. that's not going to happen. >> unlike other industry it is synergies in combination is real low. >> therefore he say it is deals are hard to explain to shareholders. we hear about how opec members are getting together perhaps to resolve a production freeze. i think the endless self-serving

chatter from each oil minister suggests some kind of deal can be reach has been responsible for the movement in the price of oil. to me it is almost impossible. for all practical purposes there is no opec, no restraint. just pumping like mad to wreck the shale industry, the russians pumping to meet needs and iran and iraq going nuts producing because they have no choice. critical need for cash. put it together and you have a situation where scrap producers will sell oil above $40 at a loss just to generate cash flow to pay debt. that will drive oil back into the 30s as it yoyos to and from. occidental occidental me troll yum is in the catbird seat with a major presence in the counties that can produce oil at these prices. don't speculate on the broken down oil stocks. go for if highest equality names

to win veb if oil doesn't go higher. that's the best calculated risk in the oil and gas complex. stick with cramer.

add government risk to one of the reasons why you have to be careful in the stock market. i like to say there is always a bull market somewhere. i promise to find it for you on "mad money." i'm jim cramer. see you tomorrow.

tilman: tonight on "billion dollar buyer"... we could throw a $100,000 order at you - every 90 days. - boom. tilman: ...i'm bringin' my buying power to austin, texas, where i'll give two small companies a shot at the big time. a glassblower who may be more artist than businesswoman. when you talk about these two hands - attached to this body-- - but-- but so what? a line of cocktail syrup that might be too costly for my customers. man: what do you want me to charge? i can't make this work in a saltgrass. tilman: if they deliver the goods, i'll take them to new heights. you will see how much money you'll make. but if they come up short, they could stay small forever. i'ma pour this son of a gun out. my name is tilman fertitta, and i turned a single texas seafood house