. >> caller: getty holdings. >> getty holdings is very hard to understand because it came public, theret up way too high and now it's all the way too low and it's not a bad company i think down here. i'm not a spac guy but this one may be actually worth looking at holy cow i can't believe i just said that about a spac let's go to jason in illinois. jason. >> caller: hey, jim. long-time viewer, first-time caller appreciate everything you do and congrats on the phillies >> thanks a lot. >> caller: but anyway, wanted to talk to you about clf. >> the quarter wasn't that good. the company tried to say it wasn't as cyclical as it turned out to be. as far as i'm concerned, once you get to the 13 level you're not going to stop right there. it's going to go even lower. that's why i continue to prefer nucor. better company i'm not done we're taking piroz in california >> caller: hi, jim thanks for taking my call. really appreciate it >> of course >> caller: as a garp and momentum investor i wanted to get your opinion on a health care stock that is showing great technical momentum and a fantastic

called getty images holdings the symbol is gety people got very excited about it the stock went to 30t is now at 5 and i put that out not to dim the, you know, not to tamp the hopes of anything. it just came public. but to remind people what can happen to a legitimate company that is actually profitable that's a spac. let's be aware that even profitable spacs have hurt our viewers tremendously >> jim, you mentioned nat gas, and you mentioned grain over the weekend. russia, obviously, not cooperating with the corridor. and also, there's a new round of sanctions that will make it tough to have an insured ship take oil from russia beginning tomorrow >> and that matters, obviously, president xi has been, i think, a bion, david, why putin has remained in power. i think it's a perilous time for putin, not just for zelenskyy. >> that may be the case. but of course, that also raises a lot of fears, because if you corner putin, what will he do? >> that's why i think the united states policy has been to play for a tie, not for a win the idea that a win would produce some sort of nuclear -- smal