 Good morning everyone. It is Tuesday and we are on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange with Jim Kramer to talk about the markets and more. Alright Jim, you just spoke with John Flannery. What's going through your mind? I think that John's got a tough task. I think he has to very quickly put the past behind him. He has to very rapidly move in order to be able to get the 20 billion proceeds that he wants to get in order to be able to have a much more simple organization. I think he's a straightforward guy. He's been dealt a very tough hand. I think the power that he owns is a very important business. They represent 30% of power worldwide. They have to figure out a way how to make money on that service revenue stream, which is really good. We've got two service revenue streams that are ideal, the aerospace service revenue stream and power. Healthcare has a very, very solid franchise, but they have to unwind things. I think part of the problem is that had you actually had a better feel for what the company was going to earn, you would have realized that perhaps the downturn was coming and it was much more steep. Even as recently as February, March, you were being told that business was quite good. So it's mystifying. The opaque numbers that the company reported, I think made you feel much more confident. We own a fraction alerts. It was clearly a mistake. I've said that many times. Why didn't we boot it out? I felt that if you like Mr. Flannery said, if you take a longer term perspective, they're going to fix it. Nelson Pelts, who's colleague Ed Gordon is now on the board from Try-In, has made some aggressive presentations and statements to me that by this time in two years from now the stock will be higher. My chapel trust, we take that long of view. So we're looking perhaps to buy some at $16, $17 if it gets there because then it would be valued as the worst conglomerate because arguably it is the worst conglomerate. I think the $5 that they can do, I think they can beat that provided they work fast to be able to dispose of the difficult divisions. Are you more worried about 2019 than 2018? 2019 concerns me only because 2019 was presented as, I'd say, fairly rosy for power. Power is the swing vote here. Oil and gas we know is not doing well. I mean, look, look at Slumberjake. Slumberjake is a much better company than Baker U.S.G. and that's everyone. I mean, I could say the same, Halibur, TransOcean, whatever, it's in service companies. And I think that they've got to get full value. I don't know how they do that for oil and gas. We know that locomotives, when I interviewed Jeff Immelt in February, he said they were doing very well. I get the sense that maybe they're not doing as well. There was just this miscommunications between what was doing well and what turned out to be not doing well. And I think what mystifies me is that it could have turned down in six months because big businesses like this tend not to turn down in six months. You tend not to be in a situation with a company like this where you think you're going to earn $2 and then it turns out to be $1.60, then $1.30 and then it turns out to be $1. These big companies tend to have much more predictable revenue streams, much more predictable earnings because they have long-tail businesses with service revenue. So what seems to be bothering me the most is how could the numbers be so bad if they were so good in February? That remains a question for me that is unresolved. What we have to do is a shareholder, my trust shareholder, is say, okay, Flannery's going to get his arms around it. Now, when you bring up the past, I'm mindful of once I went to hear Bishop Tutu speak and he was talking about how come South Africa went to become a society where from apartheid to a plurality. And he said that the reason it was able to was they created a Truth and Reconciliation Committee that really dealt with the so-called crimes of the past. I was trying in my interview to say, look, I need Truth and Reconciliation about what happened and why we thought it was so good. Now, some of that is personal because I was a fund manager for a very, very long time. I started investing stocks in 1979 and it's very rare that I could have misjudged a company like this without something going on with the company that made it so that you would have misjudged a Nortel, a Tyco. I'm looking at things where I've done wrong. I remember I run Action Alerts with an open hand and I look at those companies and those are the only companies where I was really, really betting on something that turned out to be not true. So I'm not accusing GE of any accounting fraud whatsoever. I am saying that they had a method of reporting that did, I think, present the same numbers that I might have looked at as Rosier than I thought. Again, not any SEC issue, just a way to be able to present the numbers that made them give you a level of comfort that you should never have had. And that's what I feel about GE because sometimes you do just get had. Sometimes you cannot be able to understand what's really going on. A very smart man like Nelson Peltz buys the stock 25-20, just goes to 30, recognizes and still believes in the stock and I believe that 2018 massive heavy lifting year, I think Mr. Flanagan will get his arms around it. I think that it's difficult and it's not in his interest to have truth and reconciliation to figure out what went wrong. But it's in my interest because I hurt people and I like to own that I did that. I don't hurt travel trust, people who count on me and I want to be able to say to people, you counted on me, here's the mistake I made. But when I go over the mistake I made, the mistake I made was about credibility. I thought that management had more credibility than it did have. And what I liked, what I wanted Mr. Flanagan to say is they didn't have credibility. But he's in a different position from me. He has to work at the company. He's gotten rid of MLT's people, which he has to do. But there is a level of pain that comes with recognizing that the way you report things, there were suboptimal verses what you would have loved to have known because had I known how the company was really doing, I would have been selling, not saying it's fine. And Jim, it's hard to look at GE when you have a company like Caterpillar reporting 19% growth. Well, we've got a company, Caterpillar, which I went over on my mad dash. It's reporting really sensational numbers. Now Caterpillar, it's not apples to apples. Caterpillar is earth moving equipment. GE has got a fabulous aerospace franchise. No one is doubting that. They've got a fairly good healthcare franchise, but certainly much better than it was. And that's Mr. Flannery. They do not have, when you go over Honeywell, Honeywell's got a similar profile. United Technologies has a similar profile, but Honeywell's got turbochargers. That's not GE's business. United Technologies has heating ventilation, air conditioning, obviously. It has Otis. Those are more cyclical and they can get hurt on a downturn. We had felt, again, coming back to what management had told us, that power was the secular growth business, that gas turbines were secular growth. And I believe that, why? Because in our country, 35% of our power had been generated by coal not that long ago. Now gas has passed that through power companies that have chosen to close coal and build natural gas turbines, as they call them. And I think that I believed, as I went and I interviewed so many utility managers, and I liked having the CEOs on, I had seen all of them say, listen, we're moving very fast to natural gas. Around the world, they're moving to natural gas, getting out of coal. China even saying, listen, we can't do coal. India is still an outlier. So I had felt that the fundamentals of the natural gas turbine business were strong, which made me then say, you know what, that's a good business. And when they bought Alstom, I was unsure. Matt Horway, who writes with me, is a really, really good judge of things. He and I were very skeptical of buying a company in France because it's very hard to lay off people. But you know what? Jeff Immel assured us that the synergies, which he first thought would be a billion, are going to be three billion. Now there again, where's the three billion in synergies? I don't see it. So I keep coming back to the mistake I made was to believe. And that's quite different from not doing your homework. But it doesn't help because it produced the same result. All right. And for more on GE, everyone can tune in to Jim's Action Alerts Plus call at 11.30 live today. We can't wait for that. Jim, moving on work capital reportedly offering to buy Buffalo Wild Wings. What do you think? Yeah. I mean, look, it's not like someone coming in, a giant European company coming in and buying Panera. I don't know work capital. I think that buying a restaurant chain that does not have momentum is not what I would do. One of the things that has hurt Buffalo Wild Wings, I know this from Bar St. Miguel, is that you frankly need to make your money on the liquor because you can't make that much money on food. But this new generation of people likes takeout. And they don't necessarily, they want the wings, but they might not stay. And the problem with that is therefore you don't get their liquor. And if you don't get the liquor orders, then what happens is you really, as we know from Red Robin, Gourmet, which is a really amazing conference call, that things are happening so quickly that you end up realizing that you've run into a wings-to-go issue. Where you order wings or you order pizza at home through Alexa. You just tell them to order it and then you get liquor at home, which is much cheaper. Now, I know that people like to go out. I charge for Bar St. Miguel at the same price, the prevailing price for the big constellation brands, which is people like Pacifico and they like Madelo, Corona, and these are good brands. But people in the end, and constellation is a great stock, and I think that keeps going hard. People in the end don't want to go out and buy and sit there and have wings, and sit there and drink expensive liquor if they can do it at home. Jim, meanwhile, Home Depot reported great comparable store sales. How come the stock isn't reacting that much? You know, Home Depot continues to do this. People sell it. It reaches a level. Sometimes it goes down a lot. And then it comes back. I think that to sell it is to think that those numbers are not sustainable, that very big guide up. I think they are. TJX to sell it is to say that you don't care that Puerto Rico was included in the comp numbers. 35 stores that were closed, that's meaningful. And TJX is apparel. So you're really betting that it wasn't Northeast warm weather that hurt TJX. It was just lack of execution. Now, obviously, again, this retails very hard. We only have one retailer in Action Alerts, thank heavens. And I thought it was more immune because they are the recipient of all the inventory that the Macy's and the JC Penney's have to get rid of. I like TJX and I think people are giving up on that. I like Home Depot and people are giving up on that. But let's remember the market is ugly. We've been through a period, a very benign period. We want the market, those of us who are bullish want the market to come down a bit. Why? Because it got overheated. You want others to come in. You want others to come in who otherwise might have thought they missed it. This is their opportunity. We often talk about on mad money and in my real money writings that what you want is for stocks to pull back. The problem is when they pull back, people come up with excuses not to buy. I will not come up with those excuses. I see things I like. Jim, staying with Retail, we want to just end with earnings to watch. Anything you're expecting from targets results? There is a dichotomy here between what they can report. I think that they have a lot of good proprietary clothing and will help people will react. And maybe people are reacting. If you go over, for instance, what happened at Macy's, Macy's had a pretty good quarter when it comes to capital structure. The stock goes up and then it gets hit again. The same thing could happen to Target. It could go up and then get hit again. The group is continually being challenged by Amazon at Brickson Mortar. I know Doug Cass said, look, you can buy plants on Amazon. So don't think that Home Depot has got a lock on that. Those of us who are gardeners know that you can't buy plants on Home Depot on Amazon because you need to check the plants. I mean, that's what gardeners do. We don't buy that flat, we buy this flat. There are reasons why Home Depot has good numbers. I also think that the rebuild of Texas and the rebuild in Florida will be substantial because, particularly in Texas, there are insurance checks that you get and people go to Home Depot, contractors go to Home Depot. I'm not saying I'm sanguine about retail. I am saying I'm sanguine about certain retailers. And I just think that the whole group is getting thrown out. The group is also challenged by ETFs. Notice Walmart's been very strong, so people have decided that Walmart's the only one that can take on Amazon. I think that there are a couple that can take on Amazon. But I do think that in the end, people think that Target is challenged with BOPUS, which is a buy online pickup in store and that BOPUS is losing credibility as a way to be able to compete with Amazon. When I buy Target, as I said earlier, we've already stuck our head in the oven with TGX, which is better than Target. You don't need to stick your head in the oven twice. All right, Jim Cramer, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much. As always, all right, everyone, go to ActionAlertsPlus.com, join the club, and watch Jim's call live at 11.30.