wavePod

Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer 5/29/25 - Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer 5/29/25

Thu May 29 2025

Listen to Jim Cramer’s personal guide through the confusing jungle of Wall Street investing, navigating through opportunities and pitfalls with one goal in mind - to help you make money. Mad Money Disclaimer

Summary

Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer – Episode Summary (May 29, 2025)

Hosted by CNBC’s Jim Cramer, the May 29, 2025, episode of "Mad Money" delves deep into the current economic climate, significant stock movements, and insightful interviews with industry leaders. This comprehensive summary captures the episode's key discussions, insights, and conclusions.

1. Economic Overview and Tariff Impact

Timestamp: [01:25] – [08:05]

Jim Cramer opens the episode by addressing the tumultuous state of U.S. tariffs and their far-reaching implications. He reflects on recent judicial challenges to tariffs, noting the oscillating market reactions:

Court Rulings on Tariffs: Cramer highlights a panel of federal judges declaring most of the year's tariffs illegal, causing the S&P futures to surge overnight before retracting following the White House's steadfast stance on maintaining tariffs.

"Maybe no one wants tariffs on either side of the table except the President of the United States." ([01:25])
Economic Indicators: He underscores the economy's downturn, citing a GDP drop of 0.2% in Q1 and a spike in weekly jobless claims to a three-year high. The decline in pending home sales is attributed to soaring mortgage rates, now at 7%.

"What's far more important is the recognition that our economy's plummeted into negative territory." ([04:10])
Consumer Impact: Cramer emphasizes that tariffs are ultimately borne by consumers through higher living costs, arguing that businesses are passing the expense onto customers rather than absorbing the full cost.

"As a consumer, you have to be rooting against tariffs because they translate directly into a higher cost of living for you." ([06:15])

2. Stock Market Commentary and Retail Sector Analysis

Timestamp: [08:05] – [38:52]

Cramer provides a detailed analysis of the retail sector, focusing on specific companies affected by tariff policies and market dynamics.

Wendy’s and Verizon:
- Wendy’s: He maintains a bearish outlook on Wendy’s, advising investors to exit their positions.
  
  "I'm reiterating my get out of Wendy's call." ([08:21])
- Verizon: Praises Verizon’s dividend yield of 6% and notes improvements in the company's performance.
  
  "I believe in fair trade, not free trade. But I also want tariffs to be rolled out in a way that makes sense." ([09:40])
ELF Beauty:

Cramer highlights ELF Beauty's impressive quarter, driven by strong sales and strategic acquisitions.

"ELF is back up to 112 after a monster 24% run today because the company just reported a magnificent quarter at top and bottom line beat." ([12:11])
Gap Inc.:

Discusses Gap Inc.’s solid quarterly performance juxtaposed with stock price volatility due to tariff concerns.

"Gap plus five. You have Old Navy, ninth consecutive quarter of consistent market share gains." ([30:43])
Nike’s Struggle and Turnaround Efforts:

Provides an in-depth analysis of Nike’s challenges over the past few years, including leadership changes and strategic pivots to regain market share.

"Nike's now trading at the same level we saw during the pandemic year lows in March of 2020." ([20:36])

Cramer remains cautiously optimistic about Nike's potential for a comeback under new leadership but advises a measured investment approach.

"I'd start with a small position. That way if something else goes wrong, you can buy more into weakness, pyramid style." ([39:43])

3. Interactive Segment: Caller Questions

Timestamp: [08:05] – [42:36]

Cramer engages with listeners, addressing their stock queries and providing personalized investment advice.

Caller Ron from Tennessee: Seeks advice on buying more Wendy’s shares. Cramer advises against it, reinforcing his bearish stance.

"I have not liked for a very, very long time. I need to go to Brian in Connecticut." ([08:21])
Other Calls:
- AutoZone: Cramer labels it “the single best buyback” and encourages investment.
  
  "This is the single best buyback. The quarter is very good." ([28:59])
- Palantir and Biohaven: Suggests Palantir over Biohaven due to positive outlooks, while acknowledging a personal deal with Biohaven.
  
  "I think that Sasha is asking for too much to reopen China." ([40:29])

4. Interview with Tarang Amin, CEO of ELF Beauty

Timestamp: [12:11] – [20:24]

Cramer sits down with Tarang Amin to discuss ELF Beauty’s remarkable growth and strategic initiatives.

Growth and Acquisition:

Amin shares insights into ELF Beauty’s 25 consecutive quarters of net sales growth and the strategic acquisition of Rhode, a fast-growing beauty brand founded by Hailey Bieber.

"We just delivered our 25th consecutive quarter of net sales and market share gains drew our net sales 28% in fiscal 25 adjusted, but 26%." ([13:10])
Retail Expansion:

Discusses the expansion into major retail chains like Sephora, Target, and Walmart, emphasizing successful launches and strong market positioning.

"We're very excited about the partnership with Sephora and we think it's going to be a terrific retail partner for us to continue to expand road." ([14:27])
Tariff Mitigation:

Explains how ELF Beauty is navigating tariff challenges through price adjustments and supply chain optimization.

"We have been continuing to optimize our supply chain and diversify our business." ([14:45])
Future Plans:

Outlines plans for international expansion into markets like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Poland, aiming for top-tier brand positioning.

"Our next countries that we're expanding in is we're going with Crowdfat in the Netherlands and Belgium." ([15:28])

Cramer praises Amin’s leadership and strategic foresight, highlighting ELF Beauty’s resilience and growth trajectory.

> *"I think you should be. We do have to talk about something I was discussing with my colleague Ben Stoto's recently director."* ([20:07])

5. Interview with Richard Dixon, President and CEO of Gap Inc.

Timestamp: [30:43] – [38:36]

Cramer engages with Richard Dixon to discuss Gap Inc.'s performance amidst tariff pressures.

Strong Q1 Performance:

Dixon emphasizes exceeding expectations with increased same-store sales, market share gains, and a robust balance sheet.

"Comp sales up 2%. That's the fifth consecutive quarter of positive comps." ([31:19])
Tariff Mitigation Strategies:

Details efforts to reduce tariff impacts by diversifying sourcing and minimizing dependence on China.

"We've already mitigated over half of the anticipated impact of tariffs." ([32:46])
Brand Revitalization:

Discusses initiatives to revitalize Banana Republic and strengthen Old Navy’s market position through strategic marketing and product offerings.

"We continue to strengthen the foundation and product. And with each passing quarter, we're seeing clearer signs of brand progress." ([35:26])

Cramer commends Dixon’s transparent approach and strategic execution, reinforcing his confidence in Gap Inc.’s long-term prospects.

> *"Good quarter, but lots of excitement."* ([36:40])

6. Lightning Round: Quick Stock Picks

Timestamp: [38:36] – [42:36]

In the high-energy Lightning Round, Cramer offers swift buy, sell, or hold recommendations on various stocks based on brief caller inquiries.

D-Wave Quantum:

Cramer enthusiastically labels it as “the best,” suggesting potential for a breakout.

"I think of the ones that are out there, this is the best." ([39:14])
Idex:

Advises against investing despite congratulations from a caller, citing high valuation metrics.

"This one's had too big a run. I'm not there for it." ([39:43])
Palantir:

Recommends Palantir over another stock due to expected positive developments.

"I'm going to suggest Palantir, also known as Palantir by people who don't know it." ([40:29])

7. Discussion on Nvidia and U.S.-China Semiconductor Trade

Timestamp: [43:10] – [47:05]

Cramer concludes the episode with a critical analysis of the semiconductor industry's geopolitical tensions, focusing on Nvidia's strategic position amid escalating U.S.-China trade disputes.

Nvidia’s Market Position:

Highlights Nvidia’s dominance in high-end chip manufacturing and the impact of restrictive trade policies.

"Nvidia currently makes up 50% of the high end chips in China because they're not allowed to sell their best product to the Chinese." ([43:10])
CEO Jensen Huang's Plea:

Summarizes Huang's argument for maintaining business ties with China to preserve U.S. semiconductor supremacy.

"Jensen argued that if you want what's best for the United States, you can't afford to bolster the Chinese chip makers by boxing out Nvidia." ([46:00])
Geopolitical Implications:

Cramer draws parallels between the current U.S.-China relationship and the Cold War era, expressing concern over potential escalations.

"If we're really headed for a new cold war with China, then we have to just get used to it." ([45:10])
Future Prospects:

Despite the challenges, Cramer acknowledges Nvidia's global opportunities but remains skeptical about policy shifts under the current administration.

"I just don't know if President Trump cares because from his latest actions it feels like we're just a few years away from a total shutdown in relations with China." ([46:30])

Conclusion

Jim Cramer's May 29, 2025, episode of "Mad Money" offers a robust exploration of the interplay between U.S. trade policies, corporate strategies, and market reactions. Through insightful interviews and dynamic market analyses, Cramer equips investors with the knowledge to navigate the complexities of today's financial landscape.

This summary provides a holistic view of the episode, capturing essential discussions and notable quotes to inform and engage both regular listeners and those who missed the broadcast.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Bank of America (0:01)

As America's leading business lender, bank of America is on your corner and in your corner. With $215 billion in business loans and over 3,700 business specialists across the nation, we help businesses thrive so communities prosper. What would you like the power to do? Learn more@bankofamerica.com LOCALBUSINESS bank of America Official bank of FIFA Club World Cup 2025 Copyright 2025 bank of America Corporation. All rights reserved.

Keith Landsford (0:31)

This episode is brought to you by Schwab Market Update, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Join host Keith Landsford for this information packed daily market Preview delivered in 10 minutes or less, including projected stock updates, monetary policy decisions and key results and statistics that may impact your trading. Download the latest episode and subscribe@schwab.com MarketUpdatePodcast or find Schwab Update wherever you get your podcasts.

Jim Cramer (1:25)

Hey, I'm Kramer. Welcome to Mad Money. Welcome to Crame America. Other bill made friends. I'm just trying to make you a little money. My job is not just entertain, but to educate. Put everything in context. Call me 1-800-743- CNBC. Tweet me. ImKramer. Maybe no one wants tariffs on either side of the table except the President of the United States. You know, that's what went through my mind when a panel of federal judges pronounced most of this year's tariffs to be illegal and the S and P futures soared to the sky in the overnight markets, only to come back down hard when the White House indicated there will be tariffs by other means. Then this afternoon, the federal appeals court put a stay on the first ruling allowing tariffs to stay in place for now pending the outcome of appeal. And that is why we gave up those early gains, dow only advancing 117 points, S&P climbing point 4% and the Nasdaq rising 0.39%. But just to give you an example, the Nasdaq had fallen up almost 2% after the close when we learned that the first court had blocked the tariffs. Now it didn't even seem to matter to the President that the US Court of International Trade thought that he exceeded the checks and balances protected by the institution and the Constitution. He's going to have those tariffs by any means necessary. Now, it's possible that the tariffs could bring in hundreds of billions of dollars to the treasury on top of whatever savings we get from Doge, the one time residence of Elon Musk. But even if you doubled those already optimistic numbers, it wouldn't offset the $3 trillion hole that the President's big, beautiful budget bill could blow into the federal budget deficit. Honestly, though, what's far more important is the recognition that our economy's plummeted into negative territory. As we learned today, the GDP fell point two percent in the first quarter. I know some will argue the desire to beat the tariffs caused some of that weakness, but what caused. What then caused the weekly jobless claims to hit their highest level in three years? What caused pending sales of previously owned homes to fall the most since September of 2022? Well, mortgage rates are 7%. They're too high now. Interest rates fell today, which is what happens when the economy weakens. And that welcome decline generated more chatter about how the Fed will have to cut rates to make things better. Which I come back and ask, all right, how did it come to pass that the Fed has to make things better because the President made things worse? Now, see, that's not how things normally work around here. The White House doesn't typically start a fire, collect some tariff insurance money, and give the fire department. That's the Fed, something to do. Right now, the administration is to hope that our trading partners believe the Supreme Court will uphold the tariffs or that another lawsuit against the next iteration of tariffs will somehow fail. Because if the judiciary shoots down the tariffs, Trump has zero cards to negotiate new trade deals. Then again, if the Supremes do side against the White House, we don't need to worry about the retailers raising prices across the board to pass on the tariff pain. Which brings me back to the show's opening, when we saw this huge burst of futures buying and then a barrage of selling after the President made it clear that the ruling meant nothing to him. Well, it really got me thinking. It got me to think, who really wants these tariffs? Consider that we now have enough retail earnings under our belts to know that prices are definitely going higher for you. Businesses can't afford to eat the full cost of tariffs. It was chimerical. So they're passing it on to the consumer, to you, almost every one of them. The President wants the cost of our tariffs to be eaten by foreign manufacturers, but no American retailers. The kind of bargaining power, not even Walmart, which is unable to get big concessions from its Chinese suppliers. So as a consumer, you have to be rooting against tariffs because they translate directly into a higher cost of living for you. We know from the last election that people are very sensitive to inflation. If you didn't like it under Biden, I don't know, are you going to like it under Trump more? I mean, you Won't say, oh, but it's good for the country. Believe me, you won't. If you're at a company that imports lots of merchandise, you know you're going to make less money on this tariff regime, meaning your earnings will go down. And that's how you got what we saw with Best Buy and HP today. Shortfalls, disappointments. Maybe we shouldn't care, but we want competitive retailers and competitive PC makers. In order to be competitive, they have to make enough money to stay in the game. If you're a shareholder, you don't want the tariffs either. And that's why the futures initially surge when the panel judges rule the tariffs unconstitutional. When the tariffs are thwarted, people will swoop in to buy anything. If you're a manufacturer, you can't find enough skilled workers to justify putting more factories in America. We're a high wage country with low unemployment. Maybe if the revolution causes lots of white collar layoffs the next few years, we'd be in a different situation. Right now, the cost of manufacturing in this country is absurdly high. We don't have any room for more. Now, lots of companies believe that one of the primary goals of Trump's trade policy was to hobble our one time friend China. But all you have to do is ask Tim Cook about that as Apple gets punished for frantically trying to make its phones in India and many of the apparel companies moved to Vietnam, a gambit that worked out even worse as the tariff sword. It's kind of like an appointment in Samara where you try to cheat death by leaving town only to find that death was waiting for you in the new haunt suboptimal. The consumer, of course, bears the cost of that whole exercise. Now, I am not a fan of unfettered free trade. I know it has gutted many a town is still fighting for the lies. But I don't see these towns coming back anytime soon. The reshoring is selective and not geared to where those jobs used to be. We're the only country that plays by the rules on trade. That has not worked out for us. I don't like that. So I am what's called a fair trader. I want to see our government put its thumb on the scale to help American business disadvantage our trading partners. In theory, I'm usually pro Taft because they're necessary evil. But they are evil and I want them administered in a considered way, not in some sort of frantic shot clock way. Make them tough, even brutal to those who really harmed us, not so brutal to those who haven't. But that's not how the President's tariff program is being executed. The statements from our side are rushed. It's like the clock is ticking constantly wearing us down almost daily. We've become beasts of tariff burdens. I say that because if this had been executed in a considerable way, the the futures would never have rallied so huge overnight in response to when the tariffs were temporarily struck down. Is it too late to change course? My hope is that the tariffs can still be laid out in a way that creates jobs, raises some money for the treasury, gives companies enough heads up to mitigate the damage. Wasn't that the plan? Is there anyone, perhaps even including the President, who believes that's what we're currently doing right now? Here's the bottom line. Even if you believe in fair trade, not free trade, as I do you, you have to wonder how we're going to get any meaningful deals now that our trading partners know the courts might invalidate the whole tariff agenda. In that sense, but only in that sense, maybe the judiciary shooting down the tariffs is the easiest way out of this nightmare. Ron in Tennessee. Ron.

Jim Cramer (21:57)

All week we've been looking at these beaten down apparel and footwear stocks, trying to figure out which ones can make a comeback. This group has been hard hit in part because it's hostage to the consumer and in part because it's right in the crosshairs of President Trump's tariff agenda. On Tuesday I highlighted VF Corp. Where I want to wait for more evidence of a term before I feel confident sticking my neck out. Although it's certainly encouraging to see a bunch of insider buying receipt late, including from CEO Bracken Darrell, who plunked down $1 million the other day to buy shares in the open market. That's that's conviction. Yesterday I told you I'm cautiously optimistic about Lululemon's ability to keep rebounding, assuming they don't drop the ball when they report next week. Tonight, we need to talk about Nike. Arguably the most controversial stock in this corner of the market. For decades, Nike is one of the greatest growth stories around. But then it became a house of pain. Over the past three and a half years. The stock peaked at $179 in November of 2021. Since then it's been all downhill punching to $52 at the post Liberation Day lows, although it's now rebounded to the low 60s. Basically, Nike's now trading at the same level we saw during the pandemic year lows in March of 2020 when the entire economy was shut down. Now Nike's had some serious problems over the past few years. At first, when the stock started pulling back from its highs, many thought it was simply cooling off after a huge run in 2020 and 2021. But then the stock started rolling over and again in 2023. The bull said that was about their huge exposure to China, where the economy was still struggling. As the market kept climbing though, Nike just kept sinking lower and lower. And it became impossible to deny that there were serious structural problems here. For example, under the leadership of former CEO John Donahoe, the company went all in on its direct to consumer business and in the process alienated key retail partners, which ended up hurting Nike. At the same time, management lost focus on the signature product innovation that powered Nike's rise since the 1980s. Competitors started swarming everyone from on holding to Hoka to New Balance to Lululemon and Fury. And Nike did a poor job of defending its market share. All this led to consistently weak numbers to the point where Don Ho was forced out last September to be replaced by a much liked, not loved Nike veteran, Elliot Hill, who came out of retirement to try to turn things around. Now given the scale of the problems here, I don't think Hill's had enough time to to deliver a comeback. When Nike last reported March, the results were solid enough, but management also hit us with a pretty door outlook. Talking about a revenue decline in the low to mid teens for the current quarter. Wow. With a 4 to 500 basis point decline in gross margins. That's terrible. This is the second time in a row that Nike's blessed us with ugly guidance under Hill's leadership. And of course that last quarter in March came about two weeks before the Liberation Day tariffs announcement months which sent the stock lower still because they do the vast bulk of their manufacturing in Southeast Asia. But once the tariffs started to get rolled back or paused, especially the most egregious tariffs from Chinese imports that got reversed three weeks ago, Nike was able to rebound off its lows. It's now about $10 above its early April bottom and essentially back to pre Liberation Day levels. So could this be the start of a larger move higher? You know, honestly, I'm conflicted on Nike. On the positive side, the new CEO has a clear strategic plan to turn things around by focusing on running basketball, football training and sportswear. Especially United States, the United Kingdom and China. I think that's smart. A better better nail their best categories, they're in their best markets and try to be everything to everyone. Earlier this month, Nike also announced a series of senior leadership changes couldn't retirement of the company's former president of consumer, product and brand. With her responsibilities now being split across three separate executive Executives definitely needed some fresh blood there. Then just last week we learned that Nike plans to start selling its products directly on Amazon again for the first time since 2009. That's important not just because Amazon will bring in more business, but because it shows you how the company's strategy has changed. Rather than going all in on their direct to consumer business like they did under Dono, Nike's once again trying to work directly with retailers to bolster its sales. They also did a terrific partnership with Red hot Urban Outfitters. Very short shoot. That conference with Urban Outfitters that so much it was about Nike. Finally, I simply think that the stocks is more de risked than it's been in quite some time. After two consecutive kitchen sink quarters where management did everything they could to reset expectations in late June, Nike reports again, hopefully after clearing out bad inventory over these past couple of quarters, the company won't have to pair its results with another tepid outlook for the future. Plus, if the guidance is really okay this time, not even good, I bet some analysts will start to come around because a number of them seem to be itching to upgrade the stock. All that said, while there are real positives here, including indications that China is actually stronger you expect, I find it hard to get too bullish Nike because this brand just ain't what it used to be. In particular, I worry about the competition athletic footwear which is long but Nike's bread and butter. Unfortunately old regime dropped the ball just as on and Hoka took the world by storm. Hoka by the way owned by Deckers. By focusing so much on its direct to consumer channels Niko Nike was in effect building barriers to its brand and consumers established loyalty with these other brands. It also didn't help that Nike got pretty aggressive with its pricing which made its merchandise too expensive for many of its customers. I think Nike can win win it back. But it's not going to happen overnight. Under the old regime, Nike stopped sending its latest and greatest merchandise to Foot Locker. That's a key distributor and that opened up slots for the competition at Foot Locker. Nike repaired that relationship just in time for Foot Locker to be acquired by Dick's. But a lot of damage to done. So here's where I come down on Nike. I believe it can come back. But I also think that a meaningful complete turnaround could take a longer time than expected. If you're tempted to play a turnaround here, and I don't blame you, I would start with a small position. That way if something else goes wrong, you can buy more into Weakness, pyramid style. Or you can just cut your losses. And if Nike reports a good quarter with healthy guidance next month, well, you'll get a chance to capture some upside. The bottom line, I am optimistic that the worst is indeed behind Nike or at least will be soon. And I think there's a good chance for a comeback especially with a seasoned hands on Nike veteran like Elliott Hill at the helm. That said, I don't have a ton of conviction the turn happening quickly. So I'd advise you to start slowly with a small position and only buy more if Nike gives you a good reason to pull the trigger. Let's take some calls. Let's go to Bill, Massachusetts. Bill Hi Jim, thanks for taking my call. Of course I, I have an equity here that 9.5 billion in revenue and they have a gross profit margin of 31% which is paid out in dividends which I know you love. It's Dick's Sporting Goods. Oh I like Dick's very much and you know a lot of people that's both Ed Stack. But don't forget Lauren Hoover. Lauren Hobart, CEO is fantastic. A lot of people think that they stubbed their toe when they bought Foot Locker. I'm going to say the opposite. I'm going to say that they may have stubbed their toe but this stock is so much down. It was a 254, now it's a 1. Anyone? It more than reflects. They can write off Foot Locker right now and frankly of course they don't need to. It would still work out by Dick's Sporting Goods. I like that call. Thank you very much. Now let's go to my home state of New Jersey. Donald in New Jersey. Donald. Hi Jim, how are you Jim? I'm doing good.

Jim Cramer (43:10)

Ever since China joined the World trade organization in 2001, they've been both friend and foe. The friend, they brought down prices for just about everything with their cheap labor. The foe, they targeted a series of industries, wiping out factories in factory towns across the country. For a long time, Washington looked the other way because both parties figured we were getting a good deal. The cheap stuff was just that cheap. But in recent years, we've come to realize that China had gotten a better end of the bargain. Crushing our blue collar workforce, devastating our manufacturing capacity, while making fortunes for themselves. Again, every president was fine with this until Trump's first term where he tried to stop China from taking advantage of us by slapping tariffs on multiple goods. Then Biden put restrictions on selling our best technology to China, like Nvidia's top tier semiconductors. These were all piecemeal moves, but they represented a rejection of the old free trade orthodoxy. Ever since Trump was sworn in for his second term, though, things are a lot less complicated. Our government now sees China as a pure foe. The tariffs have created an exodus of American businesses. It's right in the kisser moment. Now the battleground has turned again to semiconductors, which would be our most significant export to China after agricultural goods specifically. Again, we're talking about Nvidia's chips. Currently, Nvidia makes the most sophisticated chips in the world, and until a few years ago, it had 95% of the Chinese market giving potential Chinese rivals zero room to compete. Now that was a pretty great situation, but our nation's interests in China have totally diverted under Trump. We've gone full blown cold war, very similar to our relationship with the Soviet Union after World War II. In this new world, Nvidia only makes up 50% of the high end chips in China because they're not allowed to sell their best product to the Chinese. And that may go down to nothing as President Trump changed the rules without notice, causing Nvidia to write off billions of dollars in inventory and perhaps having to forgo 8 billion in sales next quarter and as much as 50 billion for the full year. Last night, after Nvidia reported one of the best quarters I've ever seen, CEO Jensen Huang made a plea on this show to keep doing business with China, both to maintain US supreme semiconductor supremacy and to keep the profits flowing. Jensen argued that if you want what's best for the United States, you can't afford to bolster the Chinese chip makers by boxing out Nvidia. Keeping Nvidia out of their market is a pure gift to those companies. A lot of us were worried that the Chinese military might use invadeous chips against us. That's the national security argument. But Jensen explained that China is not going to use them or American chips for their military any more than we use Chinese chips for our military. Huge security risk. I probe that issue pointing out that President Trump just reversed Biden's so called diffusion rules, allowing a video to sell billions of dollars of chips to countries that previously didn't have access to them. Couldn't deep pocketing Gulf monarchies. So maybe Jensen is asking for too much to reopen China. He said that we act like China can't build the highest end chips themselves when we know they're doing so. Including Deep Seek's new semis that were just announced. If we sell our chips to China, he says, we can regain our supremacy. But if they can't do that business, it's effectively a huge subsidy for the Chinese chip makers. Look, I'm a hardliner on China, but I see the point. Apple dominates with the iPhone because everyone writes programs for them. Microsoft dominates with Windows for the same reason. Nvidia could be in a similar position, but not if they're effectively banned from doing business in the second largest economy on earth. Nvidia could see this crown to China very quickly. If it isn't allowed to sell a lot of chips, they there returning a lot of the profits from that 50 billion in sales to the US to build more capacity here. I just don't know if President Trump cares because from his latest actions it feels like we're just a few years away from a total shutdown in relations with China, possibly leading to a Berlin Airlift style situation. Except this time it's Taipei. If we're really headed for a new cold war with China, then we have to just get used to it because there's nothing Nvidia can do. Fortunately, there's still a ton of opportunity for Nvidia outside of China because its chips are that great. To me though, the president no move for any of our companies to do more business in China than they have to. I think that's a mistake when it comes to semiconductors, but right now I fear that's exactly what's going to happen. I like to say there's always more markets on my palm Start. Fine. Just for you, right here on Money, I'm Jim Cramer. See you tomorrow.