P&G ($PG) podcast mentions
Stanley Buck and Decker. Then there's investing. Stocks are terrific. They can make you fortunes, especially younger people who can afford to take chances. But you know what beats stocks for anyone who's 50 or older? The 30-year Treasury. The king, that's what. Sure, inflation could go higher and you might get squeezed, but historically it's not so bad to get a 5.3% risk-free return. Believe me, when you get older, you can still own some NVIDIA and some Apple. You might like a little Chevron or Procter too. But that 30-year is the ultimate sleep at night piece of paper. Not that I know from personal experience, but lots of people tell me it's good to sleep at night. The yield on a 30-year can destroy housing, but it's an even more powerful competitor when it comes to stocks, lower yielding stocks in a sloppy environment like this one. Then there's the problem with too much supply. Government needs to pay for all this debt. We're lucky Uncle Sam can issue bonds to pay for it and people still buy them. Because they're backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. But the level of issuance is insane. You know, they're currently about $4.5 trillion in long bonds right now. Our Treasury Secretary wants to try to keep that interest rate down to reverse all the fallout. He says he's got the inside scoop or something. He's buying them in order to push the price up and the yield down. The problem is Treasury's doing a $6 billion buyback when there are roughly $4.5 $1 trillion, B versus T, worth of long bonds out there. Now that's too much and he has too little firepower. Whole thing's a little silly, isn't it? Although less silly than giving every adult $5,000 so the Republicans can keep control of Congress after the midterms. That would be another trillion dollars. Mr. Treasury Secretary, save your powder. So knowing all this, let's go back to Goldman and Dave from Delta. First, we know that stocks are assets like bonds. You know that a risk-free bond has a huge yield, then people are more likely to choose to buy that bond over a piece of an airline company in common stock, especially when airlines are notorious for being unsafe investments or at least fickle.
Jim Cramer · Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer · Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer 9/10/26 · 2026-09-10Fine. I'm a club member, fifth time caller. We own a large position in Procter Gamble for many years.
Speaker B · Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer · Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer 9/10/26 · 2026-09-10Yeah, yeah. Procter Gamble has been in trouble. Nestlé guidance today.
Carl Quintanilla · Squawk on the Street · 10AM Hour: Exclusive: Airbnb CEO, Compass CEO on Housing Affordability, Reaction to Apple’s Product Event 9/10/26 · 2026-09-10This is— This is like, this is like literally actually December 2019, okay? And I had only bought individual stocks, okay? I could almost remember. It was like Procter Gamble. I think Apple was in the mix, but you know, Coca-Cola, all of these know what you own. And I was reading the same books as Sean. I think the best thing that could happen to me is COVID happened and these things got cut in half. Like, you know, these stocks got crushed. And I sold like a dumbass. And it was the best thing that happened to me because even I knew these stocks and then I knew that just because I understood them and I might understand their business models, that didn't give me an edge. And I just started indexing. And for me as a young person, it's actually been very helpful that some of these know what you own stocks have gotten creamed because these are the things that I did own and they didn't work. And even though I was going to Chipotle every single weekend after football practice, the stock wouldn't go up. And like you say, Michael, the stock doesn't know you own it. I thought it did for a very long time and it never did. And it went down and I sold and I started indexing and it actually worked out. That's my, that's my take.
Chartkin Matt · The Compound and Friends · Stocks Aren't as Expensive as You Think | WAYT? · 2026-09-08Thank you. Well, first off, I would probably say I would want a trailing stop, which means that as the market— the, the stock makes new highs, you're going to move up that stop. And you want that to be different for every stock because a 5% pullback in Apple— sorry, let's say Procter Gamble— is more extreme than something like a 5% pullback in NVIDIA, which can happen in any given day. So make sure your stop's more along— aligned with probably a moving average. Usually when a stock's in an uptrend, it's holding a particular moving average. That might be the 50-day moving average, it might be the 100-day moving average. Whatever that moving average might be, that's where you probably want to keep— put the stop, or a little bit below that, right? Maybe moving average minus 1%, something like that. A lot of times it'll hit the moving average, go below it for a short period of time, and then rally. So that's, to me, the better type of stop that you're, you're gonna, you're gonna set for a name is use technical levels. And once again, that's gonna differ depending on what company you're talking about.
Justin Klein · InvestTalk · Best of Caller Questions - Labor Day Edition · 2026-09-07No, thank you. In your book, you urge investors to know the purpose of every stock they own. Yes, I've owned this Dow blue chip dividend aristocrat as a safety net since 2005. What's your current opinion on Procter Gamble?
Speaker G · Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer · Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer 9/3/26 · 2026-09-03Okay, this is something Jeff Marks and I from the club kick around, and we're both kind of heartsick about it. We know that Procter has no growth, so being at 21 times earnings with a 3— with a 3% yield is not enough to attract people. They have to shake things up at Procter. They really do. It just doesn't have the growth that I would have expected at this point. That's why we took a small profit and we headed off to the sunset. I'm not recommending the stock right now. It's got to get down 19 times earnings before I'll take a shot at it, or invest in it, to use a more foundational term. Andy in Florida.
Jim Cramer · Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer · Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer 9/3/26 · 2026-09-03Well, all of these things matter, but the dividend growth is connected to the dividend payout ratio. For one thing, if they have a 20% payout ratio, you might argue they don't seem that committed to it. It doesn't seem like a big priority. If they have a 90% payout ratio, you might think they don't have a lot of margin of error. If earnings drop 11%, they might be facing a dividend cut. So we do tend to believe, and it's different sector by sector because of CapEx. Exxon and Chevron have grown the dividend every year since World War II, but they are very heavy CapEx companies. McDonald's, Procter Gamble, they have Pepsi, 100% cash flow productivity. They don't have the CapEx reinvestment needs. So we have to look at it case by case. But the payout ratio matters.
David Bahnsen · Bloomberg Surveillance · Market Risks and Equity Melt Up · 2026-09-03I want to say something that might sound alarming to some people, but if AI does not help companies like Procter Gamble, Walmart, Coca-Cola, then AI is going to be one of the biggest busts in human history. It has to at some point be helping companies that don't make the chips for AI.
David Bahnsen · Bloomberg Surveillance · Market Risks and Equity Melt Up · 2026-09-03