Jim Cramer, Herb Greenberg and Jim Seymour Chat on RealMoney

Jim Cramer, Herb Greenberg and Jim Seymour chatted on RealMoney.com Tuesday, March 13 at 5 p.m. EST.

TSC-RealMoneyLaura: Thanks for joining our chat this afternoon.

jimcramer2: Hi, I am Herb Greenberg!

jimcramer2: Kidding.

jimcramer2: But you can't tell the difference these days.

RM_Herb: LOL.

RM_Herb: Except I have hair.

jseymour1: Less hair.

pdmoney-guest says: Do you think Yahoo!(YHOO Quote) will try to charge for any of the services that are now free or just for new, premium services?

jseymour1: I think Yahoo! is aggressively developing new premium, pay-to-play services, but will try to start charging for Yahoo! Finance later this year.

jimcramer2: I think that Yahoo! Finance is just us and Forbes and Industry Standard and Reuters and Dow and that you can get that stuff elsewhere for less.

RM_Herb: Maybe, JJC, but my readers tell me if YF would just include real-time quotes or something along those lines they'd pay. ...

RM_Herb: Folks are a creature of habit and I think a small price would get many users, but they'd have to have something a little extra on the premium site.

jseymour1: Quotes? Profiles? Insider trading? Briefing.com? Lots more. ... And less? How 'bout $3/mo.???

jimcramer2: As a veteran of the paid-on-the-Net wars I have to tell you there has to be a there to charge. You have to have people committed to the institution and there must be real interactivity. That is not Yahoo!'s style. And they can't change stripes.

firefire-guest says: Is Yahoo!'s international strategy in a shambles? Has the Net failed to leap borders so far as frontiers are concerned because of payment concerns and duties on the retail side and other factors on the corporate side?

jseymour1: Yahoo! has lost soooo many important people in their international operations.

jimcramer2: I think that Yahoo! is doing OK overseas. I think that much of the appeal for Yahoo! was Yahoo! Finance but only in this country.

jseymour1: I don't think they have an "international strategy" any more.

jimcramer2: Did you get that kind of peoples' capitalism that made news so embracing.

RM_Herb: Irony of ironies, on Yahoo!, is that I think more folks are now going to Google itself rather than Yahoo! as the portal ... sort of a strange paradox.

jseymour1: I do that, too, but Yahoo!'s base is sooo large.

RM_Herb: Yahoo! still does certain segmenting better than anybody ... but Google does a better all-around search.

donkohan-guest says: Why can't Yahoo! become the cable company of tomorrow by aggregating other people's premium content (e.g., Realmoney.com, Playboy's cyberclub, etc.) and bundling it together?

jimcramer2: Because they would demand that we pay them for carriage and we would have no way to recoup that. It is a predator model without any ability for us to get money back.

jseymour1: I don't think aggregating others' content is the way to make $$$ on the Net.

jseymour1: Wrong metaphor.

RM_Herb: But Jim , with Yahoo! now facing its problems, won't it have to change the strategy ... especially if it wants to charge...

jseymour1: Yahoo!'s task now is to cleanly separate the paid and free segments, and exploit both aggressively. Period.

jimcramer2: Yes, that would be great, and I await some sign that they have changed and understand this. I have seen none.

jseymour1: Yahoo! Corporate is a great example.

jimcramer2: Jim, that is easier said then done. I think we personally must respond to more readers in a day than they would in a year. And that is they key. The customer is the key and Yahoo! is not customer driven, it is ad driven. Different culture.

jseymour1: Yahoo!'s a drive-through carwash; we're a detailing shop.

chuckc100-guest says: What types of services can Yahoo! charge for that Microsoft (MSFT Quote) won't copy and give away for free?

jimcramer2: None that I know of.

RM_Herb: Hard to say but what I wish somebody would do is simply rip off Bloomberg by having dynamic metrics of multiples, returns, etc. that move with the market. ...

RM_Herb: Maybe Bloomberg itself should do this on the Internet.

RM_Herb: I am so surprised nobody has done this.

jseymour1: Can't worry about what Microsoft might try to do better/cheaper. Down that path lies extinction.

jseymour1: Abs agree. Bloomberg should do it itself, before it gets Dell'ed(DELL Quote).

jimcramer2: Bloomberg spends hundreds of millions of dollars -- literally -- developing that stuff. It is really labor-intensive and requires the best people. That's what makes Bloomberg special. It is not commodity, Yahoo! is a commodity shop.

jseymour1: Jim, that sounds like a defense of what financial info used to cost before Yahoo!, TSC, etc. ...

jfrields-guest says: Isn't television only supported by advertising? As broadband comes to homes near you, won't the content be similar (i.e., FinanceVision)? Won't it be just like TV is now?

jseymour1: Tragic if that's true.

jimcramer2: Yes, when broadband is rolled out, but we aren't there yet.

sluboff-guest says: Frankly, I pay for RealMoney.com./TheStreet.com because it provides what I want in a financial site better than Yahoo! and MoneyWatch. However, I do view both Yahoo! and MoneyWatch to supplement what I get from RM/TSC, at the present time. If Yahoo! went to a paid service, I'd stay with RM/TSC and suggest that you plug in some of the holes that I use Yahoo! for, rather than pay for two services.

jseymour1: No matter how cheap Yahoo! was... ?

jimcramer2: I think this is what we do best.

jseymour1: Yahoo! is a good supplemental service. Not primary. But if the price is right... .

jimcramer2: I think that Yahoo! is great in a bull market because it has no analysis. We aren't in that kind of market any more where every few minutes you want to find out how rich you are.

jseymour1: We're ignoring the Yahoo! end of this. They have to find new revenue streams.

_52950-guest says: Why can't Yahoo! cut a deal with Ameritrade, etc. and allow you to buy/sell from Yahoo! Finance and take a cut of the action?

jimcramer2: Legal question -- they would be a broker/dealer and that subjects them to a lot of rules they don't want.

firefire-guest says: What is your position on the subscription model now? Does one have to integrate to make it fly? For instance I would love if a subscription Yahoo! or RealMoney were to pick up real-time options from the CBOE.

jimcramer2: Niche business and very expensive for us to produce with few people who want it.

jseymour1: Yahoo! at its present scale is simply unsupportable with ad revenues only ... it shrinks, or it finds new pay-to-play opportunities.

thepiper-guest says: How cheap does Yahoo! go before one of the media cos. buys them?

jimcramer2: I think the rest of the media hates Yahoo! and hates the web and they couldn't care less about it.

jseymour1: Just not a marriage made in heaven. Example: NBCi.

RM_Herb: I dunno, Jim. ...Tyco just bought CIT at what might be the wrong time ... your giving managements too much credit for genius.

jimcramer2: Look, don't get me wrong, I think they should buy it. But Disney and Viacom are giving up and so is GE. They are all scaling back not advancing. Maybe Bertelsmann because it is private.

RM_Herb: The irony will be that when they should buy it they won't ... they'll wait until the price rebounds some day and wish they would have.

RM_Herb: Lots of herd mentality right now.

jimcramer2: That's right.

thill123-guest says: Will a big gorilla like AOL make hostile takeover of Yahoo!?

RM_Herb: Not after Time Warner!

jseymour1: I think one of the coming battles, BTW, is Yahoo! vs. AOL to sell streaming music. ...

get1234-guest493 says: Yahoo! is a great portal. Our family of 5 -- 3 teenagers-- use it constantly; however, I think it would be very difficult to charge now after being free. They would need something new and valuable. Your opinions, please?

jseymour1: But Yahoo! would never try to charge for mail, chat, etc. -- what your kids probably use.

bobmorris60-guest says: 35% to 40% of my Web clients' search engine hits come from Yahoo!, but does this convert to $$$ for Yahoo!? That's the question.

jimcramer2: It is very hard to monetize right now. We haven't been creative enough in getting advertisers juiced about supporting such activities.

jimcramer2: They are less excited about them then billboards right now (low-end ads).

jseymour1: Declining value-proposition. ...

maddave1-guest says: Opinions on how far the Nazz could fall between here and June. Thanks, guys...

jimcramer2: I have been saying that the 1800s are reasonable, but remember, the point is that we should stop thinking about a bottom and spend more time trying to reposition to a balanced portfolio with tech as a part of it, not all of it.

jseymour1: Peter Eavis is going to look smarter and smarter. ...

RM_Herb: For the bottom I stick with Eavis on 1500 ... but (and I know it isn't Nasdaq) but the worst isn't over, I think, until IBM 'fesses up.

jseymour1: Boeing, yes.

melcrater-guest says: Don't the recent problems in Japan, and Asia to a lesser extent, cast severe doubt on the prospects for companies like Boeing -- which I'm long and for the drillers -- long one of those, as well? I'm having a 1998 flashback, only without the strong U.S. economy to pick up the slack.

jimcramer2: Nah. Too bearish. BA's order book is buoyed by military and oil drilling is on the increase worldwide.

lemonyellow-guest says: Do you follow the Financials indices that Helene Meisler and Todd Harrison are calling attention to? If so, how much significance to you attach to the breakdown yesterday?

jimcramer2: It was significant because it signaled that the Fed won't be aggressive. I always worry about that.

melcrater-guest says How does the damage stay contained in tech? Aren't the banks at risk because of bad loans and investments? Aren't the retailers at risk because of plunging consumer confidence linked to people's Nasdaq (and general market) losses? Why does the damage stay within the tech sector?

jseymour1: First, the damage is not yet contained.

RM_Herb: Ah , but so many folks are in tech ... that's why it has so much more to go.

RM_Herb: And couldn't agree more about retail and banks.

jimcramer2: I am not a bear on those groups if the Fed eases to 3.5% as I think they will have to. But they have to do it soon and that's the crux of the nontech problem. It is why Friday was such a bad number --employment.

jseymour1: Cisco up today 5%-plus because Chambers said he sees a buyback, maybe, is example of the desperation among retail tech investors.

RM_Herb: But the Fed won't help consumer confidence right now. ...

thepiper-guest says: Do you think Greenie could surprise the market with a full-point cut?

jimcramer2: I think we need it so badly but I don't think we will get it.

jseymour1: Gotta separate what your head and heart tell you on this. ...

RM_Herb: That would be a sign of desperation...

Street-guest says: Thanks, guys. Any final thoughts?

jimcramer2: I continue to think that the most important thing to do here is to be less levered to tech and tech mutual funds. Reposition!

RM_Herb: Lots more has to be worked through for businesses ... still way too much inventory out there. ...

jseymour1: I think Yahoo! must -- and will -- attack its revenue needs, and the only sufficient way is to start charging for more things. Beyond new premium services, Yahoo! Finance is the obvious one to go out first.

jseymour1: Thanks, everyone. Keep holding our feet to the fire, in your e-mails. ...