whether we're investing too much in person at the helm, and not enough in the whole team, not to mention the enterprise and what it might actually be worth. of course it's warren buffett inc., aka berkshire hathaway, which triggered my quandary over the value of the influence of the ceo versus the value of the enterprise. buffett's disclosure of his illness caused an immediate decline in berkshire hathaway because alas, for many people he is berkshire hathaway. you know i think that's just not true. the man has built up a huge series of assets, and you're buying the stewardship of those assets when you buy the stock. for many, it's inconceivable that anyone could steer berkshire like buffett has. of course, that's a theoretical question because buffett has made it clear his illness is not life threatening. i for one believe as important as warren buffett is to the organization, the truth is the oracle of omaha has accumulated a ton of assets that haven't performed all that well. i know that's heresy, but it's possible he will pick someone that will possibly bring out more value. buffett has been hands off for ages. that's the way he runs things. with the expansion into dozens of disparate businesses, it's not clear whether some of them should have been trimmed. some should be. maybe some aren't good enough to be in the company. a fresh air of buffett-trained eyes might be a positive. more important, there is a real cyclical bent to what buffett owns, a bent that needs housing and construction to do better. if these sectors recover, as i think they will, then berkshire might do better regardless who is running it. it is a business. it's unquestionable that a buffettless berkshire will not get the same deals with bank of america, goldman sachs that made him so much money. made the company so much money, not him. all right. here is the is subtext about buffett that tends to make berkshire hathaway a much harder stock to own. we can't figure out how to value the darn thing. who know what's the price the price to earnings multiple should be? how does he decide to pay for this disjointed and hodgepodge group of companies? how can we tell if it's cheap or expensive? is it cheap because buffett says it's cheap? he says we should look at book value, but the book value means nothing unless berkshire is being taken over or broken up. or to put it another way, you don't need to view this company as buffett inc. it's really hard to figure out what to pay for berkshire either way. that's a big reason why it's gone from seeming like a focused yet undervalued company to an unfocused yet undervalued company. so as horrible as this sounds, the emotion should be more mixed about the possibility of leadership down the road. he wants you to buy the stock when he is not there. it's a reality. this company needs more focus than its creator is giving it. but it's still very undervalued. i want to stay with this great man theory for a moment, though. how about the zuckerberg inc.? soon facebook, zuckerberg inc., will be coming public. zuckerberg spent a billion dollars buying instagram, the photo company, the uplink photos and he didn't tell anyone on the board of directors. does that make you nervous about buying facebook? don't we want an active board to check the authority of a 27-year-old ceo? again, i'm going to give you a little heresy on the issue. if instagram is good for facebook, who cares? it's a private company anyhow, at least for now. however, i have no desire to serve on a board where i wouldn't be consulted. in the end, though, it's all about price for me. if facebook's priced low relative to its earnings, i want to be in on the ipo. if it's high, i don't. end of story. i actually could care less, far less about the board if zuckerberg is great. a board can check power, and we know that power can corrupt, or at least let a ceo go more wayward than he should. which brings me to chesapeake energy, which you know i think is the most forward-pushing natural gas company on earth, and you know how important i think natural gas is to the country. we learned from a reuters story that ceo aubrey mcclendon, aka chesapeake has borrowed $1.1 billion to finance the purchase of those stakes to which i say huh? after mcclendon gambled when he went on margin to buy chesapeake stock all the way down in 2008 and then came on "mad money" on the set and said how sorry he was for doing that, for margining up when he lost the stock because it plummeted in price? i figured he was kind of dumb with the aggressive borrowing against assets that could decline in wealth like nat gas, which it has. but here he is again borrowing big to maintain a stake in another corporate asset from the company. the margin to a broker, i don't know, it's personal. i didn't even know he had these stakes. and if i were a board member there, i would be against it. i don't know how it furthers the interests of shareholders to make these deals. and although both chesapeake and mcclendon were quick to say that these transactions don't represent a conflict of interest, i can't see how they're good for shareholders. and obviously people agree with me. the stock got hammered today. it makes me more reluctant to recommend chesapeake, and i'm clearly not alone. looks like the great man theory is not panning out there, even if aubrey is a visionary about natural gas. as long as things are transparent, i'm cool with it. you own berkshire hathaway, you know the ceo does matter and you accept that risk. you get into a facebook deal, you know you're getting into a company where the ceo has raw unchecked power. you can buy it today knowing the ceo is an extremely wildcatting, some say gambling mind-set, and the board seems to be looking the other way. unlike berkshire, you didn't know if you owned the stock last night. call me a mercenary, but i'm willing to tolerate an awful lot more of the great man as asset theory if it makes you money rather than if it loses you money. if chesapeake were going up, i don't know how much i care about mcclendon's stake in their wells. maybe i wouldn't care at all. but the stock is down 44% year-over-year. so it's bad. berkshire hathaway has done nothing year-over-year. but it's been fabulous over the eons of buffett's tenure. facebook? you get in on the ipo and it makes you money, then zuckerberg, keep making those fast-moving deals. what makes me so open minded? it's pretty empirical. apple. it may have been among the greatest investments of all time. he left the company thriving in his absence. whether it's because of the stewardship or ideas on the board, it's working. and if it's working, got my blessing. bottom line, let's not forget what this business is about. it's not about corporate governance per se. it's not about rules per se. it's about making money and losing money. it's about finding investments that work, as long as the ceos are honest and doing a good job and are not looting the company, which by the way i do not think aubrey mcclendon is doing, then i'm square with it. if they're making money for you. and i'm not square with it if they're losing money for you. the stock goes higher? good. stock goes lower, bad. simple litmus test, one that has made me a ton of money over the years, and it's one that i think can work for you, too. alex in florida, alex? >> caller: big boo-yah from tallahassee, jim. >> hey, sunshine. how you doing? >> caller: pretty good, and you? >> i love t-hass. what's going on? >> halliburton. based on their earnings report that came out today -- >> let me tell you how i feel about halliburton. i was going to do a piece about it but i got caught up in other things. when you have no expectations of a stock doing well and it does okay, that stock goes higher, no one expected halliburton to be able to offset that natural gas weakness, but they almost did it with oil. halliburton, i'm saying it, i think it's in the clear, provided that brent doesn't plummet to $90, and i don't think it will. brenda in illinois, brenda? >> caller: hello, jim, i love your show. >> well, thank you, brenda. wow, i love fired up callers. what's going on? >> caller: i bought 282 shares of sxc health solutions a year ago. it went back up nicely. and today i see it went up 8%. i'm wondering if i should sell or hold? >> well you know, this is the greatest performing stock since we started "mad money" eight years ago. and i would tell you that i think you should hold it because this combination is so fabulous, this catalyst sxc that they will complete against cramer favorite express scripts. without a doubt you want to hold on to this. i want to go to reed in north carolina, reid? >> caller: boo-yah, jim, from wake forest university. >> oh, man, the demon deacs, how are you doing? >> caller: i'm doing great. how are you? >> great because i got a call from someone from wake forest. >> caller: i hold transcanada. with the starts, stops, and redirection of keystone, is transcanada a buy, a sell or hold? >> i think it's gravy. keystone is gravy. transcanada is a company that knows not to rely on american politicians to make money. you know what i got to say than? i think they got horse sense. i want to own the stock. follow the leader. hey, listen, if you're making your money, i say -- >> hallelujah! >> and if they're not, it's -- [ booing ] >> it's as simple that. "mad money" will be right back. >> coming up, retail returns? dividends and development have made federal realty a win for shareholders. but should you be laying down cash for this thing, or could its retail portfolio fall out of style? cramer is taking a pulse of the consumer when he talks to the ceo, next. and later, accelerated revenue. polaris industries kicked it into high gear this morning, plowing through earnings estimates and speeding up guidance. time to ride this one higher, or should you wait for it to cool off? cramer's exclusive with the company's ceo is just ahead, all coming up on "mad money." miss out on some "mad money?" get your "mad money" text alert today. text "mm" to 26221 to get cramer right on your phone. for more info, visit madmoney.cnbc.com, or give us a call at 1-800-743-cnbc. (sfx: car garage sounds) today my journey brings me to charlotte, north carolina, where i spent the day with geico driver casey mears. i told him the secret to saving money on car insurance. he told me the secret to his car setup. first he adjusts... first he adjusts... (sfx:engine revving drowns out gecko's dialogue) then he... then he... (sfx:loud drilling noise continues to drown out gecko's dialogue) ...and a quarter cup of then he... neapple juice. or was that the secret to his barbecue sauce? hey, "secret" sauce. geico®. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. whose non-stop day starts with back pain... and a choice. take advil now and maybe up to four in a day. or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain. way to go, coach. ♪ [ gasps ] think again. try charmin ultra strong for a clean with fewer pieces left behind. its diamondweave texture is soft and more durable so it holds up better for a more dependable clean. fewer pieces left behind. charmin ultra strong. the other day on "squawk on the street," my friend and colleague brian sullivan questioned the future of shopping centers, given the power of amazon to destroy bricks and mortar retailers. he wondered aloud how federal realty might be doing in a world where people use stores like best buy as showrooms only to purchase the goods on amazon. federal realty, they're doing quite well. i said that because it's got a diversified portfolio, not tethered to any particular one retailer and tremendous geographic diversity and in a wealthy demographic. plus if amazon were trashing the tenants of the shopping centers of the world, how is frt able to raise rents last year which happens to be much higher than the peers for which is 1.9%? plus, federal is a serial dividend raiser. stock only yields 2.8% at these levels because the share price is going up so much. when you include reinvested dividends, frt has given you a double since i first got behind it in may of 2009. that's why i'm thrilled to have don wood, the ceo of federal realty tonight to talk about the amazoning of america. mr. wood, welcome back to "mad money." >> hey, jim. thanks for having me on. appreciate that. >> first on, happy 50th birthday. >> well, thank you so much. that's the company. personally, i'm past it. but the company is at 50. >> obviously, if you're 50 years old, you've been able to deal with lat of different traumas, not just what might be happening with amazon and bricks and mortars. >> it's funny. when you started that segment and started talking about best buy, i think it would have been three years ago and the conversation would have been circuit city or linens and things. there are always challenges against retailers. you've got to be diversified. it's why you have to be in the right places. i think the demise of best buy, that notion is a little bit exaggerated, too. hey, i do want to say one thing and tell you than if you don't mind, though. it is time for sales tax to be collected on online retailers. >> yes. >> by online retailers. >> your tenants do not have equity in their favor. it just is outrageous. >> that's not a right thing. but nonetheless, that will take care of itself in time. >> at the same time, if anyone goes through the 50th anniversary fabulous transparent, you've always been the most transparent of any real estate investment trust, a fabulous transparent report, you'll see that not only is your demographic better, but a lot of your company, a lot of your tenants, you're not going to buy what they have on amazon. >> well, it's a couple of things. you're right. i will tell you when it comes to online shopping, i think it's got a great place. >> right. >> in everything that we do. i absolutely believe, though, you know, you don't want commodity-based retail. you do want an experience for consumers to come and shop, for them to eat. having restaurants are a big part of the business. for them to be in place where you also live, where you also work. the mixed use component is a big part of our business. >> now there has been some talk, for instance, that bed bath, which is anchor tenant for a lot of your places. >> true. >> that could be amazon. a clever retailer can beat amazon. >> these are individual businesses. >> right. >> and that particularly is one that is run as good as anybody out there. >> now, there have been very few new shopping centers built. that has got to make it so that even if you lose a tenant, the next tenant may have to pay more than the old tenant. >> that's part. it is a supply and demand game. it's not brain surgery in terms of what we're doing. i got to tell you, i haven't felt as optimistic about the future than i do right now in years, quite frankly. and a lot of that has to do with not only improving consumer sentiment, which is absolutely there, but we've got more transparency in terms of how we're going to grow over the next five and seven years than we've had in a long time. >> but this is really important, don. you've been here many times and you've talked conservatively about how you're able to stay in place and still raise. i have never heard you talk about the notion of a visible expansion path. you have never talked about that here. >> it's always been there. i will tell you there is nothing better in business than being able to raise rents year in and year out and create value that way. that absolutely is harder to do post-2007 than it is today. but what we have in addition to that, jim, is a billion dollars, $1 billion in our $8 billion company of committed capital over the next three years, half of which has been spent already in the form of two great acquisitions that we made just at the end of last year that will be helping us for years to come. and the other half of that are in two big new mixed use development projects, one in rockville, maryland, one in somerville, massachusetts, just outside of boston, that are both under way this year. assembly, which is the one outside of boston, we broke ground on last month. >> at one point you told me you felt things were so tough in this economy that without federal money it would be difficult. we're to the point where projects make sense without federal money. >> well, listen, it depends on the project. certainly federal money has not been a big contributor to what is happening in the development world. but you need the right marketplace where demand exceeds supply. >> talk about those two developments. why are those areas able to support all new expansion of retailers? because a lot of areas across the country we wouldn't think they can support. >> a lot of the areas of the country are not. there really hasn't been a time when i can remember where there has been such a bifurcation of opportunity and no opportunity. if you're talking about the suburbs outside of washington, d.c., which we are incredibly concentrated in, we own -- we own on rockville pike, which is the prime shopping area, over a million square feet within a mile in four different shopping centers. and the development that we're doing will be a completely different type of product, residential over retail, with a little bit of office, too. so the mixed use as well will play a bigger part in our future. >> but at the same time, one fifth of the country, california, you're seeing opportunity there. that was not the case a couple of years ago when you came here and didn't feel like california is the land of the future. >> it's so funny you say that. i was just talking to somebody on capitol hill last night about the regulations and the issues in california. you can do nothing to california to not make it look good in terms of the future. it really -- especially northern california with the tech sector. it's booming, and it looks like it will be for years to come. >> and obviously because we care passionately as you do about the dividend, a lot of the guys in your industry got rid of the dividend. what you're talking about if you feel you have a five-year plan of visibility. i have to presume that there could be five more years of dividend growth. >> listen, 44 years in a row, jim. that's the softball you've given me. 44 years in a row since '67. it is our most valuable asset. we're running this company to be able to do that for many, many years into the future. hopefully we can. there is nothing i see that would change that trend at this point. >> that's why we like federal realty and i keep sticking by and defending it. oh, look, brian sullivan made a good point because people are worried. they should be less worried. >> three best buys. that's all we got out of those tenants. >> that's great. you volunteered it. that's don wood, president and ceo of federal realty investment trust, frt. look, it's been the best of them. i think it's going to stay the best of them. thank you, don. >> thank you, jim. >> great to see you. polaris industries revved up its earnings by selling toys like these. after beating the streets this morning, i'm speaking to the ceo to find out if there is still time to hop in to this stock. with swiffer dusters, a great clean doesn't have to take longer. i'm done. i'm gonna read one of these. i'm gonna read one of these! [ female announcer ] unlike sprays and dust rags, swiffer 360 duster's extender gets into hard-to-reach places without the hassle. so you can get unbelievable dust pickup in less time without missing a thing. i love that book. can you believe the twin did it? ♪ swiffer. great clean in less time. or your money back. and got this one free. wow! [ tires screech ] buy one 6" sub? [ tires screech ] ...and get another one free? before 9am. all april long. [ male announcer ] subway, eat fr