My mission is simple: to make you money. I'm here to level the playing field for all investors. There's always a bull market somewhere, and I promise to help you find it. Mad Money starts now.
Hey, I'm Cramer. Welcome to Mad Money. Welcome to Cramerica. Other people make friends. I'm just trying to help you make some money. My job is not to just entertain, but to put it in context. Call me at 1-800-743-CBC. Tweet me at Jim Cramer. Here we go again.
Today's winners: the prosaic chemical company that is Dow, the boring fertilizer company that is Mosaic, the refiners, especially my fave, Valero, and the dollar stores. Reminders that the most boring stocks win when Iran shuts down the Persian Gulf and oil goes higher. I don't think you should chase today's winners long term. Although after a session where the Dow dipped 138 points, the S&P lost 0.79%, and the Nasdaq tumbled 1.55%.
I think it's time to circle back to tech to make some money. Why? Because the sector that is tech is wonderfully robust versus other groups, and it's just been clobbered back to where I think is very near the buying zone again. Despite Iran, wonderful things could happen to tech at the drop of a hat. Take last week. I've been saying that Meta has to do something big with its excess compute capacity because they're leaving a lot of money on the table.
Literally the next day, Meta does exactly that, confirming a story I'd helped break the week before. A simple acknowledgment of something that seems so obvious that has given you a nearly 100-point gain this month. They have to sell some of that compute. Now compare that with PepsiCo, a company that used to give you consistent, modest growth with a stock that declined to the point where it seemed like it would be easy to beat expectations. Nope. PepsiCo, it crushed you.
By a simple stroke of a pen, Meta gives you almost 100 points. By dint of a weak quarter, PepsiCo takes a severe beating. In the end, the tech companies, especially big tech, just have a lot more to offer the rest than the rest of this market. Look, we know that there was big money to be made in SK Hynix listing on Friday because they kept the supply of stock tight. Today, SK Hynix gave up a huge amount of gain, but not all of it. Money was still made again. Tech is dynamic. This time SK Hynix is benefiting from the same memory shortage that major fortunes in Micron and the data storage stocks and the semiconductor capital equipment makers. They keep growing because there's literally not enough of their product going around, and that has not changed, and it might not change until 2028.
But then consider the opposite. Try to be thoughtful for a second. Solstice Advanced Materials' acquisition of Element Solutions. That's a $14.5 billion deal announced last week. We had Solstice on the show. The rationale for the deal was frankly brilliant. They're putting together a modern-day materials colossus. By the way, including the key materials needed to make semiconductors run nuclear power plants. In another time, both stocks would have rallied. Instead, right out of the gate, both stocks were losers. They got killed. Now, ultimately, I think it'll be a good deal. I may actually want to buy it for the charitable trust, but we have too many stocks right now, and Solstice is being lost in the shuffle, and it just won't work.
Now consider the possibilities this week. I don't know if you saw, but once SK Hynix started rallying on Friday, so did Nvidia. Now this was a big deal because Nvidia's been trying our patience, right? I think buyers of SK Hynix sold Nvidia stock to get into the SK Hynix deal. Why Nvidia? Because it's big. It's liquid. It's doing nothing. If you sold a lot of Nvidia to get SK Hynix, then got a smaller piece of that Hynix than you wanted, well, then you had a lot of leftover cash to be able to put back in Nvidia. Same for if you sold the SK Hynix, flipped it into strength on Friday. So, the buyers moved Nvidia up to 210 even as it pulled back hard again today.
Can the stock go higher? No. Actually, I don't think so. Not unless the company dramatically expands the size of its buyback and gets much more aggressive. Nvidia needs to make the claim that Apple used to do when I used to hector them about why they weren't more aggressive about buying other companies. They always said because there was nothing cheaper to buy than their own stock. It's not enough to buy back stock when shown stock big blocks, which is how I think this buyback seems to be run. It needs to walk right behind buyers in lockstep so they are ready to buy when the stock gets walloped like it was today. If I were running the buyback, and I have run a lot of buybacks in my time, I would have gone 28 bid 1 million shares soon after the open. The stock opened at $28.54.
If I got hit, I would then bid $27 for 1 million shares. If it dropped to 206, I would have bid 2 million, 2 million, 206, 2 million. Same with 205. I'd bid 205 for another 2 million, and then 204 for another 2 million if necessary. Now, see, the stock holding went out at 203 and change, but it would most likely have not gotten that low, and the company would have bought a lot of stock. Now, the SEC allows a company to buy back stock up until 3:50 p.m. It doesn't want the company to manipulate the close, but I watch this stock like a hawk, probably closer than anybody else in America. And it's manipulated down almost every single day between 3:50 and 4 p.m., almost every single day, including today. I don't think it would have ever gotten down to 204 with my method, but it did. The company's getting its stock on the cheap. Listen to me, which is a terrific goal. If I were Nvidia, I would petition the SEC to allow it to bid for stock right into the close, four o'clock, because everyone can see that the last few minutes are an artificial breakdown.
But again, my point here is that the big tech companies always have something they can do to change the equation. And that's why I love these things. Look, if the food or drug stocks could engineer the same kind of upside, I'd be all over Kagara or Pfizer, but they just don't have that level of control over their own destiny. On the other hand, let's consider Alphabet for a moment. If it were announced tomorrow that Waymo would be a separate company and it would float a piece of it to get started, well, you know what? Who knows how far high this stock would go at this moment. Waymo's self-driving technology is far ahead of Tesla's in terms of trials and data. So, I believe we'd get a ridiculous valuation. Once it did, then I think Alphabet stock would move up dramatically. It would require nothing else to do. It would just show you exactly how undervalued Alphabet really is here, even after it did that big secondary.
How about Apple? Oh, the stock's been on a roll, right? Perhaps because word is that memory-related price increases are already baked into the stock. Or maybe it's because the lawsuit against OpenAI could eliminate any near-term risk from AI hardware. More on that later. But it sure seems like the street's too afraid of Apple's price increases. Perhaps because it doesn't understand that the phone companies will end up eating a huge chunk of those costs. They're in a battle royale. Hardly anybody pays full price for a smartphone. They're heavily subsidized by the carriers. So, Apple trades to a new high of 323 before retreating to 317, up almost two bucks. Oh, I'm thinking, what is it? What does he say? Apple, own it, don't trade it.
I want so much this week to find a bank stock that could rally 20% like a tech could. But Goldman Sachs, my favorite, reports tomorrow morning, will most likely have to vastly exceed consensus if it is able to go higher than it is already. A gigantic quarter might only give you a 4% gain. So I stick with endless tech narratives, occasionally veering off to a healthcare company that has some pretty good news, or perhaps a retailer that can have a run like a Target, or a middleman like Cardinal Health that shows you it's changing its stripes to help small and medium-sized doctor groups. I will keep trying because that's my job.
But the bottom line: after a month where Meta does the obvious and picks up the 100 points like this, tech certainly seems to be a much more fertile ground to plow than any other sector, almost all of which can't help themselves and need a rotation to send any of them dramatically higher. Hey, why don't we start with Jeff in California. Jeff,
Hey Jim, there's an old saying that says numbers don't lie. Numbers don't lie. Numbers don't lie. I put in $66,000 for this stock about two years ago, Jim. It only went up 862%. It's in a perfect position now to explode. This stock has beaten earnings and revenue estimates for 14 consecutive quarters in revenue growth. Its trailing 12-month revenue is $5.22 billion, with most recently quarter revenue reaching $1.63 billion, 85% year-over-year increase. Bam. Jim, $4.4 billion gross profits with little or no debt. This company has incredible cash flow. In fact, the free cash flow is $2.1 billion. Boom. Management has predicted for 2026 free cash flow to be... What would this wonderful company be? This stock is Palantir, Jim, or PLTR. Double your pleasure with PLTR. It's...
All right, well, Palantir, as the wrong people call it. Let me tell you about Palantir. I completely agree with you. I think that, let's put it this way: I have not necessarily cared about raining. I do like profiting, and they make a lot of profit, and it's a great company. I agree that Palantir can be bought here. All right, listen to me. I'll keep trying to find you winners, but you may have to circle back to tech because it's so hard to find winners in the other places.
I'm married tonight. Could the latest Apple case against OpenAI actually derail the company's IPO prospects? I'm digging deeper in that lawsuit and a few others. Then, should you take a spoonful of the latest tech IPO to hit this market? Don't miss my analysis of an Italian company bending spoons where it's real hard to get a job at. And Bank of Santander is one of the best bank stocks out there. Maybe the best of all. I'm sitting down with the always reliable executive chairman. So stay with Cramer.
Don't miss a second of Mad Money. Follow Jim Cramer on X. Have a question? Tweet Cramer #madmentions. Send Jim an email to
[email protected] or give us a call at 1-800-743-CNBC. Miss something? Head to madmoney.cnbc.com.
On Friday night, we learned that Apple is suing OpenAI for allegedly stealing their trade secrets and intellectual property to develop its own line of consumer hardware. That's pretty serious, especially when you remember this is merely the latest in a long line of legal headaches for OpenAI. Specifically, Apple's alleging that their former employees stole trade secrets after being poached by OpenAI. In particular, former Apple engineer Chang Lou is accused of using unauthorized access to Apple's network to surreptitiously download dozens of confidential hardware-related files, including, quote, 'voluminous detailed information about unreleased products, engineering presentations, technical specifications, and proprietary project data,' end quote. They also claimed that Lou coached a former Apple colleague on how to steal proprietary information.
Apparently, when the company dug into this, they found other employees who left for OpenAI doing the exact same thing, including their old vice president of product design for iPhone and Apple Watch, who left in 2024 and is now OpenAI's chief hardware officer. They make it sound like the AI lab has a whole IP theft operation focused on Apple. Here's how Apple's lawyer summed it up: quote, 'At every level, from members of its technical staff to its chief hardware officer, and in coordination with business partners, OpenAI has been stealing Apple's trade secrets and confidential information. As a result, OpenAI's nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets,' end quote.
So, what do we make of this complaint? Look, now there is a diversity of opinions on this case, and not everyone seems to be on Apple's side, despite the fact that I find the litany of specific details incredibly damning. For example, a guy I really respect, Ben Thompson, a tech industry analyst who runs the influential Stratechery, is not a fan of Apple, who in his words, quote, 'just really hates AI,' end quote. While Thompson concentrates on AI, he describes Apple's lawsuit as using his actions, quote, 'as a cudgel to exact revenge on the company. Represents everything that is making your life miserable,' end quote. Similarly, last night, the Wall Street Journal published an article saying the lawsuit, quote, 'echoes a familiar playbook betting that litigation can delay a rival from upending the iPhone era,' end quote.
I disagree. This is not your standard-issue Silicon Valley litigation nonsense. Sure, Apple sued Samsung in 2011 for copying smartphone tablet designs. This was a series of lawsuits in several different countries that lasted for seven years before the case was finally settled in 2018. But Apple's not some bottom feeder that constantly engages in frivolous lawsuits designed to stifle the competition. That's not their style. The company only resorts to litigation like this when absolutely necessary. And it seems to be the case here when it has specific illegal actions that it can point to as evidence of wrongdoing. Well, I'm not sure exactly how Apple's trying to benefit here. Aside from forcing OpenAI to stop stealing their trade secrets, maybe to blunt all their hardware so-called innovations. I think this is a major problem for the privately held AI lab that's looking to come public. I think it's serious.
Keep in mind, OpenAI hasn't exactly been a great corporate citizen, and this is hardly the first time they've been sued for doing something unethical. While the company won a big legal victory against Elon Musk this past spring, that case was decided on procedural grounds. Basically, the jury found that Musk waited too long to file his lawsuit about OpenAI's transition from a nonprofit into a for-profit corporation. It's not like OpenAI was vindicated here. It's just that the statute of limitations had already run out.
And while this lawsuit from Apple is now getting more attention, there is a long-running lawsuit against OpenAI from the New York Times, which has just very recently picked up steam and is not talked about much at all. In that lawsuit, the Times claims that OpenAI and Microsoft, Microsoft just added, infringed on its own copyrights by using millions of its articles, I mean millions, to train its AI models. The Times modified one of its claims last month, but it's standing by its core argument that OpenAI did this and Microsoft, their main partner, actively encouraged them to do it.
The New York Times was the first major American media company to sue OpenAI over copyright issues. But since then, all sorts of companies and artists have either joined that lawsuit or filed their own legal actions. There are now dozens of lawsuits involving parties claiming copyright infringements against leading AI labs. Just last Thursday, the Times and 16 other publishers said in a court filing that OpenAI was withholding evidence that could play a key role in these types of copyright violation lawsuits. The publishers are asking for monetary penalties and other sanctions against OpenAI, though for what it's worth. And OpenAI frames this new allegation as evidence that these publishers don't have a strong case.
Now, it's not clear when or how the Times-led lawsuit will be resolved, either with a settlement or even possibly a jury trial, maybe just a complete injunction by a judge. A judge allowed most of the case to proceed last year after OpenAI tried to have it dismissed. And the companies are now in the midst of a prolonged discovery process. It's taken forever. But to put things simply, this problem hasn't gone away for OpenAI, which now has to defend itself against multiple claims from serious plaintiffs with major accusations of wrongdoing.
At best, these legal issues are a major distraction for OpenAI, which is now fighting tooth and nail with Anthropic and others to develop frontier AI models with customers in both the consumer and enterprise markets. At worst, the litigation could result in severe monetary penalties against OpenAI. And that's real bad news given the way this company likes to burn money building data centers. Plus, the Apple lawsuit could really slow the progress when it comes to entering new markets like consumer electronics, especially if Apple's successful in winning an injunction that stops OpenAI from using its trade secrets as it is seeking to do.
Putting it all together, I don't like the pattern of behavior. If OpenAI is really running a sophisticated intellectual property theft operation targeted at Apple, what are the odds it's only Apple? My worry is that this could be the first in a series of trade secret lawsuits. Here's the bottom line: OpenAI has real legal problems here, and they seem like a pretty big deal. They aren't easily dismissed. It looked like these guys were out of the woods when they beat Elon Musk a few months ago, but now the litigation headaches could be endless. We still don't know how much damage it'll do, but regardless, it certainly doesn't improve their IPO prospects, which may be integral to the company's independence. Mad Money is back after the break.
Coming up, could Italian IPO Bending Spoons help you find Leol Chvita? Cramer is diving in to find out next.
Back on July 1st, an Italian technology company called Bending Spoons came public with a bang. The deal priced at $29. Then the stock jumped nearly 40% on its first day of trading to close at $40.50. Although as of today, it's pulled back to $31 and change. Now that it's erased most of its initial gains. You know what? Could this be an opportunity? I got to take a look. What is this thing? Co-CEO Luca Ferrari has described Bending Spoons as mostly a technology company and partly a private equity firm, which is probably the simplest way to understand it. The company acquires established digital businesses, often with recognizable but tired brands, and tries to revive them using a common operating playbook, proprietary technology, and shared data infrastructure.
Okay, these days they own, and it's kind of like a memory lane thing here: AOL, Evernote, Vimeo, Eventbrite, WeTransfer, Meetup, and Brightcove, along with products like Remedy, StreamYard, and Harvest. Geez, I've used half of these from the old days. Now look, these aren't speculative startups still searching for customers. They're established products that at some point fell by the wayside. Many have lost momentum, fallen behind technologically, become too bloated, or failed to generate as much money as people thought they probably should. Across the portfolio, Bending Spoons' properties serve more than 500 million monthly active users and over 9 million monthly paying customers as of March. Basically, they buy these forgotten digital properties and try to turn them around.
The strategy came together by accident. Back in 2010, Ferrari and two eventual co-founders started Evertale, an AI-powered diary application. They raised $1 million and spent nearly three years trying to make the product work. Unfortunately, almost everybody passed on it. By 2013, Evertale had little to no revenue and only a few months of cash remaining. After liquidating the company, the founders were left with roughly 40 grand and the basis for a new strategy. Rather than trying to predict the next great digital product, they acquired products that had already proven themselves and focused on becoming the best possible operators in these businesses. That's their playbook. Kind of interesting, right? They studied acquisition-driven operators like Teladine, great stocks, Capital Cities, wow, what a hit, Broadcom, Danaher, kind of trying to make a comeback. And they applied a similar approach to digital businesses.
Since 2013, Bending Spoons has completed more than 50 acquisitions worth about $2.01 billion in terms of aggregate enterprise value. To put it simply, Bending Spoons buys mature technology businesses, slashes costs, and does everything it can to monetize the existing user base. Basically, they're old-school corporate raiders that happen to operate in the new economy. Now, the key to making that work is talent and also execution. The company received roughly 800,000 job applications last year and hired just 286 people. Hey, making this one of the most selective institutions in the world. And they get as much out of these people as possible by heavily relying on, yes, AI. That's the story.
Now, let's talk about the financials, which are actually pretty impressive, but also messy because acquisitions account for so much of the growth. Bending Spoons has seen its revenue rise from 387 million in 2023 to 267 million in 2024 to 1.31 billion last year. Holy cow, you think there's really something big happening here, right? In the first quarter of 2026 alone, they put up 132% revenue growth, making $61 million. Eyepopping numbers, but investors need to remember where that growth is coming from. While Bending Spoons reported 95% revenue growth last year, the organic growth was just 13% because most of these gains came from takeovers. And that's the business. Although 13% is actually not that bad.
How about profitability? Bending Spoons generated $84 million in operating income back in 2023, grew to 127 million in 2024, then 278 million in 2025. None of that flowed to the bottom line last year though because of surging interest expenses. In the first quarter of 2026, Bending Spoons saw its operating income jump to $120 million and its GAAP earnings came in at 27 million. Now, that's pretty good. Well, then what's not so good? Well, how about the balance sheet, which is probably the biggest financial risk here. At the end of 2025, Bending Spoons had approximately $2.67 billion in total debt, against 630 million in cash. By the end of the first quarter, their debt had climbed to roughly $4.36 billion.
After additional borrowings and the IPO proceeds, the perspective shows approximately 2.68 billion in pro forma net debt. That's manageable relative to just earnings. But look, this is no pristine balance sheet. Keep in mind, debt is central to the business model. Bending Spoons has repeatedly raised large-term loans to finance acquisitions, and the impact is visible in the sharp increase in interest expense. Plus, it's not like they're using all the IPO proceeds to pay down debt. Bending Spoons plans to use the money for general corporate purposes and to pay for additional acquisitions.
If they keep buying good businesses at disciplined prices and make them more profitable, then the sales and earnings will keep growing like crazy. But the high debt load gives them less margin for error. One disappointing takeover could make this a much uglier story. At the same time, the founders of Bending Spoons now control a little less than 83% of the voting power through super voting shares, which means the normal shareholders never have much of an impact on how companies run. I do not like these kinds of companies. Still, the numbers are so strong that I can forgive a lot with this one. The only question is what kind of price we should be willing to pay here.
I mean, it's hard to value Bending Spoons because the company's fairly unique, sitting somewhere between a software company and a private equity firm and a takeover-driven conglomerate. With the stock trading in the low 30s, it currently sells for roughly 15 times last year's revenues, not earnings. Revenues, not earnings. If Bending Spoons can keep putting out numbers similar to what it reported in the first quarter, then I can justify the valuation right here. But if they drop the ball, the stock is just going to get hammered.
My biggest worry here is that many of their businesses are software, an industry that's being upended by the rise of artificial intelligence. Even though Bending Spoons has done a great job of harnessing AI to cut costs, it's hard to tell if their business model will remain viable in the age of AI displacement. But here's the bottom line: Bending Spoons is easily one of the more interesting IPOs of the year. I think they're doing something brilliant. The only question is whether they can continue to deliver. You've got my blessing to put on a support position here right now as long as you leave more room to buy at lower levels because I expect this one to come down. Let's go to Dave in Illinois. Dave,
Dr. Cramer, so I'm wondering how your briani or whatever that is crop is coming along.
Well, I got to tell you, I was wearing Zane on Friday and that may equate to why the peppers aren't coming in correctly.
It is. It's actually quite a tragedy in the vegetable business.
Jim, I would like to revisit a stock I called in about 3 months ago in the lightning round, Sienna Corp. When I called, it had run up 100%. You said too hot for me. It had run too far, too fast. Recently, however, it pulled back 9% from the pin action in the South Korean stock market and has since leveled off to an approximate total of my May call, apart from today, of course. So, Jim, at the risk of FOMO, can you weigh in and bless a time to scale in?
All right, Davis, great question. There are about a dozen stocks that look just like Sienna. And that means what that tells me is I'd love to call the bottom right here. I may have to try to do something at the Thursday club meeting, but I would say right now, you got to give it a day. And that will be the tale of the tape. And thank you so much for calling.
All right, listen up, people. Bending Spoons is really an interesting story. I'm kind of drawn to it, but if you want a piece of it, I think you should wait until it inevitably comes down. Buy small and then hope. There's much more made by that, including my suit with Banko Santander. Then Wall Street is a lot of things, but creative is not one of them. I'm running through today's winners and telling you what to do after yet another predictable trading day in the life of a higher oil economy and oil cost rapid fire in tonight's edition of the lightning round. So stay with Cramer.
Over the past few years, Bank of Santander, the Spain-based financial powerhouse with a growing presence worldwide, has been an incredible outperformer with the stock up 200% since the beginning of 2025. And it shows no signs of slowing down. Earlier this year, we learned they're acquiring the Connecticut-based Webster Financial, and they just got key regulatory approval for that deal, giving them a stronger foothold in America once that deal closes later this year. So, can it keep running? Earlier today, I had a chance to speak with Ana Botín. She's the executive chair of Bank of Santander. Take a look.
And I've got to ask you point blank. Your bank, since I've known you, has radically rerated in terms of the Parliament of Wall Street. It just keeps being worth more and more and more. What are you doing to make it so in the eyes of all analysts, your franchise is worth much more than people thought?
So, it's great to be back with you and you are an early believer. So, thank you for that.
You can write. So, I like to say it's an overnight success, 10 years in the making.
So, I'd say three things. First, we're one of the largest banks in the world by number of customers, 180 million, with local scale, very important.
That helps with efficiency, growth, and resiliency. Second, we have delivered every single plan and every time better. And third, we're on a journey, and I'd say not even in the first leg of the journey to become global platforms, and there's a lot of upside, and it's what we call a self-help. So it's a lot about changing the model so we grow revenues and lower cost and improve profitability.
Now they dramatically lower cost, frankly. I don't know if people realize how much your run rate of cost is much lower than US banks. How do you do it?
So look, we've added 8 million customers until the first quarter year on year. We've grown revenues by 4% and lowered cost by 3%. And EPS is 17% up on Q1. So these are pretty good numbers.
Nobody has it. I can tell you because I study US banks. No one's near that. Now you are making an acquisition of a bank I know well and I think it's very exciting. When I saw it I said, how does she know these things? How did you know that Webster is such a great bank?
So that's exactly the point. Webster is a great bank and it's not easy to buy great banks. And by the way, it is very, very complementary. Webster is a great match for Santander US because it brings a commercial bank and we have the consumer bank together. It becomes a $300 billion asset bank, a bit more than that, with great funding cost, with a great business like the HSA. So it gives us basically the road to get to over 18% ROE by 28.
It's not a small bank. There are 177 branches. The idea to make it even bigger ultimately, maybe one day have it be named Mango Center.
For now, it's going to continue as Webster. We have very strong relationships through them with all the commercial customers. And by the way, the other thing people don't talk about is culture. So Webster is a community regional bank, which is what Santander is at its core in every market.
Now, how is it possible that I read you what you're doing and you're of course Spain is fabulous, Mexico is terrific, Brazil is great. How do you even know a Webster? I mean, how does it even hit your revenue stream?
Well, there is work behind that. And this is like, you know, before you get married, you have like you go out with somebody and you get to know them through time. And that's what John Su and I did. We got to know each other over three years. When they were ready to take the step, I was there.
All right. So, now we're going to switch directions for a second. Your use of AI is very different from an American use of AI. In AI here, we think about how to cut costs. The first thing you talk about with AI is personalized customer interactions. We don't think of those two. How did you come up with the idea that that's what AI would be good for?
AI is all about personalizing by customer to you, Jim. Every person is different. AI will allow us to do that in a way that gives returns to shareholders. And that's the key. It's personalized service by the person or the very small company in a way that makes sense for our shareholders.
And you speak about defensive perspective and offensive perspective. What does that mean?
Well, for the first time, I'd say in a decade, maybe more, banks like Santander with 180 million customers, lots of data, we can now access that data fast and in a cheap way. That is what will allow us to have an offensive role and try to go into new markets in a very different way. So again, it's a huge opportunity for the first time because before it was very expensive to try to manage those, you know, trillions of data points in a way that we could actually, you know, offer customers a better product. Now, that's possible.
Now, I want to talk politics for a second. I usually don't, but my colleague David Faber said, 'You know what? Jim,' he turned to me, 'I think that the president's attack on Spain could really hurt Webster.' And I said, 'No, it won't because Webster is about banking and it's about a CEO who knows banking.' It turned out I was right. It just didn't matter. But maybe it was because the president was just impetuous.
Webster is exactly what he said. Webster is the combination with Santander US. We are a US bank. We're combining two US banks. So think of this as an in-market merger where we bring capital. We're bringing 12 billion dollars into the United States where we're going to make a more competitive bank for our customers. It's a win-win. So our US customers from both sides are going to get better service, better prices, and the US as a whole is going to get billions of dollars of investment and a more competitive banking system. What's not to like?
Exactly. Right now, you have a dominant franchise all over, pretty much you could be wherever you are in the world. So where do you want to be right now? Where do you want to cut back and where do you want to put more money?
We have since I took over gone across, you know, let's say against the current, not anymore, I think now that has changed, of putting more capital into the United States but into the Americas as a whole. And that is something which has taken us to, you know, in 3 years we'll be above 20% ROE and above 20 billion euros in profits. That is a large bank and a very profitable bank.
Numbers of people in Brazil, an extraordinary share that you have.
