tv After the Bell FOX Business March 2, 2017 4:00pm-5:01pm EST
snap closes up 44 points on the first day of trade. [closing bell rings] liz: much can happen in a couple of years, for now it is the star of the session. we're at 21,000 level, folks. 21,003, will we close above it? too close to call. i will leave that to melissa and david. david: we are close, aren't we? melissa: we are close. stocks dropping in the final moments of trading after the dow's huge 300-point rally yesterday. ending the day down more than 100 points on the dow. s&p and russell all closing lower as well. i'm melissa francis. david: look it positived above 21,000. still settling. we'll see what happens. i'm david asman. this is "after the bell." it is very busy hour. the last minute drop to the dow may be attributed to this. attorney general jeff sessions is under fire on reports he had contact with russian officials
on two occasions during the 2016 presidential campaign. was he there as a campaigner or a senator. that is the big question. there are growing calls from both democrats and some republicans for session to recuse himself from the russia probe. he himself said he will if it comes down to that, if the fbi does refer a case to the justice department, sessions has said he will recuse himself. so that he is already said but he has got a lot more to say, and he will say it at a news conference any moment now. we will bring that you. we'll bring it to you what what it begins. the big story, market story, the parent company of snapchat, disappearing messaging app. the first high-tech ipo we had this year.
>> i'm watching the screen with you, david. seen underlying optimism. all that worried. little bit of profit-taking. talk about the headliner today. that is the debut of snapchat, pricing at $11 a share. opening a little later this morning at $20 a share. trading high as $26.05 a share. still a 44% gain, a nice pop for snapchat in the debut here on wall street. compare that to facebook. sinces ipo, facebook. competition probably a good thing for the social media giant. twitter on the other hand, since
its ipo down 62%. the challenge for snapchat going forward, all those users, evan spiegel and company be able to monetize with ad sales. time will tell. back to you. david: thank you, lori. melissa: charlie gasparino joins us with more color on today's ipo, the company freezing out retail investors? >> the retail allocation from a normal ipo is down 70%. usually 5% allocation. it was down about one, 1 1/2%. the takeaway story here stock i believe popped on enthusiasm. there may be some millenials want to buy the stock. let's be real clear here, it's a money-losing company and there is scarcity. retail investor was not into this. anybody underwriting, morgan stanley, goldman sachs, they had almost no retail distribution. what does that mean? the stock is held by insiders, company insiders and hold by institutions who were told to hold on to it.
what you had some demand. you had scarcity, you had a big pop. this is stock i would tell anybody, just be cautious with, because you know, it could be a facebook, it could be a twitter. we don't know enough now, and popping on this scarcity value so stay the hell away from it. melissa: not that you have a strong opinion on it or anything. >> unless you want to gamble. the one other thing with sessions coming out here. i would be interested in looking at futures when he talks. those markets definitely traded off significantly when it was clear he would have a press conference. there is a market angle. recusal is probably baked in right now. if somebody crazy like he resigns, some democrats called him to resign. i doubt that will happen. president trump came out says he has full confidence. who the hell knows in this environment. watch the futures, because then it will be a rocky day tomorrow. there is a lot of news affecting the market. melissa: okay. >> i never seen so many times
where politics affects market as now. melissa: very true. charlie gasparino, thank you. david: i believe that is the two-minute warning we're getting there from the speaker preceding jeff sessions. that usually happens. we have two minutes. chew over snap in those two minutes. again the moment jeff sessions comes out. we'll cover that. we have an all-star panel. meanwhile we have market all-star panel. scott martin, kingsview asset management, fox news contributor. mashable lance ulanoff. and charlie and lori are still with us. amish, you agree with what churlly was saying there may be more hype to snap than anything else? actually i disagree with charlie, i respect charlie. i'm on the opposite end. david: go ahead. >> what i see retail investors disconnect between silicon valley and wall street which always happens. wall street is about revenue and
earnings. silicon valley is about vision and product. snapchat founders got three things right. they learned during the facebook debacle. they priced it right. 14% of the shares and timing is everything. david: time everything. andrew is with us he is security lawyer, he has faith in snap that charlie and amish don't. you have to admit this ipo is coming on the wave of a trump rally. some people think it is getting a free ride off of that wave. what do you think? >> yeah it is. i'm not a fan of the company. personally i feel like i'm watching the movie "groundhog day" again. we've seen this. overhyped tech stock with absolutely no earnings literally losing over a billion dollars. this ink is a dog. the retail investor may eventually like it because there are 13, 14-year-old boys and girls use it but only ones. i personally wouldn't touch this thing with a 10-foot pole. david: i can't find a buyer
anywhere, but clearly there are buyers on wall street. lance, somebody has -- >> who are the buyers? david: traders are interested as charlie was saying. you think there is something to this company sets it apart from a company that might have a gopro for example, right? >> first of all the audience, most desirable audience, 18 to 34. actually extend to younger than that so there is that. they are making money. they're just not making a profit right now. they're losing some money on the other side. they're expanding into content with snapchat discover, they're broadening their audience. they're building out hardware at the same time to get people to put more content on the platform. they're not only ones that are doing something like this but they are the only ones have the eyeballs, the truly desirable eyeballs. now is the time to go public to supercharge and -- david: lori, we heard from charlie what is going on here. there are all kinds of trading deals going on to make the thing
pop right now. do traders really think this stock has legs at the current price? >> the scarcity value strategy is so key. it worked like a charm for snapchat today. listening to our conversation, david, i'm laughing, one of a bunch of old farthers talking about snapchat. the demographic, right? >> children are not allowed to say that word, lori. >> we're above the desired demographic. david: that's fine. that's fine. go ahead. we're on cable. >> so these are advertisers, those are the kids who the advertisers are targeting. so, i kind of feel like i don't have a right to say how much money -- david: i will have to cut you off in mid-sentence, lori. not because sessions is there. we have peter barnes will set the table for what sessions is about to say. go ahead, peter. >> david, he is going to recuse himself it appears from all matters involving any, any
investigation of the russian hacking during last year's election. he had kind of been waffling a little bit. here is the attorney general. >> welcome to the department of justice. jodi, thank you for being with me. he is my chief of staff, and jody has been almost 20 years in the department of justice. let me share a few thoughts. first, about the comments that i made to the committee that have been said to be incorrect and false. let me be clear. i never had meetings with russian operatives or russian intermediaries about the trump campaign, and the idea that i was part of a quote, continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump surrogates and intermediaries
for the russian government is totally false. that is the question that senator franken asked me at the hearing and that is what got my attention as he noticed, noted it was the first, just breaking news. it got my attention and that the question i responded to. i did not respond by referring to the two meetings, one very brief after a speech. and one with two of my senior staffers, professional staffers, with the russian ambassador in washington. where no such things were discussed. in my reply to the question, my reply to the question of senator franken was, honest and correct as i understood it at the time. i appreciate that some have taken the view that this was a false comment. that is not my intent. that is not correct.
i will write the judiciary committee soon, today or tomorrow, and to explain this testimony for the record. secondly, at my confirmation hearing i promised that i would do this. if a specific matter arose where i believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned i would consult with the department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed, close quote. that is what i told them at the confirmation here. i have been here just three weeks today. a lot has been happening in this three-week period. i wish i had had more of my staff on board but we're still waiting for confirmation for them. much has been done. much needs to be done, and but i did and have done as i promised,
i have met with senior officials shortly after arriving here. we evaluated the rules of ethics and recusal. i considered the issues at stake. in fact, on monday of this week we set a meeting to a final decision on this question. and on monday, we set that meeting today. so this was the day we planned to have a final discussion about handling it. i asked for their candid and honest opinion about what i should do about investigations certain investigations. and my staff recommended recusal. they said that since i had involvement with the campaign, i should not be involved in any campaign investigation. i have studied the rules and considered their comment and evaluation.
i believed those recommendations are right and just. therefore i have recused myself in the matters that deal with the trump campaign, the exact language of that recusal is in the press release that we, we will give to you. i said this, quote, i have now decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaign for president of the united states. i went on to say, this announcement should not be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of any investigation or suggestive of the scope of any such investigation. because we in the department of justice resist confirming the nine, the very existence of investigations. so in the end of followed the
right procedure just as i promised the committee i would. just as i believed any good attorney general should do. and a proper decision i believe has been reached. so i thank you for the opportunity to make those comments and would be pleased to take a few questions. okay. >> just to clear up any confusion over this, could you just explain a little bit about the september 8th mighting, who on your staff was there, and what was discussed, with the russian ambassador? >> the russian ambassador apparently sent a staffer to my office. i did not see him, and asked for a meeting as so many ambassadors were doing and we set up a time as we did, we normally did. and we met with him. two of my senior staffers were there, and maybe a younger staffer too and they both
retired army colonels and not politicians and we had, we listened to the ambassador and, what his concerns might be. >> [inaudible] >> well it, was normal things, i started off, i don't remember a lot of it, but i remember saying i had gone to russia with a church group in 1991. he said he was not a believer himself but he was glad to have church people come there. indeed i thought he was pretty much of an old-style soviet type ambassador. and so we talked about a little bit about terrorism as i recall. somehow the subject of the ukraine came up. i had the ukrainian ambassador in my office the day before to listen to him.
nothing, russia had done nothing that was wrong in any area and everybody else was wrong, with regard to the ukraine. it got to be a little bit of a testy conversation at that point. it wrapped up. he said something about inviting me to have lunch. i did not accept that, and t never occurred. >> [inaudible] >> i don't recall. but, most of these ambassadors are pretty gossippy, this was in the campaign season but i don't recall any specific political discussions. >> [inaudible]. >> do you recall meeting with ambassador kislyk at anytime? >> i don't recall having met him. it is possible. i'm on armed services committee. but i don't recall having met him before. >> on question of sanctions, do you think, why do you think he
sought a meeting with you? did he consider you a representative of the trump campaign? >> i think ambassadors are always out trying to find out things and advance their agenda. most of the countries that ambassadors that i met with, they would lay out the case for ukraine to lay out its case. poland laid out its case. latvia, lithuania, hungary, japan, canada, australia, i met with all those ambassadors over the year. i think that is why. >> to follow on last question, hindsight do you believe that it is coincidence that russians asked you for a meeting or do you believe you were targeted because it came at height of russia's interference, and at same time then candidate trump was giving an interview to rt saying he didn't believe there
was anything to the reported interference? >> i don't recall. i don't have a sense of it, any connections whatsoever about that. i'm not sure i even knew, when we set up the meeting, what was going to be going on in the world at the time. so i can't speak to the russian ambassador on his mind. >> have you spoken to any representatives of russian government, since president trump. >> i don't know. we meet a lot of people. >> those two meetings you discussed with the ambassador. >> i don't believe so. >> the white house press secretary and president himself both said today they think you should not recuse yourself from the investigations. did you -- >> i did share with white house counsel, my staff that i intend
to recuse myself this afternoon. but, i feel like, of course they didn't, they don't know the rules. the ethics rules. most people don't, and but when you evaluate the rules i feel like i am, i should not be involved investigating a campaign i had a role in. one more question and we'll wrap this up. >> two questions, if i may. one, you were already considering recusal before today, is that correct? and secondly, when you answered senator franken's question, were you just not thinking of the meeting with the russian ambassador or did you not consider it relevant? >> i was, taken aback a little bit about this brand new information this allegation that surrogates, i had been called a surrogate of donald trump, had been meeting on continuously with russian officials and that
as what i, it struck me very hard and that is what i focused my answer on. in retrospect, i should have slowed down i did meet one russian official a couple fumes. that would be the ambassador. thank you all. thank you. david: there you go. that's jeff sessions our attorney general. he is not resigning even though democrats called on him to do so, differenting degales of that september -- details of that meeting with russian ambassador. there were witnesses in the meeting and a couple generals and staffers. undoubtedly there will be room to investigate what went on in the meeting. >> he answered some of the questions had why were they meeting? he said that the ambassador's office reached out to his office like many other ambassadors did from other countries to want to check in and have a meeting and touch base about things going on and that this was a normal thing that happened although he did say i believe that they didn't talk about what was going on in
the world in terms of the changing of administration. david: yeah, our catherine herridge, fox news's catherine herridge asked him pointedly, this was at the height of the political campaign, we knew you were a part of that campaign, you probably would be part of the administration, the question was, how could he not, the russian ambassador not be interested in what might happen in the coming admin in the election itself, et cetera. so a lot of questions to be answered but he will recuse himself from any investigation by the justice department of those meetings. melissa: that's the headline. he also said that the exchange got test at this at one point. invitations and a lot of details. peter barnes standing by right now to sort of break down some more of those details we just got. peter. reporter: the big issue is here been what he said when he was in his confirmation hearing and in response to a question from senator al franken about stories
that were breaking at that time back in january on january 10th, during the confirmation hearing. and senator franken asked him about the stories around, continuing exchanges of information during the campaign between trump surrogates and intermediaries from the russian government and franken asked the senator, point-blank is there any evidence anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government, what while you do as attorney general. not aware of those activities. i've been called a surrogate in time or two and i did not have communications with the russians. so that is the issue. some democrats are saying he should resign because he perjured himself at his confirmation hearing. he at least, there should be a special prosecutor and we did hear some republicans calling for him to recuse himself the way he just did but with regard
to that testimony, he said that at the time it was honest and correct as i understood the question, which was about campaign activities. his spokespeople have been saying well, he was meeting with the russian ambassador at the time in his senate office and one time at the republican convention in cleveland as a u.s. senator and a member of the armed services committee. david and melissa. melissa: we'll see how people parse that distinction. david: we'll do a little parsing of mary anne marsh, former senator scott brown who is also a fox news contributor. thank you both for coming in. marianne, of course it is in washington, so of course it reeks of politics and hypocrisy. senator mccaskill i've been on armed services committee for 10 years no call or meeting with russian ambassador ever, period. ambassadors call members of foreign relations committee.
somebody found a tweet from 2013 saying i'm off meeting with russian ambassador. up sent about arbitrary cruel toened u.s. adoptions. come on. this is clearly political, right? >> i think the real point here, david is, that when jeff sessions met with the ambassador from russia, he was a campaign team member from trump. he led the foreign policy team for donald trump. he recruited carter page to work on the campaign. carter page, who has been under investigation by 11 intelligence committees with a fisa warrant for almost two years now. so while this afternoon jeff sessions did what he should have done during his confirmation hearing i'm not sure that is enough. we'll have to see. he has plenty of opportunities to clean this up and he did not. david: the point is there is the court of public opinion, which is very important right now. donald trump often goes directly over the media and goes to that court of public opinion. and he could put forth that tweet from claire mccaskill showing how, at the very least, how difficult it is to recall
exactly what happened in these -- she forgot she ever had that meeting with the russian ambassador or she was covering that up. lindsey graham, by the way he was asked a question about shepard smith on fox news channel whether he ever met with a russian ambassador. let's play that tape. >> when was last time you met with a russian ambassador sergey kilsack. >> when hell froze over? >> no you never met with him. >> i don't know mccain and lindsey graham. i believe his country is run by a dictator, thug and killer so i don't think he is coming to my office. david: i fuld up "new york daily news," 2016 there was meeting at university club here in manhattan. a group of panelists including south carolina senator lindsey graham, veteran newsman ted koppel and russian ambassador sergey kislyak.
they for get things either thatr their state. what i know about jeff sessions if anyone thinks he is in bed with the rushes they don't know jeff sessions. he is one of the most patriotic people i ever met. when i listened to hearings, al franken asked, that my goodness, breaking news an alleged story about alleged activity he was doing hypothetical. i thought it was clearly directed campaign activities. that is followed up in the documents that were submitted as part of his nomination process all relating to campaign activities. he was not acting as a campaign surrogate during the times that he met 25 ambassadors, including china which is also we're at odds with many, many issues. so to think somehow he he is in bed with the russians and screwed, i think is inappropriate.
there is certain -- recused himself appropriately. david: i concede to ma marianne there is enough questions that there should be investigation, no question. jeff sessions has said he will recuse himself from any justice department investigation if it is referred to justice by the fbi. but would you not concede that there are so many questions, claire mccaskill, couldn't remember properly whether she met with a russian ambassador. lindsey graham couldn't remember properly whether he met with the russian ambassador. isn't it at least too early to say that the man should resign? there are a lot of questions, more questions than answers that lead to resignation, no? >> i think, what we have to look for next is what happened to michael flynn. michael flynn denied having the meetings. denied making calls. denied talking about the sanctions until it came -- david: marianne, two different people. >> no they're not. hold on. david. david: we're talking about jeff sessions. no, you hold on. we're talking about jeff
sessions. he is the person we're talking about. aren't there enough questions about jeff sessions so that we shouldn't say whether he should resign or not if he is going to recuse himself but let's go ahead with the investigation with those standards? >> yes, my point is, if it is revealed during that meeting in september with kislyak that anything was discussed about sanctions or any other matter related to donald trump and russia, which could welcome out, that is what is to look for next. that was the undoing of michael flynn. david: you're not answering the question, is it not too early to call for the resignation of jeff sessions with all these questions, question hes outstanding? >> i think we need an investigation. i think we have to look at questions. i think you have to ask yourself -- hold on and you have to, he did it under oath.
the campaign doing his official duties as united states senator is laughable. with all due respect to marianne and others want his resignation. >> i didn't ask for. i didn't say, don't put words in my mouth. david: hold on everybody, you're saying it is too early to call for his resignation, correct? >> i am dam. however, what my point -- david: it's a simple question question, can you say yes or no. >> jeff sessions had opportunity to do for weeks now. david: marianne, you don't want to contradict your fellow senators. >> no that is not true. today, today, today, no. david: too early to call for his resignation. >> today it is too early this afternoon at this hour. david: thank you both. he appreciate it hard to get answer out of marianne. scott, thank you.
melissa: snapchat, the disanticipate peering messaging app making highly anticipated debut on wall street. we'll talk to thomas farley the new york stock exchange president for more on the company's ipo coming up.s your m up. eds more care though. she wants to stay in her house. i don't know even where to start with that. first, let's take a look at your financial plan and see what we can do. ok, so we've got... we'll listen. we'll talk. we'll plan. baird. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7.
it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse.
across new york state, from long island to buffalo, from rochester to the hudson valley, from albany to utica, creative business incentives, infrastructure investment, university partnerships, and the lowest taxes in decades are creating a stronger economy and the right environment in new york state for business to thrive. let us help grow your company's tomorrow - today at esd.ny.gov david: military earlier today, fox business's blake burman is
at the white house with latest. i think your head is stopped spinning. blake, go ahead. >> you know, the whole jeff sessions news has obviously clouded everything that happened. david: yeah. >> david this was supposed to be a layup for the president, that i bit, leaving the white house here. going to southeast virginia. boarding the uss gerald r. ford touting increase in defense spending. there is the jacket, commander-in-chief. it is the session story on this. while he was down there in southeast virginia in front of many members of the military, the president called for an end to the sequester. >> by eliminating the sequester and uncertainty it creates, it will make it easy for the plan of future thus to control costs and get the best deals for the taxpayer, which of course is
very important. reporter: the president's upcoming budget to call for addition of $54 billion in defense spending. the top democrat in the house, nancy pelosi today, was questioning that, wondering why there would be increase in defense spending if potentially there are cuts to other programs here at home. this was the case she made recaller today. >> and, in saying he is going to make these cuts, if he in fact increases defense this way, what is his mission? what is the mission? tell us your security mission that would justify this? reporter: of course all of this is under the umbrella of the upcoming budget and that full budget is expected out of the white house in may. david? david: by the way sessions deflecting all of trump news. that might be purpose of the leaks coming out justice department. i'm guessing. blake, thank you very much. melissa: david sears, retired u.s. navy seal, react what you
heard nancy pelosi say. he will increase defense spending. what about all the cuts here at home? what is the reaction? >> there is disingenuous, his defense increase reality, what is it 8 billion above what president obama proposed already. so, i didn't hear her out talking about that and contrary to that. of course defense spending needs to go up. we're a very degraded point in our military. melissa: at the same time, you would say like so many others people that a lot of duplication. a lot of inefficiency. there is money being spent unwisely at same time. how do you reconcile those things? >> you are absolutely right, melissa. it is not, the defense department is not a sacred cow that can't be looked at. it has to be heavily scrutinized. there is a lot of duplication of responsibilities. there is a lot of overhead piece
just, back mechanisms that run everything, as hundreds of thousands of people and contractors, theyout number front lines guy by i don't even know, how many people behind the scenes. that is not increase is enough anyway. melissa: what do you think is the right number? >> there is a whole bunch out there. heritage foundation pieces or ex-generals or listen to john mccain or pieces armed services. right number is up in hundreds of billions of dollars next couple years. to our national security strategy, then feeds down to national defense strategy. that dictates how we'll spend our resources, what we're trying to accomplish in this world. that will drive you to the right number based on the mission, not just a number.
one of the points she made, if you call for increase in spending we need to know what the actual plan is, sound like that much you're in agreement with her? >> i'm in agreement with her. what i say is disingenuous on her part, this is stopgap measure to get going. this is not by any means 54 million of which actually an extra eight million or so piling on to the previous proposal. it is not going to fix anything, but some pieces need to be sustained, maintenance pieces that need to be fixed. they need a budget boeing forward. melissa: okay. david sears, thank you so much for your time. >> thanks, melissa, the biggest tech ipo since alibaba debuting at the new york stock exchange, closing up more than 44% today. making its cofounders billionaires. what happens tomorrow? we'll ask the head of nyse coming out. when you have $4.95 online u.s. equity trades... lower than td ameritrade, schwab, and e-trade... you realize the smartest investing idea,
isn't just what you invest in, but who you invest with. ♪ but who you invest with. this is one gorgeous truck. special edition. oh, did i say there's only one special edition? because, actually there's five. ooohh!! aaaahh!! uh! hooooly mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. it's truck month. get 0% financing for 60 months plus find your tag and get $5500 on select chevy silverado pick-ups when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says, "you picked the wrong insurance plan." no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance.
david: breaking news, if you're just turning in, attorney gin jeff sessions recusing himself from any connection to campaign meddling with the trump campaign. >> my staff recommended recusal. they said since i had involvement with the campaign, i should not be involved in any campaign investigation. i have studied rules and considered their comment and evaluation. i believe those recommendations are right and just. therefore i have recused myself in the matters that deal with the trump campaign. melissa: all right, the new titans of silicon valley, snap cofounders evan spiegel and bobby murphy can call themselves billionaires, lucky them. fox business's cheryl casone is at the company's headquarters in venice beach, california, with more how these two 20-somethings
made their fortunes. cheryl? reporter: hard to believe that these two billionaires call venice beach, california, home are. kind of a gritty resident community, 40,000 people live here but it is true. snapchat's headquarters spread throughout venice. protesters are not happy about that. but as far as the company goes and people participating in the ipo they are pretty darn happy. the stock closings up to 24.48. that was more than 40% stock, opening price excuse me, $11, what a day it was for these guys. a lot of questions for ipo. those participated don't have voting power. but at least for today wall street was excited. i looked at other ipos that had been participated in, technology ipos, this is third largest technology ipo on record after alibaba and facebook. remember when facebook went public, melissa. they only gained .61 percent on the day. if you compare facebook's first day to snapchat's first day,
snap, the ticker, snap, looks like snap is successful for now. twitter had a big day when they first debuted back in november 2013, up 72% on the day. you mentioned, nice i will leave you with this, throw the numbers out there, evan spiegel worth about $4.49 billion after today. bobby murphy, his 2-year-old cofounder, $3 billion. they would sell 11 million shares each. 2$2 million, they gained. as i make more friend out here in venice beach. 272 million. melissa: cheryl, thank you for that. david: those friends come with strings. snapchat is stealing the spotlight. a lot of folks don't know what the app does. take a look. >> my kids know how to use it but i don't. >> i never heard of it. i'm not into telephones and computers. >> it is a an app.
i have no idea what it is. melissa: i don't use telephones. david: if you don't know how to use snapchat, not alone with our producer who put together a quick snapchat tutorial. >> once you're in the app you can take a photo or video and decide how many seconds your friends can view it for. they can view it up to 10 seconds. select a fun filter or not. select a friend you would like to send it to, after that it disappears forever. david: yeah, that's what they say. does anything disappear? they bottom me to use it by the way. that is your friendly host. kind of weird things you can do with it. melissa: that does look valuable, yeah. i could see why you would want that. panel back with us. scott martin, lance ulanoff, an andrew shelton with us. scott, why does anyone want to play with this thing? i'm at a loss. >> gosh, melissa, given what is going on in d.c., they may love more snapchat. you talk about the disappearing
pictures. how about the disappearing profit viability. if you look at snapchat filed, filed with ipo, user growth declining, additional users is growing up. this company lost $500 million last year. the fact it is worth $24 billion seems a little bit overvalued to me here. melissa: lance, when you talk about other disappearing apps, you try to communicate with people, don't want message to be there. this is goofy photos. i don't -- yeah. >> i don't think it is so much about disappearing content. it is about the enjoyment of using it. it is about sharing with other people 1,158,000,000 other users. -- 158 million other users. snapchat had something unique, those tools and filters, had access to really valuable audience, what is really interesting what instagram did
and they launched stories and right away snapchat's growth kind of flattened out a little bit, and they actually said that in the s-1 filing and that is the biggest threat. the biggest threat to snapchat is instagram, hot on its heels. snapchat will try to use money to innovate really fast. i'm impressed how they integrated. they're advertising into the filters. when you're swiping through and changing your face, one could be a filter from advertiser. it is just as good and as much fun than one before. that is smart approach to advertising and smart poach to making revenues. they have to do other things. melissa: go ahead. >> let's face it, millenial generation, what the brands and sponsors love the demographic. what we're talking about here 60 billion-dollar market cap that is writing. this is digital economy coming together. speaking of billionaires we heard before the segment, with the report are talking, they turned away 4 billion from facebook three years ago, mark
zuckerberg. so there is a lot more to the story. not about 2016. not about the revenues. it is about the future of this company. melissa: andrew, they say use this money to innovate right now. is it that or are they cashing out before everyone gets disinterested? >> yeah they're probably cashing out. look i use snap. i'm familiar with the product. melissa: really? >> yeah, i do, but if you compare it to facebook there is a massive difference. facebook was customized for advertising. instagram, excuse me, snap just doesn't have that. and also, sure enough facebook and instagram are going heavily into this area. so i personally think the days of snap, at least in terms of a fast-growing company are done. >> i actually don't think that is accurate. snapchat is not some dead end. snapchat discover is new way of packaging content which actually does support advertising and has been successful for them. it's a growth area. what that proves is snapchat is sort of a mutable thing.
it can change for the audience, but, i will say that you can't necessarily depend on that audience which tends to move from one product to another -- >> that is the thing, lance. >> they are 3, 14, 15-year-olds. melissa: sitting around doing absolutely nothing playing with these things. >> melissa, that do, don't have any money. melissa: there you go. perfect. david: one thing you can absolutely say about snap it is the most valuable ipo since facebook in 2012. making it a tough decision to list on the new york stock exchange which makes our next guest a very happy man. joining me now is the president of the exchange, tom farley who is standing next to the founders, ringing the opening bell. congratulations to you, and i got to ask, because set of2016 was a lousy year for tech ipos. it was the worst year since the recession in 2009. have we turn ad corner now? is this going to be the
beginning of a lot more tech ipos? >> happy, indeed, david. hello to you, thanks for having me on. hello, melissa. david: thank you. >> we have turned a corner, i give you a few statistics last year. last year we had zero ipos in the first quarter. melissa: amazing. >> today was the 12th in the first quarter and we're only 2/3 of the way through so we're in good shape. if you look at what we call the calendar, the ipos planned in next month or so, there is a lot. it is humming nicely now. we have trifecta of high asset prices low volatility, low and stable interest rates. so it's a nice environment for companies to go public. david: how much, what do you expect of this one, how much of this optimism you have, and market rally is because of trump and is trump going to sort of engender a more entrepreneurial spirit that will mean a lot more tech ipos? >> the markets are optimist i can. i think you saw it with the snap ipo. they put on the front of their
prospectus they wanted to raise dough at 14 to 16 bucks a share, they raise i had it to 17 and opened at 24. that is optimism manifest. if you go back to the election, the hope was low lower corporate income taxes and -- david: remember the night of the election, tom, these prognosticators that the market will tank. paul krugman said it would never recover. it did exactly opposite. you're too young, most people don't realize you're a young man. you were in your single digits when ronald reagan was elected but i remember when he was elected, there was this renewed optimism from limits to growth mentality to renewed optimism all of the tax cutting, all of the reductions in regulations led to the technological revolution, led to computer revolution. led to cell phones et cetera. i'm wonder if we're on the cusp of that again? >> you know, doing some math in my head, thinking about night of
the election, overnight the futures were way down. david: 800 point down. >> dow futures were near 17,000. now here we are at 21,000. it is absolutely amazing. 22, 23%. david: extraordinary. >> clearly animal spirits, not dissimilar of the excitement when ronald reagan first came into the seat. let's see if we keep it going. david: tom, this is the last question. you were very kind to stick around. we had breaking news about jeff sessions and i appreciate it so i will throw a nice one to you but it's a serious question. nasdaq is much more of a computer oriented trading system than you guys are at new york stock exchange. you still use real people. they use more computers. and so a lot of tech companies went naturally to nasdaq but you got sn why and how do you, how do you pull new ipos away from nasdaq? >> you mentioned nasdaq, they
are a tough competitor. we have a blend of humans and technology where all large ipos are coming to new york stock exchange. this is number 2in a row, maybe 27 in a row in terms of large ipos, raising 27 million or more. those companies are coming because those transactions are important and complex and they need to be done right and because we have the humans hoare to make sure it's done right along side sophisticated technology, this is the place to be. david: tom farley. president of the new york stock exchange. tom, again thank you very much for sticking around for us. >> thanks, david. hi, melissa. melissa: hey. snapping for cash. stashed brand looking to gain traction on snapchat turned to influences that produce daily content to promote the brand. what does snap's ipo mean for them? here is michael platko. a snap chart artist and influencer. what is an influencer? >> an influencer makes content
on snapchat an has audience to chat with them or tell a product or whatever story they are looking to tell. melissa: you basically create content on snapchat for other people trying to get out there to get eyeballs, is that what you're saying? >> i create content on my account. i will tell a story doing product placement for coca-cola. tell a story about going to movies and drinking a coke. i will work with a brand to tell a story on their account. toyota sends me to a music festival to tell about their brand involvement there. melissa: one of the challenges you say you have had, is that snap, unlike some of the other companies out there, like instagram, hasn't been terribly supportive of you on your platform, is that right? tell us more about that. >> that is sachs it -- absolutely right. i've been making content on snapchat three years. never has been much of a relationship between anyone at snapchat and myself or any the other creators constantly making content.
they, apart from they're not being so many or any real features that creators would benefit from in the app natively like discoverability, verified profiles, anything of that nature, they're not there to support us with growing our account or seem to have any interest whatsoever in the fact that there are people out here making content for brands as oppose to them putting -- melissa: i interviewed a lot of people who make videos on youtube and get revenue directed their way from the clicks. it is very clear, or the views, and very clear what the business plan is there. if you feel like snap doesn't support you, why don't you go over to instagram and take all your people with you? >> well i make content on snapchat because i love to do it and i work with brands provide me with a career and way to put food on my table and i love to do it. that being said me and other creators are looking at other place -- platforms. instagram has tab profiles and
link out and those are details on snapchat we would love. i'm actively trying to build my audience there, but the snapchat numbers are much bigger at this moment, i have to keep making content on there. not that i dislike it but -- melissa: but numbers are bigger. that is their argument. michael, thank you. thanks for coming on. >> you thank you very much. david: they did pick the perfect time for the ipo. just when the market is booming. melissa: absolutely. david: they did well there. are you deplorable and proud and you can drink to that and fight media bias at the same time. that sounds good. details to come. ♪ your path to retirement may not always be clear. but at t. rowe price, we can help guide your retirement savings. so wherever your retirement journey takes you, we can help you reach your goals. call us or your advisor t. rowe price. invest with confidence.
label. it comes from the daily caller wine club, chardonnay and cabernet. the bottles cost about 15 bucks each with proceeds to go towards funding liberal bias. les i love the idea but how? that does it for us. time for "risk and reward." >> let me be clear, i never had meetings with russian operatives or russian intermediaries about the trump campaign. and the idea that i was part of a quote continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government is totally false. my staff recommended recusal. they said that since i had involvement with the campaign i should not be involved in any campaign investigation.