Skip to main content

tv   Bloomberg Technology  Bloomberg  April 4, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
i blame the people who sat at this desk. they never should have allowed that to happen. so it will bring a lot of things back. i think it will be great for the united states. hopefully really good for china, too . >> [inaudible] >> we are going to have things. we are talking intellectual property protection. certain tariffs. very important certain elements of the tariffs, in discussion right now. we have a number of things. we have also agreed to far more than we have left to agree to. in fact,, i think i can say that some of the toughest things have been agreed to. we have some things that are actually easier right now, that we are doing. but using a word i don't like using often, it is a very comprehensive deal, very complete. we discussed everything.
5:01 pm
we talked about everything. when we started, people were saying that you will never talk about intellectual property, never talk about a vast array of elements, every one of them is not only talked about, but highly negotiated. whether it is our farmers, technology people, all of them will be really happy, and i think china will be very happy, too. >> [inaudible] >> what is the plan right now on tariffs? >> i don't want to say that to you, but i will be discussing that with the vice premier in about five minutes, as soon as you leave. but just a lot of good things. lot of really great things are happening. very important is the relationship with china is very strong, probably the strongest it has ever been. we are negotiating a strong deal. i think our relationship is at a point that is about the highest it has been. that's not a bad thing. that's a great thing.
5:02 pm
>> [inaudible] plan to -- hewhen you say negotiation, is a very tough negotiator, and so is president xi. it is nice when i see the fentanyl. we lost 77,000 people due to fentanyl. a really important thing, and i appreciate it. this is something china is doing before the deal is done. i think you will see a big, tremendous impact. >> if a deal is reached, what benefit will it bring for both countries? >> say it again? >> if there is a deal, what kind of benefit will it bring for both countries? >> i think it will be great for china, in that china will continue to trade with the united states. otherwise, it would be very tough for us to allow that to happen. we are by far china's biggest trading partner. they are a tremendous trading
5:03 pm
partner, and the other way, from our standpoint. it'll be a great deal for china, because we will continue to deal, we will continue to have a relationship in terms of trade. otherwise it would be very tough to do that in a large way, as we have in the past, because it was a very one-cited thing. from our standpoint, we love dealing with them. they have certain products that are tremendous, certain pricing advantages that we take advantage of. a a lot of advantages. and just the relationships between the two countries are very strong, and that is an important element, maintaining the great relationship which perhaps we would maintain anyway, but certainly we will maintain with a deal like this. this will be a terrific, unique deal. this is an epic deal, historic if it happens. we will see if it happens. [inaudible] >> herman cain --
5:04 pm
>> i recommended herman cain. he is a terrific man. terrific person. he's a friend of mine. i recommended him highly for the fed. i have told my folks that is the man. he's doing some pre-checking now, and i would imagine he would be in great shape. i find hermann to be a truly outstanding individual. i would think he would do very well there. till a possibility of closing the border -- >> mexico has been doing a very good job the last three or four days, since we talked about closing the border, which is very real. but what is more real, initially, tariffs on the cars coming in, a 25% tariff on cars made in mexico. mexico prior to my becoming president took close to 30% of our car business, a lot.
5:05 pm
they did that under nafta. for years i have been talking about it. i think nafta is one of the worst trade deals ever made, maybe the worst, and mexico took a big chunk of our car business, which i don't like and i haven't liked, and have spoken about long and hard before i became president, when i was a civilian, so to speak. i will say this. mexico, in the last four days, has really done a great job on their southern border with honduras, guatemala, el and takingf grabbing and bringing people back to their countries, because they aren't going to come to our country, we aren't going to allow it. what has happened on our southern border is a disgrace, and mexico has brought people back. they have told people you cannot come in. and that has happened, over 1000
5:06 pm
today, 1000 yesterday, when thousand people the day before. before that, they never did anything. and they have the strongest immigration laws, as strong as anywhere in the world. they can do it if they want to. they never really wanted to do it, for many years, and we told them that if you don't do that, we will close the border, but before that we will put tariffs on the cars. i don't think we will ever have to close the border, because the penalty of tariffs on cars coming into the u.s. from mexico at 25% will be massive. >> [inaudible] >> i didn't say that. we would start with the tariffs, and see what happens. but they are removing people out of mexico, on the way up to the united states. if you take a look, you will see a big difference. maybe by the end of this news conference or tomorrow, that will stop, and if that stops we are doing a big tariff. you know that i like tariffs.
5:07 pm
i'm one of the people that really likes tariffs. [inaudible] whau.s. and china relation, t sill come from -- will come from this deal? >> you really have to speak louder. >> sorry, sorry. what will -- [inaudible] >> what is your comment on the 40th anniversary of u.s.-china relations? >> my comment, 40 years is a lot, but not that much. again, i will just say what i already said. the relationship is strong. we hope it will get stronger. i think we can do a lot of things militarily, also. they are making a lot of weapons, tremendous weapons, and
5:08 pm
so are we. we just had $716 billion approved for the military last year, and now possibly doing more this year. between russia and china and us, we are all making hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is ridiculous. i would say that china will come along, and i will say russia would come along. doesn't really make sense we are all doing this. we are the leader. we are always going to be the leader. we have to be the leader. it would be much better if we all got together and didn't make these weapons, so that is something that could be phase two after all this is done. you know china is spending a lot of money on military. so are we. so is russia. those three countries i think can come together and stop the spending and spend on things that maybe are more productive toward long-term peace. i don't know. i am speaking out of turn. we haven't discussed this very
5:09 pm
much. but i feel the military expenditure of u.n. russia, -- and russia,-- you us, a lot of things. would you like to respond to that? >> that is a very good idea. [inaudible] xi,he summit with president are you committed to that happening, and when? >> if we have a deal, they will be a summit. we will know over the next four weeks. i think that is correct, bob. i look forward to seeing president xi here. if we have a deal, we will have a summit. if we don't have a deal, we will not. but there is a very good chance. how about one more? >> i would like to follow-up. is enforcement something you are still dealing with? >> we have to make sure there is enforcement. we have to get that done.
5:10 pm
we discussed it at length. i think we will get that done. just to finish, a deal is coming along really well. we will probably know over the next four weeks. it might take two weeks after paper, but it on over the next short period of time, we will know. it is looking really good. a a lot of really good things have been negotiated and agreed to. mostld say, a lot of the difficult points, points we didn't think we could ever do or wouldn't agree to on both sides, have been agreed to. we have negotiated some of the toughest points, really the tougher points, and we have some ways to go, and i think we have a very good chance of getting there. i want to thank everybody for being here, and in particular i want to thank the vice premier and his entire group of very talented representatives. thank you very much.
5:11 pm
thank you, everybody. >> [inaudible] it. will look at competition between the u.s. and china affects everybody. [inaudible] so what do you think about this? >> i think there is truth to that. a global responsibility. who said that? who said it? the trade minister. >> i think it is true. the words global responsibility, those are two nice words. maybe we do have a global responsibility, between the u.s. and china. i think it is actually, it is well brought up,. . it is true. i think we do have
5:12 pm
responsibility to the world, both countries. that is maybe to a certain extent a big reason we are here. this will be tremendous for the world. forget about china, the united states, this will be tremendous for the world if we get it done. let's see what happens. thank you all very much. >> [inaudible] >> none whatsoever. he's a highly respected man. a friend of mine. somebody who gets it. i hope everything goes well. herman cain is a very good guy. thank you very much. thank you. caroline: president trump there, speaking with the vice premier of china liu he, discussing potentially where we are in terms of a china trade deal, in
5:13 pm
terms of mexico tariffs on potentially autos, and his latest potential nomination to the federal reserve. let's go to shawwn donnan. we learned it might be for to six weeks before a deal, but the sticking points are the same. ip, enforcement, tariffs. caroline: i am having trouble hearing you, so i don't know exactly what you asked, but we just saw a really fascinating performance by the president on a number of levels. the first one was really that he was far less bombastic than he has been in the past about china. you even saw him acknowledging some of the competitive advantages on pricing that the chinese have, and that it is obviously part of the reason why the chinese have such a big trade surplus with the united states and why maybe companies have moved production to china. but also in there, one of the
5:14 pm
subtexts in that was a shift, really, to address some of the chinese concerns that we have heard expressed in recent weeks, nping showed up for a final meeting to hash out the final details of a bargain with donald trump, that there was a high risk for xi in that, and therefore the chinese were very reluctant to do that. what the president said today, they will be no summit until there is a deal, and that is an acknowledgment of the chinese concerns, and also a sign that donald trump really wants to get that epic, historic granddaddy of them all deal, and really wants to have that win. that in some ways is going to make life harder for his negotiators over the next four weeks to do that most difficult of things, close the deal. caroline: robert lighthizer
5:15 pm
saying there are still major seem toand major issues be intellectual property, enforcement, ongoing tariffs. are we any closer to knowing how that will be resolved, between the u.s. and china? shawn: not really. we are very light on details. you heard the president talk about the same issues he has been talking about for some time. to determineo say, whether what he was really talking about was the elements of the deal or the sticking points, but he did say at one point that he and liu he were going to be talking about tariffs. how you unwind this trade war. donald trump has really ramped this up in an unprecedented way. $250 billion of chinese imports he targeted for tariffs, something we haven't seen before in economic history, really, for in recent economic history, certainly.
5:16 pm
how do you pull out of that? how do you do that without giving up the leverage that you have built up? that's really the biggest question here. caroline: also, talking of key moves, aggressive moves. we have seen mexico once again drawn in, in terms of potentially talk of tariffs. he is a man who likes tariffs, as he likes to say, and drawn toward the auto sector when it comes to mexico. how likely do we think this is? shawn: i think it is incredibly unlikely. the reason for that, those tariffs would hit not mexico, but american auto manufacturers. they would hit g.m., ford, other companies that manufacture. bmw has a plant in mexico as well. it would also hit the supply chain. a lot of the parts going into cars assembled in mexico are parts from the united states or canada, so economically it
5:17 pm
makes very little sense. the second part, the policy part. he's trying to get a trade deal through congress, the new nafta through congress, the usmca, and this is the kind of language likely to cause resistance in congress rather than support for the deal. donnan, always good to have your perspective. thank you for helping us wrap up the conversation between vice premier liu he and president donald trump. trump has been saying the trade deal with china isn't ready yet, maybe give it 4 weeks and another two weeks to get details in print, and then would like to have a summit in the u.s. with president xi, but they won't have a summit unless a deal is done. the sticking points remain the same -- intellectual property, tariffs, enforcement. the key u.s. negotiator, robert lighthizer, is doing an incredible job, he says. lighthizer says there are still
5:18 pm
major issues in the trade talks. coming up, with israel the elections around the corner and u.s. presidential elections a year away, has facebook done enough to right what went wrong on its platforms in previous votes? we discussed next. on you can listen to us bloomberg radio, the bloomberg app, and in the u.s. sirius xm. ♪
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
caroline: fresh off another case of facebook user data winding up shouldn't,obably they were on the defensive again, telling abc news the company is still looking into a report that millions of user data was accessible on amazon cloud services, and it took time to express his confidence in the social network's election security. >> at this point i think we have the most advanced systems of any government or company in the
5:21 pm
world for preventing the kind of tactics that russia and no other -- and othertried countries have tried in 2016. there is no one single thing we can do, now we have put this in place don't have a can't even try. caroline: facebook also announced they will restrict foreign electoral ads in next month's australian election. joining us is a fellow at new america, studying social media's effects on communications, and max chafkin. max, a fascinating bloomberg scoop showed the latest treasure trove of data made available on amazon web servers. it was news to facebook. they were once again caught on the defensive at a time when mark zuckerberg's trying to get ahead of the issue. max: and what is troubling if you are a facebook user or investor, the fact this issue specifically has been out there for years now. beginning with cambridge analytica, the idea that the
5:22 pm
partners have had too much the fact aata, and security firm was able to find this sitting out in the open cloud is obviously pretty disturbing. it comes again, after a week ago when facebook revealed they had lost password information. rip ofhas been this d bad privacy news that continues, the context for mark zuckerberg coming out there to try to take defense a little bit. caroline: writing up ads, making television appearances. joshua, your perspective on whether facebook can assert itself as proactive or whether it can only inherently be reactive in these scenarios? joshua: i think the company has come a long way since the 2016 presidential campaign cycle. i worry it hasn't come far enough, as the 2020 campaign is in full swing. yes, they have shifted a little from being purely reactive and taking down content when, say a
5:23 pm
user flags it and it goes through review and is deemed contrary to terms of service, for example. but i don't think it is proactive enough, particularly in searching out the kind of behavior and tactics we not only saw from russia before, but will be evolving with the 2020 campaign. caroline: we heard the electoral perspective. realistically, we are hearing from mark zuckerberg, proposing potential regulations, looking toward'europ -- looking toward europe's gdpr. but realistically, what can he do to get ahead of it? max: what is going on with the regulation proposal, a cynic would say that facebook is trying to avoid responsibility. they don't want to decide whether something should be on facebook or not, so they will push that off to governments. . obviously t there is an argument it is int everybody's interest to
5:24 pm
regulate this, but it is not clear whether this is something facebook really wants, or if it is a convenient message. hasother issue, facebook built this amazing content moderation organization, thousands of people, a.i., no doubt they can do amazing things. part of the problem that happened in 2016 and has happened repeatedly is the capacity for people to be manipulated by information on social networks. not necessarily an advertising problem. it may be hazarded with how facebook is structured and how sharing works. there may be fundamental things that have to change to resolve the problem. caroline: interesting that we are hearing about australia, facebook starting to fact check with afp, restricting foreign electoral ads. what from your perspective will help them get ahead of the curve and be more proactive? joshua: a couple things. likemaking sure a company
5:25 pm
this is receiving from the government and acting quickly on tips from the government, because of course the government is also looking for signs of foreign adversaries trying to our electoralde discourse. i hope that is being shared more fully and quickly with the companies. it is then on those companies to act quickly. a second thing the companies can do is coordinate better with each other. we saw in the wake of the christchurch shooting, the video bounced around different platforms, uploaded in one place in a slightly different form, and then found its way back to facebook, for example. that can be quite difficult in some cases for algorithms defined, but there are ways to work together to get ahead of that. caroline: we have seen that in the past. i heard from sheryl sandberg before that they are working across platforms with twitter, with google, to ensure that if a video is in some way flagged on youtube, it doesn't find its way across platforms. what more from your perspective could they realistically do? joshua: there has been progress
5:26 pm
on that front, really addressing content, particular videos and images that let's say one company finds problematic, it shares with the others. we don't yet know if the accounts behind the content, and information associated with them, are being shared across companies. if it were, it would let other companies not only search out the same identifiers like email addresses, but other indications the actors behind those accounts are operating on their platforms. caroline: max, the last word on whether you think cross-platform negotiations are working? max: it is all working to some extent. it is just a question of what facebook doesn't anticipate yet, and i think recent history has shown that while they are good at writing rules and coming up with policies, no doubt about that, they are less good about imagining the things that our adversaries are able to do, and that is kind of where the rub is.
5:27 pm
caroline: max, great to get your perspective. we thank you both. coming up, elon musk and the sec having their day in court. the two sides trying to work out differences on how the billionaire ceo posts on social media. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
caroline: this is "bloomberg technology." let's turn to the courtroom showdown. arrived inlon musk court where a lawyer for the security and exchange commission argued he recklessly tweeted out information. has advisedst companies in legal matters. how did the judge listened to
5:31 pm
what was put in front of her from the two sides today? >> she had a little bit of dirt to throw at both sides. she was a little bit critical of the sec, which was interesting, was willing to hear out the side,or the elon lawyers' which was that we sort of both an attempt to work this out and hash out what needs to be done if you have an issue with this tweet back in february where he put out a post about production. she also was critical about musk and said i don't care if you are a small or big potato, some great quote along those lines, where she said the sorts of agreements need to be taken seriously. she really sort of told both sides to go back to their within twocorners, weeks, come together, come to an agreement, and come back to her
5:32 pm
with something they will be ok with. caroline: to that end, i want to get your take. how difficult a task is it when it quite clearly felt that he never took the sec that seriously, throwing shade at them in some way, calling them -- what is it? short-sellers enrichment commission. ans did not set him up for easy ride. >> if i were his lawyer, i would tell him this probably no margin in insulting your primary regulator is strictly as he has, but i think there is an ambiguous statement in the settlement that he agreed to about when he has to have something preapproved. he's got a pretty good argument that this is not the kind of thing that needed to be preapproved and therefore that he did not violate the terms of the settlement. i think the judge did the right thing by telling both sides -- another good quote.
5:33 pm
she said to put your reasonableness pants on and come back in two weeks and try to resolve it. he has argued that it was a constitutional violation of his first amendment rights. she does not want to decide that if she doesn't have to. i suspect what will happen is parties will come to some agreement to clarify when a statement needs to be preapproved and when it does not . that is fair for both sides to figure out themselves. i don't think she needs to get involved in that. caroline: the more quotes you guys read, the more i like the sound of this particular judge. the original reason he has gone to court is because he tweeted making 500,000be teslas in 2019, and many felt .hat was exaggerating jpmorgan today shone a light on the guidance tesla reiterated
5:34 pm
today and it was again 360,000 to 400,000. doesn't that show some discontinuity? interesting,'s too, because his 500,000 number he put in the tweet was also a number he said a few hours after he put out a letter to shareholders where he initially gave that 360 -- 360,000 to 400,000 number, and a few hours later, he got on the call and said "about half a million." one of the problems you see the sec have with musk is that he is sort of cavalier and willing to throw numbers out there. we saw how in august it was really problematic for him to post, going to take this company private, and the sec says that was false and misleading. has shown this wildcard
5:35 pm
tendency, and that concerns the sec, especially after the episode that took place in august. at what point can over exaggeration or a willingness to up being numbers and deemed false? >> that's a good question and the truth is that most public company ceo's do not speak directly to the market through twitter or otherwise unless those statements have invented by disclosure counsel and a disclosure committee and all kinds of other people. in this brave new world with social media, it is obviously much harder to do. when you combine that with the cult of personality that we have , ithe ceo's like elon musk think it's difficult to constantly check what is accurate and what is not. the golden bull, though, when speaking to the public is really pretty simple. it has to be accurate. the sec's view was that this was
5:36 pm
it -- the golden rule, though. theof that is besides point. the best advice to ceo's is to when you speak publicly or speak at all, make sure it is accurate. if that means vetting, so be it. you may have to speak more slowly, but to speak so quickly, you do that at your own peril, obviously. caroline: give us how much of a formidable party the sec is here. they are going to want to make an example i would have thought of elon musk. certainly there is an argument to be made and some commentators have said that her for not this very public person, the sec would never have brought this case. i'm not sure if that is right, but it does not hurt that it is elon musk. the sec is certainly not to be messed with. they are a very serious regulator with all the power of the u.s. government behind them. they have significant remedies
5:37 pm
at their disposal for people the elon musk and those in public company world, and they can be career ending for people who go awry of the federal securities clause. some have said this is just about money, and that is really not true. force of thee full sec can significantly affect both public company officers and directors and shareholders at the end of the day. caroline: shareholders, to that end, you are speaking to them, i'm assuming, and managed to get great reporting out to them. they animated and excited by the cult of elon musk and the fact that he does this kind of thing, and how much are they becoming frustrated? >> it is a double-edged sword where you have this case were people really are enamored of this guy because of his presence, and they love the fact that he engages with customers. even in the minutes leading up to today's festivities, he was
5:38 pm
posting responses to customers about features they wanted and telling them, yes, we will do that. but the concern, too, is that there are some investors who have stepped forward in the months since august two really gripe about his activity on twitter, just within the last couple months. i think in response to this post that put him in trouble. one shareholder told us, "i hope the sec takes his phone away." we are hearing frustration. one of the biggest shareholders of tesla actually told bloomberg television just a few weeks ago that their wish was that he sort of felt enabled to step back and not have to feel the need to speak so much and kind of lay low and little bit. caroline: one last piece of advice, perhaps the investor bank to elon musk. >> certainly the board should
5:39 pm
consider taking his phone away. there are limits to what the board and shareholders should tolerate. i don't know that shareholders have reached the point yet, but at some point, i think his advisers need to rein him in. at the end of the day, it's not this kind of distraction it's good for shareholder value. caroline: great to have you on today. now some late news on boeing. "the washington post" is reporting that a boeing-led review in the stall events and system suspected in the crash of 2737 jetliners has detected an additional software problem. boeing called the problem which is unrelated to the stall software system and related to the problem. we will be checking in on boeing and its performance. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
caroline: snape is getting into gaming. the company announced its namesake will include multiplayer games within its messaging section. it unveiled six games custom-made for the mobile app including bit muji party -- including bitmoji party. the move comes after the company still struggles to add more users. return to tesla because shares of the electric me of -- electric vehicle maker dropped by as much as 11% before finishing the day down over eight cents. tesla sought a 13.1% decline in deliveries during the first quarter. after it are livered 91,000 vehicles in the fourth quarter, vehiclesustered 63,000
5:43 pm
this time around -- after it delivered 91,000 vehicles. braced ourselves for poor production numbers, but these seem to be even worse. >> what was really stunning was sort of a collapse in the higher-margin more expensive vehicles. must have signaled their would be problems getting cars overseas, but the street was not expecting only 63,000. that's lower than not just the fourth quarter but the third quarter as well. caroline: you are clearly a bear on the stock. does this reinforce that? >> is certainly reinforces our bearish position. we expected the numbers to be poor. the numbers we are seeing in january, february, we thought it would be a poor first quarter. actually came in worse than
5:44 pm
expected. it is certainly evidence of waning demand, not only for the model three, but as she pointed out, for the model s and x, the numbers are horrible. caroline: is there a cannibalization going on, or is this a tax perspective? move somex changes purchases from q4 to q1, but when you are looking at such expensive purchases, does that really put you off? >> i think it is a little bit of both. the model s has been around for 2012, so it has been on the market for quite some time. if you want a model s, chances are you have one, or if you're going to get one, you were going to get one when you could take advantage of the full tax credit. the car has been around for a while and there is a sense that the 3 is a slightly better car, so there is some cannibalization of getting the higher-end model
5:45 pm
three versus the lower end model , and remember, they stopped making the lower end s and x earlier this year. caroline: these more valuable cars, more profitable to be making, but they are old. will the model three continue to erode? youd that be enough to make get a little less bearish on the stock? >> that the problem. what this translates into is when we look at net income profitability for this quarter, we have -- we had the three's beingdel sold in the third and fourth quarter. that's where profits came from. that's how they were able to show profitability in the third and fourth quarter. we had cannibalization of the hereprofit model s and x they are now selling the lower margin less content model 3's,
5:46 pm
so when we see content, we will see sales they did get were in the model 3's that had less content, lower margin. i think we will see poor numbers and a significant loss in the model -- there you go. first quarter numbers for tesla. caroline: at the same time, we had elon musk trying to do with a court case. we are getting statements saying that the tweet in question was .rue and material to holders from your perspective, how long does this overhang of erosion and profitability last? can they get the delivery in the production held that they had been suffering on track when it comes to china and european sales? theor a long time, narrative at tesla was that they were in production hell, then switched to delivery hell, and the release kind of showed they
5:47 pm
are still in delivery hell because they frankly did not deliver many cars, but if you look at the release, they also did not produce that many. if demand is off the hook, why are they not making that many cars? they are not really at a run rate above 5000 a week yet. if you do the math, it looks like they are making 4000-some cars a week. they are still not really producing in high-volume. i think it comes back to -- what is the true demand for this car? tesla says they still have demand and the order book is strong, but note they are no longer giving backlog reservation numbers. caroline: we seem to be playing to your hymn sheet at the moment. what is good for tesla is they have been building up their cash profile and have been paying down debt and the like. this does not look so good going forward at the moment. worrying is this from an
5:48 pm
ability to service debt going forward? >> is alarming if the issue they had in the first quarter -- it's really a problem with demand. they can produce cars now. in midyear last year, it was all about production. their limit to sell cars was about production. now it's just waning demand. they are not producing more cars because they simply do not have the demand, and if that continues, which we expect it will, certainly in the u.s. -- we will see have demand goes in europe and in china, but there is a way of of competition coming from around the globe and especially in china, competition coming to market. as that competition comes online, right now, it is as good as it gets for tesla. they are selling in a vacuum. there's not that much waningtion right now, so
5:49 pm
demand going forward, selling with that competition, they will have more of a cache problem if they cannot generate revenue and cannot generate the profitability, the problem gets worse. they probably should have done a capital raise this quarter. they definitely should be doing one in the second quarter because they will need that cash. airline: at the moment, we have caroline:n tesla -- as a moment, we have 14 sells on tesla. we thank you. , an agreement reached. jeffhe split will affect bezos' control over the e-commerce giant. e-commerce giant.
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
caroline: amazon is taking on air pods.rports --
5:52 pm
will let people use their voice to order goods and access music on the go. amazon could release the headphones as early as next year. jeff and mckinsey bezos took to a divorce announce settlement. the amazon ceo will retain 75% of the couple's jordan staal, maintaining his position as the world's richest person. said,tweet, mckenzie happy to beginning giving all of her interest in the washington to supportue origin his continued contribution with the teams of these incredible companies. when the divorce finalizes, she 4% stake inat amazon, making her the world's fourth richest woman. it is a sad fact of the matter that we now see divorce
5:53 pm
settlements announced on twitter, but was this a surprise in any way that they took this to the social media presence to announce how this was all unfolding? how they announced the divorce to begin with in january. granted, that one came kind of preemptively ahead of a big tabloid expose about jeff bezo'' extramarital affair, so that was a little different. this time around, they announced the settlement, and what it basically does is kind of confirm what investors were hoping for, that the event would be minimally disruptive to the company. the divorce announcement, investors ready much shrugged it off, and now this confirms there is not going to be some new control or power struggle within the company, that it is still pretty much going to be jeff bezos running the show. caroline: and it is a testament to how valuable amazon is that you can take away a quarter of jeff bezos' holdings in the
5:54 pm
company and he is still the world's richest man. >> it's remarkable. we have never seen a one-day drop bigger than this and he still is the world's number one richest guy. caroline: and what is remarkable is where this puts mackenzie now. >> she is now the fourth richest woman in the world, as you mentioned. almost third richest, just behind jacqueline mars of the mars fortune. look at amazon stock. there's no telling where it could go. she could be climbing up those ranks really quickly. caroline: in terms of the direction of the company which she maintains control over, amazon in which the way it is progressing, we still get plenty of news out on a day so just today, going into wearable devices, focusing doubling down yet further into health care. they are also really looking across the board going into satellites as well. a focus can this company continue to churn out
5:55 pm
and please the investor base? be what they are good at. internally traction and getting investment to grow and scale because they are a quick pruner as well. they will get into things like travel and get out of them very quickly, which they have done in the past. that has always been a thing that investors like about amazon, their ability to experiment with a variety of things, identify with markets that are working for them and invest extremely heavily in those and grow very quickly in those areas. caroline: it is a bit gruesome, but in terms of divorces, how big is this when compared to ones you have seen on the billionaires index before? >> is the number one biggest seen,e you have ever probably that has happened in the history of the world. number two happened in 2015 with oil tycoon harold hamm. an prospective $972
5:56 pm
1/6 the size of this divorce. caroline: what sort of role will mckinsey play at amazon going forward? >> it is so amicable, and a lot of people wonder why they got divorced, there is so much love and adoration for each other, but in terms of what role she will play, it looks like a minimal one. she has not been an influence or presence there for years. she did play a role initially, and this seems to indicate more of that, that she is not looking to gain any control or steer this company in any particular way. she wants to get a piece of the wealth that has been created through her marriage, but she does not do we want to exert any control. she has pretty much the pitch related all control to her ex-husband. caroline: we are pleased it is
5:57 pm
amicable, particularly for the children. that does it for this edition of bloomberg technology." i will be joining you once again from new york on friday. be sure to follow our global news breaking network at tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
>> welcome to "daybreak australia." shery ahn: we are counting down to asia's major market opens. haidi: here are the top stories we are covering -- president trump says negotiations are going well and a monumental deal may be announced in the coming weeks. the president has less flattering words when it comes to jay powell -- he says the u.s. economy is doing well despite the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on