tv Squawk Alley CNBC March 18, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm EDT
jts good morning going to begin this morning with washington's continued pressure on tech and silicon valley the president taking a shot at google over the weekend on twitter, saying the company is aiding china and its military. and several state attorneys general warn the likes of google and facebook that a reckoning is coming as the group considers an antitrust probe into big tech. meantime, shares of facebook down more than 2%. and we're joined by mark may senior analyst at citi but laura martin, the lead analyst behind the downgrade.
laura, let me start with you since your note is the note of the day. negative network effects you think are at work. explain to viewers what that means. >> okay. so there's certain fundamental down sides at facebook now, headline risk from new zealand over the weekend, more regulatory risk that you just alluded to, and also we have risk in strategic pivot which caused two of the top five people at facebook to leave last week but that's all made worse by something called a belief network effect which is both multiplier effect to the up side and now multiplier effect to the down side. belief network effect says the more people that believe something, the more likely you can get the next person to believe it and just the fact that we're getting the down grades is another way to point as well as 11 executive departures in 18 months, those are data points suggesting that the belief system around facebook is ebbing, and that creates a
multiplier effect to the fundamental down side from other risks i started with >> thinking mark your work on facebook adds to her point, am i right? >> i think so but a lot of this is priced in i think that's one thing that i would point out here this is a company that grew ad revenue, this is the last 12 to 18 months, it is about as bad as it can get in facebook users started recovering q4 and ad revenue grew 33% in the quarter. we have line of sight where expense growth will start to moderate this year and as a result earnings growth should approximate top line growth which is over 30% and stock is trading 20 times gap earnings. less than a on ex-cash basis a lot of it is known and priced into the shares. >> laura, do you agree, if you downgrade the stock today, you don't think it is priced in. >> right, and push back i give
to mark's ideas are in the last ten days, mark said he is doing a strategic pivot which he did not talk about on the last earnings call where he is going to combine instagram, what's app, and that feels like a pivot that drove two very senior people out of the firm saying it will be a multi year challenge to reorient the business this direction. seems to me next time we get an earnings call, cfo will say cost growth is worse than we thought and subsequent year will be taxed by the extra expenses in the strategic downgrade, so i don't think any of that is in the stock. >> mark, facebook is in this interesting position, it is up roughly 25% year to date, but also about 25% off a 52 week high what do you see at forces
pushing and pulling on the stock, what will determine whether this is the time that the stock goes down and stays down versus the fundamentals you cited? >> at the end of the day, this is a media business much like this channel and this network, and you've got to be engaged with users, have a large audience hopefully growing engagement with your content and platform and that's ultimately what will determine if the stock works, if this business works over time. one encouraging thing, even the big blue app, the core facebook app started to see a bit of recovery in users and even a little on engagement on top of that, you have instagram which continues to grow like a weed and the supposed pivot we're talking about is related to messaging apps which today generate no revenue and is an opportunity going forward. by making sure those are treated as fully encrypted and highly secured messaging platforms, it sets those businesses up for
stronger user growth and mondayitization going forward. it is just because they're encrypted, encrypting messages doesn't mean you can't have ad revenue. i think what will determine it is if users keep spending time on the family of apps that are owned by facebook, the company will do well if not, then we're going to have some issues. >> doesn't mean you can't have ad revenue, isn't the argument you may not have as much ad revenue as you would on news feed >> that's possible, but you have to think of it from an advertiser perspective they're choosing from information, newspapers and other channels, regardless if the data advantage is diminished, there's still a data advantage. you can target, you can do audience segmentation, better on the platforms, even in a more data protected, limited way than you can on every other media channel out there. >> i want to shift gears to
another company, and that's alphabet carl alluded to the tweet from president trump over the weekend which came on the heels of pointed criticism from the top general here in the u.s. about google and its role in china and indirectly or not so indirectly aiding the military. what do investors need to know about the scenario as it unfields no-- unfolds now >> i think investors agree to the extent this company needs to be more transparent, i agree that google should be broken up. i think investors would rather invest in pure plays at google and they should be cautious of china because i think there's a lot of down side risk for the american economy working with china. recall their software engineers went on strike refusing to have their products offered in china in abidance with chinese law, so we have an internal measurement
there which is employees won't work to help china so they're on trump's side in this argument. >> laura, you say you agree with regulators that alphabet should be broken up that's a pretty strong statement. does it matter to you who does the breaking up, whether it is the company itself or regulators >> i think companies should do it themselves so they control what gets broken up. what we're hearing from regulators, any company over 25 billion is too big in revenue. and google is 136 billion. to me, the way you get around that, break up your own company and get back under that threshold they arbitrarily determined is too big. >> how about you, mark, wouldn't you rather decide how much to put in autonomy and search and the components of the conglomerate >> i don't see the political or regulatory arguments around breaking these companies up as being very strong so it is something that i kind of dismiss pretty easily. i did write a note last year
that talked about the reasons why amazon should break itself up, but that was very much an offensive i think minded strategy, not because of the regulators a lot of examples there. properly compensating employees of the cloud and retail business for their work. >> they're more disparate? >> seems like every week more news stories of customers that have chosen not to go with aws because of conflicts of interest there are a lot of reasons amazon should break that business up. i don't think google or facebook or other companies should do it. and i think the cases that politicians are making are pretty weak. >> going back, using google, the fact that that's what the focus is now in the news, artificial intelligence, we keep hearing it is the next big area, next big battleground, when you talk u.s. versus china you have had the trump administration come out with executive orders, military is
taking an aggressive stance, vocal stance, lawmakers are putting some proposals out there as well. does that change the investing dynamic around new technologies? >> it is a fascinating topic aws and amazon and google are creating the platforms by which companies are building ai tools on top of. so they're foundational layers to next generation technology around artificial intelligence and machine learning it is a pretty interesting thing to think about, how much do regulators get involved in vi limiting the ability to sell some foundational technologies to our arch nemesis. i don't have a particular opinion where it should or will go, but it is certainly a pretty interesting debate that seems to be started now. >> one last coda on facebook, laura. how much discount would you want to see before you revisit your
rating >> i would like to see at least 20% discount from here or i would like executive departures stop i think that creates a negative network effect, multiplier effect of value to the down side >> 161 we hit some one month lows this morning. laura, thanks. good to see you. >> thanks. >> thank you when we return, facebook's biblically bad week. kara swisher joins us after this break.
the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.
shares of facebook lower this morning by 2.5%, coming off a week our next guest called biblically bad like the book of job, that week saw two high profile executives depart and opening of a criminal investigation into the data deals with peers recode co-founder, "new york times" contributor kara swisher back with us kara, good morning what makes this time different for facebook is it the fact that this is a criminal investigation, is it the departure of one of the absolute most visible executives there, chris cox >> well, both those things a criminal investigation ups the ante already there are lawsuits and just this weekend state attorney generals are going to weigh in
there's all kinds of things coming at them, but a criminal investigation is more difficult to deal with, whether they knew what they were doing around the data deals they start those, there are other things they can look at intent on russian election, if there's e-mails. it becomes -- it just snowballs on it self and gets serious. this weekend after i wrote this, they had this terrible tragedy happening where this killer was broadcasting his murders on facebook, and while they did everything possible to take them down, i think they took 1.5 million videos down, that's 80% of them through ai it still left up 20% of them, hundreds of thousands of videos. it will call attention to what facebook is, a platform that's uncontrollable and i think that's going to be a problem for them going forward. >> what can they do. we seem to be going through weird stages of facebook hate. some of it seemingly irrational. there was the blame sheryl sandberg phase which seems to have ended
now the fingers point to mark zuckerberg and decisions he is making, sort of taking different pieces of the company, trying to force them together. how do they work their way out of this? >> maybe they don't have these products these products are not manageable in some ways. it is an interesting question. what they've done is unleash products onto the world and don't have control of them and i appreciate they're trying to take down the videos, same as youtube. but what they've down is allowed an unfettered platform of broadcast around the world is that a good thing they're going to be regulated for this, this is the thing. the question is how do you regulate them, keep innovation going. you don't want to protect people, you're not their parent but at the same time it is an unfettered platform that's uncontrollable if there are hundreds of thousands of videos of murders broadcast around the world, someone has to pay attention to this they will pay attention to it. >> "the washington post," kara, has a great piece on youtube specifically where they talk to the chief product officer and
the video of the attack in new zealand was popping up, they would take it down, new one, it was one per second was getting reloaded i wonder if the whole argument we made a few months ago, a year ago, that humans, if you threw enough humans at this, curetted it out of existence, is that done is it hopeless >> if you take down 80% and there are hundreds of thousands of videos popping up whatever second on any platform, not just youtube or facebook, it is on reddit, on any platforms that allow editorial posting. people just post them up sheriff's departme should the platforms exist or tools in place to stop them. that's the problem what i have been trying to say, this may be overwhelmingly difficult questions. should we have these products at all, that's one of the things you're talking about everyone will say everybody should have free speech and do
what they want, but the result is murders are being broadcast in real time across the globe and the companies doing the broadcasting don't have control of them. i don't know what to say honestly i don't know what to do. but they better figure it out before something else happens. >> kara, i mean, we're sitting here grappling with this, i am sure lawmakers are as well what would your message to them be >> you have to figure out some way to put these products out to people, at the same time protect people that -- these are victims of murder, horrible mass murder. this should not happen in any society and should not be allowed to happen, and you cannot control people from posting them, so what do you do. i don't know but legislators have to think hard about what they want to do about these platforms going forward. this is just a start this isn't even happen before i wrote this column, this is just another stark example of the difficulty of monitoring them.
it is beyond belief the amount of videos that went up on this horrible tragedy >> yeah. still trying to wrap my mind around exactly what it means, what that says about this platform kara, thanks >> thank you lyft road show kicking off in new york. key questions investors are asking next. first, look at the worst performing stocks in the dow so far in today's session verizon, disney, boeing. more "squawk alley" straight ahead. don't go anywhere. it's screening technology that helps you find a stock based on what's trending or an investing goal. it's real-time insights and information, in your own customized view of the market. it's smarter trading technology, for smarter trading decisions. and it's only from fidelity. open an account with no minimums today.
minute on their way up on a lyft from jpmorgan where we got a picture of what their lobby looks like, clearly rolling out the red carpet for this $2 billion ipo. executives are going bank to bank to meet with the sales team to help explain how to market this deal to investors which they will be doing over the course of the next two weeks or so with pricing expected next thursday, trading expected next friday in the meetings, lyft executives are expecting to field questions on three main areas. number one, they're looking, a lot of investors looking at the dual class share structure of their ipo and how the founders control almost 50% of the voting rights, but about 7% of the economic rights in the company they're also going to be looking at widening losses the company lost almost a billion in 2018.
and they're going to be asking about competition with other ride hailing providers, namely uber, set to do is own ipo in about a month, guys. >> leslie, thank you joining us at post 9, manhattan venture, santash thank you for joining me the firm is invested you do the analysis. 62 to $68 a share is the expected pricing what do you think? >> that's the right price, that's what we value the company at i think it is the best time to come out ipo sentiment is good. this is the right time to get out, they're doing the right thing. >> what do you think of dual class structure if the biggest competitor upper doesn't have one. >> if uber doesn't have it, then have it.
i understand to some extent with the startups, they need control. now i think accountability bar has gone up, corporate governance bar has gone on they'll take a haircut for traditional investors but overall not that big a problem the company is executing well, good corporate governance and good corporate culture i don't think they have issues like uber did. >> explain how lyft ever makes money. it has $2 billion in revenue, 2018, nearly a billion in losses sales and marketing alone, 800 million. seems like a lot of the marketing spend is to keep the drivers engaged. how does that big expense, competing with uber, the drivers are driving for both how does that ever go down >> you're right. near term basis, that's the right numbers. investing in uber is a bet on the future the market is huge >> uber and lyft
>> uber and lyft, still untapped, long way to go lyft is predominantly focused in the united states, in north america. i think that's untapped. revenue for a ride is bigger in this part of the market. the runway ahead is long the company is untapped and market share is untapped it will grow over time at some point they have to calibrate the take rate and operating expenses and they'll come to a point. right now, it is a top line story, gross booking story and they're growing. they're coming into the ipo with good momentum. >> do you have exposure to uber? >> no. >> only lyft >> that was a conscious decision >> why >> they were at that point, there was a lot of issues with travis and the corporate culture and all of that. we thought this was a much safer bet and clearer path to profitability. >> how do you expect investors to position lyft versus uber, when they both come to market?
>> i think you have to invest in both it will be a different class of investors to some extent this is a pure play with a path, clear path to profitability down the road, not immediately but down the road. but it is growing very well. uber has a lot of moving parts still have to see how they manage india and middle east that's their growth markets. >> do you think people will own both that want to play >> there are people that like big players, like international plays. i think they'll go into uber lyft is more u.s. based, more peer play. i think you'll see both sides but well received. both of them will be well received. >> we had roger mcnamee on, and he said for either of them to become profitable, they may have to merge what do you think? >> likely down the road. have to see how it plays out consumer transportation market is close to $2 trillion. both companies are way up there. there's going to be consolidation. they'll gain big market share.
at some point there's pressure for profitability, you'll see consolidation down the road. at this point, i think they're good to go. >> seems to me that revenue per ride and particularly lyft's take, uber, too, has to go up. that happens through squeezing drivers or through getting drivers to deliver food while delivering people or deliver packages or something like that. is that your take and which is more likely to happen? seems like there's only so far to squeeze drivers gas prices are low probably won't say that way forever. >> productivity has to go up driver productivity and they have to calibrate. i think down the road, you have some autonomous cars in the fringes, that will cut down on costs. they have to give more incentives increase the scope, the demand there's a way to do that, but down the road it will happen right now they're just going everywhere, just getting market share. they need to calibrate that down
the road, how to raise it. >> how do the two differ in the relative importance of self driving, of that unit, for whom is it more critical? >> i think lyft at this point and they have been more aggressive than uber, more focused. >> not talking your book on this >> i'm not my research is independent of what the capital markets group are, my opinions are different they're more focused right from the beginning, they are investing well the partnership is more than uber they're more focused on the autonomous side. >> lyft is kicking off via tsunami of tech unicorns going public pinterest, airbnb, you cover these names. what should investors expect and what are you most excited about. >> they're all good companies and they're all riding a secular wave which is more renting versus buying. and rapid organization
and just on demand services. they're all riding these services and pure play in their categories every company has its own little kicker there but i think they're all good position. >> you covered a lot of space names. we have to get you back to talk another time thank you for joining us normally at this time we bring you the european close after springing forward for daylight savings time, that update is now 12:30 eastern. catch the global markets report the next hour on the half with scott walker. meantime, dow back into the red. let's get to sue herera for a news update. >> good morning, carl. good morning, everyone dutch authorities identified the suspected gunman in a tram attack in the netherlands as a 37-year-old, born in turkey. gokmen tanis
iran's president urging iranians to put a curse on the united states and saudi arabia saying they're responsible for the ailing economy he didn't say what kind of curse to invoke. firefighters continue to battle a tank fire at a petro chemical storage facility that started sunday morning no injuries have been reported and the american health association and american college of cardiology say most older adults shouldn't take low dose daily aspirin to avoid heart attack or stroke they still recommend it for high risk patients. that's the news update let's get back downtown to "squawk alley. carl >> thank you very much. several state attorneys general and the president
with the latest. >> reporter: morgan, president trump targeted alphabet's google before, but this time went after the company's role in china, accusing the company of helping that country and its military. terrible, he tweeted google quickly countered that criticism saying we are not working with the chinese military we are working with the u.s. government, including the department of defense in many areas, including cyber security, recruiting, and health care. but the comments come after joseph dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff made a similar argument before congress. >> the work that google is doing in china is indirectly benefitting the chinese military and i've been very public on this issue as well, in fact, the way i described it to our industry partners is look, we're the good guys. >> alphabet does have a broad presence in china, remember, as
of december, more than 700 employees and ai center in beijing. google faced criticism for efforts in china, including from its own employees, regarding a search engine designed for china, the company has no plans to launch such a product also business with the pentagon, for example, not renewing project maven which analyzed drone imagery for the military the issue of course is bigger than just google tech powerhouses are in the hot seat, attacked on everything from china to antitrust concerns by the way, the ft reporting that google appointed scott beaumont, its former china head to run the asia pacific business morgan >> josh, thank you for that. speaking of which, i spoke down last week with the secretary of the army mark esper to talk about this topic take a listen. >> i try and get out and meet with ceos every week to talk about where the army is going to
assure them with regard to what the six modernization priorities are and the fact they won't change business needs that predict ability so they can invest and help us move into the future every time i talk to a ceo, we also get good feedback on what we can do differently and better clearly acquisition and reform is important we're getting rid of unnecessary processes and regulation and partner we need. >> the crossover between the two sectors is prevalent, and history is intertwined oculus has a startup that's taken on the contract that google put down. mike brown now runs the defense department tech innovation unit. and google's former ceo and former chairman, eric schmidt, sits on the board of that defense innovation unit. guys, this is two words, two
words around all of this, that is artificial intelligence when you speak to folks in defense and security business, they will tell you that ai and next generation technologies that are expected to help run our military and which china is also developing aggressively as well, that this is seen as something of an arms race. while google doesn't have a search engine in china, they have an ai research center and they have ties in terms of ai in that country so i think that's very much, there are papers written on this and that's very much what general dunford was trying to get at with those comments last week it is a huge issue from a military standpoint, not just a business and corporate standpoint when you talk about ai between the two countries. >> i don't get the argument that google is helping china but not the united states. that doesn't make sense to me. >> i think it is the fact that
they have pulled out on some of these contracts like project maven, said we're not going to compete for that jedi cloud contract, for example. the optics of that as the country has this research center and other things in place in china and given the fact that the u.s. military and this administration really see this as an arms race around new technologies and what it means from a security standpoint. >> still, they have research in the united states and they have contracts with the government, maybe not all the contracts the government wants them to compete in, but -- >> and calling out one specific company maybe does a disservice in terms of what it means from a broader standpoint when you see the militarization happening in the south china sea, when you see what's growing tensions between the u.s. and china from a security and military standpoint, even as we have the trade talks progressing now, when you speak to high ranking generals at the
pentagon, for example, they really, truly believe there's a strong possibility in coming decades, and the army secretary esper talked about this in the interview last week as well, there's a strong potential our next major war could be fought against china. they have basically said week either remove ourselves from the south china sea and that region or they will do it for us once they have the capabilities that's how they're thinking about it >> well, continue to fact check those tweets it is not just the president targeting big tech, some of the most influential attorney generals general hinting they're willing to take action against facebook and google, warning they've grown too large and powerful joining us, jeff landry. president of the national association of attorneys general. good morning >> good morning. >> here's what i hear from big tech critics, they've grown too
big and too powerful, as if there's something criminal about being big and powerful we kind of do a lot of big and powerful in the united states. on the other hand, i hear privacy complaints, they're mishandling data what do the two have to do with each other >> what it has to do with the fact that attorney generals are tasks with protecting consumers out there. what you have heard in the conversation is a number of attorney generals are looking to ensure consumers are ultimately protected. we're very concerned about the amount of data that these companies have collected and the way they're using that data and whether or not consumers actually know how much data they're collecting on them all those things are going into the soup if you would to determine whether or not it is good for the consumer out there. i can tell you that instinctively again, attorney generals on both sides of the
aisle have spoken out and are concerned with both of those companies. >> i think i get that. what i don't get, even if you make google or facebook smaller, they still have a ton of data, and they still could mishandle it how is size the issue. why is that in the conversation versus just having clear standards around privacy and the protection of consumer data? >> it is not only the protection of the actual data again, many companies across the country that hold tremendous amount of data medical companies hold tremendous amount of confidential data. what we're concerned about is the ability for them to use that data to manipulate the market. whether or not the consumer is getting the best purchase out there. there's become an expectation from citizens across the country that when you put in a search term or look for a pair of shoes, are you getting the best
pair of shoes at the best possible price there's an expectation out there in that virtual marketplace. those are things that concern us >> attorney general landry, if the federal government were actively proceeding with legislation to handle this from a broader standpoint, would we even be having this conversation now? >> that's a good question. the question is whether or not these companies have become too big, whether their ability to use monopolistic position to that you will wart consumers, whether it is good as a whole. that's a question of legal term and question for congress as they debate the issue. again, there's multiple layers to the problems. one as y'all spoke of, protection of data, and then there's the ability of the platforms to use that data to manipulate the consumer out there. >> i guess what i'm getting at
now, i know you were a congressman before becoming attorney general in louisiana. what falls under your jurisdiction as attorney general and what should be left to the federal government in this debate >> well, again, attorney generals, each individual state has their own consumer protection laws as well as ae anti-trust laws. some mirror federal laws we go out there and look at whether or not companies are unfairly burdening the consumer in this part again, you think google, for instance, again, when you put in a search term and you're looking for a particular pair of shoes, what comes up, is it what you're really looking for or what google wants you to see and wants you to purchase. >> google would argue a lot of it is based on what you asked for in the past i guess. one question on the politics
around this. ted cruz retweeted elizabeth warren in a sense the other day saying he can't believe it, this is one area on which i agree with warren, if the issue is so bipartisan in d.c., why hasn't policy moved along faster or do you think it has >> that's a good question. we all know how long and hard it is to move policy or to create law in congress. again, if they don't act fast enough, i think you'll see attorney generals around the country act. >> meaning this year or the next congress when does it start to get too late >> well, you know, we've had a number of discussions internally and externally we had a round table discussion when general sessions, then attorney general jeff sessions convened attorney generals to talk about potential antitrust issues regarding google and facebook we had a pretty collective
meeting. we discussed it again. we're going to be back in d.c. next week testifying before the ftc on these very issues. >> so is the main issue antitrust and market power or is it abuse or mishandling of data and consumer privacy >> it is all of the above. >> what are your thoughts on everything that's playing outi terms of google, where the u.s. military and china is concerned. is this something that state attorney generals are keeping a close eye on given it could have implications in terms of industrial base, production lines and thus jobs? >> i think the fact that we're having that particular discussion and that has come to the surface goes to show you the power that these companies have amassed, an amount of data they're able to collect and the way they're able to manipulate that particular data >> indeed. we'll see what your legal
approach is. interesting that you have ags from both sides of the aisle looking at this. thank you. louisiana attorney general landry >> thank you still to come here on "squawk alley," it's almost show time how apple is planning to challenge netflix in hollywood. first, rick santelli what are you watching today? >> you know, i'm watching the fact that equities again are at the top of a range this time investors are watching quite closely to see if we pop through. what lessons from the end of last year should we remember t'ta autho aerheles lkbo tseft t break.
dt i am scott walker. here's what's coming up. too bullish, not bullish enough. that's the question investors are facing as stocks try to extend the rally we debate which view is correct. plus, a big call on one of the year's best performing tech stocks one firm says it is time to chill out. jon and pete have unusual activity what stocks are likely to move on their action. we're about ten away >> looking forward to that thank you. fis buying worldpay in a $35 billion acquisition. the stocks are going in opposite directions
you. all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. gads -- good morning
>> thank you the real lesson of why this particular range in whether we break out or not was so spornt it really puts in front of investors machines literally the rug can be pulled out from under investors in the blink of an eye. think about some of those cancelled orders that made such a wild west. this isn't about high speed and all the machines it's about how in an age of passive investing, investors
need to spend more time. that regard you also have to understand that one of these binary moves occur in market, you have to medication it under dure duress the feelings don't extinguish very quickly i really cut my teeth on a big vent in '87, the big crash and market still exhibit tendencies that were fonds at that time the new notion is we look at markets in the uk. italy, japan the stock markets aren't at the same levels but the patterns are similar. that doesn't make me feel good
that's why good news or bad news, stocks stokt btogether bu is a condition we have seen for a while. i would look at markets in the following fashion. if you're looking for that long term comfortable cozy feeling that we once gave you when investing in stocks, that time was gone mark ks the only way to dweeal with tha tie type of investing was to have ta plan because nobody makes good decisions in the heat of a big market back to you. >> thank you very much dow back in the red. same deal back for another vote. the s&p is hanging ithe. 'rback in three minutes. lf club. now you can, with shipsticks.com!
no more lugging your clubs through the airport or risk having your clubs lost or damaged by the airlines. sending your own clubs ahead with shipsticks.com makes it fast & easy to get to your golf destination. with just a few clicks or a phone call, we'll pick up and deliver your clubs on-time, guaranteed, for as low as $39.99. shipsticks.com saves you time and money. make it simple. make it ship sticks.
iphone sales slow and a shift of its growth strategy, expect it today back to you its answers to the likes of netflix, amazon and hul hulu the new york times report this morning the events focus is likely will be on it ts billion dollar original programming. if apple really does put itself forth, i think, as a first t to the best of my recollection er content provider competing with netflix and disney, i wonder if it will leave to bob leaving the board. i feel like apple is a platform provider more than a content brawler. >> also interesting is speilberg
is presenting con tent tent to m as for the week ahead it will be busy tomorrow two day fed meeting begins earnings this week from fedex and nike and more. let's get to the judge i'm scott wapnerks it's 12:00 noon. this is the halftime report. >> u.s. stocks are getting closer to report levels. we have the traders play book and how their positioned mpl one wall street firm is downgradesing facebook to hold the three reasons why analysts say to stay away boeing is on pace for its worst month in two years the latest head wind the company is