tv Best of Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg July 6, 2019 4:00am-5:00am EDT
and after some fairly uneventful presidential debates, twitter is out with a new label that flags tweets that blake -- break the rules. it might even make donald trump walk a fine line. new record for quarterly vehicle deliveries, handing over 95,000 vehicles to customers in the second quarter, beating average analyst estimates. this is due to accelerated shipments to the u.s. and china and u.s. consumers rushing to creditans before the tax is shrunk. we're told the company is close to setting an all-time record, being urged to go all out. taylor riggs caught up with an analyst and bloomberg correspondence on tuesday -- correspondence on tuesday. a blowout quarter
and exceeds everyone's expectations, you sort of had this up-and-down quarter where you had a trough of everyone getting concerned about demand for the model three. toward the end of the quarter, you started to see the analyst commentary pickup. where people were a lot less concerned about that. on the model s and model x front, they still have a problem. 95,200 was the total for deliveries. less than 20% of that, about 17,650 of those were model s and model x. those are the higher-margin, higher price vehicles. what remains to be seen here is how much this jump in deliveries was at the expense of profitability. >> max, give me your take in san francisco. you have heard craig say it is good news but you wonder about the profitability. is this a clear win for elon musk or do we face headwinds on the horizon? max: any time you blow the
estimates out of the water these -- this way, you have to look at it like a win. coming into the quarter, you have two concerns. one was demand, the other piece was kind of logistics. could tesla get the cars to people in a timely and cost-effective manner? and so i'd say on the logistics piece, they are performing well despite some acknowledged difficulties. now, on the demand side, the real question is what happens in the long run? you have consumers in the u.s. rushing to get these model 3's, to take advantage of this tax incentives that will shrink. you also have people not buying the expensive cars. we don't know how this will shake out. tesla is still a relatively new brand. it will be interesting to see what happens if and when they refresh these luxury lines.
that could be just the thing that causes people who were model free buyers to trade up -- model three buyers to trade up. taylor: that tax credit, as it shrinks in half, how much of a tailwind was that this quarter and, going forward, with that tailwind removed, how much do car sales slow? craig: that will be the big question on the conference call for earnings in a few weeks. what we saw at the end of 2018, the fourth quarter was the previous record for deliveries and a lot of that ended up being in hindsight, a lot of consumers going out to buy the model three and s and x. before the tax credit at that time was $7,500 before it was cut in half.
i think people underappreciated how much that was demanding into the fourth quarter of that last year. that is part of what fueled the big drop off this year, so that is the big question for the third quarter, can they sustain that momentum even with the smaller amount of support from the federal government? taylor: i should bring in david whiston, a morningstar analyst joining me from chicago. we've been having a discussion where it seems to be in the all clear. from your fundamental analysis, fold in the demand and profitability mix of the s and x, which are key given that they are higher-margin cars to get elon that profitability to where he needs to be. david: for all this controversy around the demand problem, i
have never believed there was a model three problem, but the model s and x seem to be getting old for consumers, so to speak. they do have an upgraded range. volume is one thing, but it is also about profit and cash flow. we won't know until we get q2 results how much the shift matters. the x and s year-over-year, despite these numbers, the s and x year-over-year was still down about 20%. taylor: what does urinalysis say -- your analysis say about the path to profitability for tesla? we have heard them talk about this a lot. when do we get there? david: they have done it for a couple of quarters last year. it is not impossible. it is hard to say exactly what is the tipping point because they are still growing internationally. you have the china factory coming online. you have the european factory. you have more models coming out. so the trick is the trick is, how do they balance profitable growth? it is very hard for any startup to do and they are a pretty big
startup now, so to speak. taylor: is the chinese demand where it needs to be? craig: the demand we don't really know at this point, in part because they aren't set up with this factory just going up near shanghai. once they do that, they will avoid those import tariffs that will avoid any car built outside of china. we don't have a true sense of demands for tesla in china. they are so priced out of the market, there is sort of a buzz in china of this brand and this aura around elon musk that we see around the world. we don't really know yet how much sort of untapped potential there is for china. as david was saying, that isn't something that is going to come for free. it costs money to build up a plan. they are doing a lot of borrowing with local banks. there is a possibility it won't have a huge drag on the earnings of a company -- the company. that is something that will be
more of a 2020 story. as we see local production start. taylor: as we look forward to the end of 2019 and 2020, what do you see as the biggest left side tail risk downside? is it elon musk's tweets, profitability, the fact that they have to raise more cash, is it demand headwinds? what do you see as the biggest left side tail risk event? >> probably two things. one is probably general economic risk that applies to any company. we are late cycle for auto sales. at the same time, that is a new product. the other point would be a bigger, longer-term happening of what happened in late may and early june when the sentiment in fear started to come into this name. this has always traded on option value, what it will look like in 2025 and 2030. it has always been that elon is awesome and everything.
but when people start to think, they have a lot of debt. and they have billions in debt due, some of it is convertible could get paid off, but if all of a sudden the street looks at the downside reasons to fear tesla rather than being optimistic, the stock will get pounded pretty hard. caroline: coming up, half of the year is already in the bag and we have seen 22 tech companies hit the public market. will the momentum continue? we discuss. this is bloomberg. ♪
both google and amazon have a significant hold in a number of companies that hit public market. about the we spoke interesting story. spent $90 million on google ads in a single year. those people went to an apple app store, download the, and when they opened it, google apps was powering the maps behind it. all of this was posted on amazon servers which has a $300 million contract with them. on top of it, google owns 5% of lyft and has a board seat. it is obvious that google and amazon are deep within the digital economy but when you look at these filings, you see how concretely they are the infrastructure behind how many of these companies work. who some ways, this is a curse.
in some ways, this is a blessing and in some ways, a curse. mark, you focus on both amazon and google. from the blessing side, do you see it as a good element that these companies have so much riding on them, whether revenue or from their future revenue stream? mark: there is good and bad. the benefits of cloud computing is that it allows startup companies to avoid a lot of infrastructure costs. you can treat those as variable costs rather than large fixed costs. you don't need to buy and build up a very large i.t. department to scale up a business. that has been the magic behind aws, amazon web services, also behind microsoft azure and google cloud. in many ways, what they are offering is a real benefit to these companies. there's no doubt that in order to scale up on the internet, you need to pay one of those three cloud providers. and then if you are a consumer and you need to get consumers to use your service, get to know
you, you will probably be spending money with google, facebook. probably just those two. that is how you get brand awareness on the internet these days. i don't know if they are toll-keepers, that might be too strong a word, but they are clearly the biggest channels out there. and companies that investors like to look at, like uber and lyft long-term, companies that are strong enough that they can avoid those channels. caroline: your peace also shows that some of shows these companies are mentioning google and amazon in their statement. is this something regulators are looking at? are they worried that if they clampdown too hard or push for breakups and the like that elizabeth warren is looking at? >> on the one hand, you could say look how powerful these companies are, on the other hand, you could say they are not necessarily interested in disrupting these smaller companies because they are their customers. they want them to keep growing.
google wants lyft to keep growing and use google maps. you can look at it from both directions. as this argument comes forward, i think you'll see arguments from both sides. but i don't necessarily think that by breaking up these companies you would necessarily disrupt that web in a deep way. you can still buy google maps from google maps limited and buy google cloud services from google cloud service limited. ,e will see how it plays out but it sure this will be a topic of conversation. caroline: before we go to the antitrust equation for the behemoths, i want to talk about the fact that you cover lyft and pinterest as well. when you saw that in their filings they do show competitive exposure and general exposure in terms of supply side needs from amazon and google, did you see that as much of a risk factor? did that worry you? would you like them to invest in their own independent service, for example? mark: i think the answer is no. i didn't see it as a risk
factor. i had not thought about it in the way you set up the question. if they didn't -- if they were going to have a cloud services provider, it was either going to be aws, azure, or google cloud. chances are, it would be aws. that is usually the lead cloud provider. they have almost 50% market share. if they didn't do that, then the p&l they would have gone public with would have looked a lot different. you would have a lot more capex spending. it would probably be frankly a less attractive business model and you would also raise the question, why are you trying to vertically integrate, manage all those data centers, server stacks, when there are three companies doing a phenomenal job of allowing you to outsource it? i will just twist that question back at you, a great question that i had not thought about. but i don't see that as a competitive issue, i don't think that is a dependence risk. there is an option, by the way,
of switching. we have seen companies. snapchat went public and migrated from google to amazon. as long as you can migrate, i don't think there is risk. caroline: what about the risk from a competitive perspective, from the regulatory viewpoint that we are starting to see coming from capitol hill upon amazon and google? do you think there is a risk that they are seemingly so intertwined with the rest of the tech ecosystem? mark: regulatory risk has clearly become a major investor issue across technology. we actually just posted a call earlier today with an antitrust expert to talk about the risks of large platforms face, particularly google, but also amazon and facebook. i think the chances of these companies having to be forced to divest assets is extremely unlikely. i generally think if a company says they hold assets for multiple years, i think the government would be loath to
unwind that and it would be very hard. i think you are looking at fines or modest changes in business practices. i would make one quick comment, we just listened to a weekend of presidential democratic debates. big tech didn't really come up at all. except for the one time it did was over concerns of whether amazon is paying its fair share of taxes. the issue of google or facebook's strong market positions didn't come up. that is probably the best political barometer. if it didn't come up in a presidential debate, it probably doesn't matter. caroline: still ahead, bloomberg's scoop of a potential deal with broadcom and a cybersecurity from. analysts -- firm. analysts are divided over the strategy ahead. we hear from one. this is bloomberg. ♪
at&t is considering selling its regional sports network. the sale would include tv rights to teams such as the pittsburgh penguins and the houston rockets. scoop, broadcom is in advanced talks to buy a cybersecurity firm symantec. it would mean profitable expansion into businesses we spoke with an analyst for the details. i think symantec passes the smell test for broadcom. broadcom has 52% operating margins, for them to consider an acquisition, it has to be profitable. there are not a lot of companies
that can reach 60% plus i would say would be the threshold for them to look at acquisition. the last deal they did which was computer associates ca is performing extremely well, and when we look at something like symantec, it has shares similar to ca. the two businesses, one already 50% operating margin and another with some tweaking could get to 60%. the other they could drop into this platform and strip their costs, mostly marketing and sales costs to drive operating margins further. from that angle, it would be a profitable deal and extension of the portfolio they have. caroline: interesting, because we have been waiting for years for what they would work out to go after ca and after qualcomm fell away. what makes symantec vulnerable
to being bought out? reporter: there has been a lot of drama. the ceo has been ousted a few months ago. there had been an accounting investigation and an activist investor came on the scene, pressuring the company and got some board seats. it is a vulnerable time for symantec for a takeover. caroline: we were talking about a t-mobile-sprint deal and regulatory issues, are there going to be issues with this particular deal? considering broadcom in the past wasn't able to get past qualcomm? liana: before this, they had a singapore headquarters. they have now moved totally to the u.s. to alleviate that issue. but cybersecurity is a national security concern and symantec does it do work for the u.s. government. so the review is something investors will be watching to see how it goes. there could also be an e.u. review. no slam dunk for any large deal where there is a national security element.
caroline: you really have spelled out why you think it is a perfect fit and why it might be good for the business. interestingly, other analysts or are questioning managements strategic direction here. do you think it is the right direction to be going focused in -- on a cybersecurity? we have seen others do it. >> i think broadcom is focused singularly on capital returns to the shareholders. this was a company that was on the cusp of 50% operating margin, which no other company in the past could approach in the semi conductor land. with the ca deal, they were able to push it closer. now running about 52%. for them, to be able to expand and build on that, they need something outside of hardware, something outside of
semiconductors. typically, software companies will have high growth margins and spend a lot of money acquiring new clients. the strategy with ca is dig deep and all-you-can-eat strategy. it is dig deeper into existing clients, don't worry about getting new clients. for example, in sears' case, there was $100 billion of acquisitions in the year, so those costs went away. with symantec it would be easy to go back to the same clients with a bigger portfolio and drive profitability. that is why we think it is a perfect fit. caroline: interesting. we have seen shares of symantec closing 14% higher. what sort of premium to you envisage? this is a company that has been under some duress. could there be a bidding war? could it go higher? harsh: it is possible other people could come in. i am not an expert on m&a or
banking aspects, but the premium of current prices would still work as far as broadcom's ability to take it given success -- given the success they have had with software in the past. caroline: both of these companies have private equity background and history. will pe be in any way involved with this? liana: symantec's board has representatives from bain and silver lake. they will definitely have to be involved somehow, they are major shareholders. broadcom was built up through private equity roots, originally they worked with silver lake and other firms. private equity does weigh heavy here but we don't know the structure of the deal and how it will participate. caroline: coming up, twitter announces rules that might hide tweets from president trump himself. will this set a new standard for other social media? and we are live streaming on
we like drip coffee, layovers- -and waiting on hold. what we don't like is relying on fancy technology for help. snail mail! we were invited to a y2k party... uh, didn't that happen, like, 20 years ago? oh, look, karolyn, we've got a mathematician on our hands! check it out! now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'd rather not.
♪ caroline:come back -- welcome back to the best of bloomberg tech. the u.s. president routinely posts comments that might get a lesser-known person suspended. now twitter will hide rule theking content, saying tweet has been left out because of legitimate public interest. emily chang caught up with david .irkpatrick >> there wasn't that moment
where everyone was like, there is this fake news going viral, and that is what facebook and twitter one. they had teams in place ready to pounce in case there was that moment, but there did not seem to be. emily: maybe they were doing their job. kurt: i guess that is the idea. emily: let's talk about this tweed flag for anyone with a hundred thousand followers are more. david: it is just politicians. it is even more specific to donald trump. two years ago he tweeted at kim jong-un and said, rocket man, you will not be around much longer, and people asked one that got a user suspended? twitter's response was politicians have tweets that are so newsworthy we do not take them down. now we know which ones violate
the rules but they label as newsworthy so they are able to stay up. emily: you have been talking about how difficult it is for these companies to flag content that breaks the rules or crosses a line. do you think this will work? it is definitely a step in the right direction. we need to acknowledge that some very famous and powerful people are misbehaving, but twitter has rightly acknowledged up until now that certain people on twitter are of a different nature than others. it is also a lot of judgment calls required. even that tweet you cited about kim jong-un, i think could be debated whether that is a violation. is that a country threatening another country or an individual threatening an individual? this is the right kind of step to take, and i'm glad to see it happening.
emily: the president is always quick to talk about conservative theren social media and was an expectation he could get angry or tweet about this new rule, but he has not mentioned it. is there any pushback or reaction from washington? naomi: it is pretty quiet, but a bit of a bold move for twitter given the accusations by republicans that tech companies are biased against them. i have held multiple congressional hearings on this show publicolls trust intact platforms is waning. showedcans have not signs of slowing those criticisms down. morejust gave them ammunition to continue making those claims. emily: meantime, one of the biggest flareups on social media was the nancy pelosi video where
in an appearance to make her look drunk and it was kept up. mark zuckerberg said there was "an execution stake." -- mistake." our: it took a while for systems to flag it and fact checkers to rated as false, which they did within an hour, but it did more than a day for our systems to flag it. during that time at got more distribution than our policy should've allowed, so that was an execution mistake. i do not think we want to go so far toward saying that a private company prevents you from saying something it inks is factually incorrect to another person. -- thanks is factually incorrect to another person. emily: is it another facebook
sorry, not sorry moment? david: facebook probably did handle -- there rules are good on that. i don't think the pelosi video should have been removed. as he said in that same interview, which i happened to be at, there are so many gray areas that if facebook is being asked to make a determination of what is and is not legitimate, it will be extremely controversial. news -- giving it less weight in the newsfeed strikes me as right. nancy pelosi's reaction was very extreme and inappropriate, theyg as if that proved tolerated russian interference in the presidential election. it really was not that. these are tough decisions. pelosi'sat said,
reaction is certainly an example of just how angry politicians are right now at facebook on both sides of the aisle, or they think it is politically expedient to act as if they are angry. naomi: republicans and democrats have bones to pick with facebook and other tech companies. what you see on the house side in particular as house democrats announced they were investigating the technology industry as a whole and looking at antitrust issues that might be going on. that could reveal -- that committee, the antitrust committee on the judiciary committee might end up holding multiple hearings with facebook executives, google executives, twitter executives, and give them an opportunity to continue raising their criticism about misinformation, russian
interference, and distant -- discriminate gratian -- discrimination. emily: we have a tweet up from -- tweet from representative jim they -- whyst year can't twitter respect free speech? urt: it is a common theme to think anyone who voices a -- pointive face point of view -- these are private businesses and they have rules and community guidelines people need to follow. they are not held to the same free speech laws that the united states is. that is a tough distinction for some people to make, and i don't know what tweets he is talking about, but this has been a continuous conversation that has
dominated almost three years. emily: facebook has said they are linning to create a content -- planning to create a content oversight board. could that work? david: i am not certain, but it is a step in the right direction. what we are seeing at twitter and facebook is because of the election of donald trump and the connection that has two abusive social media, so much scrutiny is focused on these platforms that they realized they have to do something, come up with more judicious approaches to content management. an outside review board is a good idea. the execution will be excruciatingly difficult. caroline: bitcoins turbulence continues. we will hear about the slump, next. if you like bloomberg, listen on the radio. this is bloomberg. ♪
caroline: now to a story we continue to watch, bitcoin continuing its roller coaster ride, so much so that a battle erupted over twitter. rishaad some hot caught up with both in taipei. >> and has been around for five years, 10 years. what are the killer apps? there are none? these apps are casino games and ponzi games. shaad: he was questioning finance and you got rather fragrant. a hater. he's a no-coiner. someone who doesn't have any bitcoin and watched the price rocket in their face. rishaad: a bit harsh, isn't it? >> it is true. caroline: they went head to head
on wednesday. taylor riggs gotta take with mike nova gratz from galaxy investment partners. mike: we had a spectacular rally. around $4000 for bitcoin to ago, we traded up as high as $13,800. not was a parabolic move and -- that was a parabolic people got excited for real reasons. because of facebook, uber, mastercard, saying participate we in the cryptocurrency world. want to in the cryptocurrency world. all of these things went from guys like him saying these are -- tulips and the biggest companies in the world say they will participate on top of yale, harvard, stanford. the question around stabilization has been answered. now it is a question of taking the time to build out the
systems. people are rushing into front run institutional accounts. things are getting a little carried away. to $14,000, down to $10,000. i think we are at $10,800 right now. i think we will see the market consolidate between $10,000 in $14,000 for a while before it takes off for the next leg higher. the new institutions, the state of x, the state of wisconsin or the texas teachers union. until those guys start coming in then you will see bitcoin go , toward the old high of $20,000 or higher. taylor: when you say parabolic move, our ears perk up. talk to me about when you sold. in hindsight, it was a very smart position. you said you wish you had sold more. what is your next pricing which you would be another seller? mike: by the time i was on tv, the market had fallen 20% so of course i wish i had sold more.
i did think we had gone parabolic and there was too much energy in the market, and we are going to consolidate. i am a buyer below. i trade a portion of my corporate coin position all the time. i don't think i am selling the next time up to $14,000. the next time we get up there, the second time we get up there, i think it is probably closer to $20,000. i don't expect that in the next few weeks. i probably don't expect it towards the middle to the end of the fourth quarter. we will see kind of a period of consolidation. what is interesting is, nuriel lost the debate. i was with him in las vegas. i got it when it was $6,000. he has lost the debate because all of the biggest fish -- microsoft is building identity solutions on the blockchain.
these are big companies. taylor: talk to me more about critics like dr. roubini who blockchain the summit and said he doesn't believe in it because there are massive amounts of price manipulation. how do you respond? mike: it is a new technology. there's lots of hype around it. there has been price manipulation. it is being weeded out. you are getting exchanges that are being regulated. you are getting more players in the game. you are getting more pipe's. more ways for people to participate. you can buy bitcoin on your td ameritrade account. that is a big deal, because the general population hasn't signed up and got a coinbase or circle wallet yet. we are going to see over the next three months, six months, 12 months, 18 months, there is more and more ways you can buy this stuff. i would bet you, in two years,
ptstercard and visa acce bitcoin with their credit cards. visa has 50 million merchants worldwide. the fact that they are part of this libra, facebook coin, is a huge statement. about: talk to me facebook entry into the bitcoin market. does it give bitcoin and other cryptos legitimacy? mike: it does. it doesn't really compete against bitcoin directly. facebook is working on creating a stable coin that can be used for payments. currencies need to be relatively stable because otherwise, why would i spend a currency if i thought it would be worth a whole lot more in three months? you need lower volatility to be a paying currency. bitcoin, i think, is legitimized by being a real hard asset. it has a fixed supply. it is very difficult to change the rules around bitcoin.
until it becomes like a digital gold. people don't own enough of it yet. i see the price going significantly higher over the next couple of years. if everyone buys just a little bit of bitcoin. taylor: you say the price would go higher over the next couple of years. do you have a call? mike: like i said, i think if we can get to the old high by the end of this year, every bitcoiner will be happy. once you get to $20,000, it opens up $40,000 next. much higher over time. when i think about bitcoin it , has probably about a $150 billion market cap right now. gold has a $8.5 trillion market cap. so bitcoin has a long way to go before it replaces gold. it has very similar features. gold has a limited supply. you can take all the gold that has ever been mined in the history of the world and fill three olympic swimming pools.
that is a crazy statistics. we could build a cube of gold in central park and it would be worth $8.5 trillion. hard to get your mind around. we don't use gold for much. jewelry, some, but mostly it sets and bolts. bitcoin is a digital gold. taylor: who do you see as the next big companies entering the market? we've talked about facebook, mastercard, paypal. who are some of the other big companies you see really starting to make an investment? mike: i think you will see in time the investment banks need to move into the space. we are trying a galaxy to carve out our niche before they'll -- they all show up. at one point, the foreign-exchange desks are going to trade dollar-yen, the euro, the great british pound, libra coin, bitcoin, ethereum. they will be parts of the financial infrastructure of the world. so i do think the investment
will end up the space sooner than later. taylor: talk about the divergence in price action we have seen with bitcoin having a very big move year to date. some of the other big currencies eum and ripple, not so much. mike: bitcoin has carved out a really interesting lane, which is digital gold. it doesn't need to change to fulfill its mission. the way it is today is perfect. gold has a big market cap. ethereum is fighting to be what i would call web 3.0, a decentralized supercomputer that can process tons of transactions. it is a revolutionary project and it is not finished yet. there is a lot of technical work that needs to be done for to scale properly, for it to be
caroline: samsung has completed a redesign of its galaxy fold to fix embarrassing screen failures . they will debut the new phone and time for the holiday season. problems with the screen were reported on test version. a number of big american companies may shift production out of china. dow,ding to nikkei, hp, and amazon are considering to make the move. amazon hinted at night have to raise prices because of tariffs. users swipe right and left to
find their next hook up on tinder, and it was feared it would make it possible to find success in asia where dating rituals like arranged marriages are still common. tinder reinvents itself as a winner for asia. emily chang covered the story. >> tinder is huge in the u.s. and has totally dominated the north american market. it is owned by match group, another u.s. company which owns apps.f the big dating users ander's subscribers are growing in america, they have almost 5 million scrubbers, and they are looking for other caria -- areas where they could grow. there is no better opportunity than the asia-pacific region.
250 millionre than single people in the asia-pacific region, most of whom who have never tried a dating product. tender is looking to the asia-pacific as an area of potential growth. emily: how is the product and marketing of tinder different in asia than in the united states? olivia: in america, we all know it is a hook up app. it is known for casual dating and sex among young college graduates on college campuses around the country, where people connect and get to know one another. that would not fly in korea. the dating culture in korea, they would meet through blind toing where friends connect different people who had not met one another before. tinder knew the hook up casual dating
would not work in korea, so it decided to attempt to reinvent itself in a friendship app so it claims to be a social discovery network. on the billboards outside university towns come at the year,isements read -- new new friendships, new you, so it is more around building friendships other than dating. emily: well this fly and china where there is tough regulation -- will this fly in china where there is tough regulation or are they focusing outside of china? olivia: they are not looking at china right now, but they are looking at different countries across the asia-pacific, a huge focus in korea, japan, and india where they have local managers on the ground trying to connect and learn the cultural customs.
we heard from the ceo of match group that they are spending more marketing in korea, japan, and india than anywhere else in the world and will potentially expand into taiwan, indonesia, singapore. emily: what is the outlook for match more broadly, now owning all of these properties, although the original match app has been criticized for being old and stay a. -- stale. olivia: one of the strategies is getting local managers on the ground to look for potential acquisitions. in japan, they have acquired the which is apeers model where only the men pay. it is their biggest online dating app, and they are trying to build up tinder as well. being strategic in terms of
trying to encourage the managers on the ground to look for acquisition opportunities, because some of these countries have different customs than what match is use to. in korea, dating apps do things pretty different than tinder. one app, in order to apply to be on the product, you have to get rated by the users out of 10. there is another app where men can only get on if they hold down a job as a doctor, lawyer, or a major conglomerate company, or went to a prestigious university. caroline: amazon will hire more than 2000 workers in the u.k. to develop its newest technology ventures, including engineers and data scientists. that will raise the british workforce to almost 40,000 people by the end of the year. that does it for this edition of
♪ jonathan: from new york city, i'm jonathan ferro. bloomberg "real yield" starts right now. ♪ jonathan: coming up, payrolls growth bouncing back. the jobs report easing some concerns. shaking up fed expectations, investors beginning to pair back rate cut bets, sending treasury yields higher after a record breaking week in the bond market. we begin with the big issue, a solid job report clouding the fed's next move. >> looks like rate cuts are off the table. >> it is hard for them to say, we are still going to cut. >> when l
IN COLLECTIONSBloomberg TV Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on