i'm surprised the market closes off the lows today, scott. >> maria picks up the conversation. much more on the president's conversation. have a great weekend. maria is coming up in five seconds. >> and it is 4:00 on wall street. do you know where your money is? welcome back to the "closing bell." i'm maria bartiromo on the floor of the new york stock exchange. dow and s&p 500 closing lower for six out of the last seven trading sessions. take a look how we're finishing the day on friday. things did worsen out of the president's speech, finishing around the lows of the day. 72 points. 15,256. nasdaq flat today, down about 6 points. s&p 500 gave up 7 points. well, tgif, the dow and the s&p 500 posting their worst weekly

losses in about a month. let's catch up with mary thompson and tell us about the tough week that's finally over. >> finally over with a broad based decline. the dow and s&p with low and nasdaq managing to post a slight gain for the week. let's take a look at components that contributed to the declines and gains. within the dow industrials goldman sachs was worst performer for the week. it's a new member of the dow but there was a downgrade by gugenheim and in general financials have been under pressure about concerns about a weak quarter this quarter for their fixed income areas. that put pressure on goldman as well as the rest of the large cap banks this week. jcpenney was the weakest performer in the s&p 500. coming out yesterday with another equity offering that will severely dilute outstanding shares. the stock down about 30% for the week. on the plus, nasdaq, industrial

materials, that's good news. let's take a look at sectors that were weaker today in the otherwise down week. consumer staples, financials. >> we want to go back to the president's statement. he spoke about discussions with iran. >> i spoke on the phone with president of iran, president rowhani. we discussed our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement over iran's nuclear program. i reiterated to president rowhani what i said in new york. while there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward, and success is by no means guaranteed, i believe we can reach a comprehensive solution. >> want to get more reaction now with our chief international

correspondent, michelle caruso-cabrera on the telephone. good to see you. let's talk this out for a moment. the first conversation between an american and iranian president in 30 years. >> it marks what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced week when it comes to the situation with iran. president obama has made it clear from the very beginning when the u.n. general assembly started that he wants to come to some kind of deal. keep in mind, he had this phone conversation with the president of iran even though iran snubbed him repeatedly at the u.n. general assembly on tuesday. he could have gone to a luncheon, he could have had an encounter with him in a hallway, and the president of iran, we were made clear by the white house, that wasn't enough. he wanted something more substantive, even though they haven't really done anything or brought anything to the table. the tonality between the two countries has changed dramat dramatical dramatically. the white house made it clear they want to do a deal. >> ian bremer, what's your take on this? >> i don't think he snubbed

obama repeatedly. i think he's being careful. they exchanged letters before the united nations meeting. iranian president wrote a significant op-ed to the american people in "the washington post." the foreign ministers have met. now there's been a phone call. look, there's no question that obama has had unartful diplomacy in the middle east, to put it lightly, over the course of the last couple of weeks. while syria has been a complete debacle iran is moving in a positive direction. it's moving in a positive direction because you have a new president. the reason you have a new president that is interested in opening up to the u.s. is because those multilateral sanctions led by the united states have crippled the iranian economy. there is progress here. let's be very clear. if you watched rowhani's statement at the united nations, there's a grand difference between where they are, where the americans are and where the israelis are. it will be very hard to move from promising first steps to a deal. certainly the next few weeks,

though, i think we'll see more diplomacy that should make energy prices come down a bit. >> i guess the question is, should we believe it? should we be buying into it? there's a reason they haven't spoken in 30 years. >> right. this is progress. if you actually believe the iranians are going to comply. the israelis don't and a lot of people don't believe them. >> ian, what about you? >> iranians are more credible to me than the russian deal on syrian chemical weapons. >> that's not saying much. >> that's a very low bar. but, no, it's not because we want to believe them. it's because they desperately need sanctions reduced, right? i think there will be willingness of a ian yans to move on some things like stockpiles of enriched uranium. we can get somewhere with them. if we get to an actual area to remove sanctions, that's a very high bar.

>> thank you. we'll keep following that and look for any other developments. back to the markets here. we saw the market trade lower after the president's speech on the debt ceiling. joining us to talk about it and the down week for stocks is danny hughes, chris mamai, j.j. burns and kenny from o'neil securities. good to see everybody. kenny, tell us what you saw at the close here while the president was speaking. >> it was really a very quiet close, honestly, considering everything that's going on down in washington. there wasn't a lot of volume. the market's been pathetically trading lower. finding some support at 168 5, which is what we found on wednesday. we tested it a couple times and it seems to be a level it doesn't want to break at the moment. it trade it. the market stayed lower. no real emphasis, no real -- you need to cy see a pick up in volume to test it. we're not getting that at the moment. >> we have all these uncertainties out there. just now the president basically said even the threat of a shutdown is probably already having a dampening effect on the

u.s. economy. danny, what about that? are you worried about the potential for a shutdown? how does it impact markets? >> it does. back in '95 and '96 when this happened before, it impacted the market as well. it's a tough week coming up. we have the end of third quarter coming up. we've got the race to the end of the year. you know, some hedge fund managers have not outperformed at all. we have a big drag coming and it will be extremely choppy, especially what's happening this weekend. it's hard to go out wrong this week. >> you want to go long? >> yeah. i think if you see beyond the next week or two, i think things start looking much better. the underlying economy is doing better, overseas economic conditions are much better and the federal reserve, which was the biggest thing hanging over the market, is giving the market more room to run. >> so do you wait for a better entry point? >> no, i think this is a good entry point. because i don't think after they settle all the issues in

washington, stocks -- bonds -- credit for that matter, is going to be at the same level. >> j.j.? >> at some time we'll be here. the credit card's going to be running out. this time for the government? probably not. yes, cap ex-autos look good. macro world for u.s. businesses as measured by that data looks exceptionally well. 8.3, 8.4% numbers we're seal. long term i think the market will be okay. short term we'll get some bounce back. >> the same question, do i get a better entry point if i wait two weeks? >> i think you do get a better -- >> you do, kenny? >> i think you do over the course of the next couple of weeks. have you earnings that will start in a week and a half. we're already getting indications from the banks, citibank and other financials, their trading revenue will be down, impact earnings, talk out of the retails and walmart and jcpenney about what the christmas season already looks like and it's still three months away. it's going to be a long quarter. my sense is that you're going to

get a chance, as a short-term trader, you'll get a chance to buy stocks. as a long-term trader, a chance to buy stocks at a cheaper point. >> walmart came out, they're cutting some jobs, cutting back. they're thinking the christmas holiday season, in my opinion, is going to be trashy for them. they already signaled that already. >> we had mike duke on a couple weeks ago. he said, we're not expecting much from the holiday season. >> consumer discretionary is going to be the one to watch. there's a lot of concerns around it. not only because of the holiday season but also because of bovm care. is that going to take away from the amount of money people can actually spend on a day-to-day basis. there's a lot of fear. >> i think a lot of that is already in the prices. if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't be at these type of levels. you may get an entry point, if you sat down for two hours or something like that, but beyond, that i don't think -- trying to time it that finely is probably you're missioni inmissing out i opportunities. >> u.s. equities?

>> u.s. equities and u.s. credit more than anything else. >> anybody on the panel like internationals? >> i like international as well. the delta is probably higher in international than it is in u.s. it's more developed market equities more than anything else. >> real quick around the horn. danny? >> we like -- we like the whole entire international space, absolutely, but especially u.s. equities. >> i think there's a curve that's about to occur. we like energy and infrastructure. billions of contracts about to be approved. >> in the u.s.? >> yes. we have gas that's going to explode in this country. that's the general market as well as biotechnologies you know i love. >> final comment from you, kenny. where are you seeing the conviction? what do you want to buy here? >> wshlg i think what you're grg to get, as danny said earlier, it's really -- traders, short-term traders are going to be cautious going long or short in this weekend, depending on the news on monday. net net i think the market will go lower. i like u.s. we can wits and

european equities. i think you can buy them at cheaper prices two, three weeks out and, boom, off to the races. >> great insight from everybody. appreciate your time. we'll see you soon. washington dysfunction dragging this mashgt lower this week. should the markets be more worried given how ugly things could get thanks to the d.c. dysfunction? check it out. martha stewart goes on a twitter rant about apple, complaining no one comes to fix her cracked ipad. her tweets are viral. there are others that are even better. later, wait until you see what the highest earners are looking for when they go house hunting these can days. it's not tennis courts anymore. . peacocks? walking the grounds. in tuscany. [ man ] her parents didn't expect her dreams to be so ambitious.

italy? oh, that's not good. [ man ] by exploring their options, they learned that instead of going to italy, they could use a home equity loan to renovate their yard and have a beautiful wedding right here while possibly increasing the value of their home. you and roger could get married in our backyard. it's robert, dad. [ female announcer ] come in to find the right credit options for your needs. because when people talk, great things happen. ♪ ♪ unh ♪ [ male announcer ] you can choose to blend in. ♪ or you can choose to blend out. the all-new 2014 lexus is. it's your move.

the house of republicans are so concerned with appeasing the

tea party they threatened a government shutdown or worse, unless i gut or repeal the affordable care act. i said this yesterday. let me repeat it. that's not going to happen. >> president obama speaking moments ago from the white house on the budget. the market is not liking what's going on in washington. take a look at the performance just this past week. you can see from this chart of the week, is the market actually underestimating the government's ability to get a deal done or is this market complacent? should things be worse with deals on the budget and debt ceiling looking so dicey? we bring in ben from politico, rick santelli. thanks for joining us. ben white we had a bad week but not the kind of week one would expect if you have such an impasse on the horizon on the debt ceiling. should we be worried? >> i think we should be more worried but not so much about a government shutdown as about a debt ceiling crisis. i've come around to the view that a shutdown might actually

be a good thing in the sense it would allow for a lot of the tension in the system to get worked out. republicans in the house would show they've stood up to obama and shut down the government over obama care. then you get some sort of deal after that to fund the government, probably also raise the debt ceiling because i imagine republicans will get negative feedback over shutting down the government. if that doesn't happen, we get a temporary deal to fund the government for a couple of weeks or months, republicans will be spoiling hard for a fight over the debt ceiling. they'll want something out of obama care. there's no way obama will give them that. that means a debt ceiling breach is more likely. i would say a government shutdown is bullish at this point for markets. >> you think it's bullish for markets? >> yeah. i think it means there's less chance of a debt ceiling crisis. i think if you punt this off to the debt ceiling in a couple of weeks or months, then you get more of a crisis. you get a situation where republicans say we're not voting to raise the debt ceiling unless you give us something on obama care or spending cuts. when the white house says they won't negotiate, they're seri

serious. they'll say, you're one half of one congress, but we'll shut down the top priority because you refuse to raise the debt ceiling and blow up the economy. that wouldn't happen. >> josh? >> i think the odds of a debt ceiling crisis where an actual payment is missed is still close to zero. i think most republicans are very afraid of having a shutdown like that that they'll get blamed for any negative economic consequences that ensue. so even though a lot of people in the house are spoiling for a fight, i think boehner and his caucus are talking about a fight they but they can't get there. republicans were talking about how they would use debt ceiling to extract concessionings, saying the boehner rule was in play. they didn't get it. ultimately in january the president made very clear he wasn't going to give anything up and he was able to get republicans to cave. i think if republicans made one

small ask on this, for example f they saidings we'll give you debt ceiling increase for excelling the keystone pipeline, they might get that. the president will say, they'll be left with no option other than to work with nancy pelosi and democrats to do what they did in january and come up with a reasonably clean debt ceiling increase. i think there's risk of a negative shutdown, but the big risk is unlikely to happen. >> it's a good point. rick santelli, do you think the markets are complacent about all of this? >> no, i don't think they are at all. i don't think the markets are complacent. i'd like to ask both our gentlemen because they are probably way more informed on politics than i am. do they think the impuj -- the president understands the difference define a budget deficit and the national debt? because when he was commenting, he certainly seems to be flip-flopping between the two.

the national debt under $17 trillion really doesn't go down. the budget deficit optimistically, let's say $670 billion, which is a much smaller deficit than we've had the last several years, but if you take out the obama years, $670 billion deficit on the budget for one year, still the largest there is on record. so, to me, bragging about bringing it down so dramatically, the only reason he brought it down northern anybody else is because it was higher than anybody else. and i think the public polls are reflecting the national debt, even though i think much of the dialogue flip-flops between the two. interest rate markets are telling me there's nothing to worry about about what's going on in washington. >> i think the president does understand the difference. i don't know if he messed the two up in his speech just nout but i think his larger point is on raising the debt ceiling is that we have done a lot of debt reduction. republicans have won a lot. we're talking about a spending

deal that's a lot less than democrats would want. >> we have done no deficit reduction, though. in 2012 -- >> through sequestration -- >> at the end of 2012 we pulled forward boat loads of money to beat tax rate increase that won't be replicated. that was more of a passive gain than proceed active gain. >> that's accounted for. it's going to be around 70 positive 75% over the last decade -- >> of course. because we're playing with the numbers. we're playing -- >> i think the president understands the bond markets better than you do in that sees, you know, when the big budget -- >> hold that thought. >> -- that's because you have -- that's because interest rates rise because the government is crowding out private demand for capital. that's not what's happening right now. >> no, no, no, they're going down because the fed's printing. exactly. i'm with you. >> right. but this is exactly the wrong time for further deficit reduction. the president understands that. >> precisely. new england a good time, is it? >> i think congress has started

to recognize that, too, because republicans have come up with a list of demand for debt ceiling increase that doesn't have anything to do with deficit reduction. they're asking back for roll back of net neutrality, delay of obama care, various roll backs of environmental protection regulations -- >> hois of representatives duly elected, are they not allowed to ask? >> they can ask for whatever they want. >> what it doesn't to want do is enshrine this notion where can you ask for laundry list of demands and if you don't get them you'll blow up the economy -- >> the economy's not going to blow up. it hasn't due -- >> we missed debt payments and eventually we would have our interest rate -- >> oh, you might say the president knows bond market better than me, but based on that comment, i don't think you do. >> gentlemen, we'll leave it there. final words. thank you so much, guys. we'll keep watching this. obviously an incredibly important subject not just for the market but the economy. next up, a is for apple and also for angry apparently. up next, hear why martha stewart

took apple to task in a twitter rant. those tweets have gone viral. let's just say what happened is not a good thing. how does this happen? blackberry ceo thorstin hines will get three times his compensation package after the sale of the company. we'll debate the ceo pay, especially when that ceo's company is in trouble. ♪ ♪ [ female announcer ] you're the boss of your life. in charge of long weekends and longer retirements. ♪ ask your financial professional how lincoln financial can help you take charge of your future. ♪ [ male announcer ] staying warm and dry

has never been our priority. our priority is, was and always will be serving you, the american people. so we improved priority mail flat rate to give you a more reliable way to ship. now with tracking up to eleven scans, specified delivery dates, and free insurance up to $50 all for the same low rate. [ woman ] we are the united states postal service. [ man ] we are the united states postal service. [ male announcer ] and our priority is you. go to usps.com® and try it today.

how's. blackberry ceo will get triple his pay package taking his competence in excess of $65 million. seema mody has more on ceos who have done well. >> that's right. it's no secret that blackberry has been struggling. blackberry smartphone market share from 46% to just under 3% in 2013. grand, that ceo thorsten hines became ceo in early 2012, he still hasn't been able to revive market share. that's why hines' pay package is sparking such outrage. he's not the first executive to be at the center of this type of controversy. michael ovitz reportedly walked away with $130 million after ousted from disdmi. bob nardelli pocketing $210 million even though shares of home depot moved lower under him.

henry mckinnell with $196 million after leaving pfizer. and tom preston walking away with over $100 million after the closing of viacom. and stan o'neal, at the helm of merrill lunch, he was ousted after the brokerage posted biggest quarterly loss but that didn't stop him from walking away what is estimated to be $161 million. will this ever change? that's the big question. i spoke to a columbia business school professor who says it ultimately comes down to the board putting together realistic payout schemes that are performance based. >> that makes sense, performance-based salaries. on wednesday when i spoke to google chairman eric schmidt who himself saw hefty paydays when he was at the company as ceo, because if you recall, he asked to get paid in google stock. that paid him off big time.

he says the model should be listened to. listen to this. >> we've always had this problem of the agency problem for ceos. how do you get them to act in the best position of the shareholder? the best way is for them to own parts of the company. that's the warren buffett model, the american model. we need to go back to that. >> adam of public citizen says the blackberry payout is a symptom of a much bigger problem and golden parachutes have to go. catherine of reason magazine says the market is setting the price along with each company's board of directors. if thorsten heins pay was connected to performance of blackberry, this wouldn't happen. >> when you look at the performance of the cup since heins came on board, the stop price dropped by 50%. amidst the stock drop, the board renngt renegotiated his salary, his golden parachute, such that he would receive $ 5 million if he

was forceded out of the company. the contract change was negotiated by fairfax financial holdings, who owns 10% of blackberry, which is now in talks to acquire blackberry. seems like a real conflict of interest. the losers are blackberry shareholders, blackberry employees, 4500 of whom are going to be laid off and won't receive any golden parachutes of their own. >> that's the whole point. you want to tie it to performance. if it was tied to the stock rather than a renegotiation of the deal, he would be, you know, going the way of the stock. and so, you know, he would be measured on performance versus getting this golden parachute. when somebody looks at blackberry's downward spiral and sees the pay the ceo could pocket, if the company is bought, it doesn't seem excessive to you? >> i agree this size of golden parachute makes for a great headline but i don't know how much he should earn.

you don't know how much he should earn. i don't think your own guests knows -- >> is it $ $55 million given the company missed innovation, lost market share, forced to sell out? should it be $55 million. >> i'm not sure i'd want to be the ceo of blackberry right now so if this is them saying, stay on, try a little harder. fair enough. i have no way to judge that. my question is, why is this is a public debate? say, it's easy to get hired and fired as a ceo, easy to quit. it's a free labor market. let's let the market decide. >> well, adam, isn't the pay reflective of the enormous risk these ceos take on? the risk they'll be fired compared to an average employee. >> the notion there's a market around ceo pay is a misnomer. what we've seen over the years is rocketing increases in ceo pay. right now the average ceo makes

350 times the norm american worker. to say there's a market, it's a market failure. sometimes it's tied to performance but in the case of heins it's not tied to performance at all. corporations are interested in handing out money to ceos regardless of how their corporations are actually performing. i think it's bad practice and something needs to change. >> catherine, i'm all for let the markets decide. i'm not criticizing that because i agree. it's a market. this is democracy. and capitalism is capitalism, period. but when you have a ceo walking away with so much money, and we know shareholders have lost almost everything, because the stock has plummeted and keerly that plummeting, you have to attach it to leadership because they've missed innovation. they missed market share. i don't know how you make the argument it's okay for a guy to walk away with $55 million and

not be attached to the performance of this firm. >> i think there's a big difference between saying there's some cosmic justice to this guy getting all this money. there probably isn't. he's not worth in some moral sense $55 million more than the janitor who works there but at the same time, i think what we're looking at is boards and companies in general trying to figure out the most efficient way to get their ceos to do right by the company. i agree with you tying performance to stock seems like a great idea. they're not doing it now. although i think it's more and more common but the notion that these guys are earning so much more than a typical employee or so much more than i earn, that's not the question. the question isn't, is it fair in some magical way. the question is, is it efficient? >> we'll leave it there. thanks very much. we'll see you soon. this next story coming out of bizarro land, martha stewart

frustrated that apple wouldn't come to her home to fix her ipad which cracked when she dropped it. by the way, was given to her for free by none other than steve jobs. >> martha stewart is not happy about that broken ipad so she took to twitter and vent stod her over 2.8 million followers to voice her displeasure. here's how it went down. she says first on twitter, i just dropped my ipad on the ground and shattered two glass corners. what to do? does one call apple to come and pick it up or do i take it? then she goes on to say, well, i'm still waiting for an apple rep to pick up my ipad. no action yet. then says, maybe i have a good entrepreneurial idea. apple now, like same day delivery for amazon, i think i'm onto something. same day fix it. she's giving advice to apple. she goes on to say, i cannot believe apple public relations is mad at me for tweeting about

my ipad and how to get it fixed. for goodness sakes, steve jobs gave it to me. that invites the twitter haters to come out. matthew says, i think apple pr is mad because you kept spelling the ipad with a capital i." she comes to-o to say, i wish i could explain everything about the broken ipad, the stolen iphone, silly joke about repairs and my frustration but it's impossible so i'll deal with it silently and hope that apple will fix everything so i can function again with proper tools. but she came to the "today" show saying most of it was just joking around. martha stewart not all that serious but an interesting twitter rant. >> up next, the prime minister of canada losing patience about the long delayed keystone pipeline. >> this is not the kind of thing

we can accept a no on. if ultimately there were a no, the fight will go on until it's accepted. >> my exclusive interview coming next with the prime minister of canada, steven harper. he also had things to say about blackberry, a canadian company. and high-end homes are not what they used to be. wait until you hear what the super rich look for in an ideal home. what would you do?" ♪ [ woman ] i'd be a writer. [ man ] i'd be a baker. [ woman ] i wanna be a pie maker. [ man ] i wanna be a pilot. [ woman ] i'd be an architect. what if i told you someone could pay you and what if that person were you? ♪ when you think about it, isn't that what retirement should be, paying ourselves to do what we love? ♪

...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it.

welcome back. canadian prime minister steven harper is a rare breed for that country, a conservative. while a firm ally of the united states, there are tensions between the two neighbor willing countries. i spoke with him this week as he is in new york for the u.n. i started with the biggest one, the long-delayed keystone pipeline that would send oil from canada into the u.s. >> look, i think the case is clear. very strong. it's been made by the state department itself in its own report which said, this is a project that will create some 40,000 jobs in the course of its existence. it will obviously help move us towards a greater north american energy security.

ultimately replace energy imports to the united states from high-risk countries, politically high-risk countries. and has been noted as well. we hear about the environmental criticism but the fact is the environmental effects noted by state department are negligible. in fact, not only will it displace risky oil, it will actually in many cases displace oil from places like venezuela that have environmental oil emissions and practices that are far more harmful to the environment than anything in canada. >> what is plan "b"? this project will be built. >> yes. >> what, in fact, will you do if you get a no go from america? >> we will keep pushing this. we will not abandon it. there's a lot of support in the united states. not just among business, among labor, among the population at

large. every state through the pipeline right is n route is now in favor of it. this is not a thing we can accept a no on. if there's ultimately a fight, the fight will go on until it's accepted. it will be accepted eventually. of course, one of the things this has done in canada has really alerted canadians to the fact that as much as we value our partnership with the united states, it's not necessarily in our own interest to be spelling 99% of our energy exports solely to the united states. so obviously we're looking at projects across the country that will help diversify our export markets overseas. >> including china. >> we're looking at ways to get our product to market both east and west. >> many investors i speak with are unnerved by the regulatory environment in the united states. it has gotten tougher. it has gotten much more expensive. this has been the focus of

putting regulatory framework into place. >> i don't want to exaggerate because on the one hand, all advanced economies have developed regulatory frameworks. there's a whole bunch of things we care of by nature in advanced economies like labor and product safety that, you know, in many other countries you can avoid but there are long-term consequences to not having that kind of regulation. but in terms of, for instance, project approval in the resource sector, this government has streamlined that so that at the national level and sometimes even with the cooperation of other levels of government, you have one regulatory process. not many. it's all one integrated process we put into place with fixed timelines in terms of the stages. doesn't mean investors will always get a yes but they'll always get a determination in a reasonable time frame and they know what the process is and the process is going to change on them halfway through. >> what are you seeing in terms of growth and technology?

where is that having the bill biggest impact? >> i think it's universal. one of the challenges in canada, we're quite frank in trying to identify and deal with our challenge. one of the challenges in kal canada is our productivity growth is not as strong as we need it to be. some of it has been on the innovation side. some of it has been slowness to adapt technology into certain industri industries. >> speaking of one canadian company as someone who is a long-time user of a blackberry, it was sad to me to see the changes going on at that company. what are your thoughts on this acquisition? >> you know, i try and obviously avoid making comments on individual companies. blackberry is obviously a canadian company. a lot of canadians use blackberry and a lot of canadians work there and it has a lot of supporters in canada, but ultimately, you know, in our system and our marketplace, companies have to make the right decisions that will make themselves sustainable.

and, you know, those are obviously pretty challenging questions for blackberry management. in terms of any acquisition, the government is not involved in the acquisition process unless it's a certain level of acquisition that's done as a foreign acquisition. in that case, the government would have to review the decision to ensure that it's within our national interest. for that reason i'm obviously not going to comment on any potential partners. >> this doesn't fall into -- >> it doesn't appear, but as i say, it is an evolving situation. if it were a foreign takeover, the government would obviously -- would obviously have to examine that. >> there's a chance you will be reviewing it? >> if it's foreign acquisition above a certain dollar figure, the government would review it. review it obviously on broad grounds but also all decisions, in particular the technology space, would be reviewed on national security grounds.

>> my thanks to prime minister harper. upping the ante next. high-end home buyers are well past the era of three-car garages and so-called great rooms. what buyers of luxury homes are looking for these days. here's a hint. it's all about technology. jooifshgs

jooifshgs. welcome back. high-end homes come with fancy features you never even knew you needed. rich people want them. robert frank has the lowdown on

the upper end. >> well, new study find the wealthier are becoming much more practical with their amenities. survey about coldwell, they found out the top priority for healthy home buyers is an open floor plan. now, ranking second was technology. things like high-speed internet in all the rooms, smart appliances, remote access so you can turn the lights on when you're in the office. also popular for the wealthy are pools, especially with a lot of landscaping. outdoor kitchens are also popular with full cooking ranges and entertainment areas. wealthy women are less interested in technology, more interested in pool and environmentally friendly homes. what's out with the wealthy? tennis courts and staff quarters are universally out of favor, as well as special catering kitchens. back to you. >> thank you so much. up next, should electronic arts be benched in your portfolio? ea pulling the plug on the popular college football video

game as it selgss a series of lawsuits. a couple of ex-nfl pros will weigh in on whether it's time to pay college financial players? [ male announcer ] ok, here's the way the system works. let's say you pay your guy around 2% to manage your money. that's not much you think. except it's 2% every year. does that make a difference? search "cost of financial advisors" ouch. over time it really adds up. then go to e-trade and find out how much our advice costs. spoiler alert: it's low. really? yes, really. e-trade offers investment advice and guidance from dedicated, professional financial consultants. it's guidance on your terms, not ours. that's how our system works. e-trade. less for us. more for you. ♪ [ male announcer ] 1.21 gigawatts. today, that's easy. ge is revolutionizing power. supercharging turbines with advanced hardware and innovative software. using data predictively to help power entire cities. so the turbines of today...

will power us all... into the future. ♪

shares of electronic arts falling 1% after they dropped production of their ncaa college football game for 2014. the company states they arencaa football game for 2014. the company states they are evaluating the plan for the future of the franchise. is that reason to sell ea? let's ask the managing member of the volatility group. do you like ea here? >> certainly, you get news like this here, it sort of maybe can spiral into momentum that changes the momentum of the stock. i do not like ea. i'm not a big short guy. i would go out and use puts. but what i say here, is the valuation is relatively high, trading at 68 times earn accident, it's hard to buy into a stock it has to hit growth measures to do that. you look at the analyst estimates, they have been awful. the stock trading in june of 2012 was near its low, negative sell rating on the stock.

now it's at it's highs and they want to buy it. i would almost get short here on this stock. maria, i don't know if you like stock or not, i do. my little kids play, i coach. it's fun to watch. i like their 2013 version of fifa. the 2014 controls are horrible. i hate it. that's another reason to sell the stock. i don't know what you think about the gaming situation, i don't like it. >> yeah. well, i hear you. all right. we'll watch that stock, i wonder if there'll be an implication to the stock, as result of this one decision. we'll see you tonight. >> thanks a lot, maria. >> for more action tune into options action tonight after fast money. we want to bring in a couple form ore nfl players turned wall street pros. talk about whether college athletes should be compensated, as well as get their thoughts on the markets, and this weekend's big games. reggie wilkes with me, and former linebacker for the philadelphia eagles, and atlanta falcons, scott bruner, one time

quarterback of the giants, now executive vice-president. good to see you guys, thanks for joining us. >> how are you? >> great. reggie, how are you? when you hear that story and think about your experience, do you believe these athletes should be compensated? >> well, i think with the economics of sports, the way it changed, i believe athletes should be paid. however, my approach would be that once they graduate, and the key is graduation, there could be some form of compensation put away in a trust, or tax deferred account for their support down the road. but again, these players, i think deserve to be paid. besides and above their college scholarship moneys. >> i sort of agree, i think, scott. what do you think about this? >> i agree. to some degree, the athletes need to be paid. there is billions of dollars, i mean billions with a b at stake here for the ncaa and the member schools. and the athletes are the only ones not sharing in this. and that means an athlete can't

sell an autograph, can't sell a shirt, can't take advantage of that note right he worked so hard for. and an athlete signs a contract when he goes to a school to get a scholarship. and he waives all rights by signing that contract. so it makes it a delicate balancing act, that the ncaa has to fight. they are basically in violation of antitrust law. >> so they see this as look, you got your foot in the door to play, so that's your compensation. >> they give you a scholarship. and the interesting thing is, the scholarship is not guaranteed. it's one year renewable, every year. they can yank that scholarship in a heart beat, if you're not playing well, if something happens in school, if you get into trouble, they can yank the scholarship, when you look at the graduation rates at the major universities around the country, the opportunity is kind of frivolous, when you really think of it, because they're not getting what they're bargaining for, as far as an education is concerned. >> let's talk markets.

reggie, a lot of volatility in the market, especially as we near the deadline for the federal budgets and debt ceiling, how are you advising clients today? some of them are high earning current and former athletes. correct? >> absolutely. i tell clients, listen, volatility is something we can't control. what we can, however, control is their goals, objectives, their time, their risk tolerance, which drives their core or strategic asset allocation models. my grandfather told me once long ago, the key to life is stick with it-ness, something i drive home to clients. we use volatility as an opportunity to add to positions, if the market does in fact retreat. but i don't look at it as a problem. >> scott, how are you advising clients right now? >> i agree to some degree with reggie. i mean, we have a process, that we put clients through. it's called net worth maximizer, the key is we try to build net worth.

we aren't necessarily worried about day to day volatility we see in the market. we're trying to devise strategies, fulfill their goals, whether they are short term, intermediate term or long term. and by going through the process, just like an athlete, we know that success as an athlete is result of going through the process, doing things right, and as a result of that, ultimately success comes your way. >> these are long term thoughts. you want to be a long term investor. gentlemen, thank you. we'll see you soon. make up your mind, already. up next my thoughts on picking the next fed chairman, right now back in a moment. [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ [ indistinct shouting ] [ male announcer ] time and sales data. split-second stats. [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ it's so close to the options floor... [ indistinct shouting, bell dinging ] ...you'll bust your brain box. ♪ all on thinkorswim

from td ameritrade. ♪ peter, come take a look at this. [ beeping ] mr. daniels. mr. daniels. look at this. what's this? the numbers. they keep getting bigger and bigger. clicks are off the charts. yeah. ♪ yoshi, it's walter. we're back. yes, sir! ♪

more shipping! more shipping! i need more trees! more trees? i'll get you more trees. hey. take a look at wood pulp. whoa. put everything you've got on wood pulp right now. ♪ yes! [ beeping ] he really loves that thing. [ beeping ] ♪

and finally tonight, my observation on adding uncertainty to uncertainty. it has been about three months, more than three months, since president obama made it clear on the charlie rose show bernanke would not stick around beyond january, when his term ends. since then the markets have speculated about who will replace bernanke. narrowing it down to a handful of contenders, and speculating about how those contenders might change things and impact the markets. we all know the public drilling

larry summers took, some market watchers say, if only the president really wanted summers, all he had to do was come out and say it, and he probably would have been confirmed. even if it would have been contentious. instead, his name was leaked. and the constant bashing from the far left and the far right doomed his nomination before it even began. now the betting zeros in on vice chair janet yellin, we know plenty of uncertainties out there. some of which are completely out of our control like syria and iran. now, we have the budget and the debt ceiling mess, that could hit the markets and economy. my point is, why add more uncertainty, when we already have uncertainty here? bottom line, it's time to make the call, mr. president, if you would like to nominate janet yellin, she's a fairly well known commodity. in one swoop you can take one uncertainty out of the markets and give business and investors some clarity. on the leadership at the most important financial institution in the world today. so, i will say, i am certainly

expecting this announcement next week. perhaps then we can start looking for clarity on some of the other important issues looming, like the debt ceiling, the debt limit, tax policy, and regulatory frameworks, it just seems to me the janet yellin announcement is the low hanging fruit. mr. president, it's time to pick it. that will do it for us tonight on closing bell thanks for joining me, see you this weekend on the money sunday, join us for a special program. stay with cnbc, fast money begins right now. ♪ >> live from the nasdaq markets in times square i'm melissa lee here is tonight's line up, facebook, yahoo hitting new highs, ibm and cisco drag down the lows. fourth quarter spirits, fractured fed and upcoming job support got you down? your best fourth quarter mix of sing lg malts sure to lift yr