Skip to main content

tv   Fast Money  CNBC  December 6, 2016 5:00pm-6:01pm EST

5:00 pm
though -- >> exactly. exactly. very interesting. so that came out of the supreme court today. guys, thank you so much for joining us here on "closing bell." a lot of news to get through, and the tweet risk remains. >> copyright. santoli llc. >> that does it for us. "fast money" begins now. it is a big night on "fast money." we've got four huge interviews you can't miss. iac chairman barry diller, former leader, nigel ferrage, and we took on trump in a full page "wall street journal" this morning. donald trump taking to twitter early this morning, saying boeing is building a brand-new 747 air force one for future presidents but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. cancel order. later he doubled down on his statement at trump tower. >> the plane is totally out of control. it's going to be over $4
5:01 pm
billion. it's for air force one program. and i think it's ridiculous. i think boeing is doing a little bit of a number. we want boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money. okay, thank you. >> shares of boeing fell early this morning before coming back and actually finishing the day higher. the dow in small cap can russell index at record highs. is the market becoming immune, to trump's tweets and should you be worried? >> i hope it is. well, try to remain apolitical. that's a pretty ridiculous comment. boeing should make money -- he has no idea how much money boeing makes or doesn't make off air force one, number one. i have no idea $4 billion is exorbitant. sounds like a lot of money. maybe they're losing money on the deal. doesn't matter. i will say this, though. at what point this morning, boeing, the stock, was down i think over 11%. obviously came back with a vengeance. which it should have. boeing trades at 16 times forward earnings, has a tremendous backlog.
5:02 pm
valuations are reasonable. i think the defense sector is the place to be and if you look, they reported on january 25th if you still want to be in the sector, this should tell you in spades that boeing is a stock that you want to continue to stay long, in my opinion. >> it's troubling, for sure. i mean, this is not the american way. are we supposed to give a discount to the white house? well, that's something different. but, some of this is becoming kind of presidential via twitter. look, as guy pointed out, we've had a number of these tweets. in fact, look -- look at china. the chinese currency is actually up in the last four or five days when we have gotten to a -- a tit for tat with china. i'm not terribly concerned about it and that's a little disturbing. this is not what we have been expecting from the president's office over the years. and therefore, i think it's something we're slowly getting used to. >> well, they are taxpayer dollars. so i appreciate that he's talking about this $4 billion. and if he read the next tweet coming out, they were saying, hey, this is nowhere near $4
5:03 pm
billion. this is in the hundreds of millions, but still a huge number. no matter what it is. we brought this up last week. the tweeting and what some of those effects can really be. and when you really look at this one, this is a bit concerning, but what i liked was the al goes hit it early and then suddenly rational thinking came back and people started to trade once again in boeing, and that actually approved the marketplace, because that was tulg pulling us down. we were negative, because boeing was getting hit -- >> rational thinking implies, no big deal. shouldn't listen to these things. and they're opportunities. >> i agree. >> i think that's going to be a very different situation once he's actually in office and we have a government assembled. this is not really how this is supposed to work. the government. we're supposed to have a separation of church and state for all intents and purposes as it relates to the market. i don't think his hand on the twitter button is a very useful thing for market volatility. i just think that if he continues to that way -- you're going to have a great opportunity next week, december 14th, when the fed issues their statement. if this guy can show any self control, and just stay out of it. you know what i mean? how many times did president
5:04 pm
obama opine on fed policy? right? i mean, so here's a guy who is actively criticized the fed and their policies, let's see what they do, let's see if he has any self control. >> quickly, i'll say one thing. i don't know what's going to happen, obviously. but i'll say this. if the fed does raise on the 14th, i can see him tweeting out, look what the corrupt or lame fed has just done. they picked the first -- the first time that i'm president-elect to raise rates when it should have been done six months ago, a year ago, why did they wait for me to be president-elect. all these things are going to come to -- in my opinion. >> what will that do to the market in the end? >> i have no idea. but the fact i'm thinking about these things and it actually could potentially come to pass to me -- >> i think it's built into the market. i just think we already look and say, hey, december. we're going to raise. so i don't know if mr. trump in that particular case would get -- >> 50 bips. what if they point -- >> if it were something different than what we know right now what's been built in
5:05 pm
right now, that would be different. >> the fed is the biggest -- i think obstacle to these markets. and you're right to bring that up, dan. jaw boning about the fed, the reality is the fed needs to raise rates and this is something no one thought they could do a long time ago. if anything, this new administration is picking up the sense -- trying to appeal to the sense from there's been financial repression and oppression on people everywhere. anyone with a savings account, be anyone who is trying to save for a pension, has been killed. in the last eight or nine years. that needs to change. >> all right. donald trump has been extremely vocal and criticizing the media throughout the campaign trail and after the election. julia boorstin is at the ignition conference where she is sitting down exclusively with titan iac, and barry diller. take it away. >> thanks so much, melissa. and barry diller, thanks so much for joining us here. when i last interviewed you in october, you were very critical about the time candidate donald trump. now that he's won the election, what does this mean for your businesses? back then, you called his rise
5:06 pm
an evil miracle. what now? >> well, i mean, it is kind of a miracle. and i have no idea what effect it has on our businesses. but, look, 50% of the country wanted things to continue as they. were 50% wanted change. the 50% that wanted change has gotten it. or has gotten the chance of it. so as far as i'm concerned, bring it on. let us see what this is like. it is kind of a grand experiment. we are every day -- we see things we have never seen before. now, you know -- certainly, they're interesting. and i am, of course, skeptical. but at the same time, i say, you know what? this has been a vote for change. so and it seems like we are going to see almost undiluted change. so fine. let's see what this experiment
5:07 pm
brings. who knows? >> one of the things we have never seen before is the way president-elect trump has been singling out individual companies, the way he did today with boeing. a lot of ceos saying that's changing the business climate. are you concerned about you or one of your ceos getting a phone call from donald trump, telling what to do? >> i have a feeling i'm going to be the last person that's going to get that phone call. but i think that it's -- again, look, this is interesting stuff. it's never happened before. >> are you surprised the market has rallied in the wake of his win? >> no, i think -- look. promising -- saying that we're going to cut taxes on business, we're going to repate re ate 1.5 billi $1.5 billion to $2 billion. what the effect of those things are long-term, i don't have a clue. but, you know, it is, again -- these are things we have not seen. let's see. in a way, you know, it is
5:08 pm
fascinating to watch. >> earlier here on stage, randall stevenson, ceo of at&t, said he was confident trump would roll back net neutrality. that's great for at&t, but bad for your businesses. >> not necessarily bad -- it's bad for the country. i mean, it is a -- it would -- i mean, we have been so rid cluzly -- talk about a miracle. you know, the internet. which allowed you to press a button, an individual, and publish to the world, with nobody between you and the world. no filter. right? which allowed anybody -- it allowed netflix, for instance, to grow to be a big force. totally independent company. not controlled by the consolidated media people, et cetera. that's what net neutrality gave us. that created a level playing field. now, of course, big companies like at&t, who want to control
5:09 pm
things, as communications had been controlled prior to the internet for close to is hundred years, that -- they hope this will be tossed. and that they will again put their pincer movement on media, consolidated more and control it more. that's terrible. >> but so what's your message to trump about what you think -- >> don't do it. >> and why is that important for your businesses and the rest of the internet businesses? >> well, look. again, the ability to compete is to have nobody between you and the consumer who takes essentially a big wedge of your business and controls it for the right to pass over that internet highway. right? that's what -- net neutrality prevented that from happening. so every business -- certainly every startup business, every business functions on the internet, other than at&t, verizon, comcast -- other than the consolidated media players.
5:10 pm
>> you are a legendary deal-maker and now analysts are saying there is going to be an uptick in the number of deals. do you have anything planned or do you have a different strategy now with your companies? >> let me just list the things. i mean, will there be more consolidation? yes. i don't know that that's necessarily such a good thing. i like and have liked business startups. i like starting things. i want an environment that encourages starting things. i think consolidation, fine, i don't have any big problem with it. i actually think it's great to compete against big consolidated companies. but i think in order for you to do so, you can't literally give them the pump and the well to extract from you all the value. >> and we are out of time, but i have to ask, is your strategy changing at all in the wake of the election? >> no. no. no. no. >> okay. >> please, no. >> we will continue our conversation on stage here at business insider.
5:11 pm
oh, i'm getting a question from our control room. they want me to ask you about trump as a negotiator. do you think he's a good negotiator? >> i don't know. i mean, no. he's certainly had a lot of negotiating experience. and -- certainly. look, he's a better negotiator than someone who is trained in government. that's for sure. that's one of the changes we're going to see. whether it's to man-handle people and do things and one-off things that sound good or theatrical or showman like is really good across the table, i'm hopeful. >> great. thank you so much. i really appreciate you taking the time and now we do have to go jump on-stage to continue this conversation. thanks so much and back over to you, melissa. >> thank you very much, julia boorstin with barry diller at the business insider ignite conference. it's interesting that diller took on a softer tone than before the election when he called trump an evil miracle. perhaps not surprising, given that now trump is the president-elect. we have also seen that turn from
5:12 pm
other media executives. julia had mentioned some of the comments out of at&t's ceo randall stephenson today on stage saying trump would be good for business. the ceo, jeff buick us, no coincidence they're headed to capitol hill tomorrow to talk about merger. in terms of consolidation. >> i don't think we have to worry about trump. i think a lot of things will figure themselves out. and i hope that's truly how it plays out. i thought mr. diller was very pragmatic. he said no one expected this. he didn't expect this. except for the fact in this populous vote is something going on around the world. it says people are looking for a change in washington. we still don't know what that change is. the u.k. doesn't know what that change is, italy doesn't know what that change is. >> we don't know what the change is, but for the media stocks, it has been a good change, whatever that change is, because time warner, up 7%, since the election. the "new york times" up 17% since the election.
5:13 pm
the only quote, unquote, loser in terms of relative performance has been fox, which has only been one 1%. >> disney hasn't exactly been off to the races, necessarily. and that's one of the names, as well. because i look at disney and i look at that stock, and the lack of performance -- we know that espn had been weighing it down and that's a huge problem. i look at this and rbc talking about the spinoffs, potential of a spinoff there. you talk about some sort of consolidation. how about the idea you spin that off and who maybe buys them, maybe comcast does, apple looks at disney. there is a lot of different things that are in the pipe right now that are potentially there. i still think disney has up side and priced in the fact that espn, the weakness we have seen there and why it was you said 100 now above 100. >> yeah, and throw in the idea of the repatriation of this cash and talk about an easier regulatory environment and this situation where in 2017 you could have an m & a bonanza, all around. so, you know, listen. that's good for business. but let me just tell you this for you guys backing this populist move. when you get m & a, you get job cuts and think about where
5:14 pm
technology is going, you're going to have more job cuts. so at the end of the day, kind of fighting history here. you're going to get a lot of what you want, but the manufacturing and some of these other jobs that are being replaced by bots and automation, it's going away, people. sorry to tell you. >> viacom lagged, as well. that's going nowhere, 36.5, 37 bucks and going sideways for a few months. i still think, if you just back out all of the bad news and strictly on valuation compared to its peers, still way too cheap. granted i said that four or five dollars ago. i think if you're looking for a flier, risk/reward, viacom is interesting. >> after this break, the man behind the brexit, nigel farraj weighs in on trump's transition to the white house. and chief strategy officer at goldman sachs, stephen scherr. and donald trump dumps his stock. what was inside his portfolio? we have names sure to turn some
5:15 pm
heads. much more ahead on a very busy "fast money."
5:16 pm
what if a company that didn't make cars made plastics that make them lighter? the lubricants that improved fuel economy. even technology to make engines more efficient. what company does all this? exxonmobil, that's who. we're working on all these things to make cars better and use less fuel. helping you save money and reduce emissions. and you thought we just made the gas. energy lives here.
5:17 pm
welcome back to "fast money." he is one of the most controversial leaders of 2016
5:18 pm
and many say responsible for brexit. how does nigel farage think donald trump is doing. nigel farage joins us now. great to have you on the show. >> thank you. >> not only the man most responsible for brexit, but a lot of people say, nigel, you are the man responsible for a wave of populism that has really swept the globe, whether it be from the uk to what happened here in the united states to the italy referendum. in your view, how far does this go? >> well, let me redefine this. populism is used as a pejorative negative term, as if to say those of us against the current corrupt establishment, somehow we're nasty people. i'm going redefine that as true democrats who believe in nation state, i think. to answer your question, the forces that have been unleashed in 2016 have now got phenomenal power behind them. what brexit showed is that little people can beat the
5:19 pm
establishment. trump showed that. i guess times three. as he defined it himself. and we saw in italy a very dramatic result just 48 hours ago. as we head on into 2017, we must recognize that the european union actually is the global prototype of a system where big corporate businesses effectively own government and the lawmaking process. let me promise you there are more big shocks to come in 2017. >> right. you know, the president-elect, nigel, has come under some criticism for how he has used twitter, how he has, quote, unquote, strong-armed some companies in the united states into doing things like keeping jobs in the u.s. as opposed to sending them to mexico. he criticized boeing in a tweet today, essentially saying that $4 billion for two air force one planes is too much money. it's out of control. they make -- we want them to make money but not too much money. is that the right way to approach it, this sort of one -- is this something that you would do?
5:20 pm
is this something that you see as an extension of this populist sentiment, this populist -- populism momentum sweeping the globe? >> well, i mean, the trump decision on boeing is a message to his voters that the executive is not going to take too much money or use too much money at a time when they're struggling. but in terms of the big economy, that's actually very small stuff. what i would say to you is this. don't mistake brexit, trumpism -- don't mistake it for singularity. one of the things team trump is talking about is having a free trade deal with the united kingd kingdom. they're open to the world, but only on terms that are fair. what trump is talking about is the way that china, for example, has massively overproduced steel, subsidized the state and put out our businesses across the west have literally been closed down. so don't mistake that. don't think that just because
5:21 pm
trump talks about his own form of economic nationalism they're not pro business. what they will be is pro small and medium-size business. they're the ones that have had a rotten deal and the ones with the capability to produce more growth, more jobs and text revenues than the multinationals. >> you talk about what happened with brexit and trumpism as a mandate. you guys had a very, very narrow win and as of right now, you know, president-elect trump does not have a majority of voters here in the u.s. so it's not exactly a mandate. and it seems like the vote was almost more for anarchy than anything else. how do you guys in the uk think you're going to be able to somehow renegotiate these trade deals in a way that was done in a unilateral fashion that gave a certain sense of security for the u.k. economy? over here, he's trying to do it one tweet at a time. it's not going to work. >> well, look. first things first. when it comes to the u.s.
5:22 pm
electoral system, trump won it by a country mile. in the college by targeting on the mid with evident and not worrying about california. that was the smart thing to do, given your electoral system. so he won that -- incredibly comfortably. as far as the u.k. is concerned, one of our main arguments about brexit was we didn't want to be part of what's called the customs union of the eeu, which meant we couldn't negotiate our own bilateral arrangements around the world. we have left the union, rejoined the bigger world and last time i looked, about two dozen countries around the globe are saying, okay, u.k., let's sit around the table and do a deal. the old order of the european union of clintonism, it sold itself as being global. it sold itself as being pro business. but actually, it was in the hands of the big corporations and the big banks, benefitting those companies, i accept. but i don't believe, giving
5:23 pm
consumers proper choice or allowing, because the regulator regime, the small men and women that you need in an economic economy to grow. if you really ask me, i think we're headed back to what you saw in america around reagan, a concept of popular capitalism where people are given a chance to get on. >> all right. nigel, we'll leave it there. thank you for joining us. we appreciate your time. nigel farage, former leader of the u.k. party. what do we make of this? we have to look in a broader perspective here? >> i think a few themes have been hit on this show. brexit was also about migration issue that i don't think we really have here. but the populist issue is one where a lot of people, whether mr. diller, dan brought up, what do you do now? and just because a molotov cocktail was blown off -- and by the way, nigel quit a couple weeks after the election. so nice job. but, i mean, i would think this would be a great time to assume the throne and say, hey, this is that exciting time that i've
5:24 pm
been telling you we all should be embracing and, in fact, you know -- so i don't know what the plans plan is. and i think we're all kind of waiting. the order in which we're getting this information, branfrankly, little bizarre. >> listen. one of the things i said on november 7th, 8th, leading up to election, if, in fact, mr. trump was to win the election, the markets would get -- i think probably use the word obliterated. if i didn't, i'm sure i thought it and for a couple hours -- the fact the market is now effectively trading all-time highs into transports -- >> 11th record on the dow. >> that's a relief from getting these events out of the way. >> i don't know. i don't know -- maybe you're right. very good chance you are right. but i thought it would last -- let's put it this way. you may have gotten here. but i didn't think it was going to be on december 6. >> fair. >> you mean you thought it was going to be immediately after and then sell off. >> no, you probably thought it would last longer, yeah. and it is shocking. and the fact that -- how amazing is it that the volatility has fallen out of the marketplace.
5:25 pm
when you really take a look at this whole thing and going through the transitional process and you've got volatility under 12, it's absolutely spectacular. protect your positions, folks. protect them. >> still ahead, goldman sachs' stephen scherr joins us for an exclusive interview on what wall street will look like under president-elect trump. i'm melissa lee. you're watch "fast money" on cnbc, first in business worldwid worldwide.. in the meantime, here's what else is coming up on "fast." >> while banks are celebrating, one fast-growing financial advisory firm is asking the president-elect for more. >> please, sir. i want some more. >> why? the ceo of that company will explain. plus, trump dumps his stocks. >> trump has got a new game. >> so you want to know what was inside the portfolio? the answers when "fast money" returns.
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
it's your tv, take it with you. with directv and at&t, stream live tv anywhere, data-free. join directv today starting at $35/month. no extra monthly fees.
5:28 pm
whoopi is going to a concert. what concert is she seeing tonight? >> linda ronstadt. >> no, not linda ronstadt! i don't know! >> how about this -- give me another clue! where, in all of this, is the stuff that matters? the stakes are so high, your finances, your future. how do you solve this? you don't. you partner with a firm that advises governments and the fortune 500, and, can deliver insight person to person, on what matters to you. morgan stanley.
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
welcome back to "fast money." a number of names hitting new highs. we sit down with goldman sachs chief strategist officer, stephen scherr at the goldman sachs conference here in new york city. wilfred. >> melissa, thanks very much, indeed. as you say, joined by stephen scherr, chief strategy officer and relatively newly appointed ceo of goldman sachs banks usa. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> so bank stocks soaring. the attendance today at your company's own banks conference up 30% on last year. the mood very positive, indeed. is wall street back, and back with a bang? >> well, i think wall street is back. certainly the banks are back and the interest in the banks is certainly significant, as was evidenced here. i think the tone of this conference as you and i talked about was decidedly different.
5:32 pm
very upbeat, relative to where it's been over the last several years. and i think investors and the banks themselves are optimistic about the direction that the economy and the circumstances will take us. >> there's one question i wanted to hit on in particular. steve schwarzman said he felt regulation would be roll back more than he had seen in his whole 45-year career. is that what goldman thinks, as well? >> that's a big statement. i don't know if gets rolled back to that extent. i think there is an expectation, certainly held by the market that will see a very big turn to the positive, from the perspective of the banks in terms of regulation. but i think what we heard today in the various rooms and from the various ceos, which i think goldman would hold as well is we need to be a bit guarded in terms of just how much change we'll see, and the pace of that change. but it's very clear, the market has a high expectation of what regulatory change may bring. >> now it's been well-covered over the course of the last year or so, goldman sachs pushing
5:33 pm
into the consumer bank, a big sea change really for the investment bank focus company. i wonder whether now is the right time to do that. the positivity being brought back, the traditional business able to start doing well, rates about to go up. why are you starting to lend now? >> i think the basis for this was less a moment in time than it was our desire to build a business that's going to stand the test of time. and strategically speaking, we felt that the bank inside of goldman was a good platform for growth for the firm. and we looked at that, and thought about ways in which we could grow the firm through the bank. what businesses could we operate, what could we develop? again, less about a moment in time. but there's no ignoring where we are in the cycle and we're quite cognizant of it and billed underwriting standards in the business that take stock of the fact there may be a shift in terms of the overall, you know, tone of the credit market. but for us, this has been a lot
5:34 pm
about building and unsecured consumer lending business in the bank. and at the same time, building out an online deposit platform in the bank which i think is a strategic move for us, and less a reflection of a moment's view about where the market is. >> and how has it gone? what kind of level of deposits? >> so far, both businesses off to an early start. but a very good start. on the deposit side, since we took ownership of the deposit platform from ge, we have raised just shy of $3 billion of new deposits and 50,000 new customers that is new to goldman sachs. and we have seen that at a rate of acquisition higher than what ge had experienced with the business in their hands. we're now four or five weeks post launch on the online lending platform early to draw too firm a conclusion. what we have seen early has been very, very positive. it has met sort of what our expectations are. and i would say that we went into this with a view that we would be measured and slow and careful, and how we develop.
5:35 pm
and then look for further growth in '17 and beyond. >> going to bring in melissa. >> yes, steven, thanks so much for joining us here on "fast money." you know, it's interesting that you mentioned the decision to go into some of the consumer-facing businesses as an area that would give you growth at the time. has that time changed in your view of growth changed now that we are looking at a period where we could see a lot of deregulation? in other words? some of the decisions that goldman sachs has made over the past few years with this regulatory regime. could they be different now that we are facing a new era where some of these regulations will be repealed? in other words, could some of the businesses you have entered, could you exit them? could you bring back some of the businesses you abandoned under the tighter regulations? >> i think the short answer is no. you know, the way we approach this was this was really an opportunity for growth in the firm. it was not to substitute for other businesses. but really to be additive. what new could we bring to the firm. so to the extent that other
5:36 pm
businesses find a regulatory environment that's more conducive to those businesses, that's terrific. we'll pursue that as a firm. but it won't dissuade us from what it is we're pursuing over the longer-term. this is about adding new businesses to goldman sachs than it was in any way a reaction so as to substitute for other businesses that over the last several years may have been disadvantaged in the context of regulation. >> step, i wanted to finish by asking you, if i may, what's going on upstairs in the bro boardroom here at goldman sachs? the two remaining vice chairman that existed, mike schwartz and michael shoe are gone. and gary cohen is being forced out, possibly. is lloyd blankfein trying to consolidate? >> i wouldn't conclude the story in that way. i think that there has been enormous stability for a long, long time in goldman among the
5:37 pm
upper ranks of the firm. and i think what you're seeing in the context of some of the people going on, they have long tenure at the firm and i think they viewed it as a moment in time to go out and pursue other things. as far as gary is concerned, you know, gary is and has been an enormously positive force inside the firm. and i think, you know, the opportunity may well be presenting itself. i don't know the details. i read it as you do in the paper. but the opportunity may be there for gary to move into government. and i have every expectation he would be as positive a contributor there as he has been at goldman. but i wouldn't read into this sort of any -- any sort of story or plot. i think that these are all sort of events that are particular to the individual who is are moving on. >> presents opportunities, though, for other individuals like yourself? >> sure, by definition it does. whether that's for me or for others. i think across the firm, any time there is movement at the top or in other parts of the firm, by definition it presents
5:38 pm
opportunities and i think the bench at goldman is a deep one. and i think the firm will sort of carry on and in a way you might expect. >> stephen, thank you very much for joining us. thank you for having us at your conference all day. stephen scherr, goldman sachs. >> thank you so much for that exclusive interview. wilfred frost there. donald trump has embraced goldman sachs as he preparation himself for the white house. steven mnuchin as treasury secretary, and gary cohen as director of the office of budget. all this begging the question, is goldman sachs in the driver's seat and what do we make about his comments of goldman sachs you said a new potentially less regulated environment? >> well, if you want to think about one of the firms that was probably most handcuffed by dodd/frank and a post environment, it was goldman who was fine, et cetera, et cetera. so they probably have the most to gain and historically the most clever in an environment where they have been able to
5:39 pm
work within a system. if you listen to the schwartzman comments that we're going to -- the least amount of regulation or the biggest change to unwind in his tin you're, it's enormous to think where goldman could get very involved and be very successful. >> is goldman too cheap? you still look at him, even after this run. is it still too cheap? i would say yes. i look at bank of america, i think there is plenty more up side. if you get some loosening of the regulation and you start to get all of the other aspects that are going to absolutely impact the banks in a positive way i still think there is up side. that being said, i took off my xlf and i have sellers remorse, but i remain in bank of america and looking at goldman sachs and deutsche bank. >> do you do as morgan stanley said today and buy any dip in the financials? >> last night i said and i'll say it again. pete has been on this, karen, tim, dan. talking about the ability to be in a financial. so the answer to your question in short, is, yes. pete mentioned goldman sachs. if you look at a chart since the
5:40 pm
election, too much, too fast. but one thing i pointed out and say again, i don't think it's about pe multiple. i think now it comes down to price per book. tangible book in goldman sachs is about $169. at its peak i think in '07, goldman was trading two-and-a-half times book. i'm not suggesting it gets there. but all this regulation gets rachl ratcheted back, you could make an argument 1.75, 1.8 times the book, you do the math. >> almost a third of goldman's 35,000 employees, they're technicians, programmers, engineers. this can is built for this move into consumer, like you were just asking. so maybe that's what they have been doing very quietly as the institutional businesses have come under regulation. deregulation maybe opens the door. >> sprint's owner vowing to invest $50 billion in the united states today. and that's on shares of the wireless giant, soaring in afternoon trade. sprint, by the way. we will tell you just how high some see it going.
5:41 pm
and donald trump dumped his stock at the beginning of the summer. and you will not believe some of the names he held and some he didn't. some of the stocks that packed his portfolio. you're watching "fast money" on cnbc, first in business worldwide.
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
ladies and gentlemen, this is massa of the bank from japan and he's just agreed to invest $50 billion in the united states, and 50,000 jobs and he's one of the great men of industry. so i just want to thank you. >> thank you. >> that was president-elect donald trump with the ceo of soft bank earlier today, touting a $50 billion investment and check out the instant market reaction we saw in shares of sprint. remember that soft bank owns sprint. t-mobile also rallying on hopes, perhaps, soft bank's investment could end up being an acquisition of the tell com company. this will be had been on the table before. could this sort of a quid pro quo here, right? >> sort of? >> well -- we don't know anything yet. >> try to keep it away from the sort. . where did it come from? imagine cleel $50 billion investment. 50,000 jobs? that's a great number.
5:45 pm
to just sort of banty about. is there any substance behind these numbers? >> how many jobs, guy, do you think would be created if t-mobile and sprint were to merge? >> destruction -- job destruction. >> not only that, did he have him by the ear or was he pressing really hard right there? you know what i mean? >> by the way, how many jobs has he cut at sprint since -- since soft bank took it over a few years ago? so this is hardly an environment of a guy that at least in this country has been adding jobs. now, you know -- if that's what it takes to get the deal done, it's -- unbelievable. >> let's back up here for a second. soft bank and saudi arabia announce a couple months ago -- >> a tech fund. >> a tech fund. a $100 tech fund. soft bank has been an investor in many startups, alley ali baba. >> one of the leading companies
5:46 pm
from japan suddenly at a time when the u.s. is closing its -- making it much more difficult for companies to do business here, suddenly say, yeah, come on. we'll give you whatever you want. they should be doing the same thing back inside their borders. this is a guy who has to come back home and not look like he's lost some face. so just assume everyone is bowing at this point -- >> so you think it is a quid pro quo. i was trying to take the other side. >> i think we all do agree -- maybe there is some agreement. there certainly could be some conversations about how things are going to be able to go and handshake deals, the way it looks and the way donald is presenting this so far. >> yeah. you saw a lot of options activity. correct? >> it was interesting. should i go do the walk and talk? >> yeah, can you do that at the same time? >> challenging. >> when that statement came out, you know, sprint was down on the day. you saw the day chart. the flurry of activity went up pretty quickly. as you can see from this chart right here, it went up. and then it spent the rest of the day going down.
5:47 pm
call volume spike, two times that of puts. and the most active call strikes where this weekly december 8th calls, and then the next week, 8th calls and there were about 2,000 traded individually and that doesn't say anything about some sort of commitment to a story here. so obviously the notion of t-mobile and sprint merging would be a great thing. they could take tons of costs out here. but that's not likely going to happen. based on conversation in trump tower here. so back to soft bank. they own 83% of sprint. they have a ton of debt. this is a $33 billion market cap company. they have about $31 billion in net debt. and they have no profits. when you think about t-mobile on the other side, it's a $37 billion company. and they have a net income of about 1.25. those are not two very profitable businesses. a lot of costs have to come out. if you're trying to get a sense for sprint and saying the combination would be good, it
5:48 pm
might be good but not for job growth. this is the thing since it was spun out here, had this run. this is the move, obviously, an easier regulatory environment would be easier for these guys to get bought. i suspect it's something more like a cable company rather than a merger of these two equals. >> so you think, both of these stocks rose, t-mobile and sprint, because an outside party could buy one of them. >> we mentioned on a few occasions. t-mobile going up, trading at all-time highs here and i think that is a very likely candidate to get acquired. i'm not so certain it's going to be a merger of the three and four player in the wireless space. >> who is with dan on the cable company idea? cable company -- >> quickly, on at&t, i think it sort of fits -- look what at&t has done. over the summer topped out for obviously reasons when rates were at their lowest, people looking for yield. one of the things we said was -- if you think rates are going up, which i didn't, by the way. at&t is an absolute sell and will go back and retest levels we last saw over the last few years. 35.5, 36. look what happened in october.
5:49 pm
now that stock is rising, as interest rates are rising which to me is somewhat counterintuitive. maybe there something going on at at&t. i think the stock continues to go higher. >> for more "options action," check out the full show, 5:30 p.m. eastern on friday. still ahead, donald trump dumping stocks at the beginning of the summer. you won't believe some of the names he held and some of the names he didn't. we'll give you the details after this break. hey gary, what are you doing? oh hey john, i'm connecting our brains so we can share our amazing trading knowledge. that's a great idea, but why don't you just go to thinkorswim's chat rooms where you can share strategies, ideas, even actual trades with market professionals and thousands of other traders? i know. your brain told my brain before you told my face. mmm, blueberry? tap into the knowledge of other traders on thinkorswim. only at td ameritrade.
5:50 pm
it's your tv, take it with you. with directv and at&t, stream live tv anywhere, data-free. join directv today starting at $35/month. no extra monthly fees. ♪ well, if you want to sing out, sing out ♪ ♪ and if you want to be free, be free ♪ ♪ 'cause there's a million things to be ♪ ♪ you know that there are ♪ and if you want to be me, be me ♪ ♪ and if you want to be you, be you ♪ ♪ 'cause there's a million things to do ♪ ♪ you know that there are ♪
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
name . welcome back to "fast money." donald trump sold all of his stock holdings back in june. which means trump missed out on a big part of his own rally. so what did he own? dom chu is breaking it down in the news room. dom. >> melissa, donald trump doesn't own stocks. but he had a few holdings in the tech sector that are turning some heads. first of all, he did own at one point stock in the biggest company out there, apple. a company that trump has said he wants to work with on getting it to make products here in the u.s. internet retail giant, amazon, also among trump's holdings despite what appeared to be a contentious relationship between him and amazon founder, jeff bezos who also owns the
5:53 pm
"washington post" which trump openly criticized in the past, along with bezos and then alphabet which he also owned stock in as well. mega cap tech will be especially after the "new york times" reported that trump is looking to convene a high-level tech related conference sometime next week, according to a source familiar. now it remains to be seen when and if this meeting returns and who in the tech world attends. regardless, trump's relationship will be a huge focus during his presidency and speaking of tech, guess what stocks weren't high on the list of bigger holdings, social media like facebook and twitter, which some would argue, melissa, were two big platforms for helping donald trump win the election. back over to you guys. >> thank you, dom chu. and the flip side to that is, he's really singled out a couple of tech companies on the campaign trail, apple and amazon. apple, of course, saying they should bring jobs back to the united states in terms of putting together the iphone and
5:54 pm
also amazon effectively saying that amazon has got a big antitrust problem here. so the stocks you think he would own, he doesn't. the stocks you wouldn't think he owns, he did. >> i suspect the relationship with silicon valley and tech in particular gets better than it has been in the press over the last couple months. these guys have to work with the administration. technology is going in the direction, even if he's not, even if he doesn't have a computer on his desk, there is about 300 million people in this country who do. and about 2 billion people around the world. it's going in different direction and they'll learn how to work with this administration. >> forget oil. this is our greatest export. and i think it would be crazy to not engender better relations and i'm sure they will. and ultimately it comes down to i think setting some parameters with what can be done with outsourcing. let's face it. a lot of these tech companies operate in asia where it's easy to do so. >> we have been having this conversation here in the united
5:55 pm
states. manufacturing jobs largely and a lot of critics say automation is the number one sort of job-killer out there. could we face an environment where donald trump picks up the phone where a company using some of these technologies developed in silicon valley saying hey, you know what? we want to preserve these jobs, not eliminate these jobs. because of automation. >> that would be a huge mistake. i mean -- >> yes. >> it's been in the history of mankind there's been automation that -- that is extraordinarily deflationary. in the wake of that, jobs are create and had allows people to do bigger and better things. if you were to go down that path and this is coming from me, by the way, who -- >> u.p.s. at one point. >> damn straight, i did. >> were you outsourced by automation? >> a robot now delivering the packages instead of guy. a robot -- looks good on the ground, by the way. >> somewhere in the archives, there was me at u.p.s. and as paris would say, that's hot. >> i think the most impressive
5:56 pm
thing to me, as critical as he has been on amazon and apple, he owned those stocks. which tells you he can put his ego aside. >> he didn't have anything to do with it, let's be frank, okay? the guy is worth $10 billion but has $40 million in stocks and spending every day watching "fast money," i don't think so. i'll make this one point. >> i have no idea where your bitterness is coming from. the man put it aside and said i might be critical but can still invest in this company. >> those three stocks right there, if they were to join the trump rally, then the market goes straight up. if we just -- i'm just saying, if we can hold some of the gains -- because they have not been participating, they're down. there you go. >> watch out there, bear! >> coming up, used car at their highest in ears and guy looking to get in on an auto name. mar "fast money," next. sat their highest in ears and guy looking to get in on an auto name. mar "fast money," next. at their highest in ears and guy looking to get in on an auto name. mar "fast money," next. years an looking to get in on an auto name. mar "fast money," next.
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
"final trade" time. pete. >> mt is the symbol here. this thing is going higher. they keep on buying. they keep on stretching out. they went out to june, now huge buying. mt. >> tim bow. >> bbn. >> i agree that goldman is probably the benefit niche area of all of the things that have gone on so far but i wouldn't buy it here.
6:00 pm
>> >> ooh. >> guy. >> some belligerence what do you think? >> belligerence? >> me! i will -- thanks for watching. see you back here tomorrow at 5:00. in the meantime, my mission is simple. to make you money. i'm here to level the playing field for all investors. there's always a bull market somewhere, and i promise to help you find it. "mad money" starts now. hey, i'm cramer. welcome to "mad money." welcome to cramerica. other people want to make friend. i'm just trying to make you money. my job, not just to entertain, but also to educate. so call me at or tweet me @jimcramer.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on