partnership between afghanistan and the united states. at the same time, you're talking about -- [inaudible] withdrawal of soldiers from afghanistan. how do you insure the long-term or how do you define the long-term strategy partnership after 2017? or from 2017 onward? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i wanted to -- what do you expect, what would the expectations coming to the united states, and what would you like to return with to afghanistan? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: our expectations were that our cooperation will be enhanced, and we will have clear vision and practical vision for cooperation for an enduring cooperation with the united states with be there, and this change of environment has

occurred, and today the united states government considers the government of afghanistan a really reliable partner. commitments that are made are considerable, and the funding proposal of supporting afghan security forces by 2017, and it has reached to $4.1 billion. it's nothing less. it's a significant issue. it's a very important issue. and also yesterday there was a new framework of our economic cooperation was laid out according to which $800 million were made, a commitment were made that those will be spent through the afghan budget. but most importantly is the mr. flexibility that has been shown

in the area of security cooperation. and this flexibility is going to insure and provide confidence to our security forces and our people and also is going to send a very strong message to the region that this cooperation is not short term, but is enduring and long term. >> our strategic partnership is based on a very simple principle. we want the afghan people through their security forces directed by their president and commander in chief to be able to provide for their own security. and our goal is to make sure that we are a strong partner in helping to build and sustain effective afghan security forces. so from the start when i first came into office, we put

additional u.s. troops, coalition troops and resources into afghanistan to shift momentum at a time when the taliban and the enemies of peace and stability inside of afghanistan, i think, were moving and had momentum. we broke that momentum. elections took place, and the afghan national security forces began to build up and get trained and become more and more effective. and because of a successful election and a national unity government and the leadership of president ghani and dr. abdullah, we are now in a position where the afghan security forces are not only more effective, but they're also better directed by the civilian government. we've been automobile to draw down and -- able to draw down and remove ourselves from a combat role as president ghani

indicated without collapse as was predicted. and afghan soldiers have fought, and they've fought well. and, obviously, there are still improvements to be made, but they're making significant progress. so the strategic partnership involves us continuing to help support afghan security forces, that means financially. the international community's going to have to continue to provide assistance to the afghan government which is carrying a significant security load not only for itself, but for the region and in some ways the world. and we've made a commitment to do that. we're going to continue to provide the kind of security, cooperation and support that is required, training, assisting, advising, helping on logistics, helping on developing enabler capacity, all the things that go into a modern military, professional military, a professional police force that can provide security on afghan

soil, by afghans. and the cooperation and the strategic partnership involves building up the prosperity and opportunities for the afghan people through the economic development that was mentioned by the president. so, you know, we intend to be working with the afghan government and the afghan people for a long time. and, you know, in many ways our troop presence, our military assistance is just one component of what is a much larger process. and the more successful we are in building afghan capacity and strengthening the afghan economy, the more the strategic partnership that we have will be like the partnership that we have with many countries around the world. and it will be based on mutual interest and scientific and

educational exchanges and business opportunities and commerce and trade. and that, i think, is the goal that we're all looking for. josh letterman. >> thank you, mr. president. you've made very clear that you're not buying prime minister netanyahu's attempts to walk back the comments he made before the election opposing palestinian statehood and that you're reassessing your approach. what could prime minister netanyahu do, if anything, in the short term to persuade you that he's serious about israeli-palestinian peace and he's an honest broker you could work with, or is it too late during your presidency? and, president ghani, if i may, you've been working very hard to pursue reconciliation talks with the taliban, but there's some indications that's not going so well and they may not be willing to sit down with you. what makes you hopeful that you can get those talks off the

ground, and do you want the u.s. to be involved in those talks? >> let me, first of all, address your second question about spying allegations. as a general rule, i don't comment on intelligence manners in a big room full of reporters. [laughter] and i think i'll continue that tradition. but with respect to the possibility of a, an agreement that insures that iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, we have not just briefed congress about the progress or lack thereof that's being made, but we also briefed the israelis. and our other partners in the region and around the world. and if, in fact, an agreement is arrived at that we feel confident will prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, it's

going to be there for everybody to see. and people are going to be able to lift up the hood and see what's in there. so, you know, i have confidence that the if there's an agreement, it's going to be a good agreement that's good for american security and israeli security and the region's security. and if it isn't, then there probably won't be an agreement. so there will be, i think, significant transparency in the whole process. with respect to israel's relations with the palestinians, i think it's important to understand that, um, the issue here is not what i believe, but it's what the palestinians and the parties in the negotiations and the's railly people -- and the israeli people believe is

possible. that's the most important issue. you know, i've said before and i'll simply repeat, you know, prime minister netanyahu in the election run-up stated that that a palestinian state would not occur while he was prime minister. and i took him at his word, that that's what he meant. and i think that a lot of voters inside of israel understood him to be saying that fairly unequivocally. afterwards he pointed out that he didn't say "never," but that there would be a series of conditions in which a palestinian state could potentially be created. but, of course, the conditions were such that they would be impossible to meet anytime soon.

so even if you accept it, i think the corrective of prime minister netanyahu's in subsequent days, there still does not appear to be a prospect of a meaningful framework established that would lead to a palestinian state even if there were a whole range of conditions and security requirements that might be phased in over a long period of time which it was always the presumption. i don't think anybody ever envisioned in any peace agreement, certainly not one that prime minister netanyahu would agree to or that the israeli people would agree to, that overnight you suddenly have a palestinian state right next to jerusalem and that israel would not have a whole range of security conditions that had to be met and that it would be phased in over a long period of

time. so the issue has never been do you create a palestinian state overnight, the question is do you create as process and a framework that gives the palestinians hope, the possibility that down the road they have a secure state of their own standing side by side with a secure, fully-recognized jewish state of israel. and i think it's not just my estimation, i think it's hard to envision how that happens based on the prime minister's statements. and so when i said that we have to now do an evaluation of where we are, it's not in reference to our commitment to israel's

military edge in the region, us reel's security -- israel's security, our intelligence cooperation, our military cooperation. that continues up abated. unabated. and i will continue to do whatever i need to do to make sure that our friends in israel are safe. that's what i've done since i've been president. and that's not going to stop. and so the israeli people need to know that. but i am to evaluate honestly how we manage israeli/palestinian relations over the next several years. because up until this point the premise has been both under republican and democratic administrations that as difficult as it was, as challenging as it was, the possibility of two states living side by side in peace and security could marginalize more extreme elements, bring together

folks at the center with some common sense, and we could resolve what has been a vexing issue and one that is, ultimately, a threat to israel as well. and that possibility seems very dim. that may trigger, then, reactions by the palestinians that in turn elicit counterreactions by the israelis. and that could end up leading to a downward spiral in relations that will be dangerous for everybody and bad for everybody. so bottom line just to summarize here, number one, our military intelligence cooperation with israel will continue unabated, unaffected, and we are absolutely committed to making sure that the israeli people are safe particularly from rocket attacks and terrorist attacks

aimed on civilians. number two, that the evaluation that's taking place is specific to what happens between israelis and palestinians going forward. we'll continue to engage the israeli government as well as the palestinians and ask them where they are interested in going and how do they see this issue being resolved. but what we can't do is pretend that there's a possibility of something that's not there. and we can't continue to express our public diplomacy based on something everybody knows is not going to happen, at least in the next several years. that is something that we have to, for the sake of our own credibility, i think we have to be able to be honest about that. and i guess one last point about

this, because obviously i've heard a lot of the commentary. there's a tendency, i think, this the reporting here to frame this somehow as a personal issue between myself and president -- prime minister netanyahu. and i understand why that's done, because when you frame it in those terms, the notion is, well, can't we all just get along and everybody cools down, then somehow the problem goes away. i have a very business-like relationship with prime minister, i've met with him more than any other world leader, i talk to him all the time. you know, he is representing his country's interests the way he thinks he needs to, and i'm doing the same.

so the issue is not a matter of relations between leaders, the issue is a very clear, substantive challenge. we believe that two states is the best path forward for israel's security, for palestinian aspirations and for regional stability. that's our view, and that continues to be our view. and prime minister netanyahu has a different approach. and so this is, this can't be reduced to a matter of somehow let's all, you know, hold hands and sing "kumbaya", this is a matter of figuring out how do we get through a real knotty policy difference that has great consequences for both countries and for the region. okay?

the evaluation, we're going to partial wait for a partial israeli government to form. >> president obama has supported an afghan-led and afghan-owned peace process, and we are confident that this approach will bear the results in time. peace is always difficult, and it requires focus, attention and sacrifice, and that's what we are willing to do to bring it about. [inaudible] >> thank you very much, mr. president, i have got a question for mr. obama. you just mentioned that afghanistan is still a dangerous place. while it's a dangerous place, is it the right decision t draw down the force labor at a time --

[inaudible] less equipped and they cannot fight truly? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the peace process, what was your initial or your request from the united states president? >> translator: t the united states has agreed with us that the peace process will be led by afghans. and afghans will be, will continue this process, and it will be led by afghans, and this is -- [inaudible] and we are thankful for the support. >> afghanistan is still a dangerous place. the way it's going to become less dangerous is by afghan

security forces and afghan police being capable of keeping law and order and security in the country. and that is not going to happen if foreign forces are continually relied upon for the basic security of afghanistan. so there are going to be specialized areas where we can cooperate dealing with some of the most vicious terrorist networks. this is going to be intelligence cooperation -- there is going to be intelligence cooperation and counterterrorism cooperation, and there are going to be specialized areas where we can provide logistical support and training and enabling support. but the fact is that unless afghan soldiers and afghan police are able to maintain security, at some point someday

the united states and other coalition forces would leave. and, you know, the good news is what we've seen as we've removed ourselves from combat roles is that the afghan security forces have stepped up. and although they're certainly not as well equipped as coalition forces, they're better equipped than the taliban, they're better equipped than the haqqani network. and so with the kind of leadership that president ghani's showing as a commander in chief, with the leadership that's being shown by a growing cadre of military officers up and down the military chain, you

know, afghan forces are proving themselves and discovering that, in fact, when they fight, they can be successful. and we want to stand with them in that process because we are very much invested in your success. so, mr. president, thank you for an outstanding visit. >> thank you. cheryl: and we have been monitoring a news conference, the east room of the white house, between the president of the united states, president obama and, of course, the new president of afghanistan, ashraf ghani. couple of big headlines coming out of that news conference. good afternoon, everybody, i'm cheryl casone in for liz claman today. two major stories breaking at this hour, the president addressing both of them. first, to the initial news, president obama spending the day with afghanistan's new president. the two leaders wrapping up that joint press conference just a few moments ago. president obama did say the u.s. is admitted to keeping -- committed to keeping almost 10,000 troops p on the ground in afghanistan through the end of

the year, 13 years, $60 billion. we're going to be talking about that. also he did address questions about the question mark that came through courtesy of the "wall street journal" today, did the netanyahu government spy on u.s. nuclear talks with iran and then share that information with some u.s. lawmakers? that happened, according to a report, in the journal this morning. joining me now for a reaction, adviser on middle eastern and southeastern affairs -- [inaudible] and rich edson in washington. rich, we expected the president to be asked about the journal story this morning that the israelis were spying on us, and the president was very combative saying we will continue to share intelligence with the israelis. finish. >> reporter: right, cheryl. the claim in the "wall street journal" report from some unnamed's railly government officials was that the reason that perhaps this spying had gone on or that there was a question as to whether or not the u.s. was sharing enough information with the

-- me he iran negiatins, at t esident is saying is, first off, when it comes to intelligence matters, he refuses to comment. that's the line out of the state department earlier today, but he does say the u.s. government was sharing information with the israelis and the u.s. congress. so this continued. he was also asked about comments that prime minister benjamin netanyahu had made on election day in israel saying that while he was prime minister, there would never be the establishment of an independent palestinian state. then days later seemingly walking back those comments a little bit. to that, the president said that i took him at hishe day, and he says it doesn't appears despite what he said, there is any type of workable framework that would very manically lead to the creation of a palestinian state anytime soon, cheryl. cheryl: all right, rich. a couple of interesting things, first, i do want to start with the relationship between prime minister netanyahu and president

obama. it didn't seem that the president, our president, made any new inroads to kind of heal that relationship. but what do you make of these allegations this morning that the israelis were spying on the iran nuclear talks which the u.s., we should say in that report this morning according to the journal, they cut out the israelis, they did not share intelligence with them at the beginning of those talks with iran? >> yeah, i think it's a matter of sequencing in terms of the time. so when the president says he shares information with u.s. allies including israel, he's talking about when, you know, they have something to share or when they decide to share. from the israeli point of view, it's already too late by then. they want to be able to shape these nuclear negotiations given the divergence in israeli and american interests when it comes to iran and, therefore, they want information in advance. i'm not really surprised. though i don't know if we want to call this spying. i mean, that may be a loaded term here but, you know, collecting information, this is only natural for countries

whether they're foes or, you know, friends. cheryl: well, but certainly the prime minister of israel had a lot to monitor here, because he was going himself into re-election as these talks were underway last year. at the same time, president obama reiterated the fact that he took netanyahu at his word when he said that he did not see a two-state solution as long as he was prime minister of us reel. there -- of israel. there have been reports mr. netanyahu has backed off that language. what do you think's really happening right now? >> i think the that the prime minister's remarks on the palestinian state, you know, are neither here nor there in terms of sort of geopolitical implications. it's not as if there was going to be a palestinian state anytime soon, which the president just mentioned. the other thing is, you know, israel has a lot of room to maneuver when it come toss the palestinian issue for the simple reason there is no single palestinian entity the that the israelis can negotiate with. you have hamas in the gaza

strip, and you have fatah in the west bank. yes, they've tried to come up with a unity government, but nonetheless, that's a work in progress. so there is no negotiating partner, and those talks are not going anywhere. so it's not as if prime minister netanyahu was saying something surprising. cheryl: all right. stay with me just for a moment here, i want to get can your comments on the original reason that we had this news conference today. rich edson, i want to bring you back in because, again, this is the new president of afghanistan. one of the things he actually made a comment, i thought was fascinating, he thanked the american taxpayer for their help in afghanistan, $60 billion we have spent many 13 years -- in 13 years. is the new president of afghanistan a better ally than hamid karzai was? >> reporter: well, thus par the add -- far the administration has been saying so. even president obama has said so. there was really little love lost between the two leaders of the two nations toward the end

of that tenure, when it came to securing a status of forces agreement, all the tension that was had. as soon as ashraf ghani takes over, he signs the status of forces agreement, ghani comes here today, there was a meeting at camp david yesterday with u.s. officials, paid his respects at arlington national cemetery and will address congress, all of these things, you know, really putting on a good face, thanking the american taxpayer for this and the ability to work out a security agreement laid out today, about 10,000 troops remaining til the end of this year and with the goal by the end of 2016, the end of president obama's term, to have only a security force there to secure the u.s. embassy compound for about a thousand troops there. of course, republicans are already pushing back on that. you've heard from senators lindsey graham and john mccabe today -- mccain saying any type of timeline here, and other republicans have also criticized

the president for that. cheryl: yeah, i saw those this morning. komam, it seems to me going down to less than 10,000 troops, still the threat of isis has been a very recent threat. can we be so sure that getting down to a thousand troops by the end of 2016 when the president's term is over is going to be enough for the afghan people to stay safe? >> well, it depends on a number of things. foremost, i think, is the issue being talked about the least which is the negotiations that are taking place with the taliban. so the united states was negotiating with the jihadist movement in an effort to come up with some power-sharing formula. that did not happen. and, of course, the afghan government -- under former president karzai -- did not really like washington directly dealing with the taliban. so is now we have the new president, president ashraf ghani and ceo abdullah abdullah, and we're seeing now they're

having talks with the taliban. so how those talks progress will determine security to a great extent moving forward. and to the extent that the u.s. would have to sort of reevaluate its position in 2016, because, you know, if we're reevaluating right now, who is to say we're not going to reevaluate, you know, in two years' time? cheryl: absolutely. thank you very much, adviser on middle east and south affairs. of course, we'll continue to follow a lot of breaking news right now within the markets and in the news including what's happening also in washington. the supremert cou is deciding whether a second mortgage on a home that is underwater can be wiped out in bankruptcy along with that original mortgagement same home. joining me now live from the supreme court, fox business senior washington correspondent peter barnes. peter, a big -- this is big for the banks, it's big for homeowners. >> reporter: yeah, that's right. a couple million homeowners could be affected by this, cheryl, and this goes back to

the legacy of the housing bubble when anybody could get a loan, and we all thought that housing prices were going to keep going to the moon. a couple of home buyers in florida got second mortgages from countrywide which was later taken over by bank of america in the financial crisis. well, the housing bubble popped, the homeowners saw their property values collapse, they were underwater, they filed for bankruptcy, got foreclosed. and this case is specifically about those second mortgages and the different interpretations of the bankruptcy code and previous court decisions. the homeowners say the law allows a bankruptcy court to eliminate those second mortgages when they become totally worthless. bank of america says,some circuy court cannot eliminate the second mortgage, and rightly so because what if the value of the home rebounds enough to cover second mortgage in part or in whole and repay the bank? the banks are watching this case closely because if bank of america loses, the banks

themselves might lose billions on second mortgages. justices asked a lot of it can call questions about bankruptcy law. hard to tell which way they will go, but do want to mention a comment by swing voter justice anthony kennedy to the lawyer for the homeowners, he said, quote: it's hard for me to think a decision in your favor wouldn't hurt mortgage p lending, the market for second mortgages would dry up. cheryl: that is interesting, but, yeah, the 11th circuit court of appeals upheld the discussion. >> reporter: that's right. cheryl: peter barnes, thank you very much. we are going to have a lot more on this topic, i'm going to be talking to dan humphries about this story and, of course, new home sales. closing bell, 29 minutes to go. a question, what caused a low-cost german jetliner to crash into the french alps this morning? french investigators are now on the ground combing through the wreckage. they recovered one of the plane's black boxes. we are, of course, going to have the latest details on this developing story today. and also we're following

something out of california. the sexual discrimination suit against venture suit against -- [inaudible] is wrapping up today in san francisco. will jurors believe ellen powell's allegations that she was mistreated at a male-dominated firm or the defense's argument that she was catty and tough to get along with? as much as $160 million hangs in the balance. ♪ ♪

the road. it can bring out the worst in people. but the m-class scans for danger... ...corrects for lane drifting... ...and if necessary, it will even brake all by itself. it is a luxury suv engineered to get you there and back safely. for tomorrow is another fight. the 2015 m-class.

see your authorized dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services.

cheryl: we are following the very latest developments in the crash of lufthansa's germanwings airbus 320 incolluding the recent recover of one of the two black box. the plane crashed in a remote area of the french alps, and just moments ago president obama said the u.s. was willing to offer assistance.

>> i called german chancellor merkel, and i hoped to -- i hope to speak with the president of spain later today to express the condolences of the american people and to offer whatever assistance we can as they investigate what has proven to be an awful tragedy. cheryl: joining me now with the latest from the crash investigation, fox business' adam shapiro. what do we know at this hour, adam? >> reporter: as you say, they've recovered one of the recording devices. that device will be key in helping explain why this flight, which took off -- and this was the subsidiary of rough tan sa germanwings which is a no-frills discount line -- from barcelona to dusseldorf took off roughly

9:55 a.m. this morning, and then at about 10:53 dis appeared -- disappeared from the radar screen. it reached its cruising altitude, and within a minute of reaching that, began a descent in which it actually came down 14,000 in six minutes. now, different aviation analysts have said that kind of descent is nothing abrupt that you might see that in the normal course of flight. this is early in the flight, it's not as if they're coming in for a landing. there's an emergency airport from not far where the plane went off radar in marseilles, but they don't know what this flight might have encountered. the u.s. has said there's no indication of some kind of terrorist attack. all 150 people aboard the flight are believed to be dead. the ceo of the airlines said there will be a further update tomorrow. cheryl: adam p shapiro with the latest details. the a320 is a workhorse really

when it comes to airbus aircraft. we'll have any details as we get them into fox business. also the most powerful woman on wall street is packing her bags, and she's taking her talent to silicon valley. the cfo of morgan stanley making a very big announcement today. what does this really mean and what does her loss mean to morgan stanley? charlie gasparino is now here. you know the company, the bank so well. >> and i know a lot of people there. ruth has been with morgan stanley mainly her spire career. she was there 27 years. she's done -- she was a technology banker, so it's not out of the ordinary that she goes to google. she's focused on a lot of silicon valley companies during the technology boom in the 1990s. but this was a woman who was fast tracked to be in the senior management of wall street. she probably -- she had a shot at running morgan stanley someday or maybe another big wall street firm. so then the question becomes why do you make what is,

essentially -- and you look at all, you know, you just sort of weigh it, in the old days this would be less than a lateral move. but right now it's a lateral move to be cfo of google. because she's not going to be running google. why is she doing that? and when you talk to the people at morgan stanley, they will concede it is the environment, it's the issues that affect all these big banks on regulation that is forcing a lot of smart people not just at the upper end, but a lot of kids too to go to to silicon valley, take jobs at tech firms because that's where the money is. the fact of the matter is that -- and this is just the latest manifestation. mike cavanaugh left to go to the carlyle group, i believe, a private equity firm. this is the latest manifestation of fact that really smart people on wall street have come to the conclusion that all these firms are more or less utilities now. they are regulated so heavily by the government, the government has taken so much risk out of the business that there's not enough money -- you can't make

enough money. so smart people will go where the money is. they will go to silicon valley, private equity, hedge funds. you might say to yourself that's a what the government should do after the financial crisis. didn't risk cause the financial crisis? there are a lot of other issues including massive government intervention in the mortgage market and, you know, bank-banks combining -- federally-insured banks combining with trading houses that caused citigroup to implode and all these big institutions that really shook the financial business. that also, that caused the financial crisis as well. and when you start taking risk out of the system, not only do smart people leave because more money can be made elsewhere -- cheryl: she was very highly valued and respected at morgan stanley. >> >> oh, yeah. banks have to put too much capital aside. morgan stanley, goldman sachs doesn't hold bonds for their big

pension fund customers and, guess what? if you have an implosion particularly if the fed raises rates, who's going the buy those bonds? those bonds are going to go dramatically, and it's going to hurt pensioners because the prices are going to fall sharply. that's what wall street did. wall street came in and took the risk for those things and often made money at it. sometimes they didn't, but they often did. and when you eliminate that risk that dodd-frank has done, not only will wall street stop doing good things, it'll stop making money, as much money, and people like ruth porat will leave. she's a casualty of dodd-frank -- cheryl: and she was supposedly in line to be the ceo before he came along. >> well, i think she was in there. now, i always think james had the inside track, but there are, essentially, three people before she left that were, that had a shot at his job if and when he leaves, frank fleming who runs wealth management, tom call her and ruth porat, the cfo. often that puts you in a really good position.

a lot of people think fleming has got the inside shot. now, i mean, he really has the inside shot. cheryl: interesting. again, morgan stanley a bank you know very, very well. thank you, sir. >> okay. cheryl: all right. the closing bell's going to ring, 18 minutes to go. we're going to stay on silicon valley here for a moment. one powerful woman that's heading there to another involved in a very ugly lawsuit there. the final scene of a shakespearean dra playing out in a san francisco courtroom right now. closing arguments in ellen powell's potentially landmark sex discrimination case. those arguments understood way right now. the stakes just got a whole lot higher. we're going to be covering thatm story. ve plus, i it seems like a sw of portfolio managers are screaming buy europe. well, someone's coming on to dis say, hey, not so fast, you want to stay and buy in the u.s. we'll be right back. which leads to better decisions for our clients. it's a uniquely collaborative approach

you won't find anywhere else. put our global active management expertise to work for you. mfs. there is no expertise without collaboration. it's more than tit's security - and flexibility. it's where great ideas and vital data are stored. with centurylink you get advanced technology solutions from a trusted it partner. including cloud and hosting services - all backed by an industry leading broadband network and people committed to helping you grow your business. you get a company that's more than just the sum of it's parts. centurylink. your link to what's next.

cheryl: down to the final words. closing arguments began in the

trial of ellen powell versus kleiner perkins. powell is suing the venture capital firm for sexual discrimination and retaliation. a lot is at stakes as much as $160 million as well as the reputation of a firm that really helped launch firms like google, twitter and amazon. our tech reporter joins us right now. what did you hear? >> we're in the closing arguments, and to onus is really on ellen pao's lawyers to prove that there was real discrimination here and that there was malice, you know, ill intent, cruelty that happened here and she was really injured in a big way, because that's where the $144 million in punitive damages comes into place. she could win up to $144 million some reale damages, and that's malice here, so that's really what they're trying to do. cheryl: so let's talk about

this. we're not at, i think the punitive damages surprised us. now we're at 160. 144 million potentially in punitive damages, how much of a surprise was that to trial watchers like yourself that have been following this case from the beginning? because it really opens the window into a firm we never hear much about, to be honest with you. >> that's true, that's the real benefit of being in the private market is that you can really have, you know, privacy. and a lot of things have been dragged out, shown on projectors in the courtroom here. private e-mails, text messages, performance reviews. everyone's dirt is really out on the table, and no one really comes away looking great here, not kleiner perkins, but also not ellen pao. part of the defense has been to prove it was just because she couldn't measure up as an employee, and she wasn't good enough to be promoted -- cheryl: so no one's got the upper hand? i'm sorry, no one has the upper hand in your opinion right now? >> exactly. that's the real challenge here, and we're all kind of looking at the jury to try and see what they think. there's no smoking gun.

these are a lot of really subtle things that you could say this is gender discrimination, or you could just say, you know what? she didn't fit in. so it's really tough. but everyone's watching because it's not just ellen pao here now. in the past week we've seen complaints filed against twitter and against facebook from former employees, females who are saying there was discrimination there too. so it seems like this could be really setting a precedent for all of silicon valley and more suits like this in the future if she's successful. cheryl: well, it's not a new allegation that there's gender discrimination in silicon valley, but colleen taylor, thank you very much. >> thank you. cheryl: well, you don't have to go very far to grow your portfolio. some investors are taking their money overseas, but there's a promise right here at home to make money in the long term. if you've been overlooking the u.s., our market panel -- you know who they are -- they have some stock picks they're going to show you, there's no place like home. george young, valair balance

fund portfolio manager, they're both here to tell you how to play the u.s. ec with ity markets for the -- equity markets for the long haul. you and i have talked emerging markets, but you're telling me, wait a minute, not so fast on waiting on the u.s. >> that's exactly right. a lot of investors right now are turning bearish on the u.s. because they're seeing a bad run of dollar, good opportunities, and we agree with that overseas. what we're saying to our clients is there are very good opportunities here in the u.s. we're about to experience a resurgence in business investment. cheryl: george, he kind of alluded to this, the data. new home sales today actually pretty strong in theory, but you've also got the threat of the fed and the interest rate hike and the dollar which he also mentions hurting earnings. everyone's telling us that's going to be an issue. how do i protect myself against that? >> say domestic. we think it's pretty simple. we've been domestic for a long time in our villere balance fund, and we think that's the

way to go. it's interesting, because all of a sudden you've got problems that are appearing once again; the greek exit, the weakness in the euro that are sort of confirming our thesis. so the money's starting to grow goo our stocks -- into our stocks which are domestically orr p yeted. and remember very importantly, it doesn't take a whole lot of capital for our stocks to get moved along. this is not like these huge companies that a lot of folks open. we have small or mid cap, so once the money starts flowing in, the momentum carries it forward. we're very optimistic. cheryl: david asman's going to be joining me in a few moments, we've got two guests that say this year is going to be rocky for u.s. stocks, and that, you know, that's when people start to kind of sell their stocks and buy bonds. what do you say to that person? >> look, i entirely disagree with that. we're bullish on u.s.ing by says. equities, we far prefer equities over the bonds simply looking at the real returns out of bonds versus ec ec by by -- equities.

we're managing towards u.s. we can i is the -- equities as well as europe and japan, but in the areas of technology, consumer discretionary, in the areas of industrial production, they're the three sectors that we're bullish on. cheryl: george, we were just looking at the markets, and we are seeing a little bit of an escalation in selling. not a lot of points, but it's enough to hammer home the point that this has been the new reality, and we're almost to the end of the first quarter. do you think things are going to turn around? >> i don't know if it's going to turn around immediately but, remember, if you're an investor, you've got to take a long-term approach. our company's been in business for 100 years, it's a family-owned business. we understand patience, we understand investing. remember, this is not gambling, it's investing. it takes a long time for a theory to come into play, so we're happy to wait for a long period of time. over time our funds have done very well, good cash flow coming into our funds. so i think it's very important for the investor to remember this is an investment game. things don't happen overnight.

unfortunately, a lot of people are are forced to look at their portfolios on a daily basis because they've got availability i have cra the internet. you've got to be extremely patient, there are a lot of opportunities out there. cheryl: as you get closer to retirement, you do start to look at that portfolio a lot. >> i understand. cheryl: more than you did when you were 25, especially if you're 55 now. really quick, george, and this is to both of you, favorite sector right now. just one sector. >> i'm not going to go with a sector, we have certain stocks that make sense, we're bottoms-up oriented. great company, financial engines. they manage $100 billion. they've got 800,000 participants. we know social security's not going to carry them through. company that was started by a nobel laureate. you can't beat that. we think that's fantastic, bill sharp. cheryl: five seconds. >> one word, technology. cheryl: ah, thank you very much, love it. gentlemen, thank you very much. we now have six minutes to go until that bell rings.

all right, as i mentioned just a few moments ago, the markets selling off a little bit. a lot of geopolitical news today and economic data. also we're looking at the money that's flowing in at treasury. that's pushing yields down. we're going to follow all the money flows coming up in just a couple of moments. and also we're going to be following the latest out of france. french authorities recover one of the black boxes from that tragic plane crash in the french alps this morning. we're going to ask an aviation expert what those black boxes may reveal to investigators. david asman and i, be right back. ♪ ♪ the real question that needs to be asked is "what is it that we can do that is impactful?" what the cloud enables is computing to empower cancer researchers.

it used to take two weeks to sequence and analyze a genome; with the microsoft cloud we can analyze 100 per day. whatever i can do to help compute a cure for cancer, that's what i'd like to do. you are gonna need a wingman. and my cash back keeps the party going. but my airline miles take it worldwide. [ male announcer ] it shouldn't be this hard. with creditcards.com, it's easy to search hundreds of cards

and apply online. creditcards.com. and apply online. sometimes they just drop in. always obvious. cme group can help you navigate risks and capture opportunities. we enable you to reach global markets and drive forward with broader possibilities. cme group: how the world advances.

. cheryl: we are pushing session lows on the major averages. david asman is here for the next hour. david: good to be here. nicole petallides at the new york stock exchange. talk about one thing that is up, housing up in a big way today. >> reporter: absolutely, dave and cheryl. saw new home sales surge almost 8%. the highest levels since february 2008.

with that and the prior month was revised higher as well. the home builders surged into the green. never looked back and inventory tight, so they're going to have to do home building. cheryl: i thought the northeast number was a mistake, you are looking at twitter, the stock on the down trend -- excuse me, seeing big gains today. what's going on with twitter? >> break out of resistance levels and theone, expansion saying this is a good one. up 6.25%. david: interest rates way down. >> reporter: yeah, it's even moving right now. 1.87%. i don't think anybody really anticipated that drop. and really, we haven't seen it below 1.9 recently. cheryl: and google the new cfo from morgan stanley. >> leaving wall street and going high-tech.

and it's a story with less regulation. david: unfortunately, bad news to report, we did hit double digits on the dow. triple digits on the down side with the dow. the dow is down below 100 points now, trading at 103. it is moving to the down side as things settle. all of the indices are down, none more so than the s&p 500, nasdaq a little less so, and the s&p just about flat. rough day for the markets. cheryl: of course, everything hitting the skids. we're going to have a lot of great commentary. "after the bell" starts right now. . cheryl: we're going to get to the markets in just a moment. top story, germanwings plane carrying 150 people crashed in the french alps. no passengers believed to have survived the tragedy. while the cause of the crash is