mark: former bosnian leader rather than carriage has been convicted of war crimes. has been sent for 40 years in prison. the tribunal found him guilty of atrocities throughout the 1992 through 1995 war that left an estimated 100,000 people dead. seven hackers tied to the iranian government have been charged with pushing cyberattacks. lynchey general loretta

all worked through computer companies. he met with u.s. secretary of state john kerry on the agenda was identifying ways to turn the shaky truce in syria into peace talks aimed at ending the five year civil war. michigan lawmakers voted to extend aid to keep the detroit school system the rest of the year. global news 24 hours a day.

emily: i am emily chang and this is "bloomberg west." star board issues war with yahoo! for the nominees, what happens next? we will have all the details. plus, one of the most powerful women in silicon valley talk to me how she defines the glass ceiling and her new role as a ceo. and into the world of cyber security. i sit down with the ceo of tanium, as he takes the reins from his father. first to our lead. yahoo! investor star board, wiping out the entire board of investors, including ceo, marissa mayer. increasing holdings to 1.7%. the activist shareholder is nominating their own a ceo, jeff smith, for election at the yahoo! meeting later this year. smith writes, we believe the board clearly lacks the leadership, objectivity, and perspective needed to make decisions in the best interest of shareholders. in response, yahoo! noted that

they will review the nominees and respond in due course. what do these nominees have to offer? joining me now, eric jackson. and neil doshi, from securities during the here and that studio. neil, what is your reaction here to star board the clearing an all-out war on yahoo!? neil: it is definitely expected. what we think is, this is going to be a huge uphill battle for yahoo! to fight. yahoo! will experience a pretty costly endeavor to go to all their shareholders and convince them that marissa mayer is the best person to lead the company.

this new strategic plan, she had an old one that did not work, the new one will really take them to the next level. i think it will be an uphill battle. the new board has a lot more technology and media focus numbers. i think there is a lot of negative sentiment around investor base. this will be a tough three months for the company. emily: eric, you have been agitating for change from yahoo! for a wild. what do you think of the nominees? are these people who can really add it to the company, and pushed forward? eric: yes, on the whole, if you look at their backgrounds together as a group i think that they are more impressive than the backgrounds of the current board for yahoo!. i am not as familiar with some of the nominees but bridget baker as an executive, having a lot of experience with subscription revenue-based businesses to read i think that

was a particularly intriguing type of background. maybe offers us some hints as to where jeff smith is thinking yahoo! can go. i think rick hill is particularly interesting. and the ceo of directv -- it will be interesting now to hear more from jeff smith and star board as well as yahoo!. i think investors can look back and be like of the electorate being entertained by donald trump or whoever. we can ask these folks what their vision for the company is and why we should vote for them. emily: you have a serious take not on just what star board has done, by yahoo! over the last few weeks. poking the bearer just a few weeks ago in your words, how are they making this even more difficult for star board? shira: the thing that clearly seems like a misstep at the time and in hindsight was that appointment as you mentioned a couple weeks ago of two new

yahoo! board members, literally the same day yahoo! and starboard were talking to discuss mutual concerns about the company. it felt like a way to antagonize starboard, and we have seen the common nation now. emily: i spoke with marissa mayer a few weeks ago and after specifically if she aligned with the board. are they really doing what is in the best interests of the company? take a listen to what she told me. >> overall on the board, management are very aligned. i will say, yahoos situation is complicated.

and i think that is obvious to everyone. as particularly with some of the assets we have in both yahoo! japan as well as alibaba. emily: eric, what is your reaction to that remark by marissa mayer? eric: i have heard her talk so much over these last years and she has accomplished so little. i think she is a person who chooses her words very carefully. she is very concerned about what will happen post-yahoo! for her, and is trying to manage her reputation, i think. when she meets with charlie rose

does an hour with him -- obviously, it is complicated. it was complicated well before she showed up on the team. and, i think she was a bad hire from the beginning. she was in over her head, and i think they will be better served with a different ceo with an appropriate background for the job. emily: neil, starboard has a this once before with the company that owns all of garden. they wiped out the entire board, replaced it with a new plate of new directors. what is the likelihood they can pull this off? neil: it is hard to tell. they tried to change the board at aol, 50-50 at this point. there's so much and negative stuff around yahoo! however, a negative sense of investors, they may have trouble pulling this off. emily: how do you see this playing off? shira: yahoo! already has a long to do list in the middle of this turnaround created they are looking at potential buyers for all company. now they will have this proxy fight for the next few months with starboard. the problem is, they don't have a lot credibility with shareholders.

eric: i think there is a lot of bad blood between the previous board and starboard. i don't think there was much negotiation between the sides. my guess is that they think they can orchestrate a sale in next couple of months before this goes to a shareholder vote. therefore, all of this proxy talk becomes a moot point.

if they end up selling the company at a large price. i think that is what they think they can do. as of a couple of weeks ago, i was hearing from potential bettors at that nothing was happening despite the fact that they form this committee. there was really nothing happening. now for a look at the rest of our markets, ramy inocencio has the rap today from new york. how did it go? ramy: markets closed mixed in

some very light trading. essentially because of the bank holiday tomorrow and the three-day weekend for easter. take a look at where we stand. at the end of the day, you can see the nasdaq is up the most by about .1%. but this was not enough to help the nasdaq close in positive territory for the week read take a look at where we are. the nasdaq is breaking its five-week street, down minimally. but it had rallied as much as 13% at one point over the past five weeks. let's take a look at some specific stocks. apple right now is down by about .1% for the entire week. interestingly, not much movement despite the new iphone coming out on monday, as well as the court hearing that was delayed on tuesday over in riverside. amazon, also going the other way. a pop of 4% here. this is the biggest weekly gain in the past five weeks ago, after apple saying it is still years away from developing its own cloud platform.

you may remember apple said it would move some of its operating systems to the cloud that form there. going the other way, priceline falling lower, down by about 3.2% or so, because of what happened in belgium, the terrorist attacks there. trip advisor and expedia also falling around 2%-3%. and the non-tech stock virgin america rowling as much as 14% and closing this week to date. this is its biggest weekly jump since july of last year.

and the news yesterday saying there might be some shooters for buying some of the company. here are the big movers, emily. back to you, happy easter. emily: you too. and we talk to the woman taking on tesla. ♪

emily: it is game on, tesla. the newly appointed ceo is considered one of the most powerful women in silicon valley. she is now taking on not just elon musk but the entire auto industry. i asked her what it was like to be a female engineer back in 1984. >> it was a rarity. it was one of those things where, i felt in a mix of you. i felt a deep kinship to other women engineers.

i feel like it is shaped myself as a woman leader in the tech industry. the other thing it taught me or brought to light, the fact that if you are confident, it is very important to have self-confidence. people notice you. and these two things, either i learn them because i have to survive, or because it was the only way to work. i don't know. but it is something that has been profound life lessons for me.

i make a decision, do i stay, what other things i need to do. for me, i did not have a lot of that back then because there was no one reaching out and sharing their experiences. emily: did you think you had to act more like a man? padma: absolutely. at first, nobody would take me seriously because i either looked too young, walked too young, were bright colors. i came from india, i love bright colors. so i had to hide all that away for the first few years. i would wear black everyday, sneakers -- i loved shoes and could not wear shoes. all these things that had nothing to do with my job as an engineer, but i was afraid to be who i was, who was wanted to be. i absolutely did that.

even when i became the ceo of motorola i wanted people to take the more seriously so i went to the extreme of making my hair gray just so i would look older. emily: really? padma: and today, it is the opposite. emily: do you feel you are ever treated unfairly? padma: people i think don't expect you to be competent. there was always this and out. people are skeptical. i have had situations where people are skeptical about my title and what i am doing because i am a woman. it is hard to describe it, it is not blatant or over, but i did sense it. emily: is it fair for me to ask you how you balance your work and family life, or is it not fair to ask that question? padma: i think it is fair to ask that of both men and women. men with young children go through the same thing. the challenges avoid if you are a parent how you balance having a career and having a family. i feel like the word balance somehow suggest that everything has to be perfect. like your home has to be perfect, your work has to be

perfect. i use the word "integration." you have to be aware of what is important to you and how you integrate those aspects that are important to you. when my son was young and i had a busy career in a factory, i had operational responsibilities. my son was a baby, so i would be constantly stressed out. and i learned that i needed to take time for myself. now, i meditate every day. i paint when i can on saturdays and weekends. so whatever it is that you feel you need to do to energize ourselves and get your creative juices flowing again, you have to do that. emily: what is your assessment of the state of women in silicon valley today, whether it is big tex, startups? in many ways there is small progress, but has also taken several steps back. padma: it is very disappointing.

i think that we have not made any progress. we need to make a lot more progress.

emily: you had an opportunity to build a diverse workforce from the ground up. what are you doing to build your own culture and a strong company from the beginning? padma: i have already hired my first woman engineer, she trained two days ago. emily: congratulations. padma: she is amazing. my head of corporate development is a woman. she is a stanford grad. she joined a three days ago. so she is now on my staff and leadership team. so i will continue to do that. i want to have a very diverse team, have more women, but also have -- i wanted to be multicultural. i want to attract people from the auto industry, and the non-auto industry to work together. it will be a very diverse team.

the vacuum cleaner is this dyson says they are developing electric batteries. we have the story from london. >> dyson, the electronic producer of vacuums, may be gunning for elon musk. they will invest into battery technology over the next four years. a michigan-based company makes solid-state lithium-ion batteries, which can store twice the power at a half to a third of the cost of existing models. why batteries? they are a key component in the dyson's cordless vacuums, but there are tantalizing hints they may be after a bigger target. earlier this week, a british government report published online said dyson was planning to build an electric car. some say the report was edited to delete any reference to the electronic car comment, but dyson will not comment on the

report. coming up, a first of its kind indictment from the u.s. against nation estate hackers. details, next. ♪

emily: a story we are watching. the united states has accused iranian hackers of carrying out an 18 month cyber war against wall street. the group is charged with targeting or dozen financial

institutions and a flood dam north of new york city to undermine u.s. markets and national security. the details come from an indictment unsealed on thursday in manhattan federal court. >> today, we have unsealed an indictment against seven alleged experience hackers employed by computer security companies, working on behalf of the iranian government, including the islamic revolutionary guard corps. coming up, we will stick with it that the man turned to the $3.5 billion company tearing up the cyber security market.

an update from tanium's new ceo. ♪

mark: francis interior minister says a frenchman was in a plot to the attack the country. he is in custody. the suspect was arrested northwest of paris today. security forces and locked down the area as they conduct a major surge. the man authorities say was the main paris attacker was interrogated in brussels today he said his client isn't interested in fighting extradition to france. four months on the run. belgian authorities have lowered the terror threat level they say

the situation is exceptional and grave. another attack is likely and possible. the new york stock exchange bank of america capital one all were targeted by iranian hackers. occurred between 2011 and 2013. >> the important part of our cyber security packages -- threats is to identify publicly so they know they cannot hide. : vice president biden is trying to move past remarks that seemed to endorse in blocking a

supreme court nominee during the election season. theblic's claim to following the biden rule. he said there is no rule it doesn't exist. a new opinion poll shows republicans aren't rallying behind plans to stop the donald trump. republicans backed trumps view that the person with the most delegates should get the nomination even if he does not have a majority. the pope watched and kissed the feet of refugees of different faiths. president obama visited memorials in bouygues ironies. the 40th anniversary of the country's military coup.

he said records of the u.s. is possible complicity will be declassified. gary shandling has died. he pioneered a new brand of comedy on the larry sanders show. emily: this is "bloomberg west," i am emily chang. many companies in the red with ceos forecasting slowing growth of this year. the concerns don't appear to have touched the start up tanium. this is a $3.5 billion company, thousands of computers and mobile devices that can deliver security updates in just 15 seconds. joining me now is orion hindawi. last time we talked you were see po, and you now taken over the ceo position from your father. you have spoken out very publicly about the bubble in the cyber security industry. let's start with jobs first. what mark do you want to make on the company? orion: i think we are doing

exactly what i wanted to do for the last eight years, build something where proud of, ship to customers, and at 99% of them renew every year. the interesting thing, a lot of people obsess about things like ar, revenue, cash flow. i do, but what is interesting to me is that customers level we do and we can pull out the technology they don't like and replace it. emily: you raise $300 million you have not touched. is that the case? orion: yes. emily: why take new money if you don't need it? orion: i said a year ago that what i thought was happening in the valley could not continue. that we were really running an environment, and people were spending money, wasting it. i thought there would be a real turn. we saw an opportunity to raise money, primarily because we did not think we could do it for a long time.

i think there are going to be a lot more of those were people realize the business is fundamentally unsustainable. and they are then going to be a

target for acquisition. i think a lot of the target acquisition market does not deserve to exist. emily: you have also been public about fire i in particular and say they don't have a good business. where's that going? orion: i think they are representative of a class a company that has been marketing and sales driven rather than product driven. customers really want us to deliver products that definitely work. i don't think they are unique in this case. their representative. we as an industry oh error customers better than to tell them that they should be terrified and should give us lots of money. there is a real need for true security, good hygiene, patching, analysis, forensics. and we oh our customers.

emily: if that is true, in this age where we are more at risk of cyberattacks than ever, are there a lot of companies and people in danger because they're cyber security firms are not doing their jobs? orion: 100%. a lot of people are relying on things that do not work. some of the companies they deal with, they will need to dramatically upgrade them. hackers are stealing billions of dollars a day in ip and credit cards and health care data. they are not going to stop. if we as industry do not provide great solutions, our customers will continue to lose those things at an increasing clip.

emily: apple versus fbi, what is your take? orion: it is a lot more complicated than people give it if we end up with a black box in every buddy's pocket, i think law enforcement will have a much harder time doing their job. conversely, if you break encryption and put backdoors into products, it is a difficult problem to solve with a pat answer. everybody wants to stand up and shake their fists and say encryption is awesome, which i agree with, if you don't have a law enforcement, our society breaks down. if we build systems that are so close they cannot do their jobs, i am a frayed will all suffer as a result. emily: so you think there should be some vulnerability? orion: i think if a federal judge issues a warning, there should be some way to honor it. emily: how you find that balance as a ceo? orion: it is a tremendously hard problem. we refuse to put backdoors into our own products. that is what everyone wants to be able to do. conversely, if somebody came to me and said there is a really legitimate reason why we have to work with the government to prevent threats, we have to listen to that. i don't have an easy answer for this. but on both sides, there are legitimate reasons why.

emily: you have been pretty public, you say an ipo is in your site. is that something we will see this year? orion: that is a hard thing to answer. i don't know what will happen in this market. a lot of of people are seeing it frozen in place. a lot of ceos were planning on going public and are now terrified. they were losing money and bought the market would make up for it, but realize that will not happen.

we are making money every quarter. as a result, we can choose where we want to go and not force ourselves into an unfriendly market. i will say, i continue to say that our investors and employees and customers deserve us to go ipo. emily: when going public help your reputation? orion: i think they do, they want to see us running a tight ship, that we will exist in five years. and some companies are paying a price for it, because when they look at financials, they see they are unsustainable. when you look at our financials, they are very clean. coming up, hedge funds done with tech startups as more and more unicorn companies delay going public. we go into public funding, next. ♪

emily: paypal shares dropped as much as 9%, apple reaching out to potential e-commerce partners. the move positions apple as a direct competitor to paypal. about 30% of paypal comes from mobile. that portion of their business could be at risk. another stock on the move, tesla rallying 2.5% against their highly anticipated model three unveiling next thursday. it will go for a $35,000 lower than much of the electric carmakers competition. you can preorder it as of march 31.

it won't go into production until 2017. and a reservation will cost you $1000. and a segment, a deeper dive into the hedge funds. visibly pulling back after a spike in interest in the state. the number of deals involving hedge funds it dipped 38% from the third to the fourth quarter in 2015. dropping the $4.6 billion in the same. what are you seeing here? ben: it is pretty severe, it started midway through last year. people started to sniff around. 2014, they got heavy and then started to move away.

you saw a lot of hedge funds that i would call less expert or slightly lower tier coming into the market, at all the conferences we go to looking for deals. banker-led a deals. emily: because they were bad deals? ben: the margin was now appropriate for a different type of investor. or maybe they were deals they did not understand, their results not what you expect. and what type of results are you seeing? tiger global seems like they are certainly making tech investments. >> if you look at these piled on hedge funds that ben was talking about, you see them getting out entirely. i have been talking with portfolio managers, and they tell me they are getting out because they are sick of intangible things. if they put their money into it now, they may not get a grand

slam, but something that is more immediately yielding. emily: what does this mean for startups and the tech industry? it affects venture capitalist because it means less competition. ben: we think it will go a lot farther. a bunch of things are happening. most of startups are realizing quicker than they didn't 2008, it is bitter. it is like "the revenant," people being mauled by bears. but you don't have visibility for everyone to price up to that level. you have a demand higher up the chain and less lower down the chain. people are doing more work and diligence, being more rational and paying fair prices three that is good overall, classically darwinian.

but it can be challenging because they have never lived through this before. emily: what does this mean for the ipo market? ceos that were planning to go public are now terrified. selina: they have really fallen sideways. a lot of companies are now looking at the market and it is not a pretty picture. these companies were driven by the alternative investors to have these larger balance sheet and now they are able to stay private longer. if you add that to what is happening in the markets, these companies do not have an impetus to do it. emily: then what are the options for investors? are they stop? maybe the deals weren't as favorable as they thought, what are their options? ben: for startups it is different for the hedge fund people. you have people -- coming in because it is sunny and warm, unaware of hardships around the

corner. these people spend their whole lives approaching companies at the right point in their evolution. they will no longer have to compete with investors that are putting in money without necessarily adding knowledge. emily: it is a cycle, right? when does this belt-tightening and? ben: a seven-year plus, a seven-year minus. i will wait a couple of quarters -- no, you are underestimating. i assume it is not because people under invest. a lot of firms, myself included,

have raise a lot of capital. it is not our job to sit on that capital, but to be good stewards and make smart investment. it is pretty ugly out there right now. some people don't understand what to do. there is a certain group of people -- there is a huge opportunity here. but when people don't understand how things work, it is hard to put a price on them. and they don't like hard news. a quarter of real darkness, and we will see how things change. emily: thank you. coming up, has the economy found its way into your closet? we found a ceo who plans to be the netflix of style, next. ♪

emily: shares at the world largest game retailer, gamestop dropping. their forecast also came up short. the company is feeling the brunt of a hit in gaming towards the internet. activision blizzard are doing more business online and making them obsolete. the sharing economy is heading to your closet. high-end fashion rentals for red carpet events has a subscription-based model to allow women to rent high-end clothing for a monthly fee. the cofounder and ceo, jennifer hyman. we have seen this with the netflix and spotify, why will this work with close? jennifer: rentals have become popular, and subscribing to everything in your life, too.

there were around 5 million members renting for occasions that would happen on saturday nights. we started hearing from our customers that the majority of their life is happening every day at work, and they wanted that same behavior to rent for their everyday lives. emily: why would people want to rent versus own their clothing, which is something so personal? jennifer: when you think about the utilization of clothing, the average american woman is buying 64 new articles of clothing per year, half of which are worn it three times or less. there is considerable pressure on women, especially professionals, to have newness and variety in their wardrobes all the time. and that is compounded by social media. so if you look at what happened pre-the era of facebook and instagram, we were buying less articles of clothing per year. the only mass-market retailer that can cater to this extreme need for variety right now at an average price point that anyone

could afford is currently h&m and zara, fast fashion. that is why that is the only segment of the industry that has grown. it is a substitute for spending your dollars on fast fashion. emily: amazon just cannot with a gender pay study that says men and women at their company make about the same amount of money, even though the best majority of senior executives are men, so there is dispute. these other kinds of trends you study. jennifer: we found that women, on average, spend 10% of their take-home income on clothing to wear to work, whereas men only spend 2.5% on their income on close to where to work.

there is a perspective that women are vain and like to wear and buy more close, but this differential started when offices became business casual. when offices were business formal and women can wear a suit to work every single day and a blouse underneath a soup, women were spending approximately the same amount as their male counterparts. this is just the cost of apparel, not the beauty, hair, all the other things that are actually requirements to excelling in your job. the other thing, is that we price things that a mass-market retailer. one like the gap, you are now spending around 70% more for the level of variety you need in your professional work, then you would have been when businesses

were formal. emily: and one last question, it sounds great for me as a customer, but how do you make the economics work for you? you're taking care of shipping, cleaning. is this long-term, a sustainable model? jennifer: we would not have been able to afford it had we launched six years ago when the business was first getting off the ground. because we scaled our technology, operations, dry-cleaning businesses, we could now affordably ship out these units to women several times a month. we also price the program at $139 a month from the get go, because we wanted to make a healthy gross margin on the business from the beginning that could lead toward profitability. we have seen other businesses intentionally priced low in order to generate demand. and then they raise their prices exponentially. this is the price we believe we

will say out in the long term. emily: jennifer hyman launching a new business, thank you so much for joining us. ♪

announcer: the following is a paid advertisement for time life's music collection. >> ♪ all the leaves are brown announcer: it was the dawn of a new age, filled with bellbottoms, tie-dye hair, and new attitudes. it gave way to a new consciousness about the world we live in. and there was a new music for the new times. >> ♪ don't you want somebody to love don't you need somebody to love ♪