♪ shery: coming up, these stories that shape the week in business around the world. vote,hocks of u.k. brexit who is in charge? >> the labor leader jeremy corbyn was a resounding defeat. >> go. .hery: global glum >> the best word would be sadness. will: the united kingdom not be the last members stay to leave the european union. >> it is in danger. shery: initial market turmoil. >> absolute uncertainty.

>> there is a lot of uncertainty. shery: does big pharma have a prescription for brexit side effects? that is straight ahead on "bloomberg best." hello, and welcome. i am shery ahn. this is "bloomberg best," your weekly analysis of interviews from bloomberg television around the world. this week has been all about adjusting last thursday's u.k. vote to leave the european union. on monday, the market moved in uncertainty, and nowhere else things uncertain than in britain, with the leadership was thrown into chaos. nejra: it is interesting what the next step will be, because logically the next step would be

for the u.k. to trigger article 50 and actually start the negotiations on leaving the eu. actually, other governments in europe are not expecting david cameron to do that when he needs other eu leaders on a meeting on a tuesday in brussels. what he wants is some kind of plan for what happens next. john: this is understandable. the will of the voters is to be respected. i don't see this where it is essentially the calamity that many are saying it will be. mark: the parliamentary labour party widened the no-confidence vote for jeremy corbyn. it was a resounding defeat, 172 votes to 40. therefore, there is no confidence in the labor leader from within the parliamentary labour party. michael: i am running in his leadership conference for one reason. one reason alone.

i want this country that i love toch has given me so much bring the opportunity with change with optimism and conviction. theresa: i have invited you here today to announce my candidacy to become leader of the conservative party, and prime minister of the united kingdom. nigel: two of the circumstances in parliament i have concluded, that person cannot be me. >> i don't care which man or woman wins the tory leadership and becomes the prime minister, provided they have first and foremost in their mind 17.5 million voters who voted to get back the ability to make our own laws, have our own court judgments and control our own borders. guy: remember friday, post announcement the u.k. was going to leave the eu, we saw sterling fall very sharply. we are now at the levels once again.

roy: you look at the yen, it has recent past levels when the japan unilaterally intervened in the second half of 2011. if volatility continues to strengthen further, you will see intervention by the g7. in our view, japan right now, the conditions for the unilateral intervention have been satisfied, even with the yen being relatively extreme. in regards to the g7, i think there likely to wait and see how financial markets react this week. vonnie: will be speaking about the biggest story of the hour, the s&p cutting the top credit rating by two notches. matt: the ramifications could be large. we could see fund managers who are only allowed to own aaa debt, forced to sell because of that. let me ask you why you decided .o go two notches here

is it in your view such a serious matter that it could go even further? mortiz: yes indeed, it is a major event that has just occurred. if you have followed what we have been saying over the last month and quarters, you will know that we and other people expected the vote to go the other way, to remain. we have been quite clear that if the british population were to vote for brexit, this would hurt the rating and we have also set the rating could go down by more than one notch depending on the circumstance. mark: the economic outlook has deteriorated, and some monetary policy easing will be required over the summer. >> there is the issue of about europe, if there would be further contagion. i don't see that either. we will keep an eye on it. we will wait and see. i don't think they can pass on -- impact on the u.n.

howard: we have a toolbox, we think we have put limits on the qt program. we can do more of that, more forward guidance. we can do a lot of work in the u.s. the u.s. is a close to outdated outcomes. national employment is at the natural rate. the inflation is 1.84 with a target of two. you are very good in terms of meeting mandates in the u.s. but if we had to, or some shock came along, we could certainly do more. >> i think that on the plus side, unicredit he was in place, markets have functioned. guy: how you think about this market? patrick: this lack of certainty, there is uncertainty right now. employmentequities , for company, it is going down right now.

to be tracing this rally right now, it will not pay off in the long term. david: you are setting record lows in government bonds around the world. is this the ultimate risk off trade? mike: when you have this much uncertainty, you are afraid of what comes next, you hide under the bed. it is kind of insane because yields are so low. if you hold to maturity, you will lose money if there is any inflation at all. what else are you going to do right now? mario: i tried to find a word which describes our feelings. i was just chatting about this a moment ago. i think probably the best word would be "sadness." david: the terms of the meeting was one of sadness and regret. our partners and the european union are genuinely sad that we are planning to leave this organization. francine: the german chancellor angela merkel said she said no backing out a brexit now.

for the german take that speak with the chairman. michael, always great to have your perspective on these things. you are a chancellor and chancellor merkel was very clear. what do you expect in country? what are the negotiations going to look like? michael: first of all, the u.k. has to trigger article 50. that is number one. made,n as this has been we have to form a team to negotiate. of course, there will be no free access to the single market anymore. this has to be renegotiated. to say it bluntly, there is no free lunch. it is not for free. you have to pay something. you have to accept certain terms and conditions. i think the most important

thing at this stage is for everyone to understand central banks are prepared to supply liquidity if it is needed. that is not clear a large amount will be needed. central banks will provide on-demand. i think the concern is that the longer economic position is one which most countries in the world feel that if only the rest of the world was run properly we would be fine. we try to lower the exchange rate. i think central banks should not compete and trying to push down their exchange rates, but there will be big changes needed if we can get back to a stable position, so we should not try to resist that. tom: michael may of the u.s. banks, are they going to lose jobs because of this crisis in london? >> the u.s. banks of the worst revenue growth in 80 years before brexit. there is no question banks need to control costs, you are going to be reducing jobs, your going to be reducing compensation, and

the fallout from the brexit for large u.s. banks would be the cost of business goes up, there are capital market headwinds, increased complexity, currency risks, and central banks have larger interest rates. jean-claude: scotland wants to be heard in brussels. i will listen carefully to the first minister will tell me. clearly scotland's desire to protect our relationship with european union. tom: what is the leverage miss surgeon has to advocate for scotland in brussels? i don't see it. what is it? >> the vision, the objects of her actually having meetings in brussels and starting preliminary negotiations, whether they have any legal authority or not, is more than

enough to essentially send the signal to the whole of the u.k. that a brexit is equal to a breakup of the u.k. that is the best thing she can be doing both for scotland as well as for the rest of the u.k., and that is what she will continue to press. shery: still ahead, no shortage of opinions on brexit. we hear from the world's top portfolio managers, economists, and central bankers. more "bloomberg best" is next. ♪

♪ shery: this is "bloomberg best." i am shery ahn. our global tour of the week's top is this headlines continues

with financial and economic conditions tied to the brexit. uncertainty seems to be the word used most by money managers and economist this week and there was good reason for what happens next remains anyone's guess. joe: you say you are not convinced that this brexit vote would be the spark for the political class to get smarter about more inclusive growth. what would be that catalyst? mohamed: i'm afraid to say it would be a bigger crisis, and economic and financial crisis. and setback. as you know, i have this notion the role we have been on characterized by two things, low but stable growth on the one hand and central banks able to repress financial volatility, that growth is coming to an end. that is why we are seeing all of these unthinkable's and and probables-- and improbable. negative interest rates and many more.

that world is coming to an end. politicians do not preempt further problems, then you will get a crisis, economic and financial, and the question becomes, how big do you need to wake up the people? i hope is we can avoid the crisis, i suspect we may end up leaving a crisis in a wake-up call. >> you have seen what is happened to the pound. aren't you a little concerned about the economic chaos that brexit has created? >> let's get a few things straight. sterling is down a bit. >> a bit? >> hang on. it has been in a bear market. we have seen a decline in currency for a long time. it is 12% up since february last year. >> way down from friday. from february. let's get a sense of perspective on where these markets are, ok? draghi may have a point. if we don't come to a grown-up trade deal between the united kingdom and the eurozone, it

will hurt the eurozone. which is why today and parliament i was urging a grown-up approach. >> mark carney, you said you wanted to see him resign, why? nigel: he is the governor of the bank of england, he played a completely partisan role in the referendum. couplehave been a firm -- supporter saying the leave was a good thing. why do you think that is? all, i am the wrong person to ask. we have a constitution. century, wehe 13th swore we would not pay taxes to a foreign leader, and we would never accept foreign judges. and that is with the european countries have done. they transferred their sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in brussels.

and i believe countries function better if they are small countries. i believe the u.s. will be a better functioning economy is it would consist of 50 different states. not just one federal government running the place. yvonne: some really say this was a result of backlash on globalization, every country for themselves right now. does this actually play an impact on global growth which we have talked about before the brexit vote has been very, very slow? marc: well, global growth has contracted. in other words, the growth rate has been reduced in many countries are in recession already. that has nothing at all to do with brexit. the global economy has begun to slow down 18 months ago. the u.s. economy began to slow down at the end of 2014. that is why bonds have been so strong in 2015. the bonds market new the economy

was weakening. alan: it is a terrible outcome in all respects. it did not have to happen. i always felt that the real problem in europe was the euro which are basically thought was an unstable currency, cannot exist from the existing structure. it never entered my mind that sterling was an issue. it is a floating currency. and britain was in fairly good shape economically. >> if your attention is on europe, what would you request from chancellor merkel and what would you are caressed from brussels? alan: i am not in a position -- >> we would like to know. alan: let me start off with what i think ought to happen between the euro. first of all, the euro has been pulled apart basically by this continued existence of greece in

the euro structure. greece got in by mistake. or should i say, miscalculations of some of the database of purposes of entering the euro. it became very clear when the greekovernment, the government showed up that the data which have been submitted is not accurate. they have been a foreign in the side of the whole euro structure ever since. they should never have been in the euro. they should get out as soon as possible if you want to sustain the fundamental euro structure. tom: we think about the new russia and how they respond to brexit, what should we listen for from mr. putin? how should we respond? >> mr. putin is very pleased with what happened with brexit. this works to his advantage

because one of his agenda items is to cause disruption in the european union to make sure its splits apart. i think the important part is how nato will continue to function together, and also what signals there are for the eu generally is going to be doing. michael: that as a key question about nato. there is a school of thought that says, we will have trouble with security arrangements in europe because the europeans and may not be getting along. another says, because they are not getting along and don't know what is going to happen, they will fall back and rely more on nato, and this could reinvigorate that organization. what do you think? >> i do think nato continues to be the stabilizer in so many ways. they are the alliance that is held together the longest. they will be looking to see how security arrangements continue and can be strengthened. a lot of the issues at the summit are going to do with what nato is going to do in central and eastern europe. jes: we have thought a lot about this referendum, and obviously went one way that will have economic consequences.

going into this process, eyes wide open, balance sheet exceptionally strong, people very motivated and committed to the economy of the united kingdom. so i take it that the answer is "yes" you can put damage ahead of you. >> for sure. erik: your leadership skills going to be tested like never before, perhaps. are you ready? >> we will find out. we spent 13 months getting ready for this referendum. we created a situation room in which we evoked last week. we had full committee meetings thursday through the early part of this week. yes, it was what was happening in the branches, and the call centers. on friday alone, we made 1500 businesses across

the united kingdom. in the early morning hours of friday, we had foreign exchange trading through the system, we normally have in a full day. to know what our corporate clients are asking in the institutional clients, so we are very prepared and i feel terrific about how the bank and of itself. the other thing which is quite different than what we may have seen in previous financial crisis is the corporation between large banks and regulators. ♪

♪ shery: you are watching "bloomberg best." i am shery ahn. even though the aftermath of the brexit about dominated the news bloomberg brought you the very , latest in other news around the world from settlements to stress tests. michael: the first round of a

stress test showed they had adequate capital. this was round two. the qualitative test were the risk management systems that, as you can see, the unit of deutsche bank, deutsche bank trust did not pass. >> stop there. that is misleading. that is hsbc and the toronto group dominion. that is not deutsche bank. that is a tiny part. clearingthat is the and wealth management part of the bank. according to deutsche bank, it was 5% of their balance sheet. >> 5%. michael: they said they would knew they were going to fail and that they are still working on the risk control systems. both of these are going to be folded in two separate holding companies in the united states starting july 1. it is a new federal requirement. they will be stuck with all of the other portions of that instance in the u.s. starting next year, in 2018. if they don't pass, they cannot

send profits back to the home country because they will have to retain some of them to meet their capital requirements. francine: so the stress test, they can pay out dividends. we know there is no systemic risk? >> the u.s. banks did do really well. after years of taking out costs and cutting capital, they can withstand some pretty severe stress tests, so from a quality perspective is a bond investor, they look pretty attractive to us. david: take us through this settlement. $14.7 million. what are they paying for? >> it definitely does not take care of all of it but there is a large chunk of uncertainty taken out of the picture. first off, volkswagen has agreed to either buy back cars at precrisis levels from customers that want to get rid of them and give customers as much as

$10,000 for the trouble or recall the cars and fix them so that the customers can drive them legally in the states. that is going to cost about $10 billion, an estimate but that is how much they figure it is going to cause. -- cost. and then about $4.7 billion is epa, andto go to the $2 billion is going to go to a clean energy technology, which is, something they would have done to begin with but now that is mandated. alix: lions gate will be buying starz. it looks like starz's shares are halted. lions gate stock keeps popping. they own about 4 million shares of lions gate. so starz swapped some of its shares for lions gate. that led to speculation there

could be a merger between the two. john malone talks a lot about getting scale in the media industry and of course starz has the platform, lions gate has the tv production side of it. now the two merging, lions gate says it will be accreted shortly and will be funded the new purchase of bank info on -- and bond financing. shery: still ahead, a raise hike negative interest rates, and whether the u.k. brexit will actually happen. we will get insight from the world's largest money managers but first, the side effects of britain's vote to leave the eu. we have that and drug prices. you are watching bloomberg. >> the current system is better than most other symptoms. ♪

♪ shery: you are watching "bloomberg best." i am shery ahn. m&a, drug pricing and r&d pipelines. this week, we got unique perspective from the chief executives of the world's most notable pharmaceutical companies. this is all part of bloomberg's new series, "focus on pharma." yvonne: it is focus on pharma week here at bloomberg, but we are looking at the growing global business of test growing global business of pharmaceutical technology. president brent saunders from shanghai. great to have you. i want to get your take on this brexit vote. i know allergan is based in dublin. does the u.k. leaving the eu change your business at all, or for the health care industry at all? brent: i think it is a bit too

early to tell about the impact on the industry. with respect to allergan, we are headquartered in dublin, but we only have about 1% of total sales in the united kingdom. outside of currency, we see the immediate impact as minimal. i think longer-term we will have to see how things like regulatory approvals go, but that is a few years away. yvonne: you are known as a deal guy, but you call yourself a man about operations as well. i was hoping to ask you about this brexit. how does the influence or change the way how you move your facility in the u.k.? would you potentially move out of the region? brent: i don't think so. we have our international headquarters in marlowe, the u.k. we have a fantastic team. we are very committed to both marlowe, the u.k. and our people there. no plans to change anything in the way we operate, and hopefully we can remain committed to our operation in marlowe for the long-term.

yvonne: let's talk about m&a. what has recently dominated headlines is that allergan-pfizer deal that did fail because of the world by the treasury. you have been blindsided by what happened, that now you are ready once this unit is complete. you have a lighter balance sheet right now, more cash. how are you going to spend it? brent: we were a little disappointed by the u.s. treasury's involvement in and break of the pfizer deal, but allergan is in a very strong position. we are in the final stages of closing our deal with teva to sell our generics business for $45 billion, and when that is closed, the proceeds will be spent about $10 billion on a stock free purchase program, $10

billion on debt repayment. that will leave us with cash flow about $20 billion to invest for growth. we will be looking at buying intellectual properties, r&d assets, and of course m&a. with respect to m&a, it will be looking at smaller scale talk in deal to really support our therapeutic areas of leadership and innovation. david: i want to take a step back right now and talk about generics. what role does generic play in the overall health care business and the health of people. heather: they play a very significant part of the health care system around the globe. if we start in the united states, generics have become the backbone of the health-care system. we represent 88% of all the drugs dispensed in the united states. as you work your way around globally, different parts have world have different utilization rates.

we know every health care system is looking for cost containment and health care solutions. we work very hard to break down those barriers to provide access. literally to the world 7 billion people to provide affordable health care. i think there's never been a more important time. whether you are about developing countries, emerging market, or throughout europe, we continue to fight and increase generic utilization to have a more sustainable health-care system in these countries. david: as you say, heather, affordable health care is terribly important, and that takes us to the question of drug pricing. how concerned are you about possible regulation of drug prices going forward under a new administration? heather: again, what we have said repeatedly is that if we are going to look at the system, let's look at the whole system. if we are going to talk about trying to fix a piece of it, you end up not getting to the root of the problem. i would argue that here in the united states we have got that

pretty right. hatch-waxman put in place in 1984, that was a great balance. that is not to say there are abusive practices i can certainly affect that. overall, we have been able to represent 88% and drug utilization. we have saved $1.6 trillion for the united states health-care system over the last decade. that balance of innovation and competition, we think, is incredibly important and letting the open market with supply and demand. we have been a competitive marketplace, and our markets has course-corrected pretty quickly when something has gone awry, or there has been abuses. we think the system works, we have got to be challenging ourselves and our governments and the regulatory regimes to maintain and keep pace with the globalization of the industry on really every front. but like i said, i believe

foundationally our system is the right one and it provides the most innovation in the world. it has provided the best of care and we just need to make sure we can continue to provide access so that everybody is afforded the luxury of actually getting the health care. it should be a right, not a privilege. leonard: we have this conundrum. we have to have drug pricing that makes people feel like they are getting value and they can afford to get the drugs. it does not do us any good if all these new drugs and approaches are invented and people cannot afford to get them. on the other hand, we do have to have prices that encourage investment in the industry. no place is it purely known better than a bloomberg that capital is agnostic. it flows to where it can make money. if it doesn't make money in the biopharmaceutical industry, it will not be here.

the young will not get funded and we will not have it. we have to have this balance of short-term, people being able to afford it, and sufficient incentives to make this grow, make the industry grow. the patent system, which gives us pricing power, i love the quote that president lincoln said about that. he said the patent system provides the fuel of interest to the fire of genius. it is a wonderful quote. it explains why in the united states, most of the drugs in the world are not invented in britain. they are not invented on the continent. they are not invented in asia, certainly not russia. plenty of smart people in russia. they are invented in the good old united states, and why is that? we have a system that encourages that. ken: the debate about health care today is polarized. i think it falsely pits all

pharmaceutical companies against society, and society needs these drugs. the reality of the world is if we don't have a sufficient return on investment, we will not get the significant capital that we need that we have to put up for significant risk for significant periods of time for the current and future research. david: is that message getting through to the populace overall? you look at the race for president, it doesn't appear either candidate particularly loves the pharmaceutical industry. no one wants to go after pharmaceutical prices. why is it people and politicians do not have appreciation for this? ken: i have to say most people really do think what we do is important. i think there is a legitimate conversation that needs to be had about how do we make health care more affordable? i think unfortunately in the heat of the political season, the discourse around pharmaceutical prices becomes overheated. and i hope when we finally

select a president, we will be able to focus on what works for our society. david: i will not ask you to pick the president today, but from what you know if us far, will it make a difference which candidate were president? ken: it is hard, because they have various portions of their platforms that are not good for innovation, competition, and not good for patient access. erik: many of the most advanced remedies are awfuly expensive to develop, and the companies are incentivized to generate the maximum profit possible. i am thinking of things like valeant and touring. and prices of hep c treatments and immunotherapies, blood disease, drugs. what in your mind is the best way to control costs so these medicines and treatments are not just available for the rich and well-insured? bill: i think the current

system, despite some extreme cases that i think have probably been labeled as inappropriate, i think the current system is better than most other systems one can imagine. curing hepatitis c. this is a phenomenal thing. now you have multiple drug companies competing in terms of equality and the price they are offering. the drug companies are turning out miracles. we need their r&d budgets to stay strong. they need to see the opportunity. for things like alzheimer's they can reduce medical costs so dramatically and improve the human condition, and the pharmaceutical companies have been a great partners to our foundation. when we need help doing science, they are unique in what they can do. also, they are very good about tiered pricing.

you take the hep c as an example, i think that -- and all the responsible companies do this, for the poor countries, they have an approach that was not warranted for the making money, it was about driving access. tiered pricing is often the way to square the idea that access and being able to find a miracles, you really want both. ♪

♪ shery: you are watching "bloomberg best." i am shery ahn. some of the world's largest money managers gathered in aspen, colorado for the aspen idea festival. among topics discussed, central banks, interest rates, and brexit. erik schatzker was there. erik: given that pearson generates the vast majority of

its revenue here in this country in the united states, how bad could the brexit be for you? john: that is a very good point. we see that reflected in the view that shareholders have taken in the last few days. erik: yours is one of the few stocks to rally on friday. john: we made 65% of sales and profits in america. with the disposals we made a year ago we have a strong balance sheet, a good financial position. for me point of view, it is business as usual. erik: have you considered or perhaps contemplated in light of last thursday's vote the possibility of moving the company to another jurisdiction? john: pearson has been a british company ever since it was founded -- erik: 173 years ago, right? john: so i think now is the time just for everybody to be calm,

not to overreact, get on with business as usual. hope that common sense will prevail, and we will see a solution work through that reflects that legitimate concerns of the british electorate, but also doesn't lose britain's influence in the wider world or the importance of the markets in which we operate. erik: can you see a rate hike this year or possibly even next year? larry: i would say with certainty we are not going to see a rate hike in july. we probably won't see one in september. let's see how the world progresses. i think they have always been data independent. there is still a modest possibility they could do 25 basis point tightening in december. if not, it will have to see. i actually believe the brexit will lead to more uncertainty. it will lead to moderately slower growth. i am under the opinion it is highly probable they are not going to do anymore tightening

this year. erik: janet yellen and her colleagues have faced a lot of criticism over that data point. people argue the data were there and the fed that have raised interest rates at some point over the course of the first two quarters. now that we have seen the brexit and furthermore the financial market volatility in december through to mid-february, can we look back and say they were right to keep their feet on the gas pedal and to keep monetary policy as loose as it is? larry: they being the fed? erik: yes. larry: i don't think the data is entirely there. we still have modest inflation. we have a weakening economy. they revived the first quarter from one to one-one. we have actually weakening corporate profits. you add that up, i believe it was appropriate for them to pause.

erik: what do you think happens? your operating assumption for the future of britain. we don't know what is going to happen, so you have to decide for yourself. do i think britain is going to stay? in other words, not respect the mandate of the referendum. maybe kind of muddle through with europe, or there will be something more disorderly? david: my view is britain will not exit, because when it becomes clear the terms of the exit are so expensive, not only because the eu is demand expensive terms, but also the consequences of leaving is so significant, i think the prime minister of england will not invoke article 50. in my view this will take a year or two to play itself out, but the consequences will be too severe. for example, if scotland has a vote to exit, scotland has north sea oil, the nuclear submarine bases, and scotland is a very important part of the u.k. it would be not good for britain. erik: and northern ireland surely follow suit. not so great britain and a

-- any longer. david: 52-48 vote, democracy does not say if you have a majority, that requires you to do something. in our constitution, to get a treaty approved in the senate, it takes two thirds. if you want to amend the constitution, it takes two thirds and three quarters of the states. this was not a binding vote. whether the prime minister regretted it or not, that is another issue. in the end, the next prime minister will take a hard look at it, assess the terms. my own view, obviously not based on inside information, my view based on general knowledge is it is unlikely britain will actually exit in one or two years. they may negotiate for a while. the terms are going to be so expensive. erik: many people are hopeful that you are right. let's say you are wrong and

britain -- david: i have been wrong before in my life, yes. erik: would that make carlyle inclined to do less business or reduce its presence in the u.k. or europe for that matter? david: the devil is in the details. what are the terms of the exit? we don't know. this will probably be expensive. i don't really know yet what the terms are, so i can't say what we will do, but i am reasonably optimistic that britain will in the end come to its senses, leaders will come to their senses and realize brexit is not in anybody's interest. rik: how do you think financial markets, prediction markets, for that matter just about every established leader in europe and elsewhere for that matter kind of wrong on brexit? david: it is interesting that the polling firms, the betting operations, nobody got it right. maybe that is because the was a shift in the last minute, the last hour or two, a couple of days before the vote. maybe people are too distant from the people doing the voting. many who voted against it were in parts of england that a lot of the leaders to spend a lot of time in. there may be many factors.

it makes one wonder about the polling system in england, because they got it wrong on cameron's election and did not predict he would have an overwhelming victory. the most important thing is to not panic, not say the world is falling apart. the world survive this. it will not happen overnight and suddenly have a calamity. it will take a long time before we know the consequences are. i think already we've seen a rebound on the markets. they are not back to where they were, but they are coming back a bit as people realize this is a long-term operation before we know what is going on. david: does it make david do anything do anything as the co-ceo is carlyle? the uncertainty seems to be deeper and more prolonged. that can create challenges as an asset manager but opportunities as well. david: the probably be a slowdown in the u.k. economy. we have to assume the economy is going to grow at a lower rate,

and perhaps make some difference in financing. we don't know yet. we look around the world, are there any other brexits that could happen? are we assuming something will happen that might actually have been. i think a geopolitical assessment of whether possible brexits around the world is a good thing to do. ♪

♪ >> this is a chart we are looking at for a lot of different assets, hrh on the bloomberg. it looked at the outliers, what are the moves we are seeing. this movement on friday, 10 standard deviations out from the normal moves we have seen over the past year. matt: i have chart 1813, and for the european viewers, they will understand why this is very important right now. this is the spread between italian 10-year yields and spanish 10-year yields. shery: there are about 30,000

functions on the bloomberg, and we always enjoy showing you our favorites on bloomberg television. maybe they will become your favorite. he was another function you find useful, quic go. it will take you to our quick take. here is one outlining the secular stagnation. vonnie: secular stagnation, and ugly phrase among economists. if it is indeed a new economic phenomena, it means busts cannot turn to booms, tried and true growth policies will not work, lost jobs will not be regained. there is a situation. since the u.s. recovery began, products has grown 15%, a weak comeback when looking at this. europe is worse. growth in the euro area has stalled. aging populations and the efforts of governments to build

foreign exchange reserves. they have caused a global excess of desired savings over desired investments. with inflation low and phenomenal interest rates at zero, real interest rates cannot fall enough. here is the background. the term "secular stagnation," meaning long-term, slower growth, isn't new. it was coined by a harvard econimist in 1938. treasury secretary larry summers gave the idea new currency, and it appeared at the international monetary fund in 2013. and suggesting the floor might be chronic and systemic inhibitor of growth. here is the argument. there is one school of thought that believes the new era of slow growth may have begun. but there is disagreement on the cause. the lack of policy tools to attack it. others, the diminishing power of innovation. other economists, including former chairman ben bernanke think this is overdone. there are concerns and

demographics are hard to dismiss. shery: that was just one of the many quick takes you can find on the bloomberg. you can also find them on bloomberg.com, along with all the latest in business news and analysis 24 hours a day. that will be all for "bloomberg best" this week. i am shery ahn. thanks for watching bloomberg television. ♪

innovation, technology, the

future of is this.

♪ cory: i am cory johnson, in for emily chang, and this is the best of "bloomberg west." we bring you all of our top interviews from the week in technology. coming up, the brexit vote. we'll find out what it means for investors. plus, our exclusive sit down interview with billionaire investor mark cuban. his choice words on everything from brexit to donald trump. and we will sit with the ceo of box and ask how his company is preparing for a european split. but first, to our lead global