carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek". i am carol massar. oliver: i am oliver renick. carol: in this week's issue, wilbur ross. of whatthe consequences happens when international trade agreements are broken or dissolved. television fonds over trump as though he were a pop star. oliver: all that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek". ♪ carol: we are with the editor in chief of bloomberg businessweek megan murphy. we have a new president, very unpredictable.

that should be freaking out the business community, but they seem all in. >> i was at davos. many globalng how business leaders were saying how much he would improve the business environment. opening remarks focus on what you think when someone is tweeting policy. we see it in the drug market, the defense space. you would think business leaders would be unsettled by this and that their business would be targeted, but when they compare and contrast with obama, that at abouttrump is visible putting business first and a huge priority and that he will start dialogues with industry and identify where the regulatory and tax landscape may need to be changed. he has overtly threaten companies that if they move jobs out of the u.s., there will be repercussions.

uncertainty,e is there is a clarity that there is a dialogue more than they had with the obama administration, and what they hope first and foremost is that they are dealing with a businessman. if they make their case for their business and industry and why they do things the way they do, that he will listen. the result may not always be what they want, but there will be an exchange, and it will be the art of the deal. oliver: when does the volatility come, but ithasn't is about a means to an end. the means to get there is less important. another interesting story is about a china bond meltdown. potential. what we have identified is two steelies, everything from to people used

worried about ford documents, but this market, people are getting concerned about, because liquidity in the chinese debt market is crucial to keeping corporates stable. what it shows is that once you have a little twitching this, what people are concerned is that if it shrinks in terms of people getting reticent to buy wet debt, that actually what will see is more companies exposed to default and whether there is a domino effect of that sector. we have got to get to the cover story. wilbur ross, familiar to bloomberg audiences, but this is donald trump's pick to lead the commerce department. departments a huge with huge responsibilities, and this shows that tromp is picking business people to lead this.

-- what it delves into is the wilbur ross of the commerce department, will that be the model and the template for the trump administration. it is a fascinating piece. oliver: it is also a fascinating look at wilbur ross. >> his story is fascinating. ae story of how he became billionaire and what he has done since becoming one i think is a preview of what we will see over the next four years. the theme i was interested in is the fact that this is an ,xperiment in the united states what rule by kluber kratz will look like. $6 billion.rth they are effectively running the

country now, and no one knows what it will look like. people are worried that it could usher in an era of corruption or disregard for the poor. carol: critical of vladimir putin and the group of bureaucrats he surrounds himself with for the same reason. >> i think people have a natural inclination to be skeptical when wealthy people take control. theree looked at was 'history,in wilbur ross and what we found is that when he was an investment banker, he learned all about the bankruptcy process working at rothchild. he became one of the beloved bankruptcy advisers, so he would go into a bankrupt airline or steel company and advise bondholders on how to make money, and he was really good at

it. fund insideis own rothchild, and then he spun it out. what happened afterwards is fascinating. carol: he does not like the word vulture investor. i have always called him a distressed investor. he goes after troubled industries, bankrupt companies, takes them over, sometimes people lose their jobs as a result. that interview where he's like, i'm not a vulture. he really doesn't like the phrase vulture, right? ever said that? i found five interviews where he said i am not a vulture investor. you look at him from a lot of different angles. thatre are the two things any reader should know about the theme of being a vulture. on the one hand, he was going into companies -- the whole plan

for how he became rich, and he became a billionaire because of steel investments. he bought these woeful steel companies, combined them, rolled them up, and sold them to an indian billionaire. the one hand, his whole strategy according to the person in charge of the steel companies was not just to buy any old steel company. an advisor for years, so he knew what he was doing. he was buying only the assets, and that way he would not have to worry about the liabilities, which would be all the workers and02 retirees, billions and billions of dollars. in bankruptcy proceedings, often times that money is taken over by the government. the companyhen say can't handle the pension obligations, and that was his

strategy, and he did it many times. was legal, using bankruptcy law to do this. >> absolutely. not only did he no longer have to worry about obligations, but when was legal, using bankruptcy law to do this. >> he would re-staff's companies, he did not hire as many people as worked there before. on the left side, he was relying on the government to take over pension obligations, and he was not hiring back as many people, something like half. but now on the other hand, as you correctly point out, those companies were in bankruptcy, so it is fair to say he was bringing back companies from the union officials have credited him with that. it is not black and white, but very great. carol: making wilbur ross the cover model was the job of -- this is a funny cover

week, but drives a point about wilbur ross. we coveredmeone before, but now he is trump's pick for commerce secretary, so the story goes into how he puts his position on a trade, so to make that point, we have him putting on a make hat, but discarding the hat with the chinese flag on it. carol: he looks like an everyman, but everybody who knows wilbur ross or reads this story know that he is a successful multibillionaire, where's velvet slippers, so it is funny to see him with the hat and smiling. thee is obviously big in finance world, but it is hard to tell how many people in the public sphere know him. theer: let's talk about international cover, also business focused, and focused on two of the biggest startups in

the u.s.. excerpt, andgood we came up with this cover line, which is technically two ideas, but the total value of uber and airbnb, so we thought that was a catchy headline. we made it golden glowing to emphasize this is a lot of money. carol: it almost looks like a moebius in science. >> it looks like it's trying to squeeze in the cover, but it's such a big number that it is not all fitting. carol: it relates to a new book out this week about the two upstarts, airbnb and uber. thank you for that. next, the number of american auto jobs impacted if president trump renegotiate's nafta. repealingy obamacare is harder than it sounds. all that a head on "bloomberg businessweek".

♪

carol: welcome back to

"bloomberg businessweek". i am carol massar. oliver: i am oliver renick. carol: president trump is threatening to undo nafta. oliver: the trade o agreement has been good for the auto industry. signposted we would drop teepee and renegotiate nafta, so those are changes in trade policy. we need to make a distinction between tpp and nafta. a free-trade agreement. nafta has become a common market. it took 20 years, so it's not just about lowering tariffs. tariffs have been so low for so long and we have had such an understanding of trade between mexico, the united states, and canada, we are talking about a common market similar to the european union. as they are discovering in the

u.k., leaving that common market is really difficult. there are standards, consistent rules, and most importantly, consistent supply chains that you can't just rip apart by dropping tariff barriers. oliver: i wanted to know sort of what the similarities and differences are here with us pulling out of nafta and what's happening with brexit. thingsbrexit, one of the they hated the most was the european court of justice. they did not want their parliament to be subservient to some other body. they wanted to be sovereign. exists is toe ecj deal with trade agreements. it is not just about tariffs. say --es the french will which means they don't want to buy german cheese.

have trade courts, a resolution mechanism within nafta, something the trump campaign said they wanted to get rid of, something they talked about. .hey talked about that with tpp if you want free trade, it is not just about tariffs. it is about all these other things, state subsidies, safety regulations, that look like something else, but function as a trade barrier. the way you deal with that is problem to an independent arbitrator, so that is the problem in the u.k. in the u.s., the problem is slightly different. the courts that were part of nafta, the resolution for trade disagreements, were never as strong as the european court of justice. what we are looking at is a common market in terms of auto parts, right? car.eat goes into the

the seed may have come from mexico to my but the parts from the seat may have come across the border from the u.s. to mexico before the seat goes backs across the border to detroit to be assembled. so we are looking at mexican to theion shifting north border states, deep integration with on terrier -- ontario. we are looking at one single supply chain moving up and down across the midwest of the u.s. north and south that will be impossible to detain go immediately. carol: this is something we need to understand, trade agreements being renegotiated. everybody or many parties can benefit, and in this case, mexico, canada, and the united states. there are benefits all around, and that is benefits for all those economies, benefits in terms of jobs, just lots of benefits shared around. true, theink that is

frustration over the campaign is subject for a different conversation, those benefits were not evenly shared. i want tomp has said increase auto production and auto parts production right here in the u.s. we sell cars in the u.s., we should make them in the u.s.. comes fromvings that moving these assemblies across the border are such that if we were to lose nafta, i'm looking at an analysis right now, a counterfactual analysis, has looked at this and said that overall production in the u.s. would decrease by 1%, which is all of the increased production would be countered by the loss of sales by making production more expensive in the u.s. from moving the production home, right?

you can't shove this whole thing back into the box. oliver: it's not only nafta caught in trumps cross hairs, nato is also under threat, and that could be a good thing for the arms industry. carol: russian tv seems to love president trump, but is that feeling shared inside the kremlin? this is bloomberg. ♪

oliver: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek". i am oliver renick. carol: i am carol massar. you can also listen to us on boston, 901200 and 9.1 fm in washington, d.c. and in and in london asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. the global economic section,

president trump's skeptical comments about nato are forcing some european countries to buy their own arms. carol: and ways to stand up to russia without the u.s.. let's talk about the nato allies out there, that he says have not paid their fair share. what is he talking about? >> that comment raised some concern because he was suggesting that maybe the u.s. itsd put conditions on willingness to stand up for allies in nato, and he was pointing out that a lot of them aren't paying as much as they should. nato guidelines call for 2% of gdp to be spent. rerol: i had no idea the were guidelines. >> it is a fairly new thing. the u.s. has been complaining about europe not spending enough, but more recently, they formalize did with a 2%

guideline. tool: what is also important the bloomberg audience is what is happening in the defense sector. so the expectation is some of these nato members have to meet that standard, so there will be more money spent on defense. >> this might be scary to some countries, but maybe it is counter intuitive. standmpanies themselves to benefit because if there are questions about whether the united states will defend its allies, then that might for some of these european countries to spend more on their own defense. , the raytheoning ceo said he saw a similar thing happen in the middle east during the obama administration as the u.s. pulled out of there and gave a clear message that they needed to pay more for their own defense. they saw a big increase, raytheon that is, in their business, and a lot of other

companies saw a big increase in international sales, and now they are seeing the same kind of signs in europe. carol: those countries had to pick up the slack? >> exactly. a number of these countries have pledged to increase their on defense budgets. major u.s. defense contractors bound by any agreement if they are producing jets or have an agreement with the u.s. government. can they build equipment for other countries? yesot totally free, but they can and do build weapons systems for other countries. is a good example with a number of international customer signed on to that, and there are approval processes for how this works, but these derive ando increasing percentage of sales from international customers. moved,the shares have

expectations on more defense spending, but at the same time, trump is pushing back on the costs for these defense projects in the united states. >> exactly. it is funny because there is a lot of enthusiasm among investors for these companies, clear signs that defense budgets are going up, but there looks to be a greater focus on the costs, so you have companies like lockheed martin pledging to bring down the cost of the f-35, so the extent they can do that, we will see, but there is a trade-off there. carol: staying in the global economic section,he kremlin as starting to realize that dealing with president trump may not be so easy. oliver: we talked with greg white. we look at donald trump picks, how has-- that been viewed across the ocean in russia?

in their testimony in the confirmation hearings, the positions by the secretary of state pick rex tillerson and now already defense secretary matt thenre tougher on russia trump publicly. that has raised concern among kremlin officials who were not quite sure how to read it, in particular with all the scandals around a legend russian support for trump. the focus on russia's alleged role has raised a lot of alarm among kremlin officials that it could complicate efforts to improve relations. carol: go to the other elections, there was a lot of celebrating that donald trump won the november elections in the united states. what is that relationship between donald trump in russia right now? >> there is a great deal of

hope, and one of the things we stateclosely is television as it is controlled by kremlin and is a good barometer of the message thy want the russian population to get. aty had coverage here, the not gratian come all sorts of positive coverage of him and his family and his role in the campaign, so clearly there is a lot of hope invested in him in taking over the presidency. everything negative was written off to the obama administration. clearly they are encouraging people, but at the same time there are signs it might not be quite as good as they are hoping. oliver: when you look at where nominees, howp's

did those people feel in terms of having to align themselves who picked trump, but without making sure they don't seem to on board or get too friendly with russia? that will be one of the first tests of the new administration. how much was their own views and how their positions are different from the president. i think we were only see that in the coming weeks. there he only response we got publicly from the trump administration where tweets ahead of the inauguration. that certainly has been something that has been difficult for foreign partners to read, not just in russia, but europe and elsewhere.

oliver: up next, how cooper and airbnb came out on top of the sharing economy. carol: will snapchat maintain its corporate culture of secrecy leading up to the ipo? ♪

oliver: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek". i am oliver renick. carol: i am carol massar. what uber and airbnb figured out about the sharing economy. and maximizing the returns on the artist known as prince. oliver: all that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek". ♪ oliver: we are back with "bloomberg businessweek" editor in chief megan murphy to talk about must reads in the magazine. one is this great story that is an excerpt from brad stone's

disruptivef the technologies in silicon valley. uber and airbnb, but what brad goes into into this wonderful excerpt is how they started and built these companies and how it started from an idea of solving a simple problem in the market. i could not get a taxicab and i needed a place to sleep. the challenges they overcame, the people integral to making this happen, the the hurdles they had to overcome and the belief they had to have in themselves and how they built these juggernauts, companies that have changed how we live, how we view the world, the labor market. carol: in terms of how they got a corporatere is infrastructure, regulations, but they use you and me to make inroads. megan: certainly.

what they did was they were faced with the regulatory landscape that was not ill for an uber or airbnb. some people said you need to be .icensed like a taxicab you tell them how this benefits them, why this is a better product, and really bring the user along with them every step of the way. regulators had intense scrutiny on them, and they push through not only with their own approach and leaving in the superiority of their product, but hunter is harnessing user loyalty to make their case as well. oliver: the story and narrative focuses on two individuals, -- from uber, but also a

programmer outside the spotlight. i think this is fascinating, because it is how they used the individuals and people behind the scenes. in this case, it was somebody who grew up a prodigy early on, paid for harvard, and basically learned -- they call it spamming, use that, because one of the things about airbnb that was so fascinating is that there were competing products, and they found a way by using these e customers away from other platforms and direct them to airbnb. were talking about using every advantage they have. tha harnesses thatrvice entrepreneurial spirit. .arol: they were irreverent

i feel like he had advisers telling him one thing, and he did it his own way. he is a controversial figure and we should not underplay the controversial role. this is going to lead to a loss of jobs. the regulatory field has not caught up and they are exploiting, so we should not delegitimize those complaints we have. they have had him men's problems in china that we know about, but what they really did is stayed true to what they believe was offering consumers a debtor platform, aa better better way to make use of their money and be more efficient and a way that is user-friendly. it comes through how much how they believed in that in terms of being the driving ethos and force in these platforms.

it is similar to google in terms of search. google always said we think our product is better. they certainly believe that about their product. carol: staying focused on technology, snapchat is known for its ultra secret corporate culture. oliver: is that going to flight leading up to their ipo. we spoke to reporters sarah frier. ceo is notoriously secretive about everything. keeps things close to his best. he sees it as a way to change things down the road, but what it has trickled down to is a culture within the organization, employees not being sure what is going on, being sideload, and it has affected the ipo, and what we have learned recently is that snapchat has threatened underwriters to cut fees if it continues to leak to the press. carol: interesting.

what is it about the culture at snap? does evan want to keep everything tied to the vast? >> when employee saw a commercial about snapchat spectacles, those glasses that take 10 second video, when they saw a commercial about that in december they thought i can finally asked my boss about this rumored they in, and their bosses quickly clamped down and said you may or may not have seen something related to something we may not be working on, so don't talk about it. hours later, evan spiegel confirmed to the public that this was going on in the company was changing their name to snap inc. employees found about that in the news. e been other instances of that, not to use their phones at parties,

scattered in offices throughout venice, california. they don't have all hands ,eetings as often, every week twitter will get together, facebook will get together, and the snapchat does not have a central communication like that. ofver: there is a lot secrecy and silicon valley, but they go the extra mile. the original product is about disappearing messages and images, but investors don't want disappearing or nonexisting fundamental data. how much will this get in the way in terms of communicating with investors about what their company makes, what their company is going to make, and growth? >> snapchat has been quiet about their ipo. process.onfidential they can file confidently if they have lesson one billion --

if they have less than $1 billion in revenue, which they do. what we think they will emphasize is how central their their to the lives of users, how frequently they are using it, how often they are using the camera or messaging service. they might go deep into metrics on that, and they did at a recent analyst meeting. i don't know if those will be regular metrics they disclose every quarter. i don't think we will see a lot of future-looking stuff from snap, and the way analysts rain is fine as long as you are making as much money as we think you are, as long as enough revenue is coming in and you are deserving this $20 billion valuation you are looking for. if you are secretive and doing great, that is great, but if there are cracks in the metrics,

and people will be looking for cracks, then there will be asking for more. onol: up next, allegations cheating borrowers. oliver: how to fulfill president trump's promise to repeal obama care while still keeping everyone insured. carol: this is bloomberg. ♪

oliver: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek". i am oliver renick. carol: i am carol massar. oliver: in the markets and finance section, the biggest servicer of student loans has been cheating borrowers. carol: the growth of student loans is big, $1.4 trillion big, and this loan servicer, navvy and used to be part of sallie

mae, and sallie mae used to originate student loans, and then the obama administration change things around in 2010 and said no more private lenders to originate loans, the federal government will originate all federal student loans, and not navient split off, and they are loan servicers similar to a mortgage servicer, processing your check, answer questions, and they are the conduit to between borrower and the lender. so they are your main point of communication, and they touch one in four of all u.s. student borrowers. carol: $300 billion they are dealing with. confusing if you are a bar. you graduate college, six months later, you start paying on your

loan, and the question is what if you are struggling? you contact the loan servicer, and there is a whole array of options called income-based repayment, and it is super confusing. and even to sophisticated borrowers, it may not be clear what you do, how much you pay, and what program you enter. one of the things they are accused of doing is making it harder for borrowers. carol: such as what? who spoke with a borrower is struggling and enrolled in the income-based program, and you have to recertify every year to make sure you are making enough money to make the full payment, but it is not january 1 or april 15, it is a year after you've entered and have been approved for the program, so nav ant sent this borrower communication that was basically check your email. log into their

internal messaging system to read the email, and the way he puts it, he gets many emails and it is hard to discern whether this is an important email, and so he missed it. interest accrued capitalize and it would be another $7,000 or $8,000 added onto his loan total. they were supposed to be there to help borrowers, and they were accused of not only making it worse, but costly because you had the example where interest accrued then capitalize, and when they should have been telling borrowers options, it made it more confusing in an already confusing process. carol: in the politics and policy section, president trump has promised both care for all after obamacare is repealed. oliver: republicans are having a hard time come up with a replacement. >> the executive order is one of

the first things president trump did when he took office. on one hand, it is a strong declaration that he wants the affordable care act to be repealed. act in office, i want this done. the second thing is a bit more nebulous, so we are trying to find out what it means. what it says is we want the agencies, the irs, the dhs, treasury to do what ever they can to eliminate the burdens of obamacare, and that is the question. it is very vague. what is it they see as the burdens? >> exactly. the thing with executive orders is you can't use them to repeal a law or go beyond what our law alt arises, but what is it theye as the burdens? >> there is some way these agencies once their heads are confirmed can go and use this order to chip away at obamacare. carol: what about the congress?

does some of this require congressional action as well? repealing and replacing obamacare needs to come from congress, and there are at least four plans that are being worked out right now in terms of how do we get rid of this thing, how do we replace it, what is it look like, what happens this year, what happens to-three years down the road. will goit seems like it across different departments of the government, many different people. obviously there are still people being confirmed, but when you get beyond the presidential order, who will be leading this charge? any particular department or person? president trump has said tom price, a georgia congressman, who he picked to lead dhs will play a key role in this in terms of crafting a replacement, and certainly in terms of taking

these interim actions on the affordable care act. price is not confirmed yet, but as long as republicans stick together, he will be confirmed. dialogue have heard about pre-existing conditions, kids staying on insurance plans. do we know any of the specifics in a new health care plan? >> some of the parts of the aca that people like are things like if you are sick, you can buy health insurance. people with pre-existing conditions are covered, and kids can stay on plans until they are 26. that is something that trump and other folks have said they will keep, and by all indications, they will try to. the question is whether they can make that work. oliver: on the specifics of repealing, is it lifting up and done? or is it looking at big elements of it that we want to change? he says he was to repeal, and that has been his talking point.

is it symbolic or do have to rip it up and start a new? would be hard to rip it out and wind the clock back to 2010, so it's more likely that pieces of the law would go away, and the question becomes what do .ou replace it with one thing folks keep saying is that 20 million people gained health insurance under this law, and no one wants them to lose coverage, so the question is would you do about that, how do you set up a new system where those people can buy health insurance are getting through the government or something else entirely. next, the pot industry produces a new farming method that could end up feeding urban areas. in on plus, cashing prince's estate and popularity now that he is gone. oliver: this is bloomberg. ♪

carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek". i am carol massar.

oliver: i am oliver renick. you can also catch us on the radio. , 99.1 in and boston washington, d.c. and in asian london on the bloomberg radio plus app. in the companies and industry section, a farming in of the innovation from a weed entrepreneur. >> they sell the picks and shovels necessary for the legal marijuana business. they grow the things needed to grow pot indoors. their idea is that this is basically a stepping stone towards changing the way we farm food. oliver: so that is because basically if you have a further legalization of marijuana, it will become more of an industry in which people are pouring

money into the technology, and then what happens to the technology as more people are involved? more peopleis that are growing pot indoors than food indoors. for example, the price is something like $.49 an ounce for cale at whole foods, but it is $150 for cannabis, so the growers have much more money to spin on technology to grow inside. pot is typically grown inside where as food is grown outdoors, so the idea is the cannabis growers can adopt this technology, figure out how to make it work, make it that are, and as the price of wheat pushming down, they will for cheaper tools in order to grow indoors, and those will, the byproduct will benefit growing food. carol: he is the guy behind pure aggro, what is his vision?

is that vertical farming can change the problems he sees in the food industry, so basically what he says it that 1500-1700 miles for produce to get your plate if you live in an urban center like new of thety, and all different environmental impacts of that are a problem as ec and something he wants to fix. there are also matters of the changing climate and the fact that it is not predictable to grow crops outdoors. carol: having to pay for the rain and the sun. >> what his argument is that actually he is spending less money or these companies are spending less money, using less water, and they are actually

read do seeing that carbon footprint, especially given the fact our climate is unclear these days. oliver: in the companies and industry section, the music icon prince held tight control of his music throughout his long career , sometimes in ways that weren't profitable. carol: the music executives in charge of his estate want to change that. famous,e became as especially later in his career and life, for his idiosyncrasies as for the music he made. most of the big songs you think of from prince are the 1980's. he was this artist who refused to bend his will to what the industry wanted, what the tech industry wanted. he wanted to control his music and put it out however he saw fit. in his death, he is unable to do

so because he left no will, and it is now the job of the people representing his estate to extract as much money as possible without completely selling his legacy, but it means that prince as an artist is in the hands of people who did not know him very well and can do what they want. it is anywhere from $50 million to $100 million. these catalogs can be immensely valuable if they are treated properly and you find a way to make that are to stay relevant and current culture, then there are some people who fade away. you always tend to hope someone like print stays around, but you never know. you have cases like michael jackson and the beatles where they will be famous, that prince is a run for two beneath that. carol: it is kind of sad, because here is prince the artist who did things the way he wanted to while he was alive.

he broke from his label, getting his song from streaming services , but now that he passed away without a will, it is up to lawyers. who is driving that now? the two people appointed to make all the deals for the princes state where charlie cap omen, a longtime music industry and has developed a and one other man. the two men are in charged and have made deals that will be valid regardless moving forward, but there has been a move by prince's sister to try to get man jones the political commentator and author to be the person in charge of this state -- estate instead. how that plays out is unclear,

but at the moment cap woman and mcmillan are trying to get all the duns, at least the big deals like record labels, music publishers and so on. carol: "bloomberg businessweek" is available on newsstands now. oliver: also on bloomberg.com. carol: i loved the excerpt from brad stone's new book. we're talking about uber and airbnb specifically. these companies have some and it's tied back to the inauguration day of president obama. these are companies that pushed back against established ways in the hospitality industry. i loved hearing the specifics, the people behind it. i can't wait to read more. how about you? oliver: i think it is an interesting point about how to theset the fx of all

agreements, whether trade or geopolitical agreements, under question now and what the real effect might be. carol: it was a great issue. oliver: more bloomberg television starts right now. ♪ ♪

♪ coming up, the stories that shaped the weekend business around the world. >> the administration is the ground running, acting swiftly on several campaign promises. >> what leaders to create jobs in the u.s. kesyou will get favor sha ordeals with trading partners. >> a lot of people were hoping he would start with tax reform. >> the industrial average is 20,000. we asked what is in a number? >> we expect 10 ipo's in the next few weeks. >> greed eventually comes back. >> parliament will get to vote on brexit. >> it is