-- investigation into security advisor michael flynn, lettingng he see about this go. according to testimony prepared for his appearance tomorrow before the senate intelligence committee, comey also said the president told him again, quoting, i need loyalty when the two dined alone in the white said henerate 27th and thought the encounter was designed to come in mr. comey's is worth, create some sort of patronage relationship. the senate intelligence committee today opened two days inhearings in russian's role the 2016 presidential election. the focus was on whether president trump to influence the fbi investigation. >> i do not feel it is appropriate for me in the public in which confidential conversations between the president and myself, i don't

believe it is appropriate for me to address that in a public session. tomorrow we will have full coverage of the testimony at 9:30 a.m. washington time and streams live on twitter and your bloomberg. surveillance video captured a moment a man attacked the police officers with a hammer. the man screamed out this is for syria before hitting one of the officers yesterday, slightly injuring him. police then shot the man, a 40-year-old student, who is rick -- recovering. deeply shocked, saddened, and numbed by her ex-husband's's actions. charisse issued a statement had asaying she and he daughter together and split up six months ago. she did not support his beliefs.

the attacks left eight people dead. global news 24 hours a day powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in over 120 countries. i am mark crumpton. this is bloomberg. ♪ julia: live, i am julia. scarlet: i am scarlet fu. >> stocks calling a two-day slide and session highs. joe: the question is what did you miss? scarlet: comey's's prepared remarks, a written statement released days before his highly anticipated hearing. he appeared to feel that president trump pressured him about the russia inquiry. the president saying he would nominate a former justice

official to replace comey as the new official of the fbi. a live reaction i'm congressman french hill of arkansas next. here in new york, the bloomberg invest summit is underway. withclusive sitdown elliott and blackstone ceo steve schwarzman. all of that this hour. look at wherea major averages stand as we head toward the close. abigail doolittle is standing by. abigail: we had stocks at session highs p that is true. small gains snapping a two-day decline we were talking about where we have more action. oil 5%. it had on paper its worst day since the end of may. it's longest stretch. and bloomberg intelligence analyst in the commodities space the path of least resistance, he thinks the between $45 per barrel

and 55 could be broken and is really suggest that there is an inventory supply solution even if opec or to come out with a supply cut. 500,orst drag on the s&p some of these higher names tend to react more within the energy safe, we are seeing that today. we also had read in the infrastructure space. look at chicago breach and iron. coming as they cut the price target by more than 30%, 1150 per share, citing quarter debts. clearly not liking that and that appears to be taking other names with rentals down. plus, backdrop with oil. take a look at infrastructure since the election.

it has been one sector to benefit from. take a look at g #btv. we see the pop out of the election and right around the inauguration of president trump, we start to see the stocks are taking down. $1s as invest you -- trillion infrastructure play that would stimulate this but now investors are wondering perhaps when they will get the details. scarlet: thank you. reported, james comey released his prepared testimony. let's head to washington for some reaction. kevin is joined by congressman on the hill. >> i am here with a rep -- a republican on the house financial services committee. you makek you, what do

of the former fbi director james comey testimony just released? >> my thought was it seems to get -- document the way president trump described his interactions with president comey. it says clearly that there -- he did not overstep the bounds. maybe it was not ideal, but it seemed to confirm trump's views of the operation. >> so from what you read into it, no evidence of obstruction of justice. >> adjusted not appear to meet that standard to me. >> do you have confidence, in the president that he made the right decision to fire director comey? >> listeningtake? to director comey in the last years, and i respected him over the years for his views, i have have had their concerns and shared their

concerns about director comey, so it did not surprise me that the administration -- >> european counterparts, what is the global perception of the united states, the trump just got back, he -- >> europeans are definitely, they were reassured by the president us his trip to europe in the middle east and walked lela more comforted there. they still want to see americans to a partnership with europe, diplomatically, nationally sick -- national security wise, and that was the intent of the president's over there. in my visit, i thought they got that reinsurance -- reassurance. always a little bit of give-and-take when it comes to president trump, but in discussions one-on-one with parliamentarians, they like what they heard about the commitment to fight isis. they like what they heard about

the transit clinic partnership. they still have concerns as they get to know the administration about trade and national security priorities. that is something the administration will have to continue to work on with a partner in europe. >> all of these competing's storylines with director comey testifying tomorrow, a big vote in the house of representatives are they losing anything with all of this other noise? >> i do not think so. house of representatives are focusing on what they want us to do. regulatory road pursuing a negotiating tax reform and fixing the failings of the obamacare health act. we are working on all of those very quickly in a compromised

way. let's let's talk about the senate. saying the bill tomorrow is a cornerstone of economic growth. meeting with senators all day, my sources say there is an uphill battle and it is not an immediate priority in the senate. the -- is how i think they are looking at this. reviewed and spent six years on and now enacted, let us pick from that things in the senate. i hope the senate will look at what we have done in the house, pick some things where there is consensus, like tailoring regulations for community banks, it is a big issue. there is bipartisan support. let me ask you again, it seems the russia issue is picking up. insurance, islike

all of this now directly issues they are advocating for, being stalled as a result of controversial issues ? >> i do not see that they are being stalled. can walk and chew gum at the same time in congress. i know the american people that this but we can. we can review and give a vigorous sanction -- russia and iran. we can do -- about russia's meddling in our elections. i think we can do all of those things and pass meaningful reforms and taxes and revelatory policies that would get a faster economy.

>> if you are a small business owner, they will be watching director comey. tomorrow, atching lot of folks are saying this is a message -- messaging bill, , howhappens in the senate much of this will be community bank regulation? not a lot of bipartisan support. >> i think there is consensus on ourwe designate systemically important financial institutions on both sides avail. it eight -- it may be different but it needs to change. at the the bank president came and made that statement. i would like to see a qualitative approach. this is an approach senator shelby took in the last congress. having we need to change how we designate and coordinate institutions. week on capitol hill.

thank you for coming on bloomberg tv. scarlet, back to you in new york. scarlet: our chief washington correspondent on capitol hill. >> coming up, david rubenstein will sit down with paul singer. do not miss a muscle. it is a conversation you do not want to miss. ♪

>> tomorrow, u.k. voters head to the polls, and making their final pitches, they believe jeremy korman -- corbyn is hosting a final event in north london. bloomberg's u.k. governor joins on the phone.

us about what people are saying here and what do they believe his chances are of winning this general election? partyre is a bit of a atmosphere. they seem to be the hundreds of people here lining the streets. he gained a lot of momentum in the campaign. he has certainly narrowed the polls. could still be one of the biggest surprises in history few manages to pull it off. joe: very unlikely for a labor win. where is the bar set for tomorrow? how many seats do they have to get to be happy about the election?

>> it depends on who you talk to in the party. ending up with more than 200 seats, originally expected to do very badly particularly north and midland. parliament, and if labor wins enough seats to perform a coalition with another, smaller party, i think they would be very happy indeed. nobody in the party even three weeks ago would have expected it. >> a lot depends on whether young voters turn out. young people did not necessarily -- give us a sense of how many generate a likely to

lot of enthusiasm for corbyn? >> i do not know if you can hear the chanting in the background. one million registered to vote. the difficulty is how many actually turn out tomorrow but also how the voter distribution looks like. , the tricky bit for labor is betting those votes in places like the northeast, they targets where they had gained a big following and the anecdotal evidence is they the going toward theresa may rather than jeremy corbyn. dish -- thee blur british love an underdog but jeremy corbyn was a national joke by the u.k. press. what has he done to get this

kind of level of grassroots support? is it theresa may throwing it away? are his viewshat on europe right now? what does he need for the brexit vote? is committed to brexit, but his stance was only something which was a problem for him in the campaign. a softer brexit than theresa may. in terms of how he managed to pull it off, it is true that the jeremy corbyn you are seeing now is very different from the jeremy corbyn you saw against again, he likes talking to people, he is in a crowd and you can hear the crowd chanting in the background now. theresa may had run a pretty bad campaign. withried to come across strength and stability, but that was making her look like she is

cut off from ordinary voters. i would say theresa may loss support even within her own party and jeremy corbyn, who a he was iny as league with terrorists, is coming across as quite a nice guy. for many voters, that is quite the feeling in modern day politics. >> thank you. getting more come to wearing a tie. he was never wearing a tie in the beginning. certainty -- uncertainty is making investors cautious. washington is now trading beijing as an ally, that could change at any moment. >> it is one of the interesting rings. china was the bogeyman at 2016

in the campaign. following one visit to mar-a-lago, the president and she jinping seem to be best buddies. i think this is one of those things that has caused most of us watching, remember we are stock guys and not macro people. will make that caveat as i always do. the policy could change tomorrow. i think that is something that has a lot of people a little uncertain. you had a currency manipulator, trade problems, and the administration is focused on trade. now all of a sudden, china is our best friend in the western pacific. not know. clearly people are focused on north korea as they should be. but the south china sea is still being developed militarily by china.

you have the chinese currency stabilizing parks -- post mar-a-lago, probably a good thing. but we will have to see. this administration seems to make it up as it goes along. what the policy will be six months or a year from now, i have no idea. >> we cannot say the threat of a trade war with china has in removed? >> i think anything that will bring tariffs is a dumb idea. i am a free trade guy. beyond chinawell and will extend to partners in north america and europe. ofseem to be picking a lot fights these days. china seems to be one we are not. but we seem to be concerning a lot of traits part as everywhere else in the world. the general drop in global trade

would have to be bad news, i think. joe: that was noted short seller chain us from new york -- chanos from new york. this is bloomberg. ♪

joe: we have u.k. elections tomorrow and we are trying to figure out which sectors and stocks in the u.k. would react to different scenarios, different outcomes. it is a competition question in part because the relationship between outcome in market reaction is not clear and the outcome is so ambiguous. at theoretical ideas for what we would lose under a big theresa may victory. one would be utilities. they have come under fire. they might rally initially that andlabor won't win,

ultimately a conservative victory not so great for utilities. also the idea that a solid made vector would lead to pound strengthening. not idea for -- not ideal for exporters. the concern is when. event lieberman's come back, look for defense names such as bae systems, a yellow line in the chart, to falter. corbyn is not a of britain's nuclear weapons system. utilities are here because labor in the blue line is rbs. in general, smaller domestically focused companies would likely get hurt by a weaker pound if labor were to prevail. >> jen is weighing in on this as well.

the relative performances, joe , the biasning their toward the stocks that have a key element of exporters, generated elsewhere outside of the u.k. what stuck in the thing you need to get along the ftse 100, short the 50 to 50 at the start of the brexit negotiations, because they expected to issue a drop and despite rise the fall we have rbc and in sterling, they believe sterling has got farther to go particularly relative to euro. joe: deadly demonstrates how the small cap and large cap is sensitive to the pound. very indicative. scarlet: u.k. elections tomorrow. let's head to the invest some it happening right now at bloomberg headquarters in midtown manhattan. the co-cio of elliott management is sitting down now with rubenstein, host of the david

rubenstein show, peer-to-peer conversations, on bloomberg television. let's listen in. >> 23 hours later, it was filled up. months ofme preparation. >> let me fill better, supposing one called you and said i'm a friend of yours and new you from law school, is there any room to get in later? >> no. we set in a limit of five dollars overall. it is $34 billion at this point. >> you started your fund in what year? >> 1977. >>, much money did you have? >> $1.3 million. >> where did you get that from? >> friends and family. i was a practicing lawyer. decided what ii had been doing, managing a small , a tiny amount of friends

and family, money was more interesting than practicing law. >> so you grew up in manhattan and then you went to harvard law school. when you went to harvard law school, did you think people were smarter than you thought or not as smart? >> way smarter to a thought they would be very smart and the professors were smart. it was a wonderful experience but it was daunting. especially because i did not exactly like what i was doing. >> you went to practice law in new york. >> in the absence of a better idea. >> i practiced law in new york initially as well. give up the practice of law to go into business, my mother said, you going to law school, what did your mother say when you said i'm going to give up the practice of law? said what?

living?"ou earn a " keep your said, bar membership active. you never know. certificate in the pn a bench for 20 -- pn a badge for 20 years. >> you have a million friends and family. what was the strategy you used to get off the ground? you say you would invest in stocks or a macro fund? what was the strategy? >> a tiny bit of context, my dad was a retail pharmacist. after i started attending law school, he said you have to learn how to be an investor or amountsd i traded tiny of tech stocks and mining stocks together. and $5,000 of

this. i became very interested in and in the trading time from 1967 to 1968 through 1974, he and i found just about every possible -- he and i found every possible way conceivable to lose money. in 1977i wanted a trading strategy that made money all the time. ,or the first 10 years or so the primary strategy was convertible bond hedge funds. by the fund, short the stock. it had a short positive carry .rom trading profit i practiced it on the low leverage and it did the job. consistent return, making money more or less over time. >> 1977i was in the white house getting inflation -- did that affect your arbitrage strategy at all? [laughter]

1977,is interesting, from there were close to normal interest rates. normally the path from a 5%, 6% interest rate to 15% or 70% is a path of losing significant amounts of money. the hedging worked very, very well. the absolute level of the interest rate provided a strong positive carry. you made money on the coupon, money on interest sharing, on the shortstop. high,years were very so-called standstill rates of return. plus an opportunity for trading profits. where did the name come from? >> my middle name. >> was that hard? did you think about greek or roman names?

>> i thought it was better than paul. [laughter] >> and one pointed you realize, i am better than the average person doing this because i have rate concerns that are more consistent. i never thought of it that way. toas completely determined reallyrate of return recapture my parents money that i have lost previously. ways to pursue that goal at a time when convertibles were coming more quantified, leveraged, competitive. >> if someone had invested with you in the beginning and kept their money with you from the beginning, what kind of rate of return with a have compounded over 40 years?

old?mother is 99 years >> 99 plus. >> i assume she is proud of you? >> yes, she is. [laughter] does she recognize giving up the practice of law was perhaps a good idea? she has not been in great shape. >> but she must've called you and said, you are doing great. >> she said, your reports are too long. [laughter] >> at least she was reading them. >> no, she was saving them. 13.5% neteginning, a compounded rate of return, one dollar became $160, $165.

some early investors have stayed and basically all the time. period ofr a 40 year time you compounded it 13.5%. that is pretty good. in recent years, as your fame has gotten bigger and bigger you have gotten more and more money. at the core of what you do, you quality macro fund or value fund, what would you describe your investment technique if you were to use a couple words to describe it? >> i would call it multi-strategy. others call it absolute return. the idea of our portfolio mix is to try to make money as close as possible to all the time. what we have done over the years in pursuit of that goal, vanilla convertible hedging became uninteresting, was add other ways of generating absolute returns. for example, i came to feel --

part of it was my experience as a lawyer, that manual activities, trading manual effort for risk, was a good way to add value and also control risk. that is why bankruptcy, distressed securities, were largest capital deployment. that is why in recent years, equity activism has become very important for capital deployment. >> it is an interesting -- important part of what you do now, equity activism. one that is famous, you bought some bonds from argentina. you may remember this. was that 17 years ago? you held onto the bonds for a long time. you reached a settlement favorable for your investors.

was it hard to hold on that long? did you have threats from the argentine government? were you worried about them coming after you? onit was not hard to hold and a portfolio sense because at no time until the current ivernment came into office believe in december of 2015, at no time before that did the previous two governments negotiate with us. there was no opportunity. we were not going to tank that take it or leave a deal because they put it on the table first 2010.5 and repeated it in it was a $.30 deal, the worst sovereign restructuring deal offered by a real country. this was the seventh largest economy in the world coming out of world war ii. oretimes the stubbornness

motivations of your adversary cause you to not be able to make a deal. , ithe claim mounts up becomes potentially a larger recovery. ,avid: your investors may say you made a little investment, did they say this over a long period of time? paul: interestingly, no. even when i got a lot of press. it was not an easy situation. 14, 15 years holding this thing. it was contentious. david: you did not worry if someone would physically attack you from argentina? paul: this is not the place to talk about security arrangements, but it was a contentious situation. david: today you do other things like that where you take corporate or government bonds and you are willing to litigate. that is generally profitable? paul: litigation, we are

dealmakers, activists. we get on committees, bankruptcies. we were the sole hedge fund on the lehman creditors committee. separately, enter deals, trade. litigation is always a last resort in a situation where there is a dispute about seniority or claims. david: for being a lawyer, that does not prepare you to do more litigation? paul: no, it is just a tool, part of the equation. one of the risks limiting value creation strategies is on correlation. it is a wonderful element to add to absolute returns seeking portfolio. if you are doing something that has a pattern of risk and return, even if it is volatile,

even if it is binary. a pattern of returns that does not have anything to do with the course of the stock or bond market or anything else in your portfolio, that is an elegant part of the mix. david: you do research on a theany, somebody calls up ceo and says this is a way you can improve your company and they say, it is a good idea, i wish i had thought of that -- does that happen much? paul: it is interesting, the way you are asking the question. the responses that of the company is always either anger or hanging on or some combination. david: sometimes they like the idea? paul: no, sometimes you are knocking on an open door. my style and our style as a team doing the work as thoroughly

as we can to develop a thesis, assess whether there is an action or series of actions that can be taken to eliminate underperformance or ameliorate situation, then, contacting a company privately, testing with consultants or anchors, testing our ideas. also, contacting a company privately and generating a dialogue. sometimes, you find your knocking on an open door. sometimes there is a founder or management team that is ready to sell out, or happy to go on to something else. but they do not want to feel they are deserting their staff, employees. there are a lot of different reasons why the company is ready for some sort of reformation or new blood, likes to see a

resolution that can maximize value. david: how many investment professionals do you have in your firm? paul: about 120. david: do sign off on every investment, or major ones? how do decisions go forward? paul: i have a co-ceo and a co-cio. and hee is john pollock has been with me since 1989. we moreperiod of time, than just complete each other's sentences. there are two people running the firm at this point. as a money manager and executive, the founding impulse of the hedge fund idea is, independence of thinking. it is the opposite of committee.

folksrliest hedge fund were by themselves. they were privateers. i never thought that the craft would be susceptible to an organizational approach, the team approach. i actually never really thought i would be able to be a good manager and a good team leader. but the way it actually works, it is a process by which we attempt to train people to accept responsibility to deliver trustworthy insights, inputs, to have done the work or commissioned the work. elliott is ang at matter of devolving responsibility as low as we can within the organization, within

agreed boundaries, strategies, tactics. generally approve every meaningful position and certainly we have deep discussions about every large position. david: you are a mild-mannered, soft-spoken person. you do not look like a guy that would be yelling, screaming, pounding the table of people. as a personimage that strikes fear in ceos. they are worried if they get a call from paul singer. there is an image of being a tough person and commanding, that people do certain things, when you're fairly mild-mannered inseam low-key. paul: it is an interesting question because what i have learned over the years is, to opprobriumo much --

and unfair press -- there is a part of this equation that is functional. in other words, if that is the repetition we have -- reputation we have, backed by money and process, generally sound thinking about the positions, it is good when a corporate executive opens the mail or andl or picks up the phone listens with the understanding have there real, capacity to carry through, and a history of carrying through on projects that we undertake, and that we need to be convinced in to say, ok, sorry. which, sometimes we do. sorry, we are wrong. or, doing a great job. it does not bother me anymore. david: you have become well

known in the republican party outside your firm, were you always a republican? a stevensonian democrat in 1966. a kennedy liberal. but starting with goldwater, i became a conservative, a political conservative. inid: you were involved various republican causes. last election, who was your favorite candidate? [laughter] ofl: i stood aside for most 2015. and then worst -- and then i supported marco rubio. david: when he dropped out, did you have anybody next? paul: no, i stood aside. david: ultimately, when donald trump was a nominated party, did

you support him then? paul: i voted for him. i was not going to vote for hillary clinton, as some of my republican friends did. about sometimistic of the opportunities in economic growth and regulatory reform, tax reform. david: has donald trump invited you to visit him? did you know him before he was elected president? paul: no, i did not. i hate joined -- i invested in some of his bonds area -- his bonds. [laughter] david: they later became high yields. paul: and below. david: have you seen them since he was elected president? paul: i visited the white house once a few months ago and we chatted a bit about taxes and economic policy. david: how do you see the

economy right now? you're making investments across the board, are you worried about the economy, dca recession coming? paul: i will preface my answer by saying, i have strong views about certain aspects of the macro environment. but i do not let these views affect my desire to be hedged all the time. never make massive timing bets on the timing of bear markets or downturns. i am very concerned about where we are, in terms of the financial system, the american economy, global economy. after nine years of what i consider to be distorted set of policies, completely oriented towards what i regard as monetary extremism, the

quantitative easing, which has of bonds $15 trillion and stocks on the books of the developed countries. central banks, 0% and negative interest rates. emergency monetary policy afterting for eight years the emergency is over, combined with what i consider to be growth-suppressive fiscal tax -- i regulatory think it has created a distorted recovery. it has been partially responsible for this augmentation, exacerbation of inequality, that has caused a combination of that and the incomplete recovery has caused this middle-class stress. edginess around the world,

which has led to polluted, fringe parties and friendship thoughts -- and fringe , populism. after this article about financial axis, high-end real estate, art, the things rich what we havebuy, today is a global financial system that is just about as leveraged, and in many cases, more leveraged than before 2008. i do not think the financial system is more sound. i do think the fixes that have been put into place have actually created a sound financial system. i do not believe that confidence is justified in policymakers and the central bankers. the fact that confidence has not been lost up to now, is obvious.

but if and when confidence is lost, i think it could be lost in a very abrupt fashion, causing conceivably a ruckus in the bond markets, stock markets, and financial institutes. david: you have raised a lot of money for republicans, have you gotten a lot of value for your money? how much influence do you get for all the money you have given to these people? paul: i do not think of it in terms of value for your money. it is a very interesting thing with politics. havehat many of my peers the staying power or stubbornness or stupidity to persist as long in the political activist, funder, fundraiser, as i.

many people find and fear that reliability and effectiveness that they expect and find in their businesses is not what they find in reliabilid politics. the answer to your question is, i do have and do speak to policymakers to try to convey ideas about the things i know best about regulatory reform, the financial politics. regulation, the economy, the soundness of the financial system. they sometimes it, thank you for your ideas, rather than having a fundraiser in a week? paul: that is not the way it goes. problem, let's be

humanists here, their problem is that they are subject to all sorts of forces, pressures, coming from 360 degrees. the right policies and the best are not necessarily -- many of them listen and many of them are smart. but they are not necessarily things that make the final cut. but i think it is important for -- informed citizens, to try to give assistance. republicanng activists who actually can, in a relatively un-conflicted level -- we have less to parochial interest in what we talked to policymakers about than most. calledhas donald trump you up, watched her interview,

said you are a smart guy, why don't you be secretary of something? we can open up a senior position. paul: i would say thank you very much mr. president, but i am doing what i love doing. be happy to render whatever help i can as a private citizen. david: as a private citizen you have done very well. your hedge fund has done extremely well. $34 billion now. as a result of that, you have been very involved in philanthropy. area is human rights. what propelled you to get involved in human rights and marriage equality issues? apply tost of all, i philanthropy the same spirit of activism, trying to get involved, make a difference, make an impact, create things, not just write out a check. it is a similar impulse as the

impulses that govern might investment stocks. rights, my of gay younger son came out to me as gay in 1998, when he was 21 years old. shortly after some brief discussions, i became very in being a funder of gay rights groups, and helping out in that realm. at the beginning, just writing out checks. pursuant to agreement with my son, anonymously. but over a period it became overt and i and my team became gaye friendly with legacy

writes a groups, including -- gay rights groups, including hard-core democrat groups. we worked together on projects. it was a very highly strategic and well executed project, a partnership with the governor of with us and our democratic friends, to make gay marriage legal in new york, which required republican state help, and we were involved in that. david: many of your republican conservative friends, said we are not in favor of marriage equality -- did that occur, or did you not care what they think? paul: at the beginning of my ,vert support of gay rights

including new york marriage equality, i took as much flak from the left as from the right. but much less than i expected. the stick i took from the left was, gee, look at this guy. his son is gay, but he supported gay rights.nst i was supportive of many republicans that were not in support of gay rights. i found that a number of republicans -- i lived in new york, we would find such people, a number of republicans who were hard-core republicans on fiscal issues and rule of law and all kinds of other issues. but, very interested in the social issues having a more

liberal or left wing slant. that much more and something that build bridges with other republicans. frankly, the republicans who did not like it, most of them if you have a some really loyal, steady republican activists and followers who were supporting something they do not support, they are still 80% your friend and 20% supporting things you do not support. just to say one more thing about it, i think most republicans, even the ones that do not support gay rights or gay marriage equality have a good ,ense of where things are going demographically.

and the opportunity for the republican party there -- i did not get too much. david: you are one of the early signers of the giving pledge with warren buffett and bill gates. it will -- it says during your lifetime or death, you will give away half your money. what are the other things you are most passionate about giving your money to? paul: i signed up for the giving pledge once i realized that is what i was going to do anyway. i am very interested in supporting jewish causes, and thearly israel, economic stability and growth of israel, the acceptance of israel, the normalization of israel's relationships with other countries. i am also interested in the rule of law.

campuses,ested in the due process on campus. causesre a number of that the volvo over periods -- over periods of time. i donate, figure out the best ways to make impact. in certain cases, i have created and my team has created things that did not exist, to fill in gaps. david: when you're not investing y,ur money or investors' mone you must have time for relaxation. what gives you pleasure outside those other activities? are you a skier, a hiker? musician, i play p&l, keyboards. -- i play p&l -- pian

o, keyboards. david: at home? paul: i play with other musicians. david: did you play when you are young, or did you do this late in life? paul: i started taking piano lessons when i was 10 years old and was interested in playing rock, blues, honky-tonk piano when i was 12 years old. i have been in reggae bands, rock bands. david: are you the only white guy in the reggae band? the only reggae band i was in was all white. [laughter] david: and all jewish, too. [laughter] my mother sent me to

piano lessons at roughly the same age, and said, mrs. rubenstein, save your money. i do not have the same skills. paul: most of my family are musicians. we have a family band, also. we have a guitar player, a saxophone player, drummer. snowmobile, hike. i like the outdoors. i sail, like the outdoors. david: pretty active, you are a exercise-fitness person as well? paul: sure. david: today when you look back on what you have accomplished -- say "the new york times" wanted someone to write an obituary for pulsing her. what would you like to see as the headline of what you have accomplished in your life? paul: could it be "the wall street journal?''

[laughter] david: what would you like them to say this man accomplished in his life? he tried to make a difference, he protected a lot of people's capital over a long period of time, he was steady, reliable. david: pretty good. a lot of people who are wealthy i have noticed are not very happy. you are a pretty wealthy person. would you say you are happy with what you have accomplished, you're not tortured? paul: this is a form of therapy, i appreciate it area do you mind if i lie down? [laughter] david: you have done an incredible job building a business. i want to thank you for a great conversation and everyone here for listening. [applause] david: thank you. scarlet: that was carlyle andp's david rubenstein

paul singer, the co-ceo and co-cio of elliott management. coming up later this hour from the bloomberg and best summit, we will hear blackstone ceo investing in this political environment. joe: "what'd you miss?" fired fbi director james comey says donald trump asked him to put an end to the investigation into former security advisor michael flynn. in a prepared statement, ahead of tomorrow's senate intelligence hearing, comey wrote, the president repeated that flynn had not done anything wrong on his calls with the russians, but had misled the vice president. he said "i hope you can see your weight to letting this go, to letting flynn go. he is a good guy, i hope you can let this go." let's head back to capitol hill with stephen dennis, bloomberg congressional reporter. a stephen, i read that paragraph or section just now. it does not sound great for the president.

arehe other hand, there details the white house probably likes to see, such as the fact that comey does confirm he told the president unprompted he was not specifically under any investigation, relative to russia. also, did not say trump and tried to get him to quash the broader russian investigation, that early focus on a. what is your overall assessment of how both sides are viewing this prepared remark? the most damaging is that moment where the president clears the room so they just him and comey are alone when he makes this request to comey to drop the flynn investigation. that is a dramatic moment. it reads dramatic. tomorrow we will get it on camera. opposite of what the

president said happened when he whether he had pressured comey to drop the investigation. he was at a press conference a few weeks ago and denied it happened. he said thated -- she said investigation. itia: they talked about how evolved. in his prepared statement, comey said a few moments later, the president said, i need at, i expect loyalty. change my facial way.ssions in any the conversation moved on. -- james comey decided not to push the situation any further. we go back to this idea, if james comey felt awkward in this relationship going forward, should he not have made this clearer? was he in a position where he

should've said, look, i have been compromised and need to step back from this role? steven: i think that is what you're going to hear a lot from republican senators tomorrow. i spoke with senator lindsey graham about this a couple hours ago when this news first broke. his question is, if he really thought this was so bad, why didn't he resign? why didn't he threatened to resign? why didn't he do something affirmatively about these instances? whether it is a loyalty dinner, the calls about getting the russian investigation wrapped up quickly, or at least to tell the public -- you repeatedly asked comey that they were not under investigation. ,learly, there was a tense uneasy relationship from the very beginning between the two. this very interesting loyalty dinner with the two of them,

they are seated alone, in the green room at the white house, just discussing russia and other things. it is really kind of amazing that you have this sense of comey being tested by trump for andloyalty early on, repeatedly calling comey in ways that comey felt were inappropriate. trying to feel him out on the russian investigation. scarlet: to follow what julie wasinappropriate. asking, if james comey thought it was inappropriate, felt uncomfortable, did not want to be in that situation, who to?d he have appealed should he have brought it up to the attorney general, a political appointee of donald trump, who was likely to take donald trump's side? where could he is turned to, congress? gone to theould've attorney general. he discusses that in the prepared remarks. they decided not to because they

felt jeff sessions would recuse himself anyway from the russian investigation. the deputy attorney general at the time was the acting deputy attorney general, he would not be in the position a long time. they decided not to tell anybody. it could have gone to congress as well, but they decided not to do that, either. we are going to have russians tomorrow. he will be challenged tomorrow, particularly by republican senators -- why didn't he bring this up in hearings to congress? why did he keep it all a secret? joe: you spell out what you anticipate are going to be some of the points brought up i republicans. what do you think the democrats are going to try to extract from comey tomorrow? steven: i think they want to hone in on this idea of obstruction of justice. that is a big issue here, was there an abuse of power and obstruction of justice so big that it could imperil the presidency itself?

they are going to ask comey about the tone, not just the content of these interactions, but the tone the president had. was it threatening? did he feel that if he did not comply, his job was at stake? jokey kind ofa interaction? the closer he gets to a threatening kind of situation, the more abuse of power and obstruction or get -- obstruction of justice is what they are talking about. wrote an article about this, eight senators to watch at the comey hearing. richard burr, mark warner, john mccain -- who do you think is going to be the most dangerous to james comey and the administration, donald trump? wyden. one might be ron he has been a fierce critic of comey in the past. he has also been a fierce critic

of president trump. very somebody that has a tough questioning style. i could see him really dragging down on this obstruction of justice, but not letting comey off the hook, either. john mccain will be one of the last questioners, he could be doing cleanup. he has not pulled any punches on russia or the president, frankly. he has said this is the testimony he has heard about that is very disturbing to him. he could be a republican that punches a little bit of the president from the right. joe: stephen denis, bloomberg's congressional reporter, great setup for tomorrow. after the break, we will be talking about italy and a look at what of some of the recent moves in interest rates may mean for the housing market. from new york, this is bloomberg. ♪

julia: welcome back to "what'd you miss?" i am julia chatterley. we will take a deep dive into the bloomberg, you can find it using the function at the bottom of our screen. this chart might look familiar. last week we were talking about the spread between portugal and italy. if you look at the spread between italy and germany, investors not that cautious on this one. foraw a relative tightening the push for italy. before, i showed you the tenure.

this is the 30 year -- why? italy will be issuing thirty-year debt. making use of a low bond yields. italy coming to the market, expected to offer around 3.5%. since late highest 2014, just to point that out. when we have seen in the 10 year, this charter showing you italy's spread. at the same going on in the 30 year. spread tightening, relative to italy. we have italy in terms of the market this week, they have orders for 22 billion euros. the question is price and the timing, why now? do we get an election in the autumn? are they trying to make use of a window they have now? interesting to see the demand we are already seeing. apparently, italy's most recent issue is trading at a discount of 20% to its safe value.

scarlet: i love this, we always talk about the difference between german and italian bond yields. but you do not get the whole picture of what is going on. julia: absolutely, look at the relative value trade here. joe: great chart. i want to talk about nba mortgage purchases. rates were rising earlier in the year, postelection. there was a lot of concern about what higher rates -- would higher rates hurt the housing market? housing markets are looking solid. on the yellow line, mortgage purchase applications now at their highest level since 2010. what i want to emphasize, these are purchases. automatically moves in verse to rates. rates go up, people refi less, that is obvious. we would not be surprised to see that shoot up with the recent decline in rates. it is interesting to see such

strength in the purchase index showing there is a lot of momentum toward this massive sector of the economy. fixedt: the 30 year mortgage is at 3.75%, the lowest -- sincevember, november, after the election. , webloomberg invest summit have highlights from our sitdown. from new york, this is bloomberg. ♪

julia: "what'd you miss?" daniel iversen does not expect to be keeping -- infrastructure spending from the trump administration.

invests betty liu at the summit in new york earlier today. it is not that different than historical probabilities. it is been quite some time since we have had and a -- an economic slowdown in the united states. it is one of the longest expansions in history. it is morese, typical probabilities. when you look at the u.s. economy, we do not see the typical signs of overheating that you traditionally do at the end of the cycle. you do not see that much excessive credit extension, wage growth is moderate, at best. is verya fed that gradual in terms of their pace of removing accommodation. with all that said, you do have said the play and tightening of policy. you have a situation in terms of the u.s. employment markets where it is getting stretched.

there is increasing uncertainty around the path of fed policy. plenty of uncertainty around fiscal policy. at this stage of the cycle, i think it is prudent that investors, given valuations, think about preserving capital and protecting a negative scenario like an economic slowdown, which could lead to increasing default rates. betty: if we were to see a downside to price somewhere, where when you look around the world -- where could the biggest likelihood of a downside surprise be? time a we spend a lot of couple weeks ago talking about the markets. there are plenty of risks. some are geopolitical in nature. --a is a region where this there is increasing political uncertainty. the middle east, even as week we have seen other signs of instability as well.

there is plenty of risk from a geopolitical perspective. we have been monitoring now for a few years relations that are sentimentishment, that exists around the world. we have seen that in europe, in terms of their political cycle. we side with this recent presidential election here in this country. it is important to note that a lot of this antiestablishment isction that is building occurring at a time where economic growth is not too bad. if you do have any type of unanticipated shock that hits growth, unemployment rates, you could have an acceleration of this process. those are just a few examples of the risks. a final point, when thinking about risks, it is important to think about valuations. early 2016 people were worried about a lot of things. valuations were such that there was enough margin for error, when things stabilize --

betty: you could afford it. daniel: current valuations, whether you look at fixed income -- there is not much room for error. it is a market where you are susceptible to bad news, going forward. is, youhe question mentioned a lot of the risks out there. there is asia, hotspots in north korea, the middle east, the antiestablishment risk -- we do not know whether it is peace or not. we saw with the french elections, we will see it with the u.k. elections in 24 hours. can you quantify it in say, this is the area we are watching the most? or, it is all on an equal playing field? we are watching a lot of areas of the marketplace. policy is an area of increased focus.

policy both across europe as well as priorities of this u.s. presidential administration. from that perspective, monetary policy, fiscal policy, questions around trade, the regulatory environment, these are all factors that are clearly playing a more important role in influencing markets more than it any point since the financial crisis. from that perspective, we are spending more time there. the other big question mark where markets could place in, is china. there was a lot of concern back in early 2016. we spend a lot of time at a recent forum talking about china with our advisors, internal economists. that was an area where you have a large country going through a large growth transition. it'll be critically important to the health of financial markets going forward. when i think of all the risks, that is one where information flow is not as sufficient as

other parts of the world. s a investment community' touch complacent at the moment. betty: we were talking to people in the investment community about the markets in the outlook. we spend a lot of time talking about the mystery of inflation. where is inflation here, where is it in japan, europe? why is it, with all this money sloshing around in the market, we are not seeing higher inflation? to 2009, weg back referred to the economic -- we have been monitoring global growth and inflation trends. a lot of the reasons or reasons we have talked about for quite some time. you have a tremendous amount of excess capacity from a global perspective, high debt levels, challenging regulatory environments for most

industries. you have unfavorable demographics. at least in the developed world. all of these factors are putting pressure on inflation. you also have an environment that is being significantly impacted by technology, it is making it very hard for workers to have any type of power, in terms of wages. that is another issue, an issue we will be wrestling with for quite some time. inflation, at least in the base case over the near term, will continue to be well contained. later this year, we think inflation will trend lower. julia: you were listening to dan pimco groupm speaking earlier with betty liu at the invest summit in new york. joe: what you need to know for tomorrow's trading day. this is bloomberg. ♪

scarlet: get ready for super thursday. bloomberg television has you covered. itscentral bank announces central bank's decision at 7:45 eastern time, and a press conference at 8:00. joe: and something tomorrow

about a former fbi director talking to the senate -- i do not know. [laughter] joe: everyone will be watching it. and the house will be voting on a potential overhaul later in the day. had toin europe, britons the polls at 5:00 p.m. results come in at 6:00 p.m. eastern. scarlet: a news-packed day tomorrow. julia: it is always exciting. scarlet: that does it for "what'd you miss?" julia: "bloomberg technology," is up next. joe: this is bloomberg. ♪

alisa: i am alisa parenti from washington and you are watching "bloomberg technology." former fbi director james comey will tell a senate committee president trump asked him to

make it known he was not under investigation in his russia probe. comey will also say the president asked for his loyalty and that mr. trump said of the investigation into michael flynn "i hope you can let this go to testifying today, director of national intelligence dan coats declined to say whether trump pressured him on that russia investigation. said theington post" president asked him to intervene with then director james comey and michael flynn in the pressure pro. warning that syrian government allies will strike and american positions inside syria if it crosses any red lines. group madee military the threat one day after u.s. forces bombed forces there. they condemned the terror attack in tehran and are asking for perpetra