>> we're inside the headquarters in new york. carol in this weeks's issue we : talk about the wall between instagram and facebook. taylor: and walls between the u.s. and mexico. carol: and we changing of the and deutscheain bank has a new ceo but the same , old problems. taylor: all this on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ taylor: we're with joe lever,

and a couple of big european companies, volkswagen was the global cover last week. the other one was deutsche bank. you guys cover this in the finance section. >> the deutsche bank story has been one of the favored wall street stories to keep an eye on an kick around. it is a story of a company that tried to get really big, right? it was intended to be a european version of goldman sachs. and ever since the financial crisis, it has been receiving. the latest news came out last weekend. which was about the board reconsidering its ceo, and potentially replacing john cryan, which happened. and our story pick that up. taylor: why did they go internally? they pulled someone from the outside. the new ceo has grown up in the ranks. >> yeah, he is like a homegrown

guy. still worked in the same town he was born and raised in. so you cannot get more local than that, right? there is reporting about people internally. it is an interesting choice. deutsche bank has always been somewhat hamstrung of this need to have a german ceo, or at least someone who could speak german. it feels like there are a bunch of boxes that they have had to check, and this guy checked all of them. maybe he wasn't the best candidate, but is the next step. the company has gone through a lot. >> it has been a revolving door. the question is, where does it go? the strategy which john cryan had initiated, and it will double down on it, it is going to becoming more deutsche deutsche bank. they will look domestically and try to become the german bank. carol: there was a great

headline, more deutsche, less bank. [laughter] >> across the financial landscape, that is the take away that is happening. it is what the future of banking looks like. only this version is like almost especially born. [laughter] taylor: you mentioned takeaways. i am wondering what they can learn from other european lenders? you talked about ubs which has focused on their wealth management unit. what is deutsche bank's strategy? >> credit suisse is another one. so, all of these choices are really meta-strategy choices. where are we going to go? where can we find stability and return on investments that can stabilize our business going forward? and deutsche bank has had some acquisitions that they made that they have to wrestle with. marketsees its domestic being the strongest place to grow from. and that growth is small. carol: more deutsche.

taylor: what is not small is instagram. we heard from mark zuckerberg on capitol hill this week. walk us through instagram. >> fascinating story, right? facebook, you have heard of it. is its other social network. one thing we thought was fascinating about this story, and why it is important to talk about, instagram is approaching a billion users globally. that is a huge number that went -- huge number that when instagram was purchased by facebook for $1 billion, which looks like a bargain, it had a fraction of that. zuckerberg did not view it as a competitor at that according to point. our reporting, it is a peer in his eye. that is where it gets really interesting because with all of the controversy that facebook has been surrounded with, this looks like it's future. you know?

the question is really, can instagram save facebook? taylor: we got more on this story with lots of details -- carol: we got more on this story with lots of details. >> you see an office that is a very successful company. wallsare dioramas on the that you can pose in, like a sunset the and a spherical moon. you basically feel like that you are one of the best in the best -- one of the best of the best in silicon valley. the thing you do not see is any sign of facebook, which is the company that owns instagram unbeknownst to a majority of , users. >> i love this. you talk about how it is a five-minute bus drive away. that these two headquarters are physically separate, and that seems to come through in the way that employees are, and the way that the different brands of brenda, so to speak. >> it is a totally different culture at instagram. basically, facebook group to

prominence by trying to grow based on what users want. the data showed them what would be popular. they built it. whatever they could build to make facebook more popular and worth spending your time on, they did. instagram thinks about its product very differently. they spoke with me. the ctl at instagram build the share button early on in the company's history, but never lost it. even though sharing would have made instagram possibly more popular, things could go viral there, they thought it would affect the experience in a way --t was not what they wind what they wanted it to create. an intimate, artistic, cultural environment. while facebook has a move fast mentality,s

instagram is looking carefully at what it adds, and trying not to ruin what they have got. i love what you say. write that the motto for instagram could be, do not ruin it. it is interesting that because if you go back to the early days when facebook first bought instagram, they were a little bit more involved correct? , >> they were. instagram had none of the growth muscle that facebook had. the metrics that track how people use the app, why they are coming back, why they deleting it, what causes them to share and comment more? all of these things that really helped facebook with its growth strategy, and what is working, and fix it very quickly. all tracked on the dashboard, they brought back instagram. and instagram had to think carefully about the data. there is a point in 2015 when actually instagram was losing some of its core audience and the united states, the young

people, the teens that really popular,app cool and and facebook noticed, and said instagram had to do something about it. so, there is a little bit more involvement, even though the app is so separate in the minds of consumers. carol: facebook is in the news they time this week. facebook story is on and instagram. mark zuckerberg was made the cover model. so, chris the global story this , week is on instagram. it is a very important part of facebook. chris: for the cover, we were thinking about a lot of different ways to tackle this. obviously, we have mark zuckerberg in congress testifying. we wanted to use things that apply to this moving facebook story. taylor: everyone knows the filters. you have managed to capture the filter on the cover. different layers of the filters as we see the progression. chris: one of the editors sat down and started writing these

funny, playing up the various stages of this kind of facebook story. i kind of sat down and figured out what each of those think should look like. we start off with no filter. then selloff, regret, and apology. carol: what i really loved, too, is the boldfaced type you have of the title of the story. facebook is at the company that owns instagram, but instagram is a force to be reckoned with. they got like a billion users. chris: there is a different aspect going on, an idea that instagram can steer around the problems that facebook has. taylor: we talk about instagram and the filters, which one was the hardest to make from your end? chris: they all came naturally. i really one of the last one to be kind of weird. we turned up the volume to 12 on that one. carol: great story, great cover. everyone to check it out. chris: thank you, guys. carol: coming up next which , country may suffer the most in a trade war. taylor: we talk trade in an

excuse of interview with imf managing director christine lagarde. carol: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. taylor: and i'm taylor rates. you can find us online at businessweek.com. carol: and on our mobile app. opening the magazine this week, talking about the looming threat of a trade war between u.s. and china. taylor: and the phrase, i love the law of unintended consequences, here is peter. peter the law of unintended : consequences was actually a phrase we think we had forever that was coined in 1936. it says what you think it says. you do one thing, and you think you will get this result, but instead you get this result. so, the question is whether the tariffs that trump wants to impose would be like that? taylor: and what countries would

win, and what countries would lose between the u.s. and china? : it looks like both are going to lose. trade wars are not good things to have. i should back up. if we actually do have a trade war. trump says he does not want one, and his advisers say the same thing. that putting out the tariffs is just a way to force china to the bargaining table, and it is actually true. the trump team has a very good point that china has not been following a lot of the rules. and something has to be done. so the question has always been, ok, what? sn the previous president doe republican and democrat alike, , have tried to use the institutions, the wto, he promised as a candidate, he is following through to do something more dramatic.

so, and away, what he is doing is taking a deck of cards, throwing them up in the air and , we will see where they fall. carol: we are laughing, but it is not funny. china is listening, and we get feedback from them about what they might do, and you got companies getting nervous about what the implications might be for them. peter xi jinping, the president china spoke at a conference, and said some stuff that is mildly encouraging. he pretrade it as being in continuity with past practices, but more in the tone of opening up. carol: greater openness? peter: right. and the trump people are looking at this and saying we got what , we wanted. it worked. but it is still early on this one. we know that china has a long history of a sense of resentment about foreign domination, going back to before the communist revolution. and that sits very deep within. they want to be treated as

jinping does not want to feel like he is being dictated by an american president. so, trump's blustered could potentially backfire. taylor: he also mentioned the auto sector, opening that up. what sort of sectors are we looking at? auto, we talk about tech, i.t., which sectors are getting hit the worst? you mention that, and soybeans are the biggest one. all the districts in the united states, congressional districts that are the most soybean elevators are trump districts. so, he is really hitting the heart of his political base. not he is, but china is in retaliation for what the u.s. is proposing, and i am sure china is very aware of that, they know what they are doing. so, it will be interesting to see if this splinters trump's

base. taylor: we are keeping the focus on trade this week. the magazine really highlighted bloomberg's exclusive interview with imf managing director christine lagarde. carol: great interview. she spoke with our colleague about protectionism. christine: we have to secure that growth. we cannot let it be wasted. it took us 10 years to get out of the financial crisis, and we are not at the stage where average growth around the world is close to where it was pre-financial crisis. so let us not rock that both of growth. let us make sure that the engine of investment, more of it at the moment, that is good, consumption, confidence is key, and trade which has been leading , growth recently around the world, continue to actually work for all. is it to say that everything is perfect? no. and there are issues that need to be fixed, but they need to be fixed collectively, globally areuse our economies

interconnected. the supply chain is organized, and that is the message now. the most important thing is to do more trade than less trade. and there is an entire sector, which is still crippled with barriers and reservations, and that is the service sector, including e-commerce in particular. we need to move ahead. the world is becoming more digital. we cannot stay with the barriers of the past. >> what do you make of the risk though? the u.s. commerce secretary said there would be no trade deal. when i spoke to the finance minister of indonesia, she said the timing of the tray tension is pretty unfortunate because the asian economy is building on that isth momentum, but not to be now. christine i do not think we : should pass judgment on what is going to happen in the next few weeks and months.

what is clear is that there is a moment him of threat, counter threat, dialogue opening. and that is what we should all be encouraging. trade,id, increasing removing barriers, and encouraging a level playing field to which everybody should contribute. it has to be done collectively. it cannot be done by exceptional measures. cannot be by unilateral threats -- it cannot be by unilateral threats. it has to be collective. taylor: up next, why so many russian oligarchs call london their home. carol: and venezuela's new gold figures. taylor: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ taylor: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm taylor riggs. carol: kanaan carol massar. you can also listen to us -- and

i'm carol massar. you can also listen to us on radio on sirius 119. 106 in boston. taylor: and in london, and in asia on the radio plus app. moving over to the politics section, london is starting to worry about its reputation as being a home to russian oligarchs. carol: and as a playground for billionaires. here's reporter henry meyer. henry: obviously, tensions have risen substantially since last attackwhen a nerve agent took place on a former russian spy and his daughter. and you know, since then, you have a lot of diplomatic repercussions. you have had dozens of russian diplomats who have been expelled by quite a lot of countries, more than 25, led by the united

kingdom. and russia responded in kind. the is one thing, but on other side, you got the announcement of new u.s. sanctions against russia, which happened on friday. it is not directly linked to the attack on the ex-spy, but more to do with accusation of russian meddling in the u.s. election. and this was seen as a very, very that development in moscow. it targeted a number of very prominent billionaires, including -- getting to london, the situation in the u.k. is that it has been a very big center for russian money for many years. particularly since the year 2000, when putin came to power and a lot more money started coming into russia, and a lot of that is gone to the u.k. could has gone to the u.k. because it is seen as a safe

destination and because they , were not asking too many questions. taylor: it has been a safe destination for them read why isn't the u.k. doing more to tighten up the control? henry: well, the u.k., you know, london is one of the world's biggest financial centers. and you know, the regulation has been quite light, so that means, they have not actually been, you know, pitting -- putting too many checks on this money. and a lot of it comes via offshore, so it is not always possible to identify the owners. essentially, there is a big industry in london of financial consultants, lawyers, which are making a lot of money from this. you know? that is probably the main reason why not enough has been done to make sure it is all clean money. carol: and that is what is interesting about this story. you talk about the different russian oligarchs living in the u.k. they raised their families there, they love the schools.

but now, they are reaching out to these lawyers because some of them actually don't have damaging reputations, and they are reaching out to these lawyers to show they are somewhat clean. henry: we spoke to the lawyer for two russian billionaires, among the top 20 richest in russia, who commissioned audits from the four major auditing companies in the world, to go to their taxes and income for the last 15 years, and to prove, you know, that their money is clean. evidently, the level of concern is very high. this was before friday's announcement of the latest sanctions. and i want to talk a little bit about that because the fact that someone like victor vex oberg was targeted, businessmen less a good reputation in europe and the u.s., and has not seen someone close to the kremlin.

the fact that he got included on that list was a big shock. after that, people thought, it could be anyone. carol: an economic section, we go to venezuela. nicolas maduro gave up the economy to the military. taylor: and we got the scoop from christina. christine our reporter went to : an area near the orinoco river that is the center of the gold-mining trade. and basically, now it is a militarized zone. it was taken over by gains at one point -- gangs at one point after the government nationalized the gold-mining industry, and pushed it away for investors. but, they did not have the company to take over gold-mining, so what happened, it became an area of wildcat is. in they said this is crazy, we 2016, are losing these resources. we are not collecting royalties from these miners. so, they turned the area over to

the military. and what the military has done is basically brought the gangs under its control, and the miners, too. for the miners, life is doubly worse, because they answer to the gangs and the military. taking atis a lot of every level, and the gangs still operate, they have not been completely pushed out area people are getting caught in the crossfire between these two groups. carol: so president maduro has , been giving more of the economy over to the military. talk about what he is doing and why. christine: the interesting thing as well as mentor hugo chavez was a paratrooper, maduro does not come from the military. but he has, through various strategies, really cemented loyalty within the ranks. and one of the ways he has done control ofseeding

certain parts of the economy to the armed forces. for example, the ports, and the ports are a great opportunity for bright-taking also. all the goods coming in and out of the country. and then also, the distribution of food is now controlled by the armed forces. 14 of 30 to cabinet posts are now held by former current military officers, and the ranks of the national oil company are filled with members of the armed forces. carol: he needs this in terms of political support because he does not have support from the broader population. so, he needs the military to back him up. christine: yes, his popular support has eroded badly. there is no doubt that maduro will get reelected barring some unprecedented violence. but the fact is that, you know, he needs the support of the military to ensure that he stays in office one tea wins it. carol: up next, the truth about the border wall between united

states and mexico. taylor: and burning man steps out of the desert into the art gallery. carol: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ welcome to the xfinity store.

i can tell you about... streaming the most free tv shows and movies on the go. yeah, and... xfinity internet. it's so fast! and you can save by... by getting up to 5 mobile lines included. whoa, you're good. i'm just getting started. ♪ simple. easy. awesome. come see how you could save $400 or more a year with xfinity mobile. plus ask how to keep your current phone. visit your local xfinity store today.

taylor: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm taylor riggs. and i'm carol massar. of next, border wall technology. and a u.k. bookmaker making a big bet on america. taylor: all of this ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: we're back with the editor-in-chief of bloomberg businessweek, jill weber.

in the finance section, you tell us about the long-term stock exchange. joel: it has been bubbling for a while as an idea. he looked at the stock exchange and said wait, what if there was a different way of doing this that rewarded long-term investors? so much we talk about is this thing of the market has been rigged in favor of short-termism. if there was something that rewarded investors were holding with the company for a long time? so he put that in motion, and it turns out the long-term stock exchange takes a really long time. [laughter] taylor: what is it, long-term? you are still reporting quarterly, but how do you reward? joel: to be clear, this remains a theory. he would like it to become something, but there is no timetable for any of this. the idea is one that instead of being judged on daily

it wouldons even, reward someone -- i have been investing with you for five plus years, rather than a 1-3 sort of horizon. it was like let's change the horizon of what investments are viewed over, and give the shareholder who sticks around a bigger voice. carol: wait, wait. talk about the tricky part of this. joel: one thing that has happened, though, the question is, do investors really care about that? it is no longer looking a ceo in the eye and saying, i trust this guy. i trust his management decisions. it is less about that than it is about show us the numbers. let the numbers speak. and that is all this quantitative investing that has happened, let's look at the data. taylor: does wall street want this? or giving wall street something they might not know they want or not want? joel: it is an open question. his thesis is one that the

marketplace should at least have a chance to decide on this. it also takes executive compensation, right? and ties it to longer investing schedules. joel: all of it, it opens up everything. what happens though, to bring this to market, a stock exchange is a lot of paperwork. iex is the closest thing we have -- it took adea really long time. nasdaq, the new york stock exchange held it up for a long time before it actually came out. one of the things eric reis has formed a this idea is partnership with iex. it has given him a bit of a partnership to feel about this space. but this is still just an idea. joel: it is still just a theory. taylor: sticking with the tech theme, we will navigate to the wall. we talk about the concrete wall, but the story in the features section we talk about electronic walls along the border with

mexico. joel: the wall being president trump's favorite, which we all are familiar with, he wants to build a wall. it turns out there is a version of a wall already in place that is a virtual one. it has been there for a long time and has never been successful. one thing that has happened, because you could not get the funding for a concrete wall, one thing that did happen is there has been a massive rush of money to upgrade the technology in the virtual wall that is already there. and that is where the story picks up. it is a hodgepodge quilt that sometimes has worked ok, and most of the time it hasn't. and it is about to have a massive inflow of investment. on, a lotot is going of money has been spent. we have more from karen weiss. karen: it turns out the government has been trying to use surveillance on the border for almost half a century. it goes back to the vietnam war era. there is currently and has been

program after program trying to survey the border, almost 2000 miles along the mexico border using sensors, drones, surveillance cameras -- surveillance towers, cameras, you name it. the government has tried it. it spent billions of dollars we do not hear about, because it is largely invisible. carol: we are talking about five decades they have been working on this, how much money have a -- have they committed to building a virtual wall? been billionsas of dollars over the past half a century. the current budget included another $400 million for various forms of technology. carol: karen, has it been effective? karen: generally, no. generally, the government has really struggled to get the surveillance technologies to really work well. the latest iteration, there are certain programs that have been effective or do work well, but

the department of homeland security doesn't even have a good way of tracking it. they have a database when they are supposed to say when they use technology in different apprehensions, and the database is not accurate. they admit this. they have times where they will say oh, this program helped in these 500 apprehensions in texas, when that program is not even in limited -- implemented in texas at all. it has been a struggle for the government to really implement it and make it all come together the way you think, in theory, it should work. put up some radar and have some drones, and they can talk to each other. carol: this is wild. we constantly hear bloomberg talk about the advances in technologies. businessweek talks about it all the time. where are the tech companies, and what are they doing? they have to be salivating to get this money to help build out this virtual wall. karen: yeah. a lot of the people who work on the virtual wall come from the

defense contracting space, which in many ways have had to become more like tech companies. so much of the defense spending is moving toward electronic types of warfare. at the same time, one's highest and lowest profile focus on the border wall, an effort by the palmer lucky, the -- by palmer palmeromedy founder -- lucky, the founder of oculus who made vr kind of a thing. he has funding from peter thiel, but he is secretive about what is happening. there is not much information about what they are actually doing. they have hired lobbyists, they are hiring themselves. they are clearly working on it. they would bring a more -- come from a more consumer product type of background, whereas a lot of this comes from defense contractor backgrounds. slick interface is not as

and things like that. but one thing you have to contend with on the border is the harshness and the variety of the border. if you are out there and really want to surveillance, -- true surveillance, you have ravines, mountains, you have insects who eat through electronics. you have the wind gusting at 30 miles per that is different than hour. making an app for an iphone. ofre is a different level harshness and variation across the border. carol: up next, william hill is betting on sports betting in america. taylor: and the effort to keep the scandal plagued scott pruitt head of the epa. carol: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ taylor: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm taylor riggs. carol: and i'm carol massar. you can also find us online at businessweek.com. taylor: and on our mobile app.

in the features section, british bookmaker william hill playing the odds. hoping that sports betting will become legal across the u.s.. carol: that is the opportunity of a lifetime and eventually big business. here is reporter evan no b williams. evan: for a long time now, almost 20 years, sports gambling in america has been restricted to las vegas. the only place that has legalized sports books and happens in casinos all across the strip. new jersey, for four or five years now, has been trying desperately to allow its locations, it's casinos and racetracks to allow legalized sports gambling. they have tried in many courts and have lost every single one, and they are at the supreme court right now. we are days away from a decision from the supreme court on whether new jersey is allowed to offer sports gambling. if that happens, as many expect it to, that is going to open the floodgates across the country. carol: and that's the it is not point. just about new jersey, but across the united states. evan: new jersey is the first

state doing it, but there are a number of states passing laws that if new jersey wins, there will be more regulations and this is what they will look like, and there will be many more after that. carol: and william hill is interested in this. evan: william hill is a name your listeners will know if they have spent time in the u.k. or europe. it is the oldest bookmaker. carol: they are huge. evan: yes, massive overseas. they did not have a u.s. presence until a few years ago. joanna sure was the man they brought in to run u.s. operations, and they factor into this story because they are going to be the first mover in new jersey. a number of years ago they cut a deal with monmouth racetrack in new jersey, the horseracing park. they paid when million dollars for exclusive rights to be there sports betting provider. as new jersey went through this process, since they will be the first state, william hill positioned themselves to be the first within the first state.

taylor: they are playing the long game here. they are coming in as the underdog, banking on this ruling to open up the door. evan: exactly, and right now it looks like a pretty savvy business play. they paid $1 million for the rights, splitting revenue 50-50, it is a good deal. taylor: the odds are good. evan: the odds are very good. we talked to the guys at my mouth -- monmouth a few weeks ago, and they made it clear if they cut this deal now, they would have got more money. because william hill was there five or six years ago, they got sweetheart terms. if the supreme court rules next monday that new jersey wins, you could see gambling at monmouth under the william hill banner in a matter of days or weeks. carol: interesting. is there competition to these guys? evan: yeah. everyone is going to descend on this. the casinos that have properties in atlantic city, mgm, for example, they will move quickly. and then you have everything from the daily fantasy companies like draft kings and fan tool to other casinos, other racetracks

in the state, to anybody really. we wrote a story of couple months ago -- verizon is looking into it when it is more nationwide. maybe they will get involved. they have distribution, the mobile network, directv, etc.. carol: and there is a lot of money at stake. what is the estimate about how big the market will get? evan: a lot of people have tossed numbers out there, and the rough estimate for the amount of money from the u.s. is $60 billion per year. taylor: illegally. evan: illegally. and they are not going to bring all of that over to the regulated market. it is reasonable to think this could be a $10 billion industry in a couple of years after states pushed their way through it. carol: in the politics section this week, one story we are following -- despite numerous scandals, scott pruitt is still the head of the epa. taylor: most likely because of the connections he has with business leaders. >> scott pruitt is the former attorney general of oklahoma.

he made a name for himself suing the epa, the very agency that he now runs. he is seen as the most effective trump cabinet official when it comes to putting in place the pro-business deregulation agenda. and he has gotten into a lot of trouble. he was controversial from the start, one because of his politics and the fact that he discredits a lot of climate science. two, we got a lot of dripping out of things that seemed untoward about his excessive security detail, the fact he put in this $40,000 soundproof booth in his office, that he was insisting on flying first class everywhere. then we see him cross a line at the end of march, we started getting details about this deal he had to lease a bedroom in an apartment owned by the wife of an energy lobbyist whose company has business in front of the epa. and that really seems to kick

off this push to oust pruitt. what we do with the story is kind of look at how the business community and conservative activist rallied very quickly, from washington to texas to oklahoma, to kind of save their guy. carol: so talk about this. who is coming out to support him at this point? michael: all kinds. you have lobbyists in washington, conservative think tanks -- freedom works is the one that got things started with an email blast to about one million of their conservative reminding them how important prewitt was to all they wanted to get done in washington. you have business executives, oil and gas executives. harold hamm, the billionaire fracking legend from oklahoma. you have tea party core republican politicians, who have written op-ed's. you had people calling into the president late last week and over the weekend, and it seemed to have worked, because saturday night we got a tweet from the

president that basically said yes, the security detail is going to be a little expensive. the deal for the apartment was in bounds with market prices, so good job, scott. so it looks like it worked. isol: up next, a startup teaching the exams how to increase attendance and revenue. and one museum is taking burning man seriously. taylor: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. taylor: and i'm taylor riggs. you can listen to us on the radio, sirius xm 119, 106.1 in boston, am 960 in the bay area. ux3ol: and in london on dab

and in asia on the bloomberg radio app. in the focus on section, a fun story. a startup called museum hack that is working with the world's top galleries. taylor: while helping them connect with first-time visitors. >> museum hack started out as a hobby that turned into a small business. it is a company that organizes very quirky, irreverent, unusual tours of museums. in the process of doing that, with some of the leading art museums in this country, it started -- the museum started to realize these guys know something about getting younger people into the museums. as with everything else, we want millennials. [laughter] and millennials might not be interested in the same things in art museums that people two generations ago were. they want to take selfies and they want to find the one object that speaks to them or that is cool or irreverent. museum hack started bringing in these crowds. and then museums were like, can

you help us tailor certain things? so it is both a tour company and consulting firm. carol: talk about some of the tour's they come up with. they are fun, quirky, they are interesting. i want to go on them. yeah, bad ass bitches, is the name of one of them where they will look at a collection and find women in paintings, or women artists who were really ahead of their time. what is the other one i am thinking of -- un-highlights. all museums, you see this in the last decade or more, to try to make a museum more accessible, they have created -- here are the highlights of the museum. if you go into these on rooms, you know what you need to know to go to a cocktail party. this is like, again, eating in, and figuring out what we have in the collection, what is unusual or weird, what has a backstory, is there some drama to the artist and how the work came around? the evil going in today, younger

people going in today, younger folks -- they are appealing to all ages, they like this idea that it will be an event. it will be an adventure. you will learn something, but you will be like, wow. everyone can see the highlights, but i know about this one. it is pretty cool. taylor: tell us about the target audience. what i loved in the piece is it is not someone who go several -- once a year several times a year, but getting those who never go in the door. >> that is the experience of the founder, nick gray. our writer on the piece rob walker, a freelancer who had done work for us before, and he had been talking to nick gray about something else and in the process he learned about this business. nick gray was one of these people. he just did not like museums. that might seem strange to you or me or anyone else, because you think who does not love art? but it felt cold to him, so he thought there must be other people like me, who are not drawn to these really big rooms with a ton of stuff paying in

them and we do not know what is in them. so they are very much targeting people who haven't gone in. and i think logically, that audience is going to tend to be a younger audience. although, you find exceptions. when they talk about who they are trying to reach in their marketing, they will not limit it to millennials. the types of tours they are doing, the way it is friendly, taking your selfies or exploring in a different way, meeting fun people on this tour, is something that is especially appealing to millennials. carol: did he start the company, he went out on a date -- >> he went out on a date, and he thought oh my god, she is taking me to a museum. but she tailored the museum to where she would take him to a room, i love this painting, this is why i love it. here is some little detail that nobody knows about this. and that is what she did on the date. he left and said, wow, this can really translate into something. taylor: speaking of museums, we are talking about burning man.

they have some fans and some critics. carol: they certainly do, but the smithsonian and washington, d.c. is showcasing art from the festival. >> the challenge with re-creating burning man is that burning man is a 70,000 person festival that occurs in the middle of nowhere in the desert. it is a city built from nothing. in a week, people are festive for a week. and it is all taken down. taylor: you know has you went. chris: i went last year. it is the craziest thing you will ever see. it defies description. in the desert where the people are, in the encampments there is all this art. it is gigantic. giant people. you are biking around and you see a big gothic cathedral. you see huge stones hanging from a structure that you can swing on. all of this stuff is very cool, but no one else gets to see it. the smithsonian felt this was a part of american culture for

decades. let's see if we can rebuild it on the mall and washington, d.c. . carol: a footnote here. it is not about re-creating the experience of being at burning man, it is enjoying the art that is there. chris: yes. the curators really correctly realize you cannot re-create the experience of being out in the desert. it is too crazy. but you can re-create interacting with the art. it is not only monumental, but interactive. you can climb into it. you can make it do stuff. you can push buttons and it will react to you. because of that, it is fun for kids. it is like a really cool, interactive exhibit that has a lot of surprises. whyor: and you say this is the smithsonian has been relatively successful when other people have tried and failed, because they missed the mark on what they are trying to grasp there. chris: yeah. you cannot re-create something that is spontaneously created by thousands of people altogether. that is not something that can be artificially redone. the art does evoke the feeling of being with the art.

it is just impressive and fun. our art writer went down, and of burning mant is not really serious art, because it is supposed to be and look crazy for pictures or whatever, but a lot of it is successful art. it has things to say. so it really does work in a museum context. to check outwent the exhibit. did you like it all? chris: no. some of it is a little cheesy. it is not meant to not be cheesy. if you see a train in the desert that has a movie theater in the train, that is a crazy thing to see. you see it in a museum, and it feels gimmicky and does not really work. most of the art is fun and interesting, but it is not all stuff that would be in moma, by any means. taylor: my biggest burning question. and -- at burning man, sometimes at the end they burn it down. what is happening after the smithsonian? where do they take it? do we know? chris: that is a good question. a lot of the stuff is a smaller

version of the original big art. and a lot of the art that was wooden is burned. but there is a smaller replica of a dancing woman out in the desert that is in the gallery in d.c. it looks like a disco ball. that art is like any other art, it will be in galleries and it will travel. they are not burning the stuff. taylor: "bloomberg businessweek," is available on newsstands now. carol: and online at businessweek.com and our mobile lap. taylor: what was your top story this week? carol: the global story on instagram. the deep dive. facebook was so much in the news this week, but what i love about the story, sara asked the question, is instagram facebook's greatest hope? instagram is a powerful company on its own. it has a billion users. maybe it is a path forward for facebook. how about your favorite story?

taylor: it has to be the russian oligarch story. hiding out in london, i have no idea. it was eye-opening for me as a reader. more bloomberg television starts now. ♪

♪ david: what was the strategy that you used? paul: i was completely determined to recapture my parents' money that i had lost. david: how does somebody raise $5 billion in 24 hours? paul: it was first come, first served. david: you have an image of being a person that strikes fear in a lot of ceo's. some people are probably afraid they are going to get a call from paul singer. paul: it does not bother me anymore. david: if someone had invested with you in the very beginning, and what kind of rate of return would they have compounded? paul: one dollar became $160. david: is it too late to invest retroactively into that? [laughter] >> would you fix your tie, please? david: well, people wouldn't recognize me if my tie was fixed, but ok. just leave it this way. alright. ♪