we see today that beyond meat is down. higher, but lyft is after an 11% plunge yesterday. we had a decline, but we have come off of those and it looks like we will close closer to you highs of the session, the dow losing 0.5%, s&p losing 0.3%. caroline: big volumes. youon the bloomberg shows 20% higher volume on the dow, 27% on the nasdaq, so clearly people wanting to position themselves ahead of one minute past midnight wendy suppose iteris could come into action. eightne: -- scarlet: hours until they kick in, and we are not exactly sure which tariffs will kick in. joe: luke just tweeted on set. scarlet: multitasking. caroline: let's dive deeper. what are you watching?

>> i am thinking about the "real fear index," not the vix. index, and the reason kevin kelly calls it the ifl fear index, peeople, something really bearish happens, we saw a divergence. a few investors not getting it right about the volatility, but last year as the s&p 500 was climbing, so was the skew index, worried, andwere then it came back down as the s&p plunged. look at the divergence now, it tells you the skew investors now are not so worried. if this chart says anything, it suggests we could at some point see a re-convergence, which might mean some kind of pull off, selloff ahead for the s&p 500. >> looking at commodities for oil, climbing close to 2% early

in the session, hitting $60 a barrel. it has recovered somewhat during the day, but there may be indications a rebound is on the way. certainly when you look at and crude, technicals -- brent crude, technicals suggest it might be undersold. we see for commodities as a whole, the bloomberg commodities index falling over 1% earlier in the session. this is the third day it is in the red. gold a beneficiary from all the tariff fear gripping the market, gaining for the fourth session in five. bloomberg found most traders have a neutral price outlook until there's more clarity on the trade situation, something a lot of people are looking for. a a lot of barometers for the flight to safety trade. a potential look at german yields, the negative yield everyone hates to love. we're seeing negative yields around the globe right now.

today, we saw basically all around the german sovereign the negative returns have not deterred buyers because they are often in the -- offering a little bit of a haven, over lease that is the perception. there's thought that central banks might scale back on rate hikes, and you have these canency basis trades that turn a lot of the negative yield numbers into positive returns depending on the currency. the thanks, romaine and markets team. still with us is omar aguilar of charles schwab and bloomberg's luke kawa. omar, we know that nobody knows what will happen on trade tonight or on friday or at any point, but how big of a component was trade and the optimism of the deal to the market rally we have seen this year, which is still pretty

extraordinary? let's so that things go pear-shaped, there is no deal, it all falls apart, how much would we be erasing? omar: great question. the two things that drove a lot of the market rally so far this year, one was optimism about a potential trade deal. the second one was the risk of monetary policy. those things, if you think about the last two weeks, have changed. the market seems to be in a different position, and the fed seems very clear about the math. thinkingt seems to be there will be a rate cut at some time this year. that divergence, we will see what happens in the next few weeks. at the same time, the trade deal is another component that was an issue into the end of last year, with optimism going into today. so you think about the current selloff, it is a combination.

realizing maybe we should not be counting as much on the rate cut, and at the same time uncertainty about the trade deal. what is interesting about this rally, it has not been one of the great economy rallies. the economy is already recovering. the global economy is still decelerating. in fact, the sources of the rally are now in question, and that is more of a realistic view of the market. caroline: what is weird, as a cross asset reporter thing across assets, corporate bonds have not really shown a concern. we still managed about $40 billion left coming to the market, and overall the overall indices are looking pretty high, so why has that not been shaken in the same way? luke: one theory i am working with, if you like -- look at february 2018, q4 2018, both of

them were highly u.s. equity centric and liquidity events more than they were really macro events. that squares with what i talk reactingh e.m. vol not as you would expect. i wonder if people were more worried about the gap risk that has been more acute. but spreads have been fairly well behaved. ig's have started to pick up, kind of in accordance with what we saw last october. chappatta also reminds us, people want to get their deals in before summer when every thing becomes slow, and may have to get funding in place. omar, with fixed income joe mentioned how the yield curve inverted briefly, the three-month and 10-year. does that matter to you? does it signal something similar to late march, when that last happened? omar: i think it does signal.

even though we got a little deeper with the fed, it is still flat relative to history. what it does, it concerns the fact we are in a global deceleration, and it confirms that the fed's probably taking the right steps to just keep things on hold, and does provide significant headwinds for certain parts of the market, like certain banksand so forth. that hasn't changed. what is important to note, just like we did in march, that doesn't mean selling is around the corner. it highlightss that we have to pay attention to what the inflation picture is, and that may be closer to what the fed is looking at, and what market participants are willing to take out of the yield curve. the flat curve doesn't help a lot of people. joe: speaking of inflation, cpi is on the docket tomorrow.

how closely will people be watching that? luke: folks have to watch it closely, because of how the fed highlighted it as key to the reaction function. and looking across risk assets, what is the main danger? what are all the risk assets to fecteau short? it is inflation, and they are probably defective -- de facto long disinflation. it is not being priced. if you look at inflation, they tell you often traders think inflation will be close to but below 2% over the next two years, pretty much as firmly as they have ever believed that. caroline: omar, last one to you. positionu ahead of midnight tonight, head of tomorrow, the volatility? omar: staying the course. the short-term volatility without a clear picture of the terms of the deal, i don't think even after tonight we will have

a clear picture of what the details might be. there will be some headlines that come out of it, but it will increase the level of volatility in the market. we still believe in the medium oflong-term, this is the end the economic cycle and we are still in the deceleration mode where central banks are helping to create more of a soft landing for the global economy, which suggests that investors should concentrate in high quality, still in growth, but have a little more tilt toward higher-quality. that should provide a long-term solution that helps navigate this volatility. caroline: we want to thank you, of course. great to have you with us, both our guests. aguilara, and mr. joining us from san francisco. zillow has 2019 results. million, well4

above the estimate of $430 million. no wonder we are seeing it jump after hours. first-quarter revenue tops overall highs for zillow. scarlet: and looking at gopro. the last two quarters when it reported, the stock fell the following day. right now, first-quarter revenue is beating analyst estimates. the firster share in quarter also narrower than expected. and adjusting profit ability views as well for the period. the stock down 4% right now, so consistent with the reaction in the past. caroline: let's go to one that is outperforming after the market. dropbox, the global collaboration platform that recently ipo'ed, currently higher after beating first quarter adjusted earnings per share. it be to be very highest beatate, and revenue -- the very highest estimate, and

revenue just ahead of expectations. scarlet: a lot more to come. "what'd you miss" k's next, where we look at the high-stakes trade talks and uber's long-awaited ipo. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ ♪ caroline: live from bloomberg world headquarters in new york, i am caroline hyde. romaine: i am romaine bostick. joe: i and joe weisenthal. caroline: another day of losses, but -- joe: the question is, "what'd you miss" caroline: the threat of higher

trade talks -- of trade talks hanging over the market. be considering ipo pricing around the bottom of the range. facebook cofounder chris hughes says it is time to break up the company. ighing in.are we let's return to trade. it looks good on paper. president trump told reporters a letter fromed xi jinping that might lead to a phone call, and signaled we may know more. >> our country is doing great. we will find out about china tonight. i think in the end you will be very impressed with the kind of things that we are doing. juliane: joining us now, emanuel. a "beautiful letter" wasn't enough to support the markets.

how do you set yourself up for this element of volatility? >> the name of the show, "what'd you miss" is incredibly appropriate today. we had headlines from north korea, from iran. joe: it seems like a long time ago. it has been a long day. [laughter] >> that is the kind of day it has been. being in front of the screen all day, being on the trading floor, there is a lot of tension. there is desired to be as close to whatever benchmark you look at as possible, given the fact that clearly, based on these headlines, the sentiment has swung wildly over the last 24 hours. so to us, it's more one of these it was very encouraging the market came off of its lows today, but more of a show me story. perhaps we will be shown, but we will wait and see. romaine: do you think people are

making too much impact -- are making too much of the impact that a trade escalation could have? isian: no, because the fact that part of the narrative of the last call it nine months was the global slowdown, first from equity market.s. at the end of last year, and then from europe infecting the u.s. bond market. from our point of view, the thing that has happened is that inflation is below target. it hasn't materially affected growth yet, but the kind of psychology that this kind of problem could engender could affect growth going forward. joe: so we wake up today, we didn't know it would be that busy. some days are quiet, some days are not quiet. but how do you make money on a day like this? is there any way to beat the headlines, position yourself for times when there are lots of different crosscurrents? julian: this is one of those

days where you don't think about making money. you think about preserving money. because you are hostage to the headlines. there's a tremendous amount of unpredictability. and the reality is, we have shifted into a new volatility regime. a week and a half ago, the vix was on the $12 handle, and we were well over $20 at one point today. so that takes a different mindset, and again with the information flow being as incredibly varied and sort of unpredictable as it is, it is one of those days where you don't really want to do anything unless you are forced to. areline: we had luke kawa, cross asset reporter, earlier with us, saying it was interesting to look at the corporate bond market. so much supply being sucked up, maybe not the most in the bid to cover ratio.

will we get some big gap in liquidity, like we had in february, like we had in december? is that affecting equities more than it should? julian: the quiddity is definitely the issue. the question is, we are so close to memorial day where markets tend to become less liquid. strangely enough, having the pga tournament in new york next week will cause a lot of trading desks to go out and see tiger woods. but the real issue, after the ipo starts trading tomorrow, what happens to liquidity? put all this together and it is something people are looking at. now, it is a very supportive thing that the bond market has taken the supply as it has. but then again, we also saw a very poor government bond auction yesterday, so that could be from one place to another. we would remind you, one of the biggest buyers of government bonds traditionally has been china. do you think there is something going on? yuanw the selloff in the

today. currencyu view actions or positioning vis-a-vis trade tensions? julian: there's no doubt the weakness in the yuan today was as a result of incremental headlines overnight. the markets are less liquid during the new york trading day, where the headlines were more supportive. but again, a a lot of the rest of thehen the dollar complex was pretty steady, why did e.m. sell off? it is the china exposure. romaine: what about valuations? people were saying we were getting to a level where stocks were overvalued. are not souations much of an issue for us. there's pockets of over-valuation, areas in tech where you see that. clearly some more defensive areas like real estate, utilities, actually look very

fully valued in our view. but in general, if interest rates are going to stay supportive, and we actually believe the fed is likely to cut later this year, valuation is not the issue. the issue is making sure that global growth stays, really reverses the weakening. romaine: so you are standing by a rate cut for the year? julian: we are. two, actually. one in september and one in december. romaine: we will have to have you back then. thank you for joining us. always appreciate the insight. some breaking news. tivo, the setup device maker for televisions, will separate its product business from the intellectual property business, which had been a big driver of revenue for quite a few years, but has been declining. it represents about 42% of their business. joe? joe: coming up, putting a historic ipo in gear. uber reportedly leaning toward

pricing the ipo toward the bottom of the range in preparation for listing tomorrow. we will bring you the latest. . this is bloomberg ♪

romaine: the pricing on uber is coming in, and it is said to be leaning toward the bottom of the range. the ride-hailing giant is preparing for its debut tomorrow on the nyse. bloomberg has learned they are considering pricing shares $44 to $45 each. ofning us is mandeep singh bloomberg intelligence. so this is lower than people thought. does it matter? themep: it does, and puts more in line with the valuation we have done. looking at the ride sharing business, it is about $11

billion, and with a four or five times multiple you have $50 billion. the food delivery is another $10 billion. another $10 billion. they have stakes in didi, yandex , grab. so that puts it at the ballpark, even if you look at the company as the sum of its parts. joe: does uber have a clear path to making money? mandeep: the core ridesharing platform is profitable. it has high single digit ebitda margins. they are subsidizing the food delivery business. but that is what is driving the ebitda into negative territory, but the core ridesharing is profitable. --line: you have a feel you have to feel for them slightly, coming out for ipo when they are selling off,

although off of record highs. the lastwhat was evaluation we saw for uber, and this valuation of $44 means 70-something billion dollars? mandeep: the last private funding round was around $62 billion. toyota invested in their autono mous unit, and softbank invested. to sixsaid, at five times trailing 12 month sales, you have to think for a growth company with a large addressable market in front of it, that is probably fair. but anything in front of that, i mean, lyft priced at 10 times the sales, which is too high. uber and lyft will not get the same valuations as traditional tech companies.

romaine: are you comparing it to amazon? mandeep: to booking.com, expedia, the big online travel guys. lyft and uber's business models represent their business models, expedia and booking.com. joe: do either of these companies, and we have the first earnings report from lyft this week, do either of these companies give you enough valuation, enough data to feel you can really wrap your head around how they are doing? mandeep: i have to give high marks to uber for their disclosures, simply because they gave a separate disclosure for the core ride sharing and food delivery business, and then disclose separately the autonomous, freight businesses. so you have a better sense of the fundamentals of each business. they gave full disclosure on the subsidies they are using for drivers and riders. in the case of lyft, they disclosed the number of rides, total bookings growth,

takeaways. it seems uber is doing better on disclosure for now. caroline: mandeep singh, you have been busy. thank you very much. the big bet on uber will pay off her softbank. operating profit more than tripled last quarter as the --ue of the uber stakes weld stake swelled. is an investor in just about every ridesharing company out there, clearly spreading their tentacles into this space. romaine: it seemed smart on his part. there is a viable business here. which company manages to actually make profit off of it, who knows. joe: and there are reports the vision fund itself might be spun off, so they could do this all over again but on a bigger scale. caroline: and he already announced vision fund two. joe: the sequel. doing up, a plan for what to for the company chris hughes

cofounded -- breaking it up. he is calling for facebook to be broken up and regulated. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ mark: i am mark crumpton with first word news. president trump says he received what he called a "beautiful letter" from chinese president xi jinping, and that he will probably speak to him by phone. he made the comments from the white house as a delegation from beijing prepared to arrive in washington to negotiate a potential trade deal. >> a large group, delegation, headed by one of the most respected, highest officials in china, will be coming today at 5:00. they will see what they can do. but our alternative is an excellent one, an alternative i have spoken about for years. they took in well over $100

billion a year. we never took in ten cents from china. mark: the top u.s. envoy is in china for discussions. u.s. tariffs on $200 billion in chinese goods are set to increase 25 percent hours later. the president's former attorney is still trying to get his former boss to pay legal costs. michael cohen, who began serving a three year prison sentence on monday, has asked a new york state court to order the trump organization to turn over documents that he says would prove the organization planned to reimburse him. president -- the president's legal team call this a desperate money grab by a desperate felon. intelligence committee has subpoenaed for the

information gathered by special counsel robert mueller's probe. the committee says they have compiled much greater detail than the report described about what they call a organized effort by the russian government and russian oligarchs to interfere in the 2016 election on behalf of donald trump. senator warner's comments came at a christian science monitor breakfast today. >> i don't know how you would finish that. we unlike other committees because of our intelligence, we need to see the underlying evidence that we may not have collected that mueller has. mark: senator warner declined to comment directly on the news that his panel issued a subpoena for testimony of donald trump, jr., although he did say that they always reserve the right to call witnesses back for more questioning. pope francis is taking new steps to respond to global outrage

abuse andex cover-up scandal. a new vatican law requires all report abusests to and coverups to church authorities, but are not required to report wrongdoing to law enforcement. it requires every diocese to have a system where claims of abuse can be reported confidentially. global news 24 hours a day and on tictoc on twitter, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in over 120 countries. i am mark crumpton. this is bloomberg. joe: time for a breakup? facebook has been called too big by lawmakers and critics, and now that opinion is coming from one of the platform's cofounders. chris hughes published an editorial, arguing for the company he helped create with mark zuckerberg to be split up, writing "we are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies. no matter how well-intentioned the leaders of the companies may

be. mark's power is unprecedented and un-american, and it is time to break up facebook." with more insights, i want to welcome blue big intelligence -- bloomberg intelligence's jennifer reed. thank you for joining us. under antitrust law as we know it now, does facebook qualify as a "trust" that needs to be busted? jennifer: that remains to be seen, right? under antitrust law it is all about the facts on the ground and what the company is doing. but under current antitrust law, a company just being big and getting really powerful doesn't violate the law. it has to be big and powerful, and it has to be proven it has monopoly market power, and has to have engaged in anticompetitive conduct. that is where the difficulty lies, because our courts over the years have really limited the kind of conduct by a business that is considered anticompetitive. an agency going after facebook

to try to break it up would have to show this kind of conduct. asadays under our precedent, long as a company has a legitimate business reason for doing what they are doing, even if it has some exclusionary effects, usually that's going to be ok and not cross the line. romaine: is there an argument to be made that there have been anticompetitive behaviors, just in the way they acquired some companies, the way that they have sort of either integrated or not integrated some of those companies? the argument seems to be the current state of antitrust and antitrust enforcement doesn't really fit with the business models that a lot of these tech companies have. jennifer: i think that is right. there is a lot of concern that our tech environment and economy have changed quickly and laws haven't caught up. even an investigation that started today would take years to resolve. so for that reason, if somebody is really motivated to do something about the big tech platforms, it would probably

take legislation rather than going back under antitrust laws today. the things you outlined as potentially anticompetitive, i am not so sure that today our courts would agree that they are anticompetitive behavior. caroline: the cultural shift is so huge. only a year or so ago i was outside the european commission, talking about the hefty fines being exerted on google and the like. the angle was coming from silicon valley and the u.s. that europe somehow had something against silicon valley. they fined facebook for .he way they bought whatsapp jennifer: european laws about monopoly are actually much more flexible, and they have greater ability to go after the conduct you highlighted. more so than we do here, the ftc and doj. at you can't, it's kind of drastic remedy, whereas the

remedy should be more targeted to what the conduct you think is anticompetitive? what are they doing that's harming competition, and what is the remedy to fix that target, the conduct itself? joe: the question of whether the company is in violation of antitrust laws is clearly not a science, and obviously something humans have to judge. wasn't as ago, there much facebook-bashing, and now it is nonstop, and not just from the left, but from the right. coul;d we get to a position where situations deteriorate, people look and go, they are not a trust, and five years from now suddenly someone finds a way to make the argument? from a real-world risk case, even if you can't make the case today, could it be eventually people find a way to make the case even with the same facts? jennifer: anything can happen here. there is, as you suggested, a

bipartisan sort of push to curb the power of some of these companies, including facebook. so there could be some legislation. the same set of facts you have today might down the road, agencies might be more able to go after them because of legislation that makes that change. the law could change. antitrust law is really common law. all that section two of the thatan act says really is it is illegal to conspire or attempt to monopolize. our courts tell us what that means, and that has changed a lot over the years. but what it takes is legislation, or supreme court decisions. caroline: and many say that is why facebook is busily integrating whatsapp, instagram. jennifer rie, fantastic to get your thoughts. s from ourhought

guest on differentiating from the competition. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: there is plenty of enthusiasm in the u.s. tech space for investing in low income communities designated as opportunity zones, but many are curious about how the incentives will work. salt conference in las vegas -- >> we are with neal wilson, talking about opportunity zones, which have been a huge topic at salt. three opportunities on panels in two days, so a lot of people are talking about it. i am sure you have been meeting with plenty of investors about opportunity zones. how does the fundraising environment look?

neal: i think that when the statute first came out, in november 2017 there was a little skepticism. the first came out in october 2018, and there has been a pickup of interest. the critical thing we think will really open up investing is going to be april 17 they come out with the final regs, and they are a very liberal interpretation of the statute. i think that really creates, we think there will be a huge explosion of investing in opportunity zones. we think the statute and the policy behind it creates great investment opportunity, but also from a policy standpoint we really think it has possibility to transform certain areas of the country that are really underserved by capital. katia: how much money do you think will actually be invested in opportunity zones this year? neal: it is hard to put a number on it, but secretary mnuchin put $100 billion as the number. hard to put a number on it, but there has already been a lot

done. not just high net worth investors deferring capital gains and hoping to invest in opportunity zones, for complete deferral of gains. creating anbank opportunity zone, you have keybank, you have goldman sachs, and foreign companies like dhl, who announced two days ago they acres of land in south carolina for elitist tics facility. we are doing a project in jasper county -- for a logistics facility. we are doing a project in jasper county, south carolina. we think it really creates a lot of opportunity. and if you look at what amazon is doing in our neck of the woods in virginia. potomac yards is just outside an opportunity zone, and amazon bought options on opportunity zone land. the key thing behind the legislation, it is really a jobs program, so real estate was just the first leg.

the investor interest early on was developers and people investing in real estate, but the john's component is really transformative -- jobs component is really transformative. you will see tax-exempt and impact investors looking at opportunities. katia: you have already done two projects in opportunity zones and have a third coming out. tell us about that and what types of projects you are actually looking into? neal: sure. we have closed two projects. a third next week, and another when we signed a letter of intent to close in the next 30 to 60 days. really three areas in our projects we are doing and about to do. we think there's three areas we are focusing on. because you have to look at the statute. you have to within 31 month substantially improve the land, the project you bought, and then you have to hold for 10 years. what does that lead you to? what big demographic shifts, for example, workforce housing.

capitol hilln d.c. is a workforce housing project that is for the millennial crowd. we talked about this before, kids 18 to 25, 30% live at home, and since the crisis 15 million s were created. our project in south carolina is based on the port of savannah, the fastest growing port in the united states and the fourth-largest. we can make a 10-year bet on that. last to a lesser degree, hospitality in gateway cities. katia: that's mostly real estate. the trump administration eventually wants this to be building businesses. neal: creating jobs. katia: do you see going down that route? neal: we do. -- it is designed for the real estate angle, but we would anticipate a fund also on the business side.

they really liberally construed what is a qualifying business for the 50% gross revenue in the opportunity zone, how you define that. it was really not clarified, but now it is clarified, so you will see a lot of folks moving operations to opportunity zones. katia: really quickly, how will you track whether or not you are staying within the spirit of the law and actually creating jobs? neal: that's incredibly important. two days ago, senator scott and cory booker, cosponsors of the original bill, put in senate bill 1334, which is really about what folks like us who are running qualified opportunity zone funds have to report. one of the main things is how many jobs were created as a result of your investment, whether that is in real estate or in a business. so we think that is incredibly important, and we also think the philanthropic component is really important. we are doing alongside our investing, not in the fund but

outside, doing philanthropic initiatives. because look, we are 10-year investors. we are part of the community. we have to embrace the community, and really have to be helpful to that community. and i think that is the spirit behind the statute. katia: thank you so much for speaking with me about opportunity zones. i am sure we will hear a lot more. neal wilson, thank you so much for being with us. back to you. from the salt conference, which brings us today's instant replay. for the sake of not -- is noti acceptable strategy. >> false equivalency? >> beyond that, it is shameful, like biting the hand that feeds you. >> some people think that we can fix what is wrong with capitalism, so to speak, by

employing new forms of monetary policy, modern monetary theories? >> i think that is lunacy. >> lunacy? and youhing may work, have to look at consequences if it doesn't. employment comes and goes. deficits are very hard to control. >> if employment gets people elected to office, controlling deficits does not. >> maybe. but at some point, people are not as stupid as we think. i own some gold. i tried to avoid stocks, and i tried to avoid bonds. it veryo into bonds, do short-term. romaine: we will pick up this conversation about the markets with our senior editor. always a pleasure to have you on, particularly on these crazy

days where we have no idea what is up and let us down. thereas your -- why was such a severe reaction this morning, and why have we pared some losses? confidentle feel more some kind of resolution is possible. romaine: the letter? john: yes. caroline: it was a beautiful letter. [laughter] john: earlier in the day, it was more a question, the mood music from both sides going up, both sides doing what you are supposed to do when you're plain chicken -- playing chicken. that bothered people. joe: we are still down on the day. and it's not like we had a lot of optimism going into today. selloff, selloff, beautiful letter, less of a selloff? john: i would still see myself, if we actually get a realistic worst-case scenario happening, the market at this point has not

sold off anything like as much as you would expect it to, if you actually get the full load portended by the president at the beginning of the week. this is still a very muted reaction across the board. it is interesting you see it show up more in asset classes outside of equities and outside of the u.s. i think this may be true, and to some extent this helps trump's position, the markets think the u.s. is at least a relative winner in a trade war. whether that means it actually winds is another matter. caroline: we have seen the reflection in the chinese yuan after poor data from china. but how isolated is the united states? i have had viewers right in, talking about it is being underestimated, how this factors

into earnings on u.s. companies, a supply chain perspective that will take decades to understand how to unwind. how deeply can the effects be felt in the u.s.? john: at this moment, not at all, or very little. you have putink, your finger on a very important point. used to binary- choices. the other big trade debate, brexit, has been a succession of binary choices for a while. this is not a binary choice. if they stitched together a decent deal, which is still a very possible outcome, this is a htlationship, a fraug relationship that will work itself out over decades, and it's not going to go away. it's not as though the trade relationship between the u.s. and china will be reset, along l

ines as clear-cut as those for the european union, and that will be it. this is an ongoing situation that needs to be monitored closely, and certainly if you look at what's happening to you're really going to have high tariffs levied on everything coming in from china, that's inflationary, awfulflation changes an lot of other assumptions. something that takes time to work its way through the pipeline, but it matters. than ae: matters more 2.5% knock off of a record high of the s&p 500. john authers, thank you. i am stepping away to host "bluebird technology," where we will -- "bloomberg technology," where we will discuss much more about the uber ipo. but coming up on "what'd you

miss," more on the high-stakes trade talks. ♪

joe: as the u.s. lays out its case for banning chinese telecoms equipment in infrastructure worldwide, reaction has been muted. the outlook for trade deals meanwhile seems more optimistic. we bring in shery ahn. are people feeling good after that big, beautiful letter? always have questions about what the president means. joe: everyone else understands him perfectly. [laughter] so today he's talking about the beautiful letter, the potential phone call with president xi jinping, saying a deal as possible this week. and then last night, at a campaign rally in florida, perhaps it was because he was speaking to his base, but he was saying that china broker-deal, that the u.s. will not compromise -- that china broke the deal, that the u.s. will not compromise on china stealing jobs. . i think it depends on who he is

speaking to. romaine: we saw the reaction in offshore yuan, and there was a reaction from bloomberg reporters overnight that we aren't getting signs the government is really defending as hard as they did before? shery: we have seen signs from the chinese government that they are stepping back from really trying to control the market, theperhaps as soon as 10-year treasury auction didn't go well, there was speculation china was backing away from treasuries. of course, that is all speculation. there could also be speculation on the chinese yuan, but so far we have seen moves not only because of trade tensions, but the chinese government stepping back a little when it comes to controlling the economy. joe: for more on these stories, don't miss "daybreak australia" and "daybreak asia" starting 6:00 eastern. romaine: that is all for "what mississ. -- "what a new "what'd you miss."

joe: have a great evening. this is bloomberg. ♪

at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. ♪

♪ caroline: i am caroline hyde in new york, denver emily chang. this is "bloomberg technology." in the next hour, surge pricing. ipo, how much demand is there on the public market? and facebook cofounder chris hughes writes a bombshell op-ed in the "new york times," saying the social network is too good for its own -- too big for its own go