caroline: from bloomberg world headquarters in new york, i am caroline hyde. joe: i'm joe weisenthal. romaine: we saw s&p 500 few -- flirt with a record high. joe: the question is, when jean-mace? -- what did you miss? caroline: a recovery set to get

a boost with president biden's $1.9 trillion equity -- package. janet yellen dismissing this is too big, aiming to push the recovery into the labor market, addressing the unequal recovery that has affected so many women and minorities pit on international women's day we are set to discuss this very issue another issues surrounding inequality and diversity with the former xerox ceo ursula vence. before we get to that topic, we need to talk about the selloff in tech stocks without a correction joe:. joe:continuing to accelerate. that is been the story of the last two or three weeks. we had these days where it looks like it will not happen -- where he will be fine or a bounce, but there it close to all-time highs. the nasdaq 100 down almost 3%. i think it is worth noting, even with the bad run over the last

five years according to the bloomberg, total returns for that etf, 545% versus 200% for the qqq q. it is a huge league. nonetheless join us with more, cross asset reporter katie greifeld. when will the dip buyers emerge in tech? katie: i don't know. they were nowhere to be found today pet i love the stack on the dollar and the nasdaq 100. at one point it was the biggest intraday data versions between the two since 1993, the year i was born. i have never seen that before. joe: you're not qualified to talk about that. caroline: kt, get off. katie: maybe i should not have opened with that. if you peace under the hood, look at the doubt, it has tech in there, but it is heavily weighted to industrials, financials -- the old economy names that would benefit from it pick up in yields and

activities, whereas text, the growth names, they have flourished in this environment we have been living in. obviously they are lagging here as a long end of the treasury curve takes off. it has turned into a tell of two markets, given how big tech is an various benchmarks. that is dragging it down. i will point out the small cap -- small cap russell 2000. those are taking off as the rotation continues to take route -- take route. romaine: the original bank index closed at record highs today p i am curious, when we talk about this valuation gap and the idea that people are dabbling in the stocks, rotating out of the growth and momentum names, i feel if we have been here before -- we don't have to go back to 1993 to figure it out, katie, and it does seem like there is one positive catalyst and everyone would jump back in the

momentum again. katie: it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. investors i am talking to are making the case that a strengthening economy is not bad for tech. a healthy, growing economy will not be bad for apple and amazons of the world, but markets are relentlessly forward-looking. we learn that over and over again last summer when the data was coming in my bed case counsel are rising. we were still rallying. the market is looking for to a future where yields are higher, you have inflation pickup. we are going to take a bite out of what we have seen in the momentum in tech names. it is not necessarily the economy over tech. it is a key rating of expectations after such a huge year for that sector. caroline: katie greifeld -- we will not go back to date of birth again, but phenomenal

expertise. thank you. romaine: going to commercial. caroline: this is bloomberg. ♪

romaine: welcome back. today is international women's day and all day on this network we are talking about leaders in finance in diversity and equality on wall street and elsewhere, but by my count, you have 30 women ceos, just something like 5% or 6% of the index. joe: pretty extraordinary how strong that still is, especially when you hear there is so much talk and so much messaging on this topic of diversity,

particularly gender diversity -- how small it is. you see the break down there. 10% of utility ceos, 8% of financial ceos, but very small overall. caroline: look at the industries that have none -- materials, communication services -- communication services as were all the massive juggernauts that have led the 2020 rally are. this is where facebook is, google -- not a single one? joe: theoretically, those are modern and progressive companies that you would think would be better. joining us now is former's iraq ceo ursula burns. thank you for joining us. appreciate having your perspective on this day. we hear so much rhetoric on this topic from large corporations who oftentimes talk about diversity in various metrics. what would you say is the biggest gap, and why would you say is there such a big gap between rhetoric and result such

as the numbers we just showed on the number of women ceos? ursula: to be really frank, i think it is will and we have gone around the bend about the fact that we are not there -- the talent is not there, which we have proven, i think, over and over again, that that is not true. we can -- industry can and should be able to find executive women who can take the seats in boards room dashboard runs and the executive suite -- board rooms and the executive suite. it has gotten better, but it is still at a snail's pace. it is at the point where -- i have been known to speak against quotas, and i have recently changed my tune dramatically. at the end of the day, it is asking for people to do the right thing, which is imploring -- we have an international women's day every year and we

look at the numbers, they are still small. whole segments of the economy have very little or no female leadership, female governance infrastructure, and it does not seem to change. i think what we have seen is if you put in place a rule, a law that says you have to do it, surprise, surprise, the women start coming out of the woodwork. i think we are the point now where we have to take and start moving. i will say one more thing -- white women are making progress here. women of color are not. if you look at the numbers, women of color are not. we have a race issue. if you lay on top of that we have a race issue -- women of color are left out of the discussion totally. if you are in the sea suite or executive suite, you are better and you were just reporting on the impact the massive change in

employment has really impacted women throughout the economy worse than anyone else -- women of color significantly. so, across the board we are at the point where we can no longer listen to excuses. we have to start to make moves. romaine: talk about the trajectory of women particularly in corporate america hair. we have seen some progress, you can point to citigroup and odd -- a lot of other big banks, once you get a step below cfo, there is a pretty big bench of potential ceos. when you talk about the trajectory of a woman's career and the idea that it is derailed because of personal choices, child rearing, marriage, or whatever -- is that still a valid excuse a company can use to say this is why we don't have enough women in the tech line -- pipeline? ursula: they don't use it

publicly. if they are smart, they would never say it. it would never say it anymore. it is an unacceptable conversation to say because you have made a personal choice of being married -- men do the same thing, or having a child, thank god, or the world would end, that we will penalize you that, but -- penalize you for that, but as you can see, there are stopped points. childbearing and rearing age is one of those points were used it -- sit still for a while. even if you don't think you are doing it, company out there -- whatever company you are, it is steering -- stir enough that we do operate differently when you have to make some of these lifestyle or personal choices. if you're going to re-create the world we will actually penalize you.

i think we have made progress. i don't want to be a stuck in the mud person. we've made a lot of progress. when i was a ceo, we had 12 413 women ceos. now we are in the 30's. that is good, but that took years, and years and years to get half the population represented at 5% of the seats, or 6% of the seats is really not acceptable. we have to make moves and we have seen it could happen. when states or government say you have to do it, things start happening. caroline: look at california, and to that end, you are trying to do it with the core diversity action alliance. clearly women of color are the most hurt. is that carrot and stick you are deploying working, or do you need regulatory change -- do you need legal change that we have seen in california -- i am not

saying london on the u.k. is any better here. >> -- ursula: i think we need all the sticks in the fire to nudge this historic structure -- men, particularly white men, have defined, they say the rules, they judge -- they actually control this, but we need a large amount of disruptors to have this structure change. one is things like the board diversity action alliance. the more diverse your board is the more likely it is it will stay diverse and become -- stay diverse. if you have an african-american on the board the more likely it will -- you will have a woman on the board. we need that. we're at the point where we have

faith in the nasdaq and government structures saying no more -- we cannot wait for you to make up your mind to do it. we will start putting place quotas, rules that say if you don't meet this, you can do that. i did not think i would get to the point where i say yes to this. i met the point where it has been forever and we're still waiting. we have seen performance does not go down. women ceos do as well as men ceos. diverse companies do as well as nine -- non-divers companies. there are things that used to hang out there that are no longer valid. right now some companies are figuring out ways to do it. the people that don't figure out ways to do it will have to be told to do it, and i think that is going to come if we don't start to take control of our own future here.

joe: are there legal -- anything that any politician or regulator has written down that you say this makes sense, the cyclic a good framework for doing this? ursula: one thing that is still new and it is not quite been done, but i like the idea that if you're going to go public and you want to be listed on nasdaq -- go public or want to be listed on nasdaq, you have to have a diverse board. this gives impetus to start thinking about it when you are a bb company, when you are a young company, before your ipo -- baby company, when you are a young company, before your ipo. that is one thing. states and the country, u.k., california, i'm sure other places around the world will say we'll give you a certain amount of time -- how many years will it be? we'll give you two years. you have to diversify your board in two years.

this idea of quotas -- i don't like it to be called quotas, but this idea of -- i call it direction, the idea that you direct the company to do things is the best way to get it done. everything else we have seen it is a fit and a start. some people have gone through it, some people don't. now we are at the point where we have been waiting for a long time. i became ceo in 2009 -- 2009, and we are now in 2021, and we are still having this discussion. romaine: i am curious here, ursula, about, sort of, the industry breakdown of where we are seeing gains being made. in our introduction to you we had a chart on the screen showing how certain industries had no female leadership at all, while there was a concentration in utilities and other sectors. i am curious if you can distill for us why we are seeing women funneled into certain industries like that, but maybe not necessarily into the sexier, for

lack of a better word, industries like social media and communication services? ursula: i think you said the word. it is sexier -- the people that govern and run these companies -- many of them are young companies, which is a little disappointing. they are not -- they have not bought in to the game yet. a lot of these companies are -- i call them locker room companies. they are hang out together. they have locker room mentality and actions and i know i will get a lot of emails, but breaking into that locker room mentality, even when you are a multibillion, in some case trillion dollar company, is very difficult. it is very difficult for women, and it is very difficult for them themselves to think they are doing anything wrong. the old, long-standing companies

-- they have been through wars, they have been beat up, and they have not always been sitting on the top of the mountain. they actually take input and advice. the newer companies -- it is very concerning and very disappointing that the biggest tech companies, the largest tech companies are the worst performers in diversity in both gender and race. you would say to yourself it is supposed to democratize society, and what we see is a structure, a fortress built around these companies with very few people -- not only women and people of color, but even then not fit into that genre, they are not allowed in. i think it is dangerous for the company. it is definitely dangerous for the nation and the nations, and it is obviously not serving the general population very well.

i think we have to make progress here. no more give it some time. caroline: you are clearly advocating quotas to a certain extent, but i'm interested in your own journey. a lot of these new companies have great benefits -- they give a lot of time off for women having children and parents, parental leave, -- leave, not just women, but men, people adopting -- there are supports. what is it that you did that allowed you to have a family, rise to the ranks -- can you be prescriptive that way or is it impossible? ursula: the reason women don't progress is not because they have children. this is a choice by the structures today to differentiate the judgment system, the success system. they have narrowed it to fit their liking and processes only. there is no indication, no evidence that by having a child to become less useful, or less

executive-like. not at all. i have a child -- two i have children -- i have two children can i had a really nice husband. i had a great company that was not as concerned about how i looked, and more concerned about what i did and how i did it. now, like i say all the time, i happened to look out to be for the best company for diversity, at least, i think, in the world of the time. not every company can see that. right now we have tried to teach them, give them hints and tips about getting more diversity on your board, the c suite -- all of this or the last 20 years, these conversations have been happening over the last 20, 25

years, and we have made very little progress. this is not because women are not trying. it is not because we have babies. it is not because we don't have child care. it is because the structure today is not motivated to change it. plain and simple. that is the only reason why i say -- i am starting to say maybe quotas work, maybe quotas are what you have to do because if i am told you cannot operate in myspace if you don't not have a representation that is possible, guess what will happen -- they will get the representation and see the business runs just fine. once you get numbers -- joe, caroline, you know this -- once you get numbers, the fly rule affect takes on. five out of 100 is very difficult. once you get numbers, the fly rule affects takes place and change happens.

tech companies, but also banking, industrials, you name it, have to keep focusing on this. some of the older industries are making progress with women. they are still stuck in the mud when it comes to women of color and people of color, but i will take women right now -- tech companies are not making progress anywhere. we have to put a fire underneath them and say do it, or we are going to force you to do it. one other thing i will say -- we are people, active citizens. we can make decisions about where we want to actually buy and use our commerce strength. i have made it a point -- there are two companies i will buy nothing from because if you look at their board of directors and leadership structure than zero people of color and some board members that are women and zero women in the leadership team

except for white men. fortunately one of them is not a u.s. company. i think we as responsible citizens have to actually start to put pressure on these companies as well. if you're not willing to have me participate in your success, i am contributing to your success, but if you don't want me to participate actively in how your company is governed, i should go somewhere else, that is what i will do with my money as well. joe: we have a moment left. i want to go back to the concept of the flywheel and bring in more people in -- and one of the crisis is a huge gap, the employment between whites, people of color, etc.. one of the things we hear said from people like janet yellen, let's grow the economy really fast, so everyone starts coming in, so we don't start slowing it down just when white

unemployment drops -- how powerful of an idea or concept is that to you in terms of establishing that base, bringing in more employment just making sure gdp growth remains robust for a long time? ursula: it is foundational to the way that i think and to what i think we need in this country. we are -- we started gutting out the middle. we literally tore it out. what, unfortunately we are doing now, or what has happened now, is we are literally destroying the lower as well. they are unemployed or significantly underemployed. we have dislocated -- "we." the people have been dislocated. we have to do something and reengage them to be active participants in the economy. we cannot just keep giving them stimulus checks. we have to do that, too, but that is not going to get them going. literally, millions of people, a

large number of them women, people of color, but also a middle american white guys who literally are underemployed or unemployed as we come out of this recession that never really happened -- we have the wall street unbelievable success, and the main street disaster here. we need to bring main street backup to participate, or else i just don't understand how the nation stays together. you cannot have this much disruption. i live in new york city and in london, and i will tell you, you walk up and down the streets, you see people on the streets know who you would never see before. they are stuck. we have to engage, go back, and i think yellen is absolutely right -- you have to engage people into work, engage people into participation in growing the world again, and this country very specifically. if we don't, shame on us. shame on us. caroline: ursula burns, it is always so good and important to have your voice on the show. we thank you so much. the former xerox ceo on plenty

of board still and driving the change it the board diversity alliance. that does it. joe: lumbar technology up next the u.s.. romaine: daybreak australia coming up next in asia. have a great day, everyone. joe: this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco and this is bloomberg technology. coming up, etf's plunge amid the tech selloff -- kathy wood having her worse run in a year. tesla, square and a roku are tumbling. i will speak to kathy wood about her strategy going