don't forget, ben bernanke made a big splash last week when he said this recession is technically over, but also, not to anticipate much growth. actually, he said anemic growth was in the works. that has most people saying, you can probably expect the status quo, they say maybe a 5% or less chance you'll see an exit strategy in place from the fed today. none the less, we are up 20 points. matt nesto? >> about 10:30 this morning, that's when the market started to head south. about a 1 3/4. chevron, one of the worst performers today. the coal stocks are up 15, 20%. about 5% here today. the drillers like rowan very

weak. the flip side, the strength is the telecom stocks, which have been the worst. that's led by mr. cramer's call. he thinks that stock could see $30. >> let's talk about those earnings forecast. gm one of them. >> amazing. general mills. of course very strong today. the holy grail of getting it down in earnings season. then guidance at ford today, it's one of the best performing stocks in the s&p 500 right now. they're coming out with a new car, italian for cool. >> we've got southwest airlines. another standout here in the a

rather weak sector. >> both are down based on secondary offerings. u.s. air about 10%. southwest air was upgraded from buy to sell. >> 50%. >> okay. great to see you. we're going to head back to my pal, larry kudlow. timothy geithner is testifying on reforming financial regulation. hampton pearson is live on capitol hill with all the sentlating details. >> much of the focus has been on this notion of how will reform deal with the notion of too big to fail. what we're hearing, they say while among other things, while there will be no advanced lists of what kind of firms cause that systemic risk, reform should be

put in place with the tools that will allow those types of firms to fail with a minimum risk to taxpayers. >> the objective is to make the system strong enough to allow failure to happen in a way that doesn't cause enormous damage. >> there will be death panels enacted by this congress, but for nonbank institutions. >> a blunt prescription from barney frank, who also outlined a pretty ambitious schedule, the idea to put a proposal on the floor of the house by november. also saying he's had assurances from chris dodd that the senate also plans to take up major financial regulatory reform this year. larry? >> all right. >> thanks. this morning's other top stories, day two of the meeting with policy details being

announced this afternoon. the fed is expected to hold interest rates at close to zero and goldman sachs will stay at this level until 2010. joining us now, the fed's division of monetary bears, rick santelli and steve liesman. vincent, let me start with you. the headline is about interest rates. larry always asks, are they going to raise rate ins his lifetime. what's your bet? >> they will. the good news is larry will likely have a long life. the chairman characterized the outlook. we are only technically in recovery and that the unemployment rate was high and would go down slowly. that's not how you set the stage for raising rates anytime soon. >> there was a story, a late evening news story and the talk

about fed talking to government primary bond dealers about reverse rps, which means pulling cash out of the economy. they're talking bookkeeping, records, but the fact is, they're talking. that story was leaked. i want to know if there's any substance to the fact that the fed is now looking at reverse supposed to take cash out of the economy right away. sooner than anyone thinks. could it be in the policy statement today? this is huge, potential news. >> larry, speaking of your lifetime, do you happen to remember when the first meeting of the leaders was to prepare for the piece? >> 1943. >> and when did the war end? >> 1945. >> you've just answered my question. >> is this a -- before the g-20 to show they will have an exit strategy before world war ii

ends? >> two components. one, you give the talk without having to do it, so you get some curtailing of expectations. second is operationally, they have to prepare for the issue of withdrawing some of the stimulus. both on the issue of excess reserves and of taking out the repos. there are two proponents. raising interest rates is probably much further down the line. i would suggest some are closer than that, but may be as much as six months or a year away. >> speaking of that, there's a lot of the concern that once these reserves make their way back out into the system, that's going to be inflationary as well. my thought is isn't that inflationary, too? i mean, if you're worried about more money going back into the economy, pay interest on it, that's putting money into the economy, too.

>> i think the answer's yes, to various degrees to all of your questions, but i'm one that looks at things for the way they are and i believe that a weaker dollar, which in many ways, is also fuelling that same dynamic. and a lot of the medicine that will fuel that dynamic, at some point in the future, is just part of the plan. they look at the gradual decline in the dollar as a positive. that's why, should the fed raise rates and my answer would be yes. >> should they? >> no. i think they should. i think that there's a boat load of sit on the fence players. whether they're vulture investors, people looking to do a mornitgage, and the governmens presence may be warranted in the past, the future, needs to be diminished a bit to get these investors off the fence to make a move without waiting for more,

more, more in their favor from government programs. >> vince? >> so first of all, exchange rate deappreciation is always the banks' dirty little secret. let's face it. net exports are a source of growth. so the fed is accepting a little dollar deappreciation. >> that's a command and control planned economy. steve liesman, we just learned in this past decade, that that kind of sinking dollar will come up and bite us in the keister, to use reagan's phrase, and create bubbles of assets and why don't they go and absorb some reverse a reverse. >> i'm very surprised at you

both arguing that the government should keep the dollar artificially high. >> boo. >> let me finish. >> what are the terms of trade? the terms of trade are such that the united states has a dramatic -- >> it's called creating too many dollars, rick santelli. isn't that the real cause? it's not free markets, rick. >> i am not going to argue economics with any of our esteemed panel. i'm going to bring it on a level that my parents understand and that is the more the dollar goes down, the more our standard of living benchmarked against major economies, slips. you can slice and dice it -- >> only because you and your parents, rick, are importing too

much french wine. if you would go with the napa valley, you would not have a problem. >> steve -- does your paycheck from ge -- i rest my case. >> my spending is mostly in the united states. >> your paycheck -- >> rich, before we lose you -- how do you read this in all seriousness, this story out late last night, that the fed is talking to dealers. because after all, bookkeeping is important. there's what, 5, $600 billion that have injected cash. is there any credence for this story? >> absolutely. for two reasons. they want to enforce their credibility and there's technical issues you want to get in place before you do it. but there's a third reason. the stance of policy accommodation is such, they're

putting a lot more reserves into the banking system that are strictly necessary to put the federal funds rate at zero. oversupplying reserves. >> great point. >> that supply relative to demand and as banks get better, the economy improves, reserve demand is going to shrink and the balance sheet is going to shrink naturally. there's two steps. the first is a shrinking balance sheet as reserve demands decline. it's only the second step is tightening. >> have to win world war ii. >> thanks so much for joining us. >> liesman got you good there, larry. you and -- >> how did he get me good? >> our buddy down in chicago? >> he was reverting back to this

fine-tuning model of money creation. >> we'll talk about it later off air. coming up next, details of the new report card on spending. plus, will the economy still recover if we cut off remaining stimulus funds? plus, love them or hate them, demand for treasuries is still holding up strong, but are they a risky investment? you're watching cnbc, we are first in business worldwide.

a new report on the stimulus package was just released. it says 48 out of the $49 billion slated for state and local governments in 2009 is out the door. brian shactman joins us with the details on this. >> say what you want about the stimulus package in general, but it has been a savior for a lot of state budgets saving the need for mass job cuts, averting a crisis. also, close to 4,000 highway projects have been told they're getting the money and 20 billion has gone to medicaid. but according to chris mim, it is just that. in the next 12 months. states will get the biggest

slice. twice as much as they've received. 288 billion of the recovery act is direct tax relief. 224 for entitlement programs including medicaid and student loans. one question, what happens to these states and localities when the stimulus money stops? >> after the next couple of years when the bulk of the money gets rolled back, the economy should have turned around by that point in a pretty robust way. the theory is that you will not need the federal assistance to maintain those jobs. >> before we debate that, we're tracking stimulus full time here. e-mail us. we're going to follow the best leads to find out where the money is being spent. back to you. >> thank you so much. stay with us. we want to talk more about stimulus and whether the economy can continue to recover when the

government's spending stops. joining us now, we have the president of woodley park research. what do you say? i mean, can the economy recover given that as brian just pointed out, the majority of that stimulus money has already gone out the door. do we need more? >> what he was talking about was a specific category of stimulus spending. in total, we have barely begun to scratch the service. so far to date, we've spent about 160 billion. the total package is closer to $787 billion. the second -- so there's still a lot more to come and i think there's concern out there that when it goes away, we're going to be philandering. >> following along that line, if you have that much more in the works that still hasn't hit the economy and yet we're already

seeing signs that as ben bernanke points out, we are technically out of this recession, i mean, you've got to ask yourself, do you even need that many more hundreds of billions of dollars. >> right. in my opinion, the answer is no. i think when we passed a legislation back in february, it had two effects. the other was largely psychological. it was perceived to be necessary for the government to step forward and not in a halfway. those are no longer in place. we go forward a year, i think that element already further deminnished. technically, the 787 was more than necessary in my view. taking it back will be difficult, but idealy, that will be what we do. >> if you signed off on it, whether you like it or not, most

of it is to come, so you can't judge it until it's done. one of the possible contributors and the budgets aren't ready for more revenue, those jobs will go away. i think there's a question of whether or not the economy will be healthy enough to replace what the government has spent, but it is a big risk. >> one of the things, we certainly heard some members of the administration, christina romer is one who mentioned the possibility of a second round of stimulus, so it's not even just talking about -- we're talking about maybe taking this back, but there is a camp out there that firmly believes, i'm not saying she does, but there's a camp of people who believe we are going to need more money. one of the points i'm making here is if this money hasn't fully hit, why are we going to need more? >> i think part of it floating

as a concept. let's not forget the political ramifications here. 2010 is an election year and you're doubling the amount of stimulus here. all the spending is spread out over several years, so they're trying to ease their way off of it sort of like a recovering addict, if you will. i don't know if there's a need for it. >> i wonder if it would be a hard political sell there because some would see it as irresponsible given we're running such a deficit as it is, but that's a whole other issue. thanks. when we come back, have safe haven bonds become risky investmen investments? plus, we're monitoring comments from tim geithner. that is all coming up right here

on "the call." oh please. you got the presentation?

oh yeah right here. let me stow that for you, sir. thank you. you know, just to be safe i used fedex office print online. oh you did? yeah -- they printed and bound 20 copies of the presentation, shipped it to portland, they're gonna be there waiting for us. that's a good idea. yeah. you have a nice flight. thank you. (announcer) print online...you upload your document -- we'll take care of the rest.

crude oil showed basically a glut of oil in the market. down $2.88.

natural gas spiking to the plus side. stocks are down 10 bucks on the dow jones. during the height of the financial crisis, investors flocked to the safety of u.s. treasury debt. many are call tg top in treasuries. >> the run in treasuries, which i have believed in for a long time, is over. i am calling the top in treasuries. right here, right now at this moment. that's right. it's time to sell, sell, sell your ten-year and 30-year treasuries. >> i happen to totally agree with jimmy cramer. they are the most overvalued assets. but let's talk. let's ask michael pond. he is director and u.s. treasury at barclay's capital. we also have kevin giddis. kevin, treasuries are overpriced

to overprotection. what's your take? >> i don't know if we're quite there yet. i think there is still such strong demand in the treasury market when you look around for available investments. we've seen the contraction of a lot of spreads, but treasuries continue to be the game in town. there's still great demand for treasuries. may go a while longer. >> michael, tell me about that. that was my next question. we did see good appetite for those two-year bonds yesterday. why are people buying so many? >> the fed continues on its mantra of holding rates low. we think that means to the second half of next year. that means their front ends could offer some value. it is longer at the curve will we see is risks, particularly coming from risks of inflation down the road. not over the next year or two,

where the risks are towards continued disinflation, but fiscal policy continues. monetary policy, it will be difficult to implement the fed's strategy and those cause inflation rhysiisks over the me term. >> it seems there's got to be more to come to finance this debt. at some point, aren't people going to pay attention? >> we think so. supply has increased dramatically over the past year. more importantly, we think next year's supply in the coupon area will be even greater than this year. so supply will continue to move up and we think demand for the safe haven bid in treasuries will fade if we get this sustained balance in gdp. >> you could have a barn-burner of the recovery in the next four quarters. you are also getting the signals

from a cheap dollar and rising gold price that there's some inflation. i think cramer right. >> larry, i think that's a good point you just made, though most risk assets, you name it, the dollar, are all going in one direction. >> i want to get kevin. >> well, part of this is definitely correct. continue to buy, it's risky. at some point, this is going to click and inflation's going to come back, but you've got a window and it's starting to close. but you're well into next we're before i think this is a big problem. we can peak in yields the next three to your months, but the buyers aren't thinking about that. they're thinking about today and

what they need to do. >> thanks to both of you for joining us. coming up next, stocks down slightly today. so will we see dow 10000 by the end of this week or will terror threats and talk of financial reform stall the market higher? plus, treasury secretary geithner getting grilled, testifying before congress. we'll discuss who's up to the task of regulating wall street. >> some regulators have expressed serious concern.

the oral-b pulsar.

welcome back. stocks just slightly in the red here, but barely. we've made quite a bit of a recovery in the last 33 minutes, now down just about four points. the dow 10,000 mark very much in sight. what does that mean for stocks going forward. we want to go to our bulls -- and our bear. great to see you. hugh, you're the bull. when do you think we hit dow 10,000? >> i don't have a clue. the principle trend in price of stock market says this is the early stages of a bull market and that we've got higher to go, but the exact timing of when we get to 10,000, i don't know. there's a little bit of a evaluation issue, which means

the market may stall out, but i don't know. i just know that the trend, direction in prices is very possible. >> emanuel, what we're seeing down here at the stock exchange, i was talking to traders about this this morning, is that we seem to be moving a little bit in lock step, but mostly to the upside. up 50 points and then maybe slightly back, but the majority of the trend has been higher and it's been sort of cautiously higher, which they think is a good thing. you are are bear and some bear do believe we're headed to 10,000. >> it's hard to say you've moved up cautiously. >> just in the last several weeks, not tremendous moves. no. >> we don't really invest over

several weeks. what's really happening is you've got easy money and a weak dollar that's driving the mid up for risk assets. the problem with that is that while the price is going up, the under lying risk hasn't changed. that's really how you end up with asset bubbles. when you add to that, the fiscal largest we're adding on top, it makes it very difficult to see how the market is not going to have to correct. >> you're talking long-term here and that's the very real concern. we're running huge deficits, but when you say long-term, are you looking out say to the end of the year that you think this is going to be a pullback or the next year or two years? >> over next year or two-year, but that doesn't mean it can't pull back next week or even tomorrow. i think that is the key thing you have to focus on is when

you're an investor, you have to investigat invest based on fundamentals. in the end, we're investors and that doesn't mean that even in a bear market environment, you can't find great opportunity. >> husuppose you, we have a barn-burner of a v-shaped recovery in the next couple of quarters, maybe longer and suppose the fed drains reserves. is that bullish or bearish for stocks? >> it's not at all bad. the bottom line of what you mapped out for us is that the good news of the economy and earnings, this will stronger than expected. i happen to think that's going to be the outcome, and the fed started leaning toward restraint. the good news of economy and earnings will outweigh the bad news of rising inflation and

interest rates. it's only when interest rates get to a much higher level that it will kill off the bull market because the bad news will outweigh the good news. >> emanuel, barn-burner recovery, exit strategy from the fed sooner and more rapid credit demand drain iing liquidity. they're off the chart stuff, but what do you think? >> i think they'll end up correcting because the key issue is what's going to happen to earnings in that environment. we think that one of the big problems you have is when you have the growth coming from government spending, those are one-time and major spending. you have to give it a one multiple. >> hugh, there's been some concern, terrorism and al-qaeda, very much in the center of the news these days with the fed zeroing in on an al-qaeda cell, do you think that could have an

affect on the market? we certainly haven't seen it today, but what's your progress noes is there? >> it's something you can't predict. you don't make it a part of your investment outlook or the way you manage a portfolio. it's how you respond to the actual event itself really makes the difference. but right now, i wouldn't incorporate that in. yes, it's a possibility, yes, it's a worry. yes, it would be a negative short-term for the markets, but don't factor that in to the way you structure portfolios. >> looks like we've pretty much nailed them. >> let us hope and pray. all right guys, thanks so much. up next, congress wants more financial regulation, but there's a lot of debate over who can enforce it. >> tim geithner is testifying on that issue now. we'll discuss his thoughts and

debate where he wrareally need superregulator. (announcer) when you buy a car what are you really buying? a shiny coat of paint? a list of features? what about the strength of the steel? the integrity of it's design... or how it responds...in extreme situations? the deeper you look, the more you see the real differences. and the more you understand what it means to own a mercedes-benz. the c-class. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for special offers through mercedes-benz financial.

we want to show you one here, general mills trading up. almost 5% there. the company posting better than expected quarterly earnings. it raised its full year forecast. this is because of strong sales in the u.s. and lower commodity costs. you can see a little bit of upside there today. >> note the strong sales. everyone said no top line revenues. note the strong sales. >> thanks for that, larry. with secretary geithner testifying on the hill, is it time to consider a different financial system? one with a so-called super regulator at the helm. let's bring in former new york city superintendent. eric, we keep talk k about the super regulator.

what about the rating agencies? it's like everyone's forget they helped us get into this mess. >> i think they've gotten off extremely lightly and they really need to be seriously revisited. i did an op-ed back i think in the spring, where i recommended that we go to a buy side rating agency, sort of the consumer reports of rating agencies, where it's funded by the users of the rating. the buyers of the products instead of the producers and advertisers. it would be an unconflicted system, which i think the public needs very badly. >> this is like the missing link. >> it is. >> i think eric's totally right. melissa asked the right question. you could have 1600 regulators and they would have missed it any way because these deals were done with phony ratings. >> ratings agencies is only one

of the many areas we need regulatory reform. we also need to understand there are limits to ratings. part of the problem is that you've had lack of transparency on wall street and frankly, a lack of understanding of wall street and if financial markets by the agencies trying to regulate the institutions. >> these guys aren't you know -- they didn't get it then, what makes us think they'll get it now with one unified super totality regulator? >> you need regulates with more technology, more capacity, that talk ultimately, not a question of whether one, two or five. we've looked at that. we can agree however, that there are too many regulators now. too many layers and gaps and ultimately, an ineffective system. it is time to get on with it.

>> eric, i think you were one of those david's talking about. >> i was the -- i don't agree. i think you should take a look at the performance of the insurance industry and regulatory regime, which i would say performed extremely well through the crisis. your problems were in the banking areas and investment banking areas. insurance did extremely well through this through the storm. i think it is strange that we have not looked more strongly at a single risk regulator. i have been a proponent of that. i would vote strongly for one person who has the authority to go through all the asset classes, securities, investment banking, loans, everything, and make sure there is adequate capital. they permitted us to go out

there and market products that did not have the traditional capital behind them. and the regulator who makes apples to apples comparisons -- >> who's going to enforce something never enforced? >> leverage ratios. the s.e.c. had the play and guess what? they forgot to enforce it. to me, that's part of this story and it goes along with too big to fail. right? you leverage it up, who's going to deal with those issue? >> that's right. more of the same isn't going to cut it. you could double the size of the s.e.c. and produce the same results. which is why we need to resist the temptation to just add more layers rather than getting at the heart of fixing the current regulatory system.

>> so what's the first fix that you would do then, david, if you want to fix rather than layer up? >> we'd put 23 recommendations on the table earlier this year. credit a better management structure. streamline the divisions, give them more technology, turn around the incentive. it's to give an answer, even if it's no. i think you could create much more effective, nimble regulators. >> let them fail. isn't that the real vaccine to stop this from happening? you have to watch somebody go down and be broke and be afraid it's going to happen to you. >> it's like sending a ceo to jail for 50 years. >> we have to allow for failure and risk taking. regulation isn't the only thing that fails here. you need market discipline and regulatory discipline. we need better regulators and better market discipline. >> come on, eric. too big to fail.

no one want to deal with that. >> you're absolutely right. we refuse to confront too big to fail. we refuse to question whether gla glas steegle was correct. where you have bank insurance policies supporting leverage undertaking. it used to be illegal just prior to year 2000, and i think that's how you get where you can't let them fail because at the base, they have the confidence of the country behind them. they have the insurance and bank deposits. so you save, even though it was off of the leverage undertakings, we should seriously consider a revisitation because it has not been helpful at all. >> great discussion.

thanks to both of you for joining us. "power lunch" is coming up. bill, what you got? >> we have the author of the new book on etfs, using them for specific investment strategies. then we had a lot of fun with this yesterday. those economic indicators that don't show up in government statistics and they're based on your observations. today, we want to hear about the extremes. conspicuous con sumgts you've noticed. on the first page of the journal today, opulent beds for your man cave. then next, the return of thrift. send us your e-mail. we'll see you at the top of the hour. melissa? a quick break, then lots of hopeful research coming out of the cancer commerce in germany. it comes right out of me.

>> sorry. >> it's like a puppet show. >> mike huckman will have the details. >> my voice is getting lower. >> i put it to you. would you like to go for a ride on that bike ? ok ! ok. whoooa, heyyy ! see, the terms require that you keep the bike within this pre-determined space. if you want to take the bike out, i'm going to have to charge you a penalty. i can't really ride in this little space. you can't ride very far. even kids know an offer shouldn't come ha, ha, ha... with ridiculous conditions.

why don't banks ? at ally bank our 9-month no penalty cd gives you a great rate with no fees for early withdrawal. it's just the right thing to do.

a flurry of new cancer drug

tests are out at a big conference in germany. the studies are mixed and so are the stock reactions. mike huckman has the detailed. >> the german drug giant, bayer, and a small facility make the drug for liver and kidney cancers, but new test results out today could lead to this drug being approved for breast cancer as well. that's because a study shows it, given with chemotherapy help breast cancer patients live more than two months longer without the disease getting worse. some analysts say the benefit was bigger than expected. the stock is up about 35% over the past few months after getting a huge pop when the company first unveiled the headlines for this study in the summer. meantime, conflicting data for eli lilly and squib.

one study says it helps a subset of colon cancer patients live three months longer. the partner still gets a piece of the u.s. and japanese sales of that drug. finally, evidence on the efficacy of a blockbuster cancer drug continues to gain critical mass. this time, it shows that in combo with chemo, shrank or wiped out 70% of tumors in patients with advanced colon cancer. and researchers say there may be too great a likelihood that was due to chance. it's approved for colon, lung, breast and brain cancers and is being tested on many other tumors.

trades on the exchange. you can follow me on twitter at mhuckman. >> thank you so much. a quick break and then we are back for the last call on walmart. >> is the big box retailer continuing his legacy? details from the ceo. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i want everything right where i can find it. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 anything that makes trading easier. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i want to be right in the middle of the action--

tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 you know-- i have to see what's going on. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and when i pull the trigger... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...i've got to get the best price out there. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 (announcer) try the new schwab.com tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 for yourself. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-888-4schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 or visit schwab.com/trader today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 'course a trade doesn't always work out my way. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 but when it does... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...man... do i love that feeling.

♪ yes, you're lovely... ♪ what do you think? hey, why don't we use our points from chase sapphire and take a break? we can't. sure, we can. the points don't expire... ♪ there is nothing for me... ♪ there's no travel restrictions... we could leave tomorrow. we can't use them for a vacation. you can use the points for just about anything. i know... ♪ the way you look tonight ♪ chase what matters. get your new chase sapphire card at chase.com/sapphire.

walmart is fighting a federal law to make it easier to workers to unionize. the company's founder was against unions and it seems current ceo, mike duke, is continuing that legacy. >> the company is known for strongly opposing unionization. why is that? >> actually, what we really do is we just love our relationship with our associates. the direct relationship we have. where we're a family. we don't want to see the family broken up. >> you really believe you're a family? 2 million strong. you can have a family of four and there's people squabbling. 2 million people and you're a

family. >> every visit i go to the stores, i feel it even more. every trip i make, i come back saying, this is the largest family in the world and it really is that way. >> all right. so the new age of walmart with david faber, that airs tonight at 9:00 eastern here on cnbc. >> i love that. >> david really kind of gave him a little dab there. his answer didn't change at all, but -- >> you know, trish, when they open up these new walmarts, thousands of people line up to get jobs. >> including larry. he's like in that line. he wants those discount goods. >> he's a man of the masses. >> i go to the gardening area because of my interest in gold and commodities. >> it's a fascinating suggest. and i'm looking forward to seeing larry at the check-out counter. >> thanks for watching.

>> i'll see you tonight on the kudlow report and "power lunch" is up next. we welcome you to our little family that we call "power lunch." to say the least, stocks have been steady today. it's ahead of the fed's latest interest rate decision announcement out in a couple of hours. intel and at&t have been leading the dow today. we also have a $40 billion, five-year note auction. the results out next hour. i'm sue herera. a special tonight, your first look at the new age of walmart. david faber goes inside the world's biggest retailer. we're going to look at an uncommon economic indicator.

is it time to spin or save? take a look at this headline in the "new york post." gadhafi booted from camp trump. that's coming up. here's what else is on the "power lunch" menu. the fha now backed 1/3 of all new loans, but they're about to run out of required cash reserves. we'll put the new commissioner in the hot seat in a first. it was a gold plated vote of confidence. warren buffett loaned goldman sachs $5 billion. one year later, berkshire hathaway is looking at the sweet profit, but for how long? shares of ford surging today following upbeat comments from the ceo about his view of the u.s. auto market. is it time to buy