cyclical sectors. across the board, transports, even airlines, although upgrades to the airlines this week, were down. ryder, csx, railroads also to the weak side. still, the key theme that most traders emphasized is the decline on the s&p is barely a correction. in fact, it has been typical for a correction to be only 2%, 3%, or 4% since the march bottoms. we haven't had an additional correction since then. the worst one, 9%, that was in the middle of june and july. you see it's been pretty modest. remember, traders go with the trend. the trend being -- the belief will be that this correction will also be 2% to 4%. let's talk about the overall week and what happened here. there we see the major indices. dow industrials down 1.6%. the cyclical sectors, particularly transports, notably on the weak side. nasdaq 2%. russell, 3.2%. leaders from some of the biggest nations in the world are in pittsburgh. we find john harwood, he's got

the latest coming from there. john, a lot of news coming out of the g-20. not typical. >> no kidding, michelle. we thought the g-20 summit in pittsburgh was going to be about one set of things. sustaining the recovery, rebalancing the world economy, re-regulating the financial industry. but today it was rocked by this bombshell disclosure from president obama, nicholas sarkozy of france and gordon brown of great britain that iran has been building a second secret facility to enrich nuclear fuel. and all three of those leaders led by president obama promised that the rest of the world is going to push back. >> iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the iaea represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the nonproliferation regime. >> now, of course, president ahmadinejad of iran who earlier this week spoke at the united nations gave a press conference this afternoon, rebutted some of

what president obama said, said that iran was acting within international regulations in building this, because they weren't required to notify the rest of the world. said that president obama ought to apologize for what he said. nobody should hold their breath for that happening. what president obama is trying to do is use this as momentum for the negotiations that will resume with iran on october the 1st, with the p-5, the five permanent nations on the u.n. security council plus germany to try to halt iran's nuclear programs. those talks haven't been successful. real test for president obama, michelle. >> thank you, john. let's break down the day's market actions, discuss whether we saw any response to the news related to iran. the chief investment officer at harris bank. i want to talk about the market action. jack, it seemed to me, with all the news coming out of iran, you might have at least seen some kind of reaction in oil. and we didn't. the market doesn't seem to be taking this issue seriously. is there a reason for that?

>> yeah, i don't think that the market believes that there's any military action, or any kind of, you know, strong action, you know, as a result of this. so i think we're going to let it play out. we're going to see, you know, where the sanctions take us. maybe some diplomatic efforts. but we don't see at this stage anyway any kind of a military clash, you know, in the offing. >> until then -- let's talk about the overall markets in general. we've had a great quarter. if things keep going the way they're going, we go flatout for the rest of the month of september, jack. this is going to be the best quarter for the dow since 1939. do you follow that momentum or does it make you nervous? >> well, i think all in all, you know, valuations are still reasonable. the fact is, that we obviously came down quite a bit last year. and so if you look at the stock mart on a price-to-sales, or price-to-book basis, michelle, you still have to go back to roughly 1990 to find values that

are equivalent. i'm not really worried so much at least on a valuation basis, that the market is way ahead of itself, no. >> barbara, are you worried about how far the market has gone? 64% since the march low? >> that's a strong rise for six months. i think at the moment, the stock market is pricing in a level of growth in earnings. this economy is just not going to deliver for the next year or two. so i think that the valuation on the market, which is about 15, 16 times earnings, i don't think that makes a lot of sense with the growth you're going to see over the next -- that's times next year's empgs. i think it should be more than 12 to 15. i think we've gotten a little ahead of ourselves here. >> you don't believe the e is going to get up there enough to justify these prices? >> i don't. we had a strong, you know, debt bubble, the flip side of that debt bubble was a spending bubble. and i think that over the next year or two, we're not going to come back to those levels of growth at all. i think that, you know, we're extrapolating out the rise from

a comatose economy that we had in the first quarter, we're extrapolating that out another year or two in the stock market. we need to look at the levels and say we're going to be here for a little bit. >> considering that as your view, barbara, what to you do with your money if we have viewers who are bearish like you are? >> long-term return of 9% or 10% gets delivered in such a bizarrely volatile way. the last six months has been very surprising. i don't think individuals should come in or out. i think long term, there's every rein for optimism for the stock market and economy. i would say now is a good time to invest in more blue chip stocks that are paying you a current return that have a good dividend, that has strong balance sheets, global franchises if you can, that are generating cash. we've been talking about cash generators today. and then i think what you look at the next few years, if you have a flattish stock market, you will have return on your investment. >> jack, what -- you're obviously more optimistic.

what's your advice to the viewers who agree with your view of the economy? >> it's funny, i don't look at "e" right now -- >> the pe, of course, for the novice viewer. >> right. i don't look at earnings so much, because the -- so many of the companies in the s&p are posting negative earnings. and that will tend to distort pes and will give, in my view, the false sense of value. but i will say that in this environment, particularly if -- and i do agree with barbara that the amplitude of the risk is moving up and down quite a bit, i would be certainly in this market. but also be prepared to be a lot more agile and be prepared to get out. because i do think that while we're enjoying quite a few tail winds on the economy, notwithstanding the most recent news, i do think that government spending is set to wear off next year. and once we remove the, you know, the life support from a patient, it remains to be seen whether the patient's going to be breathing very well on their own. >> speaking of governments, barbara, what did you make of these comments from kevin, one

of the fed governors, had an op-ed in the "wall street journal" today. one of the key phrases was, once the fed starts removing accommodation, another way to say, we remove all the support that we've put into the system, or start raising interest rates, it could come at a pace that is much faster, more aggressive than what we have seen in the past. what did that tell you? i mean, the bond market certainly reacted of the the yield curve started to get flatter and really feeds into your view of what might happen with the economy, suggesting that people were worried about either a double dip or maybe they're going to take awach the punch bowl earlier than some expected. >> i think his comments do make some sense, in that certainly interest rates are held unnaturally low. we have to have some preparation for some of the government programs being taken away, and some of the pushdown on the interest rates also going away. so i think that we have to look forward to a somewhat more normal environment in the next year or two.

certainly the stock market has a lot to do with the very, very low interest rates. and i think that at some point that will be something that the stock market has to bear. >> jack, what did you think of those comments, and what does it do for the portion of your portfolio that you allocate to fixed income? >> ironically enough i had breakfast with kevin this morning when the story came out. so i did ask him about the, you know, his comments. and i think the market is taking a somewhat out of context, because i know there were some that thought that he, you know, voting for keeping rates low, and then coming out with an opinion like that seemed somewhat in conflict. i think kevin's point is, we want to make -- the fed wants to maintain the same vigilance that it addressed the crisis last year, the panic last year, with the recovery. so they want to stay on top of it. they don't want to necessarily, you know, sit back and say, okay, that's past, and now we'll

move on and do something else. >> but jack, everything you've told me so far suggests maybe the market reacted exactly as they should have. first of all, you had breakfast with the guy this morning. you could have mentioned it. but if he's saying the fed's going to be just as vigilant about removing it, that feeds right into the whole idea of, maybe they're going to do it a lot faster. and it also does raise the question, why isn't it in conflict of what he voted on two days ago? >> i think because he's not saying that the -- that it's going to have to happen right away. what he's saying is that they want to stay vigilant for a longer period of time. and that i think the other thing is, that greenspan and company were faulted back in 2003 when they just used this gradualist 25 basis point every meeting approach. and they don't want to be accused of doing that. so i think that it's -- >> we've got to go. thank you, though. it's consistent, i think.

>> jack, barbara, good sdupgs. some of the other stories we're following on the clo"clos bell" ticker right now. the company says it is seeing significant interest for household products unit. the plan to focus on the core food business. the company announcing a $1 billion stock buyback plan. shares of sara lee higher by more than 5.5%. dow component caterpillar upgraded to outperform by credit sweeps because of growing demand in emerging markets and machinery sales in north america. the firm also raising its price target on the stock to $63 from $40. the dow component today, lower by a little more than 1%. decline of 70 cents. $51.15 a share. security software maker mcafee outperformed. citing strong spending trends on cyber security.

shares higher by nearly 3%. $42.65 a share. coming up. we'll look at the challenges facing g-20 leaders and discuss whether they really will be able to accomplish anything when they finish their meeting. but first, fixing the global chief. coming up next, the president of brazil explains if he thinks adding more regulation can stop a future finance crisis and why he's worried about the rising tide of protectionism.

a live picture of beautiful new york city. it's friday afternoon. you know what that means. banks are getting closed by the fdic. regulators have closed a georgian bank in atlanta, 95th bank of the year. first citizens bank and trust will assume the de pos its. they had total assets of $2 billion, total deposits of approximately $2 billion as well. the 95th bank to fail this year. often happens on friday afternoon. a lot of breaking news.

listen to this. this is going to be a big headline tomorrow in the paper. the "wall street journal" is reporting that the chinese sovereign wealth fund has given oak tree capital management a commitment of # billion to invest on their behalf. that will be a huge coup for oak tree capital management, the managers of that fund frequent guests here on cnbc. china sovereign wealth fund, remember, for so long they were investing in different actual companies around the world. but now it looks like they're investing in hedge funds as well. and money managers. oak tree getting $1 billion according to the "wall street journal." and they are poised to invest directly in more hedge funds. and apparently they're reporting that paulson and park are some of those that are being considered for allocations. we're going to keep you up to date on that. we've told the story for so many years now, the chinese have so much money available to invest, what exactly were they going to do with it, how are they going to spend it.

a lot of the emerging market strength coming out of china, just the same as with brazil. brazilian president lula talking about the rising tide of protectionism and hoping to convince g-20 leaders that it's free trade that will solve this global crisis. more from maria's exclusive interview. >> what will it take to walk away from the meetings and feel it was a success either at the u.n. or the g-20? what do you look to achieve? >> translator: first of all, i think when you come, and make a speech at the u.n., you come to convey a message that you think it's important. in my case, i want to talk about the progressive governance. i want to talk about the economic crisis, and on the climate change, these are three topics of extremely importance for the world today. and that we cannot bypass them. and we have to discuss these

issues. indeed, sometimes we put the bureaucratic machinery of each state to work. and the leaders do not make the important decisions, because the decisions have to be made by the leaders. the climate change issue for example or the economic global crisis. if the leaders do not take a position, make a position, it's not about the stats that will do it, that's why i believe it's important for you to focus on the main issues. now, in terms of the g-20, i believe that we are facing a good opportunity to do things we haven't done up until now in the past. there was a time that all the countries in the world started to believe that the markets didn't need any kind of regulation. anyone could do whatever they wish. anyone would invest their money as they wished. and the banks could do whatever they wished to do without the

ru rulers to take a position. i could never accept the idea that the ruler would be the reducer of the development of the country. i don't want a president or the state as a manager. we don't want the state managing the economy. but i want a state, a government that will drive the economy, and be a regulator at the same time. if you look at the economic global crisis, one of the reasons of this global crisis, the banks, especially in the u.s., they have no parameters to leverage their loans. and so when a banch leverages the amount of money that is many more times above its net worth, i'd say the bank is spending money that it doesn't have. and then we have reached the crisis that we did have. and thank god in brazil we have a financial system that is highly regulated and controlled. you can only leverage at 10% of your net worth. so when the crisis came, brazil had sound and strong

institutions to defer the crisis and make the loans that disappeared at the international level. so the g-20 now has the opportunity to re-think a little bit the role for the rulers, and the role of the different state governments. because in these times of crisis, it's very easy to govern a country when everything is going smoothly. so my concern with the g-20 is that the leaders are now becoming accommodated because the crisis is moving -- we can't say that the crisis has ended, but it's giving us some signs that it's reached a threshold that you can't have more deeper downturn, and it won't change anything. we have to change the role of the imf. we have to change the role of the world bank. and we have to control the international financial system. control it in the sense that we should not allow that they leverage many times more than their net worth. which is -- gives -- serves as a collateral for a bank to be sound and solid. i'm always very optimistic.

it's always difficult. because each one has their own domestic public. there's elections in one country, so people are always a little bit afraid to cause damage to their domestic public. but as a leader, you cannot just think of domestic, if you're a leader, you have to think what will help to solve a problem of a world that is weakped in the financial sector. >> i understand what you're saying about leverage. obviously the entire system and particularly in the united states got out of of control. but at this moment in time, do you worry that we could have too much regulation and too much government ownership of business given the fact that the pendulum will swing too far, because of what has just gone on? >> translator: what we need is to find a middle term, a balance. brazil has found a midway, neither the state, nor the government is too much. or we don't have a government or

state. we have invested what is important to exist for the state to play its role. we have a process, where a major company wants to install itself, many times we discuss of what region of the company it will be for him to start his investment. so we can try to induce regional development in our country, so we should not only be concentrated in the richest cities. we want to take the development, or foreign investment for other regions of the country. that's the role of the government, or the states. the role of the state and government is that precisely, not to allow what was happening before with the financial system, that is to say the people were working with just paper notes. and one bank bought bonds and shares from others. and resold. and you were not manufacturing a shoe. you were not manufacturing a suit or a pen. so the economy can't work like that, just selling paper and

notes. it will explode. so what we need is to have a certain control. so that we should not allow that things should get out of control as it did happen here. i think we learned a lesson already. it was a good teaching for us. we learned a lesson. the global crisis, that now we should be sure to make the right decisions and avoid that this crisis will come back again. i don't know if you remember when two years ago, the month of may, june more or less, the oil a barrel went up to $150 a barrel. soybeans also went up. so all the commodities, it was a bubble in the commodity international markets. what was that. what happened. that was already part of the investors getting out of the subprime market and rushing to the future markets in the food markets and oil markets, because there was no explanation for the

oil barrel for $30 going up to $150 in such a short time. so we cannot allow this kind of speculation. we can't allow it, because this brings damage and harm to the poorest people in the world. it brings damage to job creation. >> what nations are your priority in terms of trade? are you worried about the recent shifts in terms of trade policies, putting restrictions in the u.s., putting restrictions on chinese tires, et cetera. do you worry about trade wars, and as it pertains to brazil, what are your priorities, china and india? >> translator: well, i am very concerned of the comeback of protectionism. i'm very much concerned with the comeback of protectionism, because for a long time i heard the leaders say we should have free trade, we should not have any trade barriers and so forth. this is when they wanted to sell to us. now it's important for these leaders, though, that they go to the protectionist role.

brazil has positioned itself against any form of protectionist practice. brazil has positioned itself so that we can end the talk-around, to help the poorest countries. and brazil always has a relationship with the u.s., with europe. but in the year 2003, we made a decision that we should diversify our trade partners, and the trade relations. we could not only rely on our trade flow -- 30% with the u.s. and 30% with europe and not the rest of the world. we decided to diversify to south america, latin america, diversify our partnership with the african continent and go to the arab world. and india and china. and even brazil growing 20% a year, in terms of its straight balance with the u.s., we will continue to grow more with the other partners. this is very important.

why so? because during the global crisis, we were not depending on only one sole country or one block of country. like mexico is highly dependent on the u.s. we have diversified in many different countries where we would export our products. what's even more important, our exports represent 13% of the gdp. brazil is not reliant on export, exports as germany is, or even mexico to the u.s. brazil has diversified. and this gives us much more safety. it gives us a safety net. and with this system now it will make our trade exchanges, using our own domestic currencies. the central banks and serving as collaterals, we can facilitate the lives of the different countries. in some cases i should say we are giving credit so that the country can buy brazilian products. and i hope that the u.s. and the european union should not start

now to play games with protectionism. because this goes against everything they said in the last 50 years or so. so now it's the following. it's free trade. we want truly free trade that will help to solve the global crisis and not protectionism. protectionism will not help us to solve the global crisis. we'll go back to those old times where the states have a very strong domestic position of the '50s. we don't want to go back to the '50s, we want to think in the year 2050, not 1950. >> that is an amazing turn-around for lula. because when he first ran for office two decades ago, he ran on the platform of the country not paying its debt. he was a fiery socialist. he was a union leader. lost his finger in a lathe. he has really come around to far more free market policies. he says his other big item on the agenda is the 2016 olympics. if rio de janeiro wins the bid, they're going to make it the first south american city to host the game. a big hurdle there as well. he has to deal with the crime

problem they've got. the fdic, is it going to need a bailout from the banks it overseas. what sheila bair has to say when the "closing bell" returns. 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.

earlier today, maria bartiromo moderated a panel on global finance and regulation,

on the final day of the clinton global initiative. she asked fdic chair sheila bair would it need to borrow money. >> is there an inherent conflict in lending money to your regulator? >> lending money to your regulator. well, i assume that's a reference to a "new york times" article suggesting, we do have the authority to issue debt to banks. it's there. it's a possibility, i assume. we will be meeting next week to talk about how to bolster our cash resources. we're going to be presenting some options and we'll get public comment on a variety of options. i don't see that as a preferred option. it's important for insured depositors that this debate is really about how banks pay and when they pay and over what period of time. it's for insured depositors, nobody's ever lost a penny of an insured deposit, never will. we have the full banking industry backing us and the

united states government behind that. it's really about finding mechanics and when banks pay and over what period of time. >> i want you to know, jpmorgan thinks fdic is a good credit and we'd be happy to lend you money if you need some. >> i'll bet he is. jamie diamond also told maria the notion of too big to fail only becomes a big concern when it impacts an individual or nation's economic life. from trade talks to climate change. will the g-20 meeting in pittsburgh result in any break-throughs? remember the anticipation of hearing the ice cream truck?

in poland, cargill borrowed the idea... for something quite different. small polish farms had difficulty getting... affordable feed for their smaller herds of animals. so cargill created a way to bring the feed... directly to them... on musical delivery trucks, selling a few bags per visit. ( dog barks, horse neighs ) keeping the small farmers competitive, and their animals happier. this is how cargill works with customers.

in minutes, president obama holds a press conference from the g-20 summit in pittsburgh. the day already bringing big news, word that the u.s. has been tracking a secret iranian

nuclear project. the second day of talks focusing on the economy and the global stimulus plans in place. tony joins us from hometown of pittsburgh. congrats to you. >> thank you. >> former white house press secretary under george bush. greg is chief policy strategist. good to see you. greg, we find out there's a second secret, or not so secret anymore nuclear site in iran. i thought we would see a reaction in oil. i thought we might see a more reaction in gold, more reaction in the markets. look, me, i'm crazy. i still believe the markets are a great signal. and it didn't seem to react. does this mean it isn't that important? >> it's really, really important in my opinion. i think the day when netanyahu and the israelis run out of patience draws closer and closer. maybe we can wait until the end of the year, but i think the revelation there's another

nuclear facility makes it more likely the israelis have to move. >> tony, this seems to me to be a big, big test for president obama. during the election season, he was criticized, or some would say there were scare amongers out there who said he was going to be tested by america's enemies. have we arrived at that test? >> we very well could be. this was -- this wasn't something that came as a surprise to president obama. i think as senior advisers at the white house had briefed out the reporters, he was told about this during the transition, and so it comes out publicly now at a very critical period. not just for the global economy, but for him personally, and with this entre of discussions with the iranians. so it adds another layer of complexity to it. it is a test, of course. people are looking to see whether a different approach will have different results. and, you know, the jury's out on that. we'll see. >> greg, how big a test is it

for him, especially when he's got the other issue out there that seems to be dragging him down in the polls, which is health care reform? >> it's a big test. unfortunately for him the weekend talk shows, the evening news tonight, they're going to lead with iran, and the rising threat, i guess, of domestic terrorism here in the u.s. so once again, his health care agenda gets pushed to the back page. >> guys, don't move. we're going to take a quick break here and talk to you on the other side. president obama is expected to address the g-20 in just a few minutes. we'll take you there live as soon as it happens. we'll be right back when the clo"closing bell" returns. gecko: uh, you wanted to see me sir?

boss: come on in, i had some other things you can tell people about geico - great claims service and a 97% customer satisfaction rate. show people really trust us. gecko: yeah right, that makes sense. boss: trust is key when talking about geico. you gotta feel it. why don't you and i practice that with a little exercise where i fall backwards and you catch me. gecko: uh no sir, honestly... uh...i don't think...uh... boss: no, no. we can do this. gecko: oh dear. vo: geico. fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

once again, we are waiting for president obama to address the g-20 in pittsburgh. we've got our contributors standing by. as soon as it's ready to happen, we'll bring it to you live. in the meantime, let's bring in our chief washington correspondent, john harwood, to give us an update. john, we've talked about iran nearly all day. really eclipsed the economy as an issue. but the communication coming out talks about greater coordination of economic policies and an agreement to rein in exorbitant bonuses apparently. >> yes. now, the u.s. and europeans have

not come to a meeting of the minds on all the particulars on those issues. in particular, executive compensation, the french favor more specific dollar caps. the u.s. is about realigning incentives to reduce the incentive that financial institutions have to take excessive risk. but they are going to agree on rebalancing the economy, encouraging china to become more of a domestic demand driven economy, while the united states wants to become more of an investment and savings economy here at home. those aren't going to be easy to accomplish and there will be a long arc on those changes. that's what we thought was going to be the news of the summit. a lot of work put in ahead of time. as well as the continued progress on the issues of climate change and free trade. which is somewhat embarrassing for the united states given the china decision a couple of weeks ago. >> john, nothing is binding here. what in the end does it really mean is this nothing, right? >> as for binding, zippo. it is a piece of paper.

and, you know, policy gets made in small bits of exhortation. the companies will act in their self-interest anyway, which is the case on some of those financial executive compensation issues i mentioned, or bank capital requirements. coordination is important, because the economy is soists connected. but we haven't moved out of the age of sovereign nations, and their acting in their own interests. >> the official communique is out. we're going to start typing in the headlines across the bottom of the screen. we've got breaking news desk doing that right now. in the meantime, we'll continue to discuss, greg, what does it mean when they come out and say, we're going to go greater global coordination of the economy? does it mean anything? >> very little. and i tell you what, an awful lot of us are going to be looking at carefully, that's the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and can the u.s. una bashedly

endorse free trade when we're seemingly picking a fight with the chinese. we could look a little duplicitous on this issue. >> certainly hypocritical. tony, your thoughts here before we take a quick -- another quick break before his speech. >> sure. look, on the global rebalancing story, the truth is, there's nothing new there. we've been talking about the unbalanced global economy for a long time. the chinese have said in, you know, five-year plan, in policy paper and speech after speech, that they know they need to start creating more domestic demand. of course, how do you do it. and how do we increase savings here in the united states. >> it doesn't necessarily will it or make it so. don't move. we'll take a quick break before he starts his speech. 

all right. standing by right now waiting for president obama to address the g-20 in pittsburgh. john harwood is standing by, as well as tony, former press secretary under george bush. and also greg vallier, analyst about the intersection of wall street and washington. greg, we have had all this

discussion all day long about the greater need for coordination, global regulation. it seems to me that a lot of the discussion is forgotten, that there's a really solid school of thought that says global regulation is really a bad idea. we want countries to compete to be the best place to start businesses. >> i think that's right, michelle. you've got such a cacophony of voices. you've got barney frank, chris dodd, tim geithner, sheila bair. you've got so many different ideas on how we're going to regulate. >> and that's just the united states. >> exactly. absolutely. >> tony, should we be more concerned about competing with other countries when it comes to regulation, about making sure that we have an economy that is the most friendly to business? >> yeah. that's in our interest. i'm okay with certain basic standards, the kinds of bassel 1 and bassel 2 standards on capital, leverage and liquidity.

sort of level standards. but you don't want to reach into each country's traditions for how they -- and experience for how they regulate their businesses. that's not something that you want to do on a global scale. we want that competition, and we also want to spur innovation. we don't want every country in the world to have, you know, the identical banking systems. germany's banking system would not work for the united states. >> john harwood, and this really becomes a question of advanced economies versus less advanced economies and a lot of the countries that are fighting some of this global regulation are those that really want to grow the most. >> yes. now, i do think the most important aspect of this from a coordination point of view has to do with systemic risk, how various central banks and regulatory authorities across international lines become aware of -- given the interconnectedness of the economy, of threats to very large transnational institutions that could have broad ramifications.

that's not the same thing as making sure you all have the tax rate identically the same rate or the same kind of incentives to lure business or encourage business development. >> go ahead. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> if i could throw in a really cynical point here, i think the final communique is going to be red meat for the glenn beck crowd. they're going to say oh, we're going to take our orders from the -- >> who is that? i've never heard of him. >> a talk show host. you know -- right. i think that that kind of talk show host is going to say we're taking our orders from g-20, we're going to take orders from sarkozy on compensation and trade regulation. i think it could backfire a bit on obama. >> yeah. >> greg -- >> loves to dominate the republican party and forgets about fiscal policies when they really matter. tony fratto. >> yeah, no, that's exactly right. in terms of global regulation, when you start thinking about it practically, you know, is a u.s. regulator going to tell jpmorgan

to exit some business that they're doing in china or india and then open that door to another foreign bank to go in and do that business because they think that this doesn't meet some standard on risk? i mean, these are the kinds of practical things that are just silly when you think about it. we can't operate that way, and we can't put our firms in that kind of situation -- >> we've just gotten in finally some translated sound bites from the speech made by ahmadinejad earlier today. of course, this is the big issue when it came to what was dominating a lot of the g-20, the fact they're not has a second secret nuclear facility. let's play this first sound bite you've handed to me, the ahmadinejad on nukes facility. it's 29 seconds. let's listen in, she tried to say. >>. >> translator: iran's activities with respect to the peaceful use of nuclear technology are completely within the framework of iaea rules and under its

supervision. what we did was completely legal according to the law. we have informed the agency. the agency will come and take a look and produce a report. and it's nothing new. >> you hear that, john harwood? he says what they were doing was completely legal. russia and china have -- >> yeah, he's asking for an apology. he's asked for an apology from president obama. i don't think he ought to hold his breath. michelle, i think that ahmadinejad was thrown on the defensive by the disclosure and he's trying to clean up by saying oh, yeah, the timeline of notification required under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was not triggered yet. but i think he's got a pretty heavy burden of lack of credibility that he's going to have to get over and that the u.s. effort to get sanctions has gotten a pretty good powerful fresh boost of momentum. >> greg, we're coming up on a hard out, but real quick, it looks like russia and china are maybe on board with the u.s. on

this for the first time. >> the key issue is there are quid pro quo for us stopping the missile defense in europe. if the russians have agreed to something, that's a very big deal. but the issue is will the iranians capitulate to anyone? i'm not sure they will. >> all right. tony fratto, greg valliere, john harwood, thanks so much, guys. we're going to take another quick break here, and once again, we are waiting for president obama to address the g-20 live in pittsburgh. we're going to carry that for you live here on cnbc as soon as it happens. and you get to choose any car in the aisle. choose any car? you cannot be serious! okay. seriously, you choose. go national. go like a pro.

♪ 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.

stocks fell for a third day today but they're still on track for a winning month and one heck of a quarter. cnbc's matt nesto joins us with a look at some of the week's top trends and major movers. matt? >> yeah, michelle. so here we go. three trading days left in the month and the third quarter, and it's pretty interesting if you take a look at this week. it's really astounding to tell you the truth that we haven't had a three-day retreat since september 2nd and that one tailed into the end of august. and into the beginning of the month on labor day weekend. 2 1/2% is the decline. it's the worst weekly retreat, and that's because we had at least one day. we were down four or five days, but 2.2 is the net giveback on the week. it's the worst weekly retreat we've had in three months for

crying out loud. you'd think we've had a bull market or something on our hands. all ten sectors were down this week. the materials sector the worst with almost a 5% giveback. telecom falling about .2% during the week. and 23 of 24 industry groups were lower. the previously aforementioned, our last conversation, real estate, or reit index was the lone gainer on the week. so if you take a look at what's going on. you mentioned the quarter. the dow is on track for its best quarter in a decade. up about 14% during the previous three months. look at the dow this week. there's the winner and the loser. alcoa the worst stock on the dow. hewlett-packard number one with a 2% gain. and the s&p, two financials duking it out for the top and the bottom spot. moody's down 20%. aig there and back and there and back again. up 11% this week.

interestingly, the transports, the dow transports, not surprisingly, i guess, given the kind of cyclical retreat we saw toward the end of the session here today, the dow transports were down about 4.3%. so much worse than the dow and the s&p. conway down about 15%. but yrc, little yrc trying to make a comeback, up about 15%. and lastly the russell 2000, chelsea therapeutic just blowing up 15% and perot systems of course acquired by dell. back to you guys. >> great summary, matt nesto. thanks so much. thanks so much for watching. "fast money" is up next. you have a very good night. >> announcer: this is cnbc.com "news now." world leaders at the g-20 summit in pittsburgh agree to maintain stimulus programs until a recovery is assured. in the 95th bank failure of this year, regulators closed atlanta's georgian bank. its $2 billion of deposits will be assumed by first citizens bank of south carolina. and the "wall street journal" reports china's sovereign wealth fund is committed to invest about a billion bucks in oaktree capital

management. that is cnbc.com "news now." first in business worldwide. i'm mike huckman. and "fast money" with melissa lee starts right now. live from the nasdaq marketsite, this is "fast money." i'm melissa lee. these are the "fast money" traders. the market snapping a two-week winning streak as economic data disappoints. is this the start of a bigger correction? our traders have the answer. and it was the biggest week for ipos in about a year and a half. but are any stock market movers worth buying? we'll answer that question. plus rimm falling 17% today but one analyst is sticking to his guns and says it is still a buy. we'll see about all the others on the street. don't seem to see any more pop first let's get to the word on the street. we should note that we are awaiting president obama to make some comments on the heels of that g-20 summit in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. when he begins speaking, which is anticipated to be at around 5:15, we will go to him live. but in the meantime we do want to discuss the big market turnaround today, this week in fact. guy, you have earned the moniker

debbie downer -- >> justly so. >> and this week it seems you're not r-o-n-g. >> i'm not r-i-h-t either. you know what i mean? look, the timing in this business, if you're early you're wrong. so i've been wrong. i'll say it again. and quite frankly, given the rimm news yesterday, i thought we'd be down a lot more than we were. so i'll say you know what, today wasn't as bad as i thought it would be. thanning said, i think this week sets you up for another continued leg lower into next week and into october. i really don't like what i saw. the reversal on a fed day, i think you come back six weeks from now, point to that day when the s&p is down another 75, 80 points, and say that was the day we reversed. >> i don't think that was a shocker to anybody. i think people knew there had to be an exit strategy at some point from the fed. and i think that's what's spooking them. did anyone really think that the fed was going to time it perfectly on the exit strategy? no. so i don't think this is any huge shock. i don't think we should be selling the market on this. >> karen, what's your take