you'll note, health sector stocks are not crashing as some people predicted they would. they're actually increasing in value. why is that? 32 million new customers for health insurers. hospitals actually getting people to pay for their services. pharmaceuticals doing better. you see biotech in the same position. why is that? because a lot of things we've heard are simply not true and the facts are starting to come out. when it comes to this issue, let's take a fact. small biusinesses. they were surveyed in a wells fargo gallup poll. 80% of them said they know they have to offer health insurance to attract the best employees even in a down economy. if you say cost is a problem, 45% of them say i can't afford to offer benefits. put those two things together. they're going to recognize maintaining benefits is good for business because they get the best employees. >> tony, it sounds to me like the penalty for not covering your employees is something on the order of $2,000 per employee

compared with how many thousands of dollars that they would pay for health care? so where's the disincentive? >> i think the incentives actually really do line up for employers to shift on to the exchanges. and, actually, i don't think that's gloom and doom. it may actually be a good thing for a lot of businesses to be able to -- >> i agree. >> but you're miscounting the number of employers that are actually going to do that. and you missold this to a lot of consumers, telling them their plans aren't going to change. employers really are going to look for this opportunity. it's a fixed cost. they don't have to deal with the hassell and burden of managing employer provided health care plans. i say that's a good thing if it's done in the right way, if you really do get a competitive market. the problem is we have huge taxpayer subsidies in those exchanges. >> can i just respond? >> sure. >> there's no sort of holiness to employer based benefits. in world war ii this country has price and wage caps that led private enterprise to come up with a benefits as a way, again,

to attract good labor. now what you see happening is the possibility that some individuals might say, you know what? i'd rather go out in the marketplace on my own and go into an exchange on my own and have more control over my health benefits. >> that's not necessarily a bad thing. >> tyler, i'd be curious what our guests think about, we're very focused on what are the mandates for business, what are the costs for business, what are the penalties for business. but one of the costs that we really haven't looked at through this whole process is the big increase that we're going to see in the roles of medicaid. that's a great thing for people to be able to get health care. but when they go to a hospital or a doctor, they're not covered 100%. we, the rest of us, subsidize that care. that's going to raise the overall cost of health care. that's going to shift to private employers. if that keeps rising and rising and rising the penalty is very low, then, as tony points out, you have an incentive to just say, okay, go out into the private market and we're going to pay the fine. >> it's absolutely the incentives are lined up there.

you know, the huge increase in the amount of americans that are going to shift into the medicaid system. you need to pay for that in some way. the way we're doing it is with some tax increases in this bill. i don't think they're going to be sufficient to deal with the number of people who are going to shift either on to medicaid or into the exchanges where all of these individual programs are subsidi subsidized. we're talking about huge subs y subsidies for americans earning up to three times or four times the poverty rate. so that's going to come out of general revenues. someone's got to pay for it. what we're seeing is the top earners in this country are going to earn approximately -- i'm sorry. pay about 44% tax rate. >> david, there are a lot of people who feel this plan is a disincentive for hiring. that basically there is no incentive to hire workers if you're going to be forced to cover them. and as a result it's going to cost you more money even though your costs are predictable, just do with less. a lot of companies have learned

in this recession to do with less. where's the incentive to add employees to the payroll? >> to those people i would say go talk to microsoft. it's one of the most successful companies in america. ask them why did they support this bill. i'll tell you the answer. the answer is because the cost of even offering any health insurance has become exorbitant for private employers. the whole point of this exercise is to spread the risk pool and make sure individual premiums actually have some control in costs and the congressional budget office, which is a bipartisan, nonpartisan organization, seems to agree and say $138 billion -- >> why do you focus on that number so much when it's not the overall cost to the economy? when you get -- the reason you get a deficit neutral or you get a reduction in the deficit is because of cuts in medicare and raising taxes. >> sure. it's called paying for things. it's what democrats do. we pay for things. >> david, what is the overall spending on health care under this bill? what happens to overall spending on health care? as a result? >> compared to today. you set your baseline at today. >> it goes up. >> you set your baseline -- let

me finish. let me answer your question. when you set the baseline at today and the growth rates in health expenditures today, you have to ask yourself what happens to that curve so that an american business like microsoft who supports this bill says we actually are going to have a better handle on costs to our bottom line. >> you know that's not true. the cbo says the cost is higher. >> let me ask tony a question here if i might. tony, one of the things that was implicit in your first answer was the idea that if this bill does what you think it might do, and that is push individual consumers into the co-op marketplace or the -- whatever they're calling them, that that in the long run actually is a good thing because it makes individuals better consumers. right? >> it could be. yes. it could be if there is a big enough shift and you get a big enough population in there. i think you will. i think there's a bait and switch for a lot of workers in -- you know, who are getting it through employer-based coverage. but i think it could be a good thing, but we're not going to be

able to sustain the amount of subsidies in that system. but if we get enough workers in there and we get some competition, we could create a robust individual program which is where this always should have been anyway. >> we've got to leave it there, gentlemen. thank you very much. we'll have you back. it was a good discussion. by the way, if you want to get in on this discussion, we got a power poll online. we're asking whether you think this plan that passed last night is going to lead to the end of employer-sponsored health care plans. go and vote at cnbc.com. right now the tally is about 65% saying yes, it will, 35% saying, no. more than 6,000 of you have responded. we'd love to hear from more of you. michelle? straight ahead, will washington developments overshadow the earnings season just weeks ahead? our market insiders are going to weigh in on the d.c. hangover. plus, google makes its decision on china. but which side is going to have to do more soul searching when

all is said and done? inside the numbers from tiffany. though profits fell short, the light at the end of the tunnel could be all those sparkling diamonds it's expecting to sell later this year. and the health care bill passes. but now what? representatives dave camp from michigan and john yarmont from kentucky will tell us.

with about a 30-point gain in the dow jones industrial average wall street seemingly shrugging off the weekend's health care hangover. the question now, will the nation's capital still control trading on the street or is the markets beginning to get a little earnings fever? the vice president of financial research at mf global and bill stone the chief investment strategist with pfc wealth management. nick, i'm going to start with you. now we're having mr. geithner and the treasury secretary make comments about financial regulation. it does seem as though perhaps the administration is emboldened by its win on health care reform. does that overshadow the street or not? >> no. i don't think so. i think the market really right now is, one, treating this health care legislation as kind of a transfer of money into the health care sector. so on a relative basis, it's doing well today. and i think shortly after this

we're going to start focusing on earnings. and i think that it's going to be hard to push very far reaching legislation through congress again given the -- kind of the blood bath and sausage that just took place yesterday. >> do you agree with that, bill? >> yeah. actually i agree with a lot of it. i think the macroeconomic environment continues to really rule the day in the sense that i think investors are looking for that -- i guess the final proof that the economic recovery is sustainable. and if it is, that should drive better earnings, which should provide a good backdrop for the markets. >> nick, if you see this as an overall just shift of money from one sector into health care, does that mean you should buy health care? >> i think it probably is going to trade fairly well here in the short term. i mean, i think the problems for the sector are going to develop three years from now when this thing gets implemented and we see what kind of cost overruns are. i think the valuations in hmo index or drug index if you look at them are pretty depressed.

value investors might want to step in a little bit here. the question down the road is going to be whether it's a value trap or not. >> bill, how about you? would you venture into the sector at all? >> we have just a slight overweight in the group, i guess. i have to say, i agree completely in the sense that a lot of investment is really about expectations. and there were a lot of really bad expectations. and i think you have to say maybe -- particularly a lot of sectors things didn't come in quote, unquote, as bad as they could have for these companies. i think, again, it'll remain to be seen three or four years down the road if costs don't come in the way they should, what will end up happening. >> nick, you mentioned the earnings picture that's looming large on the street right now. how forgiving is the street going to be this earnings season? what kind of expectations are being set up for some of these companies? and how much real topline growth do we need to see on these companies? >> first of all, i don't think the market's going to be very forgiving at all. because we've had a very large rally since early february.

and so i think what we're going to need to see is a definite acceleration in revenues. we're going to need to see a bigger beat on the revenue side than we have over the last couple of quarters. i think if i had to put a number on it i think the percentage beat is going to need to be closer to 5% as opposed to 2%. so i think it's going to be -- it's going to be important. >> all right. gentlemen, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thanks. up next, a showdown over censorship. the watch is on to see whether today is the day google will announce it's leaving china. >> what's at stake for the internet search giant? what about its stock in we have a top analyst on the other side of the break.

st: could switchino 15% or more on car insurance?e you host: did the waltons take way too long to say goodnight? mom: g'night john boy. g'night mary ellen.

mary ellen: g'night mama. g'night erin. elizabeth: g'night john boy. jim bob: g'night grandpa. elizabeth: g'night ben. jim bob:'night. elizabeth: g'night jim bob. jim bob: g'night everybody, grandpa: g'night everybody. jim bob: g'night daddy. vo: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more.

nasdaq higher by 12. the most active, almost all of them higher except for e-trade financial. there's a long drawn out battle over censorship in china

which has google contemplating pulling out of that country's market. let's bring in google analyst gene mum fri. consensus is they are going to pull out here because of the censorship issues. intuitively that says to me, boy, china's a huge market. it's going to cost them revenue, right? does this hurt their stock price? how do you handicap this? >> it's about a 2% hit to their revenue. one thing to keep in mind, there's a lot of misinformation around this. at the end of day they can close google.cn but keep google.com open in china. so our searches as recently as last week in china, in mandarin, show there are uncensored results on google.com. one thing people really don't know is how google is going to address this market and maintain their position on censorship. it's not over, i guess, is what i'm saying. >> is it priced into the stock? we've been talking about this story for a while now. >> yeah.

i think it is. it's priced in right now. i think that if they maintain any presence that would be a net positive. one important thing to keep in mind is that the chinese government issue is on information. but even more so on social. it's facebook and twitter that are being blocked because they don't want people to organize. people in china aren't sitting around doing searches on -- google will find a way to still operate in china, albeit without google.cn. >> tell me why this big kerr fluffle happened now? didn't google know when they went into that country they would be subject to local rules? i'm wondering whether google is standing on principle even as they realize that their business in terms of market share is very much smaller than the china controlled company baidu? >> well, they've been in --

google.cn has been in china since 2005. google.com has been in china, available in china since 2000. so the bottom line is they have been there. they've been unsuccessful. why now is the question. is part of the reasons they've been unsuccessful is they've had this nickel and diming between the chinese government and google. things that have gone on behind the scenes that have frustrated the senior management in google. at the end of the day they are not impactful in this market. they have 35% share. ultimately, again, i do believe they're going to maintain some form of a business. the impact of their business is probably not as significant as a lot of investors think at this point. >> what's your assessment of the stock overall? what about valuation? >> we think it's attractive. we have a $700 price target on google. there are other layers and levers in this business including cpc that are going to be positive for the business in the near term.

>> gene monunster, thanks so mu. when we're back, another trip back to china. up next, a trip beyond the big caps. plus, tiffany losing a bit of its luster today. still up more than 100% for the past year. we'll go off the charts with a little blue box right after the break. just minutes away from the fast money halftime report. >> hey, guys. boeing gets a double upgrade today. our traders will give you the second derivative ways to play this down component. why the maker of hefty bags is all the buzz in the options pits. all that and much more on the halftime report. first more "power lunch" right after this.

with fidelity, you can take your trading around the world, because now you can trade u.s. and foreign stocks online, in 12 markets, 24 hours a day, all from the same account, and settle in u.s. dollars or the local currency. plus, we'll guide you with international research and realtime quotes, so you can diversify your portfolio, wherever -- whenever. and we'll be on call around the clock, while you trade around the globe. fidelity investments. turn here.

welcome back, everyone. in the headlines at this hour, chrysler announcing plans to engineer and produce a new fiat 500 electric vehicle for the united states market. the car's u.s. debut set for 2012. biojen ending a fight with

the activist carl icon agreeing to add one of his nominees to the company's board. e trade says it has named former citigroup executive steven fryburg as its new ceo. that becomes effective on april fool's day. also setting a one for ten reverse stock split. >> no coincidence there. i'm here with scott cohn. he's here to talk us beyond the big caps, all health care, all day. >> it really goes across all different sizes of stocks. a lot of it in the same way. this is an interesting one. med cap, $290 million hospital operator. it had been up big on speculation as late as last week it could be broken up. maybe they're rethinking that. it's given a bunch of that back now. unusual among the hospital operators. it is down 5%. >> they specialize in hearts, i understand. >> that's right. centene is now a billion dollar stock. a managed care provider. we've seen those going up. this a smaller cap one. it gets this potential boost with new customers under health

care reform. so we'll see how that plays out. almost family is a company that provides home health care services. $337 million market cap company. last month it got a subpoena from the health and human services inspector general for records, shaking a lot of that off, while it is down over the last three months it is up about 3% today. don't really know how -- >> there is a long-term care provision within the bill. which would suggest maybe they'd get more customers if that's what they specialize in. >> that seems to be how they're playing all of these things we're going to get more customers. we're going to get more regulation, we're also going to get more customer. others in the health and pharmaceutical sector moving along the way they have been. mike huckman say this is is mostly on takeover tock. dendreon up today. now to a name that always brings happiness to my years. that is tiffany and company. the shares are down a bit today.

they' more than doubling for the year. kimberly greenburger joins us to talk about the jeweler. she's the retail analyst with citi. nice to see you again, kimberly. >> thanks, sue. >> they raised their def dend on february 18th. there was a lot of buying in the stock after that. why do you like the stock at this point? where do you see strength in its product moves? >> tiffany's global sales are actually accelerating. they had a fantastic fourth quarter, worldwide revenue grew over 16.5%. management just commented today that first quarter to date they're actually seeing an acceleration in that rate. it's running above their target. we think that with the recovery and high-end consumer spending and fantastic execution on the part of tiffany itself, the stock is one to own here. >> their product mix has been very important in their success. getting them through the recession. then they benefited from the return of the luxury buyer. where do they actually see the most strength in was it oen the

high end or was it in the sterling silver lower price point mix? >> great question, sue. we actually saw through the depths of the recession more -- better selling at the lower price points. the important change here in the fourth quarter is that they saw strength across all price points and they noted today recovering strength in their statement jewelry, which is, of course, the highest price point. this is a really encouraging turn of events and we think the start of a new trend. >> european sales were stronger than i thought they would be given the problems they've seen over in europe. also the weakness we've seen recently in the euro. were you surprised by that as well? >> very strong results. a 14% increase of same store sales across europe. given the depths of the recession there, frankly, we were surprised by the strength. i think tiffany, having only been on the continent for a little over a decade, is still gaining new customers. and that is how they are bucking

the trend that we're seeing really among most other high-end retailers in europe. >> thank you, kem berly, very much. appreciate it. >> thanks, sue. the st. louis fed president with some eye opening comments about the economy, the jobs picture and what's putting the fed in a box. steve liesman spoex spoke with him and has highlights. also ahead, can rub ert murdoch's "wall street journal" take a bite out of the "new york times"? with a local news section aimed at affluent new yorkers? the big apple turf war heats up on "power lunch" when we return. ♪

throughout our lives, we encounter new opportunities. at the hartford, we help you pursue them with confidence. by preparing you for tomorrow. while protecting what you have today. you've counted on us for 200 years. let's embrace tomorrow. and with the hartford behind you, achieve what's ahead of you.

are we about to turn the corner on jobs? what's that mean for the federal reserve? st. louis federal reserve president jim bullard sat down for an exclusive interview with senior economics reporter steve liesman who joins us now with the highlights and also some breaking news. steve? >> let me just tell you, we got confirmation that pay czar ken feinberg will be going back and looking at the pay of the top 25 executives at some of the big e banks. goldman sachs, morgan stanley. apparently the t.a.r.p. legislation that enabled the t.a.r.p. and the pay czar allows

him to do that. it was kind of known it would happen. now we understand it's going to -- the process is going to be beginning relatively soon. we'll come back to that in a second. i know michelle wants to talk about. first let me tell you what the st. louis fed president said making some positive comments on the economy this morning. saying he thinks job growth is about to take off. >> i think we'll get some good months of jobs reports coming up very, very soon. we're looking for march to be strong. and i'm hoping that we'll carry on in the couple months following that. i do think we're about to turn the corner on jobs. we'll be watching that very carefully on that. >> let's look at what he said about monetary policy. the fed should scrap exceptionally low for an extended period. he expressed some support for raising rates to 1%, then stopping. this is an idea of the kansas fed president. he said he has sympathy with that idea of raising rates to 1% and stopping. he says there is support on the

federal market to sell some assets soon, ramping up sales over time. what bullard is saying as well as what happens with ken feinberg, the pay czar. >> these headlines are crossing saying he's going to look retroactively at the pay for the top 25 executives of goldman sachs -- >> there's more stuff coming in on this. >> february 12th, 2009, is the cutoff date from the receipt of money to february 12th. i guess my question is, don't you think a lot of these banks thought by paying back the t.a.r.p. they didn't have to worry about the pay czar anymore and this is a retro active move by the pay czar? >> that's a good point. although i was told before i came up onset, i'm going to check on this, that the legislation always enabled the retroactive look backward. >> he's saying that on the wires, yes. >> is he? i was told that. >> he's saying he was allowed to do that under the creation of the pay czar position. >> they may be so. he may be allowed to. but did they think he would and was it expected and should they?

>> what is he actually looking for? what's the point? did he -- that's what i'm trying to understand. what is the point here. maybe seek to renegotiate some payments not in the public interest given that the bank has already paid back the t.a.r.p. and is not in it, why would it be relevant to look back at whether or not a payment during the period that they were under the compensation restrictions, why would that be relative? he's going to go back and see, did you do it the right way back then. i'm just wondering, tyler, what's the broader message or meaning here of this. >> there's a why in here somewhere that i don't think we're getting our finger on quite yet. >> we'll send out those letters tomorrow to all of those banks. coming up, american businesses facing a challenge from across the pacific. does the u.s. need china more or is it the other way around? our panel will speak out. and the image makeover of tiger woods ahead of his masters comeback. did his five-minute interview

strategy pay off for the embattled golf superstar? that straight ahead. next it's the fast money halftime report.

welcome to the fast money halftime report. stocks traded to tup side after

an early dip as traders observed the health care bill sending pharma, tech and hospital stocks higher. your crew today, cortez, zach carabel and carter worth of oppenheimer. we want to deal with headlines of special pay czar ken feinberg saying he'll review the period when banks took t.a.r.p. funds, the day the president signed the american recovery and reinvestment act, and while he says there could be no fallbacks there could be an opportunity to renegotiate payments that were not in the public interest. it does not seem to me this is a coincidence. we passed the health care bill and we've got the special master of pay, ken feinberg coming in saying he's going to look at all these banks and see what he's been doing. >> ken feinberg a man who needs a bodyguard to walk down wall street these days. if you're looking to politics in

an election year, i'm not saying feinberg himself is motivated in that way, it's certainly true that taking on banks in an election year where there's a lot of anger about bank bailouts and government money having gone in that direction, expanding this envelope beyond goldman sachs and some of the marquee firms is probably good politics even if it's not good policy. >> steve cortez, with the passage of the health care bill does that give more teeth to financial reform? you've been short goldman sachs in the past. don't know if you have that trade on right now. and whether or not you are a stronger believer in that trade because of the passage of health care reform? >> you know, melissa, no. i really like goldman ta maman . i'm not long it right now. i think p company is going to come out of this fog of negativity and this pr really nightmare it's endured over recent months. i think we're nearing the end of the game. >> j.j., what do you say?

>> i think actually what you've seen over the last week, week and a half, that's more concerning is a lack of activity. i think what's starting to happen, we saw last week exploration, usually kind of a big blowout week, not really very active. i think what's actually happened is banks are so cautious right now and some of the big firms they're already afraid to go out and do anything because they don't want it second guessed as we head closer and close tore the elections. i think in the long run this is kind of bad because everyone is now looking over their shoulder. >> carter worth, what do you see in the charts for the financials. >> it's the alternative financials that are the most interesting. headline names are what they are. we're seeing a lot of action in insurers, reits and things that aren't on the front page. we like them. >> in today's session strength almost across the board, although united and well point did turn lower. particular strength in some of the hospital stocks, names that citigroup last week said to buy today because they will see up to 30% price appreciation which was a fairly nice call on their

part. zach, what do you say? are you playing this sector at all? do you think there will be a longer-term appreciation in the sector? >> you know, i'm not playing it. i'm certainly not playing it based on the news. this is one of these cases where buy if rumor, sell the news isn't working. nobody's selling or buying based on what happened yesterday. it's all been well anticipated. i don't love health care in a relative sense relative to technology, industrials, commodities, just because i think there's still a lot of lack of clarity about how all this plays itself out. and in general, in general i think you're going to get cost dim ewe in addition rather than margin and policy expansion. that's not great. >> we should note that the view generally on the street is that these health care names will go higher. citi and ubs saying managed care names will go up by about 20%. steve cortez, you like to play it biotech, ivb specifically. >> that's right. i think there's two reasons right here to own biotech. the first is momentum. we're trading at an eight-year

high on ibb. trs far stronger than indexes. the second reason, an an ageing society you do want exposure to health care. compared to other health care options that carry a lot of political risk, really indemmic political risk, health care seems impervious to the rath of washington. it really flies under the radar. a way to get exposure to health care without fearing washington poll tigs at every step. >> let's touch on commodities. they are the big market buzz kill today. oil falling below 80 bucks a barrel. this rally. greece concerns out there. carter, let's hit the chart of the day. what does it say about oil? >> sure, one of the most profound moments of equilibrium in all markets. just to put it in context, epic run-up to 1.50 obviously last summer in '08 and crashed to 30 and quickly finally 80 level in june of '09. here we are about to april, 2010, stuck at 80. i would apply the following adage from the 1930s, sharp indecision is resolved sharply.

this will be a big, big resolution. you can't stay in this range much longer. our thesis it's up and out. >> one of the top stories of the day. google expected to make an announcement regarding its future in china sometime today on the fast line now top ranked analyst mark mahaney. a pleasure to speak with you. >> thanks for having me on. >> we know revenues about 2% of google's revenue but anything that bakes in that growth from the largest -- fastest growing internet market in the world, china? >> one of the things that's taken down google's shares is the increasing probability they're coming out of the market that has nicked the multiple. it's already priced in, we believe. >> it's fully priced in. even though the nasdaq is higher by 5% from when google first announced it and google down 5% that fully prices in the lack of growth in the largest -- fastest internet growing market in the world. >> we think so. if we look at other markets what

happened over that same period of time google is coming in to be the number one search player in japan. that's a bit of a surprise and almost every other international market except russia and korea they are the dominant players. >> japan is no china with all due respect. want to ask you about some other american players. could microsoft or yahoo! swoop in to china and pick up that share, that 30% or so share of the searches in china? >> unlikely. you know, there's a dominant very strong player in the market. yahoo! is a derivative play but off e-commerce not search and microsoft unlikely, as well. >> your call on akami on valuation. at what point would be an attractive point for it. >> we think it's a core holding off broadband growth. we think that's priced -- we'd be buyers back at 25 3wuks. >> 25 bucks. mark, great to speak with you. thanks for phoning in.

we do appreciate your time. zach karabell. i know you follow china closely. you laugh when i said japan is no china but is that enough to have a stronghold in other markets and not the fastest growing internet market in the world. >> if you're google it is. if you're other company, maybe not. google is representative of one company, which is google. and generalizing is difficult but i would say that anybody who is buying an information technology company or media company with a china the schlth is being the driver is making a mistake. it's not just that there's a hong kong listed company called tenson which is huge. we don't even talk about that so microsoft has to get in line as do a lot of other companies and i don't think that's happening. >> boeing, of course, the dow component, stock getting two upgrades. feel the price is now baked into boeing. what are some second derivative plays and we do like to talk about these things if you don't

like to play it directly. steve, what do you say? >> i like the whole defense space in general. i like the defense business of boeing. one of the surprises of this administration has been that it's really changed very little regarding the security policy of the country, budgets will stay large for the foreseeable future so like these names. >> which names. >> l & t. the whole sector really. >> zach? >> i think we have to be careful budget tarly going into next year. you have a defense secretary in gates who is determined to cut these large systems to go for smaller systems so be careful in the defense names out six months. >> okay. got to take a break here. coming up next on "the halftime report" which consumer maim is seeing heavy activity on takeover speculation. back in a minute.

[ crowd gasps ] [ announcer ] if you think about it, this is a lot like most job search sites. - they let everyone in, - [ crowd groans ] so the best people can't stand out. join theladders.com. the premium job site for only $100k+ jobs... and only $100k+ talent.

hi, ellen! hi, ellen! hi, ellen! hi, ellen! we're going on a field trip to china! wow. [ chuckles ] when i was a kid, we -- we would just go to the -- the farm. [ cow moos ] [ laughter ] no, seriously, where are you guys going? ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! ni hao! [ female announcer ] the new classroom. see it. live it. share it. on the human network. cisco.

welcome back to the "halftime report." j.j. kinahan, you're watching the chatter around the maker of hefty bags. what stock is that? >> hefty, hefty action in ptv, peter tom victor. well run company and in the april quarter, may 30 calls, a stock trading just above 25 and what we're seeing is very heavy buyers of both. you've talked a lot on the 5:00 show about leverage buy-outs and things like that over the last few weeks. this is a stock that's very much in that rumor mill, shall we say right now. >> maybe a take-out price between 25 or 30 within the next month or so. >> that seems to be the speculation. next couple of months. people buy in the 30s based on the fact we can get above that. >> buy or sell, carter? >> i think you have the rare

unch days. >> j.j., what do you say, unch. >> the think the slow grind continues higher. >> the markets have hefty upside. >> killer cortes, what do you say? >> i like high-end retail. >> that does it for us on "the halftime report." dick beauvais coming up. sue? >> is hank greenberg giving up on aig? that plus a whole lot more. china tension rising. google planning to exit china. rio tinto struggling. americans calling china a currency manipulator. super powers and super strains. who will rise to the top? . >> all: yes, we can. >> the health care bill passes the house. >> we proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things. but what happens next? we talk to two congressionals

just moments from now. and tiger talks. the golf pro granted a brief five-minute interview with espn and the golf channel. how did he do? and is it enough for his fans? we'll ask our experts. the second hour of "power lunch" starts right now. >> indeed it does. welcome to the second hour of "power lunch." i'm tyler mathisen in washington. your top mover of the moment, up about 8% for tenet. >> i'm michelle caruso-cabrera. tim geithner saying this is a defining moment in the great debate about financial reform, end quote. if we fail to act, america will lose the opportunity to set the global agenda. i'm sue herera. relations between washington and beijing have been far from smooth for quite some time now and given some new tough talk from china's premier it doesn't seem like a spring thaw is in the works. some thoughts on that and more

from david ridell. good to see you, david. david, are you with us? >> i'm right here. >> good. we couldn't see you but now we can hear you which pleases us immensely. let's talk about less would be more right now in terms of trying to pressure china. if the united states keeps talking about various issues, the currency perhaps is the most front and center right now how will china continue to respond, do you think? should the u.s. back off or become more aggressive? >> they should absolutely back off and just hold their tongue for 6 or 12 months and i promise the chinese would do what they need to do to combat inflation. they won't do it in the face of pressure from the obama administration and other western governments. i was in china last week and the local news, the mandarin language news was dominated by a high-profile press conference by

premier wen. they're simply not going to do it the more we talk about it >> that's the government's response to china. how they're reacting. what about what we see when it comes to corporations? google decides they'll get out of china but rio tinto is seemingly not so tough and they're just watching the employees go on trial. >> that's right. i mean you've got perfect juxtaposition there of course with rio tinto, 50% of their business is in china where with google only a few percentage points are in china. little easier commercial decision or them. the writing has been on the wall for google for some months now. had a very high-profile complaint against the chinese for the hacking incident during december and they have sort of marched down this path and i think we'll hear from them any minute they are leaving china. >> who needs who more? it really comes down to that. do the united states need china more because they buy all of our treasury securities or does china need the united states

more because of the trade relationship between the two? >> well, we're only about 30% of their exports and exports are only about 40% of their economy. when i was in guangzhou there was a tremendous amount of activity going on domestic can consumer activity so increasingly, they need us a little less and less. we need them because they buy 30% to 40% of the u.s. treasuries and that's an important source of demand for those treasuries. especially going forward as we'll need to issue more. >> the last time we went lew this dance i believe was 2006 and the won is six and a change to a dollar. as you expect china knows what it will need to do and let its currency appreciate. at what level do you expect to see it in one to two years. >> i would have to look out two years. so looking out two years i think

you'd probably see a 5%, 10% change in the yuan. they don't want to upset the apple cart in terms of their important export business which creates a lot of jobs and a lot of opportunity across china. >> your assessment if they were just to let it float, how much would it move? >> i think it probably wants to move 20%, 25% but that's not going to happen. >> what approach do you think will get the united states the most with china? i mean i know you say they should probably just not say anything for 6 to 12 months but i think the odds of that happening at this particular point in politics is probably, you know when hell freezes over. >> that's right. >> given that, what approach do you think would be more conducive to getting concessions out of china? how can we get concessions out of china? >> it's very simple. you have to go there and talk to them. you have to listen to them. you have to pay attention to their concerns. i think there should be plane loads of administration officials flying to china traveling the country understanding what's going on,

talking to them about the pressures that they have domestically and regional lay and trying to help understand where they're headed. this sort of brash attention is not going to serve anyone's interests. i think we have to really start listening to what's going on. >> what should private corporations like google oreo continue to do? >> well, i think they've got to make a choice company by company. google is making their choice and rio is making theirs. the ceo is shaking hands in beijing while employees are on trial in another place. i think you have to take the long-term view if it's important to your company. you need to do the same thing, travel over there. speak to the local officials and people. >> you were just there. what is your assessment of how hot the chinese economy is and what kind of growth forecast would you have for 2010/2011? >> i think it's going to be hard to keep it down to 8% quite honestly seeing what i saw throughout southern china. it is really, really, really very, very active there. their infrastructure puts ours to shame unfortunately.

their subways and roads, their telecom's infrastructure is really top notch so i think they're laying the groundwork for many years of continued growth. i wouldn't be surprised to see another 10% year. >> does that include the lower end consumer, david? i mean we know that the growing middle class has done well. the afluent in china have done well but there was some talk that perhaps the lower income citizen was not as enthusiastic in spending. has that changed. >> i was actually very concerned about that seeing what we picked up in our survey of food inflation and fuel price inflation but the low-end consumer is on fire. we saw just throngs of people in the lower end malls and did a lot of channel checks and visited a lot of shopping locations and was the low end that was doing extremely well. >> i know they're trying to build the consumer market but respect they depen depth on our consumer market. respect we buying l'eggs of their stuff. >> it's actually a little less than you might think. the u.s. has been declining as a trade partner and the share of

ex-exports has been declining so it's still an important part of their economy. there's some dispute as to whether it's 30% or 40% or 50% but it's not as much as it was in the past so they don't rely on us as much as we might think. >> all right. david, thanks a million. good to see you again. >> thank you. well, straight ahead, the health care bill passes the senate. but now what representatives from two states with teams in the sweet 16. they'll tell us next has hank greenberg given up on aig? what does the stock sale say about the values of the controversial insurer? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 that's why, at schwab, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 every online equity trade is now $8.95 tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no matter your account balance, how often you trade tdd# 1-800-345-2550 or how many shares... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 you pay what they pay what everyone pays: $8.95. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and you still get all the help tdd# 1-800-345-2550 t you expect from schwab tdd# 1-800-345-2550 millions of investors. one price. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab...

tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investors rule. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 are you ready to rule?

welcome back. bob pisani. first, a lot of traders were short going into the trading activity today because they thought passage of the health care bill would put a lot of pressure on stocks. we did open lower but immediately began moving up. that caused a lot of traders to panic and short cover so the s&p started down and right at the open started moving to the upside. short covering a big thing. second thing what was going on in the euro zone. on concern that perhaps a package was not going to materialize for greece. but we had gene claude trichet and the greek prime minister was making comments saying leaving the euro zone was ridiculous. the bottom line was the market

rose on those comments going into the close around 11:30 eastern time for the european markets. schlumberger weaker on comments from the ceo at a conference talking about the idea that they might not make earnings for the year because pricing has been weak. if there's one thing that will slow things down it's not making numbers because they have all moved up getting rather pricey. that's a big problem but even here schlumberger come off of the lows today. tradertalk.cnbc.com. nasdaq? >> looking good picking up a little bit 6 steam up 0.8% or more than 20 points. of course, health care stocks are riding high here at the nasdaq. we have teva pharmaceutical, the world's biggest generic drug company sitting at an all-time high, biogen idec up 0.8%.

off the high of the day and it's not just biotech but computer tech that is working here today. "barron's" out with a lot of bullish articles on that sector so we have apple up 1.5%. philly semiconductor index up and lam is leading up 5% and finally literally talking nuts and bolts, this is a company called fastenal, ticker fast so "fast money" has to like it up 3% again coming back to "barron's." it makes nuts and bolts and washers and finally we are still waiting for shares of cell therapeutics to re-open. they will tank when it happens because an fda panel late this morning told the fda do not approve the non-hodgkin's lymphoma drug from that company. >> a question about that fda add advisory panel. how frequent or perhaps better

said infrequent is it that they give that type of a recommendation? does it happen often? >> yeah, certainly it happens often. what's kind of remarkable about this case, sue, is that it was 9-0. it was unanimous. so sometimes you might be able to argue, okay, if it was a 5-4 vote, maybe the fda is going to go the other way but in this case it was unanimous so that's probably no hope that the agency is going to suddenly turn the table and approve this drug. 9-0 against recommending approval of the drug. >> yikes. thank you, mike. >> you're welcome. >> ty? >> sue, democrats touting health care reform will be great for america but a cnbc poll indicates that many americans are still afraid of it. 65% say reform will end employer-sponsored health coverage eventually while 35% say it won't. how will this impact the implementation of the bill? joining us from capitol hill john yarmouth of kentucky and republican congressman dave camp of michigan.

mr. camp yesterday said in a statement that the tax increases in this bill will ruin our economy and kill jobs. mr. yarmouth, how do you react to that? >> i have great respect for my friend dave camp but i think he's wrong on this. you know, one of the things we've seen throughout the country employer after employer dropping coverage of their employees because they can't afford it. and you know this is having an impact on their hiring ability, as well, when premiums are going up 30%, 40%, even 50% in some places so this is all about jobs. in my own district we lost 500 positions at one of the hospital companies and the reason they cited was that people don't have insurance and they aren't using the hospital as much so we know that reforming health care is an important boost for jobs and a necessity to help our employment. >> mr. camp, let me turn to you. mr. yarmuth put out a statement in which he ticks off the numbers of people in his district who he believes will be

helped by the provisions of this bill. are you worried that this law is going to be popular? >> no, i'm not because i think over time it's going to get worse. i mean i think one of the problems is half of their coverage comes from expanding medicaid and we know medicaid is a broken system, not sustainable in the long term. they're going to get a card but they won't get the care they need because medicaid pays so much less. physicians aren't seeing medicaid patients. the other problem is many of the taxes in here are not indexed for inflation so, for example, on the investment taxes that will apply to family residence if it exceeds certain thresholds isn't indexed for inflation so more and more people will be caught into the tax. they didn't index for inflation the tax on so-called cadillac plans yet make an exception if you're a union member you get a lower tax rate than if an ordinary citizen. there is something fundamentally unfair so we have a lot to work on to try to fix this since it has passed and we're going to

have to work on repealing the most unfair and onerous provisions over time. >> mr. yarmuth, mr. camp gave you plenty of things to respond to. >> on some things i don't agree on. we're the only country industrialized country in the world that has employer-based health care system. it wouldn't bother me if it did go away. it discriminates against individuals in small businesses and helps very large companies and their employees, but that's the way -- that's the system we're dealing with. i think dave said exactly the right thing. this is not a perfect bill. we will be making changes on it as long as either one of us is in congress or alive. but it's an important first step. it will eliminate much of the hardship that many of -- in our country are facing right now. it eliminated a lot of unnecessary debts, and, again, personal tragedies and i think that's an important first step to make. we will be working on it for a long time. >> representative camp, regardless of how anyone feels about the outcome i think you

can say that the american public is very frustrated with congress. you have incredibly low raittings among the american people right now. what can be done if anything by all of you to raise the status of you above lawyers and journalists? >> that's a challenge. i think the problem was the bill started off from the beginning and was a partisan bill and when we've done major things like social security and medicare they've had large bipartisan authorities. it's unfortunate this from the beginning -- the only bipartisan vote you saw was a vote against last night this bill and i think -- now you're seeing state attorney generals sue because of the individual mandate and tax you if you don't buy it so i think there are a lot of problems here and will take a lot to sort it through. over time as it phases in and kicks in you will see the problems with this bill really brought to light and actually they will impact the quality of the health care delivery in

america in a negative way. >> congressman yarmuth, we heard about the uncertainty hanging over tem because of health care reform kept them from hiring. now we're hearing from some people they might not hire because they just simply learned to deal with less and have to have coverage for more and more employees and that's going to cost them money. on the other hand they get the tax credit in some cases depending on the size of their business. how can you assure the small and medium-size business person out there they should hire given the provisions in the bill. >> first of all, any company with fewer than 50 employees isn't even covered and gets subsidies to help them so you're talking about 95% or 96% of all small businesses can only benefit. they cannot possibly be penalized in any way by this bill so i think businesspeople are going to find it a huge boost. i ran a small business. i had 20 to 25 employees, faced the same problems that people do now. get one sick employee and rates go up 20%, 25%. >> do you see, representative

yarmuth, if you do that it puts a disincentive to growth. if you have 39 employees you'll think hard about hiring that 50th. to really grow the hurdle gets much, much higher because you are going to bear far higher costs. >> well, actually it doesn't work quite that way because the first 30 are exempted, but there is going to be a cutoff point at some point and that is a valid point, that threshold -- by i don't think most companies think that size when you get over 50 employees they're thinking about one or two people. they're mostly thinking about 10 or 20 and that means their business calls for it. so i'm not sure that's as big a problem. it might be a problem on paper. i don't think in the real world it's that big a problem. >> representative camp, i assume there must be parts of this bill even though you rejected it or voted against it. there must be parts of it that you like. can you identify one or two things that you think actually are good results? >> well, in the beginning of the bill, the way they deal with

pre-existing condition for the first four years is exactly the way we dealt with it in our bill which was reinsurance polls and state reinsurance and high-risk plans, so we actually had the same provisions on pre-existing conditions for four years and they flipped to a total ban and mandate and tax. the other thing we had in common we both prevented insurance companies from annual or lifetime caps on policy limits, so both proposals were very similar on that. i think probably the big difference is ultimately when you get to the end our bill was scored as actually lowering insurance premiums and because they have a command and control, a federally defined benefit plan, that is going to be more generous and that is going to cost more and actually in people's premiums will go up under their plan so that's probably the biggest difference but on those two key points we heard a lot about last night in the beginning years we're actually the same then they change as they phase in other -- >> gentlemen, thank you very much. i know it was a long night last

night. we appreciate you being with us today. >> our pleasure. >> thanks. >> as we continue on "power lunch," the markets appear to be pretty much shrugging off the health care vote but does washington have more in store this week that might be hanging over investors. plus, hank greenberg appears to be giving up on aig. stock taking a big hit as a result. what does his stock sale say about how he values the company? what does it mean for investors left holding the bag? with fidelity, you can take your trading around the world, because now you can trade u.s. and foreign stocks online,

in 12 markets, 24 hours a day, all from the same account, and settle in u.s. dollars or the local currency. plus, we'll guide you with international research and realtime quotes, so you can diversify your portfolio, wherever -- whenever. and we'll be on call around the clock, while you trade around the globe. fidelity investments. turn here.

in the wake of last night's dramatic vote on health care here are some of the top market cap performers. johnson & johnson, pfizer, merck, abbott and amgen with pretty decent percentage gains medtronnic, bristol-myers,

gilead sciences, eli lilly, unitedhealth care is the lone loser down a full 2% at 33.69. >> a lot of those will face higher taxes but not as high as some had originally feared. shares of aig not participating in today's move higher. getting hit pretty hard. it could be because hank greenberg appears to have given up. he has now decided that he's going to sell all the stock that he owns, about $278 million over the next three years and entered into a deal with ubs. in contrast to january telling "the wall street journal" maybe he would sue the government for trying to get back the stake in aig that they seized during the financial crisis. he wanted them to lighten the onerous terms imposed on the company. >> you have to wonder about the psychological impact. >> it's got to kill him. >> he built this company up. he wasn't there during the financial crisis, obviously, however, for him to throw in the towel for star international and him to throw in the towel, the psychological impact, ty, i

would think would be pretty significant with investors and the stock is off as michelle mentioned 4%. >> that's why it became such a personal battle because hank greenberg was aig and i think mr. greenberg thought that aig was hank greenberg. i for one am just happy the whole thing seems to be appe appearing -- approaching an end. i'm tired of it. >> ha could be. that could be but certainly the stock getting hit hard today and -- >> it's interesting, though, the financial times saying that basically star international shareholders face no risk if the shares fall below about 31.22 so it's an interestingly structured deal. >> that they entered into with ubs? >> right but you still got to wonder whether people are saying if hank is going to throw in the towel maybe i should because, you know, he is the lone, you know, holdout on this particular -- >> i gather the way it is structured for him, his personal shares and some of the shares owned by that cv star company

that he controls he basically locks in his downside at a price below the current level which is probably why it is sucking the stock down today, but if the shares appreciate, he gets some profit participation up to a specified level i believe in the mid-40s so he limits his losses and has some room for higher profit. >> right. ubs also makes gains if the shares trade above 46.83 is the level that they're pegging it to but i think you have a good point, ty. 31.22 is the downside cap for star international so we'll see whether or not that -- >> when you point out how closely integrated he was with aig, we've talked so much about china today, remember, aig was the only -- and the only company that i believe the chinese government allowed to be wholly owned by a foreign institution. if you want to do business in china you got to do a joint venture with the chinese company but hank greenberg didn't have to do that. aig was in there all by

themselves. >> historic building on the bound in china and really the history of that company is amazing. it must be difficult for mr. greenberg, but, ty, i know it has been a long road with this particular story and this stock. >> yeah, it got so personal and i think it just went on and on because of his personal involvement in the company that he built in many ways dating back as michelle, you point out to the 1920s when it did business organ to do business in china. >> cbo while we talk about the cbo, the cbo estimate says in the end aig is going to cost us a total of 8 billion. far below the 180 billion that it originally cost us because of asset sales >> we should be so lucky. >> we will see. >> speaking of getting personal. "the wall street journal" taking on "the new york times" on its home turf so to speak in the battle to see who can be more quote/unquote local. >> and tiger back battling for the hearts and minds of his

fans. did his weekend interviews do enough to win over critics? we'll evaluate that when we return.

welcome back to "power lunch." here are some stories we're following at this hour. treasury secretary geithner says the administration will not accept a financial overhaul bill without strong consumer protections and restrain on risk taking pepsico is sticking with its long-term earnings growth of 11% to 13% in the year 2010 and the dispute between british airways and the union is not entering its third day. it now entering its third day. it has grounded thousands of flights all right, now to some of the stocks that may be off your radar, beyond the big caps and find you the smaller names moving today. and scott cohn is here to do just that. >> for all the big news that's going on whether it's health care, financial regulation there still is that dollar versus stock play, looked like in

commodity-related stocks that weak dollar or a stronger dollar i should say was going to mean weakness for all of these stocks particularly the midcap and small cap but with the euro rebounding so are stocks. take a look at bunge versus the euro. their shares up half a percent on the session. same situation in anything precious metal. randgold has been outperforming its big cap gold brethren and it is doing so again today climbed in posterity. ivan hoe mines up pretty well on the day up 0.75%. about a 6.8 billion market cap player and closed $241 million placement deal with rio tinto issuing 15 million shares to them at 15.93 u.s. per share or 16.31 canadian. use that upon to buy mining equipment from rio tinto which now owns more than 22% of ivan hoe. again, you can see them up today.

finally pan-american silver, the parke cap turned into posterity now so with everything else going on still looking at the dollar and the profound impact it has on all ranges of stocks. michelle? >> got it, stock. april 12, "the wall street journal" will unveil a new section with new york ads distributed only in new york. this is rupert murdoch parent of the news corp taking a swing at "the new york times" on its own home turf. and according to today's "new york times" they say it's not an economic decision. they say it's an attempt by murdoch to kill his biggest rival. joining us now is sara elleson at the "wall street journal" inside the struggle to control an american business embuyer. do you agree with that, sarah? is this about rupert murdoch's ego and his desire to crush "the new york times" rather than being a good business decision. >> from the very beginning murdoch's motivation if going after "the journal" was go up against "the new york times" and

to take them down. it's a battle over advertising over talent but it is really for murdoch a predatory competition where he sees opportunity where he senses weakness and he senses it at "the new york times." >> that would in the end be good for him innocencely, right? if he could then be the national newspaper of record instead of "the new york times" doesn't that in turn end up being a financial decision. >> right, but this doesn't seem when you're hiring 35 reporters, i mean i think the point that people are making and noting about this decision to go into new york is this is more of an effort to control the conversation that "the new york times" has historically controlled which is over arts, sports, just being the general place where television news and other newspapers go to sort of mine for stories. and "the journal" has always been better read and bigger circulation paper in the middle of the country and in a lot of areas around the world. but "the new york times" really controls the conversation in a

way that "the journal" has not. >> is there room for two, sarah, or not? >> i mean i think that with a declining market, there's increasingly a question of if there's room for two it's obviously going to be a smaller pie and they're both trying to battle each other out and edge one another out. i think there probably is room for two but it's an increasingly small like i said increasingly small pie. >> mr. murdoch already owns the new york paper "the new york post" and loses millions of dollars every year. do you think he's likely to make money by expanding with a new york oriented section only for new yorkers? >> not for a long time. i don't think that's what he's banking on here. i mean, my reporting showed that "the journal" has lost money under his ownership and i think that there's been a lot of investment. i mean, still early days in terms of "the journal" but he does have a tremendous appetite for losing money as we've seen

at the "the new york post" and at "the times of london" so has an appetite to do that. that is sort of scary for people at "the new york times" already dealing with -- >> scary for shareholders though i gather mr. murdoch rather runs it with less concern for his outside shareholders and more concern for his own class of share holdings, correct? >> in that way, everyone talks about wanting to do well by their shareholders but you can see both at news corporation and at "the new york times" that there is a passion in the owners for doing things that you wouldn't see if you were an owner that was purely driven by economics. >> speaking of that where does carlos slim play as one of the biggest shareholders in "the new york times." he must know, run into occasion rupert murdoch and told me he thinks "the new york times" has the best brand when it comes to news. >> i mean what else would he say? i think that that makes sense but he's also just waiting for

his loons to come due from "the new york times." i mean he really is an economic owner. >> yeah, what about the advertisers? who is going -- how -- how is this going to be divvied up or will it be divvied up. >> "the journal" has been strong with financial and technology advertising and they've struggled for years to get more women focused advertising which is retailers, luxury brands, you know, "the journal" launched personal journal and weekend journal, all efforts to get more women and women focused businesses to advertise in the paper. this is yet another effort at that and we already have heard about big retailers, bergdorf goodman, bloomingdale's interested in advertising in this new york edition. >> do women read "the wall street journal"? >> too much of them. i'm sure. it's very taxing, all those big numbers. >> oh, stop it now. >> part of my concern for the shareholders of the company who might not benefit if this is a

big money loser what is the risk in taking "the wall street journal" and watering down this great business brand into something that is less that and more "a," a national newspaper which is seems to be doing rather successfully but now focusing on a region? >> it's a very interesting question because the bet murdoch is making is that so historically "the journal" was always a second read. a very valuable essential second read for people but they read their local paper, as well. he's banking that people aren't going to read two newspapers and what you need to do is try to appeal to a broader mass audience and not only in new york i mean we're talking about new york which is sort of their biggest local effort but also launching regional editions in chicago and san francisco to scoop up the readers that are fleeing from "the san francisco chronicle" and the "chicago tribune" so his bet is that you can take advantage of the decline in the newspaper industry by being sort of last

paper standing and i'm getting all of the readers and advertisers that are fleeing from the other outlets. >> this is a perfect setup for a great book, sarah. >> good idea. such a good idea. >> you heard it here first. really you have these two gentlemen going up against each other. great theater. >> well, in may you can buy a book on this very topic. >> amazing. >> as it happens. >> amazing. thanks, sarah. appreciate it very much. >> thank you. all righty. just around the bend, gm adding a third shift to its plant in lancing. toyota accelerator problems aside adding a second shift at its san antonio plant. the s&p index up more than 20% in a month so is the auto industry finally holding the road map to recovery right side up? with fidelity, you can take your trading around the world, because now you can trade u.s. and foreign stocks online, in 12 markets, 24 hours a day, all from the same account, and settle in u.s. dollars

or the local currency. plus, we'll guide you with international research and realtime quotes, so you can diversify your portfolio, wherever -- whenever. and we'll be on call around the clock, while you trade around the globe. fidelity investments. turn here.

the industrials back on the winning side after that friday breather and auto stocks, they have been surging lately as that beaten down sector begins to rebuild. our automotive reporter phil lebeau joins us with details. >> this is all about production picking up. really the automakers are adding production for two reasons, getting ready for the next generation of vehicles and also retooling their plants for that next generation, so you've got a lot of people coming back into these plants. take a look at ford on the south side of chicago adding another shift at its torrence plant. altogether ford adding 2,400 jobs. for and gm are leading the way in terms of adding third shifts

to plants because there is increased demand pushing the suppliers to now ramp up and add jobs, tenneco adding 260 jobs because it has to keep up with demand for more parts going to the automakers and keying in on the next generation of vehicles, for example, gm has a new battery plant. only adding 120 jobs, not a huge number of jobs, but this is what we'll see more and more as these government loons that have been going to the automakers is spurring them to make more hires. this is all why you see the auto stocks moving higher. look at the s&p auto index. what an incredible run they have had over the last year. up more than 250% and we are expecting strong sales this month. that's one reason why we've seen the index continue to move higher. in fact, march sales could hit a pace of 13 million vehicles. that's the pace. and that would be the highest sales since well before cash for clunkers. tyler, the bottom line is this, when it comes to visiting in auto stocks invest when they're

increasing production because that drives revenue which ultimately drives higher earnings, what we're seeing right now and it's just beginning for these guys. i know they had a heck of a run. >> great point, phil. and hang with us as we bring in michael ward, auto analyst with so lay securities. let's pick up on phil's point. he says that now is the time, historically as they're ramping up production to invest but it seems to me that the realtime to invest would have been last spring and summer. is the starch going to go out of these stock. >>s, i think you were at the early stages of the cyclical recovery. they did a great job lowering cost in the second half of 2009. it has positioned itself to benefit and as phil mentioned we are at the early stages so it's probably going to have a lot of life to it. my guess you'll see sales increase modestly but sfedly for the next three to four year. >> do we need to worry, michael and same to you, phil, that the

automakers may be too much too soon? historically they ramped up production in anticipation of rising demand and sometimes they've gotten ahead of themselves. am i woong about that, michael >> that's certainly a fear. because then you get price wars but dealer inventory levels are still at historic lows. you're about -- right now about a million units lower than you have been historically at this time of the year in the january, february, march time period so need to add 500,000 units. >> phil, finish. >> that's okay. >> tyler, you're getting the main question which is are the executives running the auto companies smarter now about how to manage on the upside than they have been historically in the past? now, they will say, listen, we're not adding new plants but a third shift. increasing productivity with our fixed assets and we're also more flexible than we've been in the past. that said, historically, this industry has a terrible track record when it comes to saying, yeah, we can manage ourselves on

the way up because ultimately there tends to be that overproduction. that's when we go through that boom and bust. >> you expressed my thought 100 times better than i did. michael, let me zero in on a point that phil made in his report and that is how not just the big auto much makers, the nameplate companies are profiting here but a lot of the suppliers. which ones do you have your iowa on most closely? >> well, i think one of the things that will happen over the next three to five years is the regulatory environment will get much more strict so companies that focus on safety, emissions, fuel economy, they're going to benefit the most so you have borg-warner, trw, johnson controls, auto leave, several of those are just very well placed to benefit from a stricter, regulatory environment and increasing production environment. >> let's talk a little about toyota. michael, what's your view of that stock today at its current price? >> well, i'm not sure about the stock but i think as far as toyota goes, they still build great vehicles and they're still highly regarded by the american

public. my guess is at some point they'll get out of the headlines and the company will recover a loss market share. >> thanks for joining us. >> sue? >> straight ahead, ty, tiger woods admitting he was living the life of a lie in his first and very brief interview in four months. but is five minutes' worth of truth enough to get him back into the good graces of all those golf fans who buy all those golf products? 's all the big ticket responsible scores as well? national car rental knows i'm picky.

so, at national, i go right past the counter... 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. band now we're insuring overts do18 million drivers. gecko: quite impressive, yeah. boss: come a long way, that's for sure. and so have you since you started working here way back when. gecko: ah, i still have nightmares. anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

last year i didn't know because of my knee, it was still uncertain and this year with all the things that i've done, i don't know what i'm going to do in the future either. that to me is a little bothersome too in the sense that i don't like not knowing what to do, but what i know i have to do is become a better person and that begins with going to more treatment. >> tiger woods talking just a little bit answering questions from reporters for the first time in four months about the

state of his marriage, his return to golf and becoming a national punch line on late night tv. >> but is five minutes of truth enough to get him back into the good graces of fans and sponsors? thoughts now from david dusick at golf.com and robby vorhouse. he set up a lot of parameters. is that enough? >> no, the man burned his house down. what he's doing now is rebuilding his foundation. i mean he's got a long way ongoing. he needs to golf and be a better father, husband, member of the community, no, this is just the beginning but he can't look back. >> all right. david, what about you, i mean do you think it was enough? i mean it was five minutes, he's pledged to be more open but, you know, i mean five minutes, there wasn't a lot of openness some would say there. what do you think. >> yeah, no, i think if you're pledging to be open and make yourself more accessible, then five minutes in mandating not a minute more is not maybe the way to go. i think the perception if

nothing else he's still going to be as garred and careful with every single word he utters as he always has been. >> how do you think it played with fans. >> i think a lot of the fans that were disenchanted and angry with him, for example, my wife who said he's still a jerk, they're not going to be changed by any of this stuff. the people who are golf fans first and tiger scandal stuff aside this really doesn't affect them one way or the other. i don't think he swayed anybody's opinion of him. >> anything he could do that could say david's wife into not thinking he was a jerk? is there anything. >> my wife too. what needs to happen is tiger's wife needs to come out and she has to be the one to say, you know what, i forgive him. until -- >> whoa. do you think that's going to happen >> that's not going to happen in a while. >> because maybe she hasn't. >> it doesn't matter what he says at this point. he's not a public speaker. he's a golfer. he's an imperfect human being

would made a lot of big mistakes. it needs women who love him, his mother, his wife who come out and say, i forgive him. let's get past this. that's what is going to change the tide here. >> of course, david, that's if she has. >> ty, you want to get in here. >> i'm having fun watching you guys discuss all this. >> now you want to hear from tiger woods' wife. >> let me come back to one thing. i think there is every situation that elin won't be coming out in any form other than probably some years ago with a book for which she will make a lot of money. >> wow. >> one of the questions i have and, david, the jump off to you guy, one of the areas where he did not answer last night which is going to leave lots of questions out there is why were you getting treatment and what was it for? we can assume we know what some of the treatment was for but that left open questions about whether he was also getting treatment for alcohol dependency, for prescription drug use or for performance-enhancing drugs and not talking about viagra here

>> that's going to the heart of the matter that he continues to dodge them by saying that's between elin and myself. that's not going to play i think you know in the long run very well for tiger. people are looking for some level of closure and want to see him admit to having done bad stuff but there's more to the story. he simply is not giving us details and i'll be honest with you, i don't think he ever will. >> robby, one of these large unanswerable rhetorical questions but why do we have to know all that and why is it so important that he reveal all of those things to all of us. >> we want our leaders to be transparent and know they are just like we are. they have an intention of goodness, that they have fallen but that they really to their heart want to come back. until we see that, until we know that he's not just some puppet trying to win his way back so that he can make money, until we can see and feel his heart, we're not going to believe him.

>> david, you know, the sponsor transitions, the sponsor for the golf tournament over the weekend, the head of that organization is being quoted as saying, he's not very happy with the timing of tiger's comments. he felt that it overshadowed the tournament that he is sponsoring. what about the sponsor end of it. was what tiger did yesterday helpful or more damaging to the corporate side of things. >> part of that problem is they had a pretty extensive rain delay on sunday that pushed the end of that golf tournament right up until the tiger woods timing. if that doesn't happen there is a pretty good separation between the time that finishes and then tiger woods comes out at 7:30 so to be fair to him, you know, he doesn't control the weather. he controls a lot of things but does control the weather. could he have done it monday? absolutely. why he chose sunday night rather than monday or tuesday. >> because we're all focused deeply on health care reform and there was all that kind of craziness. >> that must be it. >> because he can. you know, everybody wanted him

to talk and he can choose his time just like he can choose the next golf tournament which is augusta which is also a controlled environment. >> the real test of this is -- you're right. is that when he goes to the next pga tour event that ends up on his schedule and mentioned this those comments with espn that he doesn't really know when his next tournament will be. he doesn't like that. ordinarily tiger would be playing had charlotte, this can income, three weeks after the masters. if he went to that event or next regular tour event not held at augusta national he'll hear the barbs and i'll be curious to hear from him and see his reaction to that because at augusta he's totally protected. soft landing but not everywhere. >> david and robbie, good to see you. two words, designer salt. enough said. food for thought in two minutes. >> where is dennis when you need him? >> i know.

with fidelity, you can take your trading around the world, because now you can trade u.s. and foreign stocks online, in 12 markets, 24 hours a day,

all from the same account, and settle in u.s. dollars or the local currency. plus, we'll guide you with international research and realtime quotes, so you can diversify your portfolio, wherever -- whenever. and we'll be on call around the clock, while you trade around the globe. fidelity investments. turn here.

food for thought. pepsi has a new secret ingredient. they're going to launch later this month, designer salt. the crystals are tinier so that you absorb less sodium when you eat whatever product it happens to be on. >> they pledge to reduce the salt as kraft did last week.

>>in