and bank of america 109% and morgan stanley up 105%, all doubled in that time span. so, while jamie dimon's stock has gained, these guys have gotten a heck of a lot better. now to carl and the "squawk alley" crew. >> thank you so much, dom. good morning. it is 10:00 a.m. at nrg stadium in houston, texas, 11:00 a.m. on wall street, and "squawk alley" is live. ♪ good monday morning! welcome to "squawk alley." jon fortt, sara eisen, myself at post 9. recode's kara swisher and aston institute's walter isaacson

joining us. good morning, everyone. silicon valley stepping up opposition to the president's immigration executive action. microsoft, uber, twitter, facebook, apple and others submitting a joint brief asking the court to roll back parts of the order. they say the government should make a "fundamental commitment" to welcome immigrants while still boosting background checks to protect the country. from the brief -- "the order inflicts significant harm on american business, innovation and growth and threatens ability to attract business and investment to the united states." this as alibaba ceo jack ma warns in no uncertain terms that "if trade stops, war starts." kara, we're spending a good part of the morning dissecting who joined this letter and who did not. your thoughts. >> well, i think it's just another in the ongoing sort of tech getting to these issues. for example, airbnb had an ad last night in the super bowl. they're all trying to speak up to the issue because it goes to the core of first of all their

employee values and their company values and also their businesses. and immigration has been critically important for the growth of tech, so they're going to speak out on this issue, and presumably others as more and more of them come to the forefront. >> walter, three parts of this brief jump out at me. first, they're arguing that the executive order isn't reasonable in its scope. they argue that the discretion in the order leaves too much room for the executive branch to sort of apply exceptions in an unfair way. and then they talk about what their particular interest is in this -- the free movement of people to conduct business that this executive order sort of ruins that. which of those do you think is the most compelling piece of this brief? >> i don't actually think any of those are that compelling to a court, especially as it goes from the appeals court probably up to the supreme court.

those are economic arguments, those are policy arguments. i agree with those arguments, but they're not necessarily legal and constitutional arguments. certainly, it hurts our economy if you restrict immigration that way, but i think the only real constitutional questions are ones like does it discriminate against a particular religion? was it really a muslim ban? so, i think they're doing that mainly because it comports with their values. i don't see that it really changes the underlying legal argument. >> you know, on a business argument, kara, we just got out of earnings season. from investors' perspective, these stocks have done really well. the nasdaq is at a record high. the companies continue to show really solid revenue growth. you're not seeing that really anywhere in corporate america. i just wonder how much of a risk it is and how much of a deliberation it is for these ceos to balance shareholder concerns and whether it is a concern now, them taking a more

controversial approach to the white house versus fighting for their values and their morals. >> i would argue the white house is taking a controversial stance. these people have been doing business for decades using immigration and open borders, open trade to grow the most important industry in america. so i would argue that it's controversial and a problem to try to mess with this. i think that, you know, it's easy to say it's against the white house, but this ban -- and that's what the white house calls it, so i'm going to use the word -- is problematic for these companies and their growth. and so, if you want to hinder an industry that's our most important industry in this country and the leading industry in the world compared to other countries with a very fast-moving china coming up behind them along with other countries, go ahead and do it, but it seems like here's something that's working. these people are saying this is what works, this is what's good, and it's not just that. they also provide jobs all over this country. and where job growth is going to be. so i think that's going to be the question. it is an economic argument

between tech, which is very successful, and others who feel like this ban is a good idea for american business. most businesses don't think that at all. >> but kara -- >> i think as -- i'm sorry. >> sorry. >> i was going to ask kara whether she would go along with you, walter, on this being a strong economic argument but having a higher hill to climb from a legal standpoint. kara? >> oh, kara, sorry. no, i think -- no, absolutely. i think it will be interesting to see what happens. it will obviously get to the supreme court. it's a very big issue for these companies. i mean, i think there's a lot of issues going on here, including what is the base of tech? well, they're employees. this is a very critical talent, as walter knows. it's critically important to the success of tech. this is a core company value, and that means a core business value for these companies. and the question is, they're not just going to do this -- they're trying to get a letter together, which we've written about,

they're trying to include big companies, and you'll probably see some big retail companies involved in this, but they're trying to create an idea that this is not just bad for tech, it's bad for american business. >> walter, we should point out -- >> i would like to say that -- [ everyone talking at once ] >> these companies do make the point in this brief, walter, that national origin is a criterium they try to argue by which you should not -- the government cannot exclude immigrant groups and travelers. so, there is somewhat a legal argument based on that, not just really -- i mean, is that not strong enough, you think? >> yeah, no, that's a strong argument. the arguments you mentioned earlier seemed to be not to go to the core of what is the legal argument, but i think there's a much larger thing here which we shouldn't lose sight of. this is a question about both the benefits of trade, the benefits of immigration, the benefits of being a country that accepts refugees, that has h1b visas for the smartest people in the world to come in and start companies like google or run companies like microsoft.

and there's been a huge political divide between these who do not believe that a diverse nation, nation with immigration, a nation that's open with free trade, is better for the economy or not. so, we have to have this debate. and in the last election, those who not in favor of immigration, not in favor of of h1b, not in favor of refugees or free trade won. the political debate has to be engaged, and that's why there's a silver lining here, because now we all get to talk about, hey, here's why allowing people into our country is actually good for all of us and good for our economy. that's what you saw in the super bowl ads, too. >> on the flip side, there are other issues that could really help tech coming from this administration, like repatriation of foreign earnings. they're holding all their cash overseas. corporate tax reform, paying a lower rate. i wonder, walter, if you can make a prediction -- maybe to both of you, but walter first -- if you could make a prediction

as to whether tech, these stocks we're talking about, will continue to thrive as a business and an investment under the trump administration or not? >> yes, i mean, i think it would be great if this administration and everybody would keep our eye on the ball, which is improving the economy, maybe doing tax reform, doing an infrastructure bill that makes some sense, doing all sorts of repatriation that could help the economy, and including regulatory reform. it doesn't just help technology companies but helps the fords and the general electrics and the general motors that are the backbone of our economy. so i don't think we should be singling out particular industries, but if everybody kept their eye on an economic ball instead of getting distracted by the type of things we've been tweeting about, i think you could really see the economy take off, all companies, especially tech companies. >> certainly the hope among some. switching gears just slightly here, guys.

those select super bowl ads took a new approach last night when it came to brand messaging and reaching consumers, striking a cultural tone with hot-button themes like immigration, women's rights and the environment, talking about brands like airbnb, audi and budweiser. a lot was made about this last night, kara. coincidence or not. did you see that narrative running through the whole thing? >> yeah, of course! i mean, the airbnb ad was absolutely exclusive and they did it in a short time. they just put it up. there was stat space available and they created that ad very quickly, and it's very explicit. it's so interesting it's a hot-button issue before diversity. it isn't a hot-button issue, but these companies feel the need to get up there and say this is what we're about. same with the audi ad. a little girl driving a box car should not be controversial. there's nothing wrong with that. and so, it's interesting that we're considering this a debate over whether women should be able to have equal pay for equal work, but that's fine. but i think it's interesting that a lot of these companies

are going to continue to state their core values. and the core values are critical to their businesses. it's very linked. it isn't just a bunch of silicon valley or people tweeting. this is critical to their business, to their employees, to their success. and so, they're going to make their argument, and they should. they absolutely should. >> one tech company that didn't get particularly political, walter, was intel, but they had quite a presence, not only in the drones behind lady gaga but also with tom brady fronting their commercial about their technology. i mean, this isn't exactly a political question, but it's one of cultural resonance. do you think they're a winner here in the way they positioned all that? >> well, yeah, i think it's important and it's going to be part of the debate, the whole notion of artificial intelligence, drones, the type of new technology that will both make our country more productive, our economy stronger, but dislocate jobs. so, intel's got to position

itself saying we're going to make this a better place, too. that's part of the debate that hasn't been engaged in. i do think kara is right, those super bowl commercials were pretty awesome, and there was one narrative thread, which has been the narrative thread of american history from the beginning, you know, out of many, one, the diversity, that we come from many places, but we become one country, e pluribus unum. and that notion of celebrating diversity, which coca-cola does with its very old ad, and then they cli the click one that airbnb did, that's pretty inspiring. it is what this nation's about. >> i agree with you, kara, i love the audi ad. i think any criticism of it is unfounded, but there has to be a risk here for companies. all right #boycott budweiser is trending on twitter, for better or worse. this is the political environment we're in and these companies are walking a fine line between alienating some of their customers.

>> it's not a fine line. we're in it. like, let's just -- one of the columns i'm writing this week is it's all about politics now and you have to really -- and it's another just going to stop with the immigration issue. if there's a gay issue around religious freedom act, it's going to go from one thing to the next to the next. and you know, the problem is, it's not really focusing on creating jobs and creating, like, a better environment for people and trying to figure out the problems. some of this feels a little bit like a circus so that you create controversy and fear and then not really focused on critical issues, like where is the technology going? where is china coming in to take our business? where is the next big innovation coming from? what do we do when we get automation and drones? i mean, drones are fun behind lady gaga, but what happens when they start to replace jobs? what happens in an automated society and when these companies have factories like this? they're fascinating questions and very difficult questions for our society as a whole. >> but are you suggesting, kara, that it's not time well spent?

>> well, i think they have to stand for what they believe in. i don't think it's just like a luxury to say that diversity has been critical to our success, for silicon valley to say that. they have to keep saying that. what do you want them to do, say the opposite? it's not what these companies are about. so i suppose it's a risk. i know you'll always be boycotted for whatever side you happen to be on, but i think they've got to stick with their core values, stick with their core technology and try to move in some way that everybody can be cooperative with each other into the future. and you know, the future's coming, whether you like it or not. so you know, i think that's the issue. and pretending it's not coming is kind of -- it's just ridiculous to pretend it's not coming. >> yeah. we'll look forward to reading that piece. kara, walter, we love having you guys together especially. thank you so much. walter isaacson. >> thank you. >> kara swisher kicking off the hour. >> i liked mr. clean. in the meantime, let's check on markets, because the dow has turned around a bit, off session

lows. it was down about 68 points earlier, briefly going positive. we're about flat right now, if you will. goldman sachs is higher and adding the most points. the s&p 500 is down about 0.1% there. the nasdaq composite resilient, flat, holding its gains. it closed at a record on friday. also watching shares of hasbro. the toy maker easily topping estimates for its recent quarter, also raising dividend by 6 cents. the stock is flying, up 14%. and the ceo is on "mad money" later tonight. still to come on "squawk alley," a big win for tom brady, robert kraft, and the patriots, of course. we'll talk with sports agent leigh steinberg, famous for the "show me the money" line, breaking down the numbers behind the big game. later on, more on what jack ma said about trade and stopping trade starting wars, when "squawk alley" comes right back. he ter

veu'

on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet

that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. welcome back to "squawk alley." alibaba founder and ceo jack ma speaking out on the dangers of isolationism in trade over the weekend, saying "if trade stops, war starts. but worry doesn't solve the problem. the only thing you can do is get involved and actively prove that trade helps people to communicate." this, of course, as president trump and his trade council turn their attention to trade and the u.s./china relationship. joining us to discuss this, stephen roach, former chairman of morgan stanley asia and senior fellow at yale school of

management, and bob horvath with energy and environmental affairs, kissinger viassociate vice chairman. welcome to you both. >> good morning. >> so, jack ma warning, if trade stops, war starts. can you have an america first economic policy without starting a trade war? >> well, jack's warning is i think important, sara. the trump administration is addressing our trade issues from a micro point of view by focusing on companies and countries, and i think the issue here is more macro. we're a low-saving economy, so we run trade deficits with many, many countries, 101 of them, for example, in 2015, and that means that the budget deficit, which will push the savings rate even lower, is absolutely critical. and i think the final point, though, is if we try to address this macro issue with micro

threads, we'll end up -- like for example, we close down trade with china, we'll just push the chinese piece to higher cost producers, which will actually backfire and end up being a functional equivalent of a tax hike on american consumers, the guy that the trump administration is trying to help. so, this is a real inconsistent approach, in my view. >> bob, the trump administration is arguing that they want lots of trade, just fair trade, also arguing that there should be more trade negotiated directly with countries, individual countries, instead of groups of countries. is that a practical approach that the trump administration can get to work on quickly, or do they have to change their messaging around this to perhaps not seem so antitrade to a certain group of opponents, anyway? >> well, certainly, if they

choose, they can negotiate country by country. they seem to want to do a deal with the uk, and perhaps with canada. but the real world is very different now, and that is that virtually every other group of countries certainly china is negotiating regional trade agreements. and that way, you can develop not just rules that apply to two countries or three but broader sets of rules, for instance, tpp, among 12 countries, major trading partners in the pacific. and if you do that, you can enable the united states to get the kind of rules it wants on, for instance, the role of state enterprises, protection of intellectual property, workers' rights, environmental issues, a whole series of rules and regulations that benefit the united states but spread out among a larger number of countries, which provides greater benefits for the united

states, both in terms of opening larger numbers of markets and suggesting rules for a regional group but rules that can also, perhaps, be spread to the global economy. we have global interests goi. going country by country is not going to get there rapidly. >> so, stephen, if i'm a global company, what do i need to know if this starts to unfold, retaliatory tariffs and other such tension. who's got the leverage, the u.s. or china? >> both -- >> they both have leverage, sara -- >> stephen, go ahead. >> i think we're diluting ourselves into thinking that we've got all the leverage in the u.s. because, you know, we're big and we're strong and powerful. china's our third largest and most rapidly growing export market, sara. they also own over 1.25 trillion of u.s. treasuries. so, we squeeze china, they're going to squeeze back, and we

can't pretend that's not an issue for us. >> steve's absolutely right. i think that we have to realize that this is a global world and that we have leverage over other countries, but they have leverage over us. and a large number of american jobs depend very heavily on exports. a large number of american jobs depend on inflows of foreign investment. and if you have a disruption in the global trading system, it will disrupt a lot of jobs in this country. moreover, it will have profound effects on international financial markets, which are very international. we saw what happened a year ago when the chinese economy started deteriorating. it had a big effect on american financial markets. a trade war will do that in a wide range of markets, not just related to china, but to the global economy. >> stephen, i think it was jim

baker who had comments recently saying "the art of the deal" is actually understanding the political constraints on the person across the table from you. you're not suggesting that china's reliance on trade and our reliance on trade is the same. clearly, it's -- they need it more than we do. >> well, i think, look, we both need trade, carl. and the point about china is that they've relied a lot on export-led growth to the united states to drive economic development for 35 years. but you know, that was the old china. china's now trying to transition away from that to more of a domestic consumer story. and by the way, that's a big plus for us, because if we can export into china's consumer-led markets, we benefit from that as well, and we kind of think of china in a different way than we have historically. >> a lot of dire warnings from economists and former

policymakers like you guys, warnings of war from jack ma. you don't really see it in the market yet in terms of that fear. we'll continue to debate it for now. thank you, stephen roach and bob hormats. jon? still to come, the debate over reforming dodd/frank continues following the president's executive actions attempting to roll back the law. the man whose name is on the bill, barney frank, was just on a half hour ago. >> i didn't work on this because i was offended by aig going so deeply in debt that they caused a crisis. i did what i thought was right for the country. i don't have any more stake in this than anybody else. i'm sorry to see people try to trivialize this. it's not an ego thing. >> our steve liesman is going to break down the conflict within the government, next.

president trump vowing to do a "big number" on dodd/frank, but any changes might come slower than you might think and set up a major showdown within the government, as if we haven't

had enough of those. our steve liesman is back at headquarters with more. steve? >> yeah, thanks, jon. well, making dodd/frank was a complex thing to do. taking it apart will be hard as well. and despite the president's extreme rhetoric that sounds like he would dismantle the law, his executive order doesn't read that way. it reads like a measured and principled document that proponents of the law say could lead to common-sense reform, but not without conflict and a lot of bureaucracy to get through. here, folks, is just a partial list of the emblems of the agencies that will be involved. it includes the treasury, which will oversee a whole consultation with a lot of these agencies, house financial services will also be the house committee that ends up pushing reform through. the federal reserve has a major role in regulating the banks. office of the control of the currency does as well. the fsoc, financial oversight council is where they're coordinated. then the bank for financial

settlements, where global regulatory reforms are coordinated. and take a look at the players involved, dan tarullo, currently the number one person on the fed who oversees bank reform. he could be replaced pretty quickly. janet yellen is sticking around for january 2018. she has a lot of -- she expects a lot of support for this rule. there's steve mnuchin, nominee for the treasury secretary, and jeff hensarling from house financial services. and then the senator taking over the senate banking committee, he's going to have -- he's perhaps more moderate than hensarling when it comes to dodd/frank reform. and here are some of the issues. can't put them all up on a single screen. capital levels for banks, those that exist right now, the raised levels, and those for the biggest banks. the volcker rule that was never implemented. resolution authority. how do you resolve a bank once it's gone bad? and then a big issue of contention, the consumer financial protection bureau, where the republicans hate it

and the democrats may lay down the mat for it. so, guys, i think maybe the market is right to price in some increase when it comes to bank earnings from getting rid of dodd/frank. i'm not sure about the timing. and i think, carl, also the extent of it. >> it certainly is going to be a wait of some duration. we know that, steve. thanks so much. our steve liesman. we're counting down to the close in the uk and across europe happening right now. seema? >> hello, carl. the political uncertainty in france seems to be the central focus in europe today with a presidential race heating up. populist leader marine le pen of the front national party unveiling a euro exit plan or what some are referring to as the frexit. this comes as local polls in france show that marine le pen is gaining momentum. if you look at the equity market, you'll see stocks in france are underperformings in the uk, germany and spain, but the real story is in the bond market. the cost to buy french debt is becoming more expensive. the spread between the french

and german 10-year has now hit a nearly 4-year high, which shows investors are selling french debt and seeking safety by purchasing german debt. and on the topic of germany, recent polls over the weekend show that germany's angela merkel, the current chancellor, her lead in the polls has dropped to a multiyear low. so, that political uncertainty story in europe seems to be a big talker today. meantime, european central bank president mario draghi making the case for why the central bank should not yet scale back on its monthly bond purchases, despite the rise in inflation, the uptick in growth. we've seen 14 consecutive quarters of growth in the eurozone. right now we're seeing the euro trade at 1.07 against the u.s. dollar, so slightly weaker against the greenback. one stock people are looking at today in europe is irish airline ryanair. it said that average fares dropped in the last quarter of 2016 as overcapacity continues to hit some of the european airline players. back to you, sara. >> all right, a lot of political

news moving the markets there. seema, thank you. when we come back, legendary sports agent leigh steinberg joins "squawk alley." he'll show us the money when it comes to last night's historic win for tom brady.

good morning once again, everyone. i'm sue herera. here is your "cnbc news update" this hour. iran rejecting the idea that its latest missile test was a warning signal to president

trump. an iranian spokesman responding to vice president mike pence's comments that iran should not test the resolve of the president. iraq releasing video showing its newly appointed defense minister meeting u.s. ambassador douglas silmon in baghdad. they say operations to liberate western mosul from isis were discussed. and how is this for a long-haul flight? flights landed in new zealand after completing what qatar airlines calls the longest commercial route in history, just over 9,000 miles. the qatar airways flight made the trip from doa, qatar, in 17 hours and 45 minutes to greenland. and a meteor over lake michigan lit up the sky this morning across several states in the midwest. the meteor was accompanied by a sonic boom that shook houses in the region. it's unclear whether the object made landfall or when it was over lake michigan, whether it hit the water. that's the "news update" this

hour. back downtown to "squawk alley." jon, back to you. >> all right, thank you, sue. might have just been the tom brady pass. he went to michigan. back to one of our top stories today. nearly 100 companies, mostly in tech, including google, apple, facebook and uber, filing a brief in court, coming out strongly against president trump's actions on immigration. our josh lipton has more in san francisco. josh? >> reporter: that's right, jon. so, tech ceos in memos to their employees had already made it very clear they oppose president trump's executive order on immigration. now these executives have made it official. nearly 100 technology companies, including apple, alphabet's google, facebook, uber, netflix and microsoft have come together against this executive action in a joint amicus brief. the companies came out swinging against the order which temporarily restricts people from seven muslim-majority nations from entering the u.s. the brief reads, "it hinders the ability of american companies to attract great talent, increases

costs imposed on business, makes it more difficult for american firms to compete in the international marketplace and gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations and hire new employees outside of the united states." there is, of course, arguably no issue in tech more personal and critical than immigration. immigrants like sundar pichai run iconic firms like alphabet's google, satya nadella, who runs microsoft, says as an immigrant, he has experienced the positive impact immigration has on his company and the country. and it's not just the c suite of these countries. an estimated 30% of silicon valley employees are foreign-born. the assumption is this fight could head to the supreme court. we should also note the companies not included here -- amazon, oracle, ibm, tesla, and all of the telecom firms. so, that's verizon, at&t and t-mobile. amazon did file a declaration of support at a lower court in washington state last week,

however. guys, back to you. >> all right, josh. thank you very much for that. switching gears, it did prove to be a night of firsts for the nfl. the biggest comeback in super bowl history, first big game to go into super bowl, first quarterback and coach to win five super bowl titles. the patriots stunning the falcons, overcoming that 25-point deficit in the second half. joining us this morning on the phone after attending last night's game in houston, the legendary and very lucky sports agent leigh steinberg. leigh, it's great to talk to you again. good morning. >> good morning. although i'm not quite sure what time of day it is because i haven't slept for four days. >> we'll go easy on you. >> i did 71 interviews on radio row in three days and we had over 5,000 people at my super bowl party on saturday. so good morning, whenever it is from wherever it is. >> "squawk alley" time. >> well, leigh, to the degree

you can think straight, obviously, we talked about whether you were a patriots fan, a falcons fan, i mean, this is how football is supposed to go. i mean, there's no better game, i think we can all agree, in recent memory. does the league benefit from any of that going forward? >> oh, absolutely! this was probably the most spectacular game as a game in terms of thrills and chills. had it been a movie, you would have said it could never happen like this in real life. and for drama, for branding of the most incredible single figure and duo, bill belichick, the best coach of all time, tom brady, movie star good looks, and now clearly the best quarterback in the history of football, the team, you know, now america's team. the game of football.

these ratings are absolutely off the chart. so, they take the biggest events in the history of television and -- >> i'm going to interrupt you, leigh, because we're looking at a live shot of tampa where president trump has just landed. he is landing at an air force base there, of course from mar-a-lago in palm beach. he'll be taking meetings, including with governor rick scott. we'll continue to monitor it, but we're seeing inside his limo where he's just arrived in tampa, florida. leigh steinberg, sorry to cut you off there. >> well, he's been taking center stage for the last year and a half. but i will tell you that when you look at these ratings, understand you're comparing them against absolutely the most dominant television events of our time, so the advertisers benefit. it looked like it would be a blowout early, so many people would tune off, but if they stuck around, they saw something great. so, it benefits the sponsors, it

benefits television in terms of selling it for next year. it has an economic benefit for the nfl and rebrands it as america's sport. >> leigh, you said that tom brady is the greatest quarterback of all time, and it got a lot harder to make an argument against that after last night, but where does he stand in terms of sports brands? arguably lower. he started off this football season as a villain for many nfl fans. where does it go from here for tom brady as a brand? >> well, here's what's interesting. he's always been, until deflategate, the most marketable of all nfl players. he made a personal choice not to go ahead and do what peyton manning did, which is to take a whole slew of deals and to do endless television commercials, but it was his choice, because

companies were lining up to try to sponsor him. and for many years, he made the choice that he would spend that time working out, focusing on his career and all the rest. we love the fall of the high and mighty in this society, we love a comeback story. i think the deflategate gets pushed away in time. new memories occur. this will replace a whole lot of what happened before, and i think he's red hot again. when you put couples together like his wife and he, we love those wonderful, you know, beyonce/jay z couples. and i think he's absolutely marketable again. and this game puts him again in the leading man hero category, movie star good looks. aside from deflategate, not a blemish on his reputation.

>> leigh, get some rest. >> thanks. >> thank you for joining us. you deserve it. talking super bowl li. when we come back, a lot of big tech in the big ads at the super bowl last night. what worked and what did not? first, rick santelli, what are you watching? >> well, i'm watching the dollar index, and i'm working up some charts of it. we all know that foreign exchange going to be at the epicenter of what's going on with trade in so many ways, but it also underscores mario draghi's big issues and quantitative easing and negative rates in europe. all of that after the break. ÷p type dtess t

ur numo ureft if u tud? 2 inhibir worowe t d sent s? aduia ft' pn iv owerth jvoks aune tog b b pwe m hp botvoan

n, wcayou zzlieaeainoks aune tog otfftseudkieys,otvoan niasnsyou zzlieaeainoks aune tog gh,s stskofof ornanfec sride eosicifatening. opinand u zzlieaeainoks aune tog gh,s stskofof doifanfce sptexperi allgiach , t vo if eve idne te y ca doifanfce sptexperi allgiach , t tis if eve idne

tvo wasumay bld 's tngararyoa ca i'm scott wapner. coming up on "the halftime report," why some on wall street are getting more negative about the donald trump presidency and whether investors need to, too. plus, jim cramer's stock picks. and is disney's bob iger really going to extend his stay in the mouse house? and if so, what's that mean for the stock? we will discuss at the top of the hour. see you in less than 15. >> busy day, scott, thanks. let's get to the cme and check in with rick and get "the santelli exchange." >> hey, carl. we talked about the kissback when you get violations of significant moves, and we'll get to exactly what that looks like in a moment. first, look at a first charts. the first is a five-year chart of the trade-weighted dollar valuation. now, you can see on this chart, it looks pretty healthy, moving to the up side more aggressively than the next chart, which of

course, is more of a relative value chart, because the dollar index is comparing the value of the dollar against the value of other currencies. and the most predominant currency from a weighted basis is the euro currency. it still looks bullish, but more messy. if we look at a november '16, so mid-november of 2016 chart of the dollar index, you're going it see the very important top it recreated, if it is a top. and finally, on the year-to-date chart, take a good look at that. that's what we're going to primarily talk about right now on the white board. so, let's go to the white board. here's the year-to-date chart you were just looking at. and what's interesting, of course, is if this chart is destined to trade to the down side, what the kissback is going to look like is something like this. maybe we'll get one close above 100, and then we'll come back down and we'll see how it reacts. now, if it goes to the up side, it really needs to hold 100 in a

very solid way. if it doesn't, it's not as easy. this is actually the easier signal to the up side. what we would most likely get -- and this chart starts around mid-2015. if we start to come back down, my guess is over time what we're going to do is spend a whole lot of time between 100 and 95. maybe this is what my opinion leans towards most, but we're going to see what today holds. why do i go along this one? because i think that mario draghi already in ways in april may have a quasi taper with quantitative easing. we're already seen that the amount of securities in europe that have negative interest rates in the secondary market has really dropped rather enormously, probably to the $8 trillion, $9 trillion, versus the time where it was $13.5 trillion, arguably. what that's going to continue to do is pressurize a trade where rates go higher, because the musical chairs when rates go higher is if you are holding a negative instrument, you're going to have very few willing

buyers to purchase it from you. so we want to continue to monitor, of course, that important relationship between rates, especially overnight, and mario draghi negative lending rates versus what's going on with his currency. sara, back to you. >> good one, rick, thank you. rick santelli in chicago. up next on "squawk alley," the robots are coming. new details on how amazon's grocery stores would work and how few employees it would take to operate them. much more ahead right here on "squawk alley" with the dow down seven points. gawhu

is ba bisohai ver .knkowo iintdtryou wt rk houplrmany did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business.

companies spending about $5 million for a 30-second ad last night as 112 million people tuned in to watch the patriots defeat the falcons in dramatic fashion. some ads striking a cultural and political tone with viewers. for more on the breakdown of winners and losers in brands, let's bring in jim cooper, executive ed tore at ad week and mike jackson, chief marketing officer at advance solutions international. welcome to both of you. jim, we'll start with you. any standout winner here? did it make sense to go more political or less? >> i think the winners this year were cause ads and comedy ads. 84 lumber struck an intense tone on the immigration front but procter & gamble mr. clean which was completely hilarious, weird

and delightful. those two sort of creative camps were dominant themes and very different, obviously. >> we're used to, mike, objectification in super bowl ads but not necessarily of fictional, bald men. how did that play? any change in marketing signal by this? >> you know, mr. clean appearing after all these years, an updated, modern, comical nature, i thought it was very effective. it was funny and cast the brand in a bright light. >> there's all sorts of metrics for success. the winner goes to pepsi, 47,400

mentions. what do you think these ceos mee looking for after the ad? >> looking to stretch that investment, $5 million for 30 seconds is a lot of money. they want to stretch that investment and turn to social before, during and after the game to sort of stoke their creative. and i think that's a big part of the game. what's happening on facebook and youtube is a huge part of this game, too. twitter. so these are all really important parts of campaigns. people aren't really buying super bowl ads anymore. they buy campaigns and that social component is very crucial to those campaigns. >> mike, what's been the most effective super bowl commercial then in that campaign mindset? if we measure overall social impact, doesn't have to be this year. could have been last year, the year before. how do you measure that and what

sticks out? >> you know, i always look for, you know, ad executions featuring platform or utilizing the platform of the super bowl with those that could sustain a message over time. and as jim said, obviously, the campaign tactics include social media these days and a very, you know, robust execution before, during and after the game. but, again, the most effective brands, in my mind, are those that will be able to sustain the messaging articulated in the super bowl spot over the next 12 to 18 months. >> what about some of the more controversial ones, mike? 84 lumber, i think, was mentioned. risky, smart, bold, dangerous? how do you describe that? >> i would describe 84 lumber as courageous. obviously, it's a brand that's been around a long time. i believe it was their first foray into the national stage. and to take a leap and articulate a very beautifully

shot message that ultimately put 84 lumber in the center of the conversation regarding one of the most topical if not controversial issues that we're dealing with today. again, i would label it as courageous and well done. >> indeed. thank you, jim and mike. unfortunately, 84 lumber wasn't able to join us this morning. they had planned to. more squawk alley after this break. rae aneremen

fr t.liurtur l

watching shares of amazon, announcing they plan to build 2,000 grocery stores, operated by just two or three employees. amazon is denying those reports. hasn't been below 800 since january 12th but began the year at 750. pretty decent run. >> suffering a bit after earnings, for sure. i don't think they're building stores. amazon fresh is a big initiative. it will take really tricky distribution to pull that off. >> this idea of robots and

automation is front and center. i'll connect it back to the trump policy. what isn't getting discussed right now. he wants to bring jobs back, walmart and nike if they have to produce here, it will be more automated. >> big year for robots. >> all working on that long-term problem. let's get back to the judge and the half. >> thanks so much, halftime report. i'm scott wapner. why some on wall street are growing more negative on the president's agenda. what it could mean for the markets and your money. also on set with us is jim cramer, host of "mad money." i go to you first. is it nervous time or not to worry time? >> look, i'm still focused on earnings and i've got to tell you, we may