what will it be. how will it affect the fed. eventually how will all that affect interest rates? we'll watch from stem to stern. 8:30 a.m. tomorrow. cheryl: "money" with melissa francis now. >> i'm melissa francis and here's what's money tonight. rumble at the g20 summit. global opposition grows against the u.s. strike on syria. the growing brutality of rebel groups raising all new problems. is the u.s. about to empower people even worse than assad? plus would you want this job? from microsoft to jcpenney. nearly 20 big companies are looking for a ceo. which gig will end in disaster and which could turn out to be the ultimate dream job? we have an all-star panel to weigh in. "who made money today?" he was pushed out of the company he founded but he made a mint off it today. stay tuned to find out who it is. even when they say it's not it is always about money

melissa: president obama finding himself awfully lonely at start of the g20 summit. trying to get world leaders on board but his pleas falling on a lot of deaf ears. fox news's greg palkot here with all the details. greg. >> reporter: you have that right, melissa. the region here girds for possible u.s. military strike against syria president obama is involved in his own clashes at that g20 summit in st. petersburg. obama and russian president and host vladmir putin exchanged icy greetings today. obama is now admitting that the u.s. basically has hit the wall with russia regarding syria. it has responded in part by branding secretary of state john kerry a liar for his testimony before congressional committees

this week. obama is seeking support elsewhere at the gathering. he met today with japanese prime minister abe, and also french president hollande is expressing his support but that's about it. there have been cold shoulders all around at this summit for the united states and president obama. u.k. prime minister david cameron, who is parliament voted down backing the united states in any military strike against syria did reveal that his intelligence services have identified the nerve gas agent sarin on the clothing and the bodies of some of the victims of that chemical weapon attack last month in syria but again, the u.k. not involved. this as the fighting in syria continues. the forces of bashar assad clashing with rebels in one location, a town to the north of damascus, mainly christian and there have been some victims in that clash. and the government reportedly moving troops and assets around

in advance of that intervention. here in lebanon, melissa, the government is doing its best to remain neutral but it's not succeeding too much. we've seen a lot of violence here a lot of passions, a lot of refugees. the border with syria, just about 40 miles from where i'm standing. back to you. melissa: greg, thanks so much. so with president obama trying to rally support for a strike against syria fears are growing who may come out on top after any attack. the increasing brutality of some rebel groups in the spotlight today. this is the cover of "the new york times" t shows seven syrian government soldiers about to be executed by rebel forces. as a result against the assad regime could provide help for the syrian rebels. in some cases are these people as bad as assad? we haveside jasser. and welcome to both of you,

lisa, because that picture, really getting a lot of people talking today especially in the u.s. about who is it exactly that would be in charge after the fall of assad? there have been questions about, you know, is it al qaeda? and if they are, you know, syrian rebels, of the free syrian army, are they just as brutal as an assad regime? what do you say? >> that's been the ongoing question for over two years now, who are the rebels? that is why president obama hesitated and still hesitating to send weapons to the rebels. that is why we question if we go in is there the possibility that the chemical weapons could be passed off and could get into the hand of these rebels? and the last question and biggest question of all, should we strike and weaken the assad regime, wouldn't these al qaeda forces then take that opportunity to swoop right in and occupy the political vacuum that would then be created? melissa: saudi, i know you disagree? >> it is easy to ask a lot of

questions, melissa, but how about the answers? the answers so far is doing nothing is the most empowering for al qaeda and militant groups and radicals and most empowering for governments like saudi arabia and qatar to fund the wrong people. within the free syrian army is not only 50 to 100,000 that are actually fighting but around syria, remember this revolution started urban and then moved to the towns of damascus and aleppo, each of two to four million people that include many hundreds of thousands of local coordination committees that are helping the rebels. to say that the rebels, 5 to 10,000 al qaeda will take over syria, certainly islamist will have a lot of influence but you can't tell me that syria's local coordination committees will tip towards islamist. if they do it will happen much more likely under the assad regime than. melissa: there are two other groups as well as part of the extremist. there is the free islamic front. there's also the syrian

liberation front that are out there as well who are groups, that you know, we may not want in charge. the free syrian army, is the faction that i think, you know, people have seen as the most moderate. but we don't know that they're the ones that would necessarily be in charge if assad wins, right? >> no, we don't know who will be in charge and that's, doing nothing has not been an answer. zudi is absolutely correct in saying that. doing something and fail something probably much worse than doing nothing n this case we don't know who these people are and, the devil that we know is often better than the devil that we don't know. but, what we do know take examples from history and look at these other political uprisings where a very well-intentioned, grassroots opposition, you know, uprising didn't result in to what the people wanted. it didn't result what the people who gave up their lives were fighting for. and in this case the one golden rule we've seen in the middle east and we've seen throughout the arab spring is that it is

not going to be the group that started it but it will be the group that is the most well-organized and well-funded. in this case the islamist will be the group that will have that advantage. melissa: but, zudi, the other big problem we have at this point, we saw it at the g20 summit this is becoming a proxyd russia and there are questions raised that vladmir putin could come to the aid of syria. he could replace whatever weapons are destroyed. there is a question being raised during the hearings that we saw yesterday in washington of folks asking would it be legitimate for the russians to strike out against us in a military theater if we went in and attacked syria? some people are saying yes, this is absolutely a possibility. should we be concerned about the fact, we may want to help syrians we may be getting into a war with russia here or battle at least? >> but i hope that concern doesn't make us retract and basically make the world a post-american world where russia's and irans of the world control the future of the middle east which would tip towards the most anti-american environment

possible. and currently, yes, the syrian military has a deep history of being trained by the soviets. there is deep relationships there. the economy has been intertwined with the russians. not to mention the try aping you lar relationship with -- triangular relationship has been bad. this is time we don't have somebody like president reagan with conviction and leadership to get american opinion where it should be. retraction at this time will allow the worst of the worst, hezbollah, assad has a cozy relationship with radical groups and uses the flux of al qaeda into that country to force the moderates to disappear and destroy them. if we want syria to evolve into a third pathway, towards democracy, it is not going to happen under assad. and if we want to contain iran, contain russia's influence away from radicalization of the middle east, it needs to start with putting up wall now, because of chemical weapons and destroying their capabilities militarily in the air.

melissa: we have to leave it there. i'm sorry, lisa. we'll get more next time. thanks so much. >> okay. melissa: next on "money," wal-mart workers on strike across the u.s. looks like tons of imply east are demanding a hike in the minimum wage but are they appear to be? we'll explain that. plus the government is taking jpmorgan to the woodshed and now may be cutting it down to size. charlie gasparino is here with an exclusive report. more "money" coming up. ♪

♪ melissa: walking off the job. wal-mart workers in 15 cities across the u.s. going on strike there. demanding an increase in the minimum wage and better benefits. it looks like countless wal-mart employees took off their aprons and hit the street, right? but who are the people you see in front of these stores and on the news? joining me now is bob cutner, "american prospect" and katy gauge of workforce institute. thanks to both of you for joining us. this is really the question. we see these strikes. saw it with mcdonald's as well. you wonder who these folks are. in fact the "tampa tribune", you

know reports came out after we saw the mcdonald's workers last week, reporters went down to the front lines and found that they weren't actually workers from i restaurant. the "tampa tribune" today, they are talking about the force outside of wal-mart and say that they're coming from our wal-mart, which came from the united food and commercial workers international union an organized in order to target big box retailers. not that they don't have the right to do this but it is not the story that you see everywhere in the need yaw that these are folks that walked off the job. bob, what do you think about that? do you agree with that? >> some of them are folks who walked off the job at great risk to jobs. some are union organizers. unions believe in solidarity. unions have been helping other workers organize unions as long as there is labor movement. we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the march on washington and people were accused back then being outside agitators and union staffers, union volunteers, marched arm in arm with dr. king. think that's a great thing.

hardly a story that union organizers go in and try to help organize unorganized workers. that is not news. melissa: katy, is it not a story? >> i think it is absolutely a story. this is, story we've seen every year for the last several decades where the ufcw and their parent company, afl-cio, or their parent union, the afl-cio, basically pay people to come out and pretend to be workers for all of these companies, pretend to protest bad conditions. and at the end of the day we find out they really are just paid union organizers, and very infrequently people, that actually have complaints with their jobs. >> oh, come on. melissa: bob, hang on. there is something really disingenuous, we've seen this with political campaigns lately. it is more than just people who sympathize coming out for support. if you're paying people to show up, and to protest, they're actors. >> wait a minute. thousands of fast-food-workers at peril to their jobs have taken a day off work --

melissa: but that is not what the reporters who wouldn't on front lines actually said. when you look in papers especially here in new york and look online to reporters that went to talk to people they had person after person where they said they didn't find workers out. it kind of makes sense. if you have 1,000 people in front after mcdonald's, 1,000 people don't work at the mcdonald's. >> bob knows very well these are not organic uprisings. melissa: bob, go ahead and respond to that. >> point is, these people are being paid a wage they can not live on. melissa: no, no we're talking about people outside. talk knee about the folks outside. >> these stores could very easily. melissa: bob, you have to answer the question. >> -- a living wage f you're saying some of the people on picket lines, i walk ad picket lines, some are sympathizers, some are organizers. melissa: i'm talking about folks paid to be there. that is disingenuous to the public. >> unions staffers, get a salary. they walk picket lines. melissa: that's not what we're

talking about. we're talking about people paid by the hour to be there. >> you're not telling your viewers that none of the people who walked out are actually union workers because that would not be true. melissa: i'm tell them that people outside when they see them on the news are paid to be there i don't know what the difference between that and being actor is. i'm not talking about salaries. talking about people paid by the hour. you go ahead. it is your turn. >> there is 1.4 million something like that union, i'm sorry, wal-mart associates across the country. and, it's, it's, not even a fraction, really of those that have been recruited by these union center organization to come out and sort of be propped up in front of crowds of paid protesters. that is what they are. these reporters are finding it out when they actually ask the question, are you a wal-mart associate? are you a mcdonald's worker? for the most part these are paid protesters. that is what it is. it is actors. bob knows it. we all know it. it is all for show for the press. and -- >> we don't all know it.

>> and i do think it damages the credibility of their argument. melissa: bob, does it damage the credibility or are they making a point is the reason they're out there anyways so it doesn't matter who it is protesting? maybe there should be truth in advertising? >> i can't believe that katy, is trying to spin this as david and goliath where david is wal-mart and goliath is minimum wage workers. that is just preposterous. >> that is absolutely not what i'm trying to suggest. what i'm trying to suggest these union center organizations are not necessarily out for the best interests of the workers of, you know, whether mcdonald's employees or wal-mart associates. these are not people that are seeking out our wal-mart to represent them. our wal-mart and other groups by similar names, for the last 20 years have been trying to come in and basically the workers have said look, we're just not that into you. but they pay people to come and protest. melissa: bob, give you the last word. what about that?

that is one side of the argument these unions whose ranks are dwindling and coming out to prey upon workers who frankly can't afford to pay union dues on top of trying to take care of their families? go ahead. give laws word. >> wal-mart workers get fired if they try to organize a union. they need all the help they can get. unions have been about solidarity 100 years. >> that is absolutely false. >> that is what the movement is all about. melissa: thanks to both of you for spirited debate. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. melissa: next on "money," forget goldman sachs. the government's new whipping boy is jpmorgan. now the bank may have no choice but to downside. charlie gasparino joins with us exclusive report. it is all the word on wall street. plus, 20 major companies are searching for a new ceo right at the same time. but is there enough money to get anyone to take the top job at jcpenney? we have an all-star panel to weigh in. do you ever have too much money?

♪

thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in with premium service like onef the best on-timdelivery records and a low claims rio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business.

od. helping the world keep promises.

♪ melissa: the whispers, rumors, hyped the scenes gossip we have it on "money." the jpmorgan, charlie gasparino reported it first, the nation's largest bank is looking to sell non-essential assets amid mounting regulatory pressure. charlie is here and mark can lab bra, cato institute. welcome to both of you. charlie, what is the story? >> we were reaching out yesterday to people at jpmorgan and today you saw one of those non-essential assets being shuttered. melissa: the student loan

business. >> they're out of the student loan business. got out of physical warehousing of commodities. couple weeks ago, there will be more. what is interesting about the story not that jamie dimon saying we're going to break up. he isn't saying that. we're not splitting investment banking from commercial banking a la glass-steagall. he is not saying yet there is a radical downsizing in the works, he saying something, you know him, we both interviewed him, he never said in the past, that jpmorgan is too big, that it needs to right size and needs to get down to essential elements and grow those businesses. that so me is kind of an interesting recognition -- melissa: a new message. that is a big shift you. >> know what he said in the past. our size is our strength. the fortress balance sheet. the fact we can be all things to all people. we can handle, you know, vodafone's, they're involvement, verizon vodafone business. we can handle all the loans. we can do the underwriting, we can be complete player in a deal and make a lot of money.

>> chinabebe biggest bank in the world. >> or deutsche bank. melissa: mark, what do you think about it? >> i think is more about complexity than size. they will focus on non-core assets of the business in my opinion small part of the balance sheet. melissa: that is what they're getting rid of. >> absolutely. i think they will potentially try to gee other things such as retail side, mortgage lending. i expect those things to become larger. i see this part of let's get rid of businesses that have become headaches that are relatively small. some of these such as commodity, i think with the direction of interest rates an monetary policy it is probably a good time to get out of commodities in general the. >> but they might turn around. >> and it may. i surely would not be one to try to pretend to pick the right part, top or bottom of any market cycle but i think for them it is good time to start to get out of this. i think this is part of the regulatory structure as well. we had inherent in dodd-frank, whole concept of living wills

was not trying to help a company fail but it was really attempt by regulators to force more simplicity on companies. melissa: okay. >> i think that is what you're going to get from jpmorgan. melissa: people inside jpmorgan there is no effort to fundamentally change the size of the bank? >> right now. right now. when i say fundamentally, what would be a fundamental change? you spin off your retail banking department. you, do something, you get rid of wealth management, which something like dick bove has suggested they do. dick bove has but i don't think that is in the cards. but i will say this i don't think jpmorgan or any of these banks have fully digested dodd-frank. they're starting to digest it now and these are the initial pains that are being felt as you digest the increased capital. as you, digest the massive amounts of scrutiny, the increased regulatory sort of investigations that come with any, when you are being scrutinized more. this is what happens initially. so don't rule out the fundamental change. i think anybody that rules out that banks get fundamentally

smaller is crazy because we were in uncharted territory. melissa: yeah, but mark, you think it could be a move not to make the bank smaller, but not to change sides, we're focusing on the wrong things, but it is about getting rid of things that just aren't making money, that it could be more valuable property, is that your point? >> that is part of my point and introduction of political risk of this. think about student lending. more an more to the point almost like mortgages where it will be expectation that you actually never get paid back. why be in that business, right? melissa: right. that is what we're getting to. >> you don't get your money back. >> they would call businesses like that hobbies. they make a few bucks. a lot of regulation. that's where you start. i'm telling you anybody that, here and tells me this is it, is out of their mind. i've been covering banking a long time. i've been covering the news aspect of banking, not the sort of, i'm not a prognosticator -- melissa: you think it is about politics. >> it is. we're in this bizarre political

environment. we're in a political environment where we have a justice department, when you have a ceo, they don't like, they go after you. you know. melissa: yeah. >> look at what s&p said. s&p is full of it halfway. they didn't do a very good job during the financial crisis but does anybody really doubt they're being targeted because they downgraded u.s. aaa? melissa: mark, last word, what is your final take on this? >> i absolutely think this is reaction to the politics. jpmorgan needs to look like they're doing something in response, regulation for banks, too big to fail. they're trying to find out how to do it in a way that is smart business for them and costs the least. at end of the day i think not by shrinking the company but by folks focusing the company and making it simpler. melissa: thanks to both of you. charlie a great story. next on "money,", from microsoft to jcpenney nearly 20 companies are on the hunt for a new ceo. does anyone actually want some of these gigs? which ones shouldn't be touched with a 10-foot pole and which

ones could prove to be a dream job. "piles of money" coming up. ♪

♪ melissa: new report from "the wall street journal" says that nearly 20 major companies are on of the hunt for ceos. sure, the positions come with a nice salary, but if the company is in a big enough mess, there may not be enough money in the world to get good talent. hear to way in with which companies they would run and which they would run from, james freeman from the "wall street journal", brian sasi, and scott martin from united advisors. gentlemen, thanks for joining us. this is my basic premise. some companies that are such a disaster even if they offer you a fortune to run it, if you can't turn it around you really tarnish your reputation. they say there is nowhere to go

but up in some of these companies, like jcpenney but yeah there is, you could go down further. scott, you pick one you would run from the very company i mentioned, jcpenney. how come? >> it is funny and not only ruin your reputation but waste time, wasting time on a bad company because i think that is what jcpenney is. i don't even think they would tell you, or they could tell you who their target audience is. certainly i think the general public does not know. therefore they don't go in the stores. secondly the brand itself just doesn't have any loyalty. it's a very tough business being in retail. we've seen that from this year. a lot of companies out there are struggling to sell to the consumer and the last thing is, they have tons of real estate. while they actually might save the company because the real estate depending what bank or investment bank you believe is worth 2 to 3 to $4 billion, the problem is nobody goes into stores anymore so it is useless. melissa: yeah. james, you know i was surprised, you picked verifone. there were a lot of dogs on this list. there was barnes & noble where you may try to run the company

but you have len over your shoulder telling what you to do all the time. founder in there really wreaking havoc what you want to do. martha stewart living omni media, same problem. people complain you have her in there, micro manning. >> she would no better than i would. melissa: you want your help. you should be running it. what about verifone? >> never or run from is just a little strong, to me that looks like a tough situation because you have a lot of really smart people engaged in reinventing the payment system. you've got the tech companies like square doing a lot of interesting things with mobile payments. then you've got bitcoin out there reinvicinitying money and how people transact around the world. i would rather be in one of up starts than the incouple ben in that business. melissa: okay, that makes sense. brian you said you would never take over microsoft. which is interesting because microsoft, i mean that, stepping into steve ballmer's shoes. they're kind after one-trick pony. they had a hard time in other

businesses. on the other hand they have a ton of money. would it really be that heart of a job? >> i want to have the same hairline as steve ballmer. i would take this job, but i did my hair and i'm not taking the gig. here is what will happen. you will come in and be under watchful eyes of bill gates the quadrillion air, the next three to six months and telling secrets to warren buffett on the golf course how your strategies aren't working. number two you will be exposed to the negative corporate culture inside microsoft. it's a losing culture. all the philosophies that you worked so hard to develop over the past 10 to 20 years to establish yourself as a key executive could be torn down. most importantly the company is set up to lose. even if they do split after assets like the street wants, does skype work on stand alone business? i'm not too sure. xbox is not even profitable. pc, no eyes on pc. you don't have a mobile strategy. lose, lose. melissa: james ironically you picked microsoft as company you would run. >> yeah i would like this opportunity. i'm declaring on your show my

eligibility to steve ballmer. i'm declaring for nba draft this year. melissa: good, good. >> with microsoft people forget how profitable this company is how much it is embedded in the american economy, the world economy. even if they haven't done brilliant things on the consumer end with mobile, everybody uses the office products, the corporate network, their 'em bedded there. melissa: yeah. >> you've a lot of room for error. it is trading cheaply right now. expectations are low and i think apple looks maybe less tough competitor in the post-jobs era. melissa: yeah? brian, why is he wrong about all that? >> expectations are not low because you will come in there, what happens when you're new ceo, normally given a honeymoon period. you have zero period on microsoft. wall street wants changes. they want asset sales and you to raise cash and do so many great things in mobile and unwind the mess microsoft has become because of ballmer moves and those moves also gaetz ultimately approved.

melissa: scott, you said you would take over pandora. >> yeah, i love pandora.

>> tell knee what you think about it. ♪ .

at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises.

i'm ♪ . melissa: call it the criminal gender gap. a new study shows women tend

to be more honest in the workplace. a few women who help others conduct fraud do it for little personal gain. i don't know if that is good. what makes women less likely to commit corporate crimes. we have susan ox. from aspen institute. we have a psychologist, dr. woody woodard and hadley heath from the independent women's forum. welcome to all of you. i will get a medical opinion to get us off here on the right food, dr. woody. three out of four conspiracies to commit corporate fraud were all male. there wasn't a single women involved, they say, i read this closely, they controlled for the fact that women are less representatived in higher ranks of work place. i'm not sure how they did that, but they claim it is not result of being less women higher up on the workforce. i don't know if i believe that. what is your take? >> first of all i'm a ph.d, psychologist. not quite medical opinion but psychologist opinion. melissa: very honest of you. get honesty points. >> i'm here to represent

honesty. i'm doing my best. keep in mind that, one of the things you mention, i don't know how well this is controlled for the opportunity for fraud because there are certainly, women are, not well-represented in the executive ranks which is what they're looking for here. the other thing to keep in mind, for the most part, we kind of nuture and rewarding a fwregs in men. and we tend to denigrate aggression in women, both in corporate america and certainly in the media. and so to be successful in corporate america and move up the ranks, what happens is, we tend to reward men for standing out, stepping on toes, bending rules and so it is no surprise once they get to the top they're more likely to do that type of behavior versus their female counterparts. melissa: sort of building on that point, flee of women in the group were identified as ringleaders in terms of criminals. 165 males were the ring leaders. to me does this say women are not criminals or we're not leaders?

i mean that was my takeaway. are we honest, or we can't get anyone to follow us into fraud? that is what i'm worried about. >> i love the fact that you're worried we can't get us to follow into fraud. i don't know. i love the fact even in crime women do not have pay parity. melissa: we're not reaping enough reward, ill-gotten gain. you're right. >> we did have a number of what you call high-profile or senior women who were involved in kind of, wrongdoing, recently. so there was a woman in mf global. was she the ringleader? probably not. she transferred the funds you will legally. the cfo of lehman brother was a woman. there are enough, sort of dotted along the way we have to be careful making two broad generalization. melissa: maybe those are the three we were talking about, i don't know. hadley, more than, i mean this goes to another point that susan just made. more than half the woman who

were involved in criminal acts made no profit, but 26% of the males earned between half a million and million dollars. 3% of the men made more than a million. so the bottom line is, the women weren't, who were involved, weren't even profiting. you know, not pay parity in crime either. >> well, i think the pay parity question is a different topic entirely. i think the wage differences that remain among men and women in the workforce are largely attributable to other --. melissa: don't take that question seriously, come on. i'm saying in this case that they're not, we're disempowered even in a financial crime setting. >> i don't feel disempowered. i think in terms of high-risk, high reward, men have higher tolerance for risk. this has more to do with risk tolerance than it has to do with honesty or dishonesty. there are gender based attitudes and behaviors that men exhibit and women exhibit in the workplace like outside of the workplace. melissa: okay.

>> these are consistent with other crime statistics. men are more likely to be criminals in every area of crime. >> what you're saying the glass ceiling is in full effect when it comes to corporate fraud sound like. the women who tend to get into it do it more for the company's sake in many instances than their own personal gain. to hadley's point, men tend to commit more crime overall. i think what we're looking at, one of the big challenges, what is leadership and how do we define that and how do we make it more maybe female friendly or how do we get away from too much --. melissa: we're encouraged to go into crime as well. susan, you want to address the point about the risk tolerance. i thought that was really interesting point. you don't think women have lower -- >> i don't necessarily correlate risk to illegal activity. i think that is a bit of a stretch to say any risk-taker takes risk of getting caught. i did want to challenge do women take the initiative. what also seen women are

less likely to be participating in the crime but more likely to call it out when they see it. i think that is different kind of personal risk. think about whistle-blowers of enron and worldcom, fbi scandal recently, several years ago they're the one who is step up and say something bad has been happening here. i don't think it is just about the glass ceiling and i don't think it is just about risk tolerance in the kind of traditional sense. melissa: you think we're just more honest? >> i do. melissa: hadley, what do you think about that? >> with any of these sort of statistical differences in studies between two gender groups they're interesting and reasonable to acknowledge their differences but shouldn't extend them to universal that all men are dishonest and all women are honest and that is not the case. best managers know how to find strengths and weaknesses for their workers and use those to the company's benefit. melissa: always fun to discuss. thanks to all three of you appreciate it. next on "money," it took a month to come up with this? yahoo! unveils the new logo after tons of hype.

can you tell the difference? don't think though that this can't change, no matter how small a company's future. just ask tropicana. it can make all the difference. we'll explain in "spare change." you can never have too much money. they changed the font. three seconds highlight it, boom, font changed. what's the deal? we'll be right back. ♪

♪ . melissa: time for a little fun with "spare change". today we're behind by david asman and heath. logos can make all the difference and sometimes none whatsoever. yahoo! changed its logo but

after tons of hype it barely did anything to it. look at that. i mean you can barely see the difference there. it is basically the same thing. they just changed the font, right? one company that knows all too well what a difference a logo makes. tropicana, five years ago it changed its packaging from the oranges with the straw to a sleeker look. and their sales dropped 20% in just one month. can you imagine? boy that guy got fired, right? they switched back to the old logo but not before spending millions on a campaign. do you guys think logos make a difference for a company's future? >> i think well, the oj is a perfect example. the one on right looks lousy. it looks like from concentrate kind of brand. on the other hand --. melissa: this is my thing with this i think it looks like a plain wrapper version in the store. as mom that shops for orange juice and stuff i would go right past that. >> i did bring a little show-and-tell with me, sometimes you spend a lot of money for not a lot.

this is the dow jones logo. i was working at dow jones, they owned at the time "the wall street journal" when they made this new logo. cost a million bucks. a million bucks for this? this is a scam. melissa: just changed the font. >> like yahoo!. it's a scam. >> you see the same thing happening with bp, for example. wasn't that the most costly logo ever been made, around 212 million dollars to rebrand that. but you have to think about the fact reason why they wanted to rebrand is get away from all that crisis that happened, the hurricane ha happened couple years ago. melissa: giant, explosion and oil spill disaster. >> that one. melissa: that big disaster. they want to get away from that. tropicana was not trying to distance themselves, right? >> no. they want ad fresher look. in the case of yahoo! i think with the new ceo, marisa mayer has a new outlook and more sleeker. maybe it will generate more interest. >> there are industries created around corporations that are scam industries. logo makers.

management consultants. a big article i think in the "new york times" how mckenzie and company, you pay them 10 million bucks to do something that any, your 7-year-old son could have thought of. lawyers, lawyers. practically all lawyers are scam artists. got a lot of accountants are. there is a whole series. melissa: big broad generalization about whole groups of people. >> these guys, who make up these are one of them. melissa: wow! okay. well that was very insightful. we'll end on that point. new yahoo! -- >> can make millions as a scam artist. melissa: up next, who made money today? sure he got tossed to the street but very company he founded but he is making 10 of millions from it today. we'll have the answer right after this. you can never have too much money. ♪ thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future...

by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it.

if then schwab is the placeing your trato trade. higher level, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-888-577-5750 or visit schwab.com/trading to tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 learn how you can earn up to 300 commission-free online trades tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 for six months with qualifying net deposits. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 see how easy and intuitive it is to use tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 our most powerful platform, streetsmart edge. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 we put it in the cloud so you can use it on the web. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and trade with our most advanced tools tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 on whatever computer you're on. can use it on the web. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 also, get a dedicated team of schwab trading specialists tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 who will help you customize your platform tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 even from the comfort of your home. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550

and talk about ideas and strategies, one on one. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 get all this with no trade minimums. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and only $8.95 a trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-888-577-5750 or visit schwab.com/tradi tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 to open an account. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and learn how you can earn up to 300 commission-free tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 online trades for six months with qualifying net deposits. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 our trading specialists are waitg to help you get started. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so call now. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550

melissa: here's to make money today. anyone who owns group on. andrew mason got pushed down earlier this year. but now they are turning the groupon business around. 45 million shares are owned by him, that means that he made $60 million today. meanwhile, anyone who loses won't be losing much. and spending more money today, anyone buying a home. treasury yields weaving their way into mortgage rates. 30 year fixed rate is back.

%-have for you. money that we we will see you back here tomorrow. don't forget franchise friday is my favorite. "the willis report" is next. gerri: tonight on "the willis report". buy a bigger home and get a cheaper one. it's really happening. we are watching out for you tonight on "the willis report." ♪ ♪