thank you very much again. all we know is that five years after bailouts, tomorrow we will be o liz: foxbusiness.com will have european and asia markets. now it is "money." melissa: i'm melissa francis. here's what's "money" tonight. have you been funding terrorism without even knowing it? if you have shopped or done business in this building, then yes. feds make the biggest terror-related seizure in history. a skyscraper in midtown manhattan. we'll follow the money where else this could be going on right under the government's nose. plus starbucks ceo ceo's customers to stop bringing guns into its store. is it a brilliant move for business or will it put a hole in starbuck's bottom line? your all-star panel is ready to fire away. they have been having a rough few months. they should buy ben bernanke a drink after today.

watch for the answer. even when they say it's not it is always about money. melissa: we have a big money shocker tonight. what do citigroup, starwood hotels and godiva have in common? they're under one roof linked to iranian money laundering. this is on fifth avenue, right no the heart of midtown. they are accused funneling building a's rent money to iran. while our post is focused on negotiating the crisis in syria over there, we were funding terror right here at home. now the feds are seizing the building. prosecutors say it is the biggest government forfeit tour in u.s. history. here with how it all happened, former federal prosecutor, fed tee see. welcome back to the show. >> thanks for having me,

melissa. melissa: do you think there is more of this going on than we imagine? >> i would think it would be pretty naive to think it is not. we've had crippling sanctions against iran for years. people will do what they can to get money. this case alone the government is out to seize seven different assets from california to texas to maryland. i think it would be unreasonable to think not going on in other places and obviously the u.s. attorney's office in new york is committed to finding out where it is and following the money. melissa: doesn't seem like it was that circuitous of a route to find the money. this was owned by assa corporation. they say it's a front for the banks of meli which is a front for government of iran. it wasn't that circuitous. why was it allowed to go on? why was it not more obvious in the first place? >> unfortunately, melissa, i tell my clients all the time in civil litigation, which is what this is, moves at a glacier's

pace. even in this case where the government ruled for the judge they were entitled to matter of law, i.e., we're not having a trial, the other sides were still yelling and criming, no, no, we're not ready to go yet. but the judge smartly saw through that and finally moved the case forward "juno" there are retail facilities in the bottom of this. i have been there there is a big juicy coutre' store which is a clothing store. there is a godiva chocolatier. so is starwood hotels. they collected $39 million of rent during the period they were looking at it between 1999 and 2007. that is profits from the stores that went directly in rent money to the company that owns the building which is iranian bank and iranian government. >> right. that is exactly what happened. this may come as a surprise to you, i don't shop in juicy coutre'. melissa: you may have family members that do. >> i may but highly unlikely.

melissa: okay. >> we have one here in philadelphia while i was looking it up. i didn't know that until 10 minutes ago. the point is this, your point is yes. when you go to proscutorial school, first thing they teach you follow the money. that is exactly right what you're doing. this money went to the guys who ultimately funneled it into a bank in iran and in fact helped iran effectuate terrorism. here is the great irony this of. also as plaintiffs in this are a group of people who have a judgment against iran already for acts of terrorism. they stand to benefit from the seizure of this asset. so, look, these tenants are basically innocent bystanders in a much bigger game. they pay rent to the owners who ultimately were found to funnel money to iran. the government will take it. they will seize it. i would be amazed if this case gets overturned on appeal. they will sell the property hopefully at top of the market i understand to be very hot, subject to leases and subject to all these agreements. it will be business as usual on

fifth avenue. >> you know, so they're saying the building is worth somewhere between 500 and $700 million. it is really prime property. we've been looking at it. obviously an enormous building. it's a great retail to the spot. there are a lot of offices in there paying a high rent. how exactly is the money divided up? do the feds keep any part of it? there is the flipside where you worry about the feds seizing property and redistributing it. in this case obviously the iranian government they're taking money from but who knows who is next with them. >> you always worry about that. i can tell you in different circumstances for law enforcement when the fed seizes assets like yachts, boats, cars they keep them to continue the quote-unquote, war on drugs. in this case it is a little bit different. the feds will seize this property, from what i understand statements from the u.s. attorney's offce they will sell it and divide mooney among witnesses. there is victim witness protection act. that dictates how the fed is supposed to divvy up the money

to people who were victims of terrorism of iran. they're saying they are going to do that i'm willing to take them at their word. melissa: it is interesting. there are seven other properties they know of this group owns and makes you wonder are there buildings owned by the syrian government, north korea. who else are we funding with our builds here in the u.s.? it's a story we'll definitely keep our eye on, fred, thank you so much. >> watch the money. melissa: follow the mom knit. next on "money," new rules force ceos to compare salaries with their employees. should executive pay be up to shareholders? steve forbes joins our roundtable on the power of money. plus the fed stuns the street today. it won't pull back on quantitative easing anytime soon but do people even know what that is? we take to the streets to get the answers. more "money" coming up. >> no, haven't a clue. i would say something too with light statistics or some

♪ melissa: what is the difference between a ceo and every other worker that he or she manages? well, a lot of money and the sec wants everyone to know exactly

how much. new rules were released today that would require companies to disclose how ceo compensation stacks up against the average worker in his or her company. it all comes down to the power of money. hear to weigh in, are forbes media chairman steve forbes. harvard university's jeff mir ran and economist peter morici. well come to the show all of you. steve force, let me start with you. what does this achieve in your mind? >> all this achieves trying to have companies pay workers more in terms of what ceo gets it is determined by marketplace whether in sports or people that run a major enterprise. until somebody becomes a ceo, as in sports you don't know if they work out or not. if they work out they're cheap at any price and if they don't they're expensive at any price. you don't know until you put them in a real top spot. melissa: jeff, they made the point that the american worker has gone from a ratio of 195 to

1, ceo pay to the average worker in 1993 to 354 to 1 in 2012. both of those ratios sound enormous. there's a giant gap between what the ceo is making and what the average person was. do those numbers mean anything this average person? if it is gone up from 350 to 1, to, 195 to 1, those are outrage just numbers. >> i don't know what those numbers are supposed to mean. melissa: right. >> i don know if they're outrage just or not. as long as there is marketplace where ceos can do all the time and have to compete with other ceos that have to be more talented, market determines what ceos get and what average worker gets. forcing companies to disclose this is a silly waste of time. if markets want it, shareholders, creditors, want to know it, they will force companies to release it. apparently they don't care very much which is why there are very

few requirements to this. melissa: what sus the sec put time into this? are ceos makeing a lot more or a lot, lot, lot more? this is ridiculous. >> dodd-frank law requires them, the sec to collect this information, or require that the companies publish it. and i don't know that it is such a bad idea to require transparency of this kind so shareholders can see what the top executives are paid. if the market determines it in its all appropriate what is there to hide? melissa: well, because they can see what they're paid but by making them quantify the difference and relationship, putting that ratio out there, to me it seems like it is class bating. they're trying to make the point that it's a giant multiple. the ceo is makeing a giant multiple of what the average worker is. of course they are, in one case you're steering an entire company. you're responsible for absolutely everyone. you're responsible for the whole business, entire revenue stream, future of the company and the other person who is making

single salary is responsible for that one little job underneath, right, steve? >> well, yes. the key is, you have all kinds of workers in an enterprise. you could have a company that has a lost entry level workers. or a restaurant business. you have a lot of people part-time or people making just above the minimum wage. so the key is that, really get different patterns for different industries. and the key thing is, is there a real marketplace? one thing that was mentioned by the professor from harvard is was very correct and that is the turnover of ceos is increasing. longevity is declining. it is a very hot spot these days. melissa: peter, you seem miffed there, you didn't get back in. i want to let you comment. what did you want to say here? >> i think there is some value in this. i think there is also not just comparing them to workers but by publishing the information we see how the u.s. economy for example, stacks up to the german and japanese economies. it is very useful information that we're paying hospital

executives many more multiples in the united states than they pay in germany but yet they have better health care outcomes. how can you justify for example, paying a detroit ceo, many more multiples of a what his employees earned than say the ceo at toyota or at honda where they're doing so much better than we are? i think this is, silly to say they shouldn't have to publish this information. now, to regulate it, well, that gets into another area. to say they can't earn mor than a certain amount. but i don't think this should be kept hidden and so forth. , my salary is published steve. you can look it up. you can go to the university of maryland, look it up. >> the salaries of ceo's of publicly held company are all out there in the makeup of their pay. when shareholders have a chance to vote on it, they think they have enough disclosure. so this is just class bating of first order. getting around the fact the government has policies out there that are not enabling this economy to grow to the full

potential. don't blame that on ceos. melissa: jeff what do you think about all that? >> i would respond to peter by saying that while transparency is probably a good thing, this sort of regulation, and certain if we ever got to actual caps on ceo compensation would reduce transparency. it would simply induce companies to compensate ceos they really want in ways to avoid whatever rules the sec writes. melissa: that's a great point. >> it would make it harder to figure out who is highly compensated and who is not. makes the marketplace -- melissa: peter, ceos in a different way not in direct ratio of their salary or cash compensation you can give them other things so the ratio looks better and that is what is going to happen as a result of this rule? >> well i think a lot of this will be gamed and that is problematic. i think companies should be required to disclose all of the compensation in any form they give a ceo. it was kind of remarkable that we only leaed all the things jack welch was getting when he

got involved in a divorce. melissa: right. >> in process of discovery, i don't think that was fair to g e-share holders that was done that way. melissa: okay. >> that his compensation was hidden. melissa: steve, is that is what is important to g e-share holders or what was important to them how the stock was doing, the stock performance and you vote on whether you like the way the company is performing or not and you vote by keeping your shares or selling your shares? >> that's right. and you have, with that disclosure, whether a guy gets an extra apartment or not, that should be disclosed but the key thing under welch's tenure ge did very well. that is what shareholders are interested. same thing is true in baseball. player may get at love money but if you win the world series you think it is money well-spent. melissa: jeff i give you the last word. is this just the beginning showing ratio? what is next. >> that is my fear in response to one of peter es points, disclosure by itself should not be a big deal because it is not

the same as limits and capping them outut. i think this is the next step. as this stuff is forced to reveal the next steps we'll put limits on ceo compensation relative to average worker compensation and that will be way more destructive than the disclosure. melissa: we'll leave it there. grea panel. thank you so much. next on "money," ben bernanke makes investors dreams come true. the fed stimulus measures are not going anywhere. was janet yellen pulling the strings here? do average americans know what it is anyway? we had to find out. the results may surprise you. do you ever have too much money? >> quantitative, there is like an amount and then easing, so it will like let down. so they will slowly let it down. when we made our commitment to the gulf, bp had two big goals:

help the gulf recover and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do.

we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, whe experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger.

♪ melissa: so the market is marveling at the news that the fed is not slowing down its bond-buying measures but does that mean much to the average american? we took to the streets to see if people even know what quantitative easing actually is. listen to your fellow americans here. >> what is quantitative easing? >> i have no idea. >> quantitative easing asoning? or what is it? >> there is like an amount and then easing. so it will like let down. so they will slowly let it down. >> i don't know. i don't know. >> the fed buying bond and mortgage-backed securities to lower interest rates for everybody. melissa: ding, ding, ding. the last guy got it. it took a while but we found someone who knew what it was. i want to bring in jonathan hoenig from capitalist pig

management and james freeman from "the wall street journal." wow. you jonathan you heard that start with you. almost no one knew what we were talking about. >> yes. melissa: that one guy at the end got it, which i was really impressed. one guy originally you didn't see from beginning of the show was thinking of quantum mechanics or quantum physics trying to tie itnto something else. does this concern you at all? >> well, you know we've had government intervention. that is really what quantitative easing is, melissa. melissa: yeah. >> it is government manipulation of the economy of interest rates. we've had it so long in this country back to the earliest part of the 20th century, most people assume that it does go on and go on all the time even if they're not particularly aware of this exact initiative from the fed. what they don't know however, since the fed was created, dollar lost roughly 95% of the its value. they should be aware of that, especially days like today when you see the fed announcing they will keep going with that quantitative easing. what do we see? the dollar take as big hit. it is affecting them even though

they don't know exactly what it juice it is affecting them without question. the stock market did a huge jump for joy when they found out the fed would not put the genie back in the barrel, the bottle. what is distressing about the fact that nobody knows what it is. there was a new poll that 27% of amicns what quantitative easing is is. that is very high. 27%, i don't believe that. i think number is a lot lower who know what this is. this is a whole new venture for the fed that they are not stopping anytime soon. what is the implication of the fed they're not stopping anytime soon? >> i think the joke, once you figure out what quantitative easing means you can't figure out what money means anymore because this is a massive expansion of their balane sheet. it went from -- melissa: and their power. went from a little under a trillion before the crisis. five years later quadrupled that, basically. i think it is a little distressing because you hoped they were starting to pull back. we're a long way from the crisis now.

the fed did its job putting in liquidity. you want them to start to pull back and find a way out of this. now janet yellen possibly the next fed chair, although some people would say roger ferguson is better, safer pick for the president. but i think you do wonder how are -- melissa: i haven't even heard that name in the ring, roger ferguson? >> he is least objectionable choice may end up being default there. melissa: okay. >> obviously still most of the chatter is about janet yellen. melissa: jonathan, that is one of the big questions that was thrown out there today that this was a pretty big surprise, almost no, a couple of people out there, i said it. i knew they weren't going to taper. the vast majority as you see from the reaction from the market did not expect the fed to say this today. some are wondering did janet yellen have more influence over this decision than she normally would because she's maybe the one who is left holding the bag afterwards? >> well, i think people were surprised, melissa. they were surprised that now to

jim's point, five years after the crisis we haven't yet learned lessons from the last crisis. that is, what can happens when thervenes in the economy. david: ie, inflating thing bubble. just five oust out of that collapse we're again creating new bubbles from the economy. people look at stock market today say, this is great. asset prices are up. i'm making money. what they don't see is malallocation of wealth and inflation being created. might be under the surface, not see it yet but that is exactly what is created from the -- government causes it. not the private sector. melissa: that is a big point of debate. people say it is creating inflation, it is dangerous. people are saying those people are crazy, there is no inflation in sight. is jonathan hoenig -- a lunatic? >> i don't think it is crazy. it is dangerous but i think those of us who have been concerned have to say so far it is hard to see signs of inflation.

you know that is the not the only problem. the other big problem what they're doing is enabling heavy debt and deficits, keeping interest rates low for this long. melissa: great point. >> it is really made politicians not have to face a reckoning on spending doesn't it also say the economy is a lot weaker than the president would have you believe than, you know, people who are saying how much all of this has helped and how far we've come? no we haven't. apparently the economy isn't living up to even the fed's very, very limited expectations. jonathan? >> yeah, after all the intervention, forget even the trillions of dollars put into the entitlement programs and green energy subsidies. melissa, even after all the fed intervention in the economy we still have unemployment rate stubbornly above that 7:00%. it has been -- 7%, it has been above that level for the so-called recovery and remains above that level. if you take the fed's metric we have to get below 6.5%. it will remain at that level for

quite some time. melissa: thanks so much. these guys will stick around because up next, bring your guns someplace else. starbucks's ceo asking customers to stop packing heat in the store. this is the biggest story of the day, unless you're living under a rock. this is what everyone's talking about. he said, to put your guns away. is that going to put starbucks out of business or put a big dent in business? we have an all-star panel locked and loaded for today's big money talker. plus "who made money today?" they have had every reason to sell their investment in recent months but if they held on to it they're feeling absolutely golden today. oh, that was a big hint. we have the answer coming up. "piles of money" straight ahead. ♪

melissa: no matter what time it is, "money" is always on the move. mcdonald's investors will soon

be getting more of it. hiking the dividend to $0.81 per share. the increase will cost mcdonald's $160 million per year. you can see investors not really reacting to it yet. they are still pondering. starbucks taking the second amendment off the menu. asking caffeine lovers to leave their guns at home before ordering the cappuccino. i guess a caffeine is too much. the ceo says a gourmet coffeehouse won't actually bar customers from carrying guns, but it is about as strongly discouraged as the full fat latte. here are 2:00 a.m., james friedman and jonathan hoenig. fox news contributor. we have republican strategist also a fox news contributor. what do you think about this one? i will let you go first. he did not ban guns, they are

not even putting up a sign. he basically published a letter saying there has been a lot of incidents and the kids buying coffee are scared, so please don't bring a gun into our restaurant. what is your reaction? >> he made the announcement at a pretty bad time. a lot of antigun groups and advocacy people for gun control seizing on this tragedy at the naval yard on monday, suggesting now we have to renew the gun-control debate and the ceo drops this news today and has nothing to do wh gun-control or liberal agenda and while he has been associated with it in the past now trying to pretend this has nothing to do with his political position. it is not crazy for me as a new yorker to think you shouldn't have a gun at a coffee shop, however there are parts of this country where it is common to carry a gun as it is a wallet. up until this point starbucks had a decent policy to observe the laws whatever state or local

jurisdiction they were in. this will probably get them into some hot water with some of their customers. melissa: we put this question out this morning and i was blown away by the number of responses and things people said. one person said howard put a small sign on the door and stay out of it. this seems political to you? what do you think? >> starbucks is a business. he is going to make the best decision he thinks for the business and for the brand. this is a property rights issue, not even a gun issue. he could ban guns outright from the stores completely, but he is simply asking customers not to bring them into his stores and customers should comply, they should respect his property rights and his wishes as a company to not bring the weapons in. melissa: if they are not watching television, how do they

even know? if it sincerely was just this is for what is going on in our various restaurants and shops, he would post it there. instead of posting it or telling his workers to say somebody with a gun can you take that outside, instead he is making a political statement putting a letter out there. if you are just a regular person, we don't even know this is going on. >> the timing of it responding to a pr firestorm after an event does not look like it was necessarily the result of a serious thoughtful process. i am not sure it is a bad move commercially for him. you look at the starbucks crowd, you don't think tea party when you think of that brand. melissa: depends on what part of the country. >> a lot of obama voters at whole foods, but probably at the margins speaking to his audience. it is dangerous to announce this

is a gun free zone melissa: is that clamoring to get back in here? >> i am a card-carrying nra member. i am an advocate. those who support the second amendment are turning starbucks and these protest zones. that is what he is trying to get in front of. a lot of advocates basically using these stores to push their political cause. he says we don't want to get into politics. melissa: is that a way to address it? there are number of starbucks locations around the country where people have come in, have an open carry space where they have had their weapons where people can see them. claimant somebody came in with a shotgun and making this statement i'm allowed to do this and they have made starbucks a political place by doing this and that is what he is in.

are you buying it? >> no, antigun groups are hailing his decision using it for their own advantage. you cannot evaluate this that understanding the record of the ceo. he has been on leftist issues for quite some time. he came out strongly in favor of gay marriage and said to one of his shareholders we don't want your money if you have a problem with my position. this is not exactly a clean slate for this guy. he has a preconceived agenda, that is why mix with what happened this week at the navy yard it is not too difficult to connect the dots and say this is part of antigun agenda. melissa: it did low up the whole dialogue about this. other comments that were great from our viwers, wonder if starbucks will be okay for a gun carrying police officer to enter its store after it has been robbed. somebody else saying rather cleverly that is a tip for criminals to rob the place. go ahead. >> a lot of these tragedies have

been in places you know the targets are not armed. that is one of the reasons these tragedies have often been so big. i'm not sure it is irresponsible message to say my customers are never packing. >> not surprising a lot of the folks commenting on twitter have not read his statement where he is visibly talks about of law enforcement of course are able to bring weapons into his store. melissa: he makes that point, says we will not make this a big issue, we will not serve people who come in, and we don't want where there are open carry laws, or just asking you politely not to because it changes the environment basically. i think that is what he said. >> so what is the point? how many people actually read these type of letters? have the store manager tell somebody, why are we getting involved in this in such a

national way? it is clearly a political move. politics with gun-control is hardly partisan. it is very regional. i am sure somebody in texas was a democrat things differently than me. melissa: great discussion, guys. hank you very much. time to check the fuel gauge report. a tanking u.s. dollar helped fuel the rally crude settled up 2.5%. given the green light to california's new fuel standards requiring a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of fuel by the year 2020. farforeman oil industry groups e sued alleging it discriminates against ethanol producers for the court says the new regulations won't unfairly hurt them. libya's oil production making a big comeback. mass strikes brought output to a

standstill for weeks ago but agreement between them and the standoff earlier this week. production has recovered. john stossel says stop whining. he says technology is still the best hope to prevail and joins us with a special report to prove it. at the end of the day it is all about money and john stossel and starbucks.

♪ melissa: new technologies are usually welcomed news but there are those who fear innovation. the government has that annoying tendency to stand in the way with things like pesky

regulations and taxes, they love taxes. john stossel says stop whining. we live in an innovation nation that makes everything better. with me now, mr. john stossel himself. melissa: you are just saying to stop whining about technology. >> embrace technology. melissa: one place to embrace technology, space. that was the frontier of the government. they took us to the moon, always doing the next thing in space. all of a sudden firing of a rocket for anybody who wants to buy one. this becoming a private industry. do we love this, do embrace it, do we fear it? >> for years it was just assumed space is something only government can do like people think what education or much of health care retirement. and then they had private entrepreneurs put up $10 mlion

to anybody who could put people in orbit twice and people found cheaper ways to do it and succeeded. and then he comes up with his rockets, so his client mostly is the government. melissa: still a way for the private industry to do it at a better cost, so maybe it is the evolution of letting the private industry in the space. we really see the issue, we feel there are some things the government must do because it is inherently dangerous. expensive, who is going to invest besides the government the only one putting the cost in. >> some erase all this money to send people to mars and people just contribute. they say i like this idea, i will help or i would like to be included as a possible passenger. melissa: maybe pick somebody you would like to send to mars.

take this person so you know what, i would like to someday send you to mars and it is worth investing. another thing, 3d printing. you saw this especially in the media, 3d printing was coming out instead of saying this is a fantastic thing people were thinking somebody can print a weapon and hurt somebody else. so it is no good. one guy on texas, cody wilson i believe he did, called it the liberator, post the formula on the website, the government ordered him to take it down but by then it had been downloaded 100,000 times so it is already out there. i sent a guy to go and try it out. melissa: you dove right into danger. you send somebody else out to go

get in the way of danger and see what it was the government was afraid of. >> cody wilson said he did this to make a certain point. the cor court is out of the bot. >> the gun is printable. >> this magazine is cheap to make, anybody can make it. it is now with us forever. it is no longer effective. >> the idea of gun-control will not work if anybody can print a gun. melissa: we talked about it a lot on the show, people get nervous about thi bit coin. >> is that true of dollar bills? i trust i us because it is not regulated. i don't trust the politicians with my dollars. i bought bit coin because i believe they will devalue the

dollar. melissa: this is $100 trillion. what can you buy with it? >> nothing. this is what happens when government prints more money. $100 trillion in zimbabwe. melissa: the dollar is not safe with what the fed is doing and bit coin. thank you, i love it, good stuff. catch all this and more in his special innovation nation tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on fox business. next on "money" dealing with e-mails is bad enough but what if you had to reply to everyone you got within two hours even on weekends. reply to every e-mail within two hours? i'm going to see if you respond. one ceo imposes the rule on

himself. wilwill businesses follow his l? you can never have too much "money," but you can have too much e-mail, i think.

melissa: it is time for little e fun with "spare change." thanks to both of you for coming on. we all get enough e-mail every day, but what is a reasonable response time? the ceo of lpl financial is setting his own rule saying no more than two hours even on weekends and holidays.

his answer too many advisors then the company was not doing a good job communicating. is it drastic or doable and should they make employees follow the same rules? this is something he is setting for himself but it is bound to trickle down. >> his company was just find $7.5 million for mismanagement in light of tremendous growth. my employees at my law firm would never stick to a two hours rule. as hard as they might try, they are too busy. but if you made it a rule and said to people you're going to get in trouble if you don't respond within two hours people would have to at least try to comply. >> this is an absolutely horrible idea. first of all, a ceo is not domino's pizza. second of all, this is a lame use of a ceo's time. 13,000 financial advisors, the

promises response to any e-mail in two hours? think if you had to respond to everything we know you get every day within two hours, you would never get anything else done. melissa: a lot of times a nonresponse is a response in and of itself. if you ask a manager above you something and they don't respond, we are telling you something by not responding. >> this is symbolism and optics for actual action. these advisors were upset i did not have good tools or a mobile app. come out with new services, not an image thing. melissa: you are right, that is a great point. we are going to look into that. >> now that he is so we're going to do that, how many people are e-mailing him trying to test him and challenge him? melissa: it does speak to a larger concept where you are expected to respond to e-mails

even at nights and weekends at work. >> how often have any of us got into fights with a romantic partner because you did not write back in time. it is a huge burden. >> you are taking is in a different direction. >> you're saying excuse me every five minutes because you have respond to a work e-mail. melissa: we are all expected, if your device is paid for by your office you are expected to be responding. yes or no? >> no. people can wait. we can assess what needs instant response and what can wait. overall, all of us can wait. we need to slow down. melissa: somebody waiting outside the studio to fire you, i will give you the last word. >> excuse me while i send a work e-mail. we had to know when it is appropriate and when it is not.

melissa: thank you, guys. who made money today? they probably want to buy ben bernanke's dinner tonight. we have the answer right after this. you can never have too much "money."

♪ melissa: weathers on wall street or main street, her here's who e money today. anybody who owns u.s. treasury bonds. a big march up over the past few months hammering the bond values. the fed's decision for the 10-year treasury yield nosedived down 16 basis points. at its lowest yield in more than a month. also making money, everybody who owns boeing.

approximately 3000 workers will lose their jobs as part of the downsizing but t news not doing any damage to the stock shares. stocks rallied to an all-time high. making epic amounts of money. grand theft auto five, the numbers are in from the first day of sales scoring $800 million worldwide. that is the biggest debut of all time. even top the total haul man of steel we had amazing. that is all we have for you, i hope you made money today. be sure to watch more of my interview with trans canada president. all about the keystone xl pipeline. transcanada is building tomorrow marking the five year anniversary since the initial request for approval. will it ever get the green light? right here tomorrow at 5:00 p.m.

have a great night. "the willis report" is coming up next. the following is a paid advertisement for the best of the carol burnett show dvd collection. (tarzan yell) you laughed with her... you sang with her... you cherished your time with her... "who...me?" there's no star in hollywood more loveable... more talented... more entertaining than carol burnett. carol's legendary variety show won 25 emmys, and all of our hearts. it's as hilarious and spectacular today as it was the first time we saw it...