>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin with sam mendes, a man whose directing skills extend from james bond to "cabaret." >> although you and i have grown up under the shadow of marxism, there is one generation further away from the holocaust and i think it asks the question, the only important question, you could argue, the most important question to have the 20th sen 20th century, how could it have happened? and it does it in a way that's breath takingly theatrical. it remains the only show that when it closed i missed it and wanted it to come back and that's why i'm doing it. >> charlie: we continue with bob greifeld, the c.e.o. of nasdaq. >> the analysis of the market has to be data driven, it's not a storytelling, and i compliment

the sec for the rules they made. when you talk about the decrease of trading in the markets in the last 19 years, you have to take credit for that. we as an exchange have to make sure that we give equal access to all investors in our marketplace. that's our primary responsibility. >> charlie: and conclude with howard schultz, chairman and c.e.o. of starbucks. >> well, this was an adventure. all of it could only happen in america. people have said that many, many times. i am the quintessential entrepreneurial story growing up on the other side of the tracks and here i am. it's almost hard to believe. i think what it says was i was willing to take some risks, i was willing to put myself out there and i also learned early on success would be best if shared. >> charlie: mendez, greifeld and schultz when we continue.

>> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> charlie: sam mendes is here, and i am very happy about that. he is an oscar and tony award winning director. this vaccines he brings "cabaret" back to broadway, also featured in a new documentary about the 10-month tour of his production on richard iii, other projects king leer, charlie and the chocolate factory on stage in london and the 24th bond film he will be directing, due in 2015. he is a very busy man. and why not? welcome back. >> thank you, charlie. >> charlie: let me just talk about all the projects because you are really involve in fascinating projects. first, broadway "cabaret." why are you so hell-bent on continuing to give us one production after another of "cabaret"? (laughter) >> that's a good question. it's very rare for me, anyway. you embrace the transitory

nature when you do it. this production has been part of my life 21 years. i did it first in london. >> charlie: '86? '92. it's 22 years old. when we turned the theater into a cabaret club. >> charlie: that was your big idea, wasn't it? >> my only idea, really. i started with that idea and then discovered -- we went on kind of a journey discovery like in any play, and it was a very useful and thrown-together, almost a sketch. and if i'd known it would have led to this relationship that lasted nearly two decades, i think i would have been frozen. but it's a good example of how you're working in that kind of freedom and there's no pressure that something interesting happens, and it's developed. it's changed. it came to new york in round-about theater in the late '90s. alan cummings is the one constant in these productions. >> charlie: right.

he's joined me in all these journeys. but it's not odd for me, charlie, because the production is also other lives during that time. the last time i saw it was not on broadway when it closed but in paris when i ran in 2006-2007. the irony is we tried to make the dome look like paris and it ended up there which is an incredible place, under the private cabaret created for the nazis during the occupation. >> charlie: but what is it? obviously, opportunity presents incentive. what is it about this play "cabaret"? is it that special that it is redone? >> it is special. it is very rare. for me, i'm not a huge fan of musicals in the sense i love all musicals. i think certain piece of musicals are classics and worth

holding up against the great classics of the 20th century. sweeny todd and "cabaret" is equal to death of a salesman or whatever. ultimately, i believe it's one of the great explosions of marxism and the rise of marxism in the form of a perfect metaphor, which is the nightclub. it asks a lot of fundamental questions, although you and i, perhaps, have grown up under the shadow of marxism, it is one generation further away from the holocaust and i think it asks the question -- i read an article the other day -- the only important question, the most important of the 20t 20th century, how could it have happened? and it does it in a way that is breathtakingly theatrical. it remains the only show that

when it closed i missed it and i'm brig it back to do it again. >> charlie: did you say, one caveat, you have to find -- or i have to find the right sally. >> i think that's a given. there were a very small list of people i was interested in and one said yes which is michelle williams, who is absolutely wonderful. >> charlie: what were you looking for in sally? >> she's a confounding creature and difficult to cast. you want someone who's fundamentally a great actress and also very vulnerable on some level but who has the strength and courage to sing and dance but is not a trained singer/dancer, because you're playing a character who is not a professional, who is not perfect, whose desires and wishes are above her talents. i'm not talking about the

actress, i'm talking about the character. that's a difficult balance to strike. i thought she was wonderful for a long time. i remember seeing her in the movie about the two girls obsessed with dick nixon, called dick in the late '90s, i thought she was magic. >> charlie: alan, there's just nobody else to play that role. >> he's made it his own in the way joel gray made it his own in the '60s and '70s through the original production. but for now, it's alan. it's not just the way he handles individual numbers, it's the entire production is because we flip it and because the piece takes place in the nightclub and we create the nightclub at studio 54 which was once upon a time a theater and turned into a nightclub. it's because he governs the entire show. the rhythm of the evening is dictated by him, whereas in the original production, the nightclub acts were set within a body of a slightly more

traditional piece of broadway stage craft. but i say this, every time, this production would not be without hal prince. in the '60s, there was a musical about the rise of marxism, basically two failed love affairs. that's the piece. two couples who fall in love and can't be together because of the snazi. that was very, very daring and it's come into its own as time goes on. >> charlie: did you co-direct this with rob marshall? >> rob arrived with the broadway production in 1987 and need add healthy dose of proper choreography and sho showbiz and clarity. >> charlie: rob with chicago knows how to do that. >> right. and there are certain similarities. there's the sense in which the numbers in chicago, you know, occupy fantasy, a territory of

fantasy which is a nightclub, not dissimilar to the nightclub in "cabaret." it fed us in various directions. >> charlie: talk about king leer which is in production as we speak. >> well, there's a lot to talk about. >> charlie: i want your production and why he is the right person to do leer for you. >> well, i've had a relationship with simon. i've done nine plays with simon. this is the ninth play. we graduated from richard iii to yargo and played right through to king leer and it was a relationship that ultimately would arrive at leer which is seen as a pinnacle. i'm not a big fan of pinnacle and peak and people talk about leer as being a mountain to

climb but it is the most extraordinarily frightening and violent play and i found it incredibly wonderful to work on. it's very unsentimental. it paints a picture of lear. thou dost evil. this society has been dominated by a man who hasn't heard no for 30 years and is told that by a daughter when he's about to and over the country. >> charlie: and doesn't like it. >> and you see the collapse of a family and a nation at the same time. so the two with things run concurrently. i felt like i'd seen a lot of productions of the play when i watched the family collapse. but the national theater on the largest stage and in the west,

as it were, enables one to paint the picture of a nation, you know, in crisis. a nation splitting apart. a national play for the national theater. and the politics of the play are something i was fascinating exploring with simon. those two things led me to the play, the relationship with simon, who was pals interested in those areas. and i think as i get a bit older, i don't think there's a point in doing shakespeare or classical theater unless you feel you can add to the debate. >> you add to the debate here by arguing in your production that lear was an evil man. >> that it asks an audience whether they can be moved by the downfall of someone who has caused immense destruction. and, you know, on the one hand, the great play about homelessness, about losing everything, everything you have, and what is left? you know, if you take away your job, your home, your family, who are you?

what is your essence? how do you define yourself within that? the nature of your being, you know. and it is a stripping away of the layers of the onion and then, you know, through acts of terrible violence -- you know, i didn't add the fact that blinded on stage by leers or the fact alall three of his daughters are savagely murdered and one of the brothers is killed and his father. you know, i didn't create the play o in which seven people lie dead on the stage. it is a bleak play. >> charlie: what kind of actor does it require? >> a fearless actor, i think. but i think it often gets actors that are seeking to be viewed as the wronged party. in other words, when lear says i am a man more sinned against than sinning, i fear a lot of the times the actor leading the

production starts in the position that he's right. but what if he is not right? how does that make us feel? and, for me, it moves the play not always in the areas you expect it to be moved. >> charlie: is this totally a director's decision? >> not at all, interestingly. i go in wither are large thoughts, suggests, ims images,d i made the decision we would play in basically contemporary costumes. but the way i work is very relatively democratic. the actors never leave the room, the cast is there every day, all day in a circle for three weeks. we experiment scene after scene and do it different ways and we all talk about it all the time as we go. of all the productions i've ever done, i feel this is the most comprehensive in terms of including everyone in the

company's point of view. i did not feel i was pushing any scene against what anyone on stage was wanting to do. once you unlock it in a particular way, and they were aware of what i was looking to explore, they went with it, and i feel like everyone on stage believes in the production, so i get the very different kind of energy. sometimes that could mean the thing becomes a little overemphatic and everyone is doing it a little too strongly and i feel early on it took too long to settle and i feel like it added to the debate, enif someone said, you know what? that is not how i see lear, or i don't believe it's that way or it's this aspect or cuts out another. there's no "the" king lear, it's "a" king lear and the search for the definitive is a disaster. >> charlie: in all the characters, there's no one definitive. >> no. and i think although there are some character characters that h

themselves around the character, hamlet is almost -- there's a fluidity to his thought, a kind of direct connection between him and the audience that satisfies. lear, on the other hand, never talks to the audience, he never has s soliloqys, so if he's off, the performance is affected and i've seen pretty dull performances of king lear because you don't create the context. >> charlie: richard iii -- yes. >> charlie: a document ri. another thing you're doing. >> i didn't do the documentary. i did the production of which the documentary was made. >> charlie: kevin made the documentary? >> it was kevin's idea. we did the last production, the bridge project, a transatlantic

exploration we did over the course of three years the last production of that was my production of richard iii. it ended here but toured all over the world. >> charlie: and this documentary is a story of the tour. >> a story of the whole project. the absurd sort of utopian idea of a traveling global theater company that can mount productions on a huge scale that tour the world, and what it means in different cultures, what it means when people can't understand the language but understand the politics of the play, how something dictates the play from istanbul to sydney and greece from outside to inside theaters. >> charlie: to see play in

greece must have been fantastic. >> you can have imaginicle experiences. we went there the first bridge project which is a winter's tale and it is a completely different thing. it is truly magical. i know i always sound like a terrible, you know, theater person when i talk about it because unless you have been there, it's very difficult to understand. i think we, in the theater, spend a lot of time feeling like second-class citizens. we're artists. you know, the funding situation, constantly going to fundraising galahs and there's a sense in which the begging bowl is always slightly out, and the effect of that over a number of years is to make you feel, i think quite a lot here in america, slightly peripheral. you know, to argue that you're more important in the arts than a doctor or a lawyer, that's difficult, you know, but it's the thing that makes life worth

living and, in that respect, the arts are absolutely crucial. you know, the more i work in them, the more i feel that. it makes you feel central. >> charlie: that theater is central to life. >> that experience of listening to stories is absolutely timeless. pavarotti, when kevin played epidoris of richard iii, we had 50,000 people over three nights, and the guy who runs it, only one other performers has done that, the three tenors, pavarotti. and when pavarotti turned, he said it's like hearing the heart beat of the world. it feels special. >> charlie: the heartbeat of the world. >> yeah. >> charlie: that brings me to james bond. >> yes. >> charlie: i thought you were not going to do it again!

(laughter) just think, it's one of the largest grossing movies of all time -- a billion-plus and counting. it was a spectacular film. dan craig was great in the movie. so what are you doing? >> well, it's interesting. i didn't want to do it again initially because i felt like, first of all, i didn't have time to work out -- >> charlie: and you've proven your bond, so to speak. >> yes, but i also started a number of stories that were incomplete. i casted new characters. daniel -- there was a missing piece, now. i felt there was a way to create a second part of a two-part story, and then i started to get reinterested in it again. when they agreed to wait a little longer and not go immediately and with two movies but with one which i felt very strongly about -- >> charlie: so this is almost a continuation of the story?

theatrical? >> not a theatrical narrative. >> charlie: but a continuation of the characters and parts. >> for the first time, characters were allowed to age and acknowledge the passing of the years and the history in a kind of sly, misachieves way, the history of the franchise. coming out with the bomb theme. the noise the audience made the first time i sat with the audience at that point made me want to do it all over again because that was my 12-year-old self that loved that moment and that car. >> charlie: which brings me to this story. i'm reading about you and the great judi dench, and you were a whipper snapper of a director about 23 years old, and she is casting whatever you were doing -- >> the cherry orchard.

>> charlie: and she says to you, do you mind if i try? or thereabouts. and you said, try fit you wish, but it will not work. (laughter) >> that is a true story. >> charlie: so you're telling the great judi dench, try it, but it's not going to work. >> yeah. >> charlie: and then fast forward to, i think, bond. >> yeah. >> charlie: and you say to her, you think i could try it this way or you could try it this way? and she says to you -- >> she says, you could try it, but it's not going to work (laughter) and then looks at me like the most triumphant -- she waited 25 years to get me back (laughter) and that was worth her doing the job just so she could get me back. but, no, the thing about judi is she was a very important person in my career. i shudder to think of the person that was trying to direct her and tell judi how to do

anything, really, other than simply sit there and watch, which taught me an enormous amount when i was in my early 20s, but she also was a doorway into shakespeare and i asked a lot of question and she was very generous and an extraordinary person and one of the rare people that when you act with her, as an actor, makes you better. in her presence. >> charlie: also, aren't you doing something with charlie and the chocolate factory? >> i did a musical version of charlie and the chocolate factory, which is a lot like bond, wanting to do it for my children, actually. >> charlie: how long did it take you to do this? >> a long time. longer than i would like. it was the longest technical rehearsal in history, i think. and like anything, you know, i mean, i've done a lot of different within the field of film and theater, a lot of different things, but i can honestly say between movies and

new plays and running theater and classical theater and what have you, the most will be by far new musicals. there's nothing to touch and much, much difficult. i hope people in new york realize that there is sort of an insane game of russian roulette played all the time, putting huge new shows in front of broadway audience with very little preparation. there are so many creative voices with equal status. the director, the choreographer, the book writer and some time the designer who is responsible for the way the show moves. all those people have to be in sync. it's not a pure hierarchy where the director really calls the shots and comes down from him and if the movie fails, you generally blame the director, or the theater which is a writer's and actors' medium, primarily. but you the a lot of theater.

>> i do, yes. but, also, i love working with writers. and i find that live performance keeps you totally present. there's a danger in movies you can retreat behind a kind of wall, you know. it's not scary. at a certain point, it's quite safe. you take a long time over things and you prepare it. you never get that jolt of adrenaline that you get on a first preview. >> charlie: you're not teaching a master class of directing, you're teaching a coach's class. do you remember saying that or, hearing it, does it make sense to you? >> what rings a bell is the idea of, you know, i'm not a teacher, you know, and i don't relish the act of teaching. i think there are many good teachers, and i don't think think i'm one of them, necessarily. sometimes there are a few things that maybe i could steer. but i think i'm a better teacher of directors than actors. for example, a football coach,

right, provides the structure within which footballers can perform to the very best of their ability. he does not teach football, how to play football. you know, talent is -- you're born with it. however, he can teach another coach how to get the best out of his players. so i think directers teaching directing is very useful. >> charlie: i would think so. this is fascinating to me. you are at the roundabout theater spring gala about march 10th, right? and which you shared with the audience what you learned during your career path. you said if there's anyone who's interested in directing, i've written 25 steps towards becoming a happier director. i'll go through these. choose good collaborators. speaks for itself. try to learn how to make the familiar strange, and the strange familiar. direct shakespeare like a new

play, see it with fresh eyes. please work with judi dench. learn to say "i do not know the answer." on screen your hero can blow away 500 bad guys, but if he smokes one frigging cigarette, you're in deep crap (laughter) >> i love how you paraphrased that one! (laughter) >> charlie: always have. i love it. this is really good. this is a book, my friend. think so? >> charlie: i do, and these are the chapters right here. you've got the chapters right here. this is not new to you, you've thought about this. >> a little bit. the funny thing is you have to not take it too seriously, but there is a way of using these and sort of viewing one's work. >> charlie: and you created -- always have an alternative career plan in mind.

you may never do this career but it might help to get to sleep at night. and finally never ever forget how lucky you are to do something you love. you have 25 chapters. all you have to do is pull the experience, people you have and what you've learned into those chapters. so go to it. >> i can blame you if i have to write a book. (laughter) >> charlie: it's great to see you. >> always a pleasure. >> charlie: good luck on all those things. >> thank you very much. >> charlie: obviously they will be wonderful. i'll see you at the theater. >> yes. >> charlie: look forward to it. >> charlie: bob greifeld is here, c.e.o. of nasdaq omx, the world renowned stock exchange, home to some of the world's best-known companies such as apple and google. in 2013, record-setting earnings and profit. next month marks two-month of

facebook's initial public offering. i.p.o. rocky start on first day of trading costing nasdaq $10 million in fines. a halt in nasdaq trading last august but other things going on and i'm pleased to have bob greifeld at the table for the first time welcome. >> my pleasure to be here, it really is. >> charlie: is it true you wrote your graduate thesis on nasdaq? >> yes, i did. i wrote out on how to -- >> charlie: how to get to be c.e.o. of nasdaq? >> no, the first wave of technology was coming into the marketplace and how that was going to change the relationship and the operation of the market. fascinating topic. we've evolved since that time but had a good time writing. >> charlie: did they see it or you interviewed them for the thesis? >> i interviewed people for the thesis and they sure did not see it and i don't think that was part of the qualifications for getting the job at nasdaq. >> charlie: what was nasdaq

like in 2003? >> you know, it was an entirely different place. when i think back to that period of time, every day we were losing money. it was a situation where we had been part of the regulator, become for-profit and move along with our mission and we didn't have the tools in place to do it. so we had to hoard cash and watch what we were doing. we were a single-focus, u.s. equity exchange and fighting for market share, and i'm certainly amazed at the progress we've made in the eleven years and it's certainly greater progress than i would have thought. >> charlie: how big is nasdaq today? >> $6 billion in market cap, $2 billion in revenue. compared to when i got here we were about $500 million in revenue. so we've grown that quite nicely. went from nonprofit to this year operating profits of about 800 million. so that's a good thing? characterize your brand to the

new york stock exchange. >> we have a great band. we represent in many ways american growth, innovation, entrepreneurship, and when you see our successes in other parts of the world you realize how strong the brand is and we're certainly very proud of our heritage. in 1971 when we were founded, we were the only electronic market on the planet. since that time, everybody's followed our lead. >> what diversification haves paid off the most for you? >> that's a great question, charlie. i hate to rank the children that we have, but clearly our focus as a technology company is the underpinning of everything we do. so as i mentioned, we have 80 exchanges running our technology. we have s 10,000 corporations ue our technology solutions to help them become an effective public company. that's worked very well for us. in addition to that, when you look at our index business, you probably know us most famously

for the nasdaq-100, the biotech indices and that's grown to be a $100 billion asset of business and we're proud of that. >> charlie: the most dramatic change for the power of technology is what? >> it allowed the cost of trading for investors to decline quite dramatically. the stats in, say, 1995, really the cost to come in out of the points. about 10. so you have 14-fold decrease. so you have to attribute a lot of that to the power of technology and a lot of that to really the power of effective regulation in the marketplace. >> charlie: have you read michael lewis' book? >> parts. >> charlie: the 60 minutes piece? >> yes. >> charlie: you know what he's saying. >> i do. >> charlie: stock market is rigged, he says. >> he sid, and i think that was irresponsible on his part. let me tell you why -- >> charlie: you don't disagree with what he says is going on,

you just disagreeing with characterizing it as rigged, or both? >> a little of both but primarily what you said. because his description is not inaccurate. i feel poorly for the academics. you have to understand that our markets are researched more than any other market that's out there. we've had 100 -- listen to this -- 100 academic papers written about how the u.s. markets operate. they've had a similar number overseas, and what's interesting, when you see the stack of papers there, it's about yea high, i haven't read every one of them but a lot of them, and you have people come out in favor of hfts and people against it. >> charlie: high frequency trading. >> exactly. and this is with academics who spend their life's work studying this. so this doesn't really allow itself to devolve into a story. it's not a story-telling type

issue. it's a dense academic pape tore get through what happens in the marketplace. >> charlie:h.f.t.s have an advantage because of speed and technology. >> i want to make it clear. with the analysis of the market, has to be data driven. it's not storytelling. it has to be data driven and i compliment the s.e.c. for the rules they made and when you talk about the 14-fold decrease in the cost of trading in the markets the last 19 years you have to take credit for that. it's interesting, you look at this two ways, we as an exchange have to make sure we give equal access to all inresters in the marketplace. that's our primary responsibility. what investors -- >> charlie: no proprietary -- ompletely. we have in our data center right now, we make sure that if you are ten feet from the exchange, the electronic exchange versus 100 feet that you have the exact same experience. so we put a coil close to the

match, we have a longer coil -- >> charlie: that's exactly what these guys did. >> we've been doing this sinceoing a. you're further away, give you a shorter coil. >> charlie: that was a genius stroke on their part. >> we have been doing it for a long period of time, but it made for a good cover there. and it's good for the coil business. >> charlie: yes, it is! no doubt about that. so we have to be fair. so we're fair down to a bill yubt of a second. what happens on the other side of that coil with respect to our customers, where they invest to make their systems faster, there are differentials. some put more capital in that than other. so i have to give an equal platform to all but they come with certain different weapons. what's interesting to me -- they all have the chance to create it. what's interesting is, five years ago, there was more first

mover advantage where people spent more time, effort and their capital to be better and, really, you've seen in the last five years more of a commoditization of that facility. so you see to the people come to the market are close together with respect to speed. the beta, the difference was a lot of different five years ago. people bought tools, commodityize the tools and the speed differentials decline dramatically. so it has to be approved by the s.e.c. and out for comment. >> charlie: do you think because of this book and the talk that it will change anything? >> ly say the markets have always been evolving and you don't go with a 14-fold decrease in transaction costs. not too many industries can say that without changing. nasdaq was the first exchange, i think, to ignite that change in our markets looked at. so i think the markets will continue to evolve, they will continue to get better, to get better and, you know, we embrace

this change and to the extent the book helps accelerate change and evolution in the market, i think that would be a good thing. >> charlie: and the flash crash, what did that change? >> that really built the infrastructure in the marketplace to live in a competitive world. so the construct here is we were a monopoly in the stocks that listed with us. n.i.s.i. was in the stocks that listed with them. the s.e.c. changed the rules and that did we'll have competition in trading. that was the legal infrah>$ucture but the technical infrastructure wasn't built at the time of the flash crash. we've had all these execution venues so you've seen great progress in making sure the infrastructure was there to support a fragmented, competitive world. >> charlie: what were you going through when you figured out what was happening? >> we had to figure out what was happening and we realized we didn't have the ability to halt trading in stocks that listed on our market.

we knew there was a problem, we couldn't stop other venues from trading it. so we had to let it run its course and the market come back and try to figure out what to do right. we have been on a march with the s.e.c. and other exchanges to make sure that we're able to call a halt if there's a technical issue in the stock, we have rules to limit up, limit down, circuit breakers, all this infrastructure type that didn't exist before. >> charlie: are we looking at a time because of shadow banking and everything else, is this a moment of great change for financial markets? >> it's a moment of change, but change has been a constant. so, charlie, i think you will see things change. i think for the bert. but it's really part of a long-term trend line that we see. and what's interesting to me is one of the growth areas we have is international companies choosing to come to the list in the u.s., to come to list with nasdaq, and they recognize in all of the swirl of activity going on, all the change that we

still represent the best, deepest and most liquid markets. >> what was the lesson of facebook i.p.o. >> we had to, one, reflect and we certainly had to build in more resiliency into the culture, and i think we have been successful with that since the time of the facebook i.p.o. we've had # hundred i.p.o.s who have frayed -- 200 i.p.o.s who have traded successfully. this year over 50. is a high water mark since the credit crisis. we feel good about where we're standing. >> charlie: why did you agree to a $10 million fine? >> well, that's a detailed topic, as always, but i think with respect to working with the regulator, we want to be very constructive. i think we certainly learned a lot from it and it was in our best interest to put that behind us and move forward. >> for a long time, there was this great discussion -- not for a long time, but doesn't seem to be as a parent today, you know, that london was going to become

the financial capital of the world. what happened to that? what happened to that conventional wisdom? >> more publicity than reality and that came about primarily boast sarbanes oxley. what you see with the benefit of hindsight is the market adopted all the oxley principles with exception of section 404, that's uniquely american and something we should still work on. even through that period of time, our international listing franchise has certainly been the envy of the world and with the exception of the russian i.p.o.s, you know, we are the place where international companies come to list. >> charlie: what's happening in chai is that? >> china is very good. we have webo. we've won that listing. they'll come public on our market in two weeks. we have two great technology companies listing in nasdaq the

same day. saber holdings an webo which is the chinese twitter. so we're a very strong franchise there and pipeline of really first rate chinese companies. >> charlie: why did ally ba ba in the end decide not to go public in china? >> i don't know that that's the end so i can't comment but we'll see how things proceed. >> charlie: cybersecurity is an issue, too, isn't it? >> it has been for a long period of time. it obviously represents a tax on our business and other businesses, but it's fund meany important that we excel at it and the last thing you can do is get relaxed at all. so we built up our capabilities. we've got to stay one step ahead of, you know, that kind of risk. >> charlie: this happens to be today's financial time. >> yes, it is. (laughter) >> charlie: you've read this story, i'm sure. >> i have. i haven't seen the hard copy. i've read it on my ipad. >> charlie: that's what you

should have done. nasdaq's investors patience being tested? >> i don't believe they are. we had a great run up on our stock last year, up 59% for the year. and a strong 2014. i think the controversy with respect to the book had a head wind on our stock, i think it's a temporary blip and obviously will perform quarter after quarter, year after year and that will carry the day. but at least couple of weeks have been not the best. >> charlie: what is this between you and turtles? >> well, you know, i heard that you were going to ask that question. i do have turtles. i also want to make it clear that i have a dog. >> charlie: you heard i was going to ask -- >> i have a dog as a pet, also, to make it clear. turtles are walking din dinosau. they have survived so many things so in some ways i have to identify with the survival of the fittest. >> charlie: you see a turtle

on a fence post you know it didn't get there by itself. >> no, not the most athletic creatures on the planet. >> charlie: thank you for coming. >> good to see you, charlie. >> charlie: howard schultz is here. he is the chairman, c.e.o. of starbucks, purchased it in 1987 and turned it into the world's largest coffee shop chain, serving more than 70 million customers a week. returned as c.e.o. in 2008 after an eight-year hiatus. expanded the brand. they bought a tea retailer for $620 million. pleased to have howard schultz back at the table. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> charlie: in '87 when you bought it, having worked earlier, and then when you wanted to go out on your own, they said, not here, baby. and then, to be successful and buy it from them. >> right. >> charlie: what did that say

to you? what was the lesson of that? >> i knew early on that i needed to work for myself. >> charlie: right. i knew early on that i had too much creativity and energy bottled up, that i was going to be very unhappy. i had nothing to lose. i had no money. i came from nothing. and, so, this was an adventure. all of it could only happen in america. people have said that many, many times. i am the quintessential entrepreneurial story growing up on the other side of the tracks and here i am. it's almost hard to believe. i think what it says is i was willing to take some risks, i was willing to put myself out there, and i also learned early on that success would be best if it was shared. and the values of the company shaped its success and its brand. first company in america to give health insurance way before the affordable care act. first company in america to give everybody including part timers

equity in stock options. we built a company steeped in humanity and the customers responded to that and it's always been much more than coffee. >> charlie: so you believe starbucks can be a $100 billion market cap? >> we're at 60 or so now. this is what i believe. i believe that the relevancy of what we built is not steeped in americana anymore. in fact, it is as relevant in china as it is in madrid, and the relevancy is the third place, the sense of community, bringing people together in a place where they feel comfortable in celebrating do yocoffee and conversation. >> charlie: so venue is as important -- >> veevenue, design, the relationship we have with our customers but it all starts with the cultures and values of the company. what we said many, many years ago and true today, we can't exceed the expectations of our customers if we as leaders are

not exceeding the expectations of our people. we did $15 billion of revenue this year at $5 an average sale. so we are totally dependent on human behavior and people. the equity of the brand is how people act and the experience they create. people think we're a great marketing company, but we spend -- it's unbelievable the amount of money we spend on marketing. >> charlie: do you think people in china will respond to starbucks? >> we have been there 15 years with 1,000 stores and they are responding in large numbers and the chinese embrace it as their own because it's as relevant there as it is here. >> charlie: what do you think they see? >> we're educating them on coffee. they didn't understand that at first. >> charlie: how did you educate them on coffee? >> it's a tea-drinking nation. sample, try it, educate them, and now they're drinking as much coffee as we are. but what they see in it, and

this is a great story, i hope i have time to share it with you. a year and a half ago we did something i don't think any western company has ever done before. we had an annual meeting in china of parents of our employees, both in beijing and in shanghai. people said, howard, what are you doing? why? because the relationship that the parents have to the children is so paramount to our success, and we had to tell the story and have them understand who we are as people and what we're going to try and do, and that was the turning point in china. since then, everyone has come to me and said, tell me about this meeting that you had with parents. people said, no one's going to come. they came with their grandparents. it was incredible and emotional. if we had that in america, i think we'd have 10%. >> charlie: so understanding culture is important. >> i think respecting culture and respecting differences.

but what i've learned over the years is that the similarities are much greater than the differences. >> charlie: and this deal with oprah, what is that about? >> we're going to do for tea what we've done for coffee. i've known oprah many years, we were sitting at a friend's wedding, she was telling me how much she loved tea, so authentic and real. we always dreamed of doing something together, never really could find it. i think her values match ours. we want to do something to elevate tea but, at the same time, do something to help people get access. oprah will be everywhere mother's day. only she could raise the tent on this. >> charlie: how big? tea is $90 billion global category, larger than coffee. >> charlie: how involved are you now? you came back to the company? >> i came back for the love of the company. >> charlie: but you were worried about the company? >> well, the company was in deep trouble. >> charlie: exactly.

but i came back -- your question about i'm deeply involved in the company, i've shifted my focus to innovation, specifically what we're going to do on mobile platform. >> charlie: right. which we're already the leader and i think we have an opportunity to do something quite significant. >> charlie: explain that because i know you want to be a forerunner of mobile pay. >> everyone in the world is chasing mobile payment. the question is who's going to become the visa of digital payment. there's no doubt that the phone is going to become the digital wallet. >> charlie: who are the competitors right now? >> it's everybody. it's google, apple, paypal. but starbucks has a unique position in that we are already processing over 5 million mobile transactions a week on your phone. >> charlie: give me a sense of how fast the velocity of mobile payments and at what time will they be, you know, the large majority of the way people pay in contrast to credit cards and cash?

>> well, first off, i think there's no question that the phone is displacing at a very rapid rate everyone's desktop. and the phone in other countries, take south korea for example, is the primary way because people have leapfrogged from a regular phone to a mobile phone. never had a regular phone. what's going to happen in america very quickly is, two or three years, i would say 50% of what you do every day is going to be done on your phone-in terms of payment and eventually we'll have a cashless society. >> charlie: eventually means what? >> people a lot smarter than me answer that question. five, ten years. >> charlie: minimum wage. i love talking about minimum-wage and veterans, if i can. i read today connecticut is the first state that is going to $10.10 an hour. they're not doing it until 2017. >> charlie: this is what the president recommended for people

who had federal contracts. >> yeah. the inequality in america and the gap between the haves and have nots is very significant. the question is, do people have as much access to the american dream as they did for our parents and grandparents? probably not. i think raising the minimum wage is a good idea. i'm on the wrong side of that debate for most people. >> charlie: because of two things -- one, they say it will cost jobs, and number two they say they'll have to increase the price of their product. >> i think there will be unintended consequence ifs we go to $15 an hour, which i think is not the right number. at starbucks, we've always looked at total pay. we pay above the minimum wage in every market in america. but between equity, stock options, 401k, we're way above it. i think there will be unintended consequences if it goes above $10. >> charlie: give me a sense of

what gave you motivation to save $30 million. >> this has been a personal issue. two years ago, secretary gates came on the starbucks board. >> charlie: bob gates, a seattle man. >> yeah. he really sensitized me to a number of issues. for the last ten years, 2.5 million men and women have been at war. the country, though, is somewhat oblivious to the fact that these 2.5 million people have risked their lives for us and oblivious because it's mostly -- well, it is an all volunteer service. they're coming back not to a parade, not to celebration, and a million-plus are now entering civilian life. there are about 20 suicides a day. about 20, 3040%, depending on what study you believe, are coming back with some form of brain trauma, no access to jobs. >> charlie: part of that is so

many survived what they might not have survived in an earlier war. >> that's correct. so i feel, of all the things going on in our society and everything that's happened in the last ten years, we need to celebrate these people. we need to be responsible for them. so my wife and i are giving $30 million away in three buckets -- job training, trying to help the unsung heros of the families who have lost fallen warriors, and the issue around the surge around brain trauma. >> charlie: there doesn't seem to be any coordination among all the corporations that have already begin to make a commitment so there might be some way to coordinate, organize and have a multiplying effect. >> i think you hit a key nerve here. not only is there not a coordinated effort but there's government agencies in which there has been so much waste. the amount of money the v.a. has gone through is beyond belief.

so i think the efforts that we're trying to do is we are trying to coordinate our efforts. and i guess the question is, if that's true, fine, but we're not going to be a bystander, we're going to make a difference. we had a very significant fundraiser at our home, we had corporations there, private citizens there, and we're going to make a difference. >> charlie: what's the metric for making a difference? >> i'd like to see -- well, we've got double-digit unemployment among veterans, very high among african-americans and latinos. let's get that down. let's try to find the marker on brain trauma and help the families who are in deep trouble given the fact they've lost their husband or wife. >> charlie: what happened when you made the announcement don't bring guns to starbucks? >> you know, that was -- i think that was a very good example of the fact that starbucks is a respected place in many communities and, when we ask respectfully not to bring your

guns, that we're not pro or against guns, people abided by it and we didn't have a problem. but we did have a problem leading up to that and that was because to have the open carry law, people were bringing guns into the stores and our customers were very uncomfortable. >> charlie: and they would reconsider coming to starbucks if there were people there with guns? >> yes. >> charlie: and it was essential you do that for the welfare to have the company. >> that's right. >> charlie: thanks for coming. thanks, charlie, very much. blrng captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

♪ must have soup! >> the pancake -- is to die for! >> it was a gut-bomb, but i liked it. >> i actually fantasize in private moments about the food i had. >> i didn't like it. >> you didn't like it? >> dining here makes me feel rich. >> and what about dessert? pecan pie? sweet potato pie?