were they overleveraged? yes. everybody wanted them to be overleveraged, and congress was as guilty as everybody else. and we live in a world where somebody else has to be guilty, it can't be you, it has to be somebody else. so we go after the bankers, which we have always done. they are hardly without sin, the worst thing they did was none of the documentation and those kinds of things. but they were part of something that everybody wanted. we wanted the world to keep expanding and the good times to keep rolling. until one day they don't. ♪ warren: if you look at 2008 and the institutions that failed or came close to failure. if you take aig and citigroup and wachovia and washington mutual and freddie mac and fannie mae, the stockholders of those companies lost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. citigroup did not go under, but when the stock holders lose 90% of their value, it really does not make much difference if you have $1000 invested and you end up with $100 or not. so there in my view, there has

incredibly rich betting against the ability of the american household to survive in terms of how overleveragedr was. this is a much smaller segment of the market. many of the traditional anchor tenants have got up and left. i don't know how many people you know who still do physical shopping and department stores. several hedge funds are taking a bet that the bond supporting these companies will take a dive. oliver: another reason to keep an eye on those retail numbers. at two tech-focused companies and disruptive companies now butting heads perhaps. megan: uber and google once again in a fantastic feast that looks at this new lawsuit which poses huge risks for them over driverless cars. former one of their employees going to uber. google filed suit saying he took the systemechnology, that allows them driverless cars to avoid pedestrians and other mapped out that sensor project over at uber. beis a market that will hundreds of billions of dollars in the future of autonomous cars, and this guy is one guy who caused a tremendous amount of controversy at google and now rattles chains at uber. pro

which he had not yet stepped away from, was looking for additional financial help for one of the overleveragedperties. the white house says there was no discussion of that property or anything related to that meeting. to your point, a meeting on its own is not a big deal. no suggestion he did anything wrong. it is yet another in a series of drip, drips of the questions of the trump team and russia that have been a low grade fever for the white house. >> there you go. what are the broader implications of this for the administration that obviously wants to move on and past this. >> i think that is the big question. the ultimate question is when does this happen? how much tension does this get? what questions does he get asked? do the answers spark a further inquiry or any kind of a different interview and does it lead them to anything else? to chris's point on its own, nothing wrong. nothing wrong with administration officials meeting with foreign opfficials and meeting with people who work at entities that are not in the u.s. jared kushner was in charge of most of the policy and meetings that r

these are overleveraged companies that have a lot of high yield debt historically.ex as well. these are full of mall plays, pretty much the areas of retail that are most hurt by online shopping. so you combine sort 6 a secular decline, in the retail industry, amongst these types of players with capital structures and balance sheets that maybe are unsustainable in an environment where yields are going up, and that's obviously bad news for retail. jonathan: let's talk about compensation given versus risk taken. at what point do you see that as an attractive industry point? how much compensation do you need to take the risk for things like more exposure? >> i think we're pretty wary of the retail sector. we think we can see it in a separation where sprelleds and yields have blown out so much over several years relative to the index, where maybe it kind of performs in line with high yield. but in terms of an overweight position, we don't feel comfortable doing that any time soon. the other thing that as i mentioned earlier that really affects retail is border adjustment

mechanisms in europe are made more flexible, were fiscal transfers -- there is more inflation so the overleveragedarts can adjust faster, the uncompetitive parts can adjust, then i don't think a brexit is the main event, to be honest with you. it's more piling on in a relatively weak situation that makes it worrying. david: ok. thank you so much. nobel laureate and senior professor, michael spence. alix: the other big news we are watching is in commodities. oil prices weaker again today, a goldman sachs says it is time to buy. they came out yesterday saying by copper in oil. joining us now is bloomberg news executive editor for energy and commodities. it was interesting his call, bec ause they said it wasn't about china, that the weight on commodities was overdone, and they are still buyers. >> yeah. that's quite a sensible position. last week was a wobble, we may get more wobbles, and the supply situation stops. calls.r ete the two key and they are saying don't get too hung up and do they comments. think about the long-term. what we know from commodity cycles is that you get a few years of really

they don't want all the downside risk that could come with being overleveraged or, you know, 100% equitiesd cash flow and things like that to go with it. >> okay. all right. we'll check back. maybe it'll come down and everybody that comes on will get a chance. >> i don't think the market is going to have a huge crash or anything like that. i just think we need a big breather until we get clarity from washington. >> that's what we've been hearing for three months. that's exactly what we've been hearing every step of the way, rich. hopefully you don't capitulate when it is ready to go down. then that doesn't do anyone any good. anyway, we appreciate it. thank you. >> take care. >>> when we come back, exxonmobil's new chairman and ceo meets wall street. more of our walk squawk exclusi -- "squawk box" exclusive interview with darren woods. >>> plus, ceo call is in session. we'll talk to semantics chief executive about cyber security. >>> and later, the billion-dollar startup that wants to change the way you buy a home. the founder of compass will join us. stay tuned. you're watching "squawk bo

with the treadmills to hell, dubai 2000, he was betting against the property market that it was overleveragedve narratives that people look for, and whether or not it is accurate. we found that the application of various floebl mglobal models t against china, while it's not necessarily wrong, it's completely inaccurate in terms of missing pieces. you have an economy -- i think the financial times or the journal said given the growthxp they will grow the size of germany this year. when you look at the debt numbers, it's not measured on a relative basis. at the same time. >> it's china. you're talking about uber and the things they're doing behind the scenes. china does the same thing. they have amazing ways to -- >> china is greyballing people? >> not greyballing. but there was a big -- >> thought i would try to use it in a sentence. >> that's right. >> there was an argument a few years ago, there are a number of different ways that policymakers can address what they see as issues that we don't think are factored in to what the hege fund managers are doing. >> you speak to this, we talk about