tv Bloomberg Business Week Bloomberg October 28, 2017 7:00am-8:00am EDT
carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." we're inside the magazine 's headquarters. in this week's issue, how side to what may be the most valuable supply chain in the truck business, how snapchat resists propaganda, and rolls-royce shows us how the wealthy love to drive. all that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: we are here with the editor-in-chief, megan murphy. we all learned a new spanish
word that is very important to spanish roots. megan: it is important to spanish roots but talked about something that is global right now, and that is the decline in connection that we have come a , a common spirit, a common purpose. that is the word used in spain. what we are talking about is the conflict in spain, catalonian independence and what amazing shock factor and a ripple effect as that battle continues to rage on. it is also a global phenomenon, we are seeing the rise of populism in many parts, particularly western democracy. are we seeing the disruption and dismantling of the bonds that have kept us together in a unified human endeavor, unified human spirit and purpose? carol: we were embracing of the
now we arences, but pushing back. megan: exactly. and now, instead of becoming a melting pot or a place where we can bring differences and still be in support of something bigger than ourselves has that , been lost? the independence movement, there has been violence and a war of words. the chef community in barcelona. it is troubling when you see that kind of violence, and you can argue the government has not handled that as well as it could have or should have. the recent declaration to vacate the independent government has been seen by many as a centuries old exercise of power in spain. the lesson is something we should all reflect on, are we losing the ideals and identity that are so important to us? julia: let's talk about the
global cover story. love botox. [laughter] me in the line, i am 43. carol: it really digs into how it came to be. megan: what it really talked about is, did you know how secretly guarded botox is? carol: no. megan: you have always heard the stories. what is so fascinating, when we talk about trade secrets in this country, you think about kfc and chicken, coke. we talk about trade secrets that are not protected in the term of copyright or patent. things that people have not figured out how to replicate. carol: a great formula. megan: botox is the most highly secretive, around. -- highly secretive, highly
protected, guards walking around. this is a drug with $3 billion in sales, projected to go higher. no drug has gone higher. it is one of the most protective. we joked in-house during this story, that we got access to see how they are doing it, it is amazing. carol: it is amazing and there is no patent on the spread. -- on this drug . allergan owns it. the simplicity of it, and this goes to devastatingly dangerous it is, we know it from botulism, which most people know from gm canned food. if you have this airborne, it is lethal . it is incredibly dangerous. they have kept a stranglehold on it. we're not saying that he may
-- in a critical way. $3 billion. carol: a huge story. >> the essence of what they do in that research facility is the research potential ways that they could reformulate or work with botox to make tiny changes to it and work with other neurotoxins. the base ingredient is the toxin, and because that is so highly toxic, so potentially lethal for mankind and could be used as a weapon for terrorism if it gets into the wrong hands, they have a very heightened level of security. when you enter the facility, you have to sign a waiver and there are warnings about what could happen to you if there was every a spill and you've contracted botulism. that has never happened so it is not something you have to be actively worried about but it is something that you have to guard about. carol: waiver is security after security, glass barriers. >> after you sign the waiver, you go up.
the waiver talks about being exposed to the botulism toxin, some boilerplate stuff required in california. warnings about what is carcinogenic and things of that nature. it goes through those risks in terms of what could happen if you are exposed to the toxin. julia: muscle weakness. carol: terrifying. >> the actual illness of botulism if you could contract it, it paralyzes your system. in cases were it is fatal, you cannot breathe. >> that is the waiver. >> that is the waiver. dre inability to speak with these signs you have contracted this. then, when you enter, there are multiple levels of security.
and key card entry points. it is a certain level of security required by the cbc to enter a lab when you are working with what they call a selected agent. they monitor select agents, botulism, anthrax, something in that ballpark, highly toxic substances should they get into the wrong hands. carol: talk about what it takes to make botox. because it takes a very little amount. >> a tiny amount, to make a years worth, it is a very tiny amount of the actual toxin. what the company does is it reformulates the toxin. it can then later be injected. it is made in such a quantity the end result in the tiny vial that might go to your doctor's
office is super dilute, it is not something to be worried about from a weapons perspective. in terms of the raw material, the government is constantly aware and tracking what is going on. carol: turning botox into a cover image was the drop of the creative director. what went into the thinking of the cover for this week? >> it was a bit challenging to think about what direction we wanted to go. the story covers a lot of things. i learned a lot of things from reading it. part of it is that it is a very secretive process to produce this ingredient, the botulism toxin. we chose to go with what is most familiar to readers. they were close-ups of a man getting botox. we liked the look, the sort of creepy quality that they had. carol: up next, the coming bipolar global economy and how rex tillerson is managing the state department. this is "bloomberg
carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." you can find us online and on our mobile app. in the economic section, how china might be the biggest obstacle to globalization, even more than donald trump or brexit. >> the author of the story traced this interesting trend, saying if you extrapolate -- withwhat we are seeing now how china interacts with the world, you can see this schism emerging and if it keeps widening, we will end up with two distinct spheres in the global economy, which goes counter to this trend of knitting together of economies that we have seen since the fall of the berlin wall. carol: talk about the two sides, if you will. >> one of them will revolve what
around what we in the media call the west, european companies and japan. the other will revolve around china and it's sort of satellites, perhaps including russia. the two countries share many interests. the countries that are a part of the one belt, one road initiative, this infrastructure spending plan that china has rolled out. carol: we were talking about china last week because they held the communist party conference and we heard a lot from president xi and his plans for the country. what that we heard from him ds support to this. >> i think that he tried to be reassuring in the opening speech. it was over three hours long. carol: it was very long.
cristina: he promised on companies that they would have the same protections as local companies. people are having trouble believing that, although on the world stage, xi has stopped to started to present himself as a globalist. at arvos, he said that protectionism is shutting yourself in a dark room. he has this mantle that the u.s. has discarded in terms of leading globalization. carol: let's talk about china in terms of globalization. what specifically, they are looking to develop industry internally, semiconductors or auto. they have major initiatives underway. cristina: think of a globalized world in which chinese companies are dominant, not just that but chinese technology and chinese
rules. we have seen already, the idea is basically to squeeze foreign companies from the chinese market and allow chinese companies to dominate the market and then use that as a launchpad to begin expanding abroad. so, we looked at how that is going. for example, in the digital economy, where china has already constructed this nontariff barrier in the form of censorship that do not allow western companies to operate freely there. that market is completely dominated by chinese firms. baidu, tencent. wechat. if you look at how those companies have done as they've tried to expand abroad, the record is quite poor. carol: speaking of a changing world order, and the politics section, an inside look at how
rex tillerson is reshaping the state department. >> rex tillerson is a former ceo of exxon mobil. he was brought in with much fanfare from the business community. finally, they had a big honcho ceo who was going to bring the lessons of the private sector to one of the more bureaucratic, larger institutions of the federal government. he was going to whip it into shape. that was the story, the narrative that got pushed out there. he is also a ceo who deals with leaders and bent them to his will. we wanted to look at rex 10 months on into the job and look at what he said was his top priority, which is to redesign the state department and look at it from a perspective of a businessman, a case study in management, and look at how this is not at all going according to plan.
carol: stop right there. there is so much for our senior foreign diplomat to be dealing with, whether north korea or china or russia. pick your spots around the globe. yet, he is consumed with the task of organization for the state department. how do people see that? matt: they scratched their heads about it. there are as many foreign-policy crises around the world, iraq with isis, north korea, that are raging right now, and yet this new head of the state department, who is kind of this big character, has chosen to kind of shrink the purview of his office into looking at how to reorganize the institution itself. and getting bogged down in a lot of minutia. it is just strange to a lot of
observers and current and former state department employees about why he is so obsessed with redesigning this institution when there are so many crises to address right now. carol: it is not just streamlining, it is chopping. there are 75,000 employees, just under a third looking like they will be chopped. at the same time, he is seen as being cut off, pretty isolationist. how can you go about chopping up a huge business when you are seemingly inaccessible according to reports? matt: exactly. 35% budget cuts are on the table. it's not clear that will end up happening. is he is anex insulated guy. the time that our reporter,
mick, who traveled with him extensively, got a half an hour with him last week. the message that he is sending out there and how it is being interpreted, it just does not seem to be a connection. he seems mystified by the narrative that is out there about how he is insulated and how unhappy a lot of stuff and career foreign service people are. we have seen a wave of exits from senior diplomatic people , and yet, he says, i do not understand. when i walk past people in the hallway, they smile. carol: up next, kenya you make can you make money from behavioral finance? why many companies are bypassing a deep pool of talent. this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪
sirius xm 119 and on am 1130 in new york, 101 fm in boston, 91.1 9.1 fm in washington, d.c., am 960 in the bay area, and in london and asia on bloomberg radio. in the finance section, a look at putting behavioral science to work. we spoke to the editor. >> people who are market leaders speak about market psychologically all the time. they have stock phrases like irrational exuberance, climbing the wall. economists took longer to come around to that. economists prefer to speak of markets more like flaky robots. they will talk about market efficiency, processing information, random prices. over time, the profession has begun to kind of recognize that you can begin to see a motion in
-- emotions in the markets in ways that they can model and make predictions out of. so, richard saylor is just one r has just won the nobel prize in economics. you're really seeing economists saying this is a real thing. ism portly, it more importantlt something that we can work with. carol: when i am saying to myself right now, if we know markets are predictably irrational, does that make them predictable on some level? >> that is what everybody would like to see. everybody that is a market participant, a gem, is looking for any information that would give them an edge. the first thing that people do when they learned about behavioral economics as they do what a lot of us did in freshman psychology classes. they begin to diagnose markets. the begin to look at the crazy things others are doing to see if you can figure out a way to take advantage of it. turns out that is harder than it sounds.
carol: explain that a little bit. these folks are coming up with these theories, they are putting it to work. >> saylor is a principal at the money management firm that is trying to put it to work. he is not the actual money manager. they look for signs of under reaction and overreaction to moves. it is a little tricky. when is it underreacting, when is it overreacting? they have ways that they are trying to suss out and they have a pretty good record so far. carol: the performances have been there. >> what always matters, past performance is no indicator of future results. there are lots of managers that do other things that are not behavioral. it is tricky duties at how much to tease out how much is behavioral science and other things in the market. julia: tell us about the equity
fund . >> one thing they are doing is looking at insider buying and selling. they have a way of looking at, what do insiders think about what is happening to this stock. that is one way they are trying to gauge, is what is happening with this stock price an underreaction or and overreaction? carol: you talk to other folks. what were their takes on it? pat: first of all, if you are a fund researcher, you have to have a head of behavioral science. what a lot of people come to is not that you should use this to diagnose the rest of the market but to look in the mirror. that is the most powerful way to gleam something useful from behavioral economics. take it as a lesson to be humble about your own abilities. the first person you need to be
diagnosing with irrationality is yourself. carol: staying focused on behavior, corporate behavior, is a story you will find on bloomberg.com and the mobile app. our economics editor explains why demanding a bachelor degree for some jobs is just plain dumb. >> fuller is great. he has been working on a new study called dismissed by degrees. it gets into this strange phenomenon which is that a lot of companies are insisting on -- for positionses that do not require a bachelor's degree. this hurts the employees because they do not get jobs but also employers because they do not find people to fill the job with unrealistic criteria. carol: there is a great statistic. looking at the number of people that they have within the organization already, how many of those have degrees, versus
trying to hire. >> we went through dozens and dozens of occupations and looked at this mismatch . one in six production supervisors currently working in america has a bachelors degree. two thirds of the postings for production supervisors demand a bachelors degree. carol: it is crazy. the people currently doing that job do not have a degree, most of them do not. yet, when they go to hire somebody new for that position, they want a four-year degree. >> they cannot understand why they are having trouble finding people. why does that happen so often? >> there are a number of factors. one, it is an easy proxy. maybe the skill does not require a bachelor's degree but i need people that are working and intelligent and disciplined and used to the working world.
punctual and so on. i figure if i demanded bachelors degree i will get that kind of person. if i do not, who knows what will come in the door? that is the thinking. julia: we are introducing a skills mismatch and paying for it as well. peter: you take longer to fill the job and the person is more likely to leave because he or she can probably find a better job after a year of work. julia: the quit rate is a huge factor. carol: it costs the company a lot. you talk about credential is ism. that is what they are calling it. peter: that is what i am calling it. it is a bias towards credentials. inol: up next, how made america is losing out to russian steel. and the trump administration's assault on public land. ♪
carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." still ahead, the debate over preserving land for recreational public use, apple's billion-dollar bet on hollywood, and what it is like to ride in a rolls-royce phantom. all of that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." so many more must reads in the magazine this week. we are here was editor-in-chief with editor-in-chief,
megan murphy. in politics, you look at pipelines. the pipelines for keystone were going to be made out of american steel. that is what is happening, right? megan: that is why i like being editor. you get to tell the story behind the story and this is a good one. number one, they were not all using american steel. since then, companies that we have discussed have lobbied to get outside of this american steel exemption. trump came in and said he was going to levy a tariff on steel coming in. that has not happened. we are seeing this perverse situation where people think the tariff is coming in and are buying foreign steel. we should point out that even companies that say they are american-made pipeline, meaning the actual pipes are manufactured in america, the supply of u.s. steel is unreliable. the manufacturers are getting this steel from france, germany, other places as well. what i love about this story,
and it traces through this one company, a russian steel company that has subsidiaries in north america, when you say "american made" or "make america great again," it is much harder than you think when you get down to the components of things, the components of manufacturing, where this is coming from, and frankly places where american manufacturing cannot supply enough raw material to meet the demand. it is easy for parts of it and not so easy for other parts of it. if you are a manufacturer of pipeline, the thing you need is a reliable source of things to make that pipeline. you do not care where it comes from. carol: you mentioned the russian connection. this company is owned by a russian oligarchs. megan: the majority shareholder is roman abramowitz, who is a well-known russian oligarchs, a
, a diverse array of holdings. what we talk about a little bit is interestingly, over 2 million in lobbying since keystone was going to progress and there was a pipeline. that is a huge pipeline, the amount of steel would be huge. so, to have their steel go into that pipeline from american manufacturers, that is something that they want. since trump came into office, they have been active about lobbying for exemptions for american-made steel. we have a well-known washington operation. of course, it has ties roman abramovitz. it is more emblematic of how complicated it is to have something. when you say american made, what are you talking about? is it from canada? how are you going to deliver on that process? carol: there is also a political connection when you talk about president trump and the steel industry. a lot of steel workers voted for
him in the united states. and so, if they are not finding more steel made in the u.s. whether there will be pushed back next time around. megan: this is a great question about everything. he came into office with a promise to restore american manufacturing and american jobs. that is happening. the economy is expanding in that sector and they will benefit from a researching american economy more generally. but the specific promises that were made industry by industry and town by town, burned-out factory town by burned-out factory town, whether or not that can be delivered on is more difficult to say and that will play out politically. the issue is whether or not over time, adding jobs in those sectors is sustainable for the kind of american economy we will need to compete. that is a much bigger question. carol: let's talk about a future
that takes useek to montana. it is about public access to forest land. megan: it is kind of like the beach. it is hard for people sometimes to understand forest lands. it is like a rout of access, everybody can go to the beach. it is the same for forest lands. these have traditionally been public access lands. it is an interesting economic theory that actually reducing access to forest lands will lead to greater enjoyment of them. because instead of giving everybody access, it makes it almost pricier, almost market competition. what people are going to watch is whether from will support -- whether trump will support moving it to private or whether he will do what obama did with more public access. carol: initially, he said protect the land.
increasedare seeing privatization of the land. carol: one of the stories not getting as much attention. you guys are definitely -- we have more on this story from the editor. >> for years, there used to be an understanding between the large landowners, they are mostly called ranches out there, vast spreads with livestock on them, often. there used to be an understanding between the landowners and the outdoors men and women who would go hunting and fishing that you could walk through their land to get into the interior of the mountain to some of the best elk hunting areas and fishing areas. for years, it was a silent agreement and then all of a
sudden signs saying no , trespassing, keep off, started showing up on these trails to get to public areas. carol: where is the trump administration? early on, president trump or donald trump the candidate seems ed to say we want to protect these lands. now, not so sure. >> he was interviewed in "field & stream" magazine, saying he did not want the states to get a hold of the land because it was great land and the state might sell it off to the highest bidder and then it would not be preserved anymore. then, he turned around and asked to examine all of these national monuments which were protected, with bush, clinton, and obama used the presidencies for. it is unprecedented that a president would ask to change a previous president's
designation. it is really not done. julia: sounds like donald trump. [laughter] julia: quickly say what happens next. what are we waiting for? miranda: i think that the outdoorsmen and the environmentalists who are fighting to keep these various trails as public easements are hoping the forest services will take these private landowners to court and do what happened with the wonder ranch and set this precedent. but, forest services is expecting cuts. budget cuts. they spoke about being concerned about getting into lawsuits that they may not be able to win. so, the fight is to make them public permanently.
carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." you can also find us online and on our mobile app. in the features section, snapchat has not had the same problem with viral hoaxes as facebook, google, and twitter. we investigate why. >> are of these mainstream social networks, facebook, twitter, google good at sorting truth from fiction? that is where snapchat has done well. not only have they not sold any advertising to russia, as far as
we can tell, but more importantly, they do not have fake news. the reason is that they have human beings, editors, going for through most of the stuff that is put forward for users. they do not have this free for all newsfeed you see everybody else. julia: no algorithms making the decision. is there a differentiating factor? >> snapchat, publicly, to me, said we think it is important, we think it is our responsibility to help people figure out where of their their information is coming from. which is saying, we take responsibility for what is on our platform. facebook, under scrutiny around this russia issue, has sort of
moved in little itsy-bitsy steps in that direction. they used the word responsibility but have not come out in strong terms. one critique of facebook and twitter is that they do not care. they think it is now they're out fact from fiction. they think it is your job as the reader. when you see what the anti-fake news effort is around, it is around the fact checking trading. there is a program where they are going to teach what is fake and what israel. -- what is real. they have buttons you can click to dispute it. it is about you the consumer deciding. snapchat is about a conventional view of media which is that you are smart. carol: i had no idea that snap employed journalists. they have several layers of protection. walk us through what happened in
charlottesville, because that was an example of how seriously they take the posts. >> this didn't get a whole lot of attention, but during the unite the right protest which was a nationalist protest in charlottesville, virginia around a confederate statue, there was a counter protest were a young man allegedly drove a car and wounded a young woman and 19 others. the news that came out of this event was driven by cell phone videos. snap have an impressive scope which was the first video allegedly of this guy getting arrested. the way that that video got out in the world is that it was posted on snap and it went through this editorial process that we detail where they tried to fact check it. they called the charlottesville police department asking is this the guy, they looked at the time stamps and the location data
that is coming in to try to figure out if this was real. based on these conversations, they then cut together this sort of video. snapchat called it an ourstory. julia: they were the last to break the news. max: snapchat takes the screenshot and people on facebook and twitter notice that and started passing it around. snapchat waited to publish on their newsfeed until they verified. carol: hours later. max: on the one hand, that is a huge missed opportunity. snapchat could have got that news out earlier. on the other hand, it shows that they have a process that is different. when you look at the rest of the news cycle around charlottesville, facebook and google did not acquit themselves very well. carol: in the technology section, amazon is getting
millions of dollars in tax exemptions and grants in ohio, but what is the state getting in return? jack: a big part of the sales pitch in 2010 was to bring back jobs to ohio, which was trailing in the recession mainly by privatizing the state economic development agency . that was one of the first things kasich was sworn in as governor. among other things, ohio is unusual in that the state has a monopoly control over liquor sales. control that they rested from bootleggers and the mafia in the 1930's. they privatized to an agency
shortly after kasich became governor for the price of $1.4 billion. the jobs ohio was given a 25 year lease for the proceeds over liquor sales in the state, before the sale about $150 million a year in the state general fund and now we are down to about $250 million a year in profits to the development agency. carol: so, all is good in ohio? not so much. jack: ohio still lags the national average. critics of the agency including for many's auditor years says that it is largely a function of the fact that it is hard to tell how goods the deals
the deals jobs ohio is getting for municipalities are until terms are signed. ohio has made amazon a real beneficiary of that over the course of now five deals. carol: the specifics about that blew my mind a little bit, the brakes, one after another, that were given to amazon. jack: over the course of the first four of those five deals, millions in tax breaks upfront. deals by the private economic development agency rather than municipalitylit itself, approved by the five person ohio tax control authority but that is mostly people from private industry and one state official. carol: no sales taxes for 15 years, and $81 million deal, 1.4 billion in cash, money to build
a warehouse. jack: the brakes from contributing to local municipal funds are a big part of this. it is not that ohio is particularly unique in terms of wanting to attract companies to set up with tax breaks of various kinds. the various local officials that we talked to for the story soon say they are being crushed by the culmination of tax relief for amazon and requirements to take care of amazon's new facilities for public services to which they are not contribute in. -- not contributing. next, apple's plans to take over the red carpet. this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪
washington, d.c., and am 960 in the bay area. and in asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. over $250 billion in cash on hand, apple has more than enough money to make good on plans to produce television. some in hollywood are wondering whether the company has a strategy. >> the mission is the big question. they have hired a couple of very experienced television executives from sony, to run the new division which has right now 10 people working in it and soon enough will have 80 or 90. they are going to be producing 6-8 shows for 2019. we do not know where they will live, how we will access them, much it will cost. big picture, the idea is that apple wants to to other you to your phone, your apple tv, and
perhaps either introduce a new service or use shows to buttress this tv app, because as the growth in iphones has slowed, it is looking to services like apple music and video to accelerate growth. julia: we are talking about a $1 billion budget in terms of content for the first year. compare that to amazon and netflix and think that is a bit of a fizzle. going back to the point we are making about the strategy, how important is tv going to be for apple? >> $1 billion is not only small terms, it isn small in apple terms. netflix is going to spend about $7 million or $8 billion next year, amazon spent $8.6 billion this year.
faithf facebook has tossed out $1 billion, youtube has tossed out $1 billion. that is the ballpark. i think they are trying to convey how serious they are about the programming they are making. when you compare it to other media companies it is a small budget. the difference between apple and facebook is that apple is spreading out -- facebook is running out among a lot of smaller programs. apple is going for high-end shows, a handful of premium projects with names like steven spielberg. carol: not a lot in comparison to what netflix is spending, the deep pockets at apple. but if you are a creator, you are putting apple at the top. lucas: any time an agent goes out with a top project, there is a list of 6-8 places. places that qualify.
apple has immediately landed on that list because everybody in the entertainment industry has an iphone in their pockets. everybody has a strong affiliation with that brand. they like the idea of experimenting, even if they do not know where the show is going to be. carol: if you have as much money as apple, we have an idea for you. hannah elliott profiles the bells and whistles of one of the most expensive cars on the planet, the rolls-royce phantom. >> it was like riding on a magic carpet through the swiss outs. halps. you feel like the queen of england. she is the premier buyer of this vehicle. people like the queen of a woman to buy the car and that is how you feel when you write it.
-- ride it. carol: you were behind the wheel. you were not in the back like the queen. >> i did both. let me say that it is remarkable. the car is made to be enjoyed in the backseat. this is an enormous car for driving tycoons and heads of state, celebrities, olivet. i was on a tiny swiss road, behind the wheel of his massive sedan. it actually handles amazing. it is really surprising that a car that big and heavy, it handles beautifully. just a little slow. you float along. carol: magic carpet. talk about the inside. julia and i were talking about the story. >> it has the champagne cooler in the backseat. reclining seats that massage you. doors that open and close at the touch of a button. the story light headliner, it -- the starry light headliner, it looks like the milky way above you. everything is heavy and real. if you touch it, it is real leather, real wool, real wood.
we have polished wood picnic tables that go down from the feet in front of you. everything. julia: i think she is undecided. [laughter] hannah: it goes to show you. carol: undecided between the front and the back? hannah: it depends on the day. carol: what does it cost? >> it starts at 450,000 u.s. u.s. s did -- $450,000 i have to say that for the people buying this car, are there options? it becomes your own thing. everyone bespokes it, everyone gets their own thing. zero of these cars are $450,000. they cost more because everyone that buys them wanted to feel like theirs. they have this gallery in the dashboard where you can put your objects.
or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.
david: coming up on "bloomberg best," the stories that shaped the week in business around the world. president xi tightens his grip p's partyt china congress. a gamble pays off before shinzo abe. the ecb turns its focus to tapering. >> the decision today is for an open-ended program. david: some of the financial world's most important figures. >> there are places we can invest and improve our market share and improve our position. i don't