And twitter scoring a major streaming deal with the nfl for thursday night games but julia reports the nfl did not sell to the highest bidder. Perhaps it has something to do with twitters cfo formerly being the cfo of the nfl. Well see. Well have the details coming up. Tonight a crucial primary in wisconsin as you know where front runners donald trump and Hillary Clinton could see big losses. Which candidate could have the most positive impact on business, we have john paul joining us to talk about that among many things with john paul. Were looking forward to that conversation here. You wont want to miss this conversation, a former bailout czar now taking aim at the big banks. Im the guy who bailed out the banks. Remember that . The 700 billion t. A. R. P. Program. I was the person put in charge of that program. We remember, Neel Kashkari, why he making a public push on too big to fail banks. He only took over the minneapolis fed january 1 stt and already making waves in the month of march. That will be an interesting conversation. Lets start with the losses across wall street. Joining us today, Quincy Crosby from Prudential Financial and stephen gilfoil and Rick Santelli from chicago. The weakness today, do we attribute it to oil now that the oil well explosion in iraq. What do you make of this weakness in equities today . We came in weak this morning based on Christine Lagardes loose lips, she took a shot she said everything you knew already, low inflation, low growth, basically everything that we knew about the economy and the Global Economy she pretty much spit out and set the table for maybe a reduction in imf forecast going forward. Thats why we came in weak. Since that we traded technically, three times now. You know what happens when we hit something three times, door opens and we go the other way. So far it looks like well take a shot at 2015 before the close. Quincy, sarge mentioned comments from Christine Lagarde with the move in the yen overnight and data at home which is positive. How excited can you get about the fundamentals of the u. S. Compa economy with you have to keep one eye on weakness . Absolutely. Even after we got our date take, which is better than expected. You saw the futures market push out the first said rate hike and saw the 10year yields are down. So that was basically saying, growth is slow and chugging along barely. We have to wait to get more data points certainly. Rick, on that 10year, 171 at one time today, i saw 172. Whats going on with treasuries today . Ill give you one answer. Bunds. There was a lot of data that wasnt very good. And i think the imf might have been with that as sarge referenced. If you look at jgb in japan and german curve in europe, these are important and reminds me of the last time we were talking about these when bund yields moved down to 07. I think theres a lot of that going on today. We traded down the 08 basis points, nine basis points. I think the inversion conversation, we know how the aftermarket acted yesterday. I think sarge is right it kept equities down. Cuba tries to keep their people inside cuba. Now the United States is keeping business in the u. S. Is it a good thing . Tax selections will go up because the forcing companies to be less profitable . Its a travesty. That they can cherry pick within the Corporate Tax structure which is just a mass. Its a rubic mess and this is what they come up with and think its good and try to embarrass companies to follow in the knuckle head rules that they created . Im surprised that market isnt down more. Well talk more about inversion with meg tirrell. Do you think well see the 10year bund go to zero . Will we get there . I think its highly possible. On this floor many traders ask me, are we going to test those all time low yields at 138. My answer is always the same. If bunds test zero, anything is possible and i do think mario draghi, thinking hes fixing things will create lower rates which will result in worse banking profits which will result in more negative rates. They arent fixing, they are breaking. Sarge, i told you rick would bring up the 10year bund today, right . I would like to know if the 10year bund is going to test zero. Does the 10year u. S. Bond test 1. 2 or 1. 3 or something crazy like that . You have money pouring into the u. S. Looking for yields. What did you say . You have money that needs to go into a safe place, pension fund, our yield looks good even if it comes down to 1 ht 3, it looks attractive to what japan has to deal with and europe has to deal with. It doesnt look so attractive to put money into an asset where the price is going to go down and yields will go up. Weve been talking about the fact that yields are going to eventually go up for years at this point. What if by the time you put money into the bonds it finally happens. You saw germany offer a fiveyear with negative yields and they were lining up to get that money. What is it . 50 to 60 of global debt has a negative next to it and money goes into it. Whats happening is this Central Banks are literally changing the face of investing changing the way capitalism looks. Its truly were getting used to it. Thats the problem. We better get unused to it because at some point fund amountles will matter and well go through an unwind. Yes, go quincy. I knew you would be cheering that one. Thats the end of the debt super cycle when that happens. Well reconvene when that does happen, rick and sarge. See you in 20 years. Lets talk about the treasuries. New steps to crack down on tax saving foreign inversion. This move has put pfizers 160 billion takeover of allergan in jeopardy with pfizer thinking of abandoning that deal all together. President obama spoke about the new rules earlier at the white house. Ive been pushing for years to eliminate some of the injustices in our tax system. Im very pleased that the Treasury Department has taken new action to prevent more corporations from taking advantage of one of the most insidious tax loopholes out there and fleeing the country to get out of paying taxes. That was from earlier today, the president speaking at the white house on inversion. Meg tirrell join us for more. I know youve been following this pfizer allergan deal. 160 billion deal after treasury and the white house had been so critical of these inversions and some level was this not just taunting washington to come out with something new. How did they not expect that would happen . A lot of people ask that question, how can they go through with this and not expect anything to come of it . You saw a big spread in the deal before this. I can say everybody has really been very surprised at these deals that came out and rules that came out last night. This is the third time treasury has issued guidelines on inversions and while president obama said today they are designed to make inversions more difficult but only tax reform can actually eliminate conversion. It looks like they could make the deal not happen. And a lot of people are say gs, these rules actually specifically target pfizer allergan by looking at the size of allergan and saying it cant count two of the last big acquisitions in accounting for its size. Therefore pfizer buying it, allergan isnt big enough to count as an inversion. And therefore would be too small of a company for pfizer to be considered inverting and to make sense under the new rules folks think this one might shall dead. Youve been reporting analysts have been putting out notes about allergan and pfizer. Jim cramer said maybe now allergan becomes a quis tif. Too early to talk about what these Companies Look like once this deal is out of the picture . No, were getting analysts notes, one looking at the pricing dynamics in botox. People are going back to the fund amountals on these. Allergan is expected to close that deal pretty soon, 40 billion in proceeds. And they already completed their inversion so theyve got the more favorable tax break. Do you think this deal with allergan pfizer is the camel that broke the straw that broke the camels back. If so, are there other companies rethinking the possibility of merging if theres a tax inversion involved . Thanks for having me. As i look through the regulations last night, yeah, i would say treasury and irs seem to be targeting these two companies as meg mentioned with this threeyear look back. They wouldnt qualify for inversion rules as they stand today. It was real targeted. I think some people would say the rules were in overreach because even though they are temporary, they are the rule of the law for next three years for any deal closed after april the 4th which was yesterday. Im curious though we talked so much about the deals affected by this and there has been a lot of deals where the companies have had to specified purpose of relocating their headquarters for doing a deal and a lot of Big Companies that get revenue in the u. S. And use these complicated tax structures to channel those earnings into oir subsidiaries and these rules take aim at those too. Im wondering if there are maybe other companies that might be hit on the bottom line by this that didnt necessarily do a deal to get there . Agreed. Youre going to be looking at multinationals impacted by these rules. Whats interesting here is that the other rules that came out on inversions from the treasury were around the edges and watered down whereas this one actually with the inversion language does impact allergan and pfizer. The reaction i would say in washington since the rules came out last night, its relatively new but youve got republicans are saying, hey, we cannot address this issue piecemeal. We need to do comprehensive tax reform which we know wont happen until the new president and you have democrats and schumer and durbin who said this is a great step forward. You cant really take this one issue and look at it in a silo. Otherwise you might have unintended consequences with the other multinationals. Before we go, meg, weve all just been focusing on the tax implications, was there a strategic reason for allergan and pfizer . Whats going to be lost there . Well, they like to say the deal wasnt all about taxes but my reporting tells me they wonts do it if they couldnt invert. For that purpose, that is the main thing. Allergan has a lot of great assets, weve done a lot of joint interviews. It doesnt look like they are going to be partners at least in this sway in the future. Yeah, thats clearly what it was all about. Thank you both. Good to see you. Thanks for joining us today. Appreciate it. A news alerts on donald trump and ford. What do they have in common . I know what it is. Phil lebeau. Its only took four hours since ford announced it will build a new auto plant in mexico, creating 2800 jobs in mexico. And now donald trump has responded. Remember for weeks if not months he has been blasting ford over the possibility of moving a plant to mexico. He says this transaction is an absolute disgrace. Our dishonest politicians and special interest that control them are laughing in the face of all american citizens. These ridiculous job crushing transactions will not happen when im president. By the way, earlier today when i talked with the president of the ford of americas who really is in charge of manufacturing in north and central and south america for ford, i asked him, do you have any thoughts about how donald trump will react to this . He didnt take the bait. Ford is trying to stay away from this debate with donald trump but clearly he is seizing on the fact that ford has gone ahead as many have expected and will build a new small car plant in mexico and blasting ford. For this part for now ford will not react to what donald trump is saying. I did hear an interview that a ford official gave elsewhere, his rationale was we havent built a factory in mexico for 30 years. Which shows commitment to the United States. I dont know if that passes the smell test, do you think . A couple of thinks to keep in mind when it comes to the plant in mexico. Mexico has more trade agreements with more countries than almost any other country around. More than the United States. You cannot build a car in the United States and ship it to brazil, which is a growing auto markets. You can build a small car in mexico and ship it to brazil, not just brazil but lots of other countries as well. When you look at the economics of building a small car, its hard to turn a profit on one with high wages and other costs in the u. S. You can do that in mexico and by the way, they are not moving a plant to mexico, they are simply building a new plant there. I know the uaw is saying put it here, create jobs here, but we also want to be clear here, they are not novembmoving a plant do mexico. Thanks very much. 44 minutes left in the trading session and the dow was down 100 plus points. A down day to continue this week. But the financials are struggling. They have been all day. Well have minneapolis fed president Neel Kashkari, why hes making such a public show of sentiment. Twitter beats amazon and verizon and facebook to live stream thursday night games next season. Why the nfl did not sell to the highest bigger in this deal. Youre watching cnbc, first in business worldwide. And that a tired dog is a good dog. [ dog barking, crashing ] so when you need a dog walker or a handyman, we can help you get the job done right, guaranteed. Get started today at angies list. Minneapolis Federal Reserve president Neel Kashkari is calling for the break up of big banks. I think too big to fail is still a problem. I wish dodd frank, ill put that aside. His predecessor was very big on too big to fail. We worked together prior to the crisis. There is a long tradition for minneapolis fed on this issue. Neel kashkari joins us now. Take a moment to respond to what sheila bair had to say why youre choosing right now to be so voekle on an issue that has been at work in washington for eight years . Well, thanks for having me, in 2011, just after dodd frank was passed, i gave a speech at the chicago fed and expressed some of my concerns that i thought dodd frank did a lot of good but doesnt solve the too big to fail problem. I ran for office now during the minneapolis fed and been able to work with the experts here in minneapolis to look at whats been accomplished with dodd frank and whats left remaining. More than anything, i dont want the American People to have a false sense of security that we addressed too big to fail that this cant happen again. I think some of those risks remain and we need to consider more Transformational Solutions to deal with this problem once and for all. Im going to come off as a cynical journalist by asking this but dont mean it in a confrontational way. Why are you using the bully pulpit of the minneapolis fed to further this cause . It is a tradition, gary stern was big on this as sheila bair mentioned, but theres no authority. You carry no authority. Theres no regulation you could come up with that would do anything about this. All youre doing is just jaw boning around the country to talk about this issue that theyve been dealing with in washington for eight years. Why now . If im not going to speak up, whos going to do it . Do you think its okay if congress and American People are left with a false sense of security that it cant happen 20 or 50 years ago, may not be back in the same situation. You dont think dodd frank is gone far enough, that the Capital Requirements in place now and some of the other regulations that by the way people like jamie dimon, theyve often called dodd frank, dodd frankenstein, fed up with regulations they have to deal with. You dont think its gone far enough . For the biggest banks no i dont. Dodd frank has done good. Stress testing, these are all steps in the right direction. I absolutely acknowledge that the question is in a stressed economic environment like a crisis when multiple banks are running into trouble at the same time, will we be able to hair cut bond holders and creditors . I say the answer is no. The reason is the con tagion from one bank to another bank to another bank. No one has figured out how to solve t dodd frank hasnt done it. We see it in europe with the contingent conversion debt. Those contingent conversion securities havent added to stability. Theyve added to instability and uncertainty. We need to be honest about that. Do you think the system really would be more secure if you broke up the banks and gave the fed and u. S. Economy three or more new investment banks that they would have to hold capital against and would still have inherent risk in the Business Model but not cushioned by other Business Units . Would that be the ideal outcome for you for the economy . We havent decided what the ideal structure looks like. What im saying it and we in minneapolis are saying, a bunch of these Transformational Solutions were taken off the table in 2010. They are too bold coming out of the crisis. Now is the time to reflect on the last seven or eight years. What have we learned and what progress has been made . Breaking up banks and one of the options we looked add yet, profess area johnson m. I. T. Talked about it and increasing Capital Requirements so banks are so strong they cant fail. You can never eliminate all risk. I dont think we would want to but we can go further than weve gone today. Its all about cost benefit analysis. Wheres the optimal safety versus cost versus risk for the economy and for the country . So youre acknowledging that a review has to be done and is about to be done but some of the criticism especially from tony fratto, he said that the issue is that youre beginning a review not with questions but conclusion. Is that fair . Well, first of all, i love him, we worked together at treasury and he is the ultimate Bank Lobbyist who fights for his clients. I have nothing but respect for him in that capacity. I dont so. We live streamed our symposium yesterday, oppress, open to the public to participate. Vibrant discussion. All sides were represented and we brought a lot of issues forward. I would encourage you and your colleagues at krxts nbc and public to watch us and pay close attention. Youll see ho