C (4:44)

Great stuff. Thanks very much. President Trump, by the way, calling for the termination of Fed Chair Jay Powell this morning. But a senior White House official has told CNBC just a few hours ago that the post on Truth Social should not be seen as a direct threat to fire J. Powell. Senator Elizabeth Warren meanwhile, warned on Squawk on the street that if Trump is able to fire him, markets will crash. Joining me to discuss all this, Stephanie Roth, Chief economist at Wolff Research, James Pethis, economic policy analyst at AEI and CNBC's senior economics reporter Steve Leesman. A very good afternoon to you all. Steve, I'm going to start with you. Is it possible to fire the Fed chair? Is it totally impossible or are there odd ways around it that the President could do if he so desired?

A (5:30)

Well, the chair can be fired by the President for cause which is generally thought to be incompetence at the job or some malfeasance that they might commit. The idea of disagreeing with the chairs monetary policy, which by the way is not just the chairs, it's the whole Federal Market Committee that would most people believe not be sufficient cause to dismiss the chair.

C (5:58)

Jimmy, what's your take on that? Is it something that is plausible if he so desired to do it?

A (6:04)

I think it could become more plausible depending on the Supreme Court, which is going to be looking at the ability of the President to sort of fire people who are running independent agencies right now. I think Steve, you know Steve Way described it is correct that normally you would not think you were able to fire, fire the Fed chairman. But it sounds like that that's what Trump currently believes, that he can't do it. That's what Besson's telling him. So then what is the purpose of a social media posting which will a only add on the unneeded uncertainty in the markets? I mean what is the point of that unless you're trying to pin a potential recession on Powell so they get the blame rather than you. But I think by doing that and creating more uncertainty, you may actually be bringing out, bringing about the outcome that you fear?

C (6:55)

Well, I bet the blame game is part of it. Stephanie, do you think the tweet itself is something that will influence Powell and other Fed members?

B (7:03)

No, I don't, I don't believe that they're going to be influenced by him. I think they're going to stick to what they do best, which is follow the data. They're going to be data dependent, perhaps a little bit late to some extent in the sense that they have to wait for data to get bad before they can react. And I think that was the market's reaction yesterday after Powell's speech, is that they're going to have to wait to see the unemployment rate rise more materially in order to cut rates. They're not going to get ahead of this. They're not going to cut in advance. They're going to have to watch to see if unemployment rate really becomes an issue, especially given the inflation side of the backdrop as well.

C (7:33)

So sum up, Stephanie, where your forecasts are after that speech yesterday. For the rest of this year, in terms of rate cuts, we're looking for.

B (7:40)

Two cuts towards the back half of this year. The market is looking for a little bit more than 3. Our base case is just that it's going to take a lot longer for the Fed to be able to actually step in in terms of easing, and the market is just a little bit more optimistic than we are in terms of when the Fed can do that. So base cases probably more like September of this year at the earliest.

C (7:59)

Steve, I want to get you to expand on something that you mentioned briefly with Scott last hour, which was that if we get trade deals, rate cuts become more likely. I'd almost think it would be the other way round. It might support the economy and make less need for one. So just talk us through your thinking on that.

A (8:17)

Well, it depends on, I mean, let me, let me separate that. There's two things going on here, Wolf, which is one is the process and one is the policy. What I think Powell and by the way, several other members of the Fed are saying is we can't figure out what the outcome is going to be, in part because the policy at this point is uncertain. And I think every single investor, no matter how much money they have in the market, would agree that the policy has been a little, shall we say, chaotic or cacophonous or any other word you might want to come up with that would fit there. And so that makes it very difficult to take a number and plug it into your model and come up with something, I would say that's a prerequisite these deals for figuring out what the ultimate economic impact is going to be. Note that a big part of what Powell has said is that the tariffs are larger than we expected, and so the economic effects will be larger than we expected. It tells you that they have to go back with some of their assumptions as by the way, well, so did the market. The market was already down in anticipation of the April 2 announcement. It took another leg down because it was pricing in worse outcomes from that. So now there's a game going on. What is the deal with China? What's the deal with Japan? What's the deal with the eu? Those are probably the three most significant ones along with Canada and Mexico and then we can figure it out. So I just don't think the Fed will feel like it has the all clear to begin thinking about what the right level of interest rates is once they until they have some of these major deals in place.

C (9:53)

Jimmy, you mentioned that we're not sure what the motivation of the tweet was. I guess it does though at least focus our minds on if Powell left or indeed when he leaves is not that long left on his term anyway, who he'll be replaced by. Do you think Donald Trump knows who he wants the replacement to be already or not?

A (10:14)

Well, I don't know. I don't know if he does. I think you know, I was thinking about this question myself and I was trying to put together a short list of people who I think the Senate would confirm and that who sort of the President's base would like and it was not a very long list. It was tough to put that list together. And then this is pure speculation. I mean it wouldn't surprise me if the next Fed chair would be like Scott Bessant, someone who's already been approved by the Senate, someone the President knows, someone who apparently already has approval of the President's base. But I mean I guess if I were the White House I would not want investors that thinking about that post Powell era because it does look uncertain not knowing what kind of person really Trump would appoint.

C (11:02)

Would the Senate not appoint pretty much anyone? As was shown with some of the cabinet approvals.

A (11:11)

I don't think it would be automatic. I could certainly come up with a list of people who the President might like that that would be a real fight to get them approved. I no, no doubt about that. Hey, well let me just throw something in real quick which is maybe for the panel. What does today's tweet tell you about what kind of person the President wants in that job? And that is something perhaps that the, the people, the people who are trading gold today might be reacting to?

C (11:41)

Well for sure. I mean Goliath pausing a little bit though relative to its to Its recent run. Stephanie, talk us through where you are for GDP growth for this year and I guess importantly as well, employment levels. If you only do get those two cuts late in the year.

B (11:59)

Yes, we're looking for 0.6% on GDP growth this year and inflation around 3.6, 3.7%. So that's an environment that in a strange way is kind of one of the best case scenarios for this year because that's likely very inflationary and if we don't get negative GDP as a result, then you're in a decent spot for, for the outcome, in which case the Fed will be able to ease, but not all that much. You don't really want an environment where the Fed is cutting four times. That's an environment where we're seeing a significant amount of job loss, GDP is, is flat to negative, and the Fed is forced to cut because the backdrop is so severe. An environment where they're only cutting two times is actually kind of a sweet spot.

C (12:39)

So. So to be clear, Stephanie, you're. You're not expecting a recession. Are you pretty confident there won't be one in the next 12 months?

B (12:46)

It's very hard to be confident of anything in this environment. A lot of it ties back to the tariff backdrop, which is very difficult to forecast. So the way we're looking at it is we're assuming that we have roughly 10% universal baseline tariffs. China gets negotiated down to something like 50% where it's not something that is going to set imports down to zero and the sectoral tariffs go through. So they are a significant amount of tariffs. They are a substantial 1% GDP headwind or a little bit more, but not as significant as what we got before the 90 day. That would have been recessionary. We feel fairly confident about that. This backdrop could be such that we could kind of skirt a recession, although just barely.

C (13:26)

Jimmy, your suggestion that Besant could be the candidate brings to thought another question. I always used to think this when Janet Yellen, of course occupied both. Both jobs. Which is the better job, Treasury Secretary or Fed Chair?

A (13:42)

Obviously, if you want to have an influence, it's Fed Chair, but hey, why not? Why not both? I, I don't think is actually technically and may become even more possible depending what the Supreme Court rules for the same person to occupy both positions have their Treasury Secretary be your Fed chair. Listen, if Rubio could be head of USAID and Secretary of State, we could combine the positions. Would it be an orthodox. Sure. Would markets hate it? Sure. Would President Trump be willing to do it? Can anybody rule that out?

C (14:14)

Well, I mean, Stephanie, what would happen to the markets if that, if, if that was the case, if, if a cabinet member, because it could be the president. I guess if you can do both. But if, for argument's sake, if Besson occupied both roles, I don't think that.

B (14:29)

I don't think that would be a very good backdrop. So we're concerned right now about the dollar coming down. We would expect more material dollar weakness rates could potentially go up because of term premium. That is not something that would be very good for markets. So we certainly don't anticipate.

A (14:42)

What about Nick? What about secretary Fed chair?

C (14:46)

Steve Lost. Lost. Question to Steve. Which job would you most like?

A (14:51)

I don't want any of those jobs right now. I want to tell you that we can find out what happens when you combine those jobs, which is, look at the Turkish lira would be a really good example of what happens when a central bank loses independence. I would just like to underscore Jimmy's idea, which is previous Fed chairs have spent a time in the White House before they moved into the Fed chair position. Bernanke did and others have as well. So that's something to watch for. I think the idea of Kevin Wash is interesting, but I don't think he's a player compliant guy. He's one of the guys who's written in the Wall Street Journal for the tact that Powell is taking right now. And what War said was that the Fed owns the secondary impact of, of tariffs, primary impact. You get an increase in prices because you've tariffed it. Whether or not it goes on and spreads, that is monetary policy. And by the way, that is exactly what Powell has said now on April 4 and again yesterday where he did not change his tune, that it's the Fed's obligation to make sure that tariff inflation in the first instance does not become tariff inflation in the second instance.

C (16:06)

Guys, we have to leave it there. I very much enjoyed that, Steve, Jimmy, Stephanie, thanks so much. We will continue this debate, of course, and Steve will be speaking exclusively with the Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee on Monday. Monday morning, that's at 8:30am Eastern time, will be on Scorebox. Well worth tuning into that, of course, after the extended Easter weekend. Now President Trump demands rate cuts here in the U.S. europe just made their third of the year. The ECB cutting by another 25 basis points, warning that rising trade tensions are hindering growth outlooks. Those concerns have one of my next guests sticking with US equities for the Time being, let's bring in Paul Christopher, head of Global investment strategy at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute, along with Barry Bannister, chief equity strategist at Stifel. A very good afternoon to you both. Great to see you. I'll come to you first, Paul, and just this uncertainty that we've got today created by these truth social posts around the Fed chair, does it, does it worry you that we're back to the sort of worst moments of policy uncertainty the last couple of weeks, or do you think the worst is behind us?

A (17:13)

Probably the worst is behind us, but.

C (17:15)

We still have to see what happens.

A (17:17)

With those sectoral tariffs.

C (17:18)

But you know, these posts, these social.

A (17:20)

Media posts, they have echoes. They are an echo of the same kinds of posts that we saw about tariffs. And so having seen those posts and then the tariffs that arrived, it does put some doubt into the minds of some investors about what exactly the president.

C (17:36)

Will want to do in terms of.

A (17:37)

Trying to control monetary policy as well.

C (17:39)

As fiscal policy and tariffs. Barry, equally, what was your takeaway from what the Fed chair did say yesterday and did it worry you, did it concern you that it sounds like we won't get preemptive interest rate cuts?

A (17:53)

Well, I think they're just echoing what we all know, which is that the environment is uncertain. But keep in mind that the next meeting where we do expect a cut after some trade deals and after better inflation data, the middle two months of the year is June 18th. That's two months away. It's only, you know, it's been a couple months since the market peaked in February and that feels like an eternity to me.

C (18:18)

What is your latest call, Barry, in terms of S&P 500 for the year ahead? Do you think we've had the worst or is it pretty risky from here to be increasing exposure?

A (18:28)

Yeah, we entered the year with a 5,500 target for the end of the year. I think the street was about high six thousands and other than an attempt to play we got 99% of it, but an attempt to play that relief rally off the March 13 initial bottom, it bounced pretty hard. And then of course, the Mexico, Canada blew up and the rest was history. But we've stayed with 5,500. That is our view. And we've been in defensive value, which is more of a stagflation trade.

C (18:58)

Talk me through some names that would appear in the defensive value bucket.

A (19:04)

Food, beverage and tobacco primarily, along with health care, equipment, waste managing companies and gold. These are all beneficiaries, for example, of small stagflation even if it's a mild case.

C (19:19)

Paul, in terms of this debate about the risks ahead for the U.S. you talked about the way the tweets could worry investors. Does The S&P 500 warrant a lower P E multiple today compared to a month ago and by what scale?

A (19:34)

Oh, it probably does.

C (19:36)

And certainly if you go back even.

A (19:37)

To September, October, end of last year, it does. But we've maintained that for some time.

C (19:44)

The multiples on on tech, which really.

A (19:45)

Drove the overall multiple, that those were too high.

C (19:48)

And so we think those multiples have come down quite a bit here and we really like quality here.

A (19:53)

And so we picked up tech IT to join with communication services last March, a month ago as a value play. Well, more like a quality play is what I mean. Going forward, you don't know where the.

C (20:05)

Bottom of this market is going to be.

A (20:07)

And tech and comm services might participate in some of that downside, but we.

C (20:11)

Do think those longer term trends are.

A (20:13)

Very positive for those sectors and so we like much better the multiples that we're seeing today versus even those of a couple of months ago.

C (20:20)

Paul, are you getting clients asking you more about international equities over the course of the last few weeks and what's your answer to them when they ask you if it's better than the US at the moment?

A (20:28)

Yeah, we do get those questions and.

C (20:30)

We'Ve had them especially since the beginning of the year.

A (20:32)

But look, Europe still has important structural problems.

C (20:35)

They're overregulated.

A (20:36)

They have a desperate energy problem that they still haven't solved.

C (20:40)

President's offering them a potential partial solution. Let's see if they take it.

A (20:44)

But energy is a big problem for them.

C (20:46)

And it's one thing to say, hey.

A (20:47)

You know what, we're all going to.

C (20:48)

Spend 2% of our GDP on defense.

A (20:51)

But can they all afford it? If you start seeing France ramp up borrowing, what happens to those, those government.

C (20:58)

Bond yields and then what does that.

A (20:59)

Do to capital formation in the French economy? So we are very skeptical that Europe.

C (21:04)

Is going to be able to come through with this determination, so recently expressed, of being able to spend more. Well, it's definitely a legitimate point, perhaps outside of Germany where Obviously debt to GDP is pretty, pretty low, about 60% on that point. Paul, can the US afford to keep spending like it is at the moment? How closely do you watch the 10 to 30 year yield? And do you worry that we could see a very significant increase in those yields in the years ahead?

A (21:32)

Yeah, we do worry about that and.

C (21:33)

We think that, that it will those.

A (21:35)

Those yields will rise in the years ahead. But we've gone underweight on long term fixed income.

C (21:39)

Right now we, we prefer the intermediate.

A (21:42)

Part of the curve. We think you get better value there in the three to seven year maturity range. But yes, the fiscal position does look like one that's heading towards an intersection, you know, where you have to, you.

C (21:53)

Have to make a choice, you have to make a decision. And these, these arguments over discretionary spending.

A (21:57)

Are kind of beside the point.

C (21:59)

The real elephant in the room are.

A (22:01)

The entitlement spending programs and those will have to be addressed if we want to address the long term debt and.

C (22:06)

The deficit of the U.S. barry, last word to you. If we did see a recession materialize or even a quarter where growth is flat, do you think there'd be a big amount of selling due in the s and P510% pullback?

B (22:21)

More?

C (22:21)

What would you, what would you take?

A (22:23)

We know that fixed investment and net exports are going to be weak. I mean just gold imports alone pre, pre tariff worries caused the trade balance to deteriorate. You see it in the Atlanta GDP now cast with and without gold. So I don't think it would overreact. But if real final sales, excluding inventory and net exports, if that does drop as we expect towards 1%, that stagflationary fear would still exist in the market and we would continue to work with our defensive value bet.

C (22:58)

But you wouldn't lower your S&P 500 target overall.

A (23:02)

Our S&P 500 target reflects the volatility of the market. What we do need is the Fed to bring rates down as the economy weakens. That's not going to be overly bullish, of course, but what it does is it puts a cushion on the downside. So 5,500 was the midpoint of where we came up with as the range and we're going to stick with that for now.

C (23:24)

Barry, Paul, great to see you both. Thanks so much for joining us.

A (23:27)

Thank you. Thank you.

C (23:28)

So to come here on the Exchange, Netflix on deck to report results. Remember this is the first quarter where the streamer will not report subscriber metrics. We've got the numbers and narratives to be looking out for ahead of those numbers crossing at the close plus semis ending the week on a sound note. Nvidia and Broadcom now more than 30% off their record highs. We'll ask a trader if it's a buying opportunity or whether there's more pain ahead. As we get a break is another look at stocks. UnitedHealth is the name that is almost entirely responsible for the Dow being down more than 1%. A big difference, of course, to the S&P 500, which is up 0.4%. The Nasdaq pretty much flat because of those semis keeping any gains tempered. We'll be back here on the Exchange in a couple of minutes.

A (24:13)

Being diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, or.

B (24:16)

One of over 100 other types of blood cancer makes people want more time to do the things they love. We are blood cancer United States. We do the most for more people with blood cancer.

A (24:25)

Join us and donate@bloodcancerunited.org with leading networking and connectivity, advanced cybersecurity and expert partnership, Comcast business helps turn today's enterprises into engines of modern business powering the engine of modern business powering possibilities. Restrictions apply.

B (24:44)

I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work, and its AI features are literally saving us hours every day. We're big fans, and just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com with intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities, and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with. Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

C (25:15)

Welcome back to the Exchange, where the Magnificent Seven all lower so far this year, but Netflix up 10% since January, widely seen as a safe haven from tariffs. The streamer reports after the bell and it will be the first quarter that won't include subscriber numbers. So what metrics should investors be watching? Joining me now, CNBC senior media and tech correspondent Julia Borson. And here on set with me is Mark Douglas, CEO of advertising tech firm Mountain. A very good afternoon to you both. Mark, good to have you here in studio. Julia, I'm going to come to you first of all because it's fascinating to see how well Netflix stock has done of late, ahead of a moment that could have been seen as them trying to cover up the fact that their growth is slowing. I remember when Apple switched to the way they reported iPhone sales. Just a revenue number, not the apps, the number of handsets held. But people are kind of taking this in their stride. At least the analyst community has.

B (26:09)

This is, this is a different situation, I think, than what Apple did because this comes at a time and maybe there are similarities, but this comes at a time when Netflix is focused more on engagement than on overall subscriber numbers. I also have to note that the first quarter is traditionally a slow one when it comes to subscriber additions. And in the fourth quarter this past quarter, Netflix added a record 19 million subscribers. Now they top over 300 million subs worldwide. And what we're seeing now is a shift away from focus on subscriber additions to revenue and profit growth. And I think it does, does not, it does not surprise us that this also comes as the company works to build up its advertising business. The advertising business is about engagement, not subscriber numbers. And it's notable that earlier this week there was a report that set the stock higher that said that the company expects to hit $9 billion in ad revenue by 2030. So I think the factor that's going to be most important to watch here is what the company says about its new revenue streams and, and making more money from each of those subscribers it already has.

C (27:12)

Mark, what do you make of the sort of timing of this? There's been, there's been a lead up period. We know this has been coming for, for a few quarters now, but it does come off a blowout quarter last quarter. So it's kind of convenient timing almost that they don't have to follow that up with another big subscriber beat.

A (27:27)

Yeah, I mean beating 19 million additions was going to be hard, but I actually think they may change their mind because as we move in the Q2, so it's going to be about holding on to subscribers as people maybe, you know, kind of consider what they're spending money on, things like that. And I always think the first thing you get is the last thing you cancel. And for most kind of subscribers and streaming, the first thing they're going to get is Netflix. So I think even if their subscriber numbers weren't increasing, they would show strength just to hold their numbers. And now they're not reporting that. So who knows, maybe they change their mind later today.

C (28:04)

Julie, do you think that's possible?

B (28:08)

Look, they did say that they were going to be announcing different subscriber milestones so that it wasn't going to be a quarterly thing. But when they hit 350 million subscribers worldwide, I expect we'll hear about that. I also think it's interesting to think about the fact that they recently started rolling out price increases. This question of how much price elasticity there is around Netflix is one that we're going to keep an eye on. Will the price increases drive Churn or will they use a lower tier ad supported version of Netflix to broaden their base? But of course that's a different calculation. And I think ads will Especially be valuable in international expansion into markets where maybe people wouldn't be willing to pay so much upfront. The other thing to Mark's point is I wonder whether people who are trying to cut back will switch from the price your ad free version of Netflix to an ad supported version that's less expensive.

A (29:01)

Yeah, I agree with that because the least expensive Netflix option costs 68% less than the most expensive. So if you're not going to cancel Netflix, you may say, well, let me get a less expensive option. And so it could affect their revenue. I don't think, you know, any slowdown in the economy is going to affect their subscriber numbers.

C (29:21)

Really interested Mark, in your take on. Let's fast forward five years when the ad supported level is fully embedded and is sort of performing as efficiently as it ever will. Will Netflix make higher revenue off that version or off the pure subscriber version?

A (29:37)

They'll make more off the ad supported version. And because the estimate are they making.

C (29:42)

More on that yet or not?

A (29:43)

Not yet. So the way to think about it is everyone who subscribe subscribing with ads, which I think they've reported is almost half of the new subscribers. That's like a backlog of revenue they haven't yet fully tapped into. So this is a few years ago, Netflix was very lax on password sharing and it created this huge backlog that they can tap into when they got a little tougher on that. The same thing is happening with the ad supported tier. They have all the subscribers, but they don't have the ad revenue yet because they're still getting good at that. And that I think you can count on that as a long term investor in the stock.

C (30:20)

Quick final question for you both. When do they hit 350 million? Julia?

B (30:27)

I actually think that's less relevant than how much their average revenue per user is and whether or not they're able to ramp that up. I think one reason Netflix added ads is because they saw how many hours per day people were consuming and they were just paying one flat fee per month. So, so if they could monetize each subscriber more efficiently, more effectively based on the volume of consumption, then maybe it doesn't matter when they hit 350. It's more important to focus on the average revenue.

C (30:54)

That was Julia, a masterfully skillful way to dodge, dodge the question Mark. We're not, neither of us as skillful as Julia. You're not allowed to dodge the question.

A (31:04)

I, I think you can expect by 12 months from now that they break 350. I think they have a lot of momentum and it'll continue.

C (31:14)

Great, great discussion. Mark, Julia, thank you so much. And we look forward to Julia breaking down the numbers later. Just after the close on closing bell, after time, so to come. Alphabet facing more headwinds on the regulatory front. A judge ruling Google illegally dominated the market for advertising technology. The impact to investors and its bottom line. That's next. Sometimes an identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details.

A (31:44)

I need a coffee. And you need Lifelock.

C (31:47)

Because your info is in endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft.

A (31:53)

LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second.

C (31:56)

If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed.

A (31:59)

Or your money back.

C (32:00)

Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.

B (32:05)

Oh, I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work. And its AI features are literally saving us hours every day. We're big fans. And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com with intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with. Head to Monday.com the first work platform you'll love to use. Welcome back to the Exchange. I'm Pippa Stevens with your CNBC news update. An active shooter was reported on the campus of Florida State University in Tallahassee. Police are currently on scene and the school's alert system sent out a message for people to seek shelter and await further instructions. Tallahassee Memorial Health writes in a statement that it is actively receiving and caring for patients. The university has canceled all classes and campus activities for the day. Space X is reportedly one of the frontrunners to win a contract for a crucial part of President Trump's Golden Dome missile defense shield that he has likened to Israel's Iron Dome. Reuters reports that Elon Musk Space X, along with software maker Palantir and drone builder Andrew are partnering on the bid. But that it is is in its early stages and could change in the the coming months. And CNBC has learned Genetic testing company 23andMe is under Congressional investigation over concerns about its customers genetic Data as it goes through bankruptcy. In a letter to the company, three lawmakers wrote that some users were having issues deleting their data. 23andMe has yet to respond for comment.

C (33:44)

Wilfred Pippa, thank you so much for that right. Shares of Alphabet lower after federal judge ruled that the tech giant holds an illegal monopoly in some online advertising markets. Didrabosa has more on this story for us. The fallout as well for the shares and the implications going forward in today's Tech check D so, well, this is.

B (34:05)

Now the second active case where US Courts could force Google to sell off key assets. This one centers on Google's ad tech and it opens up the door for a forced breakup of Google's ad business, the most lucrative business at Alphabet and something that regulators have really been after for years now. In a statement, the company says, quote, we disagree with the court's decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective. Now that echoes one of Google's arguments in the other case, search monopoly, where the DOJ is trying to force a sale of its Chrome browser. Now the remedy trial that gets underway next week. And here Google is arguing something similar, that they're dominant because they're the better choice and market success does not equal monopoly abuse. Now to be sure, well, if this will take months, potentially years for remedies or fines to flow through. But something we often talk about, especially when it comes to Microsoft in the 90s, is that regulatory scrutiny, it diverts resources, talent, attention away from the core. And the core right now could not be more important is a once in a generation opportunity artificial intelligence, which Google is extremely focused on now. Finally, the continued regulatory pressures, well, here in America for Google and Metta facing off against the FTC this week, they raise questions about the Tech Trump 2.0 playbook. Despite the charm offensive, proximity has not equaled protection yet at least. We saw Sundar Pichai, we saw Mark Zuckerberg, we saw Jeff Bezos, we saw many of the mega cap CEOs go down at Mar a Lago, front row at the inauguration. And yet life hasn't been any easier so far.

C (35:40)

The only irony, you said what the main focus should be at the moment, the irony of the timing of when the courts and the regulators finally address this, is we're moving on to a new way of search anyway.

B (35:51)

Yes, and that's a really key point. But something like breaking off Chrome would have huge implications for the arms race. Chrome is part of that critical Google ecosystem, WhatsApp and Instagram for Metta as well. So their strength is really their distribution. Especially as AI models become commoditized, it's more important that you have the means to distribute them. So that's what Chrome represents and Instagram and WhatsApp. So those are really critical if it's going to keep up or even pull ahead in this moment where the apps and products matter a lot more actually than the foundational models.

C (36:26)

Really, really fascinating as always. Thanks so much now, so to come. Nvidia and AMD among the worst names in the NASDAQ this week. Nvidia now down 30% from its record high. That was a little while ago, not this week. And AMD is 60% off its record high. One trader is ready to buy the dip in these names. He'll join us next to make his case. Chip stocks extending yesterday's sell off the semi ETF for the SMH now down 1% today and lower by more than 4% this week as tariffs and tighter export controls weigh. Christina Parts and Evolves joins us with more of this action today. Christina, which started a bit more positively, a little bit of a bounce in the morning, but it's faded.

B (37:06)

Yeah, yeah. And a lot of that had to do with tsmc, which I'll get to. But Nvidia is really the big Drag on the NASDAQ 100 Broadcom not too far behind. Let's start with Nvidia. Because they have such a big weight and they're held in so many ETFs, they're staring down a massive $5.5 billion write off. We know that from yesterday thanks to these new licensing rules for China AI chips. Plus they've got Congress investigating their correspondence with Chinese startup Deepseek. And if their Singaporean chips somehow found their way to China. CEO Jensen Huang is actually in Beijing right now meeting with trade officials. And you can talk about timing, right? Because that's exactly what I asked Nvidia and they replied, the spokesperson said. We quote, we regularly meet with government leaders to discuss our products and technology. Broadcom, though feeling the pain to shares are lower. Investors are betting they'll face similar license requirements given their ByteDance business. Intel's also down and going to need licenses for AI chips to China, according to the Financial Times. But their AI chips haven't really gained traction in China. That's according to wedbush. The bigger problem though for Intel, TSMC is flat out denying their chip partnership rumor. There's a rumor going on there was going to be a joint venture. And speaking of TSMC and maybe why we saw more of that positive reaction in the morning, Wolff, is that they're holding steady after sticking to their 2025 growth outlook, saying they haven't seen customers flinch since the US Tariff announcements. But some Wall street analysts aren't convinced right now. Some are warning it's still way too early to really know the tariff impact and they expect companies to play it safe, safe with guidance this earnings season, which we know is underway.

C (38:39)

Well, Christina, great stuff. Thanks so much for setting that up for us. Let's trade it now and bring in Jeff Kilberg who's able to join us now. The KKM Financial founder and CEO CNBC contributor. Jeff, great to see you. I thought this was the bounce back week for markets. What would you make of the the action this week in names like Nvidia?

A (38:58)

Well, well, I think it's very understandable and by the way, it's great to see it twice in one week, pal. But I think it's fascinating to see the chips. The chips are what led us up in 23 and 24. It certainly was led us down. And I have been skeptical and critical. When we saw Nvidia up over 150, 153 was a high. But I think we're in oversold conditions. But I think we are looking for something tangible. I'm not going to say the word uncertainty from tariffs, but we're looking for something tangible. And it's interesting. Nvidia is kind of being used right now as a pawn wealth. If you see the $500 billion commitment, you thought that would encourage the president to help in video but nonetheless we are seeing this opportunity. But I like to look at valuations. Wilf. If you look at the 30% drop down year to date for Nvidia, which is by the way 21% of SMH, which is the semiconductor ETF. But Nvidia has come down 30%. The forward PE ratio back in January just this year was up over 50. Now it's down at 22. So that 4p of 22 is a 60% haircut. The stocks come down 30%. There's a discrepancy there. I want to be an owner. I bought in the 90s. I had to take it down to $86 when we saw the post Rose Garden debacle price discovery. But I think longer term, when you see this tariff conversation, when the VIX go lower, you're going to see Nvidia lead up the semiconductors and you will see the theme which took us here come back to life.

C (40:18)

What do you make of the SMH more broadly then? I mean clearly Nvidia has still got relatively attractive growth in earnings ahead. Do all of the names have that or do you think the SMH More broad broadly has further to fall.

A (40:30)

Well, I think if you compare so XX stocks compared to SMH, SMH certainly has more concentration. The top five holdings will take about 51% and the tip of the spear is Nvidia 21%. But I think if you're looking for broad swath allocation, the semis Nvidia has to be there. So I'm okay with the concentration in SMH because I think what led us up is also going to lead us out. And I think right now we have to get some visibility. Hopefully not going to decouple from China. Hopefully things are going to find a way. Tomorrow's Good Friday. It would be great to get some good news but I'm not hoping for that yet. But right here, right now, when it feels this bad in semis, this is the time to buy. This is a longer term play. And all that Capex we saw for all those different companies, well, we are going to see how Capex come and translate into chips chip demand. I know margins are coming down for Nvidia but they are still the superstar rockstar leader in chips.

C (41:21)

Let's broaden out Jeff and just touch on the market as a whole. I'm just looking at the Vix. We're at 30 spot four today, down 6% on the day. What is that in terms of long term kind of context for where 30 is? It's still pretty high but. But do you think it's kind of low given the uncertainty out there?

A (41:40)

It has come down dramatically. Thank goodness it's not up at 60 anymore. But when you do see the elevated Vix, that's simply stating Wilf as you know that people are still concerned and I think there's an interesting, you know one of the Greek options words we talk a lot about is theta. Theta simply means the time decay in an option before it expires. Well, there's data and there's time decay and getting some form or fashion of the first deal on the board for President Trump. So if President Trump's watching, we need something tangible because it's a time decay. We're seeing traders, institutional retail, we're seeing everyone just exhausted the bandwidth and the, the skittishness of the actual tape is interesting. We've seen the NASDAQ 100 today go up and down probably about 20 different times. So yes, I'm encouraged that the VIX is coming down but I don't really think that we're going to have the ability to say all is clear. And so see with the vix go under 20. But this vix elevated or this option premium being elevated, it allows you to sell Nvidia puts. And if you're a little bit afraid of owning Nvidia, sell the put spread. Define your risk. So these elevated option premiums, this is a trader's delight and this is an opportunity to allocate for a longer term.

C (42:43)

Where does gold go from here?

A (42:45)

Well, it seems like it's only going up. I know there's some profit taking today, but I think as you continue to see central bank hoarding and uncertainty with the US Dollar index going lower, that is going to keep a bid in gold. And you have seen a little bit of a psyche, a mental repositioning where people just want to own gold the same way that folks would buy into their 401k in the US equity market.

C (43:07)

Forgive me for jumping in. We're going to. We're going to join the President and his press conference with Giorgio Maloney, the Italian pm.

B (43:14)

Tariffs or sanctions on Russia.

A (43:17)

We'll see what that will be. We're going to be hearing from them this week, very shortly, actually, and we'll see. But we want it to stop. We want the death and the killing to stop.

B (43:30)

Mr. President, on Jerome Powell. On Jerome Powell. You said that the termination of Jerome Powell cannot come fast enough. He says he won't leave even if you ask him to. Do you believe you have?

A (43:40)

If I ask him to, he'll be out of there.

B (43:42)

Do you believe you have the power to remove him? And are you trying to do that?

A (43:45)

I don't think he's doing the job. He's too late. Always too late. Really slow. And I'm not happy with him. I let him know it. And if I want him out, he'll be out of there real fast, believe me.

B (44:00)

Will you remove him? Are you trying to remove him?

A (44:02)

Go ahead, please.

B (44:04)

Are you trying to remove him? Mr. President?

A (44:06)

Do you have a question? Mr. President, Judge Boasberg, in a case against your administration, said the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial order. Do you agree with that statement? Well, you're going to have to speak to the lawyers. We have great lawyers. I can tell you this. We're doing a fantastic job of getting criminals out of this country who Biden allowed into the country hundreds of thousands of criminals, murderers and drug dealers. And I was elected because of the fact. I would say maybe that was the number one factor. A lot of reasons. The economy, a lot of things. But one of the primary reasons I was elected is because I said I'M going to get the criminals that he allowed. And I got a lot of votes, record setting numbers of votes. As you know, we won everything, the popular vote, all seven swing states. We want everything and that's what the public wanted and that's what I'm doing. But you have to speak to the lawyers because it's up to them.

B (45:07)

Mr. President, what do you think of.

C (45:08)

The proposal from France? What do you think of the proposal.

A (45:11)

From France and UK of a peace mission in Ukraine with soldiers and do.

B (45:16)

You think that Italy should take part in?

A (45:19)

Well, I think Italy will have to make that determination, but peace missions are always good with me. I'm okay with peace missions. Yeah.

B (45:26)

Please. Mr. President, have you discussed what areas of cooperation have you discussed with the prime minister vis a vis Italy and.

C (45:33)

The United States and Europe and the.

B (45:34)

United States and on China?

A (45:36)

We discussed it very briefly. No, we're doing very well with negotiations, I think with all countries and Scott could tell you a little bit, but we are doing very well. We have a lot of countries that want to make a deal. Frankly, they want to make deals more than I do. Go ahead, Scott. Would you say something, Chris? Yeah, we've got a process in place. We're working on the big 15 economies. First, we had a fantastic meeting with Japan yesterday. I believe there have been calls with the EU already.

C (46:07)

The EU already.

A (46:08)

And then we have South Korea coming in next week and I believe India is also talking or that's moving very quickly on Ukraine. Sir, President Zelensky has said he has evidence that China is supplying weaponry or ammunition to Russia. Do you have any evidence along those lines? And also he said we could see a minerals deal signed this week. Is that. Well, we have a minerals deal which I guess is going to be signed on Thursday, Scott, next Thursday soon. And I assume they're going to live up to the deal. So we'll see. But we have a deal on that. No, I have no comment on that. I have no idea. That's his statement, not mine. Mr. President.

C (46:53)

Mr. President, we're going to continue to monitor that press conference for you as the questions broaden out. Let's bring in Megan Casella because at the top you did hear some comments there on Jay Powell and I guess he there reiterated the sentiment of his true social post that during the course of today your sources had suggested wasn't in fact the full gist of his strength of feeling.

B (47:18)

They're walking a very fine line here, Wilf. That's absolutely right. Between wanting to air some grievances and make it very clear that they're not happy with Jay Powell, but saying, not going quite so far as to actually fire him or even call for his firing at this point, what you heard the President just say just there is. He restated some of his posts saying he does not think Powell is doing a good job. He's too late, he's always slow, and he's not happy with him. But he also said, quote, if I want him out, he'll be out of there real fast, believe me. Appearing to answer some questions there about whether he believes he has the legal authority even to fire Powell, as that is somewhat in question. But then he was also asked very explicitly a couple of times, would you take steps to actually remove Powell? And you saw the President simply move on and ask for a new question. Didn't want to touch the actual question as to whether he would do any of the firing. And then also, Wilf, the other main topic there being trade and tariffs. The President and the Treasury Secretary both talking about that. The President saying every country, a lot of countries, want to make a deal. He said, frankly, they want to make a deal even more than he does. We also heard the Treasury Secretary talk a little bit about priorities, which countries might be coming in first in terms of a deal. He mentioned that Japan was here yesterday, that the EU has been here this week, that South Korea will be here next week, and he says India is also in talks, that all of those he says, are moving very quickly. So no news yet on any of these deals, but a White House official did tell me earlier today that they'll announce these as soon as they have them. Whether that's one, two or three at a time, we'll see what comes next.

C (48:49)

I was disappointed to hear the UK mentioned in terms of those. Those potential trade deals.

B (48:56)

Yeah. It's an interesting point on the UK Though. I'm glad you brought that up. They have just a 10% tariff, if I'm remembering right. And I was actually talking to a US official about this earlier today, a White House official, official, I should say, and I asked if countries like the UK that got just a 10% tariff, are they in trade talks right now? This official emphasized, and we've heard this before, that the 10% baseline, they expect that to stay in place across the board. So it means that countries like the UK don't have as much to negotiate. But the official did say there could be potentially some room for negotiation. Maybe that means specific exemptions and that kind of thing, but not a broader deal.

C (49:31)

Great stuff. Thanks. So much for that. By the way, there was a specific date for a deal, albeit the Ukraine minerals deal for next Thursday. So we'll see if that's kept to or not. Megan Casella, thanks so much Jeff. Just quick final word to you on on the markets and do you see those comments there from the President towards, once again towards Jay Powell as a concern for you?

A (49:55)

It's not it seems like a lot of rhetoric and I think he's going to actually be asked not to mention Fed Chairman Paul's name anymore. But it's interesting a couple takeaways just from that last couple of sentences out of the President about a minerals deal, about the top 15 economies taking priority and creating a deal. You're seeing the S&P 500 move towards the top of the range today and you're seeing the VIX continue move lower. So the market wants some deal, they want some positivity. We're all exhausted. Wilf, maybe you could even be involved in calling the UK and getting the deal on the board first with the uk. But nonetheless, I think we're seeing all the deleveraging. We're seeing a lot of investors sitting on their hands waiting for some good news. All the while The S&P 500 is above 5300, up 12 and a half percent from that low of 4800. So there is some optimism, but there's nothing tangible to really sink your teeth into. Next.

C (50:42)

We want a deal. We deserve a deal. We didn't do anything wrong. Balance, trade, rule of law, IP protected. I guess that's I think we get there.

A (50:52)

Well, I think we get the zero percent. I think President Trump just wants to sell some U.S. energy and some U.S. agriculture. That's how we get to zero. No tariffs.

C (51:00)

Great stuff. Jeff, thanks so much for joining us there. We've got a minute left on the program after what's been a very enjoyable week for me here on cnbc. Again allows me just to end up by promoting my six part series coming up on my dad, David Frost. Dom's here as well just to chat it out. We've only got a minute so we won't get to the sound bite, but it's coming out. Dom, on the 27th of April. Six part series. Will you be tuning in on MSNBC?

A (51:26)

I absolutely will be. Only because your father, Sir David, one of the most outstanding interviewers in modern broadcast history. I would always wonder from my standpoint, looking at you, what you took away from being a part of your dad's life and what you learned from him in doing the job that you do right now.

C (51:44)

You know what the biggest thing is? I think what he had, you can learn around the edges, little tips. But what he really had, you can't teach, which is a genuine curiosity in people. And I think that's why he was so good at what he did. And we're out of time here, but thankfully, six episodes to come. Sunday nights from the 27th of April of David Frost versus on MSNBC. Please tune in if you will, to CNBC and the viewers here. Thanks for having me this last week. It's been a lot of fun.

B (52:13)

You've been listening to the Exchange. Make sure you're subscribed to get each episode every day, same time, same place. Did you know Tide has been upgraded to provide an even better clean in cold water? Tide is specifically designed to fight any stain you throw at it. Even in cold butter. Yep. Chocolate ice cream. Sure thing. Barbecue sauce. Tide's got you covered. You don't need to use warm water. Additionally, Tide pods let you confidently fight tough stains with new coldzyme technology. Just remember, if it's gotta be clean, it's gotta be Tide.