a guy that literally wrote the book on dividends, what a clever that could be for apple and an investor if you want to hedge the bull markets that are moving into their 10th year. so more on that in just a bit. meantime hillary vaughn with latest on capitol hill on the barr hearings. predictably they're playing to party, i guess, right? reporter: democrats complained that barr's summary came out before the mueller report was misleading but barr said today he personally called special counsel robert mueller after his summary was released. he asked mueller if he thought that his summary was misleading and mueller told barr no. >> i asked him if he was suggesting that the march 24th letter was inaccurate? he said no but that the press reporting had been inaccurate. and that the press was reading too much into it and i asked him, you know specifically what his concern was. and he said that his concern focused on his explanation why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. and he wanted more put out on that issue. reporter: barr also said he was surprised mueller himself did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. he also says that a key part of the case for obstruction was missing. >> generally speaking an obstruction case typically has two aspects to it. one there is usually an underlying criminality. >> let's stop right there. >> yeah. >> was there an underlying crime here? >> no. reporter: barr says in meeting on march 5th. barr told mueller and his staff multiple times he was not abstaining on the obstruction, because of olc opinion you should not indict a sitting president. even without that rule there, mueller says he would not have reached a decision. >> special counsel mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the olc opinion he would have found obstruction. reporter: barr also says they are looking into what he calls now criminal leaks that came out of the doj and from fbi officials. to the press while this investigation has been going on. they're looking into surveillance of trump campaign officials and whether there was an overstep in that regard. neil? neil: all right, hillary, thank you very, very much. former deputy assistant attorney general tom dupree what he makes of this. always good to have you. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, neil. neil: this is coming from bill barr, i was paraphrasing taking notes earlier while he was speaking, he, referring to mueller, couldn't decide about obstruction so essentially bill barr did by saying there wasn't enough there to go after the president and not enough to exonerate the president. what did get wrong? it sounds like exactly what the report kind of concluded? >> that's right. i think in that respect it is very hard to find fault in what the attorney general initially reported as far as mueller's conclusions. seems like area of disagreement between barr and the special counsel is that the special counsel wanted the attorney general to provide more underlying context why mueller reached the decisions that he did. barr testified today that his focus was on delivering the bottom line verdict of the mueller report to the american people, to get the news out of bottom line conclusion in an fish enfashion. it sounds like what bob mueller want ad little more detailed explanation what led mueller to reach the verdicts that he did. neil: all right. that would have necessitated delay getting the report out to provide more of that context. maybe mueller would have been okay with that? what is your sense? >> that is the thing. if we turn the clock back a few weeks ago when everyone was eager to figure out what mueller concluded. it was over a weekend. we were watching on tv, what mueller found, what he didn't find. out of that context the attorney general basically spent the entire weekend in his office to go through the report to, provide a succinct bottom line description what he found. attorney general knew in a few days or weeks the report as a whole would become public. there would not really been a motive on part of the attorney general to lie or dissemble knowing the whole thing would become a public document in matter of days. neil: do you believe what the attorney general said, what mueller said was the problem the way the press portrayed those findings without that context and that bugged him? >> i suspect in fact what was bothering bob mueller. we know as soon as the report came out and barr summarized report, there was a lot of press basically saying total vindication on the collusion part. mueller didn't reach a conclusion on the obstruction part but barr reached the conclusion there is no obstruction. i think what mueller want ad little more nuance into why mueller didn't find obstruction. and i think from mueller's perspective barr was suggesting that mueller was basically agnostic on this issue when as we know from the report mueller offered some reasons as to his ultimate decision not to reach a conclusion on that piece of the investigation. neil: talking about agnostic, you're the expert, i read a prompter so i think i qualify, anyway mueller couldn't decide on that issue, right? so that seemed to surprise barr and by extension the outgoing deputy attorney general rod rosenstein that he hadn't reached a formal conclusion, when i guess both of these gentlemen thought he would. so they took the liberty to tie, put a bow on it, even when they didn't definitely conclude one way or the other which was the gist of mueller's finding? >> right. i think from the attorney general's perspective the department of justice is tasked with making these decisions whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. neil: why did he do it that way? that is a dumb question but mueller had to know the whole world was watching for some sort of a definitive statement here and he didn't provide it. leaving i had open-ended, to your point, he would leave it in congress' hands to see what they do, to me it sounds like turning from your duty here? >> well, here's the thing. i think there are two things that were animating bob mueller. i think number one was the point you can't indict a sitting president under longstanding justice department guidance. that is the -- neil: is that true. >> absolutely. it goes back decades. well-settled doj guidance, department of justice respects that decision. that was a piece of it. i suspect there was also a piece whether bob mueller himself thought the evidence would be sufficient to prove obstruction or not. here i think it's a little ambiguous. he certainly never came out and said but for that opinion i would have charged obstruction. on the other hand he would have that sentence, if we could have exonerated the president we would have. that is unusual sentence for someone like bob mueller to put in the report. i suspect we'll learn more why he included that sentence in the report if and when bob mueller testifies before congress. neil: you're a very good lawyer as well. do you see having read the report yourself, getting a sense these instances that democrats were seizing on today the president advising his counsel to go ahead and try to get mueller fired. the president denies that by the way. that such actions, there were several others, are acts of obstruction? >> yeah. i guess my take on that, neil is several points. number one, i did not like a lot of what i read in the report. i was disappointed to see what was going on behind the scenes. at the same time -- neil: what do you mean, you didn't like the president's behavior? >> right, right. i didn't like seeing what he was doing behind the scenes. at the same time i respect the decision of the attorney general to look at it and make the determination whether there was sufficient evidence in criminal motive what the president was doing. the attorney general looked at that he reached a conclusion there wasn't sufficient motive. regardless whether you think the conduct, whether the president shouldn't have done it, beyond a reasonable doubt there was criminal activity here that is what the attorney general ultimately concluded. neil: i read the report with not nearly expertise you have, i read the initial conclusions and bullet points barr made, i don't think he was off on those bullets points that was my read of it. i have no axe to grind with either side here. your thoughts. >> i think barr gave an accurate summary of what bob mueller found. to be sure he could have written 20 page document but he didn't have the time to do that, right? he had to get that out fast. neil: damned if he did, damned if he didn't, right? >> barr basically wanted to get mueller's bottom line conclusion in the hands of the american people as soon as he could. that is what he said he would do. that is what he did. could he have said more? he didn't have to because he knew the report would be coming out in matter of days. neil: tom dupree, former deputy assistant attorney general very patient with idiotic questions thrown his way. thank you my friend. >> thank you, neil. neil: in middle of all of this you have talk of a infrastructure deal, some democrats, not all we should stress, pushing impeachment, "wall street journal's" james freeman on that. it is interesting, james, they're still talking about infrastructure. there is still an agreement on the price tag, roughly two trillion dollars where they're not in agreement how to pay for that but that is remarkable in of itself. i don't know whether that is a good or bad thing? >> i guess one thing politicians tend to agree on they like to spend money. i think taxpayers may be hoping for a little more gridlock as they watch this plan develop. it is not, we don't have a lot of details, two trillion is obviously a huge number for a government 22 trillion in debt. it looks a lot like this program that chuck schumer, nancy pelosi, created with president trump's predecessor 10 years ago. stimulus plan. they talked a lot about infrastructure. talked a lot about roads and bridges. not much of that money went there. neil: steve ballmer, former microsoft chief, made it cause celebre to follow government spending, making it easy to understand where money goes, doesn't go, they just left out where the money that already addresses this issue goes, better than $100 billion a year between the federal gas taxes we already have that have not been hiked since the early '90s he is right there, he added in tolls and state fees and highway trust fund over 100 billion a year. he would like a better accounting how the money was spent before we commit to more money. >> basically the democratic leadership in the house and senate is telegraphing a lot of this money will not go where people think it is going when they talk about infrastructure. in a very short statement they talk a lot about environmental goals. neil: that is out of the blue. came out of the blue. i'm thinking roads and bridges i understand, utility grid and all that, internet, but they start expanding to a host of other things. >> you look back at the 2009 package, talked a lot of about roads and bridges beforehand. $800 billion in spending. 10%, $80 billion ended up going to infrastructure. even within that category, a lot of it went to projects most people would not say were critical. there is a town in alaska with 167 people got an airport out of it. so i think -- neil: makes it easier for the 167 people. >> certainly was very stimulative of the economy if i'm pronouncing that correctly but i think people should be right to be skeptical on not just where the money is coming from, whose taxes are getting raised. neil: will it go to just that, just these issues? history proves not necessarily. >> big showstopper will they agree with the president to speed up permitting, reducing environmental regulation? i see nothing in their statement that suggests they will. neil: by the way, there is a divide even among democrats about higher federal gas tax. >> right. neil: even if you were to get that far. chuck schumer has said that would be regressive on poor folks, that may be the president should dial back some of the tax cuts enacted last year. how likely is that? >> that is the plan. that is the democratic plan they put out in 2018. the way to pay for infrastructure get rid of the trump tax cuts. if he strikes that deal -- neil: it's a no deal. >> no deal. neil: james freeman, thank you very, very much. meantime we'll be hearing from the former hud secretary of the united states henry cesnaros on all of this. we're keeping very close eye on caracas venezuela right now. an uprising could finally succeed doing what it is intended to do, get maduro out. we understand that maduro was ready to hop out of a plane to get out of there and russians told him don't go anywhere. the russians are heavily involve in this if we believe press reports, that the guy doing democratic bidding, holed up in his palace doing the russian's bidding whether is that all about? after this. ♪ [shouting] neil: all right. sort of like a look at two different caracas, venezuela yesterday and today. a little bit calmer today. and i stress it goes kind of moment by moment. they're still pushing to get nicolas maduro to hop on a plane to get out of there. we were told he was just about to do so until the russians intervened that we think it's a good idea not to go anywhere. he is not. juan guaido will be a special guest 8:00 p.m. today on fox business. he will talk to our own trish regan about this, what he does now. this is a sort of like do-or-die, i hope not literally for democratic recognized leader of the country. we'll get an idea how it will work out and hopefully work out in the days and weeks ahead. former presidential envoy to iraq, paul bremer, what he thinks will happen. ambassador, always good to have you. different turf, if you think about it, same old power struggle, how do you think this works out? >> the place to start, if one could, neil, what are the american objectives here? and i think there are three. number one, obviously we would like to relief the ghastly humanitarian suffering, most venezuelans, not the leadership clique, their suffering. it should be in our interest to stop spread of suffering in those regions particularly the governments of colombia and brazil which are friendly to us. thirdly, getting to your point about the russians, it is in our interest to eliminate the nefarious influence of the cubans, the russians and iranians, not just in venezuela but in the region. our actions need to be focused on these lee -- three objectives. neil: if this goes on for couple days and apparent that guaido cannot assume power, then what? >> the administration i think rightly is trying to seek a peaceful resolution. apparently they had maduro ready to leave. as you point out the russians seemed to have stopped that. by the way i don't know of anybody since 1823 who repealed the monroe doctrine. we have a interest in peace in our hemisphere. the russians, if they really stopped a peaceful solution should pay a price at some point. now what is going to happen? it is very hard to say. i think the administration is right to have not taken military action off the table though it is a rather horrendous you undertaking to think of us intervening there. neil: that issue is dividing. rick scott, james clyburn spoke to me on this subject. very differing views on whether the u.s. military should be involved. i want your reaction to this, sir. do you think our presence there would make a differentens? >> oh absolutely i was on the venezuelan border on wednesday. this is pure genocide. maduro is killing his own citizens. you can see how many people are already killed. genocide going on through starvation. neil: are you in the camp we have to help them out even if it involves military help? >> no, i'm not. i think we have to help them out. i would hope we would try to do what we can to influence the government down there to do right by its people and hopefully find folks down there to align ourselves with. but i am not interested in any kind of police action at this moment. neil: what do you think? you have two opposing views here, one advocating american military involvement, the other very leery of it. your thoughts? >> first of all the president, the executive branch has an obligation to be ambiguous on this. one the ways to avoid using military force is to leave it on the table. i think it would be unwise in the extreme to simply take it off the table. i don't in any way downplay the difficulty. you have got something like 20 or 25,000 highly-trained cuban intelligence and special-ops people there. 100 russian, i don't know, expeditionary force there. i mean it is a serious you know taking to consider moving in there. but it should be on the table. if we decide to move, there is everything to be said for moving with a great deal of force, not paring back on what we're trying to do. i hope it doesn't come to that. i would much prefer as secretary pompeo said yesterday, a peaceful solution. neil: and maybe one done by those who are in the region, not necessarily ourselves, right? >> i think they're working very hard with the organization of american states. neil: right. >> secretary pompeo said there is something like 57 countries involved now in recognizing guaido. so the administration is putting together, if you will, a coalition of the willing, the willing, willing to have guaido be recognized as the legitimate president. i think that's the right approach now but you can't exclude other kinds of action. neil: all right. thank you very, very much, paul bremer. very good catching up with you. paul bremer among many other things, envoy to iraq. we have stocks up a little bit here. apple losing a little bit of earlier luster and its contribution to the dow and other issues begin to fall off. we're getting word from the white house it, wants 4 1/2 billion dollars emergency funding for the border. no indications as to exactly how that money would be sort ponied up. who would get what and when. we'll get a read from this. maybe from the former majority leader eric cantor with our own charlie gasparino after this. neil: all right. private payrolls are surging. 275,000 more private workers added to the economy in the latest month. they were expecting about 177,000. sometimes, not all the time. that can telegraph a good general employment report when those numbers come out on friday morning. we'll get a sense what the federal reserve is thinking of all of this in its decision and whether that kind of strength, that kind of mirrors similar strength we've been seeing echoes the sentiment, maybe, maybe this idea of just standing back and just not hiking rates at all for the remainder of the year, let alone cut them might be called into question. something that would give the fed pause obviously what is happening in the manufacturing part of the economy. that slowed down a little bit. dropped reading to 52.8 from 55.3. we have senior research fellow very row nokia -- veer nokia de rugy joins us. every strong number, strong piece of data, strong gdp report, that housing is not exactly firing on all cylinders, manufacturing isn't either. why mess with things. what do you think? >> i think only good case to make the federal reserve should do nothing an should at least lower interest rates. the economy is doing well. most economists agree the economy is doing well. and, also that lowering interest rates would be providing the kind of keynesian stimulus we thought we left behind in 2016. so it is a terrible idea. and besides, independently of, i mean you and i think will agree on the fact that independently of how the economy is doing, there is something that is valuable in the economy going through cycles. what it needs, it is adjusting, it is readjusting the path its on. to adjust investments to actually the reality on the ground and talking about manufacturing. manufacturing is still hurting right now, probably because of the trade wars and uncertainty because we don't know what is happening with the new nafta, usmca. it is unclear what will happen with the china deal. it is also very unclear that the president will agree to remove any tariffs, whether metal tariffs or chinese tariffs. i would just not have the federal reserve do anything. neil: so what the president was talking i believe yesterday, that the federal reserve should cut-rate by a full point, i'm sure he wasn't talking in one fell swoop, that it should resume quantitative easing, idea of buying any treasury, note, and bond the fed can get its hand on forcing lower interest rates he was critical of that under barack obama, you think that would be misguided? >> i think it is a terrible idea. first, again i think this notion of stimulus whether through spending or through the monetary system is rarely a good idea because it actually stops the economy from adjusting in a healthy way. but the other thing is that some of the things, even people who are believers in stimulus know there are conditions under which the stimulus will work or not and one of this, economy has to be in recession or at least in a serious bind, and right now we're not. the economy is growing. i don't exactly know even if the federal reserve did, it would confuse signals it, would create a lot of malinvestment. it would actually trigger some investments that are not essentially the most, the most profitable to look appealing it would distort capital markets. i think it's a terrible idea. neil: all right, i think i hear where you're coming from. veronique, thank you very much. >> thank you. neil: former majority leader eric cantor has a warning about the market, don't get too married to it. charlie gasparino at the milken institute conference what he is hearing. >> he is recovering politician, now investment banker, working at moulson and company. he is talking to a lot of people here who have a pulse on market. i asked him what is the mood of this place? it is generally positive on the outside but he confirmed it's worrisome on the inside. the undercurrent is worrisome for two reasons. possible bernie sanders or elizabeth warren presidency, what that might mean for the economy. listen to what he had to say. >> donald trump policy mix is pretty conventional republican. that is where it gets back to going on in the democratic party. you're on the other side. you've seen markets. if bernie sanders gets in there with whatever, he might have 80% top tax rate, massive regulations. elizabeth warren, what happens to the markets? can you like say, you think it is going to be a market crash? >> i think unequivocally what happens with bernie sanders, god forbid he were to be elected or someone of his ilk, what happens the price of risk goes sky-high. when that happens, investors are going to recoil. we're going to see negative impact on the markets. we're going to see a negative outlook for the u.s. and that is what is the shame they can go in, espouse these policy, somehow people want to follow that given where we are in this booming economy. >> you know, neil, you can pass that off as eric cantor, the republican, talking his book. i'm going to tell you at the milken conference where we are right now in l.a., it is a lot of democratic wall street people. a lot of democratic financiers. they feel the same way. this is a bipartisan view. if you asked them what could disrupt a really good economy, decent wage growth, markets that are fairly strong. it is all that you heard out of the democratic party and by their leaders that could be the president, bernie sanders, elizabeth, warren, green new deal, high tax rates, ramping up regulations they believe, not just eric. they believe that is the black swan for this market, if it looks like any of those two candidates could be the democratic nominee and obviously could beat donald trump. investors out there proceed, but you know, at least according to the experts if these type of policies and politicians get in there, proceed with caution. neil, back to you. neil: did they say the same about joe biden? >> no. they don't. that's a great question. he is more moderate. here is the worry with joe biden here. that he doesn't necessarily, you know, signal a bill clinton democratic party or even a barack obama democratic party which, you know, compare them, the obama economic agenda to bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, some of these other characters it was far more moderate. it wasn't anti-capitalist. it was progressive but to get that nomination, you know, joe biden is going to have to move, maybe have to move to the left. they're worried about that. does he adopt a form of the green new deal? does he adopt a form of massive tax rates on upper income, on wealth creators, who by the way provide jobs, who by the way are providing those jobs to middle class people, working-class people, who are finally seeing their wages rise. i was always skeptical of the trump economic agenda. the truth is the truth, right? wages are now going up. so, that's, that's the worry here. i'm telling you neil, you can pass it off this is fox news, eric cantor, you and i call them as we see them. i'm talking to democrats here that support fairly progressive economic policies. they are worried about socialism in their party. and what it is going to do to the markets. the one other point i would make. this is where it's a little bit of media criticism here, this time during the i guess the 2016 race, people were saying donald trump would blow up the markets. he will do this. he is crazy. he is going to do that. you know, his policies were pretty mainstream if you think about it in terms of tax cutting. he went a little bit overboard on trade. related it back in. the democratic party platform from an economic standpoint is totally out of whack. it is totally crazy and there is not much commentary from the economic elite what a bernie sanders might do. what elizabeth warren might do. they are proposing stuff that is radical by barack obama's standards. neil: all right. we'll watch very, very closely. elizabeth warren is surging in some of the latest polls. we'll get to that in just a second. updating you on apple. don't blame it for all of a sudden a dow that pared its gains substantially. it is firing away. energy and financials that are not. suddenly a dow that was up over 100 is up about 17. openturning 50 opens theuard. door to a lot of new things... like now your doctor may be talking to you about screening for colon cancer. luckily there's me, cologuard. the noninvasive test you use at home. it all starts when your doctor orders me. then it's as easy as get, go, gone. you get me when i'm delivered... right to your front door and in the privacy of your own home. there's no prep or special diet needed. you just go to the bathroom, to collect your sample. after that, i'm gone, shipped to the lab for dna testing that finds colon cancer and precancer. cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer. ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. maybe i'll be at your door soon! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ ) the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. neil: all right. what if we get a deal with china but it has all sorts of potential loopholes in it? "the financial times" is reporting right now that the president could drop the cyber theft demands in a bid to get a deal done sooner rather than later. lee speaker man says that would be a huge mistake and catastrophic if the case. lee, good to have you. administration is denying this. we want to put that out there. but "the ft" citing sources unnailed that is one of the thing the white house is okay with, if presently stopping a deal now, what do you think? >> it would be catastrophic. we cannot do that. what happened is, that china built a new great wall, a great firewall around their internet. behind that firewall baidu and alibaba have thrived. they have market dominance that exceeds what amazon, google, facebook have in the united states. they are trying to ban facebook and google, or actually currently ban them from using the data they gather on chinese consumers, from bringing that data into the united states and processing it as they do with american consumer data. that data is the currency. what they have basically done, neil, created the greatest non-tariff barrier ever. in one part of the u.s. economy we have some advantage over china, greatly diminishing, but we cannot allow that to go forward. we've got to keep trade tariffs on. in fact increase import tariffs on chinese goods because what is going on now, right under our nose is disasterous for the u.s. economy and disasterous for us. neil: if that was our goal to get a deal done sooner rather than later and just dispense with the security issues, the cyber issues, the trust but verify issues, we could have done this like a year ago? >> well, we could have done it a year ago but then we would be right back to kowtowing to the chinese, to selling out to the chinese. like previous administration done. neil: i cannot fathom that they are seriously considering it. >> well i hope they're not because it would be, it would be terrible. you know, neil, there are twice as many internet users in china as there are people in the united states. it's a massive market. and basically the infrastructure company huawei, which is trying to become the world leader in 5g which is the new mobile broadband technology that has tremendous potential and which we need to buildout in the united states, that company according to u.s. and british intelligence has embedded technology that enables them to spy on americans and spy on american companies or british companies or eu companies and eu citizens. we cannot allow that to happen. we have got to say, we've got to lock arms with the eu and the eu has to lock arms with us, say no way to huawei. we are not going to have huawei technology in any 5g networks in any eu country or any non-china developed country that is an american ally. we cannot have that. we basically need to say until you allow unfettered access of american internet companies to the china market, you are not going to have access to our market. and we have got to be much tougher on that. they're taking us to the cleaners. they're taking advantage of us. neil: all right. >> i hope this, these unnamed sources are wrong. that "the financial times" is quoting because it -- neil: it would be very scary. i mean because they do have a history. the thing we want to stop that history. lee, thank you very much. good catching up with you. >> great to be with you, neil. neil: the white house wants another four 1/2 million dollars for the southern border. didn't spell out exactly what the security money would be used for. some democrats who i have been emailing during the break here were a little bit nervous thinking is this just a way to get more wall funding? no way of knowing. we'll have more after this. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. you can barely feel. ♪lean on me, when you're not strong.♪ ♪and i'll be your friend.♪ ♪i'll help you carry on.♪ ♪lean on me. neil: all right. you know the story of the day is apple. thanks to the surprisingly good news, at least beat estimates the fact it is raising its dividend, buying back $100 billion worth of its stock. had the effect of making eight trillion dollar company right now, putting it on top of the list of companies some separated by in the scheme of things, $100 million give or take a little bit from all the premier players. looking at this, i'm wondering, apple has done something that a lot of tech companies used to be loathe to do and that is not only have a dividend but keep increasing it and i'm wondering if they're trying to draw in a different investment crowd? because the psyche of, you know a tech investor is decidedly different than someone who buy as utility, and yet that could be expanding the pool of investors? >> yeah, absolutely. neil. remember apple is not a tech company really, if you think about it, look at their whole portfolio, right? iphone sales made up a smaller part ever before than historically has for apple. this is not steve jobs' apple this apple has to compete with netflix and facebook and dizzy. you're right, stepping out from the tech crowd to a much more who, what does apple look like, who are we in the next 10 years. it won't be like apple 10 years ago. neil: you know wonder though, for a company who has almost $60 billion in sales in a quarter enviable by anyone's standard, more than gdp of many latin america companies, it can be deemed slowing or not sexy if those numbers are not growing at the same exponential rate they used to, so hence emphasis on services, other things apple makes money hand over fist. that has been a game-changer as well, hasn't it? >> absolutely. it bill continue to be a game-changer. that is the thing, right? you always look at a company, you look at its history. you look at apple, it has tremendous jumps and such a market leader. so the bar is really high. this is not a company where we expect small things or marginal return on investment. we look at apple saying you were always the innovators, the creators, the cutting-edge. so that is the bar that they have set for themselves. they have to continue to compete against themselves in some way. neil: yeah. that is a good way of putting it. compete against themselves. that is exactly what they're doing. thank you, very, very much. joining us out of miami. bolt bowl joining us out -- deirdre bolton joining us out of new york city next to me following facebook. it's a brave new world we're told is it really? >> not really. zuckerberg is saying future is private, but his definition of private is not what you or i would consider private. if we were messaging each other it would be end to end encrypted. in the past with facebook, say i'm going to hawaii. facebook would know that even though i only sent that to you. in the future will be end to end encrypted so they can't read that particular message. what changes, very long laundry list. schools you attend, friends you have, websites you visit how long you're there. the list goes on and on. essentially they can still relentlessly profile us and sell us targeted ads based on all these data points. neil: a lot of other guys do it as well. facebook is just huge. >> yes. neil: i'm wondering if any, any of this private issue protest that came up over the last year has registered. >> facebook has been in scandal orma for two years. yesterday this developer conference for them is like their super bowl. this is the most important event of the year. that is why they're hitting this if i say we care about privacy we, care about privacy. neil: there has been congressional testimonies and the like but it is not all going to change? not all going away. >> not all going to change and love them or hate them for investors i actually think that is probably a plus signal in the sense okay, it is not going to change. they still know a scary amount about us to show us targeted data but to your point it is not different than any other social network. the one thing they changed as well is the look of it, so that it feels, they took away that blue bar, that it was known for and it looks a lot like some of their other brands like messenger and instagram so that maybe that makes you feel a little better, cleaner, sort of white design. the new investigation looks like they put. neil: ever notice happy families happy, happy. everything is happy. like a peyton place kind of a deal. >> i think so. there is actually a lot. neil: i am a lot older than you. doesn't it seem surreal? >> a lot of social psychologists if you want teens to be less anxious, get them off social media, everybody to your point does put their best foot forward. it feels like a fake world. how come they don't -- have a yacht. i don't have a yacht? neil: privacy issues have not gone away. >> in the near term they're trying to spin this to get themselves out of future trouble. they paid the debt for the cambridge analytica misapprorpiation, they made it clear they will no longer inadvertently or overtly said to third parties. neil: taking fines out of eu or the rest just what you made over last -- >> stock is pretty much right on par with the s&p 500. one is up 11%. one is hupp 12%. neil: zuckerberg is up $5 billion. >> no one is going to cry for him. neil: thank you very much. jolting bolton, because she is always coming up with stuff. bill barr coming up with a lot of stuff. not to satisfaction of a lot of democrats questioning him. wondering about the timing of his report, timing of findings in that report, that it didn't mirror bob mueller findings but it is how this is framed. that is confusing folks. after this. yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? quadrupled their money by 2012? and even now, many experts predict the next gold rush is just beginning. (upbeat music) - [announcer] today the u.s. money reserve announces the immediate release of u.s. government issued solid gold coins for the incredible price on screen. these gold american eagles are official gold coins of the united states and are being sold for the price on screen. - pick up the phone and call america's gold authority u.s. money reserve. with nearly two decades in business, over a billion dollars in transactions, and more than a half a million clients world wide, u.s. money reserve is one of the most dependable gold distributors in america. - [announcer] today the u.s. money reserve is releasing official gold american eagle coins at cost for the incredible price on screen. these government issued gold coins are official u.s. legal tender, made from solid gold mined here in america, and fully backed by the united states government for their gold weight, purity and content. do not delay. call now to purchase your gold american eagles for the amazing price on the screen. gold is now on sale at prices unseen in years. and this year could be one of the greatest gold buying opportunities of all time. call now while vault inventory remains. as one of the largest u.s. gold coin distributors in the country, the u.s. money reserve has proudly served hundreds of thousands of clients worldwide. don't wait another minute. call now to purchase your american eagle coins at cost for the amazing price on screen now. neil: attorney general bill barr getting grilled on capitol hill for his handling of the bob mueller report. blake burman has been following it very closely and joins us with white house reaction. reporter: over here at the white house, they are standing behind the attorney general, bill barr, saying he has not lost his credibility at all. barr has been up on capitol hill testifying before the senate and a lot of the focus on this report last night from the "new york times" and "washington post" which led to a letter today that showed that bob mueller had concerns about the initial four-page summary produced by bill barr, that was the very first thing released to the public after the mueller report was completed. that letter at one point from mueller to barr says the following. it said quote, the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions. it goes on to say there's now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. in his testimony a little while ago, barr said after that letter was produced that he got on the phone and spoke with robert mueller, and barr contends that mueller was just worried about some of the public perception. >> he said that his concern focused on his explanation of why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. and he wanted more put out on that issue. i told bob that i was not interested in putting out summaries, and i wasn't going to put out the report piecemeal. reporter: barr had his own criticisms of mueller today, saying that if the special counsel wasn't going to give a yes or no conclusion on obstruction of justice, that he should not have moved forward with that case. watch here. >> i think that if he felt that he shouldn't go down the path of making a traditional prosecutive decision, then he shouldn't have investigated. that was the time to pull up. reporter: a lot of finger pointing here over the last 24 hours or so, as this letter was produced or at least the story about it last night, then it was produced this morning, now you got barr up on the hill saying maybe mueller shouldn't have moved forward with the obstruction of justice case. by the way, we are expecting barr to testify in the house tomorrow, that being the house judiciary committee, but that could be a big tbd at this point because the house today, the democratic-led committee, rather, passed a proposal or resolution that would allow attorneys to question bill barr. barr has said or at least his office has said that he would not be for that, to allow staff, in this case lawyers, question the attorney general under oath. we'll see what happens. neil: they did that during watergate, didn't they. thank you, blake. all right. you know the latest on bill barr as this goes on. judge andrew napolitano with us. what do you think of this back and forth as to whether barr misrepresented what bob mueller wrote in that report? >> i think in retrospect, having read the attorney general's four-page summary, though he doesn't want to call it a summary, that came out about a month ago, and having read the 445 page report, that the attorney general did sanitize it, that he did not capture the tone and nature and extent of the report. and that when he testified under oath in the house of representatives, he was unaware of any complaint about sanitizing. he was either forgetful of this letter or misleading by not referencing the letter. now, this morning -- neil: he characterized the letter not so much for what he said but how the press interpreted what he said. >> except that the letter, and blake burman read the key part of the letter, says to the attorney general, your letter, your summary, failed to grasp the nature and extent and tone of our report. look, the mueller report says the president asked his lawyer to lie to the fbi, that is asking him to commit a crime, and that is obstruction of justice. it's the same thing that nixon was charged with and it's the same with haldemann and ehrlichman, same thing clinton was accused of. neil: why didn't mueller say that? >> he said it but he didn't seek the indictment because he knows the attorney general has this very narrow, almost held just by him, not by the whole legal community view, that there can't be obstruction of justice if a person is innocent of the underlying crime. so if you didn't commit the conspiracy with the russians, then there's no justice to impede. that is not the law. the law is any corrupt attempt to interfere with a government function, prosecution or criminal investigation, constitutes obstruction of justice. neil: so you're saying he wrote it knowing the views or the biases of barr. >> and put all the evidence in there so that the congress could decide what if anything they want to do with it. neil: what would he care about barr's personal views on this subject, if he said look, this is my view and my view and my team's view is that there's obstruction? >> because he can't get an indictment without barr's permission and probably did not want to be reprimanded or humiliated by seeking an indictment. neil: he would rather that than be questioned -- >> you know what, these are questions congress wants to put to bob mueller himself and when they eventually get him there. neil: a lot of people think mueller was this tortured soul in all of this. which is it, he kind of had it every way he wanted. >> i don't think so. neil: really. >> i think he laid out a very powerful case against the president of the united states for obstruction of justice, knowing -- neil: you just alerted yourself. >> knowing that his boss would not let him make that case, make the case to the grand jury. neil: i know your point of view on some things. let's say i was going to posit in a report coming to you, knowing it would be laughable coming from me, that i didn't care, this is what me and my team came up with, napolitano's not going to like it but the hell with him. >> you're going to have to ask that to bob mueller. neil: i'm asking you right now. that's why i'm thinking maybe this is much ado about nothing but i don't know. >> it might be. the policy of the justice department is not not to indict a sitting president, it's not to prosecute a sitting president. you might have to indict him before the statute of limitations runs. you seal the indictment, you don't even reveal its existence until he's out of office. the attorney general, bill barr, and bob mueller, are aware of that procedure. neil: all right. so the argument that barr was raising that mueller wanted more context, for those summations, do you buy that? >> i do. i do. because looking back on that four-page letter, it does not fairly characterize -- neil: damned if he did, damned if he didn't? they want it out so fast, get it out. >> he made a judgment call. i think the gripes that were revealed to the "new york times" a month ago and to the attorney general in this letter from which blake burman just read, are valid and legitimate gripes. i would have made them myself if i had been on that team. neil: when did the letter come from mueller? >> march 27th. a week later, when he's asked do you know what mueller's team was complaining about, he says under oath i don't know. he's got a problem with that. he was under oath. he's the attorney general. he prosecutes people for lying. neil: you think barr was lying? >> i think he misled. neil: which is it? >> they are both felonies. you can tell the truth and still be misleading to the congress. that's why it says it's not just the truth, it's the whole truth. if the answer, if the question is do you know what barr's team was complaining and he says no, the proper answer would have been but i know why barr complained because he wrote me a letter about it. neil: finally, i'm sorry to keep pushing at the same point, did the report finally say there's not enough there to exonerate, nor condemn the president on this issue of obstruction? that's the way it was interpreted. >> it did. that's also a fault because the doj is not in the business of exoneration. it's just in the business of prosecution. neil: but, but, but the report itself couldn't seem to find compelling evidence in either case, right? >> it found compelling evidence for obstruction but policy reasons, the attorney general's narrow view of obstruction, not to pursue it. it found no compelling case for conspiracy. neil: so if congress wanted to run with this, whatever the political environment and people's disdain for still more hearings or whatever, it has, congress has -- >> it has a road map. dwla that's why they want don mcgahn. they want him to be john dean, an apt comparison. the president's white house counsel testifying against the president. that's why this dispute now -- neil: the one who refused to fire bob mueller. the president said that never happened. >> correct. by the way, he may have been a hero for refusing because if he had done it, he would have implicated the president. he's also the one refused to go back to the fbi and change his testimony, which would have been asking him to lie, according to the mueller report. neil: wow. >> that's why this issue over can he testify, can the president exert executive privilege is where this goes now. if he testifies, i think the president's waived executive privilege, this will all come out again. there's no end to this. neil: goes on and on and on. judge, thank you very, very much. we are also following developments in venezuela. an uprising that continues right now. the u.s. secretary of state mike pompeo is saying that russia's prolonging the battle. >> the support that has been provided by the russians combined with the support that is continued to be provided by the cubans has provided maduro sufficient support that he likely would have had to have left had that not been the case. it's very clear that maduro had intended to leave, he had his plane ready, and that the russians made clear that he ought not depart at this time. neil: all right. retired u.s. navy captain chuck nash on that. chuck, if we're to believe this, maduro was ready to leave, and the russians stopped him from leaving, what do you make of just that if it were true? >> it sounds like putin is trying to go syria redux. if that's the case, where all of a sudden he rolled in behind the assad regime and now is rolling in behind maduro, that could be problematic. but the difference in play here is that he's not dealing with red lines and the obama administration. he's dealing with somebody who just went toe-to-toe with him saying no, maduro has got to go. i don't think this president is going to back down. you've got a different player in the game now. neil: all right, but what options does he have, any and all around the table, we're told. would those include soldiers, u.s. soldiers there? a lot of people get leery of that. >> no. i don't think we're talking about regular uniformed straight-legged army and marines going into venezuela. no. we probably already have people on the ground right now advising juan guaido folks, providing support, backing their military people, enabling communications. the people in venezuela are showing up in the thousands upon thousands, even though the maduro government has shut down most of the radio stations, television, they are blocking internet sites. but the people are operating on virtual private networks and using whatsapp so they are getting through, the word is getting out, and now you are seeing more and more military people wearing blue arm bands, mixing with the crowd and protecting them from the military folks who are backing maduro. so nobody's shooting each other yet but you've got a clear line down the middle of who supports the new -- the interim president and who supports the guy who won't get out of the way. neil: i don't see a lot of generals leaving, a few more, by and large to a man they're still with him. do you expect that to change? >> the head of the secret police just switched sides. that is a biggy. a lot of the military generals, they have more generals than you can shake a stick at. you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a general in je venezuela. they are all down there on the maduro payroll. they are loathe to leave. now the russians meddling and the cubans coming in, marco rubio, senator rubio came out i think it was this morning, maybe last night, and said why don't we fully enact the helms-burton act which would lock down cuba. we are only partially using that 1995 law. we should be fully enacting that and really strangling cuba. that would get them out. now, the russians, different deal. the russians just like the chinese have a lot invested in venezuela. they've got bad loan paper from the venezuelans and they want to see that regime survive. neil: chuck nash, good catching up with you. thank you. we have a lot of bills, a lot of debt, and now we're looking at both parties spending up to $2 trillion on infrastructure. now the dirty little detail, how to pay for that. the former hud secretary under bill clinton is next. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. you can barely feel. termites, we're on the move.24/7. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999... senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. so you can come out swinging, maintain your inner focus, and wake up rested and ready for anything. sleep number is ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with mattresses by j. d. power. save $400 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. only for a limited time. neil: welcome back. the treasury secretary says the government risks not being able to pay its bills on time, yet again. they have agreed to a $2 trillion package for infrastructure, the details of which may never come to pass. they are widely separate on this. the treasury is just saying in the meantime we have bills that need paying and in a few months' time we won't be able to pay them. former housing secretary under bill clinton, henry cisneros, joins us now. great to see you. this infrastructure thing, i know it's a little different in the days of old, but that it would lead to this great boom, the understanding being that any time we have a national highway project under eisenhower or even the internet boom under your old boss, bill clinton, it has an x exponential benefit and infrastructure would be the same. >> i think it's absolutely correct. that's a good assumption. you can see even going back earlier in american history, the expansion after the civil war, the railroads going west -- neil: i covered that. >> i worked on the railroad. and then the period after world war ii, the highway system, where it led into the space program. the money will be identified either some gas tax, perhaps, democrats have to come around on that, or a few cents related to some corporate taxes, some substantial money can be generated that way. i don't know -- neil: in other words, the chuck schumer camp, take some of the cut and give it back? >> this is all going to have to be about compromise, in every respect. neil: it never can happen. >> no, i think there's a chance. obviously, it's dependent on this investigatory mood and all these problems. neil: what do you think about that? >> i think you can do two things at the same time. actually, from the white house's standpoint, i would say the more you can cooperate on things that matter, like jobs and incomes and cities and the infrastructure needs, the better the atmosphere generally and the harder it is for -- neil: do you worry about [ inaudible ] in your party? i'm not saying joe biden's emergence, that would be short-lived, who knows, but the party going hard left, almost guaranteed donald trump's re-elect? >> i don't think it's going hard left. if you look at the results just in the days since biden got in, his numbers get stronger because people really want somebody to be able to run well and potentially win. neil: democrats want to win more than make a case -- >> i absolutely do. you see some of the numbers of the people who have gone hard left, in the last week or so, dropping as they take more radical positions and as alternatives like biden -- neil: warren is a big government spender -- >> i don't think the party is going dramatically left. as nancy pelosi said, some weeks ago, there's a handful of people, yes, and they are noisy, yes. but that's not where the party as a whole is. it's rooted all over the american landscape and we know where america is. it's a centrist nation. neil: there are going to be a lot of hearings. we know that. maybe fodder was provided today with the back and forth with bill barr. but is it your sense that democrats could overdo it? >> absolutely could overdo it. because i think the american people want progress on substantive things. they care about their jobs. they care about their children's education. yes, this infrastructure initiative is a big piece of that. because not only is it about the knowledge that our infrastructure is in decline, we get a grade of "d," we have a $2 trillion shortfall of needs, but we're missing out on the opportunities to go forward with the new infrastructure, applying technology to congested roads and shoring up the electrical grid with the new wind and solar and nuclear and other things that are clean. and then application of technology to broadband that is slower in america today than it is in other countries in the world. look, i rode up here from washington last night on the train and you know, you don't bring anything to write on the train in the northeast corridor because it's jostling from side to side. it is a rough ride. in comparison to the high speed trains in japan and in europe and china, we are behind, we are behind and there's jobs and there's incomes and there's american progress and productivity and competitiveness. neil: real quickly on housing, you oversaw the housing boom. shortly thereafter, we had the meltdown about a decade later, actually. but is it your sense that we can avoid such a hiccup? price increases are coming down, not what they were. >> i think there's reason to worry generally, but i also feel like we learned a lot from that last housing crisis. if we are careful not to dismantle the whole structure of protections that keeps us from abusive and predatory lending, for example, then it should not happen again. it doesn't have to happen again. there are safeguards in place that avoid that exuberance of the market. neil: housing should be a goal, not a birthright. >> housing should be a goal, but the idea of home ownership for americans, they want it, the people want it, and it's real. it is real. it is a way in which most americans amass most of their net worth. neil: young people, maybe because of their parents' experience or their own, they're not -- >> well, there is a sense millenials are more mobile, they have to be prepared to move and not be tied down to home ownership. but i think over time, as they get to be 35 and 40 years old, put together a family, home ownership is still the american dream. neil: secretary, very good seeing you. i apologize for my cough. henry cisneros, former hud secretary under bill clinton. the dow is up 25 points. wo without apple we would be down a lot. if you are an apple investor, it has been expanding, buying back a lost its own stock and hiking its dividend. it has now gotten to be a relatively dare i say conservative entertainment investment. more after this. 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ ) ...or trips to mars. $4.95. delivery drones or the latest phones. $4.95. no matter what you trade, at fidelity it's just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. gerri: welcome back. i'm gerri willis from the floor of the new york stock exchange. cbs shares are higher after the company reported first quarter earnings that beast estimatt es. cvs bought aetna for $59 billion in november and the company today saying savings were tracking at the high end of $300 million to $350 million range. humana announcing a double beat on earnings and revenue on higher sales and lower than expected payouts for government health plans. earnings coming in at $448 a share on revenues of $16.1 billion. the company raising 2019 guidance. even so, shares are down after the company guided analysts lower for 2020 earnings. the reason? the trump administration's proposal to eliminate drug rebates to pharmacy benefits managers. i should say, cantor fitzgerald cutting its price target to $283. neil: thank you very much. we are finding out a little more about the white house request now, emergency request for $4.5 billion to beef up the southern border. doesn't ascertain exactly what the money would be used for. some democrats positing it's just a way for the administration to get more money for its wall. let's get the read from former louisiana governor bobby jindal. what do you make of this request? >> first off, thank you for having me back. look, i think it's a reasonable request. the white house is explicitly saying this is not money for the wall. it's money to address the crisis on the border. the democrats have a real choice. do they want to play partisan politics or solve this border crisis problem. you know, if they just want to play partisan politics, they will continue to delay and say we can't do anything unless we do comprehensive immigration reform. that's an excuse. the reality is we've got a broken asylum system. whatever you think about the wall, whatever you think about illegal immigration, or legal immigration, i think folks on both sides can agree we have a system that's not working. we have unaccompanied children, we have families that are coming across the border, we've got folks that think if they get here, they will be granted asylum, and we're not doing a good job separating those with legitimate asylum claims and those that are just coming because they want a job or think they can get a better quality of life here. neil: i'm wondering if the administration were to use this money for a wall, obviously you know the reaction would be among democrats and all that, but i agree with you that would be a little too brazen, but there is this emergency, there is this cris crisis, jeh johnson saying as much, cory booker, the democratic presidential candidate, senator from new jersey, saying as much. there does seem to be agreement, more agreement than certainly there used to be, that we've got to do something, but what? >> well, look, two things. one, they have explicitly said they want some of this money for more detention facilities. the money the president freed up with his executive orders, emergency order, they can use that for construction. they've got limitations on how they can use those dollars. it's actually easier for them to use those dollars for the wall than these dollars. i think that's why they are asking for additional money because they can't use that emergency order money for things like detention capacity. secondly, you talked about there is a recognition that there is this crisis. part of the problem is we have a program now where it's almost like catch and release, where you've got folks saying you've got to go through the judicial process, but then because we don't have capacity to hold folks, they are just released into america and the reality is they disappear. they don't show up for their court dates and the reality is that's the system we've got to fix. the people that are really suffering in this are the children and the families that are lured here by this false promise that hey, if you get here, you will be given amnesty. the cartels are making billions of dollars off their suffering and so this is a system that needs to be fixed. i think if the democrats would work with the president and say look, put aside the bigger issues, we're not going to solve every problem, let's focus on this problem today and let's truly focus on people that have legitimate claims. look, i think we are a compassionate country. people are truly fleeing religious or political persecution, have legitimate claims. yes, we should be helping them but there are many more tens of thousands of other people trying to abuse that process, that illegally come into our country. i understand the desire to come here. they should do so legally, go through the legal process. look, if democrats want to be reasonable, they would work with us but look at joe biden. this is a great example. under the obama/biden administration, they believed in deportations, they believed in, as senators, they believed in voting for the border fencing and securing the border. i suspect it won't be long before joe biden will be apologizing for all those things he was previously for and it won't take long for him to apologize for voting for border fencing, for being in support of deportations when he was vice president. i think the democratic party is being pulled so far to the left that they can't even agree on something as common sense as fixing a broken asylum system. neil: good seeing you again. thank you. >> neil, thank you. neil: in the meantime, in case you haven't heard, apple is the big equity show in town right now. it's raising its dividend. there's a guy who literally wrote the book on the subject, on why that could be quite telling, after this. ♪lean on me, when you're not strong.♪ ♪and i'll be your friend.♪ ♪i'll help you carry on.♪ ♪lean on me. neil: you know, there used to be a time when technology stocks didn't think about paying dividends. we're high tech, goshdarn it, we don't do things like try to lure widows and orphans with dividends. that of course has changed over the last few years. e those that do provide dividends, just raising its by 5%. investors are obviously excited with that. that, and buying back $100 billion worth of its stock could close the deal right there. but dividend-paying stocks are all the rage right now. the case for dividend growth. it just adds to the appeal. this entire book focuses on that, investing in a post-crisis world, where the assurance of a company paying you for owning its stock doesn't hurt. david joins us right now. good to have you. >> thank you, neil. good to be with you. neil: it's interesting, because we used to think buying stocks not exclusively but largely was based on the dividend they pay, as a little bit of security in retirement but it's much more than that, isn't it? >> it is. it's one of the big arguments i make in the book, you can view the dividend as a pragmatic benefit to owning the stock and it certainly is. it's cash that you receive. but i think what gets missed is being able to view the dividend as what it signifies about the stock you own. the kind of stability of the company, the maturity of a business model that is able to repeatedly pay the dividend and what is so key to our case, to repeatedly grow the dividend over time. neil: but growing it is a big part. you had said not too long ago the payout ratio is important. if the company is paying out 90% of its profits in dividends, they are not really looking to grow a lot. if the company is normally paying out 20% of its profits, they're not likely committed to dividend growth. what's the sweet spot? >> yeah. the sweet spot changes sector by sector. let's take reits, for example, they have to pay out 90%. neil: real estate investment. >> real estate investment trusts, that's right. there are some companies that are very capx heavy. they need a lot of money to reinvest into infrastructure of their companies so they may pay a lower payout ratio because they need more profits for reinvestment. other companies are huge free cash flow generators and they get to a point, boeing has been a great example of this, where there is so much free cash flow being generated above and beyond what they need for capx, for growth, they are able to pay generously. we have to look at it company by company. neil: all right. now, when you look at yields, and you have been brilliant investor over the course of your career, managing in excess of $1.6 billion, but obviously dividends are important to you but there are different ways of looking at the performance of someone like you versus if you just did it in the s&p 500. now, obviously dividends reinvested and buying back into those stocks and all is one thing, but do you feel that a lot of people are leery of dividends for the right reason, they could get more bang for their buck just investing in stocks on which they have a good hunch are going to grow? >> yeah, if all that an investor had done was come in with new money after the financial crisis, the fed goes to three rounds of qe, they keep interest rates at zero, and you have the fang phenomena take over and someone piles into that, they may not know that they ever need dividends. they may not know they ever need balance and you know, portfolio stability. i don't believe that that represents a permanent new paradigm of investing. we want something that will stand the test of time and i think you look at the decade we just had, which was admittedly in a rebound out of the financial crisis and with an incredible amount of fed stimulus, then you look at the decade before, where the investors made no money for ten years, between two blowups. in both cases, dividend growth investors did very, very well. i think that the issue is on a risk-adjusted basis, how can you sleep at night and i believe you can sleep at night better knowing those dividends are not only going to keep coming but are going to keep growing, regardless of what the market prices may do through their natural volatility. neil: our natural way of looking at the performance of various markets generally doesn't include reinvested dividends and all that stuff. once you factor that in, it is rare to find the period of time, extended period of time, where you haven't gotten some bang for the buck out of it. >> and in fact, i will argue that even for regular s&p 500 investors, the longer you go back in time, the larger of a window you're giving, the higher percentage that the reinvestment of dividends represents of your return. i think if you go back to the great depression, it's about 80% of the return that investors gotten has come from reinvesting those dividends and allowing that compounding miracle to take place. neil: you know, we live in heady times. you of course referred to the '90s when we were looking at returns in 1995 of 37.5%, '97, 33%, 1999, 21%. the nasdaq in 1999, up almost 86%. we remember of course the crashes that came afterwards. how do you find just the right balance? >> well, for us, we find the right balance by not trying to buy everything. we really believe in being selective and that selectiveity criteria is around the growth of the dividend. what it does is -- neil: is that your most prominent goal? in other words, mcdonald's has been one of those that provides a generous dividend and the stock has been on fire. they never send me a thank you note, by the way. i will let take go. but it offers the best of both worlds. i'm not here to sell mcdonald's. i'm just saying you can sometimes find both, right? >> well, mcdonald's does give you a thank you note in the form of offering incredible french fries and hamburgers. neil: touche. >> the other thing they have done is through the 1990s, through the period of all those huge returns and the technology going crazy, if you bought mcdonald's at the beginning of the '90s, you right now per year are getting in a dividend what the stock cost you at the beginning of the '90s, 100% per year cash on cash from what you paid for mcdonald's, procter & gamble is another example of a company like that. these are both companies that we own and that is the type of thing that we're looking to do. now, someone can come and say hey, you're going to miss out on the great growth of say a netflix or something. i agree, they're not going to be the dividend payers in the early stages of a company, but i look at cisco and intel and microsoft and qualcomm, they were the netflixes of the 1990s. they are now more mature companies with steady cash flows that are paying very generous and repeatable growing dividends. we are happy to buy a company when they are in that phase because our mandate is to protect client capital and grow income over time. neil: maybe they don't want to add another dollar to the investment, just the appreciation through the dividends where you can buy more or start taking it out for retirement. you don't get with a company that doesn't do that. >> that's right. i think there's that two-pronged benefit. for an accumulator like myself who is not withdrawing from his portfolio, i'm getting the compounding of the reinvested dividends but for a lot of the population, that is in need to get income from their portfolio, the last nine years, they haven't had to worry about withdrawing in a negative market. but in the ten years before that, you could blow up a portfolio. even if the return ended up catching up, because the problem is the return would be catching up with less money in your portfolio. when you're withdrawing from just positive cash flow, you never are impacting your principal. i think that's a very important concept for investors to re-learn. neil: it's a great book. "the case for dividend growth, investing in a post-crisis world." there are all sorts of definitions where you can do that on stocks whose yields exceed the s&p average. they are planning picks in that category to sort of protect yourself. thank you. uber now set to go public next week. i don't think it's thinking dividend one way or the other for the time being. susan li on that and the others that could follow. susan: so we do have day two of the road show fully subscribed, meaning there are enough buyers for the amount of stock on offer. the enthusiasm is on the bottom end of the price range. the offer is between $44 to $50 apiece. let's take the middle of that and you are still going to see a lot of big happy winners next friday in the biggest public ipo in five years. let's take a look at the baseball cards. some of these names, you know. some of them are a bit surprising. for instance, masayoshi son of softbank, he's the largest shareholder at $10 billion. he will sell off a bit of his holdings and shares in this listing. travis kalinek, a compa-founder. did you know jeff bezos was going to make a nice return, not like he needs the money, right? but he invested $3 million in the early rounds. that investment, $400 million. that's how much it's worth. neil: you kidding me? susan: on friday, at least on paper, paper value. but he did also invest in benchmark also. let's bring up the venture funds. they're not going to cash out but they will make a lot of money, shall we say, on their balance sheet if they choose to sell shares in the future after the six-month lockup period. benchmark, $30 million, look at that. i will tell you, the 300,000% return for the founder, $100,000 now worth $300 million. where do we find those type of returns? neil: how long do they have to stay with the stock? susan: there's a six-month lockup period for these other holders of uber stock. but they invested very early on in 2010. you have to find the growth companies then. new dividends, by the way, back then. neil: yeah. susan li, thank you very, very much. more after this. including a new battle between joe biden and donald trump over something very weird. so with xfinity mobile i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars... do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $100 back when you buy a new lg. click, call, or visit a store today. neil: all right. we're less than ten minutes away from a decision from the federal reserve. no one is expecting a change in policy as much as an opportunity to hear from fed chairman jerome powell, who is already being pressured by president trump to cut interest rates up to a full percentage point. not all at one time. president trump has also talked about returning to quantitative easing, that is one highlight of the obama years when the federal reserve was buying up any treasury note or bond it could find to forcibly bring down interest rates. he was a critic of it then, but is espousing taking that move now. waiting for that fed move one way or the other and the presser right after that in about seven, eight minutes from now. let's go to fox news contributor doreen borelli and marjory clifton. this is not the first president who's made his views known that he prefers lower than higher interest rates. this one is just a lot more public about it. what do you make of this? >> well, we know that trump is bold. we know that the economy is one of the biggest things that he has as a win on his ledger right now. so i think that he's focusing and not shying away from the strength of the economy because we are seeing increases in numbers, and i think most economists are sort of warning people let's look at the bigger picture, let's look at where jobs are -- where we're increasing jobs, where we're losing jobs and what does that mean for the general slowdown that could be happening. neil: you know, a lot of people quibble over the tax cuts and all. we do know statistically, most got them. we also know from various polls on the subject that most people don't know that they did. and they're not happy about it. i'm wondering if that's part of the frustration behind the president. >> well, that's the message that i think republican politicians should be talking about on a regular basis to americans, to the voters, that you did get a tax increase in your check or perhaps in your rebate with your tax returns. some kind of way, you ended up with more money in your wallet for you and your family. with the market, the economy doing so well right now under president trump's pro-growth policies, cutting taxes and rolling back regulations, the market is doing really well. we have record low unemployment numbers, inflation is low. you see consumer confidence is up, consumer spending is up. so the president has created an environment for people to go out and spend more money, for companies to hire more, and that is one -- that was one of his campaign promises. neil: ladies, i'm very sorry to cut this sthort becauhort becau breaking news out of venezuela and elsewhere, what's happening at the border. do want to update folks at home. the president is requesting $4.5 billion in additional funding for the border, for security, not for a wall, but no details as to what that money will be earmarked for. it will be earmarked but again, $4.5 billion, he is requesting, actually pretty close to demanding because he says it's an emergency. more after this. . . everyone's got to listen to mom. when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet, coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org neil: bill barr, how do you think he is doing up on capitol hill? republican judiciary member, john kennedy my special guest on "your world" on fox news channel 4:00 p.m. get your read on all of this. good day if you're apple shareholder. good day if you like dividends. that play has come into work here as a lot of high-tech names are looking at the appeal drawing in a different investment crowd, you know what? we'll pay you something just for owning our stock. charles payne knows about that. so much more. take the, my friend. charles: neil, appreciate it. good afternoon, foles. we're on pins and needles. this is "making money." we're moments away from the fed decision. despite president trump's call to cut rates more likely the federal reserve will keep rates unchanged but there so many questions investors want to know, right? what about the strong first quarter economic data? will that cause the fed to shake things up. will the fed ever hike rates again? could they do it without shocking entire system. 2:30 jerome powell will take questions from the press. a lot of other news. attorney general barr facing hostile reception on capitol hill. it is his first testimony since the slightly redacted mueller report. democratic lawmakers are grilling him why special counsel mueller told the ag that his original summary caused confusion. go to edward lawrence with the federal reserve board of directors. reporter: charles, i can tell you the federal reserve keeping rates the same. federal reserve remaining patient on this the range of the federal funds rate is 2.25 to 2.50. the federal reserve is watching the global economy and financial developments as well as muted inflation as possible headwind. in the fed statement the fed said it could be patient with the muted inflation. the upgrade or federal reserve upbraids the assessment of the economy. the federal reserve characterized economic growth as solid, a change from march when it said economic growth had slowed. consumer, business spending slowed in the first quarter. inflation playing a big part of changes in the federal reserve statement. noting that it

Related Keywords

Miami , Florida , United States , New York , Caracas , Distrito Federal , Venezuela , Japan , Iraq , Alaska , Cuba , China , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Colombia , Syria , Togo , Russia , Americans , America , Cubans , Chinese , Russian , Russians , Venezuelans , American , Bobby Jindal , Gerri Willis , States Henry , Elizabeth Warren , Nancy Pelosi , Blake Burman , Joe Biden , James Freeman , Chuck Nash , Steve Ballmer , Susan Li , Deirdre Bolton , Jeh Johnson , Tom Dupree , Barr , Rick Scott , Bernie Sanders , Chuck Schumer , Doreen Borelli , Cory Booker , Jeff Bezos , States Neil , Eric Cantor , Robert Mueller , Henry Cisneros , Hillary Vaughn , Neil , Bob Mueller , Jerome Powell , Barack Obama , Charles Payne , Edward Lawrence , Paul Bremer , John Kennedy , James Clyburn , Bob Mueller Neil , Andrew Napolitano ,