Return to Transcripts main page


Snap Shares Pop in Market Debut; Dow Pulls Back from Record Highs; U.S. Attorney General Facing Calls to Resign

Aired March 2, 2017 - 16:00:00   ET


[16:00:00] RICHARD QUEST, CNN ANCHOR: There's the bell ringing on Wall Street. Hits the gavel as trading comes to an end. The Dow Jones, it's a

wimpy gavel. The Dow Jones closes down today, having had that very strong performance yesterday. We're off 160 points, half a percentage point on

the New York Stock Exchange. Trading is over. It is Thursday, it's the 2nd of March. Tonight, Snap, Haggle, and, Whoop. The tech IPO is the

year's roaring success. No such joy for the rest of Wall Street. The market is taking a breather from its record highs. And the U.S. attorney

general is facing calls to resign. The AG, Jeff Sessions, is due to speak any moment now. We'll bring it to you as soon as he does. I'm Richard

Quest live in the world's financial capital and I mean business.

Good evening. I will have all the day's business news for you in just a moment. We pause, because we are waiting and expecting to hear from the

U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. Now, there is the live position in the justice department. Mr. Sessions or A.G. Sessions is due to give a

news conference amid a storm of controversy on capitol hill after it's come to light that he spoke to Russian officials before Donald Trump's

inauguration. Now, that, on its own, may not be a dreadful crime or sin in its own right. However, he failed to mention these details to congress

during his confirmation hearings. And in fact, he went further, when specifically asked whether or not he had any connections or contacts with

the Russians, he said, "no." and now it transpires he had two meetings or two conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Mr. Sessions insists he's done nothing wrong. Some Republican and Democratic lawmakers think otherwise. There have been calls from both

Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the senate, the minority leader, and Nancy Pelosi in the house, both of whom have called on Jeff Sessions to

resign. However, the White House says that -- and the president says it has full confidence in Jeff Sessions. But there are clearly questions to

be answered. And as soon as that briefing begins, we will bring it to you live.

Four years ago, Snapchat's chief executive, Evan Spiegel, turned down a $3 billion offer for his company. Tonight, hindsight is often a wise thing,

but it certainly paid off in a big way, as the market closes on Snap's first day of trading, the shares are up 44 percent. The company that was

once described as a fad for teens is now worth more than $30 billion. It's the largest U.S. tech IPO since Facebook went public in 2012. Here's the

way the day went as it got ready to get trading. Investors snapped up the shares and even though user growth is stagnant and snap is losing money,

the shares come without voting rights.

Now, those men on the podium hold the power after less than eight hours after co-founders Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy rang the opening bell,

they're each worth around $5 billion. So, you probably are well aware of what snapchat is and what it does do and doesn't do. But originally, of

course, Snapchat caught on as the app that allowed teens to send messages, often of a risque and ribald nature, and have those messages disappear just

after a few seconds. Now the company, perhaps, has reached puberty and its valuation has grown up along with it.

So, let's compare the Snapchat and the valuations of other companies, as well. So, in 2013, Facebook offers $3 billion. Four years later, we find

out how much the founders thought it was worth. $22 billion, based on the IPO's filings. $22 billion is based on the $17 billion IPO filing.

However, the market, having pushed the price up some 44 percent, now say that snap is worth $33 billion.

[16:05:00] Remember, it's a relatively small float in terms of the total share capital outstanding that was actually issued to the market. It's

people like Jeremy Liew, who have certainly benefited. He was snap's first investor. Now, back then, just two people worked at Snapchat. And the app

had fewer than 100,000 users. Jamie joins me from the stock exchange. And I will caveat what I'm saying. Two things, first of all, I apologize if I

interrupt you. We're expecting Jeff Sessions to speak anytime now. And secondly, you are restricted, what you can say, as an investor. But when

you now look at snapchat, what was it that made you think this has got legs, this is worth it?

JEREMY LIEW, PARTNER, LIGHTSPEED VENTURE PARTNERS: When we met the company, one of the things that really compelled us was the degree of

engagement that it had with its users. The people who are using Snapchat were using it many days a week and many times a day. And when you see

that, when you see an app or a product becoming a daily habit for people it's a good predictor that it's going to be a core piece of people's lives.

QUEST: But if you have to -- there's lots of things that people use every day, in that sense, online. But what is it that then explodes it out of

just a few hundred thousand into the millions and beyond?

LIEW: When we met the company, it was already growing at a very big clip. And it's one of the reasons that they came to take an investment from us,

because at the time, when we met Evan, he was unable to pay his bills because of the growth. And we always look to apps that can be part of

popular culture. We believe that young women are the early adopters of popular culture. So one of the things we saw was that when we met the

company, it was dominated in its usage by young woman, by high school girls. And whenever we see that, you know, we've seen it before, whether

it was Myspace or Facebook or Instagram, that is a good predictor of what's going to become popular culture in the future.

QUEST: You own roughly 8 percent of the company now. But your 8 percent, whilst making you an extremely wealthy person, it gives you no voting

rights. Don't you find it strange that you can own shares in a company, and don't you find it somewhat goes against the very idea of shareholdings

that you have no votes that go with it?

LIEW: So, I don't own those shares. Light speed invests on behalf of its limited partners, which are pension funds and endowments and so forth. So,

it's really them that are reaping the benefits of the return today. But one of the things we have always believed is that the company is best run

by its founders. They are responsible for the success of the company so far and by being able to take a long-term view for the company, they've

been able to make the decisions that have led it from when we met them, at less than 100,000 daily active users five years ago, to 158 million daily

active users today. So, we have a great deal of confidence that they will continue to run the company in a way that they see is in the best long-term

interests of the company.

QUEST: Right. But how many times would you buy shares, where you don't have a vote that goes with the share?

LIEW: You know, if you think about companies that have control, lying in the founders, you see that it's very common, in both technology companies

and media companies. So, with Facebook, with google, with news corp., with Viacom, these are all examples of companies where control of the company

continues to rest with the founders. And that has been a very well-worn and I think successful model so far.

QUEST: Finally, it's a great day for Snapchat. And, obviously, you know, now everybody want -- what's next in the sense for you? What are the sort

of companies that you and your fund are looking for next?

LIEW: We continue to look for companies that catch on first with young women, for the reasons I talked about earlier. And so some of the

companies in our portfolio, that fall into that category would include Jessica Alba's be honest company --

QUEST: I need to interrupt you, sir. We need to go to Washington. Thank you. Jeff Sessions, the U.S. attorney general.

JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Jodi, thank you for being with me. He is my chief of staff and Jodie has been almost 20 years in the

department of justice. Let me share a few thoughts. First, about the comments that I made to the committee that have been said to be incorrect

and false. Let me be clear. I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign.

[16:10:00] And the idea that I was part of a, quote, continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries

for the Russian government is totally false.

That is the question that Senator Franken asked me. At the hearing. And that's what got my attention, as he noted, it was the first just breaking

news. And it got my attention and that is the question I responded to. I did not respond by referring to the two meetings, one very brief after a

speech, and one with two of my senior staffers, professional staffers, with the Russian ambassador in Washington. Where no such things were discussed.

In my reply to the question, my reply to the question of senator franken was honest and correct as I understood it at the time. I appreciate that

some have taken the view that this was a false comment. That is not my intent. That is not correct.

I will write the judiciary committee soon, today or tomorrow, to explain this testimony for the record. Secondly, at my confirmation hearing, I

promised that I would do this. If a specific matter arose where I believe my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with the

department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed, closed quote. That's what I told them at the confirmation hearing. I have

been here just three weeks today. A lot has been happening in this three- week period. I wish I'd had more of my staff onboard, but we're still waiting for confirmations for them. Much has been done, much needs to be

done, but I did and have done, as I promised, I have met with senior officials, shortly after arriving here.

We evaluated the rules of ethics and recusal. I have considered the issues at stake. In fact, on Monday of this week, we set a meeting with a final

decision on this question. And on Monday, we sat that meeting today. So this was a day that we've planned to have a final decision about handling

this. I ask for their candid and honest opinion about what I should do, about investigations. Certain investigations. And my staff recommended

recusal. They said that since I had involvement with the campaign, I should not be involved in any campaign investigation. I have studied the

rules and considered their comments and investigation. I believe those recommendations are right and just.

Therefore, I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign. The exact language of that recusal is in the press release that

we will give to you. I've said this, quote, I have now decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in

any way to the campaigns for president of the United States. I went on to say, this announcement should not be interpreted as confirmation of the

existence of any investigation or suggestive of the scope of any such investigation. Because we in the department of justice resist confirming

or denying the very existence of investigation. So, in the end, I have followed the right procedure, just as I promised the committee I would.

Just as I believe any good attorney general should do. And a proper decision, I believe has been reached. So I thank you for the opportunity

to make those comments and would be pleased to take a few questions. OK?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Just to clear up any confusion over this, could you just explain a little bit about the September 8th meeting, who on your

staff was there and what was discussed with the Russian ambassador?

SESSIONS: The Russian ambassador apparently sent a staffer to my office. I did not see him. And asked for a meeting, as so many ambassadors were


[16:15:00] And we sat up a time, as we did, as we normally did, and we met with him. Two of my senior staffers were there. And maybe a younger

staffer, too. And they both retired army colonels, and not politicians and we had a -- we listened to the ambassador and to what his concerns might

be. Well. just normal things such as, I started off by saying, I don't remember a lot of it, but I do remember saying I had gone to Russia with a

church group in 1991. And he said he was not a believer himself, but he was glad to have church people come there. And indeed, I thought he was

pretty much of an old style soviet-type ambassador.

And so, we talked a little bit about terrorism, as I recall. And somehow the subject of the Ukraine came up. I had the Ukraine ambassador in my

office the day before and to listen to him, Russia had done nothing that was wrong in any area, and everybody else was wrong, with regard to the

Ukraine. It got to be a little bit of a testy conversation at that point. It wrapped up. He said something about inviting me to have lunch. I did

not accept that and that never occurred. I don't recall, but most of these ambassadors are pretty gossipy and this was in the campaign season, but I

don't recall any specific political discussions.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you recall meeting with ambassador Kislyak any other time?

SESSIONS: I don't recall having met him. It's possible. I'm on the armed services committee and things happen. But I don't recall having met him

before those meetings.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: On the question of sanction, do you think -- why do you think he sought the meeting with you? Did he consider you a

representative of the Trump campaign?

SESSIONS: I think ambassadors are always out, trying to find out things and advance their agenda. Most of the countries that ambassadors that that

I met, they would lay out the case for -- Ukraine would lay out his case, Poland would lay out its case, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Japan, Canada,

Australia. I met with all of those ambassadors over the year and so I think that's why they --

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Did you consult with the White House about your decision? And just to follow on the last question, with hindsight, do you

believe that this is a coincidence that the Russians asked you for a meeting? And do you believe you were targeted, because it came at the

height of Russia's interference? And at the same time, then-candidate Trump was giving an interview to RT saying that he didn't believe there was

anything to the reported interference.

SESSIONS: I don't recall and don't have a sense of any connection whatsoever about that. I'm not sure I even knew, when we set up the

meeting, what was going to be going on in the world at the time. So, I can't speak for what the Russian ambassador may have had in his mind.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Have you met with any ore Russian officials or folks connected to the Russian government since you endorsed Donald Trump?

SESSIONS: I don't believe so. You know, we meet a lot of people.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Separate from those two meetings you discussed with the ambassador?

SESSIONS: I don't believe so.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The White House press secretary and the president himself both said today that they think that you should not recuse yourself

from these investigations.

SESSIONS: I did share with White House council and my staff they intend to recuse myself this afternoon. But I feel like -- of course, they didn't --

they don't know the rules, the ethics rules, most people don't. And -- but when you evaluate the rules, I feel like I am -- I should not be involved

investigating a campaign I had a role in. One more question and we'll wrap this up.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Two questions, if I may. One, you were already considering recusal before day, is that correct? And secondly, when you

answered Senator Franken's question, were you just not thinking of the meeting with the Russian ambassador or did you not consider it relevant?

[16:20:00] SESSIONS: I was taken aback a little bit by this brand-new information and I was called a surrogate for Donald Trump had been meeting

continuously with Russian officials and that's what I -- that's what struck me very hard and that's what I focused my answer on. And with retrospect,

I should have slowed down and said, but I did meet one Russian official a couple of times. That would be the ambassador. Thank you, all. Take


JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaking for about 15 minutes there, taking questions from reporters. Recusing himself from

any decision having to do with the investigation into possible contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians known to U.S. intelligence. He

described his meeting on capitol hill with the Russian ambassador, Kislyak, saying they talked about terrorism, they talked about how he had gone to

Russia with a church group, and apparently, the ambassador not a believer. They talked about Ukraine and the attorney general described the

conversation as a little bit of a testy conversation, but he does not recall any specific political discussion.

Let me bring in Pamela Brown. Pamela, when it came to accusations that he had been misleading in his answers to senator al franken of medicine during

the judiciary committee hearing on his confirmation, he said that he thought franken was asking about a story pertaining to continuing

communications between Trump advisers during the campaign and Russians and he did not think that his meetings with the Russian ambassador were

pertinent to that. And he's going to amend that in writing to the judiciary committee.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. And as we know, there was a follow up question there from Senator Leahy, and he continued to say he had

no contact with Russians. You know, he said today that he was looking at it in the context of the story that you broke during that time, during his

hearing, that president Trump had been briefed about this dossier with some allegations involving Trump surrogates and the Russians. He said, in that

context, he was sort of taken aback by the news that was being given to him by senator franken, and he didn't, in his mind, think that his meetings

with the ambassador, with Kislyak, had anything to do with this news story. And even in his follow-up questionnaire, according to what he said during

this press conference, he was still thinking of it in that other framework, not his meetings with Kislyak.

Now, it's still a little unclear if in that moment, he recalled those meetings, because you'll remember last night the department of justice

initially said he didn't remember the meetings, and then through time, he's had some more clarity, clearly, was able to talk about the fact they talked

about terrorism and other issues. But it's worth pointing out that he is, of course, Russia's ambassador to the U.S. but also, he's considered, in

the view of the FBI and intelligence agencies, to be a top spy for Russia. He's someone to be considered, someone who would go back to Russia and

share intelligence, what he collects in the United States. So this isn't just some, you know, ambassador. This is someone that the U.S. views as a

spy, which could be argued a lot of diplomats are. But I think there's that other element there, and what also stuck o out to me, he said, this

decision to recuse himself came from his involvement just with the campaign. It had nothing -- I basically said, because he's involved in the

campaign, he think it's appropriate to recuse himself in investigations involved in the campaign. And he didn't say these conversations with the

Russia's ambassador had anything to do with that, I found that interesting.

TAPPER: Joining me, Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, a member of the judiciary committee and also the foreign relations committee. Senator,

first, what's your reaction to the press conference from Attorney General Sessions and his decision to recuse himself.

CHRIS COONS, SENATOR, DELAWARE: Jake, the most important issue here for us to continue to be focused on is to have a thorough, credible bipartisan

investigation into Russian interference in our elections. And the unanswered questions about the connections between senior members of the

Trump campaign team and Russian intelligence need to be thoroughly and fairly investigated. So I think it is important that attorney general

sessions took a big step in that direction when he came out just moments ago that he will recuse himself from the ongoing investigation into

potential collusion between the Trump campaign in which he played a senior role and the Russian government and Russian intelligence. It's a good

first step. I think the attorney general should return to the steering committee to answer the questions that were not answered fully and in a

forthright way before. And to make sure that the American people have a chance to have their confidence restored that the attorney general did not

mislead the American people in his hearing.

TAPPER: You heard the attorney general. He's going to write to the judiciary committee. It doesn't sound like he's eager to return in any

sort of hearing setting, what will you do if he refuses to come back and answer your questions in person?

[16:25:00] COONS: Jake, I think it's important we proceed in a bipartisan way. Yesterday, Republican Senator Rubio and I took to the floor to give a

joint speech about the importance of pushing back on Russian aggression and to conduct a thorough and fair investigation into meddling in our election.

It's my hope that on the judiciary committee, we'll have both Republicans and Democrats asking the attorney general to return and to answer the

question that aren't fully answered. But my hunch is that we'll get answers in writing first, and we'll have to see whether they're


Tapper: So, senator, during the press conference right there, the attorney general quoted Al Franken, the senator from Minnesota, your colleague, and

he referred to the part of the question where senator franken referred to, quote, and he's actually quoting a CNN story, there was a continuing

exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government. That's an allegation made in

this Russian -- I'm sorry, in this dossier, in which Russians were quoted, and the intelligence community presented information, a summary of this

dossier to president Trump. He said he was responding to the question of that, about whether or not he had had any contacts with Russians as part of

a, quote, continuing exchange of information, and that is why he said no. Is that satisfactory to you? Is that believable to you?

COONS: Well, Jake, my recollection of that moment in the confirmation hearings is Senator Franken was asking directly, if you've had contacts

with Russians, to senior Russian officials, to which the answer obviously should have been yes. And then senator sessions could have modified that

and said, yes, I've had several meetings with the Russian ambassador. But we talked about issues that were unrelated to the presidential campaign.

So, I don't think it was a forthright and a full answer. That's why I do think it would be helpful, constructive, for the attorney general to help

restore confidence by giving a completely answer in person, in front of the judiciary committee.

TAPPER: You're right, just to quote from what senator franken said, the actual question he asked was, if there is any evidence that anyone

affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? At which point, then

senator, now attorney general sessions said, I did not have communications with the Russians. You think that that was false?

COONS: Well, it's clear that he had communications with the Russian ambassador. I expect that attorney general sessions will explain that he

understood the question to mean about campaign matters. But it would have been a correct, accurate, and forthright answer if he'd said, yes, I

recently met with the Russian ambassador. And then went on to explain what it was they discussed. As it was with the national security adviser, who

had to resign, because he was untruthful about conversations that he had with this same Russian ambassador. This continues to raise the level of

concern by Americans both Democrats and Republicans, about the core issue here. Which is a lack of openness and truthfulness about connections and

contacts between Russian officials, Russian officials known to American intelligence, and very senior members of the Trump campaign team. We need

to get this investigated thoroughly and in a nonpartisan way.

TAPPER: Senator Chris Coons, from the great state of Delaware, appreciate it. Attorney general Jeff Sessions just announced he would recuse himself

from the investigation into Russia in the 2016 campaign. Much more on this breaking news straight ahead. Stay with us.


QUEST: I'm Richard Quest. There's more "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" in just a moment. We'll have, of course, first the news headlines, because this is

CNN and on this network, the news always come first.

You've just heard the U.S. attorney general who has recused himself from any impossible investigations into the Trump campaign's contacts with

Russia. Jeff Sessions still denies any wrongdoing. He's been accused of lie during his confirmation hearing, when he said he did not have

communication with the Russians during the campaign. According to the justice department, Jeff Sessions did meet with the kremlin's ambassador to

the U.S. twice in July and September.

The Syrian army says it has retaken the ancient city of Palmyra from ISIS for the second time in a year with help from Russian air strikes. The

militants first seized it in 2014 and destroyed many of its historic monuments. A Syrian military group says the army is still clearing mines


The former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been acquitted of conspiring to kill protesters during the Arab spring uprising. It's

Mubarak's third and final trial on the charges. Amnesty international says at least 840 people were killed during the protests five years ago.

Snap soared in its market debut on the New York stock exchange. The parent company of Snapchat trades well above its initial public offering of $17 a

share. At the close of trading on Thursday, the stock was up 44 percent. Snap is trading at $24 a share.

The core question, as it relates to Snap and its launch on the world's stock markets today. Whether Snap is the next Facebook or the next

Twitter. The first day is not always a good indication. I'll show you what happened with Facebook. Now, Facebook took one year to get to the

floor of the New York stock exchange. And if you take a look at what happened, you remember, it was a very rocky -- the launch on the NASDAQ was

extremely rocky. It dropped as low as 30. Had been 15 or $16 a share. Paul La Monica will correct me if I'm wrong. Down here, lots of trouble

with Facebook. But look, from 2012 to 2017, where the stock is now $137 a share. Feast your eyes on that, because that is the one upon which all

others are going to be compared. Take, for example, Twitter. Well, Twitter soared at the beginning, almost up $65 a share. And has since

fallen back with several moments of "is this a recovery?" "is this a resurgence?" no. To the point where Twitter is down about $14 a share.

You then have Facebook roaring, Twitter falling, GoPro, which calls it -- I mean, it goes way up. So, similar, GoPro up to $94 and down and maybe it's

back to oh, dear, to the point where GoPro is down to $8 a share. And Fitbit. Look at Fitbit. Now, Fitbit's IPO is back in June of last year,

goes a nice little bump here, and then down, up, down, down, down, down, down, all the way down to $6. The shares are off more than 70 percent.

So, take a look. Is snapchat Facebook? Or is it Twitter, GoPro or Fitbit? Here's Maggie Lake.

[16:35:00] MAGGIE LAKE, CNN MONEY ANCHOR: Before and after pictures. They can be embarrassing when you look at them years later. In the world of

tech, companies that appear to be the picture of health on launch day can look downright sickly after years of stock market struggle. Alibaba was

the biggest tech IPO ever with a valuation of $168 billion back in 2014. And ma's looking positively dashing three years ago with a valuation of

$250 billion. Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook also looks pumped up. Its IPO is valued at $104 billion. It now sports a more than $300 billion market cap.

But the before and after comparisons are not so pretty for many other tech firms. Fitbit went public two years ago with a valuation of over $4

billion. The maker of fitness gear looks less healthy today. It's worth under $1.5 billion. The Twitter bird was flying high in November 2014 with

a $14 billion valuation. But four years of growth has clipped its wings. $2 billion has been cut from its market cap. And GoPro cameras were once

the rage for the extreme sports set, but GoPro's stock has failed to catch a wave. It's now valued at $1.3 billion. It just goes to show, with going

public isn't always a snap. For smart investors, it sometimes pays to see how things develop. Maggie lake, "CNN money," New York.

QUEST: Stunned into silence. Paul La Monica is with me. Come on, give the lowdown on Snap.

PAUL R. LA MONICA, CNN MONEY DIGITAL CORRESPONDENT: I would be worried, you and I have talked about the fact that people buying the stock today get

no voting rights whatsoever, which means you are putting all of your faith in Evan Spiegel to be the next Mark Zuckerberg. There may only be one Mark

Zuckerberg. Snapchat is losing money. And you brought up a great point before, when you showed not just Twitter, but GoPro and Fitbit. Snap is

really positioning itself. They said we're not a social media company, we're a camera company. Well, the margins in hardware are terrible. And

look at what happened to GoPro and Fitbit. All it takes is a larger tech company to come in and say, hey, we're going to build this device, too, and

cut the price.

QUEST: And GoPro came in with something we haven't seen before, in a revolutionary way, and it still --

LA MONICA: Right, because you quickly had competition. A dozen other companies all coming in with action cameras. What's to stop someone from

doing this to snap?

QUEST: The question I've asked all day, which I know you'll give a better answer than I did, what has Facebook managed to do that the others haven't?

LA MONICA: Facebook, for better or for worse, has made acquisitions to expand the brand beyond Facebook. You've got Instagram. You've got

Oculus, you've got WhatsApp. And a knock-on Facebook is that everyone I know is on Facebook. Spanning generations. And that may be something that

alienates the core snapchat user. But guess what, if you want to reach someone with a marketing message, it's a lot better to have more than 1

billion people worldwide across various de demographics than a thin slice of young, maybe affluent, maybe not, users with some disposable income, but

also very fickle tastes.

QUEST: OK. In terms of the irk IPO, it was textbook. The New York stock exchange was delighted at the way everything happened.

LA MONICA: No glitches whatsoever.

QUEST: No glitches, whatsoever. But the market itself, I hesitate to say, took a breather. But that's effectively what it did do today.

LA MONICA: We had a stunning rally yesterday after president Trump's address to congress. A lot of enthusiasm there. I think maybe some

reality settling in today, that the president didn't really give any new details, he just sounded presidential and that was part of the rally. But

also, caterpillar is in the Dow --

QUEST: What is this about Caterpillar?

LA MONICA: We still don't know the details of why federal agents are looking at some of their offices, but we just know that that is the reason

why the stock went down, about 4 to 5 percent. News that you have federal investigators going in. That's always something investors are going to

worry about. We just need more details.

QUEST: Caterpillar said in a statement, law enforcement is present in various Peoria facilities, executing a search warrant. Caterpillar is


LA MONICA: That's good news, but, it won't be good news if we find out why they're being investigated in the first place.

QUEST: Good to see you, sir.

Snapchat is a young app with young users. So if I'm going to understand it, I need to get into the mind-set of the teenager. Help.


QUEST: Snapchat has come a long way from its early days as an app for teens. Today, it is the most popular app -- the second most popular app.

There you are. Bitmoji seems to be number one also owned by Snap. Snapchat is number two and on a roller coaster and Instagram, of course,

the Facebook family. This is always difficult for a man of a certain age to admit, but -- well, for anyone of a certain age to admit, but when you

try to learn what snapchat actually does, well, you really need somebody of a younger disposition to truly explain the delights of snapchat. Claire

Sebastian reports.


CLAIRE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, you should all know, I've never used Snapchat before. This is my first time and I'm probably not going to

be very good at it. The first thing you need to know about snapchat, if you don't like taking selfies, this probably isn't for you. Take

GeoBuilders, for example. If you think I can have a lot of fun with all of these various emojis, wait until you see what you can do with these. It

also can change your voice as well as your face. There's also Bitmoji, which is another app that snapchat bought last year, which allows you to

create emojis that look a little bit like you. So, that brings me to the second key thing I've discovered about snapchat is, it's fun. And you can

do it anywhere.

Very noisy in Times Square.

The third thing is what really sets snapchat apart from other social networks, it's temporary. The photos only last ten seconds, the stories,

24 hours.

So before you get too comfortable, don't forget that whoever you send your photos to actually can screenshot them and keep them forever.

Claire Sebastian, CNN money, New York.



SEBASTIAN: Well, I mean, this is my very first go. 36 hours ago, I hadn't even downloaded the app. Took a bit of getting used to, with it was a

little bit complicated. There are lots of different ways to kind of creatively capture the moment. I went back to the very first blog post

that Evan Spiegel wrote back in 2012. And he said snapchat isn't about capturing the traditional kodak moment, it's about communicating with a

full range of human emotion, not just what appears to be pretty or perfect. That kind of describes it. You feel like your image is slightly reduced,

because it is ephemeral and disappears so quickly. It is fun. The Bitmoji app is the one they bought last year --

[16:45:00] QUEST: Come on a second, we are men and women of the world. We all know that Snapchat came to prominence because of risque photographs

that people would send that would disappear.

SEBASTIAN: That was certainly the reputation it had at the beginning. The problem is, you can screen grab. You should never assume that is

disappears into the ether. But I can't see myself necessarily taking a picture of myself with dog ears and sending it to my friends. But it has

another feature called discovery, it has news, CNN is part of it, and it is a good interface to show you the news, it has clever graphics, text on

screen, and they push you to the different news websites. The full article. So, that is something that I can see myself using.

QUEST: Right. So, the basics of a nice photograph with rabbit ears or something strange on it is unlikely. But it's --

SEBASTIAN: Well, the issue they've got is that 58 percent of their users are under 24, 85 percent are under 35. We have your Bitmoji, Richard, we

created for you. That's something that you might be able to use in the future. But they need to grow to a kind of an older type of person --

QUEST: Hang on, hang on.

SEBASTIAN: I include myself. I am older than the median --

QUEST: That's supposed to be me?

SEBASTIAN: You can select the outfit and the -- Yes.

QUEST: Right? So what are you next going to learn in your technological advancement?

SEBASTIAN: Well, I think I need to get better at Snapchat. I think anybody who watched the first spin I took it for --

QUEST: We expect a snapchat --


QUEST: Update. Or at least a couple -- tomorrow night, I expect a bit of Snapchat drama from you.


QUEST: Good to see you. Thank you so much, indeed. Full marks. I have downloaded Snapchat. I did try and I think it lasted about a day and a

half and the results were less than pretty.

Our latest edition of India 20 under 40, we're now going to introduce you to an entrepreneur who's entered the world of online furnishing.


ASHISH GOEL, CEO, URBAN LADDER: I'm 38 years old and I'm the co-founder and CEO of Urbanladder.Com. We are making homes beautiful. The idea came

about after an acute need that my cofounder and I had as customers. You know, we had houses and started setting them up. As it turned out, one

thing led to another. For a customer to set up home and furnish it in India was very difficult. Buying furniture was a ride to hell and back.

For us, 4 1/2 years now, we are at a point where we are the second largest home decor brand in the country. The challenge is our cities are complex.

We have little transplant and our renters want realistic costs. We build the brand ds a an online-only brand. Now we are leveraging that to expand

our footprint into physical retail.

We are doing it in a way which is five to seven more times more efficient than a classic home decor retailer. The opportunity for entrepreneurs

today is unparalleled across geographies. If you look at any category, any kind of business, there's just opportunity, opportunity, opportunity.

There is an opportunity to create large sustainable legacies. However, you have to be patient and build it in the right way and build it in a

sustainable way. 10 years from now, I would love to be the undisputed leader and most suspected brand in home decor in India. I think we see

ourselves as a brand for the new India. An India which is confident and sort of moving forward in a very positive manner.


QUEST: I'm getting the hang of this. Who said I wouldn't be able to -- I don't think that's the one I want to be using. Who said I wouldn't be able

to snapchat. There we go. Lots of Snapchat-orama and it's all here on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. we'll be talking about chief executives, some of

them are rarely able to say that they stay for the whole job to be done.


QUEST: Panama could become the fastest growing Latin American economy this year. The government projects growth of almost 6 percent and is led by

construction, mining, and infrastructure spending. Chief executive of Copa airlines, panama's flight.


QUEST: Great to have you here. Great airline you run. You've carved out a remarkably efficient niche carrier over the panama hub, haven't you?

HEILBRON: That is correct. That's what we do, it's basically all we do. We're focused on Panama hub, the hub of the Americas. And instead of being

distracted in a thousand other things, all of our resources, time, effort, growths towards making the Panama hub the best hub in the region.

QUEST: But in terms of your own growth forecast, and the yield, I mean, having seen yield falling, and every airline at the moment, and to those,

what do I mean by yield. The actual amount of money you bring in versus the costs that you pay, are you seeing recovery on that?

HEILBRON: Well, we had the worst two years we've seen in a long time in Latin America. Latin America, quickly, I mean, in three years went from

leading the world in GDP growth to being the worst, with negative growth in 2015 and 2016. In the last quarter, fourth quarter of 2016, for the first

time in two years, we saw positive yield growth. So the trend is good right now.

QUEST: Right, but you're seeing positive yield growth.

HEILBRON: That's correct.

QUEST: But not to really very high levels, at the time when every other airline is seeing yield coming down, and eventually that be pressure is

going to push you down as well.

HEILBRON: Correct. Well, we've had positive growth over, you know, negative numbers. So, compared to let's say 2014, we're still below 2014.

Bu but, you know, you can hope for things are better in the previous quarter. And we've seen -- Latin America seems FOB going in the right


QUEST: How concerned are you about what you're seeing with the travel ban in the -- not just the travel ban as it relates to certain countries in the

middle east, but just generally, that the immigration changes that will take place in the United States, that will affect an airline like yours

that has huge U.S. roots and assets.

HEILBRON: That is correct. So, you know, it's always a concern, of course, we still have not seen an effect, so far, and it's a concern, but

when we think about it, spend some time thinking about, the U.S. needs visitors, the U.S. needs tourists. You know, it's set up for that. And

it's good for the economy. So I think at the end of the day, the economy rules. And, you know, the U.S. will continue to welcome tourists and

business visitors.

QUEST: But do you worry that you're going to get caught up in the whole open skies, the whole noise and -- obviously, you've got a very close

relationship with united. An extremely close relationship with united. So you're almost brothers in arms, in that sense. But you could get caught up

in all the noise about restrictions on open skies.

HEILBRON: I mean, if we were caught up, it would be like collateral damage. Because the difference is --

QUEST: Well, still -- that could still do a lot of harm.

[16:55:00] HEILBRON: I know, but you can avoid it. The thing is that we have no government subsidies. And we can mind our own business. We fly a

lot to the U.S., but to cities that make sense, from our panama hub. We're not flying via intermediate points. And again, we have no government

subsidies. We're a privately held, publicly traded company. So, you know, we do what what's right and fair.

QUEST: So, where are you going to grow? Where's your big growth?

HEILBRON: So, the last two years, we have not grown.

QUEST: Which is why I've asked, where are you growing now?

HEILBRON: Correct. So, this year, growth will be minimum. So we will grow very little this year. And actually, last year we only grew 2 percent

in ASMs. This year we're guiding to 6 percent, but mostly with the same fleet. Just flying more, or canceling less. But we're looking at one more

U.S. city, partly toward the end of the year, and I'll tell you like in a few weeks.

QUEST: Do you Snapchat?

HEILBRON: I don't, but I have a lot of friends that should Snapchat, so their comments go away in a few seconds.

QUEST: And best way for anything. Go away. Good to see you. Really good to see you. We'll have a profitable moment after the break.


QUEST: Very successful IPO of the New York Stock Exchange. And let me get this out of my system once and for all -- I have a problem with snaps,

ownership structure that gives no voting rights at all to shareholders and owners of the stock. It simply seems to me, it goes against the principle

of what shareholder capitalism is all about. If you buy a stock. You have a right to vote. There, I've said it. That's it. And that's QUEST MEANS

BUSINESS. for me, Richard Quest in New York, whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable. That does not look like me. I'll see

you tomorrow.