the fact that there was this gift card that was issued and despite the fact that this message went out to consumers. That the notice is still required adequately protect the public and a refund is still in the public interest. It's not ignoring, you know, that that happened. It's taking all of that into account and it's still required. So hypothetically, there could be a scenario where a firm conducted a recall that precisely met all the requirements and staff would prove that. But in this instance, the conclusion is that it was inadequate. Is that what you're saying? Potentially, it would be a fact specific determination. Yeah, depending on on that case, but that's that's not the case in front of us. You know, here they what they provided in terms of notice was not sufficient. And nor was the gift card issued, you know, the practical equivalent of a remedy, a proper remedy under the statute. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Commissioner. At this point in time, Amazon's going to have 15 minutes for its rebuttal. And then after about we'll go to five minute rounds for commissioner questions. Ms. Wilson. Thank you. The chairman and commissioners when when the commission voted to authorize this lawsuit more than two years ago. The then acting chairman Robert Adler express great reluctance to bring this lawsuit publicly and candidly he said the consumer product safety act is not entirely clear with regard to its application to products that are manufactured and sold by third parties and sold on online market places like Amazon.com. He called instead for industry in the government to work together on a coordinated framework, because he said that would be the best solution to this new form of e-commerce and the protection of consumers from substantial product hazards from products that are manufactured by third parties. Yes, some in China and sold by third party sellers online. But here we are. The commission voted to make Amazon an adversary in this lawsuit, rather than a partner in coming up with an industry wide solution, which in our view would undoubtedly protect consumers in a more effective and comprehensive way than lawsuit by lawsuit. Complaint Council has engaged in linguistic gymnastics to write out terms within the statute and to write in its own preferences. As the Supreme Court has held, statutes must be construed in a way to give meaning to every term interpreted as a harmonious whole. And we think we have offered the best reading of the third party logistics provider definition in the statute. And the carve out in 2052 be which Congress in 2008 added third party logistics providers to for a reason against a backdrop where there was a tremendous amount of public attention to the development of a new form of e-commerce purchasing and third party logistics provider fulfillment. So if I was listening to Mr. Youssef's description correctly, not only does he get rid of that inconvenient absence of title part of the definition of third party logistics provider and put in bold caps completely taken out of context the word solely. I think actually under his definition of distributor, he's eviscerated Congress is putting into 2052 be any exemption from four common carriers or freight forward freight forwarders, much less third party logistics provider. And he continues to insist despite this interpretation being called silly by the presiding officer that if Amazon does a single thing beyond receiving holding and transporting goods that it is a distributor. So we again as I've said in a mandatory recall proceeding, the commission is obligated to follow the plain text of the statute. It's no longer appropriate to consider legislative history. And although I understand the temptation, it is not possible to read into the statute new terms. I want to address the tender return issue. Commissioner Felbin, I appreciate the creativity and understand the temptation to look to the part of 15D that refers to bringing a product into conformity or repairing a defect. But that does not authorize returned again. The title of section system 15D says repair replace refund. And indeed in the directive factor number six, which is called recall action in parents. Echoes those very precise statutory terms repair replacement refund. So the commission understood when it was implementing this binding directive that recall action was limited to repair replacement refund and not return. There's nothing in the statutory text that suggests that there's supposed to be some incentive incentive producing effect through returns that just isn't in the statute. And it's not reflected in the agencies and formal guidance either or it's binding directive. Again, going back to the directive. And I, if I said, Commissioner Trump, that 100% notification means 100% effectiveness, I want to correct that statement. What I meant was 100% notification with 100% refund of all purchases. So both 15C notice and 15D remedy to 100% of the purchasers of the products is an effective recall. And as the directive said, first of all, the directive is titled rate of return or correction of products and mizanon only focused on rate of return. But it's clear that the directive is talking about how the commission considers how effective a recall has been. And it says that direct note of where direct notification of consumers is possible. And the level of notification is high. Here there's no dispute the level of notification because of Amazon's ability to directly contact 100% of the purchases is 100% in sharp distinction to a typical recall where I think the correction rate notification rate is usually single digits. And then with regard to remedy, the correction, this is factor number seven, the correction is done in a consumer's house. And why not to incentivize return? No. So the consumer doesn't have to take or send the product somewhere for correction or refund. There's no barrier to remedy. I can just throw the product out. And that's exactly the remedy as we saw by comparing side by side the children's sleepwear notices. That's exactly the remedy that was authorized by the commission in the indirectly notified children's sleepwear recall. Let me just say a word about the complaint council's wish that the commission had the statutory authority to expand the scope of the affected products here without doing two things. First, as required by statute making a substantial product hazard determination with regard to those products, that's not Amazon's responsibility. That is a statutory requirements imposed on the commission in the context of mandatory recall proceedings. Yes, Amazon took responsible voluntary steps to destroy an additional 20 product ASINs, but that doesn't absolve the commission in a mandatory recall order of having to conduct a substantial product hazard determination before ordering notice or remedy. It's not contested that the statute does not contain any reference to functionally equivalent products. That's wishful thinking on the part of complaint council and the inquiry should stop there. And then finally, let me address some of the notice points and some of the questions that the commissioner commissioners had asked that I did not have the answer to earlier. First of all, I believe there was a question about who controls the ASINs from, I believe it's commissioner Trump. The ASINs are, as I said, are generated by Amazon, but a third party seller has control over how it organizes its product catalog. So, for example, a third party seller can choose to place their products under what's known as a parent ASIN, sort of a category, sort of an umbrella ASIN, or under a single child ASIN. And that's the seller's choice. And so I think that choice may have led to some confusion about the particular product that was purchased, children's sleepwear garment that was purchased by one of the investigators on the commission staff. And then the confusion, the factual confusion was sorted out as to which product was assigned to which ASIN. And as Mr. Hughes has indicated, Amazon on a voluntary basis, elected to take down those additional children's sleepwear products based on sort of eyeballing and making an assessment that they were substantially similar to the other products. But again, there's nothing stopping a company from voluntarily taking down, notifying, or offering a remedy with regard to a product that it either knows or guesses might potentially be hazardous. That's the responsible thing to do. And that's exactly what Amazon did here. But the question here is whether the commission can order in a mandatory recall proceeding that the product subject to the order might be hazardous, but that it has not determined as required by the statute are hazardous. That's right in section 15c. So Mr. uses respectfully is completely that the his statement that the commission can just do that based on a voluntary representation is utterly wrong. I think there was also a question about whether. Well, this really goes to the point you were making commissioner Feldman I may have already addressed it, but could a could Amazon do one or more.  And the answer is no, a product destruction or return is not repair. And it doesn't bring the product within the conformity part of that standard destruction in the home would just be destruction. And that part of section D is not brought enough to to on which to base a mandatory return. I guess with that I will ask my colleague Kevin King to address the constitutional questions. Commissioner's, I see our time is short. Here's I have 3 very quick points on the constitutional issues focusing on complaint counsel's request for additional notice here. Mr. Medell pointed to the complaint counsel's request that not only Amazon be compelled to post particular notices on its social media pages, but that it must in addition to that make them featured or pinned posts. That. Request to be justified the complaint council needs to show under central Hudson that the disclosures would be not more extensive than necessary. And it has to do that on the basis of evidence. But in this record, there is no evidence zero. The pinned posts or featured posts are necessary and not more extensive than necessary. The social media posts sought by complaint council would reach beyond the original purchasers. That's what complaint council said it said it's important that we reach beyond the original purchasers. Well, that can be accomplished through posts by the CPSC social media pages. It can be accomplished by postings on the CPSC's website. At a bare minimum, it can be accomplished by posts on Amazon's help pages. There's no reason why those pages are not capable of reaching the additional audience complaint council speaks to. Essentially, what complaint council is doing here is they're ignoring entirely the final element of the central Hudson analysis, the tailoring analysis. They're asking you for no tailoring at all. That's not appropriate. And if this matter were go to court, it would lead to reversal of the order. It's what led to reversal in national association of manufacturers and in Becerra and in other cases. Commissioners the points I've been making are all defenses to the liability and the relief commit complaint council has been seeking in this proceeding. The commission, as I mentioned earlier, need not reach the constitutional issues. If it accepts as Ms Wilson pointed out that Amazon is not a distributor under the CPSA and under the canon of constitutional avoidance. This body has an obligation to reach that conclusion if there's a reasonable way to read the statute in that fashion. It can be read in that fashion. And so, whether for statutory reasons or constitutional reasons, we respectfully urge the commission to dismiss this proceeding complaint council undoubtedly has raised weighty issues, but this proceeding is not the right vehicle by which to address them. Thank you. Thank you to council at this point in time we return to questions from commissioners going to start with myself. Miss Wilson. Miss Wilson. Going back to return or destruction of the product as condition of refund or other remedy that that's out there with the commission under the commission's regulations themselves you have section. 115.27 in which contemplates and talks discusses the conditioning of a remedy upon a number of different factors including the destruction or turn of all or part of a product. How does that in your mind way on the interpretation of the statute to anticipate and to use those sorts of remedies and condition the remedies in that way. Mr chairman could you just recite that 115.27. It's actually a subsection and. Yeah, so. 11 part 1115 27 is part of the recall notice content requirements that were put into place. After Congress. Pass the improvement act and they go to notice requirements. So there. There is no. They require that that the notice clearly and conspicuously state the actions and that those actions may include a variety of different things. Including requesting return and providing a refund, but that those regulations properly put into place after the act was amended. And required the commission to implement a mandatory notice rule, which it did. Do not replace the limits of 15 D. Which as I've said contain 3, the 3 R remedies repair replacement or refund. There's nothing in there that in the notice rule. Notice rule that. Takes out of the statute the limits on the remedy power. But it's an interpretation of the statute by the commission, which talks about conditioning the remedy specifically on actions. Consumer must take including. Return of all a part of it or instruction of it. You don't believe that that is an interpretation of the statute that recognizes that that is an appropriate remedy under the statute intersection 15. Well, I acknowledge that the terms say repair request return and provide a replacement and request return and provide a refund. I also acknowledge that the recall handbook makes a reference to in a flexible way in an optional way of. Asking what the return is instruction program is, for example, product and inventory. But that again, that doesn't change the status, the limitations, the statutory parameters under which the commission needs to operate in imposing a remedy in a mandatory recall proceeding. Shifting terms of the notice is provided and reaching consumers. Note that there is a robust secondary market that that is out there for. Use products and the notice that is provided. Not only direct notices out there, but also. From your perspective, is there a reasonable and substantial interest to reach those. Individuals and consumers as well who have may have bought a product that was recalled on a secondary market or even as a gift or otherwise. Well, slightly. Reinterpreting the question to conform with the statutory requirements. I think the question is whether. Additional notice duplicative notice. Is required to protect the public. In order to reach. And as part of that. Necessity of additional notice reaching a second potential secondary market. It's the commission's obligation to put on some substantial evidence. That there is a secondary market, the secondary market could be, you know, you could be reached through some sort of, you know, additional notification. It is not done. So here, Amazon on its own volition. Without any, you know, evidence or we're finding by the commission went ahead and put that instruction. Into the notices, because for example, particularly with children's sleepwear garments, which have a very limited short, a short shelf life for any. Given child, you know, in recognition that they might be gifted or handed down to consumers. They on their own volition put in a much stronger secondary market warning than as you saw was approved by the commission in the indirect notice recall for the same product. I know my time is up. Mr. Feldman. Thank you, Miss Wilson, you stated earlier that the Amazon remedy, the unilateral remedy effectuated destruction. But without tender. How does Amazon know this? Is there any evidence in the record of any of the subject products actually being destroyed. I believe what I said is that according to the CPSC. In its own guidance and binding directive. That a instruction to dispose in the consumer's house is the instruction and the remedy that is most likely to lead to a high rate of recall effectiveness. Okay, do we have any information about the products that were actually disposed of or destroyed. I don't believe so now. Okay. I don't in any in the vast majority of the recalls. That are entered into under voluntary corrective action plans. There is there isn't a tender requirement number 1. And number 2, even on a voluntary basis and number 2.  It would be impossible. It would be impossible to know how many consumers actually disposed of products in their house. Could be 100% could be 50%. And I think, again, my understanding in the voluntary corrective action plan context is that many manufacturers. Would like to have tender or proof of claim or, you know, some proof of destruction in the consumer's home before they provide a refund before they provide a monitor. So it's really a it's really a condition in eligibility criteria for getting a refund. So here, Amazon did not begrudge the consumers getting the full refund and provided the instructions that according to the commission. What should lead to the most effective recall, which is to dispose of the product at home. But to that point, as the Amazon notice to the Amazon customers was was worded. The consumers accept the credit. I guess they didn't have an option about accepting it. It was automatically credited to their account. I don't want to put it back, but. Fair enough. Yeah. But could they accept that credit and still continue to use the product or resell or donate? What are the, what are the. In the terms that you communicated, what are the protections against against that? It's identical to the protections that were in the indirect recall notice for the children's sleepwear products that I showed you on the right hand of the screen, no more, no less absolutely identical. Okay. And by the way on a gift card, the commission has frequently accepted a gift card or a credit as tantamount to a refund remedy involuntary. Yes. Okay. Last question and I think this gets to the heart of the matter with respect to the distributor issue. In some instances, Amazon wants this commission to rely on plain language, but in other areas it wants us to read out the word solely. Is this the case of selective interpretation? Shouldn't we take the word solely at face value if we're going to stick to the preferred canon of statutory interpretation that's being, we're being asked to follow in other areas. With respect to the commissioner, it's not Amazon that is seeking to read out the word solely. We are the, our position is that the word solely should be read in context to the words right next to it that immediately follow. And those words clearly linked to distribution activity. And so that is the scope of the and the and the meaning of the word solely that definition. Okay, thank you. I have no further questions. I thank both the parties for their presentations today. Mr. Trump. Thank you. So, so on the one hand, we've got the stipulation as we talk about scope of products here. And then according to your appeal brief Amazon also identified other products from the same sellers, varying only by size color print pattern. I want to make sure I understood this correctly that those are what is listed in Amazon exhibit 130 right those are the same sellers as the stipulation with products varying only by size color print pattern. That's my understanding. Yes. Okay. And then I asked one question before that you said you might be able to get back to me I'll re ask it just to see if you found an answer to it. I have an item on Amazon.com that's FBA is it possible for me to complete the purchase if the product is not currently in Amazon's possession. You know if the seller ran out of their stock and then they haven't yet shipped a resupply. Can I complete that transaction. No, if you try and completed transaction, if the item is out of stock or you know the ace and already has been taken down it would say a product is currently unavailable. And we don't know when and if this item will be back in stock. I appreciate you finding those answers. Okay. So, Mr uses pointed out products that he say that complain council has identified that pose or he's identified those and complain council statement of undisputed material facts at paragraphs 166 through 179 items that weren't in the complaint but that they've done testing for and submitted those. I assume that we find those do pose a substantial product hazard. Is there any reason we could not include them in the scope of an order here. Well, as Commissioner Feldman implied through his question of complaint council the appropriate place to do that would have been through amending the complaints and providing Amazon through council with the kind of testing record substantial evidence of non compliance that it was for the originally identified products, whether it certainly can't do as I as I've made clear you cannot legitimately enter an order, expanding to other products without establishing through substantial evidence reliable probative and substantial evidence that those products present the same product hazard. And as, again, the agency's corporate representative testified under oath, those testing mechanisms included examining the products under a microscope x ray flammability testing analysis. So the commission would have to undertake those kinds of activities in order to establish that other products that, you know, based on eyeballing it thinks are similar would have to make that substantial product hazard finding. And I think you addressed this at the beginning of your answer but but assume for guys to the second part of your answer assume that we find that what they put forward does satisfy a showing of substantial product hazard for the products identified a paragraph 166 or 179. You mentioned that they would have had to include those in the complaint. Is there somewhere you can point to in our statute or elsewhere that puts that obligation on them. Well, what I said is that that would have been the appropriate way to deal with it. I, it doesn't seem to me that kind of a roving expansion of the scope of the subject products can appropriately be considered as part of this proceeding now. Unless, you know, you're to remand the proceeding and provide, you know, additional evidence for Amazon to consider as to whether there's a substantial product hazard we stipulated based on the evidence that was applied, whether, you know, a that again would depend on of course the quality of the evidence put forward and whether complain council is able to do that I think is is a question for them why they didn't do it is I think the most relevant question for purposes of this proceeding. Last question I have is as you made a statement that and you seem to be much better at remembering your exact words than I am so I'll let you correct me again if I miss remember this. But something along the lines of the vast majority of voluntary recalls have no tenderer proof of destruction requirement. And is there somewhere in the record you can point me to for that proposition. Well, I'm not sure that I, you know, again, I'm not a satisfying witness here. But I, I think that the children's sleepwear garment notice that I put up on the screen shows that for that category. There is no tender requirements. And in the expert report. Submitted by former commissioner Joe more heroic. I believe he compares and contrast a large majority of indirect recall notices for similar products to compare remedy. And type of notification hazard warning and found that there's a virtual identity between both notice and remedy for the Amazon notices and remedies and the commissions for the same products. I think for the for the notice that you put up on screen, it says contact the manufacturer for details on the recall. So we would be on a refund for refund. We wouldn't necessarily know if there was a tender requirement once they did contact them looking at the face of that. I'm not sure why if, if a tender was required to get a refund, it wouldn't say so. Otherwise it would seem to be misrepresenting the rent the scope of the remedy to the consumer. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. I want to go back to the discussion of remedies and Amazon's implementation of remedies independent of the commission and just to tease that out a little bit more. And I wanted to ask you about a hypothetical that I think is analogous to the position you're asserting. I'm not sure that I've got pulled over for speeding. Please office issues me a ticket before the matter is adjudicated. I send in a check for $75 stipulate that I was speeding. I've addressed the matter because I sent the $75 in and nothing more is required from me because I paid the fine. In fact, I've satisfied the state's public interest in finding motorists who speed the state then says no, no, you owe $100. And by the way, you have many speeding tickets and you have to go to remedial school. Isn't Amazon's position closer to mine that they want to decide what the fine is and how they will comply. That's an interesting hypothetical and I will try not to digress on my own speeding tape. I haven't. This was a hypothetical I said. I'm against those speeding cameras. I believe due process requires someone actually catch me in the act. But I digress. I think what the commission's position is, is that the commission should be allowed to double charge for a speeding ticket, because the payments on the original ticket doesn't mean anything. That somehow we wiped a slate clean tabula rasa. That wasn't a section of 15 remedy. And so I get to double charge you because I wasn't there when the camera.  Right, but I guess I would put back to you that aren't you really saying though what I've done is good enough and it should be okay. And the commission should just ratify it so that Amazon in that case is trying to have it both ways. They're saying that the statutory and regulatory regime does not apply. But then after the fact saying they've satisfied the statutory and regulatory regime is that not. I mean, as you said before, no analogy is probably perfectly correct. So, but in general, for that point, do you disagree that that's a legitimate position. I disagree with that articulation of the position. I think what the commission is saying is that what you did Amazon. Even though it is it was the notification was coordinated closely with compliance staff. And even though you went above and beyond by warning. I'm sorry, can I interrupt you? You said it was coordinated with us. Okay. Yeah. The reason the notification language is so similar, virtually identical and stronger in Amazon's case is because Amazon works regularly with the commission on helping. But in the end, there wasn't there wasn't a meeting in the mines. That's why we're here today. Correct. I'm not sure why we're here today. We actually we actually sought discovery on the basis of the commission's decision to authorize this suit. And it was denied to us under, you know, some privilege, but in any event, obviously this commission has the ability to know that we do not. But my point is that the commission is the one that's trying to erase the contact here and say it doesn't count that we go back and get to in a mandatory recall proceeding ignore all of that. Even though it doesn't do so in the substantial majority of voluntary recall context. What. Amazon already did. You must take into account in making a determination whether additional notices required to adequately protect the public and whether an additional remedy. Alter virus remedy in our view because they're not authorized by statute. Is necessary to serve the public interest. That's your obligation. Are you saying there's really in the end, no difference between a voluntary agreement negotiated and what we are able to do here in a mandatory context. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but I'm hearing that. What I'm saying is that that, you know, if it if the commission is able to negotiate with a manufacturer, typically a tender requirements as a limiting condition on the amount of money it gives in a refund. It's entitled to do that. Right. But in a mandatory recall proceeding. You cannot go beyond the section 15 D remedies. Okay, I just have one quick question on the recall handbook. Just to ask whether your position is that the handbook has no relevance or value whatsoever. We're not saying it doesn't have any value. In fact, probably the most candid and valuable statement in there is that. This does not reflect the views of the commission and it doesn't supersede statutes or regulations. But you agree it represents decades of experience. I'm not saying it's irrelevant. There's it does not provide evidence for the notice and remedy requests here and it doesn't. If you look carefully at the text on returns, it doesn't support. Complaint counsel's mandatory tender argument. Okay, but just speaking more generally about its use to represent a document that I think is relied on in the stakeholder community. Sure, it's it's a useful informal guidance document. It doesn't replace statutes or regulations or binding directives. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks to both parties. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So the, with this, our argument in this matter is now closed. I know while both counsel offered additional information, the briefings in this case are robust and sufficient. No further briefing is being requested. I do want to thank counsel for both Amazon and playing counsel for the presentations today and their thoughtful responses to the questions of the commissioners. And also, I would like to thank the commission staff that organized and made the facilities for the hearing today possible with that hearing is adjourned.


Hi everybody, it's Wednesday and we are on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange with Jim Kramer to talk about the markets. And Jim, as we stand here with S&P 500, 2700, Byron Ween expecting a 10% correction, but we're going to finish the year above 3,000. Old friend Byron Ween, but I've always liked about his surprises are that the ones he gets wrong don't cost you anything, the ones he gets right make you fortune. I think that the down 10%, can it happen? Sure, absolutely, we've been looking for it. My question is, will you be ready for it? I think that Byron is great enough that you have to put it into your thinking because when you dismiss Byron, you dismiss history. And you don't even necessarily have to wait for a broader pullback as you highlight in real money.  Exactly, I mean I think it's really important to point out that a CSX can be above where it was when Hunter Harrison died. I'm looking at IBM, the upgrade today. I mean I'm focused on GE, my friend Matt Horween thinks that you've got to be careful, the GE chart looks good. Say be careful because I am very worried about the financials GE, we'll be discussing that this evening. But yes, there are many stocks that are well down, Oracle upgrade today. I thought that upgrade was good enough for like three or four points, but I do think that people are desperate to find names. The analysts are going crazy. They're all talking about tax reform. Every single restaurant, the retailers, Nordstrom may be back in play. Holy cow, Macy's, it's just the narrative just gets better. RBC on Disney saying the theme parks are going to be great. Don't forget that ESPN is in the rearview mirror. Wow. Well, you mentioned IBM, Disney. We also have United Technologies upgrade, Ulta, General Mills. Let's go through these. Ulta, there's talking about less promotional activity and obviously tax reform beneficial. They can spend more money. I think that Ulta is very, very interesting. The stock has been rocked because of this Amazon worry. It's incredible if the Death Star really isn't that important. I thought the United Technologies was just kind of like, okay, I need to upgrade something, upgrade United Tech. I mean where was he at 109 when we pushed it? Hard here. Hard United Technologies at 109. So I think that these are situations where the analysts need to be recommended. The IBM, that's an important upgrade because what's that saying is that the main frame cycle, which is incredibly lucrative, is kicking in. Remember that stock was really going down because Warren Buffett was selling. Maybe Sub Rosa, he's done selling. And General Mills, I thought the millennials didn't like General Mills. The General Mills is really interesting. First of all, big beneficiary tax reform. Remember it's domestic. Zero Partners worldwide is that they have a partnership with as the rest of the world. They're talking about in the upgrade. They'll have more money to do promotion and therefore they'll be growth. Still worry about yogurt. General Mills is up nicely. But here's the problem with General Mills. That's the group that people don't like. You see the Kimberly down at 118? If Proctor goes below 88, I'm going to push her hard because Nelson Pelts is on the board there. I think you can shake things up. One guy can shake things up. But I am respectful about the idea that General Mills will use that cash to get some growth. Jim, you mentioned tax reform. We now have American Airlines in Southwest giving bonuses to employees. I was talking about it on Squawk on the Street. Will McDonald's give $1,000? Wouldn't that be some kind of record? But it would really be fabulous news. I think that there is a sense, and this is really important, that the companies recognize that they were going to be on the hot seat if they use this money to buy back stock and increase dividends. So the first thing they do is they give a G to their workers. And by the way, they even give them G to the people who are ratepayers in South Carolina. That's the Dominion deal by Scana. An incredibly weird deal. I happen to like Dominion. Stock deal.  It takes the heat off the business people. So they give the $1,000. Then a few months later or even weeks later, or perhaps when they report, you start seeing the big dividend boost and you start seeing the buyback. So there could be a second wave if we do have a dip here going into the quarter. Well, can JPMorgan pay all of its people a thousand? Probably not. But what JPMorgan can do is set a tone because they're early, Wells Fargo's early, where they basically say, listen, we're going to buy back stock until the cows come home. That's one of the reasons why Wells Fargo said 60 and is being forgiven. The forgiveness of this market is extraordinary. Well, Jim, it also fits into the theme you opened with on Mad Money last night that whether you like President Trump or not, he has unleashed these animal spirits. Yeah.  The President Trump is difficult to talk about. 50% of the people hate you, but I look at President Trump in stocks. OK, I'm not talking about President Trump and what he's doing in North Korea. I'm saying that President Trump has made it so that people are less fearful of the government. There are a lot of new regulations that are always piled on. And what happens is you're starting to do a construction and there's a new regulation and then you've got to figure out, well, wait a second, how much more is that going to cost me? Now, there will be a decline in construction in New York, in New Jersey, in California. That's a huge part of the country. Really, in terms of population, because of the state and local. But you'll see a lot of construction, say, in the southeast. But people have been holding back because they recognized that under President Obama, the risk of something changing was really great. And it would change the worst for capital. This president wants the stock market to go higher. Deregulation will let it go higher. Tax reform will make it go higher. Jim, what do you have coming up on Man Whene tonight? Mind Body. You know, I'm doing a lot of stuff. In its beginning of the year, I'm trying to lose weight like everybody else. Mind Body is a company that is software for gyms, for salons. It's kind of like open table was for restaurants, like Yelp. And I don't know where they can make it big. So that's why I want to find out. That's why I went to CEO them. Well, you've had Peloton on before as well. Peloton is going to come public, and it's a winner.  My wife loves it. We got the Peloton in the bedroom.  The dogs are in the bedroom? The Peloton's in the bedroom?  I mean, it's a circus in there. And she's an Indian anyway. Follow her on Instagram. She's going nuts. She wants me to tweet less. She's Instagramming all over the place. She's been to places that nobody's ever been. I don't know. I didn't even know they existed. She was on the Pakistan border, too. The president was kind of like tweeting at the same time, thank heavens she doesn't watch Twitter. She would have been scared to death. Fascinating. All right, Jim Cramer, many more stocks to talk about. Jim and I are going to continue on actionalertsplus.com. You have to join us there. You've got to subscribe. I mean, it's crazy.


What's up everyone? Take down here. Welcome back to another video. Today we're gonna be talking about if your controller for your Xbox Series X or S is not connecting, here is what to do. This is actually a super easy fix. The first thing you're gonna want to do is to confirm that your controller is paired with your Xbox. To do this, you're gonna turn on your Xbox.   You're gonna press and hold the Xbox button on your controller until it turns on.   Then the Xbox button on the controller will flash whenever it is searching for the console. Once connected, it will stay lit. Next, if that doesn't work, try swapping out the batteries. If swapping out the batteries doesn't work, try connecting the controller to the console using a Type-C cable. Now, unfortunately, if the controller doesn't work with a cable, the controller likely will need to be replaced. There's not too much else that you can actually try. If the controller does connect with the cable, but not wirelessly, you will likely need to update the controller software. To do this, you're gonna connect the controller to the console with the cable. Next, you're gonna press the Xbox button to open up the guide. Next, you're gonna want to select profile and systems. Then you're gonna select settings. Under devices and connections, you're gonna want to click on accessories. Then you're gonna select controller and click on the three dots. Next, if there is an update available, you're gonna want to click on updates. Once update is complete, unplug the cable and try connecting the controller wirelessly to your Xbox. Hopefully, after doing all of those steps, your controller is now connecting to your Xbox wirelessly. Otherwise, there's not really much else that you can really do to fix this yourself. It is recommended if you do have a warranty, going and replacing your controller. And usually, controllers now usually last about one year. And that's when they recommend you replacing them. If you do have a warranty, just once a year, going and exchanging it for a new controller. That way, you always have a fresh controller. But hopefully, one of these did work for you. And hopefully, your Xbox Series X or S controller is finally working. I'll see you guys in the next video. Please take care. Peace.