she's been with i.b.m. for 30 years. the promotion makes her one of the highest-profile female executives in corporate america. >> susie: the october rally hit several roadblocks today, including more drama in the eurozone and disappointing earnings news. let's take a look in tonight's "market focus." the dow had been gaining momentum on hopes for a european debt solution, but it reversed course today. as we mentioned earlier, an earnings miss and negative guidance from 3m sparked the selloff right at the opening bell. 3m is the first dow component to disappoint wall street during this earnings season. at $1.52 cents a share, its profits were nine cents below estimates. the shares lost 6% today and are down nearly 11% for the year. engine manufacturer cummins also raised a red flag about its future sales. the stock fell after cummins revealed it now expects full- year revenue of $17.5 billion to $18 billion. the company cited growing worries about the economy. it was a different story for dow component dupont. the chemic

big blue was a big miss for wall excluding items, i.b.m. earned $3.28 a share-- six cents better than wall street was looking for. but the company brought in revenue of $26 billion, slightly lower than analysts anticipated. in after hours, i.b.m. shares dropped nearly 4%. in the regular session, shares were down 2%. vmware also modestly beat expectations. the company, whose software is used to build cloud computing data centers, earned 53 cents a share excluding items. that's three cents better than wall street was looking for. in other tech news, shares of western digital sank on concerns over flooding in thailand. the disk drive maker sees reduced production from its facilities there and results for the december quarter will take a hit. w-d-c shares closed down 7% to $26.25. gannett was the second weakest s&p 500 stock on new concerns about the newspaper industry. the "u.s.a. today" publisher met wall street's revenue and profit expectations but shares fell on new worries about advertising sales. gannett was down nearly 9% today after rep

from the best to the worst performer-- i.b.m. it was the dow's biggest loser. today's 4% drop pulls the stock off an all-time high. two other dow coonents reported earnings today, coca- cola and johnson & johnson. the soft drink giant beat expectations but the shares closed down fractionally lower. j&j's quarterly profit fell 6% thanks to generic competition and recalls. the stock was up 1%. in other health care news, shares of human genome sciences climbed on a report it may be acquired by glaxosmithkline. both companies jointly sell a recently-launched lupus drug. h-g-s-i shares rose 14%. g-s-k inched up a fraction. medical device maker hospira got a big dose of selling. the company cut its full-year guidance because of a production slowdown linked to quality issues at a north carolina plant. shares of h-s-p were down 21%, making it the worst-performing s&p 500 stock. and finally, there was some encouraging news on the housing front and investors moved in. a real estate trade group said builder sentiment is up this month. homebuilder stocks were helped by tha

the great american companies of the last century were names like general electric or i.b.m. firms that were built to grow and mature into an enduring value. will we be able to say the same about today's hot companies like linked in or pandora? here's harry lin, executive in residence at idealab, a technlogy incubator in pasadena, california. >> the title of a 1990s business-book classic, built to last, is coming up a lot in tech circles. built to last examined such storied corporate giants as 3m, ford, and hp. quaint, huh? but let me not bash industry giants. let me instead highlight something very unusual, that's becoming more usual in the startup world. early-stage high-tech entrepreneurs are liquidating their equity really, well, early. used to be that founders, c.e.o.s, and first-round investors held their stakes long and strong until the startup had achieved true value. then, when the company went public or was acquired, those parties could cash out, earning their rewards. i won't name names-- groupon, dropbox, airbnb-- but some buzzed-about startups are using their ven

that is ridiculous by the way but now we're going to switch over to i.b.m. and apparently they have a couple ideas to do things basically to earn fees by monitoring driving i pivoting and so one thing is they're going to have navigators take drivers down certain routes that are more retail heavy where there are stores but if the stores actually decide to pay a fee for it or by charging bad drivers a toll thing what do you think about. i'm not surprised at all by this i'm surprised it hasn't happened already i think if there is public interest were played here and the g.p.s. would actually redirect you for example if it's midnight and it's a high drunk driving accident area it would redirect you away from that instead of directing you towards jack in the box or what are you going to sign is just hard if you're shopping i was going to say maybe first if they could you know get the bypass and get all button but david had to go home now there is an army to put their good players on our weaknesses and people like me they can't help it stops perfectly good i got a

speaker, our country, the united states of america, is the birthplace of google and facebook, of ford and i.b.m., of caterpillar and whirlpool and of coca-cola and ebay. unfortunately over the last several years while the three free trade agreements have lange wished, the united states of -- languished, the united states of america has stood still. we have let our competitors to chip away at our market share. if we compete, mr. speaker, if we compete the united states of america wins. if we compete we win. but what happens when we take ourselves out of the game, which has been the case for the last several years? we've literally taken ourselves out of the game of breaking down barriers, allowing for the free flow of goods and services and capital. what happens? we lose jobs. we lose market chair and, mr. speaker, we lose our competitive edge. now, i'm not going to say we would not have gone through the terrible economic downturn that we've suffered over the past few years if we had several years ago passed these freegget -- free trade agreements. if we stepped up to the plate when the negotiati

and i.b.m. hires a lot of education people and they make -- they have teachers and they know some are better than others and they pay them correspondly. colleges and universities pay teachers all the way up the ladder from lower amounts to very high amounts for distinguished professors. they can find a way to make a distinction. but somehow we'd gotten in this rut 30 years ago that said we can't make -- we can't make any distinction among teachers based upon their ability to teach, especially related to student achievement, and then we especially can't take the next step and pay some more than others. the reason i thought that was such an urgent problem 30 years ago was that we can't trap women in our schools anymore to teach. women are in the marketplace now. that's what we did for many, many years. if we want -- if we want to atrack and -- attract and keep the very best men and women 250e67g in our classrooms we need to be able to recognize excellence when we find it and to reward it with comp

speaker, our country, the united states of america, is th birthplace of google and facebook, of ford and i.b.m., of caterpillar and whirlpool and of coca-cola and ebay. unfortunately over the last several years while the three free trade agreements have lange wished, the united states of -- languished, the united states of america has stood still. we have let our competitors to chip away at our market share. if we compete, mr. speaker, if we compete the united states of america wins. if we compete we win. but what happens when we take ourselves out of the game, which has been the case for the last several years? we've literally taken ourselves out of the gam of breaking down barriers, allowing for the free flow of goods and services and capital. what happens? we lose jobs. we lose market chair and, mr. speaker, we lose our competitive edge. now, i'm not going to say we would not have gone through the terrible economic downturn that we've suffered over the past few years if we had several years ago passed these freegget -- free trade agreements. if we stepped up to the plate when the negotiatio