DealBook: China’s Focus on Aerospace Raises Security Questions

TIANJIN, China — When Airbus executives arrived here seven years ago scouting for a location to assemble passenger jets, the broad, flat expanse next to Tianjin Binhai International Airport was a grassy field.

Now, Airbus, the European aerospace giant, has 20 large buildings and is churning out four A320 jetliners a month for mostly Chinese state-controlled carriers. The company also has two new neighbors — a sprawling rocket factory and a helicopter manufacturing complex — both producing for the Chinese military.

The rapid expansion of civilian and military aerospace manufacturing in Tianjin reflects China’s broader ambitions.

As Beijing’s leaders try to find new ways to invest $3 trillion of foreign reserves, the country has been aggressively expanding in industries with strong economic potential. The Chinese government and state-owned companies have already made a major push into financial services and natural resources, acquiring stakes in Morgan Stanley and Blackstone and buying oil and gas fields around the world.

Aerospace represents the latest frontier for China, which is eyeing parts manufacturers, materials producers, leasing businesses, cargo airlines and airport operators. The country now rivals the United States as a market for civilian airliners, which China hopes to start supplying from domestic production. And the new leadership named at the Party Congress in November has publicly emphasized long-range missiles and other aerospace programs in its push for military modernization.

If Boeing’s difficulties with its recently grounded aircraft, the Dreamliner, weigh on the industry, it could create opportunity. Chinese companies, which have plenty of capital, have been welcomed by some American companies as a way to create jobs. Wall Street has been eager, too, at a time when other merger activity has been weak.

Washington is trying to figure out what to do about China’s deal-making broadly. “Many of these transactions raise important security issues for our country,” said Michael R. Wessel, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which was created by Congress to monitor the bilateral relationship. “China’s interest in promoting these investments isn’t necessarily consistent with our own interests, and it’s appropriate to thoroughly examine the transactions.”

In aerospace, the Chinese deal-makers have deep ties to the military, raising additional issues for American regulators. The main contractor for the country’s air force, the state-owned China Aviation Industry Corporation, known as Avic, has set up a private equity fund to purchase companies with so-called dual-use technology that has civilian and military applications, with the goal of investing as much as $3 billion. In 2010, Avic acquired the overseas licensing rights for small aircraft made by Epic Aircraft of Bend, Ore., using lightweight yet strong carbon-fiber composites — the same material used for high-performance fighter jets.

Provincial and local government agencies in Shaanxi Province, a hub of Chinese military aircraft testing and production, have set up another fund of similar size for acquisitions. Last month, a consortium of Chinese investors, including the Shaanxi fund, struck a $4.23 billion deal with the American International Group to buy 80 percent of the International Lease Finance Corporation, which owns the world’s second-largest passenger jet fleet.

“There has always been an obvious cross-fertilization of ideas, expertise and money between the civilian and military,” said Martin Craigs, a longtime aerospace executive in Asia who is now the chairman of the Aerospace Forum Asia, a nonprofit group in Hong Kong. He added that Chinese companies had been actively hiring senior American and European aerospace engineers, so national security concerns could be quelled some by hiring the right people.

The push into aerospace coincides with growing worries in the West and across Asia about China’s increasingly assertive territorial claims, including the dispatch of Chinese warships to waters long patrolled by Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam.

Coincidentally, hours after the A.I.G. deal was announced, two Chinese navy destroyers and two frigates showed up in disputed waters patrolled by Japan. China and Japan have stepped up public criticisms of each other since. And the Obama administration has begun a strategic “pivot,” shifting military forces from the Mideast back to the western Pacific, a move that Chinese officials have criticized as an attempt to contain their country.

Such confrontations in the region are drawing attention to China’s deal-making ambitions.

In October, a $1.79 billion bid by a business linked to Beijing’s municipal government to acquire the corporate jet and propeller plane operations of bankrupt Hawker Beechcraft in Wichita, Kan., fell apart over national security concerns in Washington. Executives found it hard to disentangle the civilian operations from the company’s military contracting business.

But many aerospace experts predict that Chinese investors and companies will find ways to appease American regulators. “There will be concerns undoubtedly and generally quite valid, but the commercial imperatives are such that people will find a way around them,” said Peter Harbison, the chairman of CAPA-Center for Aviation, a global aerospace consulting firm.

The sale of A.I.G.’s leasing business is expected to face scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the government panel that reviews the national security implications of deals involving foreign buyers.

The group’s customers include many of the largest carriers in the United States, and the federal government has long counted on being able to use civilian passenger jets to transport troops overseas during a national emergency. When Saddam Hussein sent the Iraqi army into Kuwait in 1990, the Defense Department relied on the emergency mobilization of civilian jetliners to ferry 60 percent of the soldiers sent to and from the Mideast during the first Persian Gulf war and a quarter of the cargo, according to a RAND study.

Henri Courpron, the chief executive of A.I.G.’s International Lease Finance Corporation, said that he did not believe the United States should be concerned that the acquisition would prevent civilian aircraft from being available in a future crisis. Only 8 percent of the company’s aircraft are currently leased to American air carriers, and most of these are narrow-body aircraft that lack the range to ferry troops across oceans.

“It’s really a nonissue — we have 900-plus aircraft in our fleet, and there are only 11 wide bodies” currently being leased to American carriers, he said in a telephone interview. He added that the carriers have control over the aircraft during the leases. Executives from the consortium buying the stake in the leasing company declined repeated requests for interviews.

Chinese suitors in the aerospace industry understand the concerns. In part, they watched the experience in the natural resources industry. The China National Offshore Oil Corporation failed in its 2005 bid to acquire Unocal after intense political opposition. After that, Chinese energy giants have been more cautious, pursuing minority stakes in the United States and limiting their outright acquisitions.

Chinese companies are taking a similar tack in aerospace, pursuing joint ventures and technical cooperation agreements alongside acquisitions. For example, Avic is working with General Electric and other American aerospace companies on the production of a civilian jetliner, the C919. Beijing envisions the narrow-body C919 as the next step toward building a domestic aerospace business that can compete with Boeing and Airbus.

Western companies and their advisers say that they are acutely aware that technology transfers could help China strengthen its military and develop more competitive civil airplanes, and are taking precautions to protect trade secrets and national security. “You transfer the part that is most easily reverse engineered, or easily dissected,” said a lawyer with detailed knowledge of these transactions.

But many in the aerospace sector are more skeptical that the West can avoid losing control of technology. “The mentality is, they’re going to find a way to get there anyway, and we may as well get there with them,” Mr. Harbison of the CAPA-Center for Aviation said.

Airbus executives say that they are being prudent. They add that there are few trade secrets about the A320 manufactured here, an aircraft that was designed in 1986. “The A320 is well known all over the world,” said Jean-Luc Charles, the general manager of Airbus’s operations here.

A tour of the main assembly area, a hangar with gray steel walls and large red cranes overhead, suggests that it may be possible to protect the technology. The seats are installed here and the aircraft painted, but the factory is largely assembling planes from kits imported from Europe. Entire fuselages, with green protective coatings, are brought by ship from Hamburg, Germany. Even the stepladders and freight elevators give weight limits in German, and the tool boxes are labeled in English, not Chinese.

Mr. Charles said that 95 percent of the parts are still imported, and that it would take many years for that amount to shrink. “One by one, we start to give them the parts,” he said. “But each subassembly is a complex project — it takes five years.”

A version of this article appeared in print on 01/22/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: China Looks to the Sky.
Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: The Brutal Truth of 'Amour'

It has been a few days since I left the movie theater in a bit of a daze, and I’m still thinking about “Amour.”

So much of this already much-honored film rings utterly true: the way a long-married Parisian couple’s daily routines, their elegant life of books and music and art, can be upended in a moment. The tender care that Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) provides for Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) as multiple strokes claim her body and her mind, and the inexorable way that care wears them both down. Their withdrawal into a proud dyad that seeks and accepts little help from outsiders, even family. “We’ve always coped, your mother and I,” Georges tells their daughter.

The writer and director Michael Haneke’s previous movies, which I haven’t seen, tend to be described as shocking, violent, even punitive. “Amour,” which Times critic Manohla Dargis called a masterpiece, includes one brief spasm of violence, but the movie remains restrained, not graphic. It’s brutal only because life, and death, can be brutal.

Is popular culture paying more attention to aging and caregiving? In the last couple of years, I have written about these subjects surfacing in a YouTube series (“Ruth & Erica”), in movies like “The Iron Lady,” in novels like Walter Mosley’s “The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey.”

A couple of weeks back, watching a play called “The Other Place,” starring the remarkable Laurie Metcalfe, I suddenly realized that the dynamic physician and businesswoman onstage had some sort of early-onset dementia. Dementia seems a particularly popular subject, in fact. Intrinsically dramatic, it suffuses the Mosley novel and Alice LaPlante’s “Turn of Mind,” and some of my favorite movies about aging, “Away From Her,” “Iris” and “The Savages.”

“Kings Point,” Sari Gilman’s compelling documentary about a retirement community in Florida where nobody seemed to expect to grow old, just won an Oscar nomination for best short-subject documentary and will be shown on HBO in March. And “Amour,” which won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, is up for five Academy Awards, including best picture, best director and a best actress nomination for the 85-year-old Ms. Riva. (Academy voters: Just give it to her.)

A number of these artists, Mr. Haneke included, have spoken about their own experiences with aged relatives. Perhaps, as the population ages and more people confront the consequences, the stories our culture tells itself have evolved to include more old people, more caregivers. Or maybe I just want that to be true.

“Do not go see this,” my movie-going buddy had been warned, probably because her mother has dementia and friends who had seen the film wanted to spare her. I know some people found “Amour” too slow-paced or claustrophobic — like many elderly couples’ lives, it basically takes place in four rooms — or too grim. (If you’ve seen it, tell us what you thought.)

If you’re a full-time caregiver or you’re coping with a relative with dementia, perhaps you would prefer to spend your 2 hours 7 minutes of precious time off watching something funny. Escapism has its virtues.

But I found “Amour” unflinching and provocative and beautiful.

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: The Brutal Truth of 'Amour'

It has been a few days since I left the movie theater in a bit of a daze, and I’m still thinking about “Amour.”

So much of this already much-honored film rings utterly true: the way a long-married Parisian couple’s daily routines, their elegant life of books and music and art, can be upended in a moment. The tender care that Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) provides for Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) as multiple strokes claim her body and her mind, and the inexorable way that care wears them both down. Their withdrawal into a proud dyad that seeks and accepts little help from outsiders, even family. “We’ve always coped, your mother and I,” Georges tells their daughter.

The writer and director Michael Haneke’s previous movies, which I haven’t seen, tend to be described as shocking, violent, even punitive. “Amour,” which Times critic Manohla Dargis called a masterpiece, includes one brief spasm of violence, but the movie remains restrained, not graphic. It’s brutal only because life, and death, can be brutal.

Is popular culture paying more attention to aging and caregiving? In the last couple of years, I have written about these subjects surfacing in a YouTube series (“Ruth & Erica”), in movies like “The Iron Lady,” in novels like Walter Mosley’s “The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey.”

A couple of weeks back, watching a play called “The Other Place,” starring the remarkable Laurie Metcalfe, I suddenly realized that the dynamic physician and businesswoman onstage had some sort of early-onset dementia. Dementia seems a particularly popular subject, in fact. Intrinsically dramatic, it suffuses the Mosley novel and Alice LaPlante’s “Turn of Mind,” and some of my favorite movies about aging, “Away From Her,” “Iris” and “The Savages.”

“Kings Point,” Sari Gilman’s compelling documentary about a retirement community in Florida where nobody seemed to expect to grow old, just won an Oscar nomination for best short-subject documentary and will be shown on HBO in March. And “Amour,” which won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, is up for five Academy Awards, including best picture, best director and a best actress nomination for the 85-year-old Ms. Riva. (Academy voters: Just give it to her.)

A number of these artists, Mr. Haneke included, have spoken about their own experiences with aged relatives. Perhaps, as the population ages and more people confront the consequences, the stories our culture tells itself have evolved to include more old people, more caregivers. Or maybe I just want that to be true.

“Do not go see this,” my movie-going buddy had been warned, probably because her mother has dementia and friends who had seen the film wanted to spare her. I know some people found “Amour” too slow-paced or claustrophobic — like many elderly couples’ lives, it basically takes place in four rooms — or too grim. (If you’ve seen it, tell us what you thought.)

If you’re a full-time caregiver or you’re coping with a relative with dementia, perhaps you would prefer to spend your 2 hours 7 minutes of precious time off watching something funny. Escapism has its virtues.

But I found “Amour” unflinching and provocative and beautiful.

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

Media Decoder: Pew Survey Finds Reliance on Libraries for Computers and Internet

Free access to computers and the Internet is now nearly as important to library patrons as borrowing books, according to a new survey.

The survey, released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, found that 80 percent of Americans said book borrowing was a “very important” library service, but 77 percent said the same thing about computers and the Internet.

The study also found that library patrons were open to having even more technological options.

“In the past generation, public libraries have reinvented themselves to become technology hubs in order to help their communities access information in all its new forms,” Kathryn Zickuhr, a research analyst with Pew and a co-author of a report on the survey’s findings, said in a written statement.

Pew questioned 2,252 Americans ages 16 and older via cellphones and landlines from Oct. 15 to Nov. 10 last year, in both English and Spanish. More than half of those surveyed said that they wanted more e-book selections in their public libraries, and would be likely to check out e-readers already loaded with books — a significant increase from a survey a year ago.

Roughly 69 percent said they would like to be able to try new technology devices through libraries, and 63 percent said they would like to receive customized book and music recommendations from their libraries as they do from online retailers like Amazon.com.

Some library users seemed willing to support even more changes. When asked whether libraries “should move some printed books and stacks out of public locations to free up space for tech centers, reading rooms, meeting rooms, and cultural events,” 20 percent of respondents said yes and 39 percent said maybe.

Still, of the 53 percent of respondents who had actually visited a library or mobile book location in the last year, 73 percent said they went in order to borrow print books, and only 49 percent said they visit libraries “to sit, read, and study, or watch or listen to media.”

As a result of these conflicting messages, Ms. Zickuhr said, “Many libraries are torn between expanding their digital offerings on the latest platforms and still providing quality resources for patrons who may lack experience with technology or the means to own the latest devices.”

A version of this article appeared in print on 01/22/2013, on page B3 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Survey Finds Rising Reliance on Libraries as a Gateway to the Web.
Read More..

DealBook: China’s Focus on Aerospace Raises Security Questions

TIANJIN, China — When Airbus executives arrived here seven years ago scouting for a location to assemble passenger jets, the broad, flat expanse next to Tianjin Binhai International Airport was a grassy field.

Now, Airbus, the European aerospace giant, has 20 large buildings and is churning out four A320 jetliners a month for mostly Chinese state-controlled carriers. The company also has two new neighbors — a sprawling rocket factory and a helicopter manufacturing complex — both producing for the Chinese military.

The rapid expansion of civilian and military aerospace manufacturing in Tianjin reflects China’s broader ambitions.

As Beijing’s leaders try to find new ways to invest $3 trillion of foreign reserves, the country has been aggressively expanding in industries with strong economic potential. The Chinese government and state-owned companies have already made a major push into financial services and natural resources, acquiring stakes in Morgan Stanley and Blackstone and buying oil and gas fields around the world.

Aerospace represents the latest frontier for China, which is eyeing parts manufacturers, materials producers, leasing businesses, cargo airlines and airport operators. The country now rivals the United States as a market for civilian airliners, which China hopes to start supplying from domestic production. And the new leadership named at the Party Congress in November has publicly emphasized long-range missiles and other aerospace programs in its push for military modernization.

If Boeing’s difficulties with its recently grounded aircraft, the Dreamliner, weigh on the industry, it could create opportunity. Chinese companies, which have plenty of capital, have been welcomed by some American companies as a way to create jobs. Wall Street has been eager, too, at a time when other merger activity has been weak.

Washington is trying to figure out what to do about China’s deal-making broadly. “Many of these transactions raise important security issues for our country,” said Michael R. Wessel, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which was created by Congress to monitor the bilateral relationship. “China’s interest in promoting these investments isn’t necessarily consistent with our own interests, and it’s appropriate to thoroughly examine the transactions.”

In aerospace, the Chinese deal-makers have deep ties to the military, raising additional issues for American regulators. The main contractor for the country’s air force, the state-owned China Aviation Industry Corporation, known as Avic, has set up a private equity fund to purchase companies with so-called dual-use technology that has civilian and military applications, with the goal of investing as much as $3 billion. In 2010, Avic acquired the overseas licensing rights for small aircraft made by Epic Aircraft of Bend, Ore., using lightweight yet strong carbon-fiber composites — the same material used for high-performance fighter jets.

Provincial and local government agencies in Shaanxi Province, a hub of Chinese military aircraft testing and production, have set up another fund of similar size for acquisitions. Last month, a consortium of Chinese investors, including the Shaanxi fund, struck a $4.23 billion deal with the American International Group to buy 80 percent of the International Lease Finance Corporation, which owns the world’s second-largest passenger jet fleet.

“There has always been an obvious cross-fertilization of ideas, expertise and money between the civilian and military,” said Martin Craigs, a longtime aerospace executive in Asia who is now the chairman of the Aerospace Forum Asia, a nonprofit group in Hong Kong. He added that Chinese companies had been actively hiring senior American and European aerospace engineers, so national security concerns could be quelled some by hiring the right people.

The push into aerospace coincides with growing worries in the West and across Asia about China’s increasingly assertive territorial claims, including the dispatch of Chinese warships to waters long patrolled by Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam.

Coincidentally, hours after the A.I.G. deal was announced, two Chinese navy destroyers and two frigates showed up in disputed waters patrolled by Japan. China and Japan have stepped up public criticisms of each other since. And the Obama administration has begun a strategic “pivot,” shifting military forces from the Mideast back to the western Pacific, a move that Chinese officials have criticized as an attempt to contain their country.

Such confrontations in the region are drawing attention to China’s deal-making ambitions.

In October, a $1.79 billion bid by a business linked to Beijing’s municipal government to acquire the corporate jet and propeller plane operations of bankrupt Hawker Beechcraft in Wichita, Kan., fell apart over national security concerns in Washington. Executives found it hard to disentangle the civilian operations from the company’s military contracting business.

But many aerospace experts predict that Chinese investors and companies will find ways to appease American regulators. “There will be concerns undoubtedly and generally quite valid, but the commercial imperatives are such that people will find a way around them,” said Peter Harbison, the chairman of CAPA-Center for Aviation, a global aerospace consulting firm.

The sale of A.I.G.’s leasing business is expected to face scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the government panel that reviews the national security implications of deals involving foreign buyers.

The group’s customers include many of the largest carriers in the United States, and the federal government has long counted on being able to use civilian passenger jets to transport troops overseas during a national emergency. When Saddam Hussein sent the Iraqi army into Kuwait in 1990, the Defense Department relied on the emergency mobilization of civilian jetliners to ferry 60 percent of the soldiers sent to and from the Mideast during the first Persian Gulf war and a quarter of the cargo, according to a RAND study.

Henri Courpron, the chief executive of A.I.G.’s International Lease Finance Corporation, said that he did not believe the United States should be concerned that the acquisition would prevent civilian aircraft from being available in a future crisis. Only 8 percent of the company’s aircraft are currently leased to American air carriers, and most of these are narrow-body aircraft that lack the range to ferry troops across oceans.

“It’s really a nonissue — we have 900-plus aircraft in our fleet, and there are only 11 wide bodies” currently being leased to American carriers, he said in a telephone interview. He added that the carriers have control over the aircraft during the leases. Executives from the consortium buying the stake in the leasing company declined repeated requests for interviews.

Chinese suitors in the aerospace industry understand the concerns. In part, they watched the experience in the natural resources industry. The China National Offshore Oil Corporation failed in its 2005 bid to acquire Unocal after intense political opposition. After that, Chinese energy giants have been more cautious, pursuing minority stakes in the United States and limiting their outright acquisitions.

Chinese companies are taking a similar tack in aerospace, pursuing joint ventures and technical cooperation agreements alongside acquisitions. For example, Avic is working with General Electric and other American aerospace companies on the production of a civilian jetliner, the C919. Beijing envisions the narrow-body C919 as the next step toward building a domestic aerospace business that can compete with Boeing and Airbus.

Western companies and their advisers say that they are acutely aware that technology transfers could help China strengthen its military and develop more competitive civil airplanes, and are taking precautions to protect trade secrets and national security. “You transfer the part that is most easily reverse engineered, or easily dissected,” said a lawyer with detailed knowledge of these transactions.

But many in the aerospace sector are more skeptical that the West can avoid losing control of technology. “The mentality is, they’re going to find a way to get there anyway, and we may as well get there with them,” Mr. Harbison of the CAPA-Center for Aviation said.

Airbus executives say that they are being prudent. They add that there are few trade secrets about the A320 manufactured here, an aircraft that was designed in 1986. “The A320 is well known all over the world,” said Jean-Luc Charles, the general manager of Airbus’s operations here.

A tour of the main assembly area, a hangar with gray steel walls and large red cranes overhead, suggests that it may be possible to protect the technology. The seats are installed here and the aircraft painted, but the factory is largely assembling planes from kits imported from Europe. Entire fuselages, with green protective coatings, are brought by ship from Hamburg, Germany. Even the stepladders and freight elevators give weight limits in German, and the tool boxes are labeled in English, not Chinese.

Mr. Charles said that 95 percent of the parts are still imported, and that it would take many years for that amount to shrink. “One by one, we start to give them the parts,” he said. “But each subassembly is a complex project — it takes five years.”

Read More..

DealBook: In Davos, Atmosphere for Bankers Improves

Two years ago, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, told an audience in Davos, Switzerland, that people should stop picking on bankers. Mr. Dimon is still waiting for his wish to come true.

Bankers, always a big presence at the World Economic Forum in Davos, will arrive this year under less regulatory pressure and with better profits than in past years. But they are still on the defensive.

Mr. Dimon, scheduled to appear on one of the first panels when the Davos forum opens on Wednesday, is again embroiled in controversy. Last week, JPMorgan’s board cut his pay for 2012 in half, to $11.5 million, holding him accountable for a multibillion-dollar loss on derivatives trading.

International bankers are under pressure from the law enforcement authorities as well, and examples can be found near Davos.

UBS, based in Zurich, agreed to pay a $1.5 billion fine to the global authorities after admitting this month that it had helped manipulate a benchmark rate used to set mortgage and other interest rates.

And Wegelin & Company, a private bank based in St. Gallen, Switzerland, shut down this month after admitting it had helped wealthy Americans evade taxes. The bank, founded in 1741, was the oldest in Switzerland.

At a news conference last week in Washington, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, lamented a “waning commitment” to tougher financial regulation and called upon the banking authorities to finish the job of fixing the world’s banks.

For all that, though, bankers may find the atmosphere in Davos a bit more congenial than in some recent years. Among the government overseers who will also be in attendance, there appears to be a growing sentiment that the banks have taken enough abuse.

This month in Basel, Switzerland, for instance, an international gathering of central bankers and bank supervisors relaxed new rules that were intended to ensure that banks would be able to survive an event like the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

The rules, which are not binding but serve as a benchmark for national regulators, would require banks to maintain a 30-day supply of cash or liquid assets that are easy to convert into cash. But after the decision in Basel this month, banks would have until 2019 to accumulate the additional cash and assets, instead of 2015.

The regulators also broadened the types of assets that could be used to include even some mortgage-backed securities — the same general class of security that was at the heart of the crisis.

Many analysts see the decision as a gift to the banking industry, which had insisted that planned new regulations would lead banks to curtail lending. Bank stocks in Europe rose after the decision.

“Most bankers I talked to breathed a huge sigh of relief,” said Cornelius K. Hurley, a professor at the Boston University School of Law and former assistant general counsel to the board of governors of the Federal Reserve.

Gavan Nolan, a credit analyst at Markit, a data provider in London, agreed that changes in the rules “went further than many had presumed, and in a direction that seems to favor the banks.” Still, he wrote in a note to clients, “the effects shouldn’t be overstated,” adding that the rules “will still make it more difficult to make money, in comparison to the previous era.”

The discussions at Davos may offer clues about whether the Basel decisions foreshadow other concessions.

There is a risk that efforts to rein in financial risk could lose momentum as the trauma of Lehman’s collapse fades, Mr. Hurley said.

“We said to ourselves back in 2008, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste,” he said. “It seems the farther away we get, the evidence is that we are wasting it.”

The World Economic Forum tends to be a place for talk rather than action, but it is one of the few events that reliably brings central bankers, regulators, economists, legislators and bankers under one snow-laden roof.

The discussions have sometimes been contentious, as in 2010 when American policy makers like Representative Barney Frank met behind closed doors with top bankers including Brian T. Moynihan, then the chief executive of Bank of America.

Mr. Frank left the meeting fuming about bankers’ unwillingness to accept more safeguards and vowed to impose them anyway. Six months later, Congress passed the sweeping financial regulation bill known as Dodd-Frank.

But Mr. Frank has retired, and there are signs that the officials who set the tone for global regulation of banks have become more worried about a credit squeeze in Europe than about the risk of another banking crisis.

Some of the most influential people in the regulation debate are sounding more conciliatory.

“We welcome these rules, we think they are important,” Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank and a member of the group that met in Basel, said this month. “We also welcome their gradual phasing in.”

At least some banks have had a profit rebound recently, including JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, whose chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, is scheduled to take part in a panel on competitiveness at Davos on Friday.

European banks are still ailing, though, which threatens the fragile calm that has prevailed in financial markets. Whereas the euro zone debt crisis has fallen most heavily on southern European countries like Spain, weakness in the banking system is a problem even in healthier countries like Germany.

Deutsche Bank, the largest lender in Germany, is profitable but faces official investigations in Germany and the United States, mostly related to its activities before the financial crisis.

In December, police officers surrounded the bank’s headquarters in Frankfurt and seized documents as part of a tax-evasion inquiry that involves one of the bank’s co-chief executives, Jürgen Fitschen.

Other large German banks like Commerzbank and several of the state-owned landesbanks are still hobbled by bad investments they made before Lehman collapsed.

Belgium, France and Austria also have troubled banks, even though they are not considered to be countries in crisis.

“The bottom line is that I don’t think the banking system is in good condition, and I don’t expect it to come back to good condition soon,” said Nicolas Véron, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a research institute in Brussels.

Mr. Véron said he did not have reservations about the decision in Basel to ease new regulations on liquid assets, noting that previously there were no rules at all on liquidity.

“I think the big headline remains that liquidity regulations have been introduced,” he said. “When you look at what has happened in the crisis, that is a good thing.”

But he sounded less optimistic that policy makers meeting in Davos or elsewhere were making progress on other important banking issues, like how to close down terminally ill banks at no cost to taxpayers.

“We have not had the systemwide restructuring process I believe is necessary to get back to sound conditions,” he said.

Read More..

Well: A Check on Physicals

“Go Beyond Your Father’s Annual Physical. Live Longer, Feel Better”

This sales pitch for the Princeton Longevity Center’s “comprehensive exam” promises, for $5,300, to take “your health beyond the annual physical.” But it is far from certain whether this all-day checkup, and others less inclusive, make a meaningful difference to health or merely provide reassurance to the worried well.

Among physicians, researchers and insurers, there is an ongoing debate as to whether regular checkups really reduce the chances of becoming seriously ill or dying of an illness that would have been treatable had it been detected sooner.

No one questions the importance of regular exams for well babies, children and pregnant women, and the protective value of specific exams, like a Pap smear for sexually active women and a colonoscopy for people over 50. But arguments against the annual physical for all adults have been fueled by a growing number of studies that failed to find a medical benefit.

Some experts note that when something seemingly abnormal is picked up during a routine exam, the result is psychological distress for the patient, further testing that may do more harm than good, and increased medical expenses.

“Part of the problem of looking for abnormalities in perfectly well people is that rather a lot of us have them,” Dr. Margaret McCartney, a Scottish physician, wrote in The Daily Mail, a British newspaper. “Most of them won’t do us any harm.”

She cited the medical saga of Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada. A CT scan performed as part of a checkup in 2005 revealed two small lumps in Mr. Mulroney’s lungs. Following surgery, he developed an inflamed pancreas, which landed him in intensive care. He spent six weeks in the hospital, then was readmitted a month later for removal of a cyst on his pancreas caused by the inflammation.

The lumps on his lungs, by the way, were benign. But what if, you may ask, Mr. Mulroney’s lumps had been cancer? Might not the discovery during a routine exam have saved his life?

Logic notwithstanding, the question of benefits versus risks from routine exams can be answered only by well-designed scientific research.

Defining the value of a routine checkup — determining who should get one and how often — is especially important now, because next year the Affordable Care Act will add some 30 million people to the roster of the medically insured, many of whom will be eligible for government-mandated preventive care through an annual exam.

Dr. Ateev Mehrotra of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who directed a study of annual physicals in 2007, reported that an estimated 44.4 million adults in the United States undergo preventive exams each year. He concluded that if every adult were to receive such an exam, the health care system would be saddled with 145 million more visits every year, consuming 41 percent of all the time primary care doctors spend with patients.

There is already a shortage of such doctors and not nearly enough other health professionals — physician assistants and nurse practitioners — to meet future needs. If you think the wait to see your doctor is too long now, you may want to stock up on some epic novels to keep you occupied in the waiting room in the future.

Few would challenge the axiom that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Lacking incontrovertible evidence for the annual physical, this logic has long been used to justify it:

¶ If a thorough exam and conversation about your well-being alerts your doctor to a health problem that is best addressed sooner rather than later, isn’t that better than waiting until the problem becomes too troublesome to ignore?

¶ What if you have a potentially fatal ailment, like heart disease or cancer, that may otherwise be undetected until it is well advanced or incurable?

¶ And wouldn’t it help to uncover risk factors like elevated blood sugar or high cholesterol that could prevent an incipient ailment if they are reversed before causing irreparable damage?

Even if there is no direct medical benefit, many doctors say that having their patients visit once a year helps to maintain a meaningful relationship and alert doctors to changes in patients’ lives that could affect health. It is also an opportunity to give patients needed immunizations and to remind them to get their eyes, teeth and skin checked.

But the long-sacrosanct recommendation that everyone should have an annual physical was challenged yet again recently by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen.

The research team, led by Dr. Lasse T. Krogsboll, analyzed the findings of 14 scientifically designed clinical trials of routine checkups that followed participants for up to 22 years. The team found no benefit to the risk of death or serious illness among seemingly healthy people who had general checkups, compared with people who did not. Their findings were published in November in BMJ (formerly The British Medical Journal).

In introducing their analysis, the Danish team noted that routine exams consist of “combinations of screening tests, few of which have been adequately studied in randomized trials.” Among possible harms from health checks, they listed “overdiagnosis, overtreatment, distress or injury from invasive follow-up tests, distress due to false positive test results, false reassurance due to false negative test results, adverse psychosocial effects due to labeling, and difficulties with getting insurance.”

Furthermore, they wrote, “general health checks are likely to be expensive and may result in lost opportunities to improve other areas of health care.”

In summarizing their results, the team said, “We did not find an effect on total or cause-specific mortality from general health checks in adult populations unselected for risk factors or disease. For the causes of death most likely to be influenced by health checks, cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, there were no reductions either.”

What, then, should people do to monitor their health?

Whenever you see your doctor, for any reason, make sure your blood pressure is checked. If a year or more has elapsed since your last blood test, get a new one.

Keep immunizations up to date, and get the screening tests specifically recommended based on your age, gender and known risk factors, including your family and personal medical history.

And if you develop a symptom, like unexplained pain, shortness of breath, digestive problems, a lump, a skin lesion that doesn’t heal, or unusual fatigue or depression, consult your doctor without delay. Seek further help if the initial diagnosis and treatment fails to bring relief.

Read More..

Well: A Check on Physicals

“Go Beyond Your Father’s Annual Physical. Live Longer, Feel Better”

This sales pitch for the Princeton Longevity Center’s “comprehensive exam” promises, for $5,300, to take “your health beyond the annual physical.” But it is far from certain whether this all-day checkup, and others less inclusive, make a meaningful difference to health or merely provide reassurance to the worried well.

Among physicians, researchers and insurers, there is an ongoing debate as to whether regular checkups really reduce the chances of becoming seriously ill or dying of an illness that would have been treatable had it been detected sooner.

No one questions the importance of regular exams for well babies, children and pregnant women, and the protective value of specific exams, like a Pap smear for sexually active women and a colonoscopy for people over 50. But arguments against the annual physical for all adults have been fueled by a growing number of studies that failed to find a medical benefit.

Some experts note that when something seemingly abnormal is picked up during a routine exam, the result is psychological distress for the patient, further testing that may do more harm than good, and increased medical expenses.

“Part of the problem of looking for abnormalities in perfectly well people is that rather a lot of us have them,” Dr. Margaret McCartney, a Scottish physician, wrote in The Daily Mail, a British newspaper. “Most of them won’t do us any harm.”

She cited the medical saga of Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada. A CT scan performed as part of a checkup in 2005 revealed two small lumps in Mr. Mulroney’s lungs. Following surgery, he developed an inflamed pancreas, which landed him in intensive care. He spent six weeks in the hospital, then was readmitted a month later for removal of a cyst on his pancreas caused by the inflammation.

The lumps on his lungs, by the way, were benign. But what if, you may ask, Mr. Mulroney’s lumps had been cancer? Might not the discovery during a routine exam have saved his life?

Logic notwithstanding, the question of benefits versus risks from routine exams can be answered only by well-designed scientific research.

Defining the value of a routine checkup — determining who should get one and how often — is especially important now, because next year the Affordable Care Act will add some 30 million people to the roster of the medically insured, many of whom will be eligible for government-mandated preventive care through an annual exam.

Dr. Ateev Mehrotra of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who directed a study of annual physicals in 2007, reported that an estimated 44.4 million adults in the United States undergo preventive exams each year. He concluded that if every adult were to receive such an exam, the health care system would be saddled with 145 million more visits every year, consuming 41 percent of all the time primary care doctors spend with patients.

There is already a shortage of such doctors and not nearly enough other health professionals — physician assistants and nurse practitioners — to meet future needs. If you think the wait to see your doctor is too long now, you may want to stock up on some epic novels to keep you occupied in the waiting room in the future.

Few would challenge the axiom that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Lacking incontrovertible evidence for the annual physical, this logic has long been used to justify it:

¶ If a thorough exam and conversation about your well-being alerts your doctor to a health problem that is best addressed sooner rather than later, isn’t that better than waiting until the problem becomes too troublesome to ignore?

¶ What if you have a potentially fatal ailment, like heart disease or cancer, that may otherwise be undetected until it is well advanced or incurable?

¶ And wouldn’t it help to uncover risk factors like elevated blood sugar or high cholesterol that could prevent an incipient ailment if they are reversed before causing irreparable damage?

Even if there is no direct medical benefit, many doctors say that having their patients visit once a year helps to maintain a meaningful relationship and alert doctors to changes in patients’ lives that could affect health. It is also an opportunity to give patients needed immunizations and to remind them to get their eyes, teeth and skin checked.

But the long-sacrosanct recommendation that everyone should have an annual physical was challenged yet again recently by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen.

The research team, led by Dr. Lasse T. Krogsboll, analyzed the findings of 14 scientifically designed clinical trials of routine checkups that followed participants for up to 22 years. The team found no benefit to the risk of death or serious illness among seemingly healthy people who had general checkups, compared with people who did not. Their findings were published in November in BMJ (formerly The British Medical Journal).

In introducing their analysis, the Danish team noted that routine exams consist of “combinations of screening tests, few of which have been adequately studied in randomized trials.” Among possible harms from health checks, they listed “overdiagnosis, overtreatment, distress or injury from invasive follow-up tests, distress due to false positive test results, false reassurance due to false negative test results, adverse psychosocial effects due to labeling, and difficulties with getting insurance.”

Furthermore, they wrote, “general health checks are likely to be expensive and may result in lost opportunities to improve other areas of health care.”

In summarizing their results, the team said, “We did not find an effect on total or cause-specific mortality from general health checks in adult populations unselected for risk factors or disease. For the causes of death most likely to be influenced by health checks, cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, there were no reductions either.”

What, then, should people do to monitor their health?

Whenever you see your doctor, for any reason, make sure your blood pressure is checked. If a year or more has elapsed since your last blood test, get a new one.

Keep immunizations up to date, and get the screening tests specifically recommended based on your age, gender and known risk factors, including your family and personal medical history.

And if you develop a symptom, like unexplained pain, shortness of breath, digestive problems, a lump, a skin lesion that doesn’t heal, or unusual fatigue or depression, consult your doctor without delay. Seek further help if the initial diagnosis and treatment fails to bring relief.

Read More..

Huawei Springs Back With 33% Rise in Net Profit


BEIJING — Huawei Technologies, one of the largest makers of telecommunications equipment in the world, bounced back from a disappointing 2011 with a 33 percent rise in net profit for 2012 and forecast stronger revenue growth, buoyed by smartphone sales and cloud computing.


Huawei’s chief financial officer, Cathy Meng, the daughter of the company’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, denied that U.S. security concerns would hamper the privately held company’s growth and said Monday that it would keep “an open mind” about a possible stock market listing.


“Cloud computing is a huge sector in the next five years,” Ms. Meng told a results presentation. “In the telecom industry, we are expecting a 5 percent increase in capital investments. Smartphone penetration is still way too low and there is a lot of room for growth. So these three areas will create a lot of opportunities for us.”


Huawei, which ranks behind only Ericsson of Sweden in telecommunications equipment, reported an unaudited net profit of 15.4 billion renminbi, or $2.5 billion, up from 11.6 billion renminbi in 2011, as new telecommunications projects and smartphones increased sales.


Revenue for the year rose 8 percent to 220.2 billion renminbi.


The results were in line with company guidance at the start of the year and came a day after ZTE, its rival, warned of a net loss of as much as 2.9 billion renminbi for 2012.


Huawei is making gains in the enterprise business, which sells networking equipment like routers and switches and has up to now been dominated by Cisco Systems.


Huawei, founded in 1987 by Mr. Ren, a former Chinese military officer, is known for aggressively gaining sales in the telecommunications equipment sector by edging out rivals like Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia Siemens Networks and ZTE.


While Huawei has increased sales and gained market share in Europe, Africa and Asia, it has also run into obstacles in countries including the United States and Australia because of national security and cyberespionage concerns.


The company has been barred from bidding for the rollout of a national broadband network in Australia, faces exclusion from the government network in Canada and is not allowed to sell telecommunications equipment to U.S. carriers.


Read More..

India Ink: Arguments in Delhi Gang Rape Trial Begin Thursday

NEW DELHI— The five men accused of raping and murdering a 23-year-old physiotherapist in a case that has transfixed India appeared before the trial judge Monday for a brief and largely procedural hearing.

Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna scheduled the next hearing for noon on Thursday, when defense attorneys and prosecutors are expected to begin arguments over precisely which criminal charges the accused will face at trial.

Nearly a dozen reporters were present in the courtroom, the first hearing before Judge Khanna in the fast-track court specifically set up for this trial. But Judge Khanna ordered the reporters to leave the courtroom before the proceeding took place under a renewed order that will make the trial closed to anyone not directly connected to the trial, including reporters.

The reporters filed out of the courtroom in an orderly fashion, in contrast to the chaos that surrounded earlier proceedings, when reporters found out belatedly that the charges were being read in another room and then banged on the door of a magistrate’s court, demanding to be let in.

Read More..