DealBook: Big Investors Stiffen Their Resistance to Dell's Offer

12:29 p.m. | Updated

Michael S. Dell’s plan to take the computer maker private for $24.4 billion is the biggest leveraged buyout since the financial crisis.

It is also quickly becoming one of the biggest deals in years to face a shareholder uprising.

The opposition to Mr. Dell’s buyout effort now includes the mutual fund giant T. Rowe Price, which on Tuesday said that it opposed the offer at its current price of $13.65 a share.

“We believe the proposed buyout does not reflect the value of Dell and we do not intend to support the offer as put forward,” Brian C. Rogers, T. Rowe Price’s chief investment officer, said in a statement.

And Southeastern Asset Management, an investment firm, stepped up its campaign against the Dell takeover bid. The asset manager disclosed on Tuesday that it had hired D. F. King & Company, a proxy solicitation firm, in what may be the first step toward a fight against Dell’s board.

Southeastern has also hired a longtime mergers lawyer, Dennis Block of Greenberg Traurig, as an outside legal adviser, according to a person briefed on the matter. It has suggested that potential tactics could include a lawsuit or an intervention by a Delaware judge.

The moves by the two shareholders — the biggest holders of Dell stock outside of Mr. Dell himself — signal growing discontent with the transaction. While Dell’s founder controls about 16 percent of the PC maker’s stock, his offer requires the assent of a majority of shareholders excluding his stake.

Together, Southeastern and T. Rowe Price control nearly 13 percent of Dell’s shares.

“I’m glad to see more people going public with their thoughts,” said Richard S. Pzena, the founder of Pzena Investment Management. His firm’s 0.73 percent stake makes him the 21st-biggest shareholder, according to Bloomberg data.

“I hope it leads to a scuttling of the deal or a higher price,” he added.

With Pzena Investment and several smaller shareholders indicating resistance, roughly 19 percent of the shares that are independent are currently opposed to the buyout.

A Dell spokesman, David Frink, referred to a statement from last week reiterating that the offer was “in the best interests of stockholders” and offered “an attractive and immediate premium.”

Since the deal was announced, Dell’s shareholder base has changed significantly. Some 20 percent of company shares are now held by hedge funds betting on the buyout’s prospects, the investment bank Jefferies estimates. Some of these firms may now be wagering that Mr. Dell and his partners will be forced to sweeten their offer, though others are inclined to reap a quick payout.

Shares of Dell closed on Tuesday at $13.79, above the offer, suggesting that investors are expecting a bump in price.

Announced last week, Dell’s $24.4 billion offer was heralded as one of the biggest private equity deals in years, approaching heights not seen since mega-buyouts like the $26 billion takeover of Hilton Hotels in the summer of 2007. To pull off the bid, Mr. Dell has teamed up with the investment firm Silver Lake Partners and Microsoft, as well as four banks to line up more than $13 billion in financing.

But the outspokenness of Dell’s shareholders instead is more reminiscent of leveraged buyouts that nearly foundered after investor challenges. Bain Capital and THL Partners revised their takeover bid for Clear Channel Communications multiple times before shareholders accepted a roughly $27.5 billion bid.

And suitors for Biomet improved their offer to $11.4 billion after the opposition of a big investor, P. Schoenfeld Asset Management.

An analyst with Jefferies, Peter Misek, wrote in a research note on Tuesday that the buyer consortium might need to raise its offer to $15 a share to succeed.

“I think the bid, as it stands, will not succeed,” he said in a telephone interview. “At $15, you’ll be able to get a simple majority of shareholders.”

It is unclear yet whether the Dell offer will follow the same path as Clear Channel or Biomet; any shareholder vote to approve the deal is at least several months away. And the company contends that a special committee of its board exhausted every alternative to its founder’s bid.

That same committee has also hired an investment bank to supervise a 45-day “go shop” period intended to flush out potential rival bids. People involved in the deal pointed to a lack of interest from other suitors in the last several weeks as evidence that the $13.65-a-share bid was the best hope for the struggling company.

Other investors appear to disagree. Southeastern has argued that Dell is worth closer to $24 a share. Mr. Pzena said that he estimated the stock’s fair value at about $25 over the long term.

(Analysts have speculated that Southeastern may be motivated by the high average price the firm paid for its holdings, which some have estimated at over $20. A person briefed on the matter estimated that the mutual fund manager paid close to $16.90 a share on average.)

Mr. Misek noted that many mutual fund managers might be willing to risk the collapse of the management buyout. These investment executives have already locked in gains from last year, and may be wagering that Dell shares will not reach their previous depths of below $10.

One possibility that Southeastern and others have raised is a leveraged recapitalization, in which Dell would borrow billions of dollars to pay out a dividend or buy back shares.

“I don’t think there’s much downside risk in the stock price anymore,” Mr. Pzena said. “I think there will be a lot of pressure on the board to act.”

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/13/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Dell Faces Pressure To Raise His Offer.

Read More..

Well: Getting the Right Dose of Exercise

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

A common concern about exercise is that if you don’t do it almost every day, you won’t achieve much health benefit. But a commendable new study suggests otherwise, showing that a fairly leisurely approach to scheduling workouts may actually be more beneficial than working out almost daily.

For the new study, published this month in Exercise & Science in Sports & Medicine, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham gathered 72 older, sedentary women and randomly assigned them to one of three exercise groups.

One group began lifting weights once a week and performing an endurance-style workout, like jogging or bike riding, on another day.

Another group lifted weights twice a week and jogged or rode an exercise bike twice a week.

The final group, as you may have guessed, completed three weight-lifting and three endurance sessions, or six weekly workouts.

The exercise, which was supervised by researchers, was easy at first and meant to elicit changes in both muscles and endurance. Over the course of four months, the intensity and duration gradually increased, until the women were jogging moderately for 40 minutes and lifting weights for about the same amount of time.

The researchers were hoping to find out which number of weekly workouts would be, Goldilocks-like, just right for increasing the women’s fitness and overall weekly energy expenditure.

Some previous studies had suggested that working out only once or twice a week produced few gains in fitness, while exercising vigorously almost every day sometimes led people to become less physically active, over all, than those formally exercising less. Researchers theorized that the more grueling workout schedule caused the central nervous system to respond as if people were overdoing things, sending out physiological signals that, in an unconscious internal reaction, prompted them to feel tired or lethargic and stop moving so much.

To determine if either of these possibilities held true among their volunteers, the researchers in the current study tracked the women’s blood levels of cytokines, a substance related to stress that is thought to be one of the signals the nervous system uses to determine if someone is overdoing things physically. They also measured the women’s changing aerobic capacities, muscle strength, body fat, moods and, using sophisticated calorimetry techniques, energy expenditure over the course of each week.

By the end of the four-month experiment, all of the women had gained endurance and strength and shed body fat, although weight loss was not the point of the study. The scientists had not asked the women to change their eating habits.

There were, remarkably, almost no differences in fitness gains among the groups. The women working out twice a week had become as powerful and aerobically fit as those who had worked out six times a week. There were no discernible differences in cytokine levels among the groups, either.

However, the women exercising four times per week were now expending far more energy, over all, than the women in either of the other two groups. They were burning about 225 additional calories each day, beyond what they expended while exercising, compared to their calorie burning at the start of the experiment.

The twice-a-week exercisers also were using more energy each day than they had been at first, burning almost 100 calories more daily, in addition to the calories used during workouts.

But the women who had been assigned to exercise six times per week were now expending considerably less daily energy than they had been at the experiment’s start, the equivalent of almost 200 fewer calories each day, even though they were exercising so assiduously.

“We think that the women in the twice-a-week and four-times-a-week groups felt more energized and physically capable” after several months of training than they had at the start of the study, says Gary Hunter, a U.A.B. professor who led the experiment. Based on conversations with the women, he says he thinks they began opting for stairs over escalators and walking for pleasure.

The women working out six times a week, though, reacted very differently. “They complained to us that working out six times a week took too much time,” Dr. Hunter says. They did not report feeling fatigued or physically droopy. Their bodies were not producing excessive levels of cytokines, sending invisible messages to the body to slow down.

Rather, they felt pressed for time and reacted, it seems, by making choices like driving instead of walking and impatiently avoiding the stairs.

Despite the cautionary note, those who insist on working out six times per week need not feel discouraged. As long as you consciously monitor your activity level, the findings suggest, you won’t necessarily and unconsciously wind up moving less over all.

But the more fundamental finding of this study, Dr. Hunter says, is that “less may be more,” a message that most likely resonates with far more of us. The women exercising four times a week “had the greatest overall increase in energy expenditure,” he says. But those working out only twice a week “weren’t far behind.”

Read More..

Well: Getting the Right Dose of Exercise

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

A common concern about exercise is that if you don’t do it almost every day, you won’t achieve much health benefit. But a commendable new study suggests otherwise, showing that a fairly leisurely approach to scheduling workouts may actually be more beneficial than working out almost daily.

For the new study, published this month in Exercise & Science in Sports & Medicine, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham gathered 72 older, sedentary women and randomly assigned them to one of three exercise groups.

One group began lifting weights once a week and performing an endurance-style workout, like jogging or bike riding, on another day.

Another group lifted weights twice a week and jogged or rode an exercise bike twice a week.

The final group, as you may have guessed, completed three weight-lifting and three endurance sessions, or six weekly workouts.

The exercise, which was supervised by researchers, was easy at first and meant to elicit changes in both muscles and endurance. Over the course of four months, the intensity and duration gradually increased, until the women were jogging moderately for 40 minutes and lifting weights for about the same amount of time.

The researchers were hoping to find out which number of weekly workouts would be, Goldilocks-like, just right for increasing the women’s fitness and overall weekly energy expenditure.

Some previous studies had suggested that working out only once or twice a week produced few gains in fitness, while exercising vigorously almost every day sometimes led people to become less physically active, over all, than those formally exercising less. Researchers theorized that the more grueling workout schedule caused the central nervous system to respond as if people were overdoing things, sending out physiological signals that, in an unconscious internal reaction, prompted them to feel tired or lethargic and stop moving so much.

To determine if either of these possibilities held true among their volunteers, the researchers in the current study tracked the women’s blood levels of cytokines, a substance related to stress that is thought to be one of the signals the nervous system uses to determine if someone is overdoing things physically. They also measured the women’s changing aerobic capacities, muscle strength, body fat, moods and, using sophisticated calorimetry techniques, energy expenditure over the course of each week.

By the end of the four-month experiment, all of the women had gained endurance and strength and shed body fat, although weight loss was not the point of the study. The scientists had not asked the women to change their eating habits.

There were, remarkably, almost no differences in fitness gains among the groups. The women working out twice a week had become as powerful and aerobically fit as those who had worked out six times a week. There were no discernible differences in cytokine levels among the groups, either.

However, the women exercising four times per week were now expending far more energy, over all, than the women in either of the other two groups. They were burning about 225 additional calories each day, beyond what they expended while exercising, compared to their calorie burning at the start of the experiment.

The twice-a-week exercisers also were using more energy each day than they had been at first, burning almost 100 calories more daily, in addition to the calories used during workouts.

But the women who had been assigned to exercise six times per week were now expending considerably less daily energy than they had been at the experiment’s start, the equivalent of almost 200 fewer calories each day, even though they were exercising so assiduously.

“We think that the women in the twice-a-week and four-times-a-week groups felt more energized and physically capable” after several months of training than they had at the start of the study, says Gary Hunter, a U.A.B. professor who led the experiment. Based on conversations with the women, he says he thinks they began opting for stairs over escalators and walking for pleasure.

The women working out six times a week, though, reacted very differently. “They complained to us that working out six times a week took too much time,” Dr. Hunter says. They did not report feeling fatigued or physically droopy. Their bodies were not producing excessive levels of cytokines, sending invisible messages to the body to slow down.

Rather, they felt pressed for time and reacted, it seems, by making choices like driving instead of walking and impatiently avoiding the stairs.

Despite the cautionary note, those who insist on working out six times per week need not feel discouraged. As long as you consciously monitor your activity level, the findings suggest, you won’t necessarily and unconsciously wind up moving less over all.

But the more fundamental finding of this study, Dr. Hunter says, is that “less may be more,” a message that most likely resonates with far more of us. The women exercising four times a week “had the greatest overall increase in energy expenditure,” he says. But those working out only twice a week “weren’t far behind.”

Read More..

Gadgetwise Blog: Q&A: Replacing the Motherboard Battery

My ThinkPad laptop asks me to reset the date and time each time I boot up. Why?

Although there could be software issues involved, the battery on the motherboard may be weak or dead. This battery — sometimes referred to as the backup battery, BIOS battery or CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) battery — supplies power for the computer to retain basic settings like time and date.

Replacing the CMOS battery may fix the issue. If you do not feel like paying a computer-repair shop, you can do it yourself. You need to buy the correct replacement battery (less than $10). Open up the laptop’s case so you can swap in the new power cell. Lenovo’s support site has online manuals for most ThinkPad models that show the location of the CMOS battery. Third-party repair sites like iFixit offer illustrated guides for some laptops as well.

Read More..

India Ink: Tibetans' Self Immolation Nears 100

A Tibetan man doused himself with gasoline and set his body alight on Wednesday in Katmandu, the capital of Nepal, Jim Yardley wrote in The New York Times.

This incident takes the number of self immolations by Tibetan exiles protesting China’s rule in their home country just one shy of 100. “The flames of fire raging in Tibet have consumed the lives of 98 Tibetans,” a white paper published last month by the Tibetan Policy Institute said.

The white paper lists all of the first 98 who have set themselves on fire, including their names, parents names and “Aspirations/slogans.” Boys as young as 15 years have killed themselves in the recent pro-Tibet campaign, as well as several women, including a “mother of four,” the paper said.

Advocacy group Save Tibet reported another self immolation by a Tibetan exile in Dharamsala, Himachal Pardesh, the home of the Tibetan government in exile later in January, taking the number documented since February 2009 to 99.

Read the full white paper.

Read More..

DealBook: S.E.C. Nominee Mary Jo White Discloses Law Firm Wealth

It is no secret that the partners at the white-shoe law firms Debevoise & Plimpton and Cravath, Swaine & Moore earn a decent living. The financial disclosure form of Mary Jo White, the Obama administration’s pick to become the next chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, reveals just how decent.

Ms. White and her husband, John White, have amassed at least $16 million, according to the filing. Ms. White, 65, heads the litigation department at Debevoise; Mr. White, 65, is co-chairman of the corporate governance practice at Cravath.

As part of her disclosures, Ms. White also explained how she would deal with potential conflicts of interest. In a surprise move, she wrote that her husband would convert his partnership at Cravath from equity to nonequity status.

While many large corporate law firms have nonequity partners, meaning they hold the title of partner but have no ownership stake, each of Cravath’s 87 partners has equity in the firm. As a nonequity partner, Mr. White will receive a fixed salary and an annual performance bonus, according to the filing.

Ms. White also said that, for the time she serves as the S.E.C.’s chairwoman, Mr. White would not communicate with the commission on behalf of Cravath or any client in connection with rules proposed by the S.E.C. Such a restriction is not immaterial for Cravath, as Mr. White has vast experience in securities law and deep connections to the S.E.C., having served as the director of the commission’s corporation finance unit from 2006 to 2008.

The disclosure form contained a number of other revelations. Mr. White has investments in three hedge funds, including a vehicle managed by Och-Ziff, a large publicly traded investment firm started by a former Goldman Sachs partner. He will divest his interest in all three funds upon her confirmation, according to the filing.

The couple also owns 40 acres of farmland and unsold crops in Pocahontas County, Iowa, that are valued at $100,000 to $250,000.

As for Ms. White, a former United States attorney in Manhattan, she received more than $2.4 million as a Debevoise partner last year, according to the filing. And she said that she planned to retire as a Debevoise partner upon becoming S.E.C. chairwoman, at which point she would enjoy the benefits of the firm’s lucrative retirement plan. The disclosure says that Ms. White will receive a monthly lifetime retirement payment of $42,500, amounting to $510,000 annually.

However, instead of making a monthly retirement payment for the next four years while she runs the commission, Debevoise will make a lump-sum payment within 60 days of her appointment, the filing disclosed.

The Whites’ net worth is most likely far greater than $16 million, which represents the low number in a range of possible amounts. Government officials are required to disclose their net worth only within broad ranges.

For instance, the Whites own seven different investments — including a Vanguard high yield bond fund and a Vanguard emerging markets fund — worth $1 million to $5 million. At the low end, those seven funds would be worth $7 million; but at the high end, they would be valued at $35 million.

Ms. White also said that she would avoid some matters for a period of time that involve her former clients, a list that includes JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft and UBS.

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/12/2013, on page B4 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Nominee to Lead S.E.C. Discloses Wealth.

Read More..

Report Faults Priorities in Breast Cancer Research

Too little of the money the federal government spends on breast cancer research goes toward finding environmental causes of the disease and ways to prevent it, according to a new report from a group of scientists, government officials and patient advocates established by Congress to examine the research.

The report, “Breast Cancer and the Environment — Prioritizing Prevention,” published on Tuesday, focuses on environmental factors, which it defines broadly to include behaviors, like alcohol intake and exercise; exposures to chemicals like pesticides, industrial pollutants, consumer products and drugs; radiation; and social and socioeconomic factors.

The 270-page report notes that scientists have long known that genetic and environmental factors contribute individually and also interact with one another to affect breast cancer risk. Studies of women who have moved from Japan to the United States, for instance, show that their breast cancer risk increases to match that of American women. Their genetics have not changed, so something in the environment must be having an effect. But what? Not much is known about exactly what the environmental factors are or how they affect the breast.

“We know things like radiation might cause breast cancer, but we don’t know much that we can say specifically causes breast cancer in terms of chemicals,” said Michael Gould, a professor of oncology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a co-chairman of the 23-member committee that prepared the report.

At the two federal agencies that spend the most on breast cancer, only about 10 percent of the research in recent years involved environment and prevention. From 2008 to 2010, the National Institutes of Health spent $357 million on environmental and prevention-related research in breast cancer, about 16 percent of all the financing for the disease. From 2006 to 2010, the Department of Defense spent $52.2 million on prevention-oriented research, about 8.6 percent of the money devoted to breast cancer. Those proportions were too low, the group said, though it declined to say what the level should be.

“We’re hedging on that on purpose,” Dr. Gould said. “It wasn’t the role of the committee to suggest how much.”

He added, “We’re saying: ‘We’re not getting the job done. We don’t have the money to get the job done.’ The government will have to figure out what we need.”

Jeanne Rizzo, another member of the committee and a member of the Breast Cancer Fund, an advocacy group, said there was an urgent need to study and regulate chemical exposures and inform the public about potential risks. “We’re extending life with breast cancer, making it a chronic disease, but we’re not preventing it,” she said.

“We have to look at early life exposures, in utero, childhood, puberty, pregnancy and lactation,” Ms. Rizzo said. “Those are the periods when you get set up for breast cancer. How does a pregnant woman protect her child? How do we create policy so that she doesn’t have to be a toxicologist when she goes shopping?”

Michele Forman, a co-chairwoman of the committee and an epidemiologist and professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Texas, Austin, said the group found that breast cancer research at various government agencies was not well coordinated and that it was difficult to determine whether there was duplication of efforts.

She said that it was essential to study how environmental exposures at different times of life affected breast-cancer risk, and that certain animals were good models for human breast cancer and should be used more.

The report is the result of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, which was passed in 2008 and required the secretary of health and human services to create a committee to study breast cancer research. A third of the members were scientists, a third were from government and a third were from advocacy groups. The advocates, Dr. Forman said, brought a sense of urgency to the group

“People who are not survivors need to have that urgency there,” she said.

Pointing to the vaccine now being offered to girls to prevent cervical cancer, Dr. Forman said, “I look forward to the day when we have an early preventive strategy for breast cancer.”

Read More..

Report Faults Priorities in Breast Cancer Research

Too little of the money the federal government spends on breast cancer research goes toward finding environmental causes of the disease and ways to prevent it, according to a new report from a group of scientists, government officials and patient advocates established by Congress to examine the research.

The report, “Breast Cancer and the Environment — Prioritizing Prevention,” published on Tuesday, focuses on environmental factors, which it defines broadly to include behaviors, like alcohol intake and exercise; exposures to chemicals like pesticides, industrial pollutants, consumer products and drugs; radiation; and social and socioeconomic factors.

The 270-page report notes that scientists have long known that genetic and environmental factors contribute individually and also interact with one another to affect breast cancer risk. Studies of women who have moved from Japan to the United States, for instance, show that their breast cancer risk increases to match that of American women. Their genetics have not changed, so something in the environment must be having an effect. But what? Not much is known about exactly what the environmental factors are or how they affect the breast.

“We know things like radiation might cause breast cancer, but we don’t know much that we can say specifically causes breast cancer in terms of chemicals,” said Michael Gould, a professor of oncology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a co-chairman of the 23-member committee that prepared the report.

At the two federal agencies that spend the most on breast cancer, only about 10 percent of the research in recent years involved environment and prevention. From 2008 to 2010, the National Institutes of Health spent $357 million on environmental and prevention-related research in breast cancer, about 16 percent of all the financing for the disease. From 2006 to 2010, the Department of Defense spent $52.2 million on prevention-oriented research, about 8.6 percent of the money devoted to breast cancer. Those proportions were too low, the group said, though it declined to say what the level should be.

“We’re hedging on that on purpose,” Dr. Gould said. “It wasn’t the role of the committee to suggest how much.”

He added, “We’re saying: ‘We’re not getting the job done. We don’t have the money to get the job done.’ The government will have to figure out what we need.”

Jeanne Rizzo, another member of the committee and a member of the Breast Cancer Fund, an advocacy group, said there was an urgent need to study and regulate chemical exposures and inform the public about potential risks. “We’re extending life with breast cancer, making it a chronic disease, but we’re not preventing it,” she said.

“We have to look at early life exposures, in utero, childhood, puberty, pregnancy and lactation,” Ms. Rizzo said. “Those are the periods when you get set up for breast cancer. How does a pregnant woman protect her child? How do we create policy so that she doesn’t have to be a toxicologist when she goes shopping?”

Michele Forman, a co-chairwoman of the committee and an epidemiologist and professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Texas, Austin, said the group found that breast cancer research at various government agencies was not well coordinated and that it was difficult to determine whether there was duplication of efforts.

She said that it was essential to study how environmental exposures at different times of life affected breast-cancer risk, and that certain animals were good models for human breast cancer and should be used more.

The report is the result of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, which was passed in 2008 and required the secretary of health and human services to create a committee to study breast cancer research. A third of the members were scientists, a third were from government and a third were from advocacy groups. The advocates, Dr. Forman said, brought a sense of urgency to the group

“People who are not survivors need to have that urgency there,” she said.

Pointing to the vaccine now being offered to girls to prevent cervical cancer, Dr. Forman said, “I look forward to the day when we have an early preventive strategy for breast cancer.”

Read More..

DealBook Column: Relationship Science Plans Database of Names and Connections

It sounds like a Rolodex for the 1 percent: two million deal makers, power brokers and business executives — not only their names, but in many cases the names of their spouses and children and associates, their political donations, their charity work and more — all at a banker’s fingertips.

Such is the promise of a new company called Relationship Science.

Never heard of it? Until recently, neither had I. But a few months ago, whispers began that this young company was assembling a vast trove of information about big names in corporate America. What really piqued my interest was that bankrolling this start-up were some Wall Street heavyweights, including Henry R. Kravis, Ronald O. Perelman, Kenneth G. Langone, Joseph R. Perella, Stanley F. Druckenmiller and Andrew Tisch.

It turns out that over the last two years, with a staff of more than 800 people, mostly in India, Relationship Science has been quietly building what it hopes will be the ultimate business Who’s Who. If it succeeds, it could radically change the way Wall Street does business.

That’s a big if, of course. There are plenty of other databases out there. And there’s always Google. Normally I wouldn’t write about a technology company, but I kept hearing chatter about it from people on Wall Street.

Then I got a glimpse of this new system. Forget six degrees of Kevin Bacon. This is six degrees of Henry Kravis.

Here’s how it works: Let’s say a banker wants to get in touch with Mr. Kravis, the private equity deal maker, but doesn’t know him personally. The banker can type Mr. Kravis’s name into a Relationship Science search bar, and the system will scan personal contacts for people the banker knows who also know Mr. Kravis, or perhaps secondary or tertiary connections.

The system shows how the searcher is connected — perhaps a friend, or a friend of a friend, is on a charitable board — and also grades the quality of those connections by identifying them as “strong,” “average” or “weak.” You will be surprised at the many ways the database finds connections.

The major innovation is that, unlike Facebook or LinkedIn, it doesn’t matter if people have signed up for the service. Many business leaders aren’t on Facebook or LinkedIn, but Relationship Science doesn’t rely on user-generated content. It just scrapes the Web.

Relationship Science is the brainchild of Neal Goldman, a co-founder of CapitalIQ, a financial database service that is used by many Wall Street firms. Mr. Goldman sold CapitalIQ, which has 4,200 clients worldwide, to McGraw-Hill in 2004 for more than $200 million. That may explain why he was able to easily round up about $60 million in funds for Relationship Science from many boldface names in finance. He raised the first $6 million in three days.

“I knew there had to be a better way,” Mr. Goldman said about the way people search out others. Most people use Google to learn about people and ask friends and colleagues if they or someone they know can provide an introduction.

Relationship Science essentially does this automatically. It will even show you every connection you have to a specific company or organization.

“We live in a service economy,” Mr. Goldman said. “Building relationships is the most important part for selling and growing.”

Kenneth Langone, a financier and co-founder in Home Depot, said that when he saw a demonstration of the system he nearly fell off his chair. He used an unprintable four-letter word.

“My life is all about networking,” said Mr. Langone, who was so enthusiastic he became an investor and recently joined the board of Relationship Science. “How many times do I say, ‘How do I get to this guy?’ It is scary how much it helps.”

Mr. Goldman’s version of networking isn’t for everyone. His company charges $3,000 a year for a person to have access to the site. (That might sound expensive, but by Wall Street standards, it’s not.)

Price aside, the possibility that this system could lead to a deal or to a new wealth management client means it just might pay for itself.

“If you get one extra deal, the price is irrelevant,” Mr. Goldman said.

Apparently, his sales pitch is working. Already, some big financial firms have signed up for the service, which is still in a test phase. Investment bankers, wealth managers, private equity and venture capital investors have been trying to arrange meetings to see it, egged on, no doubt, by many of Mr. Goldman’s well-heeled investors. Even some development offices of charities have taken an interest.

The system I had a peek at was still a bit buggy. In some cases, it was missing information; in other cases the information was outdated. In still other instances, the program missed connections. For example, it didn’t seem to notice that Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, should obviously know a certain senior partner at Goldman.

But the promise is there, if the initial kinks are worked out. I discovered I had paths I never knew existed to certain people or companies. (Mr. Goldman should market his product to reporters, too.)

One of the most vexing and perhaps unusual choices Mr. Goldman seems to have made with Relationship Science is to omit what would be truly valuable information: phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Mr. Goldman explained the decision. “This isn’t about spamming people.” He said supplying phone numbers wouldn’t offer any value because people don’t like being cold-called, which he said was the antithesis of the purpose of his database.

Ultimately, he said, as valuable as the technology can be in discovering the path to a relationship, an artful introduction is what really counts.

“We bring the science,” he said. “You bring the art.”

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/12/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: A Database Of Names, And How They Connect.

Read More..

IHT Rendezvous: Lively Online Reactions in China to Nuclear Test

BEIJING — As the world grapples with the news that North Korea has conducted a nuclear test, what is the reaction here in China, often considered North Korea’s one true friend, the ally that was as “close as lips and teeth”?

The reaction from China’s foreign ministry appeared muted, no different from statements it has made on the issue in the past. It said it “firmly opposed” the test and called for calm, Xinhua, the state news agency, said.

But online the conversation flowed briskly as the test trended on microblog sites with nearly 40,000 comments tagged to “nuclear test” or “earthquake” by late afternoon, on Sina Weibo, the biggest microblog site. Much of the conversation was critical – but there were supporters.

Sounding worried, a user called @Bianju fanxin wrote that after China carried out nuclear tests in Lop Nor, its former Central Asian testing site, there was radioactive fallout in cities. With this explosion near the China-North Korea border, “how many Chinese cities will receive contamination?” (The test was underground but his concern about radiation was quite widely shared by others.)

Tiankongzhong de qingjiao wrote: “The nuclear test is only 400 kilometers from my hometown,” and followed it with an angry face symbol.

Another, Hongqinshijian-nongtian, wrote: “Oh oh oh, Northeast Asia is unstable again!”

“If Chinese people had the vote, would North Korea dare to do this?” wrote @Aji de weibo. “And they still don’t cut off Three Fatty’s milk,” referring to Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader and the third-generation leader of the Kim family. “I **!” the person concluded.

Even Hu Xijin, the editor of the nationalist Global Times newspaper, was critical: “North Korea is going down a wrong road. Its people will pay for the nation’s mistakes. North Korea’s political power must be re-considered.” His comment was forwarded over 2,300 times and drew nearly 1,600 very varied, responses.

One contained an apparent dig at China’s support of North Korea: “Chinese political power must be re-considered even more,” wrote weeks8888.

But North Korea has its supporters, too.

Praising the test, Dujiangji wrote: “For China’s Pacific strategy, a nuclear ally in North Korea is in China’s national interests. Plus, we should study the North Korean people’s unbending and unswerving spirit in the struggle of international relations.”

Dai Xu, whose “verified” Weibo account (the “V” lends users a stamp of authority) identified him as an “active Air Force colonel” and a “military expert,” said: “Blaming North Korea is easy. But every time the international community blames North Korea it hastens its way forward. Does the world really have no other wisdom other than blame?”

He continued: “Why doesn’t anyone ask North Korea why it carries out nuclear tests? Why doesn’t anyone think about how North Korea’s nuclear tests are an explosive result of America’s strategy of pressure? People should know that blaming won’t work on a country with an extreme lack of sense of security.” The comment was forwarded nearly 230 times.

Read More..