April 27, 2024

Archives for December 2012

A Year of Market Gains, Despite Political Turmoil

A year ago, some thought 2012 was destined to be the year that the euro zone — and maybe even the entire European Union — broke up. The banks that supported their governments, and that in turn depended on those same governments for bailouts if they went broke, were deemed to be particularly vulnerable to disaster.

It did not happen, and while the euro zone countries hardly solved their economic problems, the Continent’s stock markets turned out to be good investments in 2012, with bank shares among the best performers. The same could be said about the United States, where the broad stock market posted double-digit gains and Bank of America shares doubled in 2012, albeit from a very depressed level.

Over all, the Standard Poor’s Euro 350-stock index was up 13 percent for the year, measured in euros, and more than 15 percent measured in dollars. The S. P. 500 wound up the year with a gain of 13 percent.

It may have been typical of 2012 that it was politicians and central bankers — not economic news or corporate developments — that dominated investor attention. As the year ended, the difference was that it was Washington, not Europe, where the squabbles were taking place.

For much of the year, it appeared that the European squabbles were leading nowhere, and by midsummer, markets were pessimistic about the outcome. Finally, Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, took decisive action to assure that the banks — and the governments that depended on them — would have access to funds. That did not turn around recessionary conditions in much of the euro zone, but it was enough to turn around financial markets. Prices of government bonds in many of the most troubled countries began to rise. Those who bet that Europe would solve its problems did well in the financial markets.

The accompanying charts show the performance of stocks in 10 economic sectors in both Europe and the United States, both in 2012 and since Oct. 9, 2007, the day that world stock markets peaked before what would turn out to be a world recession and credit crisis.

What stands out is how well financial stocks and consumer discretionary stocks did during 2012. The latter stocks are things purchased by consumers that are likely to do better when the economy is improving. In the United States, the two best such stocks in the S. P. 500 were PulteGroup, a homebuilder, and Whirlpool, an appliance maker.

But while Europe did better in 2012, it remains much farther from recovering all of the losses experienced since the 2007 peak. The American index is just 9 percent lower than that, while the European index is about a third below where it was then. The only sectors that have completely made up their losses on both sides of the Atlantic are health care and consumer staples. In the United States, the consumer discretionary and information technology sectors have also done so, although the latter sector’s performance is largely because of Apple, whose shares are more than three times as high as they were in 2007.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/business/a-year-of-market-gains-despite-political-turmoil.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Shares End Higher on Hope for Fiscal Deal

Traders hung on every word out of Washington on Monday, sending share prices on a jerky path upward on what is usually a quiet day of trading ahead of the New Year’s Day holiday.

It ended up being the best day for American stocks since the middle of November and was enough to push leading indexes into positive territory for December. The Standard Poor’s 500-stock index finished the day up 1.7 percent, bringing the year’s gains to 13.4 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average was up 1.3 percent for the day and 7.3 percent for 2012.

The government was expected to go over the so-called fiscal cliff on Monday night, when a package of tax increases and spending cuts was set to start being phased in. But the political signals out of Washington convinced many investors that the White House and Congress would avert the changes that would be most damaging to the economy. “By day’s end, the assumption was that a deal was in hand — minor details needed to be worked out, but a finished product would be in the books within the next few days,” said Daniel Greenhaus, chief global strategist at BTIG. “Investors that had spent the last couple of days trading down reversed that trend and took things higher.” 

The market’s jump, much of which occurred after an early-afternoon news conference by President Obama, brought an unexpected end to a day that began with continuing bickering in Washington and a sense of foreboding on Wall Street. American stocks had fallen steadily for most of the last week and opened the day trading down.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the leader of the Republican minority, said late in the day that an agreement was “very, very close.”

Stocks could easily lose their gains if either chamber of Congress is unable to pass the compromise that was being negotiated on Monday. Senators said they were hoping to agree upon legislation and pass it along to the House for a vote on Tuesday. Some details of the agreement were still unclear, and the Republican-controlled House could demand changes.

The stock markets are closed on Tuesday, and most traders will be back at their desk Wednesday morning after a week of vacations and light trading.

Even if there is an agreement, it is unlikely to resolve a separate debate over the limit on the amount the government can borrow. The government hit its self-imposed debt ceiling on Monday, and Treasury Department officials have said they will be able to finance the budget for only a few weeks using emergency measures.

Some Republicans have said they want to use the debate over the debt ceiling to extract more spending cuts from Democrats. Investors are preparing for another bout of volatile trading if that happens.

The year did end with many market strategists in an optimistic mood about the American economy, once the fiscal negotiations in Washington are out of the way.

“While fiscal policy and political gridlock are negatives, there are other factors that remain supportive of growth, including a modest recovery in housing and further improvements in household balance sheets,” BlackRock’s chief investment strategist, Russ Koesterich, said in a note to clients.

The Standard Poor’s 500 index climbed 1.7 percent, or 23.76 points to 1,426.19. The Dow Jones industrial average was up 1.3 percent, or 166.03 points to 13,104.14. The Nasdaq composite index rose 2 percent, or 59.20 points, to 3,019.51.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Big in 2012, but the Future Is Hazy for Bonds

Americans sold off their stock mutual funds, the most popular way to invest in American companies, at the fastest clip since 2008, the year the financial crisis began. That occurred despite the fact that the stock market itself rose steadily; the benchmark Standard Poor’s 500-stock index ended the year up 13.4 percent.

Investors have been opting instead for the assumed safety of bonds. Money has been steadily flowing into mutual funds holding bonds of all sorts for the last four years, but the pace accelerated this year. The percentage of household investments in bonds shot up to 26 percent from 14 percent just five years ago, according to Morningstar.

Entering the new year, a growing number of professional investors are betting that the craze for bonds has gone too far, perhaps dangerously so, as has been evident in the headlines from the year-end reports from large investment firms. “Bond PAIN in 2013?” Wells Capital Management’s chief strategist asked. “Caution: Turn Ahead,” BlackRock analysts wrote. “The inflection year,” said Bank of America.

This is not the first time that analysts have forecast an end to the rally in bond values that has lasted for decades. But previously many of the voices predicting it were pessimists who believed that investors would sell off their bonds when they lost faith in the American government’s ability to pay back its bonds, forcing the government and many other bond issuers to pay higher interest rates. When interest rates rise, older bonds with lower interest rates are worth less.

While those previous forecasts have proved expensively wrong, this year the forecasters are being joined by many economic optimists who argue that a strengthening American economy is likely to make investors willing to embrace the risks involved in stocks, luring them out of bonds. The question, they say, is only how quickly it will happen.

“Mathematically, it’s next to impossible to get the kind of returns on bonds you’ve seen over the last few years,” said Kate Moore, the chief global equity strategist at Bank of America.

When the turn does ultimately come, it is likely to cause pain for at least some of the people who have been investing in bonds in recent years.

“You don’t want to be the last one out the door when the trends turn,” said Rebecca H. Patterson, the chief investment strategist at Bessemer Trust. “All good things come to an end and we want to make sure we’re in front of it.”

Most of the talk of investors shifting money from bonds into stocks relies first on the assumption that politicians in Washington are able to resolve the current impasse over the so-called fiscal cliff, the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that will go into effect if Congress and President Obama cannot come to an agreement, and the coming debate over the nation’s debt ceiling. If the political discord continues, it could renew investor attraction to the safety of bonds and put off any shift into stocks.

But a number of surveys suggest that professional investors are already starting to prepare for a change. Hedge funds polled by Bank of America said that they had more of their portfolio allocated to stocks than at any time since 2006.

All but one of the 13 bank strategists tracked by Birinyi Associates expects stock markets to rise in 2013. When 2012 began, the same strategists were predicting a downturn in share prices. Even among mutual fund investors, there are signs that the flows out of stocks and into bonds have been slowing down recently.

The preference for bonds has already been costly for retail investors. Over the last year, most types of American bonds have returned less than an investment in the S. P. 500. When inflation is factored in, the benchmark 10-year Treasury security is delivering negative returns.

But many investors are still rattled by the 2008 financial crisis and the turbulence in the stock markets since then, which have led to wild swings. Over the last five years, all major types of American bonds have done better than leading stock indexes.

The Federal Reserve has been engaged in an aggressive effort to buy bonds and drive down interest rates. The long term goal of that program is to encourage banks to lend money and to drive investors out of bonds. But in the meantime, falling interest rates have made bonds more attractive. The Fed has said it wants to keep rates low until 2015, though it could let them rise sooner if the economy picks up faster than expected. The 10-year Treasury hovered near 4 percent in recent years but has stayed below 2 percent for much of 2012.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/business/big-in-2012-but-the-future-is-hazy-for-bonds.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: Irving Azoff to Leave Live Nation

Irving Azoff, the executive chairman of Live Nation Entertainment, the concert and ticketing giant, is leaving the company, Live Nation announced on Monday.

As part of his exit, Liberty Media, already one of Live Nation’s largest shareholders, will buy 1.7 million of Mr. Azoff’s shares, giving Liberty a 26.4 percent stake in Live Nation. According to recently filed corporate disclosure documents, Mr. Azoff controlled about 2.6 million shares in Live Nation, either directly or through a family trust.

Mr. Azoff, 65, has been one of the most powerful executives and artist managers in music for four decades, and Live Nation has been only his most recent endeavor. Along with Michael Rapino, who remains the company’s chief executive, Mr. Azoff helped organize the merger in early 2010 of Live Nation — then largely a concert promotions company — and Ticketmaster, which also included Mr. Azoff’s Front Line management business.

Live Nation will continue to own Front Line, but Mr. Azoff will take some of his longtime management clients with him, including the Eagles, Christina Aguilera, Van Halen and Steely Dan. Mr. Azoff said that leaving would relieve him of what he described as burdensome corporate duties, and let him work again in his preferred mode as an entrepreneur.

“It’s no secret that I haven’t been a fan of public companies for some time,” Mr. Azoff said by phone from Mexico, where he was spending the holidays. “I looked at my calendar for the beginning of next year and I was able to clear 90 days for things that went into dealing with a public company, which I can now devote to productive work.”

He cited “taxes and estate planning” as the reasons for leaving on the last day of the year.

Mr. Azoff will join the board of Starz, the cable television company also owned by Liberty Media. Mr. Azoff also serves on the boards of Clear Channel Communications and the media and entertainment company IMG.

Live Nation announced Mr. Azoff’s departure after the market closed on Monday, but news of it was first reported by Bloomberg News before the end of the trading day. Live Nation’s stock closed at $9.31, up about 3.7 percent for the day.

Live Nation did not announce who would be taking over as chairman in Mr. Azoff’s absence.

In addition to its holdings in Live Nation, Liberty has a major stake in Sirius XM Radio, and has spent the last several months in the process of taking that company over. But when asked whether he might take over from the recently departed Mel Karmazin as chief executive of Sirius, Mr. Azoff scoffed.

“I’m never going to work for a public company again,” he said. “Any public company.”

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/irving-azoff-to-leave-live-nation/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: Tribune, Bankruptcy Over, Is Expected to Sell Assets

 6:12 p.m. | Updated

Analysts and prospective buyers are preparing for horse trading to begin over the Tribune Company’s newspapers now that the company, whose holdings include The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, has emerged from bankruptcy protection.

Tribune, which completed its bankruptcy paperwork on Monday, has not announced the sale of any assets, but it is likely to do so in the next several months so it can streamline its business, said Reed Phillips, managing partner of DeSilva Phillips, a media banking firm.

The troubled state of the newspaper industry makes those assets most likely to be sold, he added. Less clear, however, is whether the company will sell them all at once or by region, for example selling The Chicago Tribune with Chicago magazine.

“The company is too large and complex right now, coming out of bankruptcy,” Mr. Phillips said. “What’s needed is a more focused strategy.”

Aaron Kushner, chief executive of Freedom Communications and publisher of The Orange County Register in California, confirmed on Monday that he was eager to buy Tribune’s newspapers. He would not say whether he had had any specific conversations with Tribune Company executives.

He said that from what he had gleaned from bankruptcy court filings and public pension documents, it seemed likely that Tribune would sell its newspapers as a group. That is because the company has such enormous and complex pension obligations and corporate overhead that it would be difficult to untangle them and sell properties individually.

“We’re interested in all of the papers, though obviously, from an outside perspective, we have not seen the numbers,” Mr. Kushner. “If papers are sold, someone has to be responsible for the pensions.”

The company’s reorganization plan was approved in July by the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. It received final approval from the Federal Communications Commission in November.

The announcement on Monday ended a four-year process for the company. Its assets were tied up in court while the media industry continued its digital transformation. In a letter to employees, Eddy Hartenstein, the company’s chief executive, acknowledged that the last four years “have been a challenging period.”

“You have been resilient, dedicated to serving the company, our customers and your fellow employees,” he said. ”You are what sets Tribune apart from our competitors.”

The company also announced a seven-member board. The directors include Mr. Hartenstein and Peter Liguori, a former chief operating officer of Discovery Communications, who is expected to be named chief executive. Bruce Karsh, a founder of Oaktree Capital Management, which is a major shareholder in the company, also sits on the board, as does Ross Levinsohn, a former interim chief at Yahoo.

Tribune said it expected to resolve details about board members’ responsibilities at its first meeting in the next few weeks. The company is emerging from bankruptcy protection with a $300 million loan to finance its continuing operations, as well as a $1.1 billion loan to finance its reorganization. According to a company statement, Tribune plans to give former creditors 100 million shares of new class A common stock and new class B common stock.

The end of the bankruptcy has led to plenty of speculation about who might buy Tribune’s newspapers, with names like Rupert Murdoch and David Geffen floated as contenders. Mr. Phillips said he was skeptical that Mr. Murdoch would be a serious bidder because his company had so much else on its plate.

“I would think they would take a look,” said Mr. Phillips. “But when it comes to stepping up and making a substantial offer, I would be surprised. They’re already splitting off the publishing business from the entertainment business.”

He said that Mr. Geffen, too, would probably not acquire Tribune properties “unless the price is really attractive, because he’s not someone who has run a newspaper company previously. So I think it will be more of a challenge. The price he’s probably willing to pay based on advice from his advisers is going to be lower than what someone else is willing to pay.”

Mr. Kushner praised Tribune’s board and said he expected that “one of the first things that they’ll be trying to figure out is how the different parts of the Tribune company really work well together or separately.”

Mr. Kushner, who bought The Orange County Register last summer, said he was focused on buying large metropolitan newspapers. He said that while Tribune newspapers appeared to be profitable, how they would remain profitable was unclear, as with many newspapers.
At The Register, Mr. Kushner said, he tried to increase revenue by strengthening relationships with subscribers.

For example, he said, the newspaper gave its readers more value by increasing its pages 40 percent in the last year. It also spent $12.4 million sending $100 checks to its subscribers that they could in turn make payable to favorite local nonprofit groups. He said enhancing a paper’s relationship with subscribers would help drive subscriptions and, ultimately, advertising.

“Our basic view is that we add more value,” said Mr. Kushner. “This is the only path that we can have revenue grow.”

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/tribune-co-emerges-from-bankruptcy/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Markets Close Higher on Hopes of Fiscal Accord

Opinion »

Does Facebook Kill Romance?

Room for Debate asks whether social media ruins the mystery of love, even as it can publicly affirm a relationship.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Monday Reading: Busting Some Common Food Myths

December 31

Monday Reading: Busting Some Common Food Myths

Busting come common food myths, finding friends (or maybe more) at the airport, the real hazards of e-devices on planes and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/monday-reading-busting-some-common-food-myths/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks: The Most Popular Restaurants (on Expense Reports) of 2012

McDonald's is a popular expense account restaurant.ReutersMcDonald’s is a popular expense account restaurant.

A few years back, after a reporting trip to Mississippi, my then-editor called me into his office. He was looking at my expense report, and his brow was furrowed.

I asked if there was a problem. “Yes,” he said, shaking his head. “On a three-day trip, you ate at Olive Garden twice!”

It wasn’t the cost he was lamenting; it was my apparent lack of culinary adventure. What can I say? I got up early, returned from reporting late, and the restaurant was on the way back to my hotel. I would have preferred to eat at local barbecue joints for a more authentic experience, but I just didn’t have time to hunt them down.

Which is why I wasn’t really surprised that a list of the most expensed restaurants in 2012 was dominated by fast-food outlets. Clearly, many business travelers are in even more of a hurry than I was. McDonald’s came in second on the list (with 12,419 transactions averaging $6.73), and the top restaurant was Starbucks (more than 20,000 transactions, at an average of $7.54)

The data comes from Certify, a maker of cloud-based expense-management software, which crunched six million expense filings and receipts from its clients, from January through November. Certify says its software is used by tens of thousands of employees at small to large businesses, including Pitney Bowes, Subway Sandwiches, Little Caesars Pizza and Dr. Martens shoes.

My business trips are less frequent these days, but a look at this list doesn’t make me pine for the open road. I’ve been known to eat an Egg McMuffin from time to time. But at least at Olive Garden, you can get cloth napkins and a glass of wine with your dinner.

Bob Neveu, Certify’s chief executive, said there had not been any significant decrease in meal allowances at his company’s clients. The restaurant choices, he said, appeared to reflect speed and convenience — hungry travelers grabbing something while running for their plane or hunting for a Wi-Fi connection. “The dollar amounts are more indicative of business traveler grabbing something on the go,” he said. “They’re not taking clients there. It’s an individual running between planes, grabbing something quick.”

Starbucks I can understand. All business travelers seek caffeine to fuel their grueling pace. And because the stores carry breakfast fare and sandwiches, they can be handy for a quick bite.

Next on the hit parade after the coffee giant and McDonald’s was Subway (8,627 transactions averaging $11.88), Panera Bread (5,156 transactions averaging $19.12) and Burger King (4,091 transactions averaging $8.45).

(Subway is a Certify client, but the other four restaurants are not, Mr. Neveu said.)

Where do you eat when you’re on the road?

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/the-most-popular-restaurants-on-expense-reports-of-2012/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks: Let Diversification Do Its Job

Carl Richards

Investors typically set up a diversified investment portfolio to reduce their risk. Just hold a good mix of different kinds of stocks, along with some bonds and cash, and your problems are over.

Right?

Not exactly. Diversification comes with its own risk. But before we get to the risk, let’s talk about how we define this term in the first place.

When people say diversification, they’re often talking about two separate things. First, there’s equity diversification where you split up the portion of your money invested in stocks among big ones, small ones, undervalued ones, international ones and so on.

The idea behind this strategy is that you can reduce your risk, since different types of stocks often behave differently depending on market conditions.

Sometimes, it works. Dimensional Fund Advisors reported that in 1998, the large company stocks that make up the S.P. 500 gained 28.6 percent while small-cap value stocks lost 10 percent. Then in 2001, the S.P. 500 was down 11.9 percent, while those same small-cap value stocks gained 40.6 percent.

Since it does help sometimes, equity diversification is a useful strategy. Do it. But you have to understand that equity diversification sometimes fails to deliver exactly what you expect it to and often fails when you need it most.

We saw this in 2008-2009, when almost every type of investment fell. Granted, diversification would have saved you from making a mistake like putting everything in Lehman Brothers stock, but you still saw equity holdings plummet.

If you think back to that time, you will most likely remember hearing people say that diversification was broken, that it no longer worked. I remember thinking that myself.

But remember, when that happens and people start running around again saying diversification doesn’t work, they’re talking about equity diversification. There’s another, more important type of diversification: the way you split your money between stocks, bonds, cash and other investments.

This portfolio-level diversification is the primary lever to help you manage the risk and return in your portfolio. Each type of investment plays a different role:

  • Stocks provide the growth.
  • Short and intermediate bonds provide more safety and a little income.
  • Cash is there for liquidity and to protect your money.

The idea is to balance these investments in a way that gives up some higher returns in exchange for lower overall risk. Essentially, you’ve given up the opportunity to hit home runs for the benefit of never striking out.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about the risk of diversification.

Whenever you diversify, if you’ve done it correctly, there will always be something in your portfolio that you’re in love with and something that you want to dump (or will at least be the source of concern, as bonds are now in some circles). Some investment or asset class will be doing fantastic compared to the rest of your portfolio, and something will be doing much worse than everything else.

The trouble is, you never know when all of this will change. The thing you want to buy more of now will someday become the thing you want to sell.

Think back to the example from 1998. Having lived through it, I can tell you it was awfully tempting to move all your money out of small-cap value stocks and into large-cap stocks. But that would have been a terrible decision given how well small-cap value stocks did just two years later.

The same is true when you diversify among stocks, bonds and cash. When the stock market is tumbling like it did in 2008, you want to move everything to cash, and it’s really hard to keep money in bonds or cash when the stock market is having one of those great years.

But here is the point. The risk of diversification is that you will bail on it as a strategy at exactly the wrong time.

That feeling you get — the one that says, I wish I could dump this lame investment so I could buy a whole bunch more of this incredibly hot one — can get you into trouble fast. The temptation is greatest when it would be the most catastrophic for you to succumb.

But that feeling is actually telling you that you’ve done the right thing: You’re diversified. So remember that when the current fad ends and today’s rejects come back into style, you’ll be okay. And you’ll be awfully glad you didn’t give in to the temptation to give up on being diversified.

The next time diversification appears to not be working, remind yourself that it is a long-term strategy that can’t be judged on your short-term experience. In other words, just because something isn’t working right this minute — or even right this year — doesn’t mean it’s broken. So instead of thinking, “I am a rocket scientist and I can come up with something better,” just let diversification do its job.

Then go for a hike in the mountains instead of sitting hunched over the sell button on your broker’s Web site.

 

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/let-diversification-do-its-job/?partner=rss&emc=rss

New York Restaurateurs Expand Around the World

AT Mario Batali’s luxe new Lupa in a gleaming tower on Queen’s Road here, soignée Chinese diners, expatriate regulars and foreign tourists glide up escalators to their tables. They navigate past a four-foot-tall bronze of Romulus and Remus in this sleek $3.2 million restaurant of glass, steel and floral terrazzo. On the menu are bucatini all’amatriciana and spaghetti alla carbonara.

Eight thousand miles away, in the original Lupa in an unassuming storefront on Thompson Street in Manhattan, dressed-down customers crowd the battered tables of Mr. Batali’s thriving Roman osteria. Yes, bucatini and carbonara are on the menu.

If the two restaurants’ décor, customers and locales are vastly disparate, their core menus and basic concepts are the same, as is another crucial element: the buzz and edge of New York City dining.

As the economy in the United States sputters and Europe’s reels, New York restaurateurs are exporting their increasingly sought-after brands to the more robust economies of Asia and the Middle East.

Mr. Batali has opened two restaurants in Singapore and two in Hong Kong, where Michael White also has an outpost of his Italian-food empire. Danny Meyer has Shake Shacks in Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar and, as of last month, Abu Dhabi. The chef Laurent Tourondel and the restaurateur Jimmy Haber own three BLT restaurants in Hong Kong and are thinking of adding more there and elsewhere.

“We’ve been approached by Qatar, Korea, the Philippines,” Mr. Haber said.

Other New York chefs and restaurateurs who have already set up foreign operations include Daniel Boulud, in Singapore, and Jean-Georges Vongerichten, in Shanghai and Doha, Qatar. Zakary Pelaccio and Rick Camac are planning Fatty Crab restaurants in Southeast Asia. David Bouley has been approached about starting a restaurant in Beijing. Gray Kunz departed New York in 2009 to open a restaurant in Hong Kong, then stayed. David Chang said he has been sifting through transoceanic inquiries about planting his flag in Asia and the Middle East.

“In the culinary world, New York is the creative incubator and has some of the best-known restaurants on the planet,” said Sandeep Sekhri, who invited Mr. Batali, Mr. White and Mr. Tourondel to Hong Kong and now manages their restaurants. “Here, it is easier to market someone from New York — they have name recognition.”

Despite complicated feelings about the United States in the Middle East, “New York City is a very strong brand in its own right,” said Hilary Baker, a vice president of M.H. Alshaya Company in Kuwait, which has opened the Shake Shacks there and in Dubai. “And it has a hip urban cachet that helps to define Shake Shack.”

Even the devastation that Hurricane Sandy wreaked on many New York restaurants does not appear to have dampened the owners’ ardor to proliferate, or the city’s image overseas.

“New York’s restaurant brand wasn’t affected,” Mr. Sekhri said, “because although the hurricane was widely reported in our media, there wasn’t much coverage locally of what restaurants had to go through.”

There are economic hurdles, like the frightfully expensive real estate in Hong Kong and some Middle Eastern locations. But considerable profits — 13 to 15 percent a year, as compared to an average 10 percent or so in New York — are possible, Mr. Camac said after a recent Asian trip to scout locations for his Fatty restaurants. At the BLT steakhouse and burger places in Hong Kong, Mr. Haber said revenues have risen each year by more than 5 percent.

In the quest for faraway gold, though, restaurateurs must navigate a host of potential pitfalls, including menu mistranslations, cultural embarrassments, difficulties in finding ingredients and staff, and aggressive copycatting.

Foreign partners like Mr. Sekhri are necessary because “you can’t just plunk down an exact copy of the original,” said Malcolm M. Knapp, who heads a New York restaurant consulting company that bears his name. “You need to comprehend the exact dynamics of the local market, or you will come aground awfully quick.”

Menus require a difficult balancing act, he added.

“You need to offer that core of items that are your brand, although you might have to change the flavors,” he said. “You just have to adapt to the culture.”

Mr. Sekhri, whose company, Dining Concepts, owns or manages 21 restaurants and has $65 million in yearly revenues, described Hong Kong, with its history as an English colony, as the gateway to Asia and the Chinese market. As Joseph Bastianich, Mr. Batali’s partner, put it, “It’s an easier way to get your feet wet.”

But there is still a problem with salt.

“You think that Chinese food is very salty,” Mr. Bastianich said, “but we learned we had to tone down the salt a whole lot, so as not to have a lot of acidity in the food, because they don’t like that.”

Mr. Tourondel discovered that he had to offer a lunch buffet “because Hong Kong people like to eat buffet style,” he said. And it turns out that many women here prefer their tap water warm.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/dining/new-york-restaurateurs-expand-around-the-world.html?partner=rss&emc=rss