November 22, 2024

White House Says It Opposes Parts of 2 Antipiracy Bills

The comments by the administration’s chief technology officials, posted on a White House blog Saturday, came as growing opposition to the legislation had already led sponsors of the bills to reconsider a measure that would force Internet service providers to block access to Web sites that offer or link to copyrighted material.

“Let us be clear,” the White House statement said, “online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs.”

However, it added, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

The bills currently under consideration in Congress were designed to combat the theft of copyrighted materials by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites that allow for the distribution of stolen materials. They would cut off payment processors like PayPal that handle transactions.

The bills would also allow private citizens and companies to sue to stop what they believed to be theft of protected content. Those and other provisions set off fierce opposition among Internet companies, technology investors and free speech advocates, who said the bills would stifle online innovation, violate the First Amendment and even compromise national security by undermining the integrity of the Internet’s naming system.

Though the Obama administration called for legislation this year that would give prosecutors and owners of intellectual property new abilities to deter overseas piracy, it also embraced the idea of “voluntary measures and best practices” to reduce piracy.

Whether Congress can produce a compromise is uncertain, particularly in the House of Representatives, where Republicans have fought bitterly over the antipiracy legislation and party leaders, who control the chamber, are loath to offer further opportunities for intraparty battles.

The Motion Picture Association of America, the Hollywood lobbying group that has been most visible in its support for the current bills, said in a statement on Saturday that it welcomed the administration’s call for antipiracy legislation. But, the trade group added, “meaningful legislation must include measured and reasonable remedies that include ad brokers, payment processors and search engines.”

Hollywood and the music industry have broad political support for their efforts, and the Chamber of Commerce and labor organizations have pushed for the legislation. But they often find themselves facing off against the libertarian views of leaders in the technology industry.

Opponents of the House bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and the Senate bill, the Protect IP Act, have focused most of their attention on the proposed blocking by Internet service providers of Web sites that offer access to pirated material.

In December, a group of influential technology figures, including founders of Twitter, Google and YouTube, published an open letter to lawmakers saying that the legislation would enable Internet regulation and censorship on par with the government regulation in China and Iran.

That argument struck a chord with the Obama administration, which through the State Department and other channels has been pushing other countries to loosen restrictions on Internet access.

In its statement Saturday, the White House said any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.” Parts of the bills that provide for filtering or blocking through the Domain Name System — the Internet’s address book — could drive users to unreliable routes through and around the blocked sites, the White House said. That would “pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online.”

The statement did not threaten a presidential veto, but it made plain what types of piracy enforcement measures the White House would not accept.

The statement was attributed to Victoria Espinel, the intellectual property enforcement coordinator at the Office of Management and Budget; Aneesh Chopra, the administration’s chief technology officer; and Howard Schmidt, a cybersecurity coordinator for the national security staff.

Jenna Wortham contributed reporting from New York.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-antipiracy-bills.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Obama Seeks Tax Breaks to Return Jobs From Abroad

Flanked by executives from the aerospace, chemical and furniture industries — all of whom are building or expanding factories in the United States — Mr. Obama declared that the nation was beginning to see the reversal of a long-term trend toward outsourcing. He called the new trend, perhaps inevitably, “insourcing.”

“We’re at a unique moment, an inflection point, a period where we’ve got the opportunity for those jobs to come back,” Mr. Obama said in the White House, after meeting with the executives. The American economy, he noted, has added manufacturing jobs for two years in a row, after more than a decade of losses.

The president did not offer details of the tax proposals, which presumably would be subject to approval by Congress, though he renewed his call on lawmakers to approve a one-year extension of the payroll tax cut that will expire at the end of February.

Mr. Obama said an increase in labor costs in China was eroding its advantage over the United States as a manufacturing base, a message the White House sought to buttress by circulating a research report from the Boston Consulting Group, a prominent management consulting organization. The president also said recent trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama would open markets for American exports.

Economists said small changes in tax policy would play only a marginal role in deciding where companies build factories. But with labor costs rising overseas, such changes could help reinforce a fledgling trend, they said. “There’s been a little bit of momentum on ‘insourcing’ because a lot of firms overdid it,” said Jared Bernstein, the former chief economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “So it could help a bit at the margin.”

Mr. Obama cited examples from companies represented in the room: Ford Motor, which the president said had moved 2,000 jobs back to the United States; Master Lock, which relocated manufacturing to Milwaukee from China; and Lincolnton Furniture, a specialty manufacturer, which set up shop in North Carolina after its owner, Bruce Cochran, closed a family-owned furniture company in 1996 and spent time consulting with companies about moving operations to China and Vietnam.

“I don’t want America to be a nation that’s primarily known for financial speculation, and racking up debt and buying stuff from other nations,” the president said. “I want us to be known for making and selling products all over the world stamped with three proud words, ‘Made in America.’ ”

Mr. Obama’s message served as a riposte to the Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney, who repeated his charge Tuesday, in his speech after the New Hampshire primary, that the president was hostile to free enterprise.

One of the executives at the meeting, James M. Guyette of Rolls-Royce North America, said his company was making investments in Indiana, where it builds aircraft engines, and in Virginia, where it opened an advanced manufacturing and research campus last year that will eventually employ 500 people.

In an interview, Mr. Guyette said Rolls-Royce was not actually moving operations back to the United States. But he said it was pouring money into American operations, like a factory in Indianapolis that once had the company’s highest labor costs and lowest productivity. Negotiations with the United Automobile Workers union had cut those costs, he said, and made the factory competitive again. “Everyone could see where this road was going to end, if we didn’t do it differently,” he said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0d9f3db2f7a2cb7dd644648d114c74ef

DealBook: Wall Street Braces for Weak 4th-Quarter Earnings

Wall Street banks have been buffeted by the weak American economy and the European debt crisis.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesWall Street banks have been buffeted by the weak American economy and the European debt crisis.

For most Wall Street bankers, 2011 was a year they would rather forget. Investors will soon find out just how bad that year was for the country’s biggest financial institutions.

In recent days, analysts have been lowering their fourth-quarter earnings estimates for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Bank of America. Analysts are also bracing for lower earnings from JPMorgan Chase, which on Friday will be the first of the Wall Street banks to report results.

“It’s likely 2011 will be the worst year for revenue growth for the banks since 1938, and so far 2012 isn’t feeling much better,” said Michael Mayo, an analyst with Crédit Agricole Securities and the author of the recently published book “Exile on Wall Street: One Analyst’s Fight to Save the Big Banks from Themselves.” “The industry simply grew too fast over the past two decades and now it’s downshifting. This process will take time, but the hit to revenue is happening now.”

Wall Street banks have been buffeted by a weak economy in the United States and by concerns that the European debt crisis will spread, sending shock waves through the financial system.

At the same time, most banks are expected to book an accounting loss in the fourth quarter from the performance of their own debt. In the previous quarter, this one-time item significantly bolstered the earnings of a number of banks.

With business sluggish, Wall Street banks have been chopping staff and expenses. A dismal 2011 will translate into smaller employee bonuses, which most banks will begin handing out in the coming weeks. Compensation experts are estimating compensation for Wall Street employees could fall as much as 30 percent from levels a year ago. While sharply lower bonuses may be politically popular, they will also eat into the revenue that New York State collects from Wall Street.

Lloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which had a drop in client trading revenue.Daniel Acker/Bloomberg NewsLloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which had a drop in client trading revenue.

The challenges facing Wall Street are illustrated by the performance of Goldman Sachs — for years the envy of rivals for its ability to churn out rich profits even in rough times — in recent quarters. In the third quarter, Goldman reported a loss of $428 million, in contrast to a $1.74 billion profit a year ago. Goldman’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, told investors that Goldman was “disappointed” in the performance.

For the fourth quarter, the firm is projected to post a profit of $2.02 a share, according to a survey of analysts by Thomson Reuters. That consensus number is down from $2.81 a month ago. And it is likely to fall further in the coming days as more analysts weigh in with new estimates. Some analysts already have Goldman, which reports on Jan. 18, earning less than $1 a share in the fourth quarter.

New regulations combined with a drop in client trading revenue and the falling value of some of its core equity holdings, like the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a strategic investment the firm made in 2006, hurt Goldman in the third quarter. Equity markets, however, improved in the fourth quarter, so Goldman should gain from some of the same investments that ate into profits just a few months ago.

An analyst with Credit Suisse, Howard Chen, does not have high hopes for Goldman’s fourth-quarter results.

“We’re expecting a quiet finish to a challenging year for Goldman Sachs and the brokerage industry — while 2011 may now be in the rearview mirror, we do believe the year ended on a difficult note with highly depressed levels of institutional and corporate client risk appetite and year-end seasonal weakness,” he wrote in a report issued on Thursday. Mr. Chen is predicting the firm will earn 70 cents in the fourth quarter.

James Gorman of Morgan Stanley, which earned $2.15 billion in the third quarter.Scott Eells/Bloomberg NewsJames Gorman, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, which earned $2.15 billion in the third quarter.

Analysts are also notching down estimates for Goldman’s rival Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley was hit harder than Goldman by the financial crisis. While it is a major player in many areas Goldman dominates, like sales and trading, it decided after the financial crisis to make a big investment in wealth management, a lower risk business that tends to post steadier results.

So far the strategy, led by Morgan Stanley’s chief executive, James Gorman, appears to be taking hold. The company earned $2.15 billion in the third quarter, up from a loss of $91 million in the year-ago period. In the fourth quarter, however, Morgan Stanley will be taking a substantial one-time pretax earnings hit of $1.8 billion related to a recent legal settlement. This will translate into a per-share hit of 64 cents and will most likely put Morgan Stanley into the red in the quarter. Analysts are predicting the bank will lose 54 cents a share in the fourth quarter. A month ago, the consensus was for a profit of 29 cents a share, according to Thomson Reuters. (Morgan Stanley has not yet announced when it will report.)

Investors will also keep a close eye on Bank of America, which has also struggled to recover from the financial crisis. The firm’s shares are now trading above $6, a nice bump given it was trading at about $5 just a few weeks ago. Its legacy mortgage business, however, remains a burden. Bank of America, which reports on Jan. 19, is projected to post a fourth quarter per-share profit of 20 cents, up from 4 cents in the quarter a year ago.

JPMorgan Chase weathered the financial storm better than some, in part because it has a large retail bank that produces fairly steady earnings. Still, it owns a big investment bank and it is not immune to the same issues facing its rivals. JPMorgan’s profit dipped 4 percent, or $1.02 a share, in the third quarter, in part because of lingering mortgage problems. Analysts are projecting the firm will post a profit of 93 cents a share in the fourth quarter. The bank posted a per-share profit of $1.12 in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Citigroup is scheduled to report its earnings on Jan. 17. Analysts are forecasting that it will earn 76 cents a share in the fourth quarter, up from 40 cents in the year-ago period.

In a recent research note, Jeff Harte, an analyst at the brokerage house Sandler O’Neill, said Citigroup earnings would be dragged down by a number of one-time items, like severance payments to employees and credit hedging losses. Still, not all the news is bad.

“While we are also reducing our capital markets-related revenue estimates, the bottom-line impact should be offset substantially by lower-than-previously-expected credit costs,” he wrote. Mr. Harte is predicting Citigroup will earn 43 cents a share.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=52d16f79c7e15672d555c54ac0feca33

Eyeing 2012 Race, White House Presses Europe on Debt

Publicly, Obama administration officials talk only about the economic consequences of a potential debt conflagration in Europe. Privately, though, they are well aware that Europe’s success in dealing with the troubles — and the administration’s success in persuading them to do so — is arguably the single most important factor that will determine Mr. Obama’s re-election chances.

The American economy has shown signs of life recently, with talk of a double-dip recession fading and job growth picking up. The change has raised the prospect that the economy may not be quite the political weight around Mr. Obama’s neck in 2012 that his advisers had feared — unless Europe goes downhill. Mr. Obama’s aides realize that there is no easy way to plan a re-election strategy for one potential body blow: an implosion of the European currency. Such an event, experts say, would undoubtedly send the American unemployment rate higher and possibly induce another recession. Other than lobbying from the sidelines, Mr. Obama and his administration have little control over the situation.

“It’s certainly true that Europe is the gorilla in the room when people look at how the economy could affect the election,” one senior Obama adviser said, speaking on grounds of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. Added Edwin M. Truman, former adviser to Mr. Geithner: “If the euro comes apart in a messy way — and it’s hard to imagine it will come apart in a nonmessy way — it would make the fall of 2008 look like a clambake.”

And so it is, Mr. Truman and others said, that Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy could have far more to say about who will be the next president of the United States than anyone thought.

For Mr. Obama, the change of fortune is stark. This is a president whose election was greeted in Europe with rapture; as a candidate, he visited both Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy in the summer of 2008, where he received welcomes more fitting to World War II heroes — including a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and an arrival ceremony at the Élysée Palace in Paris. France would be “delighted” with Mr. Obama’s election, Mr. Sarkozy gushed at the time.

Now, incongruously, it is Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy who could play a part in whether Mr. Obama wins re-election. The president himself has called Europe the “wild card” in the domestic economic recovery and his aides have privately expressed frustration at what they view as a passive response from European leaders to the debt crisis. Obama administration officials say that leaning on European leaders to get their house in order, as the president has been doing, is in best interest of the United States, and not something that Mr. Obama is doing for his own political benefit.

Mr. Geithner is in Europe this week in advance of the latest European summit meeting on Thursday that is meant to, yet again, try to deal with the debt issue. In a hurried, five-city, three-day tour, meeting with heads of state, Europe’s central banker and high-ranking economic officials, Mr. Geithner has quietly dispensed advice on the sovereign-debt crisis while pressing for decisive action for the good of the global economy.

Some prominent Europeans have bridled at what they consider the unsought American intervention. On Wednesday, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president, told Reuters: “Geithner’s visit is inopportune. He should not be meddling in European affairs.” Cognizant, no doubt, of such sensitivities, Mr. Geithner has tried to chart a careful course in Europe this week, meeting behind the scenes, careful never to push or prescribe publicly, and so far taking only two questions from the news media. So far, European leaders have largely declined to yield to pressure from Obama administration officials who are advocating the same aggressive way that the United States responded to its own banking crisis in the fall of 2008 and through early 2009.

Frustrated Obama officials have been urging their European counterparts to move as much money as possible to prop up the debt of countries like Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. “Ultimately, Europe will need to find a path that allows for stronger growth, but right now, the most important thing Europe can do for the global recovery is to manage this crisis successfully,” Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, said in an interview.

Administration officials say that besides the potential for drying up demand in Europe for American goods and the looming potential of a European bank failure’s setting off another financial debacle, the European crisis could stymie growth not only in Europe, but also in emerging markets.

Anxiety over what could happen across the Atlantic, coupled with earlier undue optimism about the domestic economic recovery, has the White House nervous about trumpeting even modest good economic news for fear of a later downturn.

Democratic campaign strategists concede that a collapse of the euro would transform the political dynamic even as some see the president’s standing improving, enhancing the prospects of other Democratic candidates.

“It is absolutely an important assumption that if the economy really tanks, really tanks, as the result of strong headwinds coming from Europe, it would be a more challenging environment,” said Representative Steve Israel of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

While political analysts say Mr. Obama, as the incumbent, would bear the brunt of the political fallout of another economic crisis, some Republicans are fretting as well. At a Washington dinner party two weeks ago, David Smick, a Republican financial consultant, approached Karl Rove, the Republican strategist, with a provocative question. “What if I told you that given what’s happening in Europe, that whoever is president in 2013 might not see his party elected for another 30 years,” Mr. Smick told Mr. Rove, according to guests who were present. Mr. Rove, one guest said, “just listened.”

In an interview, Mr. Smick said that the European crisis, in his view, could eventually make another huge government bailout like the controversial bank rescue program of late 2008 and 2009 necessary. But most political analysts say that could be political suicide for the country’s leaders. On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Obama was on the phone with Mrs. Merkel again. “As usual,” the White House said in a statement afterward, “the president expressed his appreciation for the efforts the chancellor and other European leaders are making to resolve the crisis.”

Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Annie Lowery from Paris.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/world/europe/eyeing-2012-race-white-house-presses-europe-on-debt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

News Analysis: Jobless Numbers Spur Competing Political Narratives

Within minutes of the government’s announcement that the jobless rate had declined to 8.6 percent in November from 9 percent a month earlier, Mitt Romney blasted out a statement noting that unemployment had remained above 8 percent throughout the 34 months of President Obama’s tenure in office, “the longest such spell since the Great Depression.”

Making no mention that the jobless rate is now down 1.5 percentage points from its peak two years ago, Mr. Romney added: “The Obama administration may have come to accept such a high level of joblessness as the new normal. I will never accept it.”

A few hours later, the president cited the growth in jobs without ever mentioning the level of unemployment. “Despite some strong headwinds this year, the American economy has now created, in the private sector, jobs for the past 21 months in a row,” Mr. Obama said, appearing in Washington alongside former President Bill Clinton, as good a visual symbol as any of prosperity under a Democratic administration.

The differing responses highlight a big question as the primary seasons draws near: Which is more politically powerful, a positive trend in job growth or the absolute level of unemployment?

The ability of the two parties to persuade voters to look at the situation their way — for Democrats, that the country is making progress and the economic medicine is working, for Republicans that no incremental improvements can eradicate the failure of Mr. Obama’s economic leadership — is now shaping up as central to the 2012 campaign.

Voters appear to judge the economy by a variety of measures other than unemployment, from job creation to income growth, as well as by a qualitative sense of well-being or lack of it. In any case, there is no assurance that joblessness will continue to drop, or that the financial crisis in Europe will not derail any hope the White House has of being able to sustain the argument that the worst is behind us.

The global uncertainties have some Democrats concerned about overplaying the progress theme, out of concern that the economy could be rocked by events outside the control of the president or anyone else in the United States. As a result, the White House is sure to hedge its bets somewhat, continuing to hammer away at themes like economic fairness and Republican obstructionism. “While the U.S. economy is healing, the world economy continues to be in a fragile state and all economies are linked through trade and finance,” said Alan Krueger, the chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Should major economic trouble hit, Mr. Obama’s team wants to have built the case for the argument that Democrats, more than Republicans, would better protect the middle class. No president has been re-elected since the 1930s with an unemployment rate at today’s level.

But if the unemployment rate continues to move downward even modestly next year, Mr. Obama and his team will be able to take some comfort from history. Under this administration, the peak in unemployment was a little over two years ago, at 10.1 percent. It fell briefly below 9 percent early this year, but has not been as low as 8.6 percent since March 2009. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009 the rate was 7.8 percent, and rising fast.

Democrats are looking to 1984, when President Ronald Reagan won re-election after the rate peaked at 10.8 in late 1982, fell to 8.5 percent a year from Election Day — about where it is now — and declined to 7.4 percent by the time voters went to the polls.

Mr. Obama’s own forecast holds little prospect of a continued drop of the scale seen in 1984; the White House has projected that joblessness would average 9 percent next year. And this most recent November drop creates the risk that any backsliding next year would be cast as evidence that things are getting worse again.

If the economy is perceived to be deteriorating in the first half of an election year, it may be very difficult for a sitting president to change voter sentiment. In 1992, the last election to revolve around the economy, the elder President George Bush was defeated in his re-election bid as the unemployment rate rose to a high of 7.8 percent in June before easing back to 7.3 percent by Election Day.

If nothing else, the positive news on employment on Friday came at a moment when Democrats were gaining confidence that they had found an economic message that was resonating with voters, leaving Republicans feeling a bit off balance after a year in which they have driven the agenda in Washington.

Republicans on Capitol Hill were showing signs of division over whether to go along with Mr. Obama’s demand for an extension of the payroll tax deduction. Mr. Obama, in turn, turned up the pressure on Republicans to go along before adjourning for Christmas.

But on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama’s potential Republican challengers were ceding no ground. Newt Gingrich called Friday’s employment report “yet another landmark in the Obama jobs crisis.” The key statistic, Mr. Gingrich said, was the more than 300,000 Americans who had dropped out of the labor force.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=84f4bc8656d03aecca0e928273310c89

Economix Blog: Back to Where We Began. Finally.

CATHERINE RAMPELL

CATHERINE RAMPELL

Dollars to doughnuts.

The American economy has finally reached the size it was before the recession began four years ago, according to the latest gross domestic product report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

That may sound like good news, but it’s long overdue, and frankly not good enough. If the economy were functioning normally, it would be significantly greater today than it was before the recession began.

Here’s a look at the level of gross domestic product over the last decade:

DESCRIPTIONSource: Bureau of Economic Analysis, via Haver Analytics

It has taken 15 quarters for the economy to merely recover the ground lost to the recession. That is significantly longer than in every other recession/recovery period since World War II. In the previous 10 recessions, the average number of quarters it took to return to the prerecession peak was 5.2, with a high of 8 quarters after the recession in the 1970s.

Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Vice President Joe Biden’s former economic adviser, has written up some additional thoughts on the significance of these numbers. He observes:

[R]egaining the peak is just a proximate goal. What we’ve really lost here is the trillions in output between potential GDP (how the economy would have done absent the recession) and actual GDP. That’s the actual cost of the downturn—the output, jobs, incomes, opportunities, even careers, that were lost in the Great Recession.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=277508087d92cd4686a91bf0b7dadfbe

DealBook: McGraw-Hill in Talks to Lead Stock Indexes Joint Venture

Two of the best-known stock market gauges in the world — the Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard Poor’s 500 — may share the same home under a deal being discussed.

McGraw-Hill, the owner of Standard Poor’s, is in advanced talks with the CME Group Inc., which owns Dow Jones Indexes, about forming a joint venture, according to people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Under the current terms of the talks, McGraw-Hill would own about 75 percent of the joint venture, while CME would own about 25 percent, one of these people said. Dow Jones, which owns about 10 percent of the Dow Jones index business and must approve any transaction, would receive a minimal stake in the new entity.

A deal could be reached within a few weeks, though the discussions may still fall apart, this person cautioned.

Spokeswomen for McGraw-Hill and CME declined to comment. A representative for Dow Jones, which is owned by the News Corporation, was not immediately available for comment.

If consummated, such a joint venture would be the first time the S.P. 500 and the Dow lived under one roof. Since their creation — the Dow in 1896, the S.P. 500 in 1957 — both market measures have become permanent fixtures in the American economy and the most popular representations of the ups and downs of the stock market.

For many of America’s biggest corporations, there are few more potent signs of dominance than being included in either index, and falling out of either imparts something of a stigma.

Those two benchmarks, however, are just the tip of a huge business. The companies own hundreds of thousands of indexes that track stocks, commodities and more exotic investments. Dow Jones Indexes alone has more than 130,000 indexes. Licensing these indexes for financial products can be a lucrative business.

The joint venture deal has been taking shape as McGraw-Hill has sought to revamp its operations to bolster its stock price. Earlier this month, the publisher said it would split into two publicly traded businesses by spinning off its education unit. The remaining operations — including the Standard Poor’s index unit and its credit ratings arm — would live on as McGraw-Hill Markets.

It is that company that is expected to house the expanded stock indexes business, the person briefed on the matter said.

By combining the two operations, the three companies are hoping to create a robust leader in market index products, including derivatives of their flagship products. It would also harness the growth in exchange-traded funds, many of which are built on permutations of major indexes.

It is unclear how the two activist investors pushing for greater changes at McGraw-Hill — the hedge fund Jana Partners and Canada’s Ontario Teachers Pension Plan — view the potential joint venture. This summer, Jana and Ontario Teachers had called for a bigger breakup of McGraw-Hill.

But the company has resisted that push. While it agreed that its education unit would be better off as a separate business — it began preparing for that in March — McGraw-Hill has argued that keeping the rest of its businesses together, including its indexes operation, would make for a stronger company.

Representatives for Jana and Ontario Teachers were not immediately available for comment.

Shares in McGraw-Hill rose about 1.4 percent in after-hours trading after The Wall Street Journal reported the talks. They closed on Thursday at $42.31.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ca6cbaa4fd965fb312cfb802c8b0759f

U.S. Presses Europe to Stop Spread of Greek Debt Crisis

In phone calls and meetings over the last week, President Obama urged Mrs. Merkel and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France to take coordinated measures — including spending billions in additional funds to bail out Greece and bolster European financial institutions — to prevent Greece’s debt woes from spreading to its neighbors.

The American pressure was on display again Friday and will be this weekend at a gathering of the world’s finance ministers in Washington.

Yet administration officials played down the likelihood of concerted action emerging from these meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. At best, they said, the ministers might lay the groundwork for a bolder response in November, when leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized nations meet in Cannes, France.

Recognition is growing that Europe’s debt crisis is now perhaps the largest shadow hanging over the global economy. Although trade with Europe represents only a small share of the American economy, Europe’s problems have repeatedly rattled Wall Street over the last year and a half, eroding confidence and deepening fears of businesses and consumers.

“The biggest single risk to the United States today is that the European situation will spiral out of control,” said Edwin M. Truman, a former Treasury official who is now at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Europe is not going to save the U.S. economy, but it could be the straw that breaks it.”

Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist who has written about the history of financial crises, puts Europe’s effect on the United States in blunt political terms. “The downside scenario is awful,” he said, “and if it happens before the U.S. election, it would turn a toss-up election into one in which the president is a huge underdog.

“The administration’s hope is that the Europeans will kick the can down the road far enough that it gets past the election,” said Mr. Rogoff, who has advised Mr. Obama and Republicans.

The administration has trained much of its attention on the figure who may have the greatest ability to influence the outcome in Europe: Mrs. Merkel, the German chancellor. Since he took office, Mr. Obama has met or spoken with Mrs. Merkel 28 times — a pace befitting someone who may have as much influence on his fortunes as his rivals in Washington.

In their most recent call, on Monday, Mr. Obama encouraged Mrs. Merkel to throw more financial firepower at the crisis. The conversation delved into technical details, as well as the risk of financial contagion, said a senior administration official who was not authorized to discuss the call and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Mrs. Merkel faces daunting political obstacles — which Mr. Obama fully recognizes, this official said — in persuading the German public to spend hundreds of billions of euros to bail out Greece and potentially other Mediterranean countries.

While the United States is offering lessons drawn from its own crisis in 2008, the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and other officials are treading carefully to avoid antagonizing Europeans who complain the United States has no business lecturing them. When Mr. Geithner attended a meeting of European finance ministers last week in Wroclaw, Poland, a handful of officials from smaller countries criticized him afterward, but American officials said the meeting was more productive behind closed doors.

The administration’s lobbying effort takes two main forms. One is to press the argument, supported by many economists, that Germany benefits enormously from preserving the euro in its current form rather than abandoning it or standing by as it collapses.

By combining its Deutschmark with the currencies of poorer countries, like Greece, Germany has been able to have a cheaper currency than it would on its own and to export far more than it otherwise might. And exports, which account for a larger share of the German economy than the American economy, have been the main engine of Germany’s recovery.

“There’s a growing narrative that this is a morality play, that this is all about fiscal profligacy in Southern Europe,” said Austan Goolsbee, a former top economic adviser to Mr. Obama, speaking on a panel discussion Thursday at the I.M.F. offices. “But if the Germans are saying, ‘We don’t like the spending by Southern Europe,’ they must also recognize that they’ve been the great beneficiaries.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1b6fd1ed29316e748cb201562ce6e3ad

DealBook: Sprint Shares Surge on AT&T Setback

1:26 p.m. | Updated Sprint Nextel may get its way — or at least that is what investors are thinking.

Shares of the nation’s third largest cellular carrier were up nearly 8 percent in early afternoon trading on Wednesday, after the Justice Department moved to block ATT’s proposed merger with T-Mobile USA.

Sprint was quick to defend the government’s action on Wednesday.

“Sprint applauds the DOJ for conducting a careful and thorough review and for reaching a just decision – one which will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of a competitive U.S. wireless industry,” Vonya B. McCann, the company’s senior vice president of government affairs, said in a statement. “Contrary to ATT’s assertions, today’s action will preserve American jobs, strengthen the American economy, and encourage innovation.”

Sprint has been a vocal opponent of the deal from the outset. At an industry conference in March, its chief executive, Dan Hesse, criticized the merger, fearing it would hurt consumers. A week later, Sprint formally objected to the deal and called on regulators to block the acquisition.

“The wireless industry has sparked unprecedented levels of competition, innovation, job creation and investment for the American economy, all of which could be undone by this transaction,” Sprint said in a statement in late March.

Sprint has reason to be concerned about the potential merger of ATT and T-Mobile. If the deal went through, the merged company would have nearly 130 million subscribers, leaving Spring a distant No. 3 player with about 50 million customers.

It has been a tough position for Sprint.

Mr. Hesse has made some improvements during his tenure. He has invested in customer service and bolstered the product lineup, including signing an agreement to sell the iPhone 5, the next version of Apple’s popular smartphone. Such moves have helped keep customers from switching to other carriers.

But the company continues to struggle. In the quarter ended June 30, the company lost $847 million, compared with a loss of $760 million the period a year earlier. Meanwhile, shares of Sprint are off more than 35 percent from their 52-week high in June.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0f92cfec03ad0c0cbfedaab42d5d9528

Neurofinance Shows How Investors Can Shun Reason

No, really. Mr. Alford just hit the key on his computer that initiates the Wall Street equivalent of the nuclear option: Sell everything.

He was acting on orders from two wealthy clients who became so alarmed by the troubled outlook that they simply wanted out. Over the last 10 days or so, they asked him to sell all of their stocks and invest in a mutual fund he oversees that is somewhat insulated against a potential market collapse.

“I have never, ever done it before,” says Mr. Alford, who is the chairman of Alpha Capital Management and has been managing money for 22 years. “This was unprecedented.”

The pros on Wall Street are forever telling us to keep socking our money away in that 401(k) plan and to keep believing, whatever the market’s daily ups or downs. But after a week like the one we just had, the worst since the dark days of 2008, even the smart-money crowd seems to have second thoughts about the old steady-as-she-goes approach.

As the Dow Jones industrial average plunged 513 points last Thursday, then gyrated wildly on Friday, all of Wall Street seemed to be asking the same question: What the heck is going on? Evidence that the American economy is bad and growing worse has been piling up for a while now. And it’s not as if we didn’t know Europe had a debt problem. Why, then, all these crazy swings?

One possible answer comes from, all of places, the fields of psychology and neuroscience. In recent years, an area of study called neurofinance has tried to use brain science to explain how our primal circuits can, and often do, override our reason when it comes to investing.

It’s a heretical thought on Wall Street, where most people insist that logic prevails. The economic theory of rational expectations has enshrined the principle that people make judicious economic choices and learn from their mistakes. As a result, our collective expectations about the financial future — from the price of T-bills next week to the earnings of Google next quarter — are, on average, accurate.

Or so the theory goes. In practice, we do stupid things all the time. Some of us gamble away money, doubling down when logic tells us to quit. Others let their winnings ride when any rational person would cash out.

But many experts say the 2008 financial collapse recalibrated investor psychology. After living through the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the panic that followed, some investors are apt to sell first and ask questions later. Wall Street’s notion of worst-case scenarios has darkened considerably.

The result: the markets go wild. After a little good news on jobs on Friday — new figures showed the jobless rate slipped a notch in July — the Dow bolted higher. But by noon it had plunged more than 400 points from its morning high. It closed at 11,444.61, down 5.75 percent for the week and 1.15 percent for the year. Like most major markets, the American stock market has now officially entered a “correction,” one of those mini-bear markets that sometimes prove fleeting and, sometimes, are a harbinger of worse to come.

FINANCIAL markets rarely move in straight lines, and whatever the pundits say, it’s not always easy to pinpoint what made them move this way or that on a given day. But in New York, London, Tokyo and beyond, a broad shift appears to be occurring. All those graphs and charts are, basically, a representation of our collective financial neurocircuitry getting a bit panicky.

Some large investors, including wealthy individuals who lost big during the 2008 collapse, have more or less been stashing money under the mattress. They have been selling investments aggressively and seeking safety in cash. Over the last three weeks or so, hedge fund managers have been betting that stocks will fall further.

Dick Del Bello, senior partner of Conifer Securities, a company that provides administrative support to hedge funds, says funds have started to place more wagers against the markets, if only to protect themselves. But as a whole, he says, they are still betting that stocks will go up, rather than down.

“Hedge funds decided to add to their short positions and play more defensively,” he says.

And yet it seems clear that Wall Street is finally realizing what many ordinary Americans have been feeling for a while: these hard times are turning harder. Sure, major American corporations are making fistfuls of money. But smaller businesses aren’t. The American consumer confronts a toxic mix of weak home prices and high unemployment. Confidence is fragile.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b2428ab459d411ccd35e75a71ca7f279