Cameron to Outline a Recast European Role for Britain

Weighted down by centuries of entrenched wariness in this island nation toward the Continent — and the knowledge that a gallery of his predecessors as Conservative prime ministers saw their tenures blighted by divisions within the party over the issue — Mr. Cameron is heading for Amsterdam on Friday to set out his vision of a sharply whittled-down role for Britain in the affairs of 21st-century Europe.

The speech in the Netherlands, carefully chosen as a country with a strong historical friendship with Britain, is a watershed moment for Mr. Cameron, and for Britain. It could be a deeply jarring occasion, as well, for other European nations, which have grown increasingly impatient, angry even, with Britain’s policy during the crisis in the euro zone. Some European officials have described as blackmail its use of the crisis — one that Britain, with the pound, has largely escaped — to demand a new, “pick-and-mix” status for itself within the 27-nation European Union.

After months of delay, Mr. Cameron is expected to brush aside the warnings of the Obama administration and European leaders and call for a referendum on whether Britain should remain squarely in Europe or negotiate a more arm’s-length relationship, most likely before the next Parliament’s mandate expires in 2018. In a clamorous House of Commons on Wednesday, the prime minister set out his thinking.

“Millions of people in this country, myself included, want Britain to stay in the European Union,” he said. “But they believe that there are chances to negotiate a better relationship. Throughout Europe, countries are looking at forthcoming treaty change, and asking, ‘What can I do to maximize my national interest?’ That is what the Germans will do. That is what the Spanish will do. That is what the British should do.”

For months, Mr. Cameron has been holding off on a promise to explain just what he wants from Europe. As a reformist Conservative pressing ahead with, among other things, a plan to legalize gay marriage, he has scant common ground with the “little Englanders” in his party, the core of about 100 members who make up a third of its representation in Parliament.

But Mr. Cameron can see votes, too, in the strong anti-Europe currents that run wherever people in Britain gather.

In pubs and bars, on radio and in Parliament itself, talk of the European Union tends to center on the bloc’s real — and, in some cases, apocryphal — abuses: its highhanded, bloated bureaucracy, with nearly 1,000 featherbedded officials earning more than Mr. Cameron’s $230,000 salary as prime minister; its endless proliferation of rules on everything from the length of dog leashes to the shape of carrots; the recent claim by a former high-ranking Cameron aide that government ministers spend 40 percent of their time dealing with the mass of pettifogging European “directives,” many of them widely ignored elsewhere in Europe.

Not only has Mr. Cameron been hemmed in by deep divisions over Europe within the Conservative Party — an issue that helped unseat Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major as prime ministers — but he has also been wary of stirring a fresh wave of anger among other European leaders, particularly Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, a center-right politician and onetime ally in European councils.

Her aides have described her as frustrated with Mr. Cameron’s maneuvering and, as she is said to see it, his bid to take advantage of other European states as they struggle to save the euro and keep the most debt-laden nations, like Greece, Portugal and Spain, from dropping out of the European Union.

Concern about the reactions in Berlin and Paris prompted a last-minute rescheduling of the Amsterdam speech. Germany and France had protested that the original date, next Monday, might overshadow long-planned celebrations that day of the 50th anniversary of the treaty between them, itself a landmark in the building of postwar Europe, that sealed their reconciliation after the wounds of World War II.

Along with this, commentators say, Mr. Cameron has been recalculating the ways in which the European issue can be managed to bolster the Conservatives’ sagging prospects in a general election expected in 2015, in which polls show them lagging as much as 13 percentage points behind the opposition Labour Party. He has also been contending with heavy lobbying by American officials, including President Obama.

The Americans, diplomats say, have told Mr. Cameron squarely in private what made headlines here last week when a senior State Department official, Philip Gordon, who is assistant secretary for European affairs, spoke on the issue with British reporters. Mr. Gordon said a continued “strong British voice” in an “outward-looking” European Union was in America’s interests, and warned specifically against the referendum on Europe that is an important component in Mr. Cameron’s plans. “Referendums,” Mr. Gordon said, “have often turned countries inward.”

For all his delaying, his aides say, Mr. Cameron is ready now to outline a strategy for renegotiating Britain’s status in the European Union in a way that would keep Britain free from the centralizing forces at work. Other major European states, France and Germany in particular, see a new federal Europe with enhanced powers of fiscal oversight as essential to the long-term survival of the tottering euro.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting from Paris, and Stephen Castle from London.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 17, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the year that a referendum approving Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, the precursor to the European Union, was held. It was 1975, not 1974.

Read More..

DealBook: JPMorgan Cuts Dimon’s Pay, Even as Profit Surges

Even as profit surged, the board of JPMorgan Chase cut the pay package of its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, by 50 percent, in light of a multibillion-dollar trading loss last year.

By the overall numbers, it was a good year for JPMorgan. The bank reported a record profit of $5.7 billion for the fourth quarter, up 53 percent from the period a year earlier. Revenue was also strong, rising 10 percent, to $23.7 billion for the period.

“The firm’s results reflected strong underlying performance across virtually all our businesses for the fourth quarter and the full year, with strong lending and deposit growth,” Mr. Dimon said in statement.

But the year was clouded by a multibillion-dollar trading loss stemming from a bad bet on derivatives. JPMorgan continues to unwind the bungled trade, which had racked up $6.2 billion in losses through the third quarter of 2012. The bank said it “experienced a modest loss” in the last three months of the year.

In light of the trading losses, the bank’s board voted to reduce Mr. Dimon’s total compensation. That decision was driven by a desire to hold him accountable for some of the oversight failings that led to the troubled bet, according to several people close to the board.

The board cut Mr. Dimon’s total compensation for 2012 to $11.5 million from $23 million a year earlier. While his salary remained the same at $1.5 million, his bonus was reduced to $10 million, paid out in restricted stock.

On an earnings call on Wednesday, Mr. Dimon emphasized that this latest quarter largely signaled the end of the trading debacle. “We are getting near the end of it,” he said. Mr. Dimon acknowledged that the board “had a tough job” in assessing how to reduce his total compensation for the year. While “this was one huge mistake,” Mr. Dimon said, the board had to look at “the positives and the negatives.” He added that he “respects their decision.”

Although Mr. Dimon’s compensation fell sharply, he dodged much of the criticism for the trading losses in two reports released on Wednesday. One report details the result of a sweeping investigation into the trades led by Michael J. Cavanagh, formerly the bank’s chief financial officer, and the other outlines the board’s findings.

In the case of Mr. Dimon, the reports mainly took aim at his over-reliance on senior managers. “He could have better tested his reliance on what he was told,” the investigation found.

Instead, much of the blame centered on Ina R. Drew, who oversaw the chief investment unit where the trading took place. Ms. Drew resigned in May shortly after the losses were disclosed.

Under Ms. Drew’s leadership, there were failures “in three critical areas,” including the execution of a complex trading strategy and gaps in oversight of the large portfolio, according to the investigation. The report indicated that Ms. Drew failed “to appreciate the magnitude and significance of the changes” as the riskiness of the trades escalated.

Barry Zubrow, the bank’s former chief risk officer, was also singled out. Douglas Braunstein, who left his position as chief financial officer in November, was cited “for weaknesses in financial controls.” The investigation found that the organization should “have asked more questions or to have sought additional information about the evolution of the portfolio.”

Despite the overhang of the bad bet, JPMorgan produced record profit for the quarter, as economic and credit conditions improved. The bank reduced the money it set aside for potential losses, adding to overall profit. And the bank recorded gains in all its major divisions, showing strength in both consumer and corporate banking operations.

For the full year, JPMorgan reported earnings of $21.3 billion, compared with $19 billion in 2011. Revenue in 2012, at $97 billion, was essentially flat.

Despite the rocky market conditions and uncertainty related to the budget impasse, the corporate-focused businesses reported nice gains. Investment banking fees jumped 54 percent, to $1.7 billion, with improvements in debt and equity underwriting. Revenue in the commercial banking group hit $1.75 billion, after the 10th consecutive quarter of loan growth.

Income in JPMorgan’s asset management group rose 60 percent, to $483 million. JPMorgan has been ramping up the business, as riskier ventures get crimped by new regulation.

Like other big banks, JPMorgan’s earnings have been bolstered by a surge in mortgage lending, driven in part by a series of federal programs that have helped drive down interest rates. As homeowners seize on the low rates, JPMorgan is experiencing a flurry of refinancing applications. The bank is also making bigger gains when those loans are packaged and eventually sold to big investors.

Over all, the mortgage banking group posted profit of $418 million for the fourth quarter, compared with a loss of $269 million in the period a year earlier.

But those low interest rates also present a challenge for JPMorgan, which is dealing with glut of deposits. The bank reported average total deposits of $404 billion, up 10 percent from the fourth quarter of 2011.

As deposits pile up, the situation is weighing on profitability. The margin on deposits continued to shrink, dropping to 2.44 percent from 2.76 percent the period a year earlier.

The bank also continues to face a slew of legal problems.

In the last year, JPMorgan has worked to move beyond some of the issues stemming from the mortgage crisis. Along with competitors, JPMorgan reached deals with federal regulators over claims that its foreclosures practices might have led to wrongful eviction of homeowners. JPMorgan and other banks agreed this month to a $8.5 billion settlement with the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, which ends a costly and flawed review of loans in foreclosure ordered up by the regulators in 2011. The bank spent roughly $700 million this quarter on costs associated with the review.

Still, the bank is dealing with other cases that could prove costly. New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, filed a lawsuit against the bank related to Bear Stearns, the troubled unit that JPMorgan bought in the depths of the financial crisis. In the suit, filed in October, the attorney general claimed JPMorgan had defrauded investors who bought securities created from shoddy mortgages.

JPMorgan was also hit with two enforcement actions this week, the first formal sanctions from federal banking regulators over the bank’s multibillion-dollar trading loss. Regulators from the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency identified flaws throughout the bank, citing failures in its ability to assess how big losses might swell as a result of the complex trades. In addition, regulators found that bank executives did not adequately inform board members about the potential losses.

Read More..

The New Old Age: In Flu Season,Use a Mask. But Which One?

Face masks help prevent people from getting the flu. But how much protection do they provide?

You might think the answer to this question would be well established. It’s not.

In fact, there is considerable uncertainty over how well face masks guard against influenza when people use them outside of hospitals and other health care settings. This has been a topic of discussion and debate in infectious disease circles since the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, also known as swine flu.

As the government noted in a document that provides guidance on the issue, “Very little information is available about the effectiveness of facemasks and respirators in controlling the spread of pandemic influenza in community settings.” This is also true of seasonal influenza — the kind that strikes every winter and that we are experiencing now, experts said.

Let’s jump to the bottom line for older people and caregivers before getting into the details. If someone is ill with the flu, coughing and sneezing and living with others, say an older spouse who is a bit frail, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the use of a face mask “if available and tolerable” or a tissue to cover the nose and mouth.

If you are healthy and serving as a caregiver for someone who has the flu — say, an older person who is ill and at home — the C.D.C. recommends using a face mask or a respirator. (I’ll explain the difference between those items in just a bit.) But if you are a household member who is not in close contact with the sick person, keep at a distance and there is no need to use a face mask or respirator, the C.D.C. advises.

The recommendations are included in another document related to pandemic influenza — a flu caused by a new virus that circulates widely and ends up going global because people lack immunity. That is not a threat this year, but the H3N2 virus that is circulating widely is hitting many older adults especially hard. So the precautions are a good idea, even outside a pandemic situation, said Dr. Ed Septimus, a spokesman for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

The key idea here is exposure, Dr. Septimus said. If you are a caregiver and intimately exposed to someone who is coughing, sneezing and has the flu, wearing a mask probably makes sense — as it does if you are the person with the flu doing the coughing and sneezing and a caregiver is nearby.

But the scientific evidence about how influenza is transmitted is not as strong as experts would like, said Dr. Carolyn Bridges, associate director of adult immunization at the C.D.C. It is generally accepted that the flu virus is transmitted through direct contact — when someone who is ill touches his or her nose and then a glass that he or she hands to someone else, for instance — and through large droplets that go flying through the air when a person coughs or sneezes. What is not known is the extent to which tiny aerosol particles are implicated in transmission.

Evidence suggests that these tiny particles may play a more important part than previously suspected. For example, a November 2010 study in the journal PLoS One found that 81 percent of flu patients sent viral material through air expelled by coughs, and 65 percent of the virus consisted of small particles that can be inhaled and lodge deeper in the lungs than large droplets.

That is a relevant finding when it comes to masks, which cover much of the face below the eyes but not tightly, letting air in through gaps around the nose and mouth. As the C.D.C.’s advisory noted, “Facemasks help stop droplets from being spread by the person wearing them. They also keep splashes or sprays from reaching the mouth and nose of the person wearing them. They are not designed to protect against breathing in the very small particle aerosols that may contain viruses.”

In other words, you will get some protection, but it is not clear how much. In most circumstances, “if you’re caring for a family member with influenza, I think a surgical mask is perfectly adequate,” said Dr. Carol McLay, an infection control consultant based in Lexington, Ky.

By contrast, respirators fit tightly over someone’s face and are made of materials that filter out small particles that carry the influenza virus. They are recommended for health care workers who are in intimate contact with patients and who have to perform activities like suctioning their lungs. So-called N95 respirators block at least 95 percent of small particles in tests, if properly fitted.

Training in how to use respirators is mandated in hospitals, but no such requirement applies outside, and consumers frequently put them on improperly. One study of respirator use in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, when mold was a problem, found that only 24 percent of users put them on the right way. Also, it can be hard to breathe when respirators are used, and this can affect people’s willingness to use them as recommended.

Unfortunately, research about the relative effectiveness of masks and respirators is not robust, and there is no guidance backed by scientific evidence available for consumers, Dr. Bridges said. Nor is there any clear way of assessing the relative merits of various products being sold to the public, which differ in design and materials used.

“Honestly, some of the ones I’ve seen are almost like a paper towel with straps,” Dr. McLay said. Her advice: go with name-brand items used by your local hospital.

Meanwhile, it is worth repeating: The single most important thing that older people and caregivers can do to prevent the flu is to be vaccinated, Dr. Bridges said. “It’s the best tool we have,” she said, noting that preventing flu also involves vigilant hand washing, using tissues or arms to block sneezing, and staying home when ill so people do not transmit the virus. And it is by no means too late to get a shot, whose cost Medicare will cover for older adults.

Read More..

The New Old Age: In Flu Season,Use a Mask. But Which One?

Face masks help prevent people from getting the flu. But how much protection do they provide?

You might think the answer to this question would be well established. It’s not.

In fact, there is considerable uncertainty over how well face masks guard against influenza when people use them outside of hospitals and other health care settings. This has been a topic of discussion and debate in infectious disease circles since the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, also known as swine flu.

As the government noted in a document that provides guidance on the issue, “Very little information is available about the effectiveness of facemasks and respirators in controlling the spread of pandemic influenza in community settings.” This is also true of seasonal influenza — the kind that strikes every winter and that we are experiencing now, experts said.

Let’s jump to the bottom line for older people and caregivers before getting into the details. If someone is ill with the flu, coughing and sneezing and living with others, say an older spouse who is a bit frail, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the use of a face mask “if available and tolerable” or a tissue to cover the nose and mouth.

If you are healthy and serving as a caregiver for someone who has the flu — say, an older person who is ill and at home — the C.D.C. recommends using a face mask or a respirator. (I’ll explain the difference between those items in just a bit.) But if you are a household member who is not in close contact with the sick person, keep at a distance and there is no need to use a face mask or respirator, the C.D.C. advises.

The recommendations are included in another document related to pandemic influenza — a flu caused by a new virus that circulates widely and ends up going global because people lack immunity. That is not a threat this year, but the H3N2 virus that is circulating widely is hitting many older adults especially hard. So the precautions are a good idea, even outside a pandemic situation, said Dr. Ed Septimus, a spokesman for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

The key idea here is exposure, Dr. Septimus said. If you are a caregiver and intimately exposed to someone who is coughing, sneezing and has the flu, wearing a mask probably makes sense — as it does if you are the person with the flu doing the coughing and sneezing and a caregiver is nearby.

But the scientific evidence about how influenza is transmitted is not as strong as experts would like, said Dr. Carolyn Bridges, associate director of adult immunization at the C.D.C. It is generally accepted that the flu virus is transmitted through direct contact — when someone who is ill touches his or her nose and then a glass that he or she hands to someone else, for instance — and through large droplets that go flying through the air when a person coughs or sneezes. What is not known is the extent to which tiny aerosol particles are implicated in transmission.

Evidence suggests that these tiny particles may play a more important part than previously suspected. For example, a November 2010 study in the journal PLoS One found that 81 percent of flu patients sent viral material through air expelled by coughs, and 65 percent of the virus consisted of small particles that can be inhaled and lodge deeper in the lungs than large droplets.

That is a relevant finding when it comes to masks, which cover much of the face below the eyes but not tightly, letting air in through gaps around the nose and mouth. As the C.D.C.’s advisory noted, “Facemasks help stop droplets from being spread by the person wearing them. They also keep splashes or sprays from reaching the mouth and nose of the person wearing them. They are not designed to protect against breathing in the very small particle aerosols that may contain viruses.”

In other words, you will get some protection, but it is not clear how much. In most circumstances, “if you’re caring for a family member with influenza, I think a surgical mask is perfectly adequate,” said Dr. Carol McLay, an infection control consultant based in Lexington, Ky.

By contrast, respirators fit tightly over someone’s face and are made of materials that filter out small particles that carry the influenza virus. They are recommended for health care workers who are in intimate contact with patients and who have to perform activities like suctioning their lungs. So-called N95 respirators block at least 95 percent of small particles in tests, if properly fitted.

Training in how to use respirators is mandated in hospitals, but no such requirement applies outside, and consumers frequently put them on improperly. One study of respirator use in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, when mold was a problem, found that only 24 percent of users put them on the right way. Also, it can be hard to breathe when respirators are used, and this can affect people’s willingness to use them as recommended.

Unfortunately, research about the relative effectiveness of masks and respirators is not robust, and there is no guidance backed by scientific evidence available for consumers, Dr. Bridges said. Nor is there any clear way of assessing the relative merits of various products being sold to the public, which differ in design and materials used.

“Honestly, some of the ones I’ve seen are almost like a paper towel with straps,” Dr. McLay said. Her advice: go with name-brand items used by your local hospital.

Meanwhile, it is worth repeating: The single most important thing that older people and caregivers can do to prevent the flu is to be vaccinated, Dr. Bridges said. “It’s the best tool we have,” she said, noting that preventing flu also involves vigilant hand washing, using tissues or arms to block sneezing, and staying home when ill so people do not transmit the virus. And it is by no means too late to get a shot, whose cost Medicare will cover for older adults.

Read More..

News Analysis: Momentum Seems to Build for Gargantuan Buyout of Dell

Dell is advancing toward a goal many thought was all but unattainable since the financial crisis: a leveraged buyout worth more than $20 billion.

The company is in talks with investment firms and its founder, Michael S. Dell, over a deal that would take the technology company off the public markets, people briefed on the matter said on Tuesday.

One potential transaction that appears to be gaining steam is one that would be led by Silver Lake, a private equity firm that focuses on technology deals, one of these people said. The investment shop has already tasked a number of banks — Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Barclays, Credit Suisse and Royal Bank of Canada — with lining up the enormous amount of financing that would be needed, perhaps as much as $16 billion.

Silver Lake is also sounding out potential partners that could help contribute equity financing for the deal, a group that may include wealthy Asian investors, this person said.

Dell is contemplating using some of its enormous store of cash, totaling about $11.3 billion as of Nov. 2, to help defray the deal’s cost. It may do so even though more than 80 percent of its cash is held overseas, and bringing it home could generate a big tax penalty.

Mr. Dell is expected to contribute his roughly 16 percent stake in the company to the deal, helping to lower the ultimate price tag. His shares as of Tuesday’s market close were worth about $3.6 billion. It is unclear whether he would invest additional money as part of a buyout.

Nonetheless, the deal talks appear to have momentum, although one of the people briefed on the matter cautioned that they could still fall apart.

Representatives for Dell, Silver Lake and the banks declined to comment.

Should a deal come together, it would be the most radical step yet to revive a company once so profitable that it gave rise to a class of “Dellionaires” during the Internet boom.

Mr. Dell, who founded the computer maker in his dorm room in 1984, has long cast about for a solution to a world where revenue from personal computer sales has consistently fallen in recent years.

Behind any move to take Dell private is the hope that, freed from the tough scrutiny of public shareholders, the company can continue moving into the more lucrative and stable market of providing hardware and software services for corporations.

The company’s stock had fallen nearly 48 percent in the five years through last Friday, the day before Bloomberg News reported Dell’s talks with private equity firms. Since then, the stock price has climbed 21 percent.

A leveraged buyout of Dell would be one of the biggest private equity transactions since the Blackstone Group acquired Hilton Hotels for $25 billion more than five years ago. To date, no leveraged buyout announced since the financial crisis has surpassed the $7.2 billion that Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and others paid for the Samson Investment Company, an oil and gas driller, in fall 2011.

In part, that has been a matter of logistics. Leveraged buyouts require private equity firms to put money down, much as borrowers do for a mortgage. On average, that amount has been around 30 percent of the overall deal price, meaning that the equity required for a Dell takeover could be significant.

That is why Silver Lake is seeking to bring in at least one partner to help buoy a bid, one of the people briefed on the matter said.

But private equity firms have also taken pains to avoid club deals, in which two or more of them partner together to buy a company. Investors in these firms have complained that the practice essentially multiplies their exposure to a particular transaction.

Private equity firms aren’t fond of them because they essentially erase the distinctions between competitors, potentially making it harder to raise money for new funds.

Any deal would also require a seemingly daunting amount of debt financing, raised from bank loans and junk-bond sales. Several deal makers have expressed confidence in their ability to raise that money, given a hunger among investors for bonds that yield even a few percentage points more than Treasury bonds.

The co-head of JPMorgan Chase‘s global debt capital markets, Jim Casey, told CNBC in October that his firm could raise $15 billion to $25 billion in noninvestment-grade debt for a single transaction.

Some of the other obstacles to a Dell takeover lie specifically with the company. It already bears $4.9 billion in long-term debt — and that is before it assumes the enormous amount that would come from a private equity deal.

While Dell still reports a healthy amount of cash from operations, totaling $3.7 billion for the year ended Nov. 2, much of that could be consumed with paying down debt. A. M. Sacconaghi, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein, estimated on Tuesday that the company could pay about $820 million in interest payments each year.

Analysts have questioned whether a private Dell would have the capital to pay for acquisitions, which has been an important vehicle for expanding into new markets. Last year alone, the company struck 10 deals, including the $2.4 billion purchase of Quest Software.

“With a large debt load, we believe Dell would have a more difficult time acquiring smaller enterprise companies — making it harder to diversify away from PCs,” analysts with Barclays wrote in a research note on Tuesday.

“We would be quite surprised if a transaction would take place.”

Ben Protess contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on 01/16/2013, on page B7 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Signs of Gathering Momentum for a Hefty Buyout of Dell.

Read More..

WORLD: France Battles Rebels in Mali

January 16, 2013By Mac William Bishop, Channon Hodge, Pedro Rafael Rosado, Axel Gerdau, Krishnan Vasudevan and Elaisha Stokes

The Times's Greg Winter talks about the escalating conflict in Mali, where the government along with France is battling Islamist insurgents.

Read More..

The Caucus: Credit Rating Agency Warns of Downgrade if Debt Limit is Not Raised

Fitch Ratings Ltd. warned on Tuesday that Congress’s failure to raise the federal government’s statutory borrowing limit would “very likely” prompt a downgrading of the United States Government’s credit rating, and the agency seemed to suggest that Congress should simply do away with the debt ceiling altogether.

In a pointed statement, Fitch dismissed the assurances of some Republicans that the Treasury Department would be able to use incoming tax receipts to prioritize the payment of government debt and interest, as well as vital services like military pay and Social Security. That warning echoed the Treasury’s own assessment that breaching the debt ceiling could not be managed in any way that would minimize the economic turmoil or avoid default.

“It is not assured that the Treasury would or legally could prioritize debt service over its myriad of other obligations, including Social Security payments, tax rebates and payments to contractors and employees. Arrears on such obligations would not constitute a default event from a sovereign rating perspective but very likely prompt a downgrade even as debt obligations continued to be met,” Fitch wrote.

Standard & Poor’s, a larger credit rating agency, downgraded United States debt a notch in August 2011 after the last standoff over the federal debt limit, reflecting “our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned.”

Fitch and Moody’s Investors Service, the other major rating agency, did not follow suit, keeping the rating of United States Treasury debt at AAA. Far from serving as a unifying moment, the S.&P. downgrade divided Washington further. Republicans said the downgrade resulted from President Obama’s refusal to dramatically cut spending to get the federal deficit under control. Democrats said it was a reflection of political paralysis that stemmed from Republican intransigence.

The Fitch warning seemed to hem in Republicans further, however. Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling, and on Monday, he compared Republican refusal to raise it to a criminal taking a hostage. Fitch appeared to side with the president.

“In Fitch’s opinion, the debt ceiling is an ineffective and potentially dangerous mechanism for enforcing fiscal discipline. It does not prevent tax and spending decisions that will incur debt issuance in excess of the ceiling while the sanction of not raising the ceiling risks a sovereign default and renders such a threat incredible,” the agency wrote.

Read More..

Well: For DTaP Vaccine, Thigh May Be Better Injection Site Than Arm

Children are less likely to develop bad reactions to the DTaP vaccine, a routine immunization shot that protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, or whooping cough, if they get it in their thigh instead of in their arm, a new study shows.

The research looked at more than a million children who were given injections of the vaccine. In many cases it causes some degree of redness or swelling around the injection site, which typically goes away after a day. But in rare instances a child can develop a more pronounced reaction, like severe pain or a swollen limb, that may require medical attention.

In the new study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers found that children between the ages of 1 and 3 who were given the DTaP vaccine in their thigh instead of in their upper arm were around half as likely to have a local reaction that warranted a visit to a doctor, nurse or emergency room. Previous studies of children who received the vaccine between the ages of 4 and 6 found that they, too, had a lower likelihood of developing a local reaction requiring medical attention if they got the shot in their thigh instead of in their arm.

Why the vaccine would be less harsh on the thigh than the arm is not known for certain. But one possibility is simply that in children at that age, the thigh muscle is much larger than the deltoid, the muscle in the upper arm where shots are typically administered. If any inflammation ensues, it has more room to diffuse in the thigh, said Dr. Lisa A. Jackson, the lead author of the study and a senior investigator at the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle.

“In little kids the upper arm is very tiny,” she said. “You’re injecting the same volume of vaccine in the upper arm as in the thigh, which is a larger area. I think it’s just that it’s a larger muscle mass.”

The benefits, however, may not extend to other immunizations. The study, for example, also looked at shots for influenza and hepatitis A, and in those cases there was no meaningful difference between vaccinating in the arm or thigh for either toddlers or children ages 3 to 6.

In many cases, doctors choose where to administer a shot according to their own preference. But in the case of DTaP, at least, it makes more sense in general to give the shot in the thigh, Dr. Jackson said.

“Unless there’s a compelling reason not to, I would say veer toward giving the DTaP vaccine in the leg,” she said. “There’s less chance of a concerning reaction if you give it in the thigh versus the arm. So that should be the normal practice.”

Dr. Jackson stressed, however, that the absolute risk of a child having a reaction severe enough to warrant medical attention is still quite small, regardless of whether the shot is given in the arm or leg. The study found that it occurred in less than 1 percent of vaccinated children over all.

Read More..

Well: For DTaP Vaccine, Thigh May Be Better Injection Site Than Arm

Children are less likely to develop bad reactions to the DTaP vaccine, a routine immunization shot that protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, or whooping cough, if they get it in their thigh instead of in their arm, a new study shows.

The research looked at more than a million children who were given injections of the vaccine. In many cases it causes some degree of redness or swelling around the injection site, which typically goes away after a day. But in rare instances a child can develop a more pronounced reaction, like severe pain or a swollen limb, that may require medical attention.

In the new study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers found that children between the ages of 1 and 3 who were given the DTaP vaccine in their thigh instead of in their upper arm were around half as likely to have a local reaction that warranted a visit to a doctor, nurse or emergency room. Previous studies of children who received the vaccine between the ages of 4 and 6 found that they, too, had a lower likelihood of developing a local reaction requiring medical attention if they got the shot in their thigh instead of in their arm.

Why the vaccine would be less harsh on the thigh than the arm is not known for certain. But one possibility is simply that in children at that age, the thigh muscle is much larger than the deltoid, the muscle in the upper arm where shots are typically administered. If any inflammation ensues, it has more room to diffuse in the thigh, said Dr. Lisa A. Jackson, the lead author of the study and a senior investigator at the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle.

“In little kids the upper arm is very tiny,” she said. “You’re injecting the same volume of vaccine in the upper arm as in the thigh, which is a larger area. I think it’s just that it’s a larger muscle mass.”

The benefits, however, may not extend to other immunizations. The study, for example, also looked at shots for influenza and hepatitis A, and in those cases there was no meaningful difference between vaccinating in the arm or thigh for either toddlers or children ages 3 to 6.

In many cases, doctors choose where to administer a shot according to their own preference. But in the case of DTaP, at least, it makes more sense in general to give the shot in the thigh, Dr. Jackson said.

“Unless there’s a compelling reason not to, I would say veer toward giving the DTaP vaccine in the leg,” she said. “There’s less chance of a concerning reaction if you give it in the thigh versus the arm. So that should be the normal practice.”

Dr. Jackson stressed, however, that the absolute risk of a child having a reaction severe enough to warrant medical attention is still quite small, regardless of whether the shot is given in the arm or leg. The study found that it occurred in less than 1 percent of vaccinated children over all.

Read More..

DealBook: Alibaba's Founder to Give Up C.E.O. Title, but Will Remain Chairman

After 14 years of building up the Alibaba Group into one of the biggest Internet companies in the world, Jack Ma is taking a step back from the chief executive role of the Chinese e-commerce giant.

But Mr. Ma isn’t leaving entirely; he will hold on to the role of executive chairman, he told DealBook in an interview on Monday. He plans to name his successor when his title change becomes effective on May 10.

He won’t be the only one to hand over some of the company’s reins. Mr. Ma said that most of Alibaba’s leaders “born in the 1960s” will pass their leadership responsibilities to younger colleagues, born in the 1970s and 1980s.

“We believe that they understand the future better than us, and then have a better chance of seizing the future,” he wrote in an e-mail to employees explaining his change in duties.

The shift is the biggest change yet at Alibaba in some time, as it continues to ready itself for the next chapter of its existence. Last week, the company said that it was cleaving itself into 25 smaller divisions — to give managers more flexibility.

And it follows the transformative deal that Alibaba struck with Yahoo last year, in which the Chinese company agreed to buy back about half of the stake in itself held by Yahoo, its American partner. Alibaba had long sought to repurchase the shares to help regain control over its corporate destiny.

For Mr. Ma, the decision to step back from day-to-day management was borne of several reasons. One of them was personal: the job is increasingly tiring.

“I’m 48. I’m no longer young enough to run such a fast-growing business,” Mr. Ma said in the interview. “When I was 35, I was so energetic and fresh-thinking. I had nothing to worry about.”

Come May, Mr. Ma will slide into the role of executive chairman, which he said would let him focus on broad strategic issues, as well as corporate development and social responsibility.

It is a move that the entrepreneur said had been in the works for some time. He has been training “a few candidates” among the younger generation for the chief executive position.

Speculation about who will take over is likely to focus on the heads of Alibaba’s biggest businesses, including Alibaba.com, an online market for small businesses; Taobao, an enormous consumer shopping site; and Alipay, an online payment platform.

Mr. Ma’s early departure will give his replacement time to grow into the role, Mr. Ma said. That could be important when Alibaba finally goes public, sometime down the road. Mr. Ma added that the exact timing or other details of an initial offering haven’t been determined.

Until then, Mr. Ma will remain a powerful figure within the company he founded.

“I will still be very active,” he said. “It is impossible for me to retire.”

Read More..