DealBook: American and US Airways Announce Merger Agreement

8:53 a.m. | Updated

Ending a yearlong courtship by US Airways, American Airlines agreed to merge with the smaller carrier, paving the way for the creation of the nation’s largest airline.

The boards of the companies have unanimously approved the deal, valued at $11 billion, according to a news release on Thursday morning. A merger would bolster American’s domestic footprint, strengthen its presence in the Northeast and give it a bigger network to attract business travelers and corporate accounts.

Under the terms of the deal, US Airways shareholders would own 28 percent of the combined airline, while American Airlines shareholders, creditors, labor unions and employees would own 72 percent.

The merger would create a company with the size and breadth to compete against United Airlines and Delta Air Lines, which have grown through mergers of their own in recent years and are currently the biggest domestic carriers. The combined airline will have more than 100 million frequent fliers.

But while United and Delta went through bankruptcies and mergers in the last decade, American has been steadily losing ground while racking up losses that have totaled more than $12 billion since 2001. It was the last major airline to seek court protection to reorganize its business, filing for bankruptcy in November 2011.

The wave of big mergers in the industry has created healthier and more profitable airlines that are now better able to invest in new planes and products, including Wi-Fi, individual entertainment screens and more comfortable seats for business passengers. But some consumer advocates said they worried that reducing the number of airlines would lead to higher fares over the long run and allow airlines to increase revenue by imposing new or higher fees.

The deal, which was completed in recent days, could be formalized as American leaves bankruptcy. W. Douglas Parker, the chairman and chief executive of US Airways, would take over as American’s chief executive. Thomas W. Horton, chairman and chief executive of the AMR Corporation, American’s parent, would be chairman of the combined company, though his tenure could be limited.

“I have been a long proponent of consolidation in the industry,” Mr. Parker said on a conference call. “And this is the last major piece needed to rationalize the industry and make it profitable.”

Mr. Parker said that the two airlines have only 12 routes overlapping out of a combined 900 routes that the two airlines serve together. In addition, he said, more cities would be service: American flies to 130 cities that US Airways does not fly, and, likewise, US Airways flies to 62 cities that are not served by American.

“This is an extremely complementary merger,” Mr. Parkersaid.

The combined airline will offer 6,700 daily flights to 336 destinations in 56 countries. It said that it expected to keep all its hubs.

The merger still needs to pass several steps. It must be approved by American’s bankruptcy judge in New York. US Airways shareholders would also have to approve the deal.

In addition, it will be reviewed by the Justice Department’s antitrust division, though analysts expect regulators to clear the deal. The two companies expect the merger be completed in the third quarter.

If approved, the nation’s top four airlines — American, United, Delta and Southwest Airlines — would control nearly 70 percent of the domestic market.

The merger is a victory for Mr. Parker. Over the last year, he persuaded American’s creditors that the carrier needed to expand its network to compete. In April, he won the critical backing of American’s three labor groups, which defied American’s management and publicly endorsed a deal with US Airways.

The biggest challenge for the merged company, to be called American Airlines, will be to integrate operations over the next couple of years. That is no easy task since airline mergers are often rocky — involving complex technological systems, big reservation networks as well as large labor groups with different corporate cultures that all need to be seamlessly combined.

United angered passengers last year after a series of merger-related computer and reservation mistakes, and late and delayed flights.

Mr. Parker has done this before. In 2005, when he was the head of America West, he engineered a merger with the larger US Airways.

In this case, the merged American Airlines will still be based in Fort Worth and have a combined 94,000 employees, 950 planes, 6,500 daily flights, eight major hubs and total revenue of nearly $39 billion. It would be the market leader on the East Coast, the Southwest and South America. But it would remain a smaller player in Europe, where United and Delta are stronger. The merger does little to bolster American’s presence in Asia, where it trails far behind its rivals.

American has major hubs in Dallas, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. US Airways has hubs in Phoenix, Philadelphia and Charlotte, N.C., and has a big presence at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington.

In reviewing previous mergers, federal regulators have not focused on the overall size of the combined airline but instead looked at whether a merger would decrease competition in individual cities. To do so, regulators examine specific routes, or city-pairs, and look at whether a merger reduces the number of airlines there.

The last time the Justice Department challenged a merger was the proposed combination between United Airlines and US Airways in 2001. It rejected that on the ground that it would reduce consumer choice and possibly lead to higher fares.

Since then, the department has allowed a wave of big mergers that have reshaped the industry, said Alison L. Smith, a former antitrust official and now a partner in the law firm McDermott Will & Emery.

American and US Airways only have about 12 overlapping routes, a figure that is unlikely to set off regulatory opposition, she said. One problem, however, could come up at National Airport, where the combined carriers hold a market share of about 60 percent. There, regulators might request that American give up some takeoff and landing rights before approving the merger.

Regulators sought similar concessions from United at Newark Liberty International Airport after its merger with Continental Airlines.

It is also unclear whether American needs all of its combined hubs. Analysts pointed out that Phoenix was at risk because of its proximity to Dallas, since it makes little sense to have two big hubs so close to each other.

Despite the increased concentration, consumers can still expect to find vibrant competition, said William S. Swelbar, a research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s International Center for Air Transportation.

“We will have four very big, very vigorous competitors in the market,” he said.

Travelers are better served by bigger airlines offering more connecting flights and more destinations, analysts say. Consumers today can easily compare fares and shop for the cheapest flight online, which helps keep airfares in check.

But Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, disagreed. He said consumers would see few benefits to offset the merger’s negative effects — including “reduced competition, higher fares and fees, and diminished service to small and midsize communities.”

Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/14/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Air Carriers Are Said To Agree To a Merger.

Read More..

Well: Afraid to Speak Up to Medical Power

The slender, weather-beaten, elderly Polish immigrant had been diagnosed with lung cancer nearly a year earlier and was receiving chemotherapy as part of a clinical trial. I was a surgical consultant, called in to help control the fluid that kept accumulating in his lungs.

During one visit, he motioned for me to come closer. His voice was hoarse from a tumor that spread, and the constant hissing from his humidified oxygen mask meant I had to press my face nearly against his to understand his words.

“This is getting harder, doctor,” he rasped. “I’m not sure I’m up to anymore chemo.”

I was not the only doctor that he confided to. But what I quickly learned was that none of us was eager to broach the topic of stopping treatment with his primary cancer doctor.

That doctor was a rising superstar in the world of oncology, a brilliant physician-researcher who had helped discover treatments for other cancers and who had been recruited to lead our hospital’s then lackluster cancer center. Within a few months of the doctor’s arrival, the once sleepy department began offering a dazzling array of experimental drugs. Calls came in from outside doctors eager to send their patients in for treatment, and every patient who was seen was promptly enrolled in one of more than a dozen well-documented treatment protocols.

But now, no doctors felt comfortable suggesting anything but the most cutting-edge, aggressive treatments.

Even the No. 2 doctor in the cancer center, Robin to the chief’s cancer-battling Batman, was momentarily taken aback when I suggested we reconsider the patient’s chemotherapy plan. “I don’t want to tell him,” he said, eyes widening. He reeled off his chief’s vast accomplishments. “I mean, who am I to tell him what to do?”

We stood for a moment in silence before he pointed his index finger at me. “You tell him,” he said with a smile. “You tell him to consider stopping treatment.”

Memories of this conversation came flooding back last week when I read an essay on the problems posed by hierarchies within the medical profession.

For several decades, medical educators and sociologists have documented the existence of hierarchies and an intense awareness of rank among doctors. The bulk of studies have focused on medical education, a process often likened to military and religious training, with elder patriarchs imposing the hair shirt of shame on acolytes unable to incorporate a profession’s accepted values and behaviors. Aspiring doctors quickly learn whose opinions, experiences and voices count, and it is rarely their own. Ask a group of interns who’ve been on the wards for but a week, and they will quickly raise their hands up to the level of their heads to indicate their teachers’ status and importance, then lower them toward their feet to demonstrate their own.

It turns out that this keen awareness of ranking is not limited to students and interns. Other research has shown that fully trained physicians are acutely aware of a tacit professional hierarchy based on specialties, like primary care versus neurosurgery, or even on diseases different specialists might treat, like hemorrhoids and constipation versus heart attacks and certain cancers.

But while such professional preoccupation with privilege can make for interesting sociological fodder, the real issue, warns the author of a courageous essay published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine, is that such an overly developed sense of hierarchy comes at an unacceptable price: good patient care.

Dr. Ranjana Srivastava, a medical oncologist at the Monash Medical Centre in Melbourne, Australia, recalls a patient she helped to care for who died after an operation. Before the surgery, Dr. Srivastava had been hesitant to voice her concerns, assuming that the patient’s surgeon must be “unequivocally right, unassailable, or simply not worth antagonizing.” When she confesses her earlier uncertainty to the surgeon after the patient’s death, Dr. Srivastava learns that the surgeon had been just as loath to question her expertise and had assumed that her silence before the surgery meant she agreed with his plan to operate.

“Each of us was trying our best to help a patient, but we were also respecting the boundaries and hierarchy imposed by our professional culture,” Dr. Srivastava said. “The tragedy was that the patient died, when speaking up would have made all the difference.”

Compounding the problem is an increasing sense of self-doubt among many doctors. With rapid advances in treatment, there is often no single correct “answer” for a patient’s problem, and doctors, struggling to stay up-to-date in their own particular specialty niches, are more tentative about making suggestions that cross over to other doctors’ “turf.” Even as some clinicians attempt to compensate by organizing multidisciplinary meetings, inviting doctors from all specialties to discuss a patient’s therapeutic options, “there will inevitably be a hierarchy at those meetings of who is speaking,” Dr. Srivastava noted. “And it won’t always be the ones who know the most about the patient who will be taking the lead.”

It is the potentially disastrous repercussions for patients that make this overly developed awareness of rank and boundaries a critical issue in medicine. Recent efforts to raise safety standards and improve patient care have shown that teams are a critical ingredient for success. But simply organizing multidisciplinary lineups of clinicians isn’t enough. What is required are teams that recognize the importance of all voices and encourage active and open debate.

Since their patient’s death, Dr. Srivastava and the surgeon have worked together to discuss patient cases, articulate questions and describe their own uncertainties to each other and in patients’ notes. “We have tried to remain cognizant of the fact that we are susceptible to thinking about hierarchy,” Dr. Srivastava said. “We have tried to remember that sometimes, despite our best intentions, we do not speak up for our patients because we are fearful of the consequences.”

That was certainly true for my lung cancer patient. Like all the other doctors involved in his care, I hesitated to talk to the chief medical oncologist. I questioned my own credentials, my lack of expertise in this particular area of oncology and even my own clinical judgment. When the patient appeared to fare better, requiring less oxygen and joking and laughing more than I had ever seen in the past, I took his improvement to be yet another sign that my attempt to talk about holding back chemotherapy was surely some surgical folly.

But a couple of days later, the humidified oxygen mask came back on. And not long after that, the patient again asked for me to come close.

This time he said: “I’m tired. I want to stop the chemo.”

Just before he died, a little over a week later, he was off all treatment except for what might make him comfortable. He thanked me and the other doctors for our care, but really, we should have thanked him and apologized. Because he had pushed us out of our comfortable, well-delineated professional zones. He had prodded us to talk to one another. And he showed us how to work as a team in order to do, at last, what we should have done weeks earlier.

Read More..

Well: Afraid to Speak Up to Medical Power

The slender, weather-beaten, elderly Polish immigrant had been diagnosed with lung cancer nearly a year earlier and was receiving chemotherapy as part of a clinical trial. I was a surgical consultant, called in to help control the fluid that kept accumulating in his lungs.

During one visit, he motioned for me to come closer. His voice was hoarse from a tumor that spread, and the constant hissing from his humidified oxygen mask meant I had to press my face nearly against his to understand his words.

“This is getting harder, doctor,” he rasped. “I’m not sure I’m up to anymore chemo.”

I was not the only doctor that he confided to. But what I quickly learned was that none of us was eager to broach the topic of stopping treatment with his primary cancer doctor.

That doctor was a rising superstar in the world of oncology, a brilliant physician-researcher who had helped discover treatments for other cancers and who had been recruited to lead our hospital’s then lackluster cancer center. Within a few months of the doctor’s arrival, the once sleepy department began offering a dazzling array of experimental drugs. Calls came in from outside doctors eager to send their patients in for treatment, and every patient who was seen was promptly enrolled in one of more than a dozen well-documented treatment protocols.

But now, no doctors felt comfortable suggesting anything but the most cutting-edge, aggressive treatments.

Even the No. 2 doctor in the cancer center, Robin to the chief’s cancer-battling Batman, was momentarily taken aback when I suggested we reconsider the patient’s chemotherapy plan. “I don’t want to tell him,” he said, eyes widening. He reeled off his chief’s vast accomplishments. “I mean, who am I to tell him what to do?”

We stood for a moment in silence before he pointed his index finger at me. “You tell him,” he said with a smile. “You tell him to consider stopping treatment.”

Memories of this conversation came flooding back last week when I read an essay on the problems posed by hierarchies within the medical profession.

For several decades, medical educators and sociologists have documented the existence of hierarchies and an intense awareness of rank among doctors. The bulk of studies have focused on medical education, a process often likened to military and religious training, with elder patriarchs imposing the hair shirt of shame on acolytes unable to incorporate a profession’s accepted values and behaviors. Aspiring doctors quickly learn whose opinions, experiences and voices count, and it is rarely their own. Ask a group of interns who’ve been on the wards for but a week, and they will quickly raise their hands up to the level of their heads to indicate their teachers’ status and importance, then lower them toward their feet to demonstrate their own.

It turns out that this keen awareness of ranking is not limited to students and interns. Other research has shown that fully trained physicians are acutely aware of a tacit professional hierarchy based on specialties, like primary care versus neurosurgery, or even on diseases different specialists might treat, like hemorrhoids and constipation versus heart attacks and certain cancers.

But while such professional preoccupation with privilege can make for interesting sociological fodder, the real issue, warns the author of a courageous essay published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine, is that such an overly developed sense of hierarchy comes at an unacceptable price: good patient care.

Dr. Ranjana Srivastava, a medical oncologist at the Monash Medical Centre in Melbourne, Australia, recalls a patient she helped to care for who died after an operation. Before the surgery, Dr. Srivastava had been hesitant to voice her concerns, assuming that the patient’s surgeon must be “unequivocally right, unassailable, or simply not worth antagonizing.” When she confesses her earlier uncertainty to the surgeon after the patient’s death, Dr. Srivastava learns that the surgeon had been just as loath to question her expertise and had assumed that her silence before the surgery meant she agreed with his plan to operate.

“Each of us was trying our best to help a patient, but we were also respecting the boundaries and hierarchy imposed by our professional culture,” Dr. Srivastava said. “The tragedy was that the patient died, when speaking up would have made all the difference.”

Compounding the problem is an increasing sense of self-doubt among many doctors. With rapid advances in treatment, there is often no single correct “answer” for a patient’s problem, and doctors, struggling to stay up-to-date in their own particular specialty niches, are more tentative about making suggestions that cross over to other doctors’ “turf.” Even as some clinicians attempt to compensate by organizing multidisciplinary meetings, inviting doctors from all specialties to discuss a patient’s therapeutic options, “there will inevitably be a hierarchy at those meetings of who is speaking,” Dr. Srivastava noted. “And it won’t always be the ones who know the most about the patient who will be taking the lead.”

It is the potentially disastrous repercussions for patients that make this overly developed awareness of rank and boundaries a critical issue in medicine. Recent efforts to raise safety standards and improve patient care have shown that teams are a critical ingredient for success. But simply organizing multidisciplinary lineups of clinicians isn’t enough. What is required are teams that recognize the importance of all voices and encourage active and open debate.

Since their patient’s death, Dr. Srivastava and the surgeon have worked together to discuss patient cases, articulate questions and describe their own uncertainties to each other and in patients’ notes. “We have tried to remain cognizant of the fact that we are susceptible to thinking about hierarchy,” Dr. Srivastava said. “We have tried to remember that sometimes, despite our best intentions, we do not speak up for our patients because we are fearful of the consequences.”

That was certainly true for my lung cancer patient. Like all the other doctors involved in his care, I hesitated to talk to the chief medical oncologist. I questioned my own credentials, my lack of expertise in this particular area of oncology and even my own clinical judgment. When the patient appeared to fare better, requiring less oxygen and joking and laughing more than I had ever seen in the past, I took his improvement to be yet another sign that my attempt to talk about holding back chemotherapy was surely some surgical folly.

But a couple of days later, the humidified oxygen mask came back on. And not long after that, the patient again asked for me to come close.

This time he said: “I’m tired. I want to stop the chemo.”

Just before he died, a little over a week later, he was off all treatment except for what might make him comfortable. He thanked me and the other doctors for our care, but really, we should have thanked him and apologized. Because he had pushed us out of our comfortable, well-delineated professional zones. He had prodded us to talk to one another. And he showed us how to work as a team in order to do, at last, what we should have done weeks earlier.

Read More..

Gadgetwise Blog: Tip of the Week: Adjusting Facebook Photo Previews

Hate the way Facebook seems to arbitrarily crop photos you post on your Timeline to fit the square preview windows? On the desktop version, you can change which part of the picture shows in the preview when you’re using Facebook through your Web browser.

To do so, pass the cursor over the image and then click the pencil icon that appears in the top right corner of the post. On the menu that appears, choose Reposition Photo. Click the cursor onto the photo and drag the image until you have the crop you desire for the preview window. Click the Save button. Even though you have now made the photo more appealing for friends browsing your Timeline page, the original image remains uncropped and expands into the full view when someone clicks on the preview window.

Read More..

Way of the World: Technology, Trade and Fewer Jobs

NEW YORK — President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech this week confirmed it: The pre-eminent political and economic challenge in the industrialized democracies is how to make capitalism work for the middle class.

There is nothing mysterious about that. The most important fact about the United States in this century is that middle-class incomes are stagnating. The financial crisis has revealed an equally stark structural problem in much of Europe.

Even in a relatively prosperous age — for all of today’s woes, we have left behind the dark, satanic mills and workhouses of the 19th century — this decline of the middle class is more than an economic issue. It is also a political one. The main point of democracy is to deliver positive results for the majority.

All of which is why understanding what is happening to the middle class is urgently important. There is no better place to start than by talking to David Autor, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Autor is one of the leading students of the most striking trend bedeviling the middle class: the polarization of the job market. That is a nice way of saying the economy is being cleaved into high-paying jobs at the top and low-paying jobs at the bottom, while the middle-skill and middle-wage jobs that used to form society’s backbone are being hollowed out.

But when I asked him this week what had gone wrong for the U.S. middle class, he gave a different answer: “The main problem is we’ve just had a decade of incredibly anemic employment growth. All of a sudden, around 2000 and 2001, things just slowed down.”

Academics can usually be counted on to have a confident explanation for everything. That is why I was surprised and impressed by Mr. Autor’s answer when I asked him where the jobs had gone. “No one really understands why that is the case,” he said.

It was a winningly modest reply. But work by Mr. Autor and two colleagues — David Dorn, a visiting professor at Harvard, and Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego — is starting to untangle the two forces that both the conventional wisdom and the academy agree are probably responsible for a lot of what is happening to the middle class.

Those forces are technological change and trade. The easy assumption is that the two go together. After all, trade needs technology — it is hard to imagine outsourcing without the Internet, sophisticated logistics systems and jet travel. Technology is dependent on trade, too: The opportunity for global scale is one reason technological innovation has yielded such outsize rewards.

But in a careful study of local labor markets in the United States, Mr. Autor, Mr. Dorn and Mr. Hanson have found that trade and technology had very different consequences for jobs.

“We were surprised at how distinct the two were,” Mr. Autor said. “We found that the trade shock had a very measurable impact on the employment rate. Technology led to job polarization, but its employment effect was minimal.” Trade, at least in the short term, really did ship jobs overseas. Technology did not kill jobs per se, but it did hollow out those essential jobs in the middle.

The big surprise, at least for believers (like me) in the classic liberal economic view that trade benefits both parties, is the strong and negative impact of globalization on U.S. workers — Mr. Autor estimates it accounts for 15 to 20 percent of jobs lost.

“The rise of China was such a huge change. It really did matter,” Mr. Autor said. “First, China is such a huge country. Two, China was 40 or 50 years behind in technology, so it had a lot of catching up to do. Third, it happened so fast.”

What is striking, and frightening, is the extent to which, at least in the U.S.-China trade relationship, the knee-jerk, populist fears intellectuals tend to deride actually turned out to be true.

“U.S.-China trade is almost a one-way street. This trade relationship doesn’t clearly give you the benefit that you can sell a lot of stuff to your trade partner,” Mr. Dorn said. “If you talk to someone who is somehow involved in the promotion of free trade, they may say that maybe the headquarters of Apple benefits. That may be true. But the first-order effect is of job loss.”

The impact of technology is more familiar. Mr. Autor, Mr. Dorn and Mr. Hanson found that it did not create fewer jobs overall, but it did hollow out the jobs in the middle.

“Technology has really changed the distribution of occupation. That doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with reduced unemployment, but it creates a more bimodal set of opportunities,” Mr. Autor said. “There is an abundance of work to do in food service and there is an abundance of work in finance, but there are fewer middle-wage, middle-income jobs.”

What is challenging about both of these trends, and what makes the hollowing out of the middle class a political problem as well as an economic one, is how different they look depending on whether you own a company or work for one.

Shipping middle-class jobs to China, or hollowing them out with machines, is a win for smart managers and their shareholders. We call the result higher productivity. But looked at through the lens of middle-class jobs, it is a loss. That profound difference is why politics in the rich democracies are so polarized right now. Capitalism and democracy are at cross-purposes, and no one yet has a clear plan for reconciling them.

Chrystia Freeland is editor of Thomson Reuters Digital.

Read More..

Deal Professor: Unusual Moves in Confronting Apple's Huge Pile of Cash

The fight over Apple’s $140 billion cash pile is proving the adage that money can make people do strange things.

And it is not just Apple that is doing things it would not have done before. The hedge fund manager David Einhorn, famous for shorting stocks like Lehman Brothers, has gone long on Apple, betting heavily that Apple’s stock is undervalued — and blaming that eye-popping mountain of money.

While most of us would think that having tens of billions would be wonderful, it’s actually a problem for Apple. The money just sits there, not earning much in an environment of extremely low interest rates. And the problem is only getting worse. Apple is accumulating money at an enormous rate — more than $23 billion in the last quarter alone.

It was a more manageable issue when Apple was a rapidly growing stock, but since September Apple’s share price has fallen to roughly $470, from over $700.

According to Mr. Einhorn, roughly $145 of that share price represents Apple’s cash mountain. This means that the market is assigning a low multiple, about seven times earnings, to the rest of Apple’s business.

Multiples for Google are almost three times as much. Apple’s multiple is even less than Microsoft’s — a company whose revenue largely comes from PC operating software, which some people worry is a melting iceberg.

When it came to the buildup of cash, Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s co-founder and former chief executive, simply ignored a problem he had helped create. Mindful of Apple’s past financial difficulties before his return in 1997, he wanted a fortress of cash to protect the company. So he drew a line in the sand, saying no to dividends. After his death, Apple caved a little, announcing a dividend and share repurchase program worth $45 billion.

It’s still not enough for shareholders who want to increase Apple’s multiple and stock price. The fundamental idea is that shareholders could put this money to better use than Apple can, and that its stock would trade higher without the cash.

The problem is that even if Apple wanted to return all its cash to shareholders, it can’t. Much of the cash is held abroad in foreign subsidiaries. If the company repatriates it to return to shareholders, it would have to pay taxes on it. Instead, the company is letting the cash sit there in the apparent expectation that there will be federal tax relief.

It’s here that Mr. Einhorn enters the picture. He has been buying Apple shares for a few years, and his fund owns more than 1.3 million shares. The hedge fund magnate wants Apple’s stock to earn a higher multiple by dealing with the cash problem.

But Mr. Einhorn is also impatient and unwilling to wait for federal tax relief. Instead, he has a clever idea. At an investment conference last May, Mr. Einhorn proposed that Apple issue $500 billion of perpetual preferred stock free to all shareholders. The preferred stock would yield 4 percent and be freely tradable.

So, how will this increase the value of the company? It’s financial wizardry. If Apple issued debt, the market would be expected to subtract this value from Apple’s worth. But the preferred stock would not be treated as debt, for accounting purposes at least.

The only change would be that Apple’s income would be reduced by the amount of the interest paid on $500 billion, or $20 billion a year. If Apple stays at the same multiple, it would give the company a net worth of $300 billion or so. But now the $500 billion in preferred stock would be added, making the company worth $800 billion.

How can one plus one equal four? It depends on whether the market thinks that the $500 billion is not debt and never has to be repaid. If so, then this amount will not be deducted from Apple’s worth. It’s something that may work in theory in our sometimes puzzling financial markets, but no company has ever tried it.

Some experts are skeptical. Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at New York University, has called the plan financial alchemy and written that it would “not add value to the company, not one cent.” When asked to comment, Mr. Einhorn said, “Professor Damodaran’s analysis brings to memory the old joke about the economist who refused to pick up a $100 bill on the street because in an efficient economy, there can’t be $100 bills lying around.”

Apple’s response to Mr. Einhorn has been equally clever. One would think that the maker of the iPad would just sit above the fray and do what it has traditionally done — ignore its shareholders. But with a declining stock price, that may no longer be a luxury Apple can afford. So, it has engaged with Mr. Einhorn to discuss his proposal. And the notoriously shareholder-unfriendly company has turned strangely in favor of good corporate governance.

In its latest proxy statement, Apple proposes to amend its charter to allow for election of directors only by a majority of shareholders. It also proposes to eliminate a provision called “blank check preferred,” which allows a company to issue preferred shares in unlimited number and type. Almost every company has this provision, but shareholder activists hate it because it can be used as a takeover defense, allowing a company to issue preferred stocks with significant voting rights to a friendly party.

While the proposal to eliminate the preferred shares appears worthy and has been endorsed by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the giant pension fund, this proposal is really about Mr. Einhorn.

The amendment has the convenient effect of eliminating the board’s ability to adopt the hedge fund magnate’s plan. Apple says that it just wants to be a good corporate citizen and shareholders can still vote to adopt Mr. Einhorn’s plan. But let’s face it, Apple would be one of the few companies in the United States to ever abolish its blank check preferred provision.

Apple has not been a paragon of corporate governance. That may not be surprising, given that its board has directors like Millard S. Drexler of J. Crew, who surreptitiously took his company private. And Apple has received negative marks in recent years from proxy advisory firms like Institutional Shareholder Services for giving its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, almost $400 million in stock options in one year.

It’s an odd state of events.

By all accounts, it would appear to be a topsy-turvy world. Apple has turned defensive, while Mr. Einhorn is picking a public fight with a company he is betting on, instead of betting against.

Perhaps this column should have instead started with an adage from the movie “Wall Street” that money “makes you do things you don’t want to do.”

Yet Apple is not doing itself any favors by trying to do an end run around Mr. Einhorn.

He has sued Apple, claiming that the company’s proposal violates the securities laws, but the dispute is “a silly sideshow,” as Mr. Cook put it on Tuesday. Even if Mr. Einhorn wins, it would only force Apple to have a separate vote on the preferred share issue, something it is likely to win.

Even so, it might be better if Apple simply addressed Mr. Einhorn’s proposal head-on. After all, his proposal is clever, but untested. It may work, but it may not. Why should the world’s most valuable company be run as an experiment in finance?

Still, the world is changing. Apple may be a highflier, but its growth prospects are not as exciting as they seemed to be a year ago. Its stock may simply be deflating from an overheated place.

And that’s the oddest thing of all. Despite Apple’s growing cash pile, the company’s value is shrinking. But instead of focusing on making Apple an even better business, shareholders are trying to rescue their bubblelike bets with financial gimmickry, and Apple is engaging in its own gimmicks to defeat them. Even Apple can be consumed by the strange world of Wall Street.

---

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/13/2013, on page B7 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Unusual Moves in Confronting Apple’s Mountain of Cash.

Read More..

Phys Ed: Getting the Right Dose of Exercise

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More..

Phys Ed: Getting the Right Dose of Exercise

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More..

Deal Professor: Unusual Moves in Confronting Apple's Huge Pile of Cash

The fight over Apple’s $140 billion cash pile is proving the adage that money can make people do strange things.

And it is not just Apple that is doing things it would not have done before. The hedge fund manager David Einhorn, famous for shorting stocks like Lehman Brothers, has gone long on Apple, betting heavily that Apple’s stock is undervalued — and blaming that eye-popping mountain of money.

While most of us would think that having tens of billions would be wonderful, it’s actually a problem for Apple. The money just sits there, not earning much in an environment of extremely low interest rates. And the problem is only getting worse. Apple is accumulating money at an enormous rate — more than $23 billion in the last quarter alone.

It was a more manageable issue when Apple was a rapidly growing stock, but since September Apple’s share price has fallen to roughly $470, from over $700.

According to Mr. Einhorn, roughly $145 of that share price represents Apple’s cash mountain. This means that the market is assigning a low multiple, about seven times earnings, to the rest of Apple’s business.

Multiples for Google are almost three times as much. Apple’s multiple is even less than Microsoft’s — a company whose revenue largely comes from PC operating software, which some people worry is a melting iceberg.

When it came to the buildup of cash, Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s co-founder and former chief executive, simply ignored a problem he had helped create. Mindful of Apple’s past financial difficulties before his return in 1997, he wanted a fortress of cash to protect the company. So he drew a line in the sand, saying no to dividends. After his death, Apple caved a little, announcing a dividend and share repurchase program worth $45 billion.

It’s still not enough for shareholders who want to increase Apple’s multiple and stock price. The fundamental idea is that shareholders could put this money to better use than Apple can, and that its stock would trade higher without the cash.

The problem is that even if Apple wanted to return all its cash to shareholders, it can’t. Much of the cash is held abroad in foreign subsidiaries. If the company repatriates it to return to shareholders, it would have to pay taxes on it. Instead, the company is letting the cash sit there in the apparent expectation that there will be federal tax relief.

It’s here that Mr. Einhorn enters the picture. He has been buying Apple shares for a few years, and his fund owns more than 1.3 million shares. The hedge fund magnate wants Apple’s stock to earn a higher multiple by dealing with the cash problem.

But Mr. Einhorn is also impatient and unwilling to wait for federal tax relief. Instead, he has a clever idea. At an investment conference last May, Mr. Einhorn proposed that Apple issue $500 billion of perpetual preferred stock free to all shareholders. The preferred stock would yield 4 percent and be freely tradable.

So, how will this increase the value of the company? It’s financial wizardry. If Apple issued debt, the market would be expected to subtract this value from Apple’s worth. But the preferred stock would not be treated as debt, for accounting purposes at least.

The only change would be that Apple’s income would be reduced by the amount of the interest paid on $500 billion, or $20 billion a year. If Apple stays at the same multiple, it would give the company a net worth of $300 billion or so. But now the $500 billion in preferred stock would be added, making the company worth $800 billion.

How can one plus one equal four? It depends on whether the market thinks that the $500 billion is not debt and never has to be repaid. If so, then this amount will not be deducted from Apple’s worth. It’s something that may work in theory in our sometimes puzzling financial markets, but no company has ever tried it.

Some experts are skeptical. Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at New York University, has called the plan financial alchemy and written that it would “not add value to the company, not one cent.” When asked to comment, Mr. Einhorn said, “Professor Damodaran’s analysis brings to memory the old joke about the economist who refused to pick up a $100 bill on the street because in an efficient economy, there can’t be $100 bills lying around.”

Apple’s response to Mr. Einhorn has been equally clever. One would think that the maker of the iPad would just sit above the fray and do what it has traditionally done — ignore its shareholders. But with a declining stock price, that may no longer be a luxury Apple can afford. So, it has engaged with Mr. Einhorn to discuss his proposal. And the notoriously shareholder-unfriendly company has turned strangely in favor of good corporate governance.

In its latest proxy statement, Apple proposes to amend its charter to allow for election of directors only by a majority of shareholders. It also proposes to eliminate a provision called “blank check preferred,” which allows a company to issue preferred shares in unlimited number and type. Almost every company has this provision, but shareholder activists hate it because it can be used as a takeover defense, allowing a company to issue preferred stocks with significant voting rights to a friendly party.

While the proposal to eliminate the preferred shares appears worthy and has been endorsed by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the giant pension fund, this proposal is really about Mr. Einhorn.

The amendment has the convenient effect of eliminating the board’s ability to adopt the hedge fund magnate’s plan. Apple says that it just wants to be a good corporate citizen and shareholders can still vote to adopt Mr. Einhorn’s plan. But let’s face it, Apple would be one of the few companies in the United States to ever abolish its blank check preferred provision.

Apple has not been a paragon of corporate governance. That may not be surprising, given that its board has directors like Millard S. Drexler of J. Crew, who surreptitiously took his company private. And Apple has received negative marks in recent years from proxy advisory firms like Institutional Shareholder Services for giving its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, almost $400 million in stock options in one year.

It’s an odd state of events.

By all accounts, it would appear to be a topsy-turvy world. Apple has turned defensive, while Mr. Einhorn is picking a public fight with a company he is betting on, instead of betting against.

Perhaps this column should have instead started with an adage from the movie “Wall Street” that money “makes you do things you don’t want to do.”

Yet Apple is not doing itself any favors by trying to do an end run around Mr. Einhorn.

He has sued Apple, claiming that the company’s proposal violates the securities laws, but the dispute is “a silly sideshow,” as Mr. Cook put it on Tuesday. Even if Mr. Einhorn wins, it would only force Apple to have a separate vote on the preferred share issue, something it is likely to win.

Even so, it might be better if Apple simply addressed Mr. Einhorn’s proposal head-on. After all, his proposal is clever, but untested. It may work, but it may not. Why should the world’s most valuable company be run as an experiment in finance?

Still, the world is changing. Apple may be a highflier, but its growth prospects are not as exciting as they seemed to be a year ago. Its stock may simply be deflating from an overheated place.

And that’s the oddest thing of all. Despite Apple’s growing cash pile, the company’s value is shrinking. But instead of focusing on making Apple an even better business, shareholders are trying to rescue their bubblelike bets with financial gimmickry, and Apple is engaging in its own gimmicks to defeat them. Even Apple can be consumed by the strange world of Wall Street.

---

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/13/2013, on page B7 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Unusual Moves in Confronting Apple’s Mountain of Cash.

Read More..

India Ink: Image of the Day: Feb. 13

Read More..