DealBook: Barclays to Cut 3,700 Jobs in Overhaul

8:13 a.m. | Updated

LONDON – Barclays announced a major restructuring that will eliminate 3,700 jobs and close several business units, as the bank reported a big loss in the fourth quarter of 2012.

The overhaul of its operations comes after a series of scandals at the bank, including the manipulation of benchmark interest rates, which led to the resignation of the firm’s former chief executive, Robert E. Diamond Jr.

In a bid to reduce its exposure to risky trading activity, Barclays plans to close a number of operations in Europe and Asia, including a tax-planning unit that has been criticized for tarnishing the firm’s reputation.

“There will be no going back to the old way of doing things,” the chief executive, Antony P. Jenkins, told reporters at a news conference in London on Tuesday. “We will never be in a position again of rewarding people for activities inconsistent with our values.”

Despite the revamp of its operations and a new emphasis on values, the bank plans to retain the majority of its investment banking unit, particularly its operations in Britain and the United States. The division generated roughly 60 percent of the bank’s adjusted pretax profit in 2012.

Barclays will close four business divisions, while another 17 units will either be closed, sold or pared back in response to subdued market activity, Mr. Jenkins said. In total, the expected layoffs across the bank’s operations represent around 3 percent of the firm’s global work force.

The investment banking division is to be among the hardest hit, where about 1,800 employees are expected to be laid off. The job cuts will primarily fall on the bank’s Asian and European equities divisions, as well as its agricultural commodities trading operations. Almost 90 percent of the reductions already have been made, according to Christopher G. Lucas, the bank’s departing chief financial officer.

Mr. Jenkins refused to comment specifically on the position of Rich Ricci, the head of Barclays investment banking, whose name has surfaced in the inquiry into the bank’s role in the rate-rigging scandal.

“No one can predict the future, but I am confident in the team around me,” Mr. Jenkins said. “Who knows what could happen in a year’s time.”

The restructuring plan includes an additional 1,900 job cuts in the bank’s European retail and business banking unit, where Barclays plans to close roughly 30 percent of its Continental branch network.

The reductions have been focused in areas where Barclays does not compete globally with other international banks or where the firm could experience reputational damage like the recent rate-rigging scandal and the inappropriate sales of loan insurance to customers.

“Not much of this is surprising,” said Ian Gordon, a banking analyst at Investec in London. “They are not removing any of the material activities from the investment bank.”

The recent scandals that have engulfed the bank weighed down the firm’s fourth-quarter earnings.

Barclays posted a net loss of £835 million ($1.3 billion) in the last three months of 2012, compared with a profit of £356 million in the period a year earlier.
The results were hampered by the need to set aside additional capital to compensate costumers who were inappropriately sold loan insurance and for small businesses that were improperly sold complex interest-rate hedging products. Barclays also took a charge against the value of its own debt.

Excluding the adjustments, the bank’s pretax profit for the fourth quarter would have been £1.1 billion, almost double the amount in the period a year earlier.
For 2012, the bank reported an annual net loss of £1 billion, compared with a £3 billion profit for 2011. The annual loss resulted from provisions to cover legal costs related to the rate-rigging scandal and other improper activities.

The bank added that it would reduce annual costs by around 10 percent, to £16.8 billion, by 2015. Its share price rose almost 6 percent in afternoon trading in London on Tuesday.

Barclays said it had reduced bonuses across its operations by 16 percent for 2012, compared with the previous year. In its investment banking division, total bonuses fell 20 percent, with the average bonus in the unit standing at £54,100, a 17 percent reduction, according to a company statement.

The bank added that it had cut compensation awards because of risks facing several business units, including the rate-rigging scandal.

In a settlement with American and British authorities in June, Barclays agreed to pay fines totaling $450 million after some of its traders manipulated the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, for financial gain. Some of the firm’s managers also altered the rate to portray the bank in a healthier financial position than it actually was.

The investment banking division reported a pretax profit of £858 million in the fourth quarter, compared with a pretax profit of £267 million in the fourth quarter of 2011. Pretax profit at the bank’s retail and business banking unit rose 17 percent, to £732 million, while pretax profit in its corporate banking division almost tripled, to £107 million.

Mr. Jenkins acknowledged that some of the firm’s past actions had fallen short. He added that the investment banking division would remain at the heart of the firm’s future operations, though wrongdoing would not be tolerated.

“The old ways weren’t the right way to behave nor did they deliver the right results,” Mr. Jenkins said. “Individuals must take responsibility for their own behavior.”

Read More..

The Lede: Latest Updates on the Pope’s Resignation

The Lede is providing updates on Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement on Monday that he intends to resign on Feb. 28, less than eight years after he took office, the first pope to do so in six centuries. (Turn off auto-refresh to watch videos.)

Read More..

Australia to grill Apple, others on pricing

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Apple Inc has been ordered to appear before Australia's parliament with fellow technology giants Microsoft Inc and Adobe Systems Inc to explain why local consumers pay so much for their products, despite the strong Aussie dollar.

Broadening a row between the world's most valuable company and Australian lawmakers over corporate taxes paid on Apple's operations, Apple executives were formally summonsed on Monday to front a parliamentary committee in Canberra on March 22.

"In what's probably the first time anywhere in the world, these IT firms are now being summoned by the Australian parliament to explain why they price their products so much higher in Australia compared to the United States," said ruling Labor government MP Ed Husic, who helped set up the committee.

High local prices and soaring cost-of-living bills for basic services are hurting the popularity of the minority Labor government ahead of a September 14 election it is widely tipped to lose, giving political momentum to the inquiry.

All three companies have so far declined to appear before the special committee set up in May last year to investigate possible price gouging on Australian hardware and software buyers, despite the Australian dollar hovering near record highs above the U.S. currency around A$1.03.

A 16GB WiFi iPad produced by Apple with Retina display sells in Australia for A$539, $40 above the price in the U.S., despite the stronger local currency. Microsoft's latest versions of office 365 home premium cost A$119 in Australia versus $99.99 in the United States.

IT firms and other multinationals have blamed high operating costs in Australia including high local wages and conditions, as well as import costs and the relatively small size of the retail market in the $1.5 trillion economy.

Failure to appear before the committee as ordered could leave all three firms open to contempt of parliament charges, fines or even jail terms.

"For some time consumers and businesses have been trying to work out why they are paying so much more, particularly for software, where if it's downloaded there is no shipping or handling, or much of a labor cost," Husic told Reuters.

Adobe and Microsoft have previously provided separate written statements and submissions to the inquiry. But executives have been reluctant to explain their pricing before a public inquiry.

Apple executives in Australia declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.

"The companies have blamed each other for not appearing. One will say 'we're not going to appear if the other is not going to appear'. So we've cut straight to the chase and said we'll just summons you," Husic said.

Price gouging in IT for hardware and software, Husic said, could be costing Australia's more than 2 million small and medium businesses as much as $10 billion extra.

Husic took aim at Apple last week over local taxes paid by the company, telling parliament that Apple generated A$6 billion in revenue in Australia in 2011, but paid only A$40 million in tax - less than one percent of turnover.

"While they generated A$6 billion in revenue, they apparently racked up from what I understand A$5.5 billion in costs. How?" Husic said. "They do not manufacture here. They have no factories here."

He accused Apple executives of maintaining a "cloak of invisibility", while dodging scrutiny of operations. Apple has been criticized elsewhere for its zealous secrecy.

"Ask anyone who has sought answers from them about their Australian operations and you will hear a common theme. They will not talk," he said.

(Editing by Shri Navaratnam)

Read More..

Grammy audience down, still 2nd highest since 1993

NEW YORK (AP) — While the Grammy Awards couldn't come close to the freakishly high ratings generated in 2012 because of Whitney Houston's death and Adele's smashing success, this year's show had the second-largest audience for the program since 1993.

The Nielsen company said Monday that music's annual awards show was seen by 28.4 million people Sunday night on CBS.

The Grammys this year were packed with high-powered musical moments and, in its awards, celebrated the industry's diversity rather than overwhelmingly honoring one artist. It also had a few water-cooler moments: Which boyfriend was Taylor Swift specifically dissing in her latest performance of "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"? Was Chris Brown flaunting his revived relationship with Rihanna?

The music academy's decision to turn the televised Grammys into more of a showcase than an awards show appears to be bearing fruit, too. The show's audience was nearly 2 million higher than the 26.7 million who watched in 2011. From 2005 to 2009, the Grammy Awards audience fluctuated from 17 million to 20 million viewers.

Last year, 39.9 million people tuned in to see how the industry would react to Houston's death just before the awards and celebrate the coronation of its hottest star, Adele, who won six Grammys.

This year's show featured the musical return of Justin Timberlake, collaborations honoring Bob Marley and Levon Helm, and performances by the majority of stars up for major awards.

The Grammys far outpaced the Emmys, which had 13.3 million viewers last September for its more traditional awards show, and the Golden Globes, which had 19.7 million viewers in January. The upcoming Oscars usually get more than 30 million viewers.

Read More..

Well: Price for a New Hip? Many Hospitals Are Stumped

Jaime Rosenthal, a senior at Washington University in St. Louis, called more than 100 hospitals in every state last summer, seeking prices for a hip replacement for a 62-year-old grandmother who was uninsured but had the means to pay herself.

The quotes she received might surprise even hardened health care economists: only about half of the hospitals, including top-ranked orthopedic centers and community hospitals, could provide any sort of price estimate, despite repeated calls. Those that could gave quotes that varied by a factor of more than 10, from $11,100 to $125,798.

Ms. Rosenthal’s grandmother was fictitious, created for a summer research project on health care costs. But the findings, which form the basis of a paper released on Monday by JAMA Internal Medicine, are likely to fan the debate on the unsustainable growth of American health care costs and an opaque medical system in which prices are often hidden from consumers.

“Transparency is all the rage these days in government and business, but there has been little push for pricing transparency in health care, and there’s virtually no information,” said Dr. Peter Cram, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Iowa, who wrote the paper with Ms. Rosenthal. He added: “I can get the price for a car, for a can of oil, for a gallon of milk. But health care? That’s not so easy.”

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act focused primarily on providing insurance to Americans who did not have it. But the high price of care remains an elephant in the room. Although many experts have said that Americans must become more discerning consumers to help rein in costs, the study illustrates how hard that can be.

“We’ve been trying to help patients get good value, but it is really hard to get price commitments from hospitals — we see this all the time,” said Jeff Rice, the chief executive of Healthcare Blue Book, a company that collects data on medical procedures, doctors visits and tests. “And even if they say $20,000, it often turns out $40,000 or 60,000.”

There are many caveats to the study. Most patients — or insurers — never pay the full sticker price of surgery, because insurance companies bargain with hospitals and doctors for discounted rates. When Ms. Rosenthal balked at initial high estimates, some hospitals produced lower rates for a person without insurance.

But in other ways the telephone quotations underestimated prices, because they did not include the fees for outpatient rehabilitation, for example.

In an accompanying commentary, Andrew Steinmetz and Ezekiel J. Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania acknowledged that there was “no justification” for the inability to provide estimates or for the wide range of prices. But they said that more rigorous data on quality — like infection rates and unexpected deaths — were required to know when high prices were worth it.

“Without quality data to accompany price data, physicians, consumers and other health care decision makers have no idea if a lower price represents shoddy quality of if it constitutes good value,” they wrote.

But, broadly, researchers emphasized that studies had found little consistent correlation between higher prices and better quality in American health care. Dr. Cram said there was no data that “Mercedes” hip implants were better than cheaper options, for example.

Jamie Court, the president of the California-based Consumer Watchdog, said: “If one hospital can put in a hip for $12,000, then every hospital should be able to do it. When there’s 100 percent variation in sticker price, then there is no real price. It’s about profit.”

Dr. Cram said the study did contain some good news: some of the country’s top-ranked hospitals came up with “bargain basement prices” in response to repeated calls. “If you’re a good consumer and shop around, you can get a good price — you don’t have to pay $120,000 for a Honda,” he said.

But that shopping can be arduous in a market not set up to respond to consumers. To get a total price, Ms. Rosenthal often had to call the hospital to get its estimate for on-site care, and a separate quote from doctors. And many were simply perplexed when she asked for a price upfront, Ms. Rosenthal said, adding, “The people who answered didn’t know what to do with the question.”

Read More..

DealBook: Goldman Names Gregg Lemkau as New Co-Head of M.&A.

Goldman Sachs named Gregg R. Lemkau as a new co-head of global mergers and acquisitions on Monday, according to an internal memorandum reviewed by DealBook.

Mr. Lemkau, who has been based in London since 2008, will hold that title along with Gene T. Sykes, who has served as the sole co-head since the departure of Yoel Zaoui in April.

“Gregg will work closely together with Gene, as well as with Michael Carr, head of Americas M.&A., to lead this important client franchise, which is core to our investment banking business,” Goldman’s three heads of investment banking, Richard J. Gnodde, David Solomon and John S. Weinberg, wrote in the memo.

Mr. Lemkau is currently the head of mergers for Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, and was previously a global co-head of the technology, media and telecommunications group. He was previously the chief operating officer of the firm’s investment bank and co-head of its health care banking group.

He also comes from a banking family of sorts. His brother Curt, known as Chip, is a wealth management executive at Goldman, according to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority records. And a sister, Kristin, is a senior media relations executive at JPMorgan Chase.

He will be succeeded as the head of mergers for Europe by Gilberto Pozzi, who currently is a co-head of Goldman’s global consumer retail group. Mr. Pozzi will in turn be succeeded by F.X. de Mallmann.

Here is the memo for Mr. Lemkau:

We are pleased to announce that Gregg Lemkau will become co-head of Global Mergers & Acquisitions alongside Gene Sykes. Gregg will work closely together with Gene, as well as with Michael Carr, head of Americas M.&A., to lead this important client franchise which is core to our investment banking business.

Gregg has been head of Mergers & Acquisitions for EMEA and Asia Pacific since 2011. Prior to this, he was global co-head of the Technology, Media and Telecom Group and served as chief operating officer for the Investment Banking Division. Gregg serves as co-chair of the Firmwide Commitments Committee and is a member of the Partnership Committee and the Investment Banking Division Operating Committee. He joined Goldman Sachs as an analyst in the Mergers & Acquisitions Department in 1992 and was named managing director in 2001 and partner in 2002.

Please join us in congratulating Gregg and wishing him continued success in his new role.

Richard J. Gnodde
David Solomon
John S. Weinberg

And here is the one for Mr. Pozzi:

We are pleased to announce that Gilberto Pozzi will become head of EMEA Mergers & Acquisitions. In his new role, Gilberto will strive to further deepen the dialogue with our clients on their M.&A. strategic objectives, continue to enhance our execution standards and share best practices across industry and country teams. Gilberto will retain responsibilities for many of his clients in the consumer and retail sector while sourcing and executing M.&A. transactions across various countries and industry groups in EMEA.

Gilberto has been co-head of the Global Consumer Retail Group since 2010. Previously, he was head of the Consumer Retail Group for EMEA. Gilberto joined Goldman Sachs as an associate in London in 1995 and was named managing director in 2003 and partner in 2008.

Please join us in congratulating Gilberto and wishing him continued success in his new role.

Richard J. Gnodde
David Solomon
John S. Weinberg

And here is the one for Mr. de Mallmann:

We are pleased to announce that F.X. de Mallmann will become co-head of the Global Consumer Retail Group alongside Kathy Elsesser. In addition to his new role, F.X. will continue to be responsible for Investment Banking Services (I.B.S.) in EMEA.

F.X. has been head of I.B.S. in EMEA since January 2012. Prior to this, he was head of the Financing Group in EMEA from 2008 to 2011. Before that, F.X. served as chief operating officer for the Investment Banking Division. From 2002 to 2007, he served as head of Investment Banking for Switzerland. F.X. joined Goldman Sachs as an analyst in London in 1993 and was named managing director in 2003 and partner in 2004.

Please join us in congratulating F.X. and wishing him continued success in his new role.

Richard J. Gnodde
David Solomon
John S. Weinberg

Read More..

Paterno Family Challenges Accusation of Cover-Up

The 238-page report, which was compiled by a team led by Richard Thornburgh, a former United States attorney general, and released Sunday, said an even larger investigation into the scandal by Louis Freeh, the former F.B.I. director, was “factually wrong, speculative and fundamentally flawed.”

According to the Thornburgh report, the Freeh inquiry, which was ordered by the Penn State board of trustees and released in July, falsely accused Mr. Paterno of helping to cover up Sandusky’s repeated abuse to shield the school from adverse publicity, and wrongly blamed the “football culture” at Penn State for helping foster Sandusky’s crimes.

Unlike a legal proceeding, no one testified under oath and witnesses were allowed to speak anonymously in the Freeh report, which also failed to conduct interviews with “most of the key witnesses,” the Thornburgh report said, including the university’s top executives and Police Department as well as the district attorney’s office in Centre County, where Penn State is.

“Having never talked with these individuals, the Freeh report still claimed to know what they did and why they did it,” the Thornburgh report said.

Since Sandusky was arrested in late 2011, the Paterno family has been adamant that Paterno, who died a year ago, did not cover up Sandusky’s crimes and that he followed university protocol in 2001 when he reported the matter to his superiors.

The university fired Paterno soon after the scandal broke, driving a wedge through the Penn State community where the longtime coach had been a beloved figure. While many students and alumni stood by the coach and his family, the university removed a statue of Paterno. The N.C.A.A. later imposed punitive sanctions on the school and football program.

The Thornburgh report repeated many of the claims made by the family in the past. Freeh, who has declined to address criticisms of his report, issued his own statement on Sunday.

“I respect the right of the Paterno family to hire private lawyers and former government officials to conduct public media campaigns in an effort to shape the legacy of Joe Paterno,” Freeh said. “However, the self-serving report the Paterno family has issued today does not change the facts established in the Freeh report or alter the conclusions reached in the Freeh report.”

Read More..

Insight: Apple and Samsung, frenemies for life

SAN FRANCISCO/SEOUL (Reuters) - It was the late Steve Jobs' worst nightmare.

A powerful Asian manufacturer, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, uses Google Inc's Android software to create smartphones and tablets that closely resemble the iPhone and the iPad. Samsung starts gaining market share, hurting Apple Inc's margins and stock price and threatening its reign as the king of cool in consumer electronics.

Jobs, of course, had an answer to all this: a "thermo-nuclear" legal war that would keep clones off the market. Yet nearly two years after Apple first filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Samsung, and six months after it won a huge legal victory over its South Korean rival, Apple's chances of blocking the sale of Samsung products are growing dimmer by the day.

Indeed, a series of recent court rulings suggests that the smartphone patent wars are now grinding toward a stalemate, with Apple unable to show that its sales have been seriously damaged when rivals, notably Samsung, imitated its products.

That, in turn, may usher in a new phase in the complex relationship between the two dominant companies in the growing mobile computing business.

Tim Cook, Jobs' successor as Apple chief executive, was opposed to suing Samsung in the first place, according to people with knowledge of the matter, largely because of that company's critical role as a supplier of components for the iPhone and the iPad. Apple bought some $8 billion worth of parts from Samsung last year, analysts estimate.

Samsung, meanwhile, has benefited immensely from the market insight it gained from the Apple relationship, and from producing smartphones and tablets that closely resemble Apple's.

While the two companies compete fiercely in the high-end smartphone business - where together they control half the sales and virtually all of the profits - their strengths and weaknesses are in many ways complementary. Apple's operations chief, Jeff Williams, told Reuters last month that Samsung was an important partner and they had a strong relationship on the supply side, but declined to elaborate.

As their legal war winds down, it is increasingly clear that Apple and Samsung have plenty of common interests as they work to beat back other potential challengers, such as BlackBerry or Microsoft.

The contrast with other historic tech industry rivalries is stark. When Apple accused Microsoft in the 1980s of ripping off the Macintosh to create the Windows operating system, Apple's very existence was at stake. Apple lost, the Mac became a niche product, and the company came close to extinction before Jobs returned to Apple in late 1996 and saved it with the iPod and the iPhone. Jobs died in October 2011.

Similarly, the Internet browser wars of the late 1990s that pitted Microsoft against Netscape ended with Netscape being sold for scrap and its flagship product abandoned.

Apple and Samsung, on the other hand, are not engaged in a corporate death match so much as a multi-layered rivalry that is by turns both friendly and hard-edged. For competitors like Nokia, BlackBerry, Sony, HTC and even Google - whose Motorola unit is expected to launch new smartphones later this year - they are a formidable duo.

THE WAY THEY WERE

The partnership piece of the Apple-Samsung relationship dates to 2005, when the Cupertino, California-based giant was looking for a stable supplier of flash memory. Apple had decided to jettison the hard disc drive in creating the iPod shuffle, iPod nano and then-upcoming iPhone, and it needed huge volumes of flash memory chips to provide storage for the devices.

The memory market in 2005 was extremely unstable, and Apple wanted to lock in a supplier that was rock-solid financially, people familiar with the relationship said. Samsung held about 50 percent of the NAND flash memory market at that time.

"Whoever controls flash is going to control this space in consumer electronics," Jobs said at the time, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

The success of that deal led to Samsung supplying the crucial application processors for the iPhone and iPad. Initially, the two companies jointly developed the processors based on a design from ARM Holdings Plc, but Apple gradually took full control over development of the chip. Now Samsung merely builds the components at a Texas factory.

The companies built a close relationship that extended to the very top: in 2005, Jay Y. Lee, whose grandfather founded the Samsung Group, visited Jobs' home in Palo Alto, California, after the two signed the flash memory deal.

The partnership gave Apple and Samsung insight into each other's strategies and operations. In particular, Samsung's position as the sole supplier of iPhone processors gave it valuable data on just how big Apple thought the smartphone market was going to be.

"Having a relationship with Apple as a supplier, I am sure, helped the whole group see where the puck was going," said Horace Dediu, a former analyst at Nokia who now works as a consultant and runs an influential blog. "It's a very important advantage in this business if you know where to commit capital."

Samsung declined to comment on its relationship with a specific customer.

As for Apple, it reaped the benefit of Samsung's heavy investments in research and development, tooling equipment and production facilities. Samsung spent $21 billion (23 trillion won) on capital expenditures in 2012 alone, and plans to spend a similar amount this year.

By comparison, Intel Corp spent around $11 billion in 2012, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd (TSMC) expects to spend $9 billion in 2013.

But component expertise, cash and good market intelligence did not assure success when Samsung launched its own foray into the smartphone market. The Omnia, a Windows-based product introduced in 2009, was so reviled that some customers hammered it to bits in public displays of dissatisfaction.

Meanwhile, Samsung publicly dismissed the iPhone's success.

"The popularity of iPhone is a mere result of excitement caused by some (Apple) fanatics," Samsung's then-president, G.S. Choi, told reporters in January 2010.

Privately, though, Samsung had other plans.

"The iPhone's emergence means the time we have to change our methods has arrived," Samsung mobile business head J.K. Shin told his staff in early 2010, according to an internal email filed in U.S. court.

Later that year, Samsung launched the Galaxy S, which sported the Android operating system and a look and feel very similar to the iPhone.

STANDOFF

Jobs and Cook complained to top Samsung executives when they were visiting Cupertino. Apple expected, incorrectly, that Samsung would modify its design in response to the concerns, people familiar with the situation said.

Apple's worst fears were confirmed with the early 2011 release of the Galaxy Tab, which Jobs and others regarded as a clear rip-off of the iPad.

Cook, worried about the critical supplier relationship, was opposed to suing Samsung. But Jobs had run out of patience, suspecting that Samsung was counting on the supplier relationship to shield it from retribution.

Apple filed suit in April 2011, and the conflagration soon spread to courts in Europe, Asia and Australia. When Apple won its blockbuster billion-dollar jury verdict against Samsung last August, it appeared that it might be able to achieve an outright ban on the offending products - which would have dramatically altered the smartphone competition.

But Apple has failed to convince U.S. judges to uphold those crucial sales bans - in large part because the extraordinary profitability and market power of the iPhone made it all but impossible for Apple to show it was suffering irreparable harm.

"Samsung may have cut into Apple's customer base somewhat, but there is no suggestion that Samsung will wipe out Apple's customer base, or force Apple out of the business of making smartphones," U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh wrote. "The present case involves lost sales - not a lost ability to be a viable market participant."

Samsung, meanwhile, came under pressure from antitrust regulators and pulled back on its effort to shut down Apple sales in Europe over a related patent dispute.

A U.S. appeals court recently rejected Apple's bid to fast-track its case, meaning its hopes for a sales ban are now stuck in months-long appeals, during which time Samsung may very well release the next version of its hot-selling Galaxy phone.

THE WORLD IS OURS

The legal battles have been less poisonous to the relationship than some of the rhetoric suggests.

"People play this stuff up because it shows a kind of drama, but the business reality is that the temperature isn't that high," said one attorney who has observed executives from both companies.

Still, the hostilities appear to have put some dents in the partnership. Apple is likely to switch to TSMC for the building of application processors, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs, Sanford Bernstein and other firms. But analysts at Korea Investment & Securities and HMC Securities point out that Apple will not be able to eliminate Samsung as a flash supplier because it remains the dominant producer of the crucial chips.

Apple declined to comment on the details of its relationships with any one supplier.

Meanwhile, both companies are deploying strategies out of the other's playbook as they seek to maintain and extend their lead over the pack.

Samsung has developed a cheeky, memorable TV ad that mocks Apple customers, and dramatically ramped up spending on marketing and advertising, a cornerstone of Apple's success. U.S. ad spending on the Galaxy alone leaped to nearly $202 million in the first nine months of 2012, from $66.6 million in 2011, according to Kantar Media.

For its part, Apple is investing in manufacturing by helping its suppliers procure the machinery needed to build large-scale plants devoted exclusively to the company.

Apple spent about $10 billion in fiscal 2012 on capital expenditures, and it expects to spend a further $10 billion this year. By contrast, the company spent only $4.6 billion in fiscal 2011 and $2.6 billion in fiscal 2010.

But Apple and Samsung retain very different strategies. Apple has just one smartphone and only four product lines in total, and tries to keep variations to a bare minimum while focusing on the high end of the market.

Samsung, by contrast, has 37 phone products that are tweaked for regional tastes and run the gamut from very cheap to very expensive, according to Mirae Asset Securities. The company also makes chips, TVs, appliances and a host of other products (and its brethren in the Samsung Group sell everything from ships to insurance policies).

Apple devices are hugely popular in the United States; Samsung enjoys supremacy in developing countries like India and China. Apple keeps its core staff lean - it has only 60,000 employees worldwide - and relies on partners for manufacturing and other functions. Samsung Electronics, part of a sprawling "chaebol," or conglomerate, that includes some 80 companies employing 369,000 people worldwide, is far more vertically integrated.

It is those differences, combined with the formidable strengths that both companies bring to the market, that may render quiet cooperation a better strategy than all-out war for some time to come.

Said Brad Silverberg, a former Microsoft executive who was involved in the Mac vs. Windows wars, "Apple had learnt a lot of lessons from those days."

(Reporting by Dan Levine and Poornima Gupta in San Francisco, and Miyoung Kim in Seoul; Editing by Jonathan Weber, Tiffany Wu and Peter Cooney)

Read More..

Beckham weaves some English influences into fall

NEW YORK (AP) — Of course Victoria Beckham had hot cups of tea at the ready at her New York Fashion Week show on Sunday. It was cold outside, and Beckham knows how to take care of her guests, just like she does her customers.

The cozy, refined, do-it-the-right-way vibe made it to the runway. She has figured out how to keep the signature chic that has made her label a fashion powerhouse instead of celebrity flavor of the week, while pushing the envelope just enough to keep it interesting.

The most unexpected looks at the show at the New York Public Library's grand entrance hall were the flashes of bright yellow, including a sleeveless trench; the techno shine she added to pleated skirts that the audience could only see as the models walked; and the long cape-style tuxedo coat. That coat looked like it belonged to a husband or boyfriend and would be draped over a woman's shoulders as she made her way home from a fancy wintertime event. "It's sharp, refined ... feels very sexy."

It's worth mentioning her that David Beckham sat in the front row, as he always does, and then held their young daughter, Harper, in his arms backstage as his wife did post-show interviews.

The designer said she is "spending more time in England, although I miss America, but you see England in the fabrics."

Beckham's opening look was a windowpane plaid coat, and she also incorporated more sweaters and knits into the collection. There was a nod to mod with some geometric, colorblocked shift dresses.

One of the important evolutions for fall is the softer shoulder, which she used to tweak one of her popular zip-back, slim-fit dress silhouettes.

For shoes, she put models in lower kitten heels, made in collaboration with Manolo Blahnik, which was a bit of a surprise for a woman known for skyscraper stilettos.

"I'm always designing what I want to wear," she said.

She also confirmed that she'll continue to show her clothes to retailers, editors and stylists in New York each season, even though her studio — and now her family — is back in London. And David Beckham recently announced that he was joining a Paris-based soccer club.

"I am excited about spending more time in Paris," Victoria Beckham added.

Read More..

For Families Struggling with Mental Illness, Carolyn Wolf Is a Guide in the Darkness

When a life starts to unravel, where do you turn for help?

Melissa Klump began to slip in the eighth grade. She couldn’t focus in class, and in a moment of despair she swallowed 60 ibuprofen tablets. She was smart, pretty and ill: depression, attention deficit disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, either bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder.

In her 20s, after a more serious suicide attempt, her parents sent her to a residential psychiatric treatment center, and from there to another. It was the treatment of last resort. When she was discharged from the second center last August after slapping another resident, her mother, Elisa Klump, was beside herself.

“I was banging my head against the wall,” the mother said. “What do I do next?” She frantically called support groups, therapy programs, suicide prevention lines, anybody, running down a list of names in a directory of mental health resources. “Finally,” she said, “somebody told me, ‘The person you need to talk to is Carolyn Wolf.’ ”

That call, she said, changed her life and her daughter’s. “Carolyn has given me hope,” she said. “I didn’t know there were people like her out there.”

Carolyn Reinach Wolf is not a psychiatrist or a mental health professional, but a lawyer who has carved out what she says is a unique niche, working with families like the Klumps.

One in 17 American adults suffers from a severe mental illness, and the systems into which they are plunged — hospitals, insurance companies, courts, social services — can be fragmented and overwhelming for families to manage. The recent shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., have brought attention to the need for intervention to prevent such extreme acts of violence, which are rare. But for the great majority of families watching their loved ones suffer, and often suffering themselves, the struggle can be boundless, with little guidance along the way.

“If you Google ‘mental health lawyer,’ ” said Ms. Wolf, a partner with Abrams & Fensterman, “I’m kinda the only game in town.”

On a recent afternoon, she described in her Midtown office the range of her practice.

“We have been known to pull people out of crack dens,” she said. “I have chased people around hotels all over the city with the N.Y.P.D. and my team to get them to a hospital. I had a case years ago where the person was on his way back from Europe, and the family was very concerned that he was symptomatic. I had security people meet him at J.F.K.”

Many lawyers work with mentally ill people or their families, but Ron Honberg, the national director of policy and legal affairs for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said he did not know of another lawyer who did what Ms. Wolf does: providing families with a team of psychiatrists, social workers, case managers, life coaches, security guards and others, and then coordinating their services. It can be a lifeline — for people who can afford it, Mr. Honberg said. “Otherwise, families have to do this on their own,” he said. “It’s a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week job, and for some families it never ends.”

Many of Ms. Wolf’s clients declined to be interviewed for this article, but the few who spoke offered an unusual window on the arcane twists and turns of the mental health care system, even for families with money. Their stories illustrate how fraught and sometimes blind such a journey can be.

One rainy morning last month, Lance Sheena, 29, sat with his mother in the spacious family room of her Long Island home. Mr. Sheena was puffy-eyed and sporadically inattentive; the previous night, at the group home where he has been living since late last summer, another resident had been screaming incoherently and was taken away by the police. His mother, Susan Sheena, eased delicately into the family story.

“I don’t talk to a lot of people because they don’t get it,” Ms. Sheena said. “They mean well, but they don’t get it unless they’ve been through a similar experience. And anytime something comes up, like the shooting in Newtown, right away it goes to the mentally ill. And you think, maybe we shouldn’t be so public about this, because people are going to be afraid of us and Lance. It’s a big concern.”

Her son cut her off. “Are you comparing me to the guy that shot those people?”

“No, I’m saying that anytime there’s a shooting, like in Aurora, that’s when these things come out in the news.”

“Did you really just compare me to that guy?”

“No, I didn’t compare you.”

“Then what did you say?”

Read More..