DealBook: JPMorgan’s Board Uses a Pay Cut as a Message

Shortly after the markets closed on Tuesday afternoon, an emissary from JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors walked two flights down to the 48th-floor corner office of the bank’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, to deliver a stark message. The board had voted to slash Mr. Dimon’s annual compensation for 2012 by half.

At first blush, the move appeared to be a stinging rebuke of Mr. Dimon for his failures of leadership that contributed to the bank’s multibillion-dollar trading loss last year.

But the pay cut was actually a message from the board to regulators and worried investors that it was a strong watchdog over the nation’s largest bank, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

After facing criticism for its lax oversight, the board wanted to assert its position as a check on top management, according to the people, who declined to be named because the discussions were not public.

Mr. Dimon, who was the highest paid chief executive at a large bank in 2011, was unfazed when he heard the news. On Wednesday, Mr. Dimon said the board “had a tough job” in assessing how to reduce his total compensation for the year. He called the trading episode an “embarrassing mistake” and said, “I respect their decision.”

The decision came after back-to-back board meetings earlier this week where the head of the board’s compensation committee, Lee R. Raymond, the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil who is known for his no-nonsense style, made a compelling pitch to his fellow directors. The group, Mr. Raymond argued, needed to take swift, decisive action.

While a few members were initially skittish about the depths of the proposed cuts, the board voted unanimously to reduce Mr. Dimon’s pay to $11.5 million from $23.1 million a year earlier, according to the people. The directors also voted to release the results of internal investigations into the trading losses, which largely fault other top executives for the problems.

The extent of the cut took some JPMorgan executives by surprise when news of the compensation was disclosed on Wednesday along with the bank’s earnings, which surged to an annual record of $21.3 billion.

“Mr. Dimon bears ultimate responsibility for the failures that led to losses,” the board said in a statement. It added that upon learning the extent of the losses, he “responded forcefully.”

Still, the trading losses, which have swelled to more than $6 billion, have cast a long shadow over the board and management of the bank. Many of JPMorgan’s hallmarks that Mr. Dimon has trumpeted, from its deft management of risk to a deep bench of executive talent, have been partially undercut by the trading fiasco and ensuing upheaval.

Despite the board’s move on pay, some federal regulators are skeptical that the directors have prowess to adequately police risk, according to several current and former regulators with knowledge of the matter. Mr. Dimon, 56, who successfully steered the bank through the turbulence of the 2008 financial crisis relatively unscathed, still maintains a tight grip on the bank.

Some federal regulators worry that the board, which largely exonerated themselves in their internal investigation of the losses, cannot sufficiently push back against the hard-charging Mr. Dimon. Others, the regulators said, are concerned that the directors lack the financial acumen to rein in risky activities.

At the time of the losses, the board’s risk committee had three members, a smaller group than many of its major Wall Street rivals. Also troubling, the regulators said, the three included executives with little banking experience: the president of the American Museum of Natural History, Ellen V. Futter, and David M. Cote, the chief executive of the manufacturer Honeywell. Since the losses were disclosed, Timothy P. Flynn, formerly the chairman of the auditing firm KPMG, joined the risk committee.

Joseph Evangelisti, a JPMorgan spokesman, said, “This is the same board that brought us through the worst financial crisis in our history with flying colors.”

Since revealing the trading losses in May from a soured bet on complex credit derivatives, Mr. Dimon has exerted his powerful influence over the shape and direction of the bank. He has reshuffled the upper echelons of its management, claiming the jobs of some of his most trusted lieutenants. Two notable casualties are Douglas L. Braunstein, who ceded his role as chief financial officer in November, and Barry L. Zubrow, a former chief risk officer, who resigned as head of regulatory affairs late last year. Mr. Braunstein is a vice chairman reporting to Mr. Dimon.

Adding to the turmoil at the top of the bank, Ina R. Drew resigned as head of the chief investment office shortly after the trading losses were announced. Her precipitous fall was followed this year by the departure of James E. Staley, once considered a potential heir to Mr. Dimon.

To replace them, Mr. Dimon has elevated a group of younger executives, most of whom are in their 40s. Some bank analysts and executives at JPMorgan worry that the group does not yet have the institutional knowledge or experience of their more seasoned predecessors, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

At a conference in San Francisco earlier this month, Mr. Dimon called the current group of executives “the strongest leadership team we have ever had in place.” He mixed his praise, however, with a sharp criticism of others at the bank in the aftermath of the trading losses. “Instead of helping, they were running around with their head chopped off,” he said. Some “acted like children” and wondered “What does this mean for me personally? How’s my reputation?”

At the same time, Mr. Dimon has emerged relatively unscathed. While critical of Mr. Dimon, an internal report, led by Michael J. Cavanagh, a head of the corporate and investment bank, leveled its most scathing attacks on the executives who directly oversaw the London traders who made increasingly outsize wagers in the bank’s chief investment office. “Responsibility for the flaws that allowed the losses to occur lies primarily with C.I.O. management,” the report, which was released on Wednesday, said. Also ensnared are Mr. Zubrow and Mr. Braunstein.

The cuts target Mr. Dimon’s bonus compensation. While his salary remained the same from a year earlier at $1.5 million, his bonus was whittled down to $10 million, paid out in restricted stock.

Still, Mr. Dimon has accumulated much wealth in his years at the bank. He owns bank shares valued at $263 million.

Ben Protess contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on 01/17/2013, on page A1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: JPMorgan Uses Big Cut in Pay To Send Signal.
Read More..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More..

iPhone demand said to be ‘robust,’ recent cuts don’t reflect weak demand







Following recent reports from Nikkei and The Wall Street Journal that suggested Apple (AAPL) slashed iPhone 5 component orders in half due to weak demand,  the company’s stock fell significantly and opened below $ 500 for the first time in nearly a year. The reports have been called into question, however, with many believing they do not represent true consumer interest. Shaw Wu of Sterne Agee wrote in a note to investors on Tuesday, per Apple Insider, that his supply chain checks have indicated that demand for the iPhone 5 “remains robust.” The analyst believes the recent reports are a result of improved yield rates and possibly Apple’s recent supplier changes.


[More from BGR: PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720 could cost just $ 350, expected to launch this fall]






Despite the recent concerns, Wu expects Apple to post better-than-expected earnings for the December quarter led by sales of 47.5 million iPhones with a gross margin of 38.7%. Both estimates are above Wall Street’s expectations of between 46 to 47 million iPhones and a 38.3% gross margin.


[More from BGR: HTC One SV review]


Sterne Agee reiterated its Buy rating on shares of Apple with a price target of $ 840.


Wu’s expectations remain bullish compared to other Wall Street analysts. Stuart Jeffrey of Nomura is the most recent analyst to cut his outlook on Apple stock. Nomura reduced the company’s price target to $ 530 from $ 660 Tuesday morning, citing weak demand for the iPhone 5 and increased pressure on Apple’s margins.


This article was originally published on BGR.com


Wireless News Headlines – Yahoo! News




Read More..

Director defends 'Zero Dark Thirty' torture scenes


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Director Kathryn Bigelow defends torture scenes in her Oscar-nominated film "Zero Dark Thirty," saying torture was an undeniable part of the hunt for Osama bin Laden after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.


The film opens by declaring it's based on firsthand accounts of actual events.


But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and other lawmakers criticized the film as misleading for suggesting torture led to the location of bin Laden. Lawmakers asked Sony Pictures to attach a disclaimer that the film is fictional.


"Experts disagree sharply on the facts and particulars of the intelligence hunt, and doubtlessly that debate will continue," Bigelow wrote in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday.


The comments were Bigelow's most explicit reaction to the controversy so far.


"As for what I personally believe, which has been the subject of inquiries, accusations and speculation, I think Osama bin Laden was found due to ingenious detective work," she continued. "Torture was, however, as we all know, employed in the early years of the hunt. That doesn't mean it was the key to finding bin Laden. It means it is a part of the story we couldn't ignore."


"War, obviously, isn't pretty, and we were not interested in portraying this military action as free of moral consequences," she added.


Bigelow wrote that torture was part of the story and the backlash may be misdirected.


"I do wonder if some of the sentiments alternately expressed about the film might be more appropriately directed at those who instituted and ordered these U.S. policies, as opposed to a motion picture that brings the story to the screen," she wrote.


Last week, Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal responded forcefully to a "Zero Dark Thirty" anti-Oscar campaign waged by Ed Asner and other Hollywood actors, saying "to punish an artist's right of expression is abhorrent."


Bigelow and "Zero Dark Thirty" screenwriter Mark Boal had said previously that they "depicted a variety of controversial practices and intelligence methods that were used in the name of finding bin Laden.


"The film shows that no single method was necessarily responsible for solving the manhunt, nor can any single scene taken in isolation fairly capture the totality of efforts the film dramatizes," they said.


Read More..

Well: Exercise Can Boost Flu Shot's Potency

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

As this year’s influenza season continues to take its toll, those procrastinators now hurrying to get a flu shot might wish to know that exercise may amplify the flu vaccine’s effect. And for maximal potency, the exercise should be undertaken at the right time and involve the right dosage of sweat, according to several recent reports.

Flu shots are one of the best ways to lessen the risk of catching the disease. But they are not foolproof. By most estimates, the yearly flu vaccine blocks infection 50 to 70 percent of the time, meaning that some of those being inoculated gain little protection. The more antibodies someone develops, the better their protection against the flu, generally speaking. But for some reason, some people’s immune systems produce fewer antibodies to the influenza virus than others’ do.

Being physically fit has been found in many studies to improve immunity in general and vaccine response in particular. In one notable 2009 experiment, sedentary, elderly adults, a group whose immune systems typically respond weakly to the flu vaccine, began programs of either brisk walking or a balance and stretching routine. After 10 months, the walkers had significantly improved their aerobic fitness and, after receiving flu shots, displayed higher average influenza antibody counts 20 weeks after a flu vaccine than the group who had stretched.

But that experiment involved almost a year of dedicated exercise training, a prospect that is daunting to some people and, in practical terms, not helpful for those who have entered this flu season unfit.

So scientists have begun to wonder whether a single, well-calibrated bout of exercise might similarly strengthen the vaccine’s potency.

To find out, researchers at Iowa State University in Ames recently had young, healthy volunteers, most of them college students, head out for a moderately paced 90-minute jog or bike ride 15 minutes after receiving their flu shot. Other volunteers sat quietly for 90 minutes after their shot. Then the researchers checked for blood levels of influenza antibodies a month later.

Those volunteers who had exercised after being inoculated, it turned out, exhibited “nearly double the antibody response” of the sedentary group, said Marian Kohut, a professor of kinesiology at Iowa State who oversaw the study, which is being prepared for publication. They also had higher blood levels of certain immune system cells that help the body fight off infection.

To test how much exercise really is required, Dr. Kohut and Justus Hallam, a graduate student in her lab, subsequently repeated the study with lab mice. Some of the mice exercised for 90 minutes on a running wheel, while others ran for either half as much time (45 minutes) or twice as much (3 hours) after receiving a flu shot.

Four weeks later, those animals that, like the students, had exercised moderately for 90 minutes displayed the most robust antibody response. The animals that had run for three hours had fewer antibodies; presumably, exercising for too long can dampen the immune response. Interestingly, those that had run for 45 minutes also had a less robust response. “The 90-minute time point appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kohut says.

Unless, that is, you work out before you are inoculated, another set of studies intimates, and use a dumbbell. In those studies, undertaken at the University of Birmingham in England, healthy, adult volunteers lifted weights for 20 minutes several hours before they were scheduled to receive a flu shot, focusing on the arm that would be injected. Specifically, they completed multiple sets of biceps curls and side arm raises, employing a weight that was 85 percent of the maximum they could lift once. Another group did not exercise before their shot.

After four weeks, the researchers checked for influenza antibodies. They found that those who had exercised before the shot generally displayed higher antibody levels, although the effect was muted among the men, who, as a group, had responded to that year’s flu vaccine more robustly than the women had.

Over all, “we think that exercise can help vaccine response by activating parts of the immune system,” said Kate Edwards, now a lecturer at the University of Sydney, and co-author of the weight-training study.

With the biceps curls, she continued, the exercises probably induced inflammation in the arm muscles, which may have primed the immune response there.

As for 90 minutes of jogging or cycling after the shot, it probably sped blood circulation and pumped the vaccine away from the injection site and to other parts of the body, Dr. Kohut said. The exercise probably also goosed the body’s overall immune system, she said, which, in turn, helped exaggerate the vaccine’s effect.

But, she cautions, data about exercise and flu vaccines is incomplete. It is not clear, for instance, whether there is any advantage to exercising before the shot instead of afterward, or vice versa; or whether doing both might provoke the greatest response – or, alternatively, be too much and weaken response.

So for now, she says, the best course of action is to get a flu shot, since any degree of protection is better than none, and, if you can, also schedule a visit to the gym that same day. If nothing else, spending 90 minutes on a stationary bike will make any small twinges in your arm from the shot itself seem pretty insignificant.

Read More..

You're the Boss Blog: Ten Hard-Earned Lessons About Selling a Business

My last three posts have focused on Holly Hunter and her business sale that went bad. I want to thank Ms. Hunter for allowing her story to be told. Although she made some mistakes, she was willing to talk about them in the hope that others might learn from her experience.

But those mistakes are hardly unique to Ms. Hunter. In fact, many business owners have had similar experiences. The most important step owners can take when they think about selling their business is to make sure they understand the sales process. Once you start down the road, you’ll enter an alternate universe where the unexpected becomes the norm. Dealing with the unexpected is easier if you follow best practices.

If you decide the time is right to sell, here are 10 lessons that owners like Ms. Hunter have learned the hard way.

1. Hire an experienced team of advisers. You have spent years building your business, and you usually get only one shot at selling it. Having a team of advisers — an accountant, a business intermediary or broker, an attorney, a financial adviser and a business generalist — who have been down this road many times is crucial.

2. Use an intermediary to sell your business. Going through the sale of your business can be very difficult. You need an experienced intermediary or broker who will speak with the other party and represent you and only you in the sales process. Sellers who represent themselves almost always make mistakes that cost them time and money. This is not a time to cut corners in professional fees.

3. Make sure your advisers work only for you. As we saw with Ms. Hunter, her business broker was representing both sides of the deal. When this happens, the broker usually ends up working for no one — and problems occur.

4. Accept that the person who buys your business will change it. Most buyers have their own ideas about how things should be done. If your sale involves an earnout or seller financing, you want to make sure the seller’s actions won’t limit your ability to get paid any deferred money that is owed you.

5. Make sure you tie your most important employees to the business. Have them sign employee agreements that can be transferred to the new owner. The new owners may want you to stick around for a transition period, but they will want your main people to stay longer. Making sure they stay and don’t disrupt the company while it’s in transition is crucial to a successful sale.

6. Be sure your business continues to run well throughout the sales process — even when the sale becomes an all-consuming project. If sales fall through and the company falters while the owner is selling the company, it can hurt or even ruin a sale.

7. Be prepared for due diligence. It can feel like a colonoscopy and its real purpose may be to help buyers reduce the price they have to pay, but there is no getting around it. When businesses are getting ready to sell, I recommend  that they go through a mock due diligence process. This can help you figure out where your company’s weak points are and allow you to prepare responses for a potential buyer.

8. Get a personal financial plan done before trying to sell. One of the most common reasons seller’s remorse exists is that sellers often find out that they didn’t end up with enough money to reach their goals. A financial plan will help you determine how much money you need and set reasonable expectations.

9. Know what you will do with yourself after you sell the business. I’ve seen many sellers lose their way in life when they have no place to go. Before the sale, you were most likely spending between 40 and 60 hours a week at your business. You need to find a way to fill that time meaningfully.

10. Make sure you follow best practices even for the little things. Start, for example, by making all interested parties sign a non-disclosure agreement that has teeth. If possible, have an offering memorandum produced. Have a letter of intent in place with your buyer before you start to show sensitive corporate materials. Have a purchase and sales agreement that lays out the terms of the sale but also protects you after the sale from being sued by the buyer, the government or regulatory agencies.

Following the items above does not guarantee a happy outcome. But if you know what you’re getting into and have taken the time to follow best practices, you’ll be more likely to get the result you want. Remember, at the end of the day, it’s about using common sense. As we’ve seen over the last several weeks, it’s easy for common sense to go out the window in a business sale.

What have I missed in this list? What do you think are the most important things to check off as you sell a business?

Josh Patrick is a founder and principal at Stage 2 Planning Partners, where he works with private business owners on creating personal and business value.

Read More..

Schumer Says He’s Satisfied With Hagel on Mideast


WASHINGTON — In a boon for the Obama administration’s efforts to advance the nomination Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the first senator to meet privately with Mr. Hagel, told President Obama Tuesday that he is optimistic that he could vote for Mr. Hagel’s confirmation based on his grilling of Mr. Hagel on a variety of issues pertaining to Israel and Iran.


Mr. Schumer, the most influential Jewish member of the Senate, said he would await Senate confirmation hearings before making his final decision on Mr. Hagel, a Republican and former senator who was nominated last week. But after a 90-minute meeting in the West Wing of the White House on Monday, Mr. Schumer appeared to be mollified on a number of concerns he has with some votes Mr. Hagel made while serving in the Senate and myriad comments he has subsequently made regarding the nuclear threat of Iran and other matters.


“Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel,” Mr. Schumer said in a prepared statement, “I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him.” Mr. Schumer is likely to have influence over many of his Senate colleagues, particularly Democrats, who have been fretting over the nomination. He called Mr. Hagel Tuesday morning to let him know he was prepared to support him.


While Mr. Schumer’s nod is unsurprising, it may be helpful to Mr. Hagel’s pursuit of the defense job, effectively neutralizing the idea that he is somehow anti-Israel. His nomination has been met with suspicion, and even outright hostility, among Republicans and Democrats who are strongly aligned with pro-Israel groups.


Mr. Schumer himself appeared cool to the prospect of Mr. Hagel’s nomination in December interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”


Of deepest concern to Mr. Schumer and many Israel advocacy groups, are Mr. Hagel’s positions on the nuclear threat posed by Iran, particularly his suggestions in the past that a military strike against Iran would be counterproductive. It is a position that is out of step with the Obama administration, which became increasingly hawkish on Iran during the 2012 campaign.


“On Iran, Senator Hagel rejected a strategy of containment and expressed the need to keep all options on the table in confronting that country,” Mr. Schumer said. “But he didn’t stop there. In our conversation, Senator Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do ‘whatever it takes’ to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including the use of military force.”


As a senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel voted against several rounds of sanctions against Iran that ultimately passed the Senate, citing unilateral sanctions are ineffective. On this matter too, Mr. Schumer seemed to find comfort. “Senator Hagel clarified that he ‘completely’ supports President Obama’s current sanctions against Iran,” Mr. Schumer said. “He added that further unilateral sanctions against Iran could be effective and necessary.”


On nearly every other issue that Mr. Schumer brought up with Mr. Hagel — his views on the militant Islamist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, his prior comments about gays, his use of the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to Israel advocacy groups — all seemed to be tamped down in the meeting.


“I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post,” Mr. Schumer said. “But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago.”


On Sunday, Mr. Hagel got a resounding vote of support from a fellow Republican moderate, Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state, who said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” that Mr. Hagel was “superbly qualified.” Mr. Powell’s remarks could well influence many Republicans who have expressed skepticism about his confirmation, although some, like Senator John McCain of Arizona, are almost certain to continue to express opposition.


Mr. Hagel offered to discuss these matters with Mr. Schumer over the phone last week, but the senator wanted to hold out for a discussion in person. Mr. Schumer, who appears to enjoy his role in the catbird seat on the Hagel matter, will also likely help to tamp down criticisms from some groups aligned with Israel, who are not eager to have a fight with the newly re-elected president.


Read More..

AP NewsBreak: Rewrite for National Book Awards


NEW YORK (AP) — The National Book Awards are getting a rewrite.


New rules announced Tuesday include a "long list" of 10 nominees to be offered for each of the four competitive categories before being narrowed to the traditional five finalists. And the pool of judges will be expanded beyond writers to include critics, booksellers and librarians.


The changes are the most extensive since the mid-1990s for the awards, presented each fall by the National Book Foundation, as the major New York publishers attempt to broaden their appeal. The publishers have been unhappy with the selection of fiction finalists in recent years and the omission of such high-profile works as Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom" and Marilynne Robinson's "Gilead."


The expansion to 10 mirrors a recent change in the Oscars, but foundation board members said they had been looking to Britain's popular Man Booker Prize as a model.


"We just basically borrowed some of their ideas," said foundation board vice president and Grove/Atlantic CEO Morgan Entrekin, citing the Bookers' use of long lists and non-writers as judges. "The Bookers do a fantastic job at getting a conversation going about good books. With the long list, for instance, you get this conversation bubbling up about what made it and then about what doesn't get on the short list."


Entrekin said that some of the recent National Book Award fiction lists, which usually get the most attention, had been "very eccentric" and that allowing critics and booksellers as judges could open up the process. The results, he thinks, will be a "little more mainstream," and less likely to include "a collection of stories by a university press."


"I think there are plenty of awards that recognize those kinds of books," Entrekin said. "If one of those books is truly the best book of the year, that's no problem. But it seemed like the judges had been recognizing lesser-known authors for the sake of choosing lesser-known authors."


The revisions cap a year-long process during which the book foundation hired an independent consulting firm to discuss the awards with booksellers, editors, writers and others in the literary community. Some ideas were rejected, such as allowing celebrities to be judges. The board also voted not to limit the number of books a publisher could submit, a suggested solution to the complaint that the time commitment needed to read hundreds of new works had made it difficult to find judges.


"We're asking people to read a lot of books, but some of these librarians and booksellers we hope to bring in are reading a lot of books anyway," Entrekin said.


"Our mission is to celebrate literature and expand its audience and we chose the path most consistent with our mission," said David Steinberger, chairman of the foundation's board and CEO of the Perseus Books Group.


This fall's long list will be announced Sept. 12, followed by the short list on Oct. 15 and the winners on Nov. 20.


The National Book Awards have changed several times since being founded in 1950. Winners, who have included William Faulkner, Ralph Ellison and Saul Bellow, were originally announced in advance of the ceremony. The number of categories and nominees have expanded and contracted, with 17 finalists for nonfiction in 1957 and more than 20 competitive categories in the early 1980s.


Awards for translation, "contemporary thought" and first novel have been added, then dropped. For a brief time, even the awards' name was changed, to the American Book Awards.


The format had been stable in recent years: competitive awards given for fiction, nonfiction, poetry and young people's literature, and five finalists announced for each category, picked by five-judge panels of writers that change annually. Over the past two decades, the National Book Foundation has attempted to draw more attention to the actual ceremony, bringing in such celebrities as Steve Martin and Andy Borowitz to host and moving the venue from a Marriott hotel ballroom to the more upscale Cipriani Wall Street.


Like the Academy Awards or the Grammys, the National Book Awards ceremony is an industry's showcase for itself, a balance between rewarding excellence and increasing sales that ideally achieves both. Major publishers are directly invested. They're represented on the board of the National Book Foundation and pay thousands of dollars for tables at the ceremony.


Ironically, publishers were happy with the fiction nominees of 2012, the last group to be voted on under the old rules. The finalists included a mix of well-known writers (Louise Erdrich, Junot Diaz, Dave Eggers) and debut novelists (Ben Fountain and Kevin Powers).


For years, foundation executive director Harold Augenbraum has issued oral instructions to judges that they should not pick books based on the publisher or commercial success or the author's reputation. In 2012, the point was reinforced in written guidelines that stated "fame or obscurity, small press or large, should have no bearing" on their decisions.


"I have no idea if that made any difference," Augenbraum said. "In fact, one judge thought the rules meant not to overlook the smaller presses."


Read More..

Well: How to Go Vegan

When I first heard former President Bill Clinton talk about his vegan diet, I was inspired to make the switch myself. After all, if a man with a penchant for fast-food burgers and Southern cooking could go vegan, surely I could too.

At the grocery store, I stocked up on vegan foods, including almond milk (that was the presidential recommendation), and faux turkey and cheese to replicate my daughter’s favorite sandwich. But despite my good intentions, my cold-turkey attempt to give up, well, turkey (as well as other meats, dairy and eggs) didn’t go well. My daughter and I couldn’t stand the taste of almond milk, and the fake meat and cheese were unappealing.

Since then, I’ve spoken with numerous vegan chefs and diners who say it can be a challenge to change a lifetime of eating habits overnight. They offer the following advice for stocking your vegan pantry and finding replacements for key foods like cheese and other dairy products.

NONDAIRY MILK Taste all of them to find your favorite. Coconut and almond milks (particularly canned coconut milk) are thicker and good to use in cooking, while rice milk is thinner and is good for people who are allergic to nuts or soy. My daughter and I both prefer the taste of soy milk and use it in regular or vanilla flavor for fruit smoothies and breakfast cereal.

NONDAIRY CHEESE Cheese substitutes are available under the brand names Daiya, Tofutti and Follow Your Heart, among others, but many vegans say there’s no fake cheese that satisfies as well as the real thing. Rather than use a packaged product, vegan chefs prefer to make homemade substitutes using cashews, tofu, miso or nutritional yeast. At Candle 79, a popular New York vegan restaurant, the filling for saffron ravioli with wild mushrooms and cashew cheese is made with cashews soaked overnight and then blended with lemon juice, olive oil, water and salt.

THINK CREAMY, NOT CHEESY Creaminess and richness can often be achieved without a cheese substitute. For instance, Chloe Coscarelli, a vegan chef and the author of “Chloe’s Kitchen,” has created a pizza with caramelized onion and butternut squash that will make you forget it doesn’t have cheese; the secret is white-bean and garlic purée. She also offers a creamy, but dairy-free, avocado pesto pasta. My daughter and I have discovered we actually prefer the rich flavor of butternut squash ravioli, which can be found frozen and fresh in supermarkets, to cheese-filled ravioli.

NUTRITIONAL YEAST The name is unappetizing, but many vegan chefs swear by it: it’s a natural food with a roasted, nutty, cheeselike flavor. Ms. Coscarelli uses nutritional yeast flakes in her “best ever” baked macaroni and cheese (found in her cookbook). “I’ve served this to die-hard cheese lovers,” she told me, “and everyone agrees it is comparable, if not better.”

Susan Voisin’s Web site, Fat Free Vegan Kitchen, offers a nice primer on nutritional yeast, noting that it’s a fungus (think mushrooms!) that is grown on molasses and then harvested and dried with heat. (Baking yeast is an entirely different product.) Nutritional yeasts can be an acquired taste, she said, so start with small amounts, sprinkling on popcorn, stirring into mashed potatoes, grinding with almonds for a Parmesan substitute or combining with tofu to make an eggless omelet. It can be found in Whole Foods, in the bulk aisle of natural-foods markets or online.

BUTTER This is an easy fix. Vegan margarines like Earth Balance are made from a blend of oils and are free of trans fats. Varieties include soy-free, whipped and olive oil.

EGGS Ms. Coscarelli, who won the Food Network’s Cupcake Wars with vegan cupcakes, says vinegar and baking soda can help baked goods bind together and rise, creating a moist and fluffy cake without eggs. Cornstarch can substitute for eggs to thicken puddings and sauces. Vegan pancakes are made with a tablespoon of baking powder instead of eggs. Frittatas and omelets can be replicated with tofu.

Finally, don’t try to replicate your favorite meaty foods right away. If you love a juicy hamburger, meatloaf or ham sandwich, you are not going to find a meat-free version that tastes the same. Ms. Voisin advises new vegans to start slow and eat a few vegan meals a week. Stock your pantry with lots of grains, lentils and beans and pile your plate with vegetables. To veganize a recipe, start with a dish that is mostly vegan already — like spaghetti — and use vegetables or a meat substitute for the sauce.

“Trying to recapture something and find an exact substitute is really hard,” she said. “A lot of people will try a vegetarian meatloaf right after they become vegetarian, and they hate it. But after you get away from eating meat for a while, you’ll find you start to develop other tastes, and the flavor of a lentil loaf with seasonings will taste great to you. It won’t taste like meat loaf, but you’ll appreciate it for itself.”

Ms. Voisin notes that she became a vegetarian and then vegan while living in a small town in South Carolina; she now lives in Jackson, Miss.

“If I can be a vegan in these not-quite-vegan-centric places, you can do it anywhere,” she said. “I think people who try to do it all at once overnight are more apt to fail. It’s a learning process.”


What are your tips for vegan cooking and eating? Share your suggestions on ingredients, recipes and strategies by posting a comment below or tweeting with the hashtag #vegantips.

Read More..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More..