Stocks Trade in Narrow Range

Wall Street stocks opened little changed on Friday, continuing a trend of thin trading and tight moves, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 in range of extending its weekly streak of gains to seven.

The S.&P. 500, the Dow Jones industrial average and the Nasdaq composite index all tiptoed into positive territory in morning trading. European stock indexes were also slightly higher in afternoon trading.

Data showed manufacturing in New York state expanded in February for the first time in seven months, bolstered by a surge of new orders, but industrial production slipped 0.1 percent in January.

A surge in merger and acquisition activity, with more than $158 billion in deals announced so far in 2013, has given support to the equity market as it points to healthy valuations and bets on the economic outlook.

“No retracement of this move is positive — it shows underlying support for this market,” said Art Hogan, managing director of Lazard Capital Markets in New York. He said the flurry of mergers and acquisitions should be seen as a tailwind for the market.

Herbalife shares soared 18.6 percent a day after the billionaire investor Carl Icahn said in a regulatory filing that he now owns 13 percent of Herbalife and was ready to put it in play.

Burger King Worldwide shares jumped 6.8 percent after it beat estimates with a 94 percent rise in fourth-quarter profit because of menu additions.

Read More..

DealBook: Berkshire and 3G Capital to Buy Heinz for $23 Billion

9:07 a.m. | Updated

Warren E. Buffett has found another American icon worth buying: H. J. Heinz.

Berkshire Hathaway, the giant conglomerate that Mr. Buffett runs, said on Thursday that it would buy the food giant for about $23 billion, adding Heinz ketchup to its stable of prominent brands.

Mr. Buffett is teaming up with 3G Capital Management, a Brazilian-backed investment firm that owns a majority stake in a company whose business is complementary to Heinz’s: Burger King.

Under the terms of the deal, Berkshire and 3G will pay $72.50 a share, about 20 percent above Heinz’s closing price on Wednesday. Including debt, the transaction is valued at $28 billion.

“This is my kind of deal and my kind of partner,” Mr. Buffett told CNBC on Thursday. “Heinz is our kind of company with fantastic brands.”

In many ways, Heinz fits Mr. Buffett’s deal criteria almost to a T. It has broad brand recognition – besides ketchup, it owns Ore-Ida and Lea & Perrins Worcestershire sauce – and has performed well. Over the last 12 months, its stock has risen nearly 17 percent.

Mr. Buffett told CNBC that he had a file on Heinz dating back to 1980. But the genesis of Thursday’s deal actually lies with 3G, an investment firm backed by several wealthy Brazilian families, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

One of the firm’s principal backers, Jorge Paulo Lemann, brought the idea of buying Heinz to Berkshire about two months ago, this person said. Mr. Buffett agreed, and the two sides approached Heinz’s chief executive, William R. Johnson, about buying the company.

“We look forward to partnering with Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital, both greatly respected investors, in what will be an exciting new chapter in the history of Heinz,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement.

Berkshire and 3G will each contribute about $4 billion in cash to pay for the deal, with Berkshire also paying $8 billion for preferred shares. The rest of the cost will be covered by debt financing raised by JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.

Mr. Buffett told CNBC that 3G would be the primary supervisor of Heinz’s operations, saying, “Heinz will be 3G’s baby.”

The food company’s headquarters will remain in Pittsburgh, Heinz’s home for over 120 years. Heinz’s stock was up nearly 20 percent in premarket trading, at $72.46, closely mirroring the offered price.

Heinz was advised by Centerview Partners, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell. A transaction committee of the company’s board was advised by Moelis & Company and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Berkshire’s and 3G’s lead adviser was Lazard, with JPMorgan and Wells Fargo providing additional advice. Kirkland & Ellis provided legal advice to 3G, while Berkshire relied on its usual law firm, Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Read More..

Hugh Bonneville presides on 'Downton Abbey' finale

NEW YORK (AP) — The third season of "Downton Abbey" ends this Sunday with a bang.

Exactly what that bang is, we're not going to say, in deference to the maybe half-dozen "Downton" fans who still don't know the shocking truth.

The larger point remains that after Sunday's "Masterpiece Classic" (airing at 9 p.m. Eastern on PBS), viewers must suffer "Downton" withdrawal until next season.

But until then, we'll have our memories.

And what a season this has been! The beloved valet Mr. Bates was sprung from jail and a trumped-up murder charge to begin married life with his bride, the plucky lady's maid Anna. Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham, has gotten Downton Abbey back on its feet financially with an able assist from his son-in-law and presumptive heir, Matthew Crawley. Matthew wed his true love, Lady Mary Crawley. But another of Robert's daughters, Lady Sybil, died tragically during childbirth.

Through it all, Robert's mother Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham (played by the sublimely scene-stealing, Emmy- and Golden-Globe-winning Maggie Smith) delivered a barrage of withering, hilarious rejoinders to virtually every narrative twist.

"I remember my very first scene with her in Season One," says Hugh Bonneville, who plays Robert, lord of the manor. "She's complaining about the new electric lights, and suddenly she put her fan up to her face to shield herself from 'the glare,' and spent the entire scene like that. It was so funny, and I was just, 'All right! There's no point in my even being here. She's just marched off with the scene!'"

Now, as then, "Downton" is a plush, penetrating peek into the lives of the aristocratic Crawley family and their household servants in an English castle of a century ago. With a cast that also includes Michelle Dockery, Elizabeth McGovern, Dan Stevens, Jim Carter and Brendan Coyle, the series this season has drawn an average 11 million viewers each week while spurring another surge of "Downton"-mania, even from first lady Michelle Obama, who pulled strings to get episodes of the new season before it premiered.

"Downton" has even been parsed for its political underpinnings. Last month, Fox News host (and native Brit) Stuart Varney declared that "Downton" celebrates rich people, who "in America today are reviled. They're dismissed as fat cats who don't pay their fair share." Yet on "Downton" the rich people are "generous," ''nice," ''classy" and "they've got style," he said, "which poses a threat to the left, doesn't it?"

It is rare when public television is accused of threatening left-wing orthodoxy, especially on "Fox & Friends" (whose co-hosts Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade expressed surprise to learn the show isn't called "Downtown Abbey"). But "Downton" has a way of engaging people, both the 99 percent and the 1 percent alike.

And, yes, as the wealthy, patriarchal Lord Grantham, Bonneville does indeed exude classiness and, at crucial moments, generosity.

But that's not the whole picture. Robert Crawley is also confounded by the modern world of post-World War I as it upsets the social hierarchy. Meanwhile, despite his indulgence of underbutler Thomas Barrow's shame (it seems Thomas is gay!), Robert isn't always the most tolerant of men.

"I don't want thumbscrews or the rack, but there always seems to be something of Johnny Foreigner about the Catholics," he sniffs to one of his kind during an exchange about religion.

"I don't think I'd have a huge amount in common with Robert if I met him at a dinner party," Bonneville says. "But I like the guy. I like the fact that while he does bluster and he's pompous sometimes, and he makes mistakes, there's a decency and a love for his family underneath it all."

Impeccably clad in a three-piece gray suit and pink tie for this recent interview, the 49-year-old Bonneville, even firmly planted in a 21st-century Manhattan hotel, looks to the manor born. Nonetheless, he brands himself a member of the British middle class — the son of a surgeon and a nurse who once imagined becoming a lawyer — and his roles have strayed some distance from the lofty likes of Robert Crawley. For instance, Bonneville has been affable and bumbling in "Notting Hill" and "Mansfield Park," and downright villainous in "The Commander."

And coinciding with his "Downton" duties, he also played the addled Head of Deliverance for the Olympics commission in "Twenty Twelve," a riotous BBC miniseries that spoofed preparations for the London Olympics.

"There are people who think I've been doing nothing for 25 years, and then suddenly I get this role on 'Downton Abbey,'" Bonneville says with a laugh. "But I've had a really lovely time for 25 years! I've played everything from Shakespeare to sitcoms to period dramas to modern serial killers. I consider myself a character actor, and I do love playing different instruments in the orchestra when I get the chance."

Of course, Bonneville realizes that "Downton" is a good bet for the lead citation in his obituary. He has finally acknowledged it: This show is a cultural phenomenon, not just a fleeting fad. And he has many theories why.

First, the savory writing by series creator Julian Fellowes. Besides, the cast is splendid. The production values are luxurious. And the premise remains rich with possibility.

"This is one of the few settings, alongside a hospital and a police station, where you can legitimately find a real cross-section of society under one roof," notes Bonneville. "But underneath it all, this series is about romance rather than sex, it's about tension rather than violence, and it's about family — both the literal family and the staff as family. It explores the minutiae of those social structures, the nuances of the system as to whether someone's in or out."

Not that he would want to be part of it. He doesn't sentimentalize that long-ago era any more than "Downton" does. And yet ...

"These days," says Bonneville, "we have relationships that are forged, consummated and brought to an end within 24 hours. Back then, the pace of life was slower, and I think we like to breathe out and enjoy that world — albeit for only an hour or so, on a Sunday night."

Just one more Sunday night, for now.

___

Online:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/classic

___

Frazier Moore is a national television columnist for The Associated Press. He can be reached at fmoore(at)ap.org and at http://www.twitter.com/tvfrazier

Read More..

Well: Life, Interrupted: Crazy, Unsexy Cancer Tips

Life, Interrupted

Suleika Jaouad writes about her experiences as a young adult with cancer.

Every few weeks I host a “girls’ night” at my apartment in Lower Manhattan with a group of friends who are at various stages in their cancer treatments. Everyone brings something to eat and drink, and we sit around my living room talking to one another about subjects both heavy and light, ranging from post-chemo hair styling tips, fears of relapse or funny anecdotes about a recent hospital visit. But one topic that doesn’t come up as often as you might think — particularly at a gathering of women in their early 20s and 30s — is sex.

Actually, I almost didn’t write this column. Time and again, I’ve sat down to write about sex and cancer, but each time I’ve deleted the draft and moved on to a different topic. Writing about cancer is always a challenge for me because it hits so close to home. And this topic felt even more difficult. After my diagnosis at age 22 with leukemia, the second piece of news I learned was that I would likely be infertile as a result of chemotherapy. It was a one-two punch that was my first indication that issues of cancer and sexual health are inextricably tied.

But to my surprise, sex is not at the center of the conversation in the oncology unit — far from it. No one has ever broached the topic of sex and cancer during my diagnosis and treatment. Not doctors, not nurses. On the rare occasions I initiated the conversation myself, talking about sex and cancer felt like a shameful secret. I felt embarrassed about the changes taking place in my body after chemotherapy treatment began — changes that for me included hot flashes, infertility and early menopause. Today, at age 24, when my peers are dating, marrying and having children of their own, my cancer treatments are causing internal and external changes in my body that leave me feeling confused, vulnerable, frustrated — and verifiably unsexy.

When sex has come up in conversations with my cancer friends, it’s hardly the free-flowing, liberating conversation you see on television shows like HBO’s “Girls” or “Sex and the City.” When my group of cancer friends talks about sex — maybe it’s an exaggeration to call it the blind leading the blind — but we’re just a group of young women who have received little to no information about the sexual side effects of our disease.

One friend worried that sex had become painful as a result of pelvic radiation treatment. Another described difficulty reaching orgasm and wondered if it was a side effect of chemotherapy. And yet another talked about her oncologist’s visible discomfort when she asked him about safe birth control methods. “I felt like I was having a conversation with my uncle or something,” she told me. As a result, she turned to Google to find out if she could take a morning-after pill. “I felt uncomfortable with him and had nowhere to turn,” she said.

This is where our conversations always run into a wall. Emotional support — we can do that for one another. But we are at a loss when it comes to answering crucial medical questions about sexual health and cancer. Who can we talk to? Are these common side effects? And what treatments or remedies exist, if any, for the sexual side effects associated with cancer?

If mine and my girlfriends’ experiences are indicative of a trend, then the way women with cancer are being educated about their sexual health is not by their health care providers but on their own. I was lucky enough to meet a counselor who specializes in the sexual health of cancer patients at a conference for young adult cancer patients. Sage Bolte, a counselor who works for INOVA Life With Cancer, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization that provides free resources for cancer patients, was the one to finally explain to me that many of the sexual side effects of cancer are both normal and treatable.

“Part of the reason you feel shame and embarrassment about this is because no one out there is saying this is normal. But it is,” Dr. Bolte told me. “Shame on us as health care providers that we have not created an environment that is conducive to talking about sexual health.”

Dr. Bolte said part of the problem is that doctors are so focused on saving a cancer patient’s life that they forget to discuss issues of sexual health. “My sense is that it’s not about physicians or health care providers not caring about your sexual health or thinking that it’s unimportant, but that cancer is the emergency, and everything else seems to fall by the wayside,” she said.

She said that one young woman she was working with had significant graft-versus-host disease, a potential side effect of stem cell transplantation that made her skin painfully sensitive to touch. Her partner would try to hold her hand or touch her stomach, and she would push him away or jump at his touch. It only took two times for him to get the message that “she didn’t want to be touched,” Dr. Bolte said. Unfortunately, by the time they showed up at Dr. Bolte’s office and the young woman’s condition had improved, she thought her boyfriend was no longer attracted to her. Her boyfriend, on the other hand, was afraid to touch her out of fear of causing pain or making an unwanted pass. All that was needed to help them reconnect was a little communication.

Dr. Bolte also referred me to resources like the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists; the Society for Sex Therapy and Research; and the Association of Oncology Social Workers, all professional organizations that can help connect cancer patients to professionals trained in working with sexual health issues and the emotional and physical concerns related to a cancer diagnosis.

I know that my girlfriends and I are not the only women out there who are wondering how to help themselves and their friends answer difficult questions about sex and cancer. Sex can be a squeamish subject even when cancer isn’t part of the picture, so the combination of sex and cancer together can feel impossible to talk about. But women like me and my friends shouldn’t have to suffer in silence.

Read More..

DealBook: Berkshire and 3G Capital to Buy Heinz for $23 Billion

9:07 a.m. | Updated

Warren E. Buffett has found another American icon worth buying: H. J. Heinz.

Berkshire Hathaway, the giant conglomerate that Mr. Buffett runs, said on Thursday that it would buy the food giant for about $23 billion, adding Heinz ketchup to its stable of prominent brands.

Mr. Buffett is teaming up with 3G Capital Management, a Brazilian-backed investment firm that owns a majority stake in a company whose business is complementary to Heinz’s: Burger King.

Under the terms of the deal, Berkshire and 3G will pay $72.50 a share, about 20 percent above Heinz’s closing price on Wednesday. Including debt, the transaction is valued at $28 billion.

“This is my kind of deal and my kind of partner,” Mr. Buffett told CNBC on Thursday. “Heinz is our kind of company with fantastic brands.”

In many ways, Heinz fits Mr. Buffett’s deal criteria almost to a T. It has broad brand recognition – besides ketchup, it owns Ore-Ida and Lea & Perrins Worcestershire sauce – and has performed well. Over the last 12 months, its stock has risen nearly 17 percent.

Mr. Buffett told CNBC that he had a file on Heinz dating back to 1980. But the genesis of Thursday’s deal actually lies with 3G, an investment firm backed by several wealthy Brazilian families, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

One of the firm’s principal backers, Jorge Paulo Lemann, brought the idea of buying Heinz to Berkshire about two months ago, this person said. Mr. Buffett agreed, and the two sides approached Heinz’s chief executive, William R. Johnson, about buying the company.

“We look forward to partnering with Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital, both greatly respected investors, in what will be an exciting new chapter in the history of Heinz,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement.

Berkshire and 3G will each contribute about $4 billion in cash to pay for the deal, with Berkshire also paying $8 billion for preferred shares. The rest of the cost will be covered by debt financing raised by JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.

Mr. Buffett told CNBC that 3G would be the primary supervisor of Heinz’s operations, saying, “Heinz will be 3G’s baby.”

The food company’s headquarters will remain in Pittsburgh, Heinz’s home for over 120 years. Heinz’s stock was up nearly 20 percent in premarket trading, at $72.46, closely mirroring the offered price.

Heinz was advised by Centerview Partners, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell. A transaction committee of the company’s board was advised by Moelis & Company and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Berkshire’s and 3G’s lead adviser was Lazard, with JPMorgan and Wells Fargo providing additional advice. Kirkland & Ellis provided legal advice to 3G, while Berkshire relied on its usual law firm, Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Read More..

DealBook: Big Banks Are Told to Review Their Own Foreclosures

Washington is seeking help from an unlikely group in its effort to distribute billions of dollars to struggling homeowners in foreclosure: the same banks accused of abusing homeowners with shoddy foreclosure practices.

In doing so, the regulators are trying to speed the process after a flawed, independent foreclosure review delayed relief for millions of borrowers, according to people briefed on the matter. But housing advocates worry that the banks, eager to end the costly process, could take shortcuts as they comb through loan files for errors, potentially diverting aid from the neediest homeowners.

Regulators say they will check the work. And banks have already agreed to pay a fixed amount to troubled homeowners, creating another backstop.

According to officials involved in the process, who spoke anonymously because the matter is not public, the regulators had few alternatives.

Last month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency scuttled the foreclosure review by independent consultants because it was marred by delays and inefficiency. Instead, the regulator struck a multibillion-dollar settlement directly with the nation’s largest banks, a deal that includes $3.6 billion in payments to aggrieved homeowners.

To accelerate the payments, the comptroller’s office decided to cut out the middlemen, the consultants, from the reviews. In a conference call last week, the government outlined a plan to use the lenders instead, according to people with direct knowledge of the discussion. Banks will now have to assess each loan for potential errors, which will help determine the size of the payments to homeowners.

The decision to tap the banks for support is the latest twist in the review of more than four million foreclosures, a process that has incensed lawmakers and ensnared the nation’s largest lenders. Regulators are eager to make the payments to homeowners, who have languished for more than a year.

In 2012, housing advocates, regulators and some bank executives suggested the government release an initial round of payments to homeowners, people briefed on the matter said. Such a move might have quelled suspicions among homeowners that the independent review was an empty promise, or worse, a fraud. But the effort went nowhere.

Now, the first payments to homeowners are not expected until late March.

For Judie Lee, 51, a paralegal who is battling to save her three-bedroom home in Lynn, Mass., it might not come in time. Ms. Lee says she submitted a request for aid more than six months ago after a series of botched loan modifications.

“We are in trouble,” said Ms. Lee, who said that she fell behind on her loan payments after losing a job in 2007.

Under the plan outlined last week, the banks will pore over loan files like Ms. Lee’s to identify the worst possible errors. Military personnel illegally foreclosed on, for example, will rank highest on the list. Borrowers who might be current on their loan payments — and therefore did not warrant a foreclosure — will be next.

Regulators will then decide how much money to pay each category of borrower. The worse the errors, the bigger the payout.

The plan, regulators say, offers a more equitable way to divide the money than paying the same amount to each homeowner.

The strategy, though, presents potential conflicts of interests. The banks, in haste to meet tight deadlines, could fail to provide an accurate portrayal of what went wrong. The loan files are also in disarray, officials say, complicating the task for banks.

“The whole process has been a slap in the face to homeowners and a slap on the wrist to banks,” said Isaac Simon Hodes, an organizer with the community group Lynn United for Change. “The latest development shows how there has been no accountability.”

Regulators say the lenders have no incentive to manipulate the reviews. Under the settlement, the banks committed to dole out a set amount. Bank of America must distribute $1.1 billion to homeowners. Wells Fargo owes more than $700 million. The costs will not change, regardless of what the banks find in the loan files in the coming weeks.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is running the review, also said it would perform regular checks on the banks’ work and make sure they adopt controls to prevent errors.

“Regulators will verify and test the work of servicers to slot borrowers into broad categories and then regulators will determine the amount of payment for each category,” explained Morris Morgan, the deputy comptroller in charge of supervising large banks.

By relying on the banks, regulators can part ways with the consultants.

Despite billing for roughly $2 billion in fees in the 14-month review, consultants examined only a sliver of the 500,000 complaints filed by homeowners, people involved in the matter said. Their efforts were stymied, in part, because regulators urged consultants to first scrutinize a random sample of the four million foreclosures before digging into specific homeowner complaints, the people involved said. The decision, the people said, may have undercut the scope of the settlement and potentially deprived homeowners of additional relief.

Consultants were also criticized for a faulty review process.

Some consulting firms, including the Promontory Financial Group, farmed out much of the work to contract employees. Others faced questions about their objectivity. The consultants, critics note, were paid billions of dollars by the same banks they were expected to police.

Some consultants say they sounded repeated alarms about the process. Last spring, a group of consulting firm executives met with comptroller officials in Washington to voice concerns that the reviews were too narrow, according to people with direct knowledge of the meetings.

Other people close to the review say consultants were only partly to blame for the problem. The review process, with its narrow focus, was created by the comptroller’s office in 2011, under previous leadership.

Now, some consultants feel spurned by the regulators’ decision to hand off the review.

“Why did you not trust the banks a month ago?” asked one consultant who spoke anonymously for fear of offending regulators. “And why do you solely rely on them now?”

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/13/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Banks Told To Review Their Own Foreclosures.

Read More..

MacFarlane gets Oscar-hosting advice from Crystal

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Despite getting advice from Billy Crystal and working as hard as he can to prepare to host the Academy Awards, Seth MacFarlane thinks his hosting gig is a "one-off" and that he'll be "flayed by the press" no matter what he does.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday from the Dolby Theatre, where he'll host the 85th annual Oscar ceremony on Feb. 24, the entertainer was alternately confident and self-deprecating.

"I'm not feeling a lot of pressure from myself," he said. "There is sort of a comfort in knowing that no matter what you do, you're going to get the same reactions in the reviews. So I could put on the worst or the best show in the world and I will still be flayed by the press."

Still, he said he's spent five months trying to strike a comedic balance that will satisfy the fans of his animated shows and the comparatively highbrow audience inside the Dolby Theatre.

"I've set myself up for the hardest job in the world because the fans of 'Family Guy' and 'Ted' and the shows and whatnot that I do are expecting one thing. If I deliver that, this crowd will walk out," he said.

He promises to add bite to the show —"The whole point of their bringing me on was to give it a little bit more of an edge"— but acknowledges there will be a lot of ego in the audience.

"You have a room full of people who are at the top of their game — they're successful, they're being honored, they're attractive — and yet this is also the group with the thinnest skin on the planet," he said, "so it's a tough group."

Ultimately, he hopes to hybridize the pointed barbs of three-time Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais with the classy style of Crystal, who hosted the Oscars nine times, most recently last year.

The 39-year-old entertainer said Crystal gave him some helpful advice, including "get comfortable with your shoes before you go on stage."

MacFarlane will sing during the show and is also a nominee for his original song for "Ted," but said he expects to lose the category to Adele.

He's aiming for "very much a classic Oscars with a much more current edge," and said, "It's impossible to work any harder than I have in preparation for this," but he still doesn't think he'll be invited back.

"This will probably be the only time I'm asked to do this," he said. "It feels like a one-off. But I'm still thrilled to be doing it. It's going to be a lot of fun. I will very much enjoy having done it once it's over."

___

Contact AP Entertainment Writer Sandy Cohen at www.twitter.com/APSandy.

___

Online:

www.oscars.org

Read More..

Well: 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..

Media Decoder Blog: Comcast Buys Rest of NBC in Early Sale

9:28 a.m. | Updated Comcast gave NBCUniversal a $16.7 billion vote of confidence on Tuesday, agreeing to pay that sum to acquire General Electric’s remaining 49 percent stake in the entertainment company. The deal accelerated a sales process that was expected to take several more years.

Brian Roberts, chief executive of Comcast, said the acquisition, which will be completed by the end of March, underscored a commitment to NBCUniversal and its highly profitable cable channels, expanding theme parks and the resurgent NBC broadcast network.

“We always thought it was a strong possibility that we’d some day own 100 percent,” Mr. Roberts said in a telephone interview.

He added that the rapidly changing television business and the growing necessity of owning content as well as the delivery systems sped up the decision. “It’s been a very smooth couple of years, and the content continues to get more valuable with new revenue streams,” he said.

Comcast also said that NBCUniversal would buy the NBC studios and offices at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, as well as the CNBC headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Those transactions will cost about $1.4 billion.

Mr. Roberts called the Rockefeller Plaza offices “iconic” and said it would have been “expensive to replicate” studios elsewhere for the “Today” show, “Saturday Night Live,” “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” and other programs produced there. “We’re proud to be associated with it,” Mr. Roberts said of the building.

With the office space comes naming rights for the building, according to a General Electric spokeswoman. So it is possible that one of New York’s most famous landmarks, with its giant red G.E. sign, could soon be displaying a Comcast sign instead.

When asked about a possible logo swap on the building, owned by Tishman Speyer, Mr. Roberts told CNBC, that is “not something we’re focused on talking about today.” Nevertheless, the sale was visible in a prominent way Tuesday night: the G.E. letters, which have adorned the top of 30 Rock for several decades, were not illuminated for an hour after sunset. But the lights flickered back on later in the evening.

Comcast, with a conservative, low-profile culture, had clashed with the G.E. approach, according to employees and executives in television. Comcast moved NBCUniversal’s executive offices from the 52nd floor to the 51st floor — less opulent space that features smaller executive offices and a cozy communal coffee room instead of General Electric’s lavish executive dining room.

Comcast took control of NBCUniversal in early 2011 by acquiring 51 percent of the media company from General Electric. The structure of the deal gave Comcast the option of buying out G.E. in a three-and-a-half to seven-year time frame. In part because of the clash in corporate cultures, television executives said, both sides were eager to accelerate the sale.

Price was also a factor. Mr. Roberts said he believed the stake would have cost more had Comcast waited. Also, he pointed to the company’s strong fourth-quarter earnings to be released late Tuesday afternoon, which put it in a strong position to complete the sale.

Comcast reported a near record-breaking year with $20 billion in operating cash flow in the fiscal year 2012. In the three months that ended Dec. 31, Comcast’s cash flow increased 7.3 percent to $5.3 billion. Revenue at NBCUniversal grew 4.8 percent to $6 billion.

“We’ve had two years to make the transition and to make the investments that we believe will continue to take off,” Mr. Roberts said.

The transactions with General Electric will be largely financed with $11.4 billion of cash on hand, $4 billion of subsidiary senior unsecured notes to be issued to G.E. and a $2 billion in borrowings.

Even with the investment in NBCUniversal, Comcast said it would increase its dividend by 20 percent to 78 cents a share and buy back $2 billion in stock in 2013.

When it acquired the 51 percent stake two years ago, Comcast committed to paying about $6.5 billion in cash and contributed all of its cable channels, including E! and some regional sports networks, to the newly established NBCUniversal joint venture. Those channels were valued at $7.25 billion.

The transaction made Comcast, the single biggest cable provider in the United States, one of the biggest owners of cable channels, too. NBCUniversal operates the NBC broadcast network, 10 local NBC stations, USA, Bravo, Syfy, E!, MSNBC, CNBC, the NBC Sports Network, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Universal Studios, and a long list of other media brands.

Mr. Roberts and Michael J. Angelakis, vice chairman and chief financial officer for the Comcast Corporation, led the negotiations that began last year with Jeffrey R. Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, and Keith Sharon, the company’s chief financial officer. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Centerview Partners and CBRE provided financial and strategic advice.

The sale ends a long relationship between General Electric and NBC that goes back before the founding days of television. In 1926, the Radio Corporation of America created the NBC network. General Electric owned R.C.A. until 1930. It regained control of R.C.A., including NBC, in 1986, in a deal worth $6.4 billion at the time.

In a slide show on the company’s “GE Reports” Web site titled “It’s a Wrap: GE, NBC Part Ways, Together They’ve Changed History,” G.E. said the deal with Comcast “caps a historic, centurylong journey for the two companies that gave birth to modern home entertainment.”

Mr. Immelt has said that NBCUniversal did not mesh with G.E.’s core industrial businesses. That became even more apparent when the company became a minority stakeholder with no control over how the business was run, according to a person briefed on G.E.’s thinking who could not discuss private conversations publicly.

“By adding significant new capital to our balanced capital allocation plan, we can accelerate our share buyback plans while investing in growth in our core businesses,” Mr. Immelt said in a statement. He added: “For nearly 30 years, NBC — and later NBCUniversal — has been a great business for G.E. and our investors.”

---

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 13, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated part of the name of the site where the NBC studios and offices are located. It is 30 Rockefeller Plaza, not 30 Rockefeller Center.

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/13/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Comcast Buys Rest Of NBC In Early Sale.

Read More..

Finmeccanica Chief Is Arrested in Bribery Case

Italy awoke Tuesday to yet another corporate scandal with political overtones, as Milan prosecutors arrested the head of the state-controlled aerospace company Finmeccanica in an investigation related to the sale of 12 helicopters to India in 2010.

The Finmeccanica chairman and chief executive, Giuseppe Orsi, was taken in for questioning by prosecutors, as was Bruno Spagnolini, head of Finmeccanica’s AgustaWestland helicopter unit. Prosecutors also raided the AgustaWestland corporate offices in Milan.

The investigation is focused on whether company executives violated bribery and corruption laws in seeking the helicopter deal with the Indian military.

Prime Minister Mario Monti said Tuesday that the government — owner of a 30 percent stake in Finmeccanica – was prepared to do whatever necessary to clean up the company, the second-largest industrial group in Italy after Fiat.

“There is a problem with the governance of Finmeccanica at the moment and we will face up to it," Reuters quoted Mr. Monti as saying on RAI television.

Finmeccanica said Tuesday that “the operating activities and ongoing projects of the company will continue as usual.” In addition, the company expressed “support for its chairman and C.E.O., with the hope that clarity is established quickly,” while “reaffirming its confidence in the judges.”

The Indian Defense Ministry said in a statement that in “view of media reports” linking it with Finmeccanica’s AgustaWestland unit in Britain, it “had sought information” from the Italian and British governments, but that “no specific inputs” were received substantiating the allegations. The ministry said it was referring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Indian agency responsible for investigating corruption cases.

Italian press reports said two others, residents of Switzerland, were being sought by Milan prosecutors on suspicion that they had acted as middlemen.

A spokeswoman for Finmeccanica in London, Clare Roberts, declined to comment beyond the company’s official statement.

Prosecutors could not immediately be reached for comment.

Consob, the Italian stock market regulator, banned short selling of Finmeccanica shares for Tuesday and Wednesday, after the company's shares fell more than 10 percent in early trading.

The news was first reported by the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

With national elections just two weeks away, the Italian establishment has been unnerved recently by a series of high-profile corporate investigations.

In one, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, a Tuscan bank, has acknowledged using secret derivatives deals to mask hundreds of millions of euros in losses.

That investigation has focused attention on the role played by the Bank of Italy and its then-chairman, Mario Draghi, who is now president of the European Central Bank.

It has also given the former prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, an issue with which to attack his political enemies as he angles for a comeback. The bank is based in Siena, in a part of northern Italy that is a stronghold of the leftist Democratic Party. Mr. Berlusconi, the conservative former prime minister who hopes to be a spoiler in the elections this month, has been trying to lay blame for the scandal at the Democratic Party’s doorstep.

Mr. Draghi asserted last week that the Bank of Italy had “done everything it should” with respect to the bank, adding that much of the criticism was “part of the regular noise that elections produce.”

In another case, Eni, the country’s biggest oil company, said last week that Milan prosecutors had expanded an investigation of alleged corruption at one of its subsidiries, Saipem, to include the parent company and its chief executive, Paolo Scaroni.

In a country that is rarely held up as a technological leader, Finmeccanica’s trendsetting AgustaWestland helicopter division and Alenia Aermacchi aeronautics unit are sources of national pride. Finmeccanica is among the world’s largest aerospace, defense and security companies, employing 70,000 people worldwide and reporting first-half 2012 revenue of about €8 billion, or about $10.7 billion.

Since taking over in May 2011, Mr. Orsi has sought to restore investor confidence by cutting debt and selling off nonstrategic operations, but the restructuring has lagged behind market hopes. On Jan. 18, Standard & Poor’s cut Finmeccanica’s credit rating to junk status and said the outlook was negative, citing the company’s failure to reduce its debt more quickly.

Mr. Orsi’s problems mark just the latest troubling chapter for Finmeccanica. He took over in May 2011 after his predecessor, Pier Francesco Guarguaglini, was himself felled by allegations involving the role of his wife, Marina Grossi, while she was chief executive of Finmeccanica’s Selex unit.

Reporting was contributed by Hari Kumar in New Delhi, Elisabetta Povoledo in Rome and Jack Ewing in Frankfurt.

Read More..