A Transfer of Power Begins in China

Military delegates arrived for the 18th Communist Party Congress at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Thursday. The weeklong meeting precedes the naming of China’s top leader, who will replace Hu Jintao. The meeting also introduces a new generation of party leaders.

Read More..

DealBook: On Wall Street, Time to Mend Fences With Obama

Del Frisco’s, an expensive steakhouse with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the Boston harbor, was a festive scene on Tuesday evening. The hedge fund billionaires Steven A. Cohen, Paul Singer and Daniel Loeb were among the titans of finance there dining among the gray velvet banquettes before heading several blocks away to what they hoped would be a victory party for their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

The next morning was a cold, sobering one for these executives.

Few industries have made such a one-sided bet as Wall Street did in opposing President Obama and supporting his Republican rival. The top five sources of contributions to Mr. Romney, a former top private equity executive, were big banks like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wealthy financiers — led by hedge fund investors — were the biggest group of givers to the main “super PAC” backing Mr. Romney, providing almost $33 million, and gave generously to outside groups in races around the country.

On Wednesday, Mr. Loeb, who had supported Mr. Obama in 2008, was sanguine. “You win some, you lose some,” he said in an interview. “We can all disagree. I have friends and we have spirited discussions. Sure, I am not getting invited to the White House anytime soon, but as citizens of the country we are all friendly.”

Wall Street, however, now has to come to terms with an administration it has vilified. What Washington does next will be critically important for the industry, as regulatory agencies work to put their final stamp on financial regulations and as tax increases and spending cuts are set to take effect in the new year unless a deal to avert them is reached. To not have a friend in the White House at this time is one thing, but to have an enemy is quite another.

“Wall Street is now going to have to figure out how to make this relationship work,” said Glenn Schorr, an analyst who follows the big banks for the investment bank Nomura. “It’s not impossible, but it’s not the starting point they had hoped for.”

Traditionally, the financial industry has tended to support Republican candidates, but, being pragmatic about power, has also donated to Democrats. That script got a rewrite in 2008, when many on Wall Street supported Mr. Obama as an intelligent leader for a country reeling from the financial crisis. Goldman employees were the leading source of campaign donations for Mr. Obama, who reaped far more contributions — roughly $16 million — from Wall Street than did his opponent, John McCain.

The love affair between Wall Street and Mr. Obama soured soon after he took office and championed an overhaul in financial regulations that became the Dodd-Frank Act.

Some financial executives complained that in meetings with the president, they found him disinterested and disengaged, while others on Wall Street never forgave Mr. Obama for calling them “fat cats.”

The disillusionment with the president spawned reams of critical commentary from Wall Street executives.

“So long as our leaders tell us that we must trust them to regulate and redistribute our way back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economic quagmire,” Mr. Loeb wrote in one letter to his investors.

The rhetoric at times became extreme, like the time Steven A. Schwarzman, co-founder of the private equity firm Blackstone Group, compared a tax proposal to “when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” (Mr. Schwarzman later apologized for the remark.)

Mr. Loeb was not alone in switching allegiances in the recent presidential race. Hedge fund executives like Leon Cooperman who had supported Mr. Obama in 2008 were big backers of Mr. Romney in 2012. And Wall Street chieftains like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, who have publicly been Democrats in the past, kept a low profile during this election. But their firms’ employees gave money to Mr. Romney in waves.

Starting over with the Obama White House will not be easy. One senior Wall Street lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity said Wall Street “made a bad mistake” in pushing so hard for Mr. Romney. “They are going to pay a price,” he said. “It will soften over time, but there will be a price.”

Mr. Obama is not without supporters on Wall Street. Prominent executives like Hamilton James of Blackstone, and Robert Wolf, a former top banker at UBS, were in Chicago on Tuesday night, celebrating with the president.

“What we learned is the people on Wall Street have one vote just like everyone else,” Mr. Wolf said. Still, while the support Wall Street gave Mr. Romney is undeniable, Mr. Wolf said, “Mr. Obama wants a healthy private sector, and that includes Wall Street.

“If you look at fiscal reform, infrastructure, immigration and education, they are all bipartisan issues and are more aligned than some people make it seem.”

Reshma Saujani, a former hedge fund lawyer who was among Mr. Obama’s top bundlers this year and is planning to run for city office next year, agreed.

“Most people in the financial services sector are social liberals who support gay marriage and believe in a woman’s right to choose, so I think many of them will swing back to Democrats in the future,” she said.

---

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 8, 2012

An earlier version of this article misidentified Reshma Saujani as a male.

Read More..

After Loss, Fight to Label Modified Food Continues

LOS ANGELES — Advocates for the labeling of genetically modified food vowed to carry their fight to other states and to the federal government after suffering a defeat in California on Tuesday.

A ballot measure that would have made California the first state in the nation to require such labeling was defeated, 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent. Support for the initiative, which polls said once was greater than 60 percent, crumbled over the last month under a barrage of negative advertisements paid for by food and biotechnology companies.

The backers of the measure, known as Proposition 37, said on Wednesday that they were encouraged it had garnered 4.3 million votes, even though they were outspent about five-to-one by opponents. They are now gathering signatures to place a similar measure on the ballot in Washington State next year.

Declaring that more than four million Californians are “on record believing we have a right to know what is in our food,” Dave Murphy, co-chairman of the Proposition 37 campaign and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, an advocacy group, said on Wednesday: “We fundamentally believe this is a dynamic moment for the food movement and we’re going forward.”

Still, there is no doubt the defeat in California has robbed the movement of some momentum. Until Tuesday’s vote, labeling proponents had been saying that a victory in California, not a defeat, would spur action in other states and at the federal level.

The defeat greatly reduces the chances that labels will be required, according to L. Val Giddings, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington organization supporting policies that favor innovation. “I see little potential that the defeat in California could result in any increase in pressure for labels. ”

Dr. Giddings, who is a supporter of biotech crops, said it would now be more difficult for labeling proponents to raise money. “What justification can they present to their funders to pour more money down this drain?” he said.

The election in California was closely watched because it had national implications. It could have led to a reduction in the use of genetically modified crops, which account for more than 80 percent of the corn, soybeans and sugar beets grown in the United States. That is because food companies, fearing that some consumers would shun products labeled genetically engineered, would instead reformulate their products to avoid such ingredients.

With so much at stake, food and biotechnology companies amassed $46 million to defeat the measure, according to MapLight, an organization that tracks campaign contributions. Monsanto, the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million. Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola each contributed at least $1.7 million.

The backers of Proposition 37 raised only $9.2 million, mainly from the organic and natural foods business.

The proponents argued that people have a right to know what is in their food. They said that genetically engineered crops have not been adequately tested and that dozens of countries require labeling.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of a food just because it is genetically modified, saying there is no material difference between such foods and their conventional counterparts.

The big food and biotechnology companies argued that numerous expert reviews have shown the crops to be safe. For the most part, they did not directly attack the notion of consumers’ right to know. Rather they said Proposition 37 was worded in a way that would lead to red tape, increases in food prices and numerous lawsuits against food companies and supermarkets.

Some backers of labeling will shift their focus to Washington, hoping to get the F.D.A. to change its mind and require labeling.

“We think that attention is now going to shift back to Washington, with a whole lot more to discuss and a whole lot more people interested,” said Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield, an organic yogurt company.

Mr. Hirshberg is also chairman of Just Label It, a group that submitted a petition with more than one million signatures to the F.D.A. asking it to require labeling. So far, however, the F.D.A. has shown little propensity to overturn its policy. And bills in Congress to require labeling have failed to gain much support.

Proposition 37 has no doubt raised awareness, however, which might prompt some consumers to seek foods that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients.

“Everything you buy in the grocery is a vote,” said Sara Hadden of Hermosa Beach, who organized street-corner rallies in favor of Proposition 37. “That’s the vote that really counts.”

One question is whether food firms, having narrowly escaped a disruption of their business on Tuesday, will make changes on their own — like voluntarily labeling or reducing their use of genetically modified crops.

If that is being considered, the food companies are not letting on. In a statement Wednesday, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents big food companies, called the defeat of Proposition 37 “a big win for California consumers, taxpayers, businesses and farmers.”

Read More..

After Loss, Fight to Label Modified Food Continues

LOS ANGELES — Advocates for the labeling of genetically modified food vowed to carry their fight to other states and to the federal government after suffering a defeat in California on Tuesday.

A ballot measure that would have made California the first state in the nation to require such labeling was defeated, 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent. Support for the initiative, which polls said once was greater than 60 percent, crumbled over the last month under a barrage of negative advertisements paid for by food and biotechnology companies.

The backers of the measure, known as Proposition 37, said on Wednesday that they were encouraged it had garnered 4.3 million votes, even though they were outspent about five-to-one by opponents. They are now gathering signatures to place a similar measure on the ballot in Washington State next year.

Declaring that more than four million Californians are “on record believing we have a right to know what is in our food,” Dave Murphy, co-chairman of the Proposition 37 campaign and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, an advocacy group, said on Wednesday: “We fundamentally believe this is a dynamic moment for the food movement and we’re going forward.”

Still, there is no doubt the defeat in California has robbed the movement of some momentum. Until Tuesday’s vote, labeling proponents had been saying that a victory in California, not a defeat, would spur action in other states and at the federal level.

The defeat greatly reduces the chances that labels will be required, according to L. Val Giddings, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington organization supporting policies that favor innovation. “I see little potential that the defeat in California could result in any increase in pressure for labels. ”

Dr. Giddings, who is a supporter of biotech crops, said it would now be more difficult for labeling proponents to raise money. “What justification can they present to their funders to pour more money down this drain?” he said.

The election in California was closely watched because it had national implications. It could have led to a reduction in the use of genetically modified crops, which account for more than 80 percent of the corn, soybeans and sugar beets grown in the United States. That is because food companies, fearing that some consumers would shun products labeled genetically engineered, would instead reformulate their products to avoid such ingredients.

With so much at stake, food and biotechnology companies amassed $46 million to defeat the measure, according to MapLight, an organization that tracks campaign contributions. Monsanto, the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million. Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola each contributed at least $1.7 million.

The backers of Proposition 37 raised only $9.2 million, mainly from the organic and natural foods business.

The proponents argued that people have a right to know what is in their food. They said that genetically engineered crops have not been adequately tested and that dozens of countries require labeling.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of a food just because it is genetically modified, saying there is no material difference between such foods and their conventional counterparts.

The big food and biotechnology companies argued that numerous expert reviews have shown the crops to be safe. For the most part, they did not directly attack the notion of consumers’ right to know. Rather they said Proposition 37 was worded in a way that would lead to red tape, increases in food prices and numerous lawsuits against food companies and supermarkets.

Some backers of labeling will shift their focus to Washington, hoping to get the F.D.A. to change its mind and require labeling.

“We think that attention is now going to shift back to Washington, with a whole lot more to discuss and a whole lot more people interested,” said Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield, an organic yogurt company.

Mr. Hirshberg is also chairman of Just Label It, a group that submitted a petition with more than one million signatures to the F.D.A. asking it to require labeling. So far, however, the F.D.A. has shown little propensity to overturn its policy. And bills in Congress to require labeling have failed to gain much support.

Proposition 37 has no doubt raised awareness, however, which might prompt some consumers to seek foods that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients.

“Everything you buy in the grocery is a vote,” said Sara Hadden of Hermosa Beach, who organized street-corner rallies in favor of Proposition 37. “That’s the vote that really counts.”

One question is whether food firms, having narrowly escaped a disruption of their business on Tuesday, will make changes on their own — like voluntarily labeling or reducing their use of genetically modified crops.

If that is being considered, the food companies are not letting on. In a statement Wednesday, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents big food companies, called the defeat of Proposition 37 “a big win for California consumers, taxpayers, businesses and farmers.”

Read More..

Apple Stock Sinks as Profits and Products Are Questioned

Autumn is traditionally the time of year when people start snapping up Apple products. It’s also when investors, in anticipation of another blockbuster holiday season from the company, do the same with Apple shares.

But this year, even though Apple’s iPhones and iPads don’t seem to have lost any of their allure for holiday shoppers, its stock seems headed straight for the discount rack.

On Wednesday, Apple’s shares slid 3.8 percent. They outpaced a broader decline in the stock market set off by investors’ uncertainty about how the outcome of the presidential election will affect taxes and consumer demand for the types of products Apple sells.

During the campaign, President Obama proposed increasing capital gains tax rates for people earning over $250,000 to 20 percent from the existing rate of 15 percent, and his re-election Tuesday night may have prompted some investors to unload shares in anticipation of a broader sell-off in stocks ahead of a tax increase, analysts said.

Owners of Apple shares would have good reason to fear higher taxes on capital gains. Apple shares have appreciated mightily since 2005 when they were about $35 apiece; they began this year at $411 and peaked at more than $700 in late September. The drop on Wednesday only added to what has been a grim few weeks for Apple shares, which have fallen over 20 percent from that peak, to $558 on Wednesday.

The decline has followed a sequence of seemingly unrelated events, including a broader-than-normal overhaul of its product line that is expected to hurt profit margins in the near term and a rare shake-up in Apple’s senior ranks.

“It has just been wave after wave of bad news,” said Gene Munster, an analyst at Piper Jaffray.

The events also do little to diminish the questions reflecting longer-term concerns with which investors pepper analysts like Mr. Munster. How much bigger can Apple — with a $525 billion market value, the biggest of any corporation — get? Won’t Apple soon run out of people to sell iPhones, iPads and Macs to?

Those concerns have been one of the biggest reasons Apple’s stock has long traded at a discount, strange as that may sound, to its peers in the tech business. Apple’s forward price-to-earnings ratio — the value of the company’s stock divided by its expected earnings per share for the coming year — is just under 10.

That figure is 14 for Google, 32 for Facebook and 131 for Amazon. Steve Dowling, a spokesman for Apple, said the company generally did not comment on its share price.

Apple executives have said they still see huge opportunities for the company and it is still growing at a remarkable clip for a company its size. During its last fiscal year, which ended Sept. 29, Apple’s revenue jumped 45 percent to $156.51 billion and its profits rose 61 percent to $41.73 billion.

While Apple’s most recent financial report was mostly in line with Wall Street forecasts, the company warned that its profit margin would most likely decline in the holiday quarter because of a sweeping refresh of the company’s iPad, iMac and MacBook laptop lines.

Apple products often cost more to make during their first months on the market, but those costs come down as the process becomes more efficient and volumes increase. The company said its new iPad Mini would be among those products with low profit margins, raising concerns that Apple will make less money as it competes in lower-priced segments of the mobile market.

Apple’s worrisome financial report came just days before Apple announced the departure of Scott Forstall, the head of its mobile software development, in a move that it said was aimed at increasing collaboration between departments at the company. Apple split the responsibilities of Mr. Forstall, who was a divisive figure at the company, among an array of other Apple executives.

The surprise firing of Mr. Forstall was unusual for Apple, where turnover in its senior ranks is rare compared to other big technology companies.

Then late last week, the research firm IDC reported that 75 percent of smartphones shipped in the third quarter were Android phones, the main rival to Apple in mobile software. A year earlier, Google, the maker of Android software, had market share of 57.5 percent. The iPhone’s share rose at a much slower pace, jumping to 14.9 percent of shipments from 13.8 percent, IDC estimated.

But Apple is still making huge profits from the mobile market, far more than Google is. Even with the recent decline in its shares, Apple’s stock is still up 38 percent for the year.

David Rolfe, chief investment officer at Wedgewood Partners, which counts Apple as its biggest stock holding, said he remained confident that Apple was one of the best investments around.

“The bears think Apple is in the eighth inning,” Mr. Rolfe said. “We think they’re still in the fourth or fifth inning.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 7, 2012

An earlier version of this article misstated Apple’s increase in profit in its last fiscal year. The company’s profit rose 61 percent, not 70 percent.

Read More..

China Prepares for Party Congress and Leadership Transition

Diego Azubel/European Pressphoto Agency

Soldiers marched past the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Wednesday, on the eve of the 18th Communist Party Congress.

BEIJING — China’s Communist Party leader, Hu Jintao, defended his decade in power on Thursday and warned that the country faced stark challenges at home and abroad. He spoke at the start of a congress that will culminate in his retirement and the appointment of a new generation of leaders after a transition marked by scandal and anxiety about the party’s future.

Mr. Hu told the ranks of party-picked delegates assembled in the Great Hall of the People that China faced a period of major change and “complicated domestic and international circumstances.” Seated near him was his presumed successor, Xi Jinping, who is all but certain to take over as party chief after the congress ends next week and to take the reins as president in March.

Mr. Xi has privately signaled that he is aware of increasingly urgent calls from economists, intellectuals and some party insiders for a new round of market liberalization and even measured political relaxation to cure what they see as a deepening economic and social malaise. Mr. Hu acknowledged the problems facing the party, including corruption, but avoided specific mention of the scandals that have blighted his final year in power.

“Currently, the conditions of the world, the country and the party are continuing to undergo profound changes,” he said, reading from excerpts from his report to the party congress, which convenes every five years.

“We are confronting unprecedented development opportunities and challenges,” he said, adding, “The gap between rich and poor is growing.”

While acknowledging that China’s wealth remains unbalanced among regions and unequally distributed, Mr. Hu told the congress that his decade as top leader had brought robust economic growth and the makings of a “moderately prosperous society.”

“Over the past five years, there have been major achievements in every aspect of work,” he said. “Reform and opening up have gained major advances, and the people’s standard of living has clearly risen.”

Mr. Hu’s congress report is a major part of the public ceremony that accompanies China’s leadership transitions. But the real decisions about who will succeed him and his cohorts have been made in secretive negotiations involving senior officials and party elders.

In a show of unity, Mr. Hu earlier entered the assembly hall accompanied by the dominant party elder, former President Jiang Zemin, who shuffled gingerly to his seat. But party insiders have said Mr. Jiang, 86, played a major role in shaping the next leadership circle and voiced frustration with the record of Mr. Hu and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.

Contrary to some observers’ predictions, Mr. Hu did not play down the founder of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong, whose revolutionary heritage sits increasingly awkwardly with urban middle-class wealth and values. Mr. Hu also repeatedly mentioned the phrases “scientific development” and a “harmonious society,” which he has used to sum up his goals of a stable society under firm party control.

Officially, the new leadership team is to be selected in the coming week by the 2,268 delegates to this congress, the 18th in the party’s 91-year history. In fact, much of what will go on during the congress has already been decided. The delegates are voted on by lower-ranking members but based on guidance provided by higher-ups, a process known as “democratic centralism.”

Mr. Hu repeated vows of “political system reform” in his report to the congress. But officials have made clear that the party’s notions of political change do not embrace any idea of full-fledged electoral democracy.

On the contrary, at a news conference on Wednesday, the congress’s spokesman and deputy head of Communist Party propaganda, Cai Mingzhao, defended China’s current system.

“The leading position of the Communist Party in China is a decision made by history and by the people,” Mr. Cai said.

Still uncertain is who will be standing next to Mr. Xi when the top leadership is presented in a week. This group, known as the Politburo’s Standing Committee, essentially runs China. According to plan, it will include Mr. Xi and Li Keqiang, who is expected to take over as head of the government bureaucracy next year. Both men are current members of the Standing Committee.

It is also unclear how many members the committee will have. It now has nine posts and is expected to be cut to seven.

Nor has Mr. Hu indicated when he will give up his post as chairman of the Central Military Commission, which gives him continued influence over Mr. Xi’s policies and personnel choices.

In his report, Mr. Hu lauded China’s growing military strength, promising to continue modernizing the People’s Liberation Army forces, and calling them a defender of peace, a point sure to be questioned by regional neighbors, including Japan, that are embroiled in territorial disputes with Beijing.

Mr. Cai, the spokesman, also said the party had learned from the scandals surrounding two high-ranking officials: Bo Xilai, the former Politburo member, and Liu Zhijun, the former railway minister. Both have been accused of corruption, and Mr. Bo is also accused of covering up the murder of a British businessman. Mr. Hu did not refer explicitly to Mr. Bo in his report, but said corrupt officials should be punished “no matter how high or low in rank.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 7, 2012

An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect number for the delegates to China’s 18th Communist Party Congress. There are 2,268 delegates, not 2,280.

Read More..

Suzuki, Small-Car Maker, Gives Up on U.S. Market

TOKYO — For all of Suzuki’s tough talk about its “brush-busting” Samurai off-roader, the Japanese automaker never made it big in the United States. Its cars were too small, its safety record iffy and its branding a bit too comical (Suzuki Sidekick, anyone?).

So it came as little surprise to most analysts when Suzuki announced late Monday that it would stop selling automobiles in the United States and put its American unit into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

“The United States was ultimately a tough market to crack,” said Kentaro Arita, auto analyst and industry research division manager at Mizuho Corporate Bank. “Its exit was a matter of time.”

Still, despite Suzuki’s retreat in North America, the company has made spectacular inroads into emerging markets over the last decade. The low-cost, compact cars sold by Suzuki’s India unit have the top share in that fast-growing market, and the automaker also has a growing presence in Southeast Asia.

Back home in Japan, Suzuki is a leader in a category of small cars called kei vehicles that enjoy preferential tax treatment by meeting limits on length, width, engine size and horsepower. The kei category, created in Japan’s lean postwar years to help ordinary Japanese buy cars, has stayed popular as a cheap option fit for navigating the country’s claustrophobic roads.

One of the company’s kei cars, the long-selling Wagon R, is less than 14 feet long, about 5 feet wide and 6 feet high, and its engine size is limited to two-thirds of a liter, or motorcycle-caliber. Last month, almost as many units were sold in Japan as Toyota’s Prius hybrid.

Suzuki’s decision to pull out of the United States, whose market is dominated by larger models, was a sensible step to focus on its strengths, said Koji Endo, an auto industry analyst and managing director at Advanced Research, an equity research firm in Tokyo. The strong yen also made it difficult to profit by making cars in Japan and shipping them to the United States, he said.

“Basically, Suzuki does not need the United States, and the United States didn’t need Suzuki,” Mr. Endo said.

The American Suzuki Motor Corporation, the sole distributor of Suzuki vehicles in the United States, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Monday with $346 million in debt, the company said. In a statement, Suzuki said that various challenges led to its withdrawal from the American market, including low sales volume, the limited number of models in its lineup and unfavorable foreign exchange rates.

Suzuki also blamed “the high costs associated with growing and maintaining an automotive distribution system in the continental United States,” as well as “the disproportionately high” costs associated with meeting increasingly stringent state and federal regulatory requirements.

The company said it would sell its remaining inventory through its dealer network, honor existing warranties and continue to supply replacement parts for its vehicles. The company also intends to continue selling motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and marine products in the United States.

Suzuki shares gained 0.65 percent to 1,847 yen (about $23.02) in Tokyo after the announcement, against a 0.36 percent decline in the benchmark Nikkei index.

While an exit makes sense for Suzuki’s bottom line, it does represent another disappointing failure by Japan’s second tier of automakers in their attempts to follow Toyota, Honda and Nissan into the American market.

A foray by Daihatsu, another Japanese manufacturer of compact cars, lasted only four years before it withdrew in 1992. (Subaru, manufactured by Fuji Heavy Industries, has fared better.)

Suzuki also had big hopes for its Japan-made Samurai 4-wheel-drive vehicle, introduced in the United States in 1985. A $30 million television advertising campaign urged American car owners to try the lightweight yet “rough, tough and brush-busting” off-roader.

The Samurai found a small but loyal following as a low-cost off-roader. But it also suffered early setbacks, including a drawn-out legal battle with Consumer Reports over whether the vehicles were prone to flipping over.

Suzuki later introduced several other models to the United States, including its Swift compact, and its executives spoke of selling 200,000 vehicles a year in the American market.

A partnership with General Motors proved beneficial for both sides, giving the American company access to expertise in smaller cars, while allowing Suzuki to tap G.M.’s dealership network to sell its cars.

But just as Suzuki’s sales were gaining traction in the United States, topping 100,000 in the mid-2000s for the first time, the global financial crisis hit, decimating Japanese exports.

General Motors, scrambling for cash, sold off its stake in Suzuki, and the Japanese manufacturer withdrew from a joint manufacturing venture in Canada.

Since then, Suzuki’s sales in the United States have dwindled. In the first 10 months of 2012, it sold just 21,000 vehicles. A budding partnership with Volkswagen also grew acrimonious, forcing Suzuki to regroup.

Experts said that Suzuki was likely to concentrate its managerial resources on strengthening its grip on markets like India, where it has been hit by worker strife in recent months.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 6, 2012

An earlier version of this article misstated a description Suzuki used to promote its Samurai off-roader. It is “brush-busting,” not “bush-busting.”

Read More..

Alarm Over India’s Dengue Fever Epidemic

Enrico Fabian for The New York Times

A man at the Yamuna River, an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes. Filthy standing water abounds in New Delhi. More Photos »

NEW DELHI — An epidemic of dengue fever in India is fostering a growing sense of alarm even as government officials here have publicly refused to acknowledge the scope of a problem that experts say is threatening hundreds of millions of people, not just in India but around the world.

India has become the focal point for a mosquito-borne plague that is sweeping the globe. Reported in just a handful of countries in the 1950s, dengue (pronounced DEN-gay) is now endemic in half the world’s nations.

“The global dengue problem is far worse than most people know, and it keeps getting worse,” said Dr. Raman Velayudhan, the World Health Organization’s lead dengue coordinator.

The tropical disease, though life-threatening for a tiny fraction of those infected, can be extremely painful. Growing numbers of Western tourists are returning from warm-weather vacations with the disease, which has reached the shores of the United States and Europe. Last month, health officials in Miami announced a case of locally acquired dengue infection.

Here in India’s capital, where areas of standing water contribute to the epidemic’s growth, hospitals are overrun and feverish patients are sharing beds and languishing in hallways. At Kalawati Saran Hospital, a pediatric facility, a large crowd of relatives lay on mats and blankets under the shade of a huge banyan tree outside the hospital entrance recently.

Among them was Neelam, who said her two grandchildren were deathly ill inside. Eight-year-old Sneha got the disease first, followed by Tanya, 7, she said. The girls’ parents treated them at home but then Sneha’s temperature rose to 104 degrees, a rash spread across her legs and shoulders, and her pain grew unbearable.

“Sneha has been given five liters of blood,” said Neelam, who has one name. “It is terrible.”

Officials say that 30,002 people in India had been sickened with dengue fever through October, a 59 percent jump from the 18,860 recorded for all of 2011. But the real number of Indians who get dengue fever annually is in the millions, several experts said.

“I’d conservatively estimate that there are 37 million dengue infections occurring every year in India, and maybe 227,500 hospitalizations,” said Dr. Scott Halstead, a tropical disease expert focused on dengue research.

A senior Indian government health official, who agreed to speak about the matter only on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that official figures represent a mere sliver of dengue’s actual toll. The government only counts cases of dengue that come from public hospitals and that have been confirmed by laboratories, the official said. Such a census, “which was deliberated at the highest levels,” is a small subset that is nonetheless informative and comparable from one year to the next, he said.

“There is no denying that the actual number of cases would be much, much higher,” the official said. “Our interest has not been to arrive at an exact figure.”

The problem with that policy, said Dr. Manish Kakkar, a specialist at the Public Health Foundation of India, is that India’s “massive underreporting of cases” has contributed to the disease’s spread. Experts from around the world said that India’s failure to construct an adequate dengue surveillance system has impeded awareness of the illness’s vast reach, discouraged efforts to clean up the sources of the disease and slowed the search for a vaccine.

“When you look at the number of reported cases India has, it’s a joke,” said Dr. Harold S. Margolis, chief of the dengue branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Neighboring Sri Lanka, for instance, reported nearly three times as many dengue cases as India through August, according to the World Health Organization, even though India’s population is 60 times larger.

Hari Kumar contributed reporting.

Read More..

Alarm Over India’s Dengue Fever Epidemic

Enrico Fabian for The New York Times

A man at the Yamuna River, an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes. Filthy standing water abounds in New Delhi. More Photos »

NEW DELHI — An epidemic of dengue fever in India is fostering a growing sense of alarm even as government officials here have publicly refused to acknowledge the scope of a problem that experts say is threatening hundreds of millions of people, not just in India but around the world.

India has become the focal point for a mosquito-borne plague that is sweeping the globe. Reported in just a handful of countries in the 1950s, dengue (pronounced DEN-gay) is now endemic in half the world’s nations.

“The global dengue problem is far worse than most people know, and it keeps getting worse,” said Dr. Raman Velayudhan, the World Health Organization’s lead dengue coordinator.

The tropical disease, though life-threatening for a tiny fraction of those infected, can be extremely painful. Growing numbers of Western tourists are returning from warm-weather vacations with the disease, which has reached the shores of the United States and Europe. Last month, health officials in Miami announced a case of locally acquired dengue infection.

Here in India’s capital, where areas of standing water contribute to the epidemic’s growth, hospitals are overrun and feverish patients are sharing beds and languishing in hallways. At Kalawati Saran Hospital, a pediatric facility, a large crowd of relatives lay on mats and blankets under the shade of a huge banyan tree outside the hospital entrance recently.

Among them was Neelam, who said her two grandchildren were deathly ill inside. Eight-year-old Sneha got the disease first, followed by Tanya, 7, she said. The girls’ parents treated them at home but then Sneha’s temperature rose to 104 degrees, a rash spread across her legs and shoulders, and her pain grew unbearable.

“Sneha has been given five liters of blood,” said Neelam, who has one name. “It is terrible.”

Officials say that 30,002 people in India had been sickened with dengue fever through October, a 59 percent jump from the 18,860 recorded for all of 2011. But the real number of Indians who get dengue fever annually is in the millions, several experts said.

“I’d conservatively estimate that there are 37 million dengue infections occurring every year in India, and maybe 227,500 hospitalizations,” said Dr. Scott Halstead, a tropical disease expert focused on dengue research.

A senior Indian government health official, who agreed to speak about the matter only on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that official figures represent a mere sliver of dengue’s actual toll. The government only counts cases of dengue that come from public hospitals and that have been confirmed by laboratories, the official said. Such a census, “which was deliberated at the highest levels,” is a small subset that is nonetheless informative and comparable from one year to the next, he said.

“There is no denying that the actual number of cases would be much, much higher,” the official said. “Our interest has not been to arrive at an exact figure.”

The problem with that policy, said Dr. Manish Kakkar, a specialist at the Public Health Foundation of India, is that India’s “massive underreporting of cases” has contributed to the disease’s spread. Experts from around the world said that India’s failure to construct an adequate dengue surveillance system has impeded awareness of the illness’s vast reach, discouraged efforts to clean up the sources of the disease and slowed the search for a vaccine.

“When you look at the number of reported cases India has, it’s a joke,” said Dr. Harold S. Margolis, chief of the dengue branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Neighboring Sri Lanka, for instance, reported nearly three times as many dengue cases as India through August, according to the World Health Organization, even though India’s population is 60 times larger.

Hari Kumar contributed reporting.

Read More..

Video Games: Unfinished Swan, Assassin’s Creed and Need for Speed

These edited and condensed reviews are from the writers and editors of the gaming Web site Kotaku.com. Full reviews are at kotaku.com/nytselects.

THE UNFINISHED SWAN

Released on Oct. 23

Developer: Giant Sparrow

Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment of America

For PlayStation 3

Rated E10+ for fantasy violence

In the first chapter of The Unfinished Swan you will paint a wall. In the second you will water plants. The third lets you walk beside a river, then build a staircase. In the fourth you will feel tall.

This is among those video games that feel more like poetry than prose. It operates in the abstract; it lets you figure out what it means. The game is played in the first person. You are a boy, lost in the dream kingdom of a sad king, your mother long gone. And there’s a swan with an empty space where part of its neck should be. There’s something going on here about fathers disappointed in their lives and of creators frustrated with a life of uncompleted rough drafts.

The main action involves shooting paint or water into the world. In the opening scene the world is empty and white, its contours invisible until you start shooting black paint. The paint splatters define a wall, then a tree, then a bridge upon which you can safely walk. It’s just one of many of the game’s moments of gentle, interactive beauty.

This has been a stirring year for so-called art games. With Journey, Papo & Yo, Dyad and now The Unfinished Swan, the PlayStation 3 exhibits some of the best.

ASSASSIN’S CREED III

Liberation

Released on Oct. 30

Developer: Ubisoft Sofia

Publisher: Ubisoft

For PlayStation Vita

Rated M (Mature) for suggestive themes and violence

Assassin’s Creed III: Liberation features a progressive bit of creativity: the first female protagonist for this Ubisoft period-piece action series. More impressive, Liberation finds clever, affecting ways to implement the heroine Aveline de Grandpré’s biracial heritage and gender into gameplay mechanics.

The game’s key feature makes players change among three personas — a high-society Lady, a Slave who can go undercover and a secretive Assassin. Aveline uses her white French father’s dockside warehouse as a base of operations to find out what has been happening to disappearing slaves in 18th-century New Orleans.

Each persona wields special abilities related to its social status, so the Slave can foment riots and the Lady can seduce and bribe officials. The lead character’s quest to discover the fate of her long-lost mother — herself a freed slave — adds emotional heft to the experience.

By the time you’re finished, you’ll have seen the highest and lowest levels of life as it may have been lived in this area in 1768, from a point of view not often found in video games.

NEED FOR SPEED

Most Wanted

Released on Oct. 30

Developer: Criterion Games

Publisher: Electronic Arts

For Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Vita and PC

Rated T (Teen) for an alcohol reference and violence

Need For Speed: Most Wanted is a video game shot out of a cannon. Two minutes after pressing the start button, you’ll be behind the wheel of a car, careering through a sprawling city with a single objective: win as many races as possible.

As you explore downtown streets and mountain highways, you’ll quickly come upon and unlock dozens of slick, race-ready automobiles. From Land Rovers to Lamborghinis, each handles a bit differently and each has its own set of assigned races. By competing in those races, you’ll earn points and climb a global leader board, ever aware of your friends’ best times. You can also take the whole game online and compete in real-time multiplayer events.

Most Wanted is a stripped-down affair. The cars are simple to control, and the city may be wide open, but it offers few nonrace events and challenges. That single-mindedness works in the game’s favor, largely because Most Wanted effortlessly imparts a gut-twisting, exhilarating rush. Need For Speed: Most Wanted is in essence a fantasy game; the fantasy of racing expensive cars ludicrously fast without fear of injury or legal repercussion. In that, it is a success, a thrilling ride that wastes no time achieving maximum velocity.

SKYLANDERS GIANTS

Released on Oct. 21

Developer: Toys for Bob

Publisher: Activision

For Xbox 360, Wii, PlayStation 3 and Wii U (Nov. 18)

Rated E10+ for cartoon violence

The marriage of physical toys and electronic entertainment that began in last year’s wildly successful Skylanders: Spyro’s Adventure grows even stronger with the release of Skylanders Giants. Placing specially designed action figures on a circular portal connected to a game console brings them to life in this child-friendly action-adventure. The toys keep track of power gained during the game, which involves protecting the fanciful Skylands from the grip of an evil would-be overlord.

Giants’ gameplay mainly involves running about, smashing scenery and colorful cartoon enemies, which makes it simple to pick up and play for children and parents. It’s good, harmless fun. What isn’t harmless is the price of those plastic toys. With eight new giant-sized characters, the figures from the original game, reposed versions of the original characters and the glowing LightCore Skylanders, parents (or adult collectors) could easily spend upward of $1,000 putting together all of the pieces of this diabolically enticing electronic playset.

LETTERPRESS

Released on Oct. 24

Developer: atebits

For iPhone and iPad

Rated 4+ on iTunes for no objectionable content

Word games may all essentially be about showing off how clever you are. Letterpress might be the only one that feels like a boxing match, too. Each move in this game from the atebits studio can have the head-rattling effect of a right cross.

The game lays out a five-by-five grid on which two players compete to claim the most lettered squares. Tapping out a word from the letters before you lets you claim that word. But somewhere in that mix of jumbled letters is the combination that your opponent will rout you with.

The tension that accompanies every turn revolves around a simple question: What is your opponent seeing that you are not? An acquisitive pressure accompanies Letterpress, as well, since you can capture letters by surrounding them with other squares of your color, ensuring that only you can earn points off those tiles. Letterpress may look like a cute, minimalist Boggle cousin, but the key to its hypnotic allure is in its doubling as a cutthroat battle for territory.

These edited and condensed reviews are from the writers and editors of the gaming Web site Kotaku.com. Full reviews are at kotaku.com/nytselects.

Read More..