By EMILY VEACH

Starbucks Corp. posted faster revenue growth in Asia than anywhere else in the latest quarter. Even though the region only made up about 5% of global sales in the period ended Jan. 1, the Seattle, Wash.-based coffee company just announced a partnership in India, a difficult market for foreign businesses.

“We think in the long term it’s going to be another core engine for the enterprise, given India’s potential and growth. It’s like China,” said Jinlong Wang, president Asia Pacific, who is involved with the company’s India expansion and oversees 10 other markets: Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.

Mr. Wang first joined Starbucks in 1992 and worked in international business development as well as the law and corporate affairs department until 2000. He then held executive roles in two other companies before returning as Greater China president in 2005. His career also includes teaching and a stint as a government official at the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade in Beijing, before he left to study law at Columbia University.

Philipp Engelhorn

“The most important part of my job is to build the platform for people to accept, to have to align their personal dream with the company mission.’ Jinlong Wang, Starbucks president Asia Pacific.

China, where coffee shops have become a fixture on city street corners, is one of the company’s great success stories. Yet Starbucks suffered from its own success last week when Chinese consumers reacted angrily to news of rising drink prices at Starbucks.

Mr. Wang spoke with Emily Veach in Hong Kong about the challenges of winning brand loyalty in Asia’s varied markets as well as how he retains quality staff, no small task in the retail business.

WSJ: How do you keep good people?

Mr. Wang: We treat our partners with respect, creating an environment for them to excel. To really give the best of themselves, give the best to each other.

WSJ: Do you have management programs in place to groom rising leaders?

Mr. Wang: We want to promote our own people, to give them opportunities. We have store managers who stay on 10 to 15 years, which is very difficult, particularly in the retail business. But they love what they do. They want to see their people grow.

I’m working with two people in the mentoring program, a manager and an operational director. Mentoring is not how to teach, it’s now how to shape, it’s really how to facilitate and allow people to have someone they can talk to, someone they can rely on. You have to have their best interests in mind but nothing else.

WSJ: Where do you see the most potential in this region?

Mr. Wang: Korea. Our partner has done a tremendous job building the brand.

Otherwise, growth is a lot higher in emerging markets. China is growing at about 8% to 9%, the rest of the region maybe 4% to 6%. The coffee industry is double-digits. You’re talking 10%, 20%, 25%, in certain places even 30% growth in this segment. There’s tremendous potential.

WSJ: What do you make of the growth trajectory of China’s middle class?

Mr. Wang: Our brand really resonates with the young people there. Among our core customers in China the average age is much younger than in the U.S.—10-15 years younger. As we continue to grow there, Chinese don’t want to be Westernized. They want to be modernized.

Starbucks will play a leading role in elevating the whole coffee industry, environmental responsibility and enhancing coffee farmers’ lives. We set up a coffee farmer support center, imported some of the best coffee seeds and set up demo farms. We’ve never done it before. Asian Pacific coffee provides a very unique taste and profile. One of best selling coffees is Sumatra, from Indonesia.

WSJ: What are the biggest challenges the markets you oversee?

Mr. Wang: For Starbucks, it’s never been about what we sell. It’s really about what we stand for.…We also have to see how to strike a delicate balance: How to balance the profitability and the social conscience. As we grow we have to keep doing that and not lose the sight for growth and making money. That’s one piece.

The other piece is the people. We are going to hire tens of thousands of people. How do we continually attract and retain the people who have the same passion to serve?

WSJ: You have many competitors spread over a huge region. How do you cope?

Mr. Wang: Starbucks welcomes all the competition. They bring a lot to customers. They keep everyone on alert and see how to continue to stand out. We’ve already established ourselves as a market leader.

I’m also a lawyer; I break the company into three categories: rule makers, rule followers, and rule breakers. Starbucks operates as both a rule maker and a rule breaker.

Rule breakers work for the sake of innovation, new way of serving the market, new way of engaging customers. The other thing is, more importantly, a good company will satisfy consumer needs. A great company helps to lead and create. I think that’s where we stand above the competitors in the industry.

We do (pay attention to competitors). We have a lot of copiers, or rule followers. I always treat it as a compliment. We also want to learn. Each company finds its own place and brings something unique to the market.

Overall I think we can elevate the industry, creating more jobs, creating more opportunities. One of the things I can see from the local competitors, we don’t have a global or even regional competitor.

In every market they have the advantage of understanding the local culture. Sometimes they’re nimble and fast as well.

WSJ: What lessons have you learned from those local companies?

Mr. Wang: We look for ways they connect with customers and how we can learn.

I think our competitors certainly pay a lot more closer attention to what Starbucks is doing and try to copy it. Whatever you call that, they have their place in the market.

The biggest competition is about the people, the talent. Our biggest competitor is ourselves. In our business we don’t need rocket science, you need a passionate community partner, you need the people who take pride and pleasure and happiness in serving other people and making a difference.

WSJ: You’ve had an interesting career path. Why did you choose to leave the civil service in China, which is seen as a very stable career?

Mr. Wang: I always want to learn. I had opportunities to work in other international organizations, then this opportunity to study (law) and learn more.

My major was economics and trade in China, it had nothing to do with law. I always want to learn. It’s the thing that keeps the fire under my belt every day, to learn something new.

But going to law school was a whole different story. They waived all the examinations, but I didn’t understand a word in class when I got there. When you’re young, you can do anything you want.

WSJ: Do you find there is a lot of environmental education involved with farmers in Asia?

Mr. Wang: Huge. Our goal is sustainable growth, through our cafe practice, farmer equity and environmental awareness, economic accountability and better bean count. We help them increase the yield by almost 20%. We also reduce chemical use.

WSJ: People in Asia are more aware of what’s going into their food and water. How does that affect the way you educate these farmers?

Mr. Wang: It varies, but people are more and more conscious about that and becoming more environmentally friendly. Particularly for Asia, more than half the population is here while the resources are limited. We all have the same goal—how to be sustainable and promote growth.

We want to lead awareness and work with communities for the long term. That’s where you can build a sustainable business. That’s where you can really make a big difference. That’s where Starbucks says, “how do we balance the profitability and social conscience?”

Write to Emily Veach at Emily.Veach@wsj.com

Por CHARLES FORELLE

LONDRES—El año pasado los mercados globales no dejaron de prestar atención ni por un minuto a todo lo que sucedía en Atenas. Los ecos de cada noticia sacudían a los mercados de bonos de la zona euro y a las bolsas de valores del resto del mundo.

Pero en lo que va del año esa situación no se ha repetido. En Grecia se han multiplicado los disturbios, ha aumentado la inestabilidad política y los datos económicos son deplorables a medida que el país se arrastra penosamente hacia su segundo paquete de rescate. Sin embargo, los precios de los bonos en Italia y España, los indicadores más cruciales del contagio de la crisis, han subido. La prima de riesgo, por lo tanto, ha bajado.

Aislar a Grecia del resto de la euro zona, o al menos de las economías más grandes, ha sido una de las metas de la Unión Europea por más de un año. Aún es demasiado pronto como para cantar victoria, pero una mirada a los datos del mercado sugiere que los líderes europeos tienen razones para ser optimistas. Al mismo tiempo, temas sin resolver, como la salud a largo plazo de Italia y los esfuerzos del bloque por reformar su gobierno fiscal han eclipsado la situación griega,

Durante dos semanas en julio de 2011, en momentos en que los líderes del continente se debatían sobre si y cómo imponer pérdidas a los acreedores privados de Grecia, los inversionistas vendieron deuda italiana. El rendimiento de su bono a 10 años saltó un punto porcentual completo, a casi 6%.En las semanas siguientes, a medida que Grecia forjaba un acuerdo para obtener más financiamiento y pérdidas relativamente pequeñas para los acreedores privados, los precios de los bonos italianos y españoles se fortalecieron. Posteriormente, cuando el acuerdo comenzó a desmoronarse, los bonos volvieron a debilitarse rápidamente. A finales del año pasado, el rendimiento del bono italiano a 10 años superó 7%.

La telenovela de este mes sobre la aprobación del segundo rescate griego, en cambio, apenas si ha sido percibida por los mercados de deuda soberana italiana y española. El rendimiento del bono italiano a 10 años apenas se ha movido en las últimas dos semanas y se mantuvo en 5,6% el martes, según Tradeweb.

Establecer una correlación entre los precios de los bonos griegos y los de sus contrapartes italianos y españoles es difícil, debido a que los bonos griegos casi no se transan. No obstante, los movimientos en el mercado de valores de Grecia, una cruda medición del sentimiento griego, han tenido una menor correlación con los bonos italianos y españoles este año que durante períodos especialmente álgidos de mediados y finales del año pasado.

La anticipada conclusión del acuerdo de reestructuración griego tampoco parece estar aumentando las preocupaciones de que los tenedores de bonos de otros países rescatados puedan sufrir la misma suerte. Aunque algunos líderes temían que permitirle a Grecia reestructurar su deuda pesaría sobre los bonos de otros países debilitados, ese no ha sido el caso.

Los bonos portugueses se vieron afectados a mediados del año pasado por las discusiones iniciales sobre la reestructuración de la deuda griega y los inversionistas en su mayoría aceptaron que el país necesitaría al menos más ayuda y posiblemente el perdón de parte de su deuda. Sin embargo, la perspectiva no ha empeorado en los últimos meses, pese a las profundas pérdidas impuestas a los bonistas griegos.

Los bonos a 10 años de Portugal ahora se cotizan con menores rendimientos que los que tenían en los días anteriores a que se concretara el acuerdo con los acreedores griegos, quienes perderán la mitad del valor de su deuda. Los precios de los bonos irlandeses, el otro país que ha recibido un rescate, se han recuperado marcadamente desde mediados del año pasado.

No obstante, hay posibles obstáculos a este optimismo.

Por ejemplo, se han presentado varios episodios de países de la zona euro que se “desacoplan” del resto, sólo para reacoplarse después. El rendimiento de los bonos españoles se disparó por encima de los de Italia a finales de 2010 y principios de 2011, sólo para caer a finales del año mientras que los de Italia subían.

Grecia, asimismo, sigue siendo una caja de sorpresas. Aunque sus líderes en principio han acordado los duros recortes necesarios para obtener la segunda ronda de fondos de rescate, el acuerdo final no ha sido firmado y su plan para una reestructuración ordenada de la deuda está plagado de obstáculos.

Por DAVID ENRICH

LONDRES—Un grupo de bancos europeos acaba de revelar que no tuvieron que recurrir al programa de créditos del Banco Central Europeo (BCE), temerosos de que parezcan necesitados de un rescate.

En diciembre, el BCE repartió entre 523 bancos un total de 489.000 millones de euros, US$644.000 millones, en préstamos a tres años con un interés de 1%. El principal objetivo de la medida era evitar una situación en la que las entidades que tuvieran que refinanciar deuda perdieran el acceso a los mercados de capital.

European Pressphoto Agency

La amplia participación en el programa, conocido como Operación de Refinanciación a Largo Plazo, provocó una sensación de euforia en muchos ejecutivos bancarios e inversionistas, quienes pensaron que lo peor de la crisis europea había quedado atrás. Los analistas esperan que el BCE distribuya hasta 1 billón (millón de millones) de euros en una segunda ronda de préstamos programada para fines de febrero, en parte porque la entidad relajó las condiciones para otorgar los créditos.

No obstante, algunos ya han empezado a sonar la voz de alarma respecto a las posibles repercusiones de este programa. Una de las mayores preocupaciones de los bancos es que al recibir estos verdaderos salvavidas lanzados por el BCE podrían estar sujetos a una mayor injerencia política y regulatoria o tener un menor margen de maniobra para gestionar el banco en forma independiente. Esta clase de reacción podría disminuir el apetito por futuros préstamos del BCE, al menos entre los mayores bancos del continente.

Aún se desconoce cuántos bancos rechazaron los fondos del BCE, pero la lista incluye a Deutsche Bank AG y Barclays PLC. Aunque el BCE no divulga los nombres de las entidades que hicieron uso de los créditos, la mayoría de los bancos debería reportar esa información a fines de mes, cuando anuncien sus resultados de 2011.

Más de dos años después del rescate gubernamental de los bancos estadounidenses y europeos, la nueva situación ilustra cómo las instituciones financieras siguen siendo muy renuentes a ser etiquetadas como beneficiarias de una ayuda. Estos temores podrían socavar la efectividad del programa del BCE.

“El hecho de que nunca hemos recibido ningún dinero del gobierno nos ha vuelto, desde el punto de vista de nuestra reputación, muy atractivos para muchos clientes en el mundo y somos muy reticentes a perder” ese estatus, dijo Josef Ackermann, presidente ejecutivo de Deutsche Bank, al explicar la semana pasada las razones por las que el banco alemán no tomó créditos del BCE.

Ackermann agregó que Deutsche Bank no quedó muy satisfecho de su experiencia con la Fed en 2008, durante la primera etapa de la crisis financiera. Los reguladores estadounidenses alentaron a los bancos a pedir prestado y les dijeron que sus nombres no serían revelados. Cuando sus identidades fueron, posteriormente, divulgadas, los bancos fueron catalogados como beneficiarios de un rescate. “Aprendimos una lección”, afirmó Ackermann. Otros ejecutivos del sector han expresados quejas similares en privado.

La Autoridad de Servicios Financieros del Reino Unido (FSA) alentó informalmente a que los bancos aprovecharan el programa de créditos del BCE, pero dejó en claro que la decisión correspondía a cada banco, según ejecutivos de varias entidades británicas.

El objetivo de la FSA, que comparten otros reguladores europeos, es promover un amplio uso del programa para reducir cualquier estigma asociado con los préstamos, dijo una fuente cercana.

Algunos de los mayores bancos británicos, como Barclays, Standard Chartered PLC y Lloyds Banking Group PLC, optaron por no recurrir a los créditos del BCE, indicaron fuentes al tanto.

“Quienes dependen demasiado de la financiación del BCE corren el riesgo de que la interferencia sea el precio a pagar por el apoyo”, señala Simon Samuels, analista de banca europea de Barclays Capital.

Tales preocupaciones, sin embargo, son periféricas para los bancos que podrían tener problemas para refinanciar la deuda que vence a precios razonables.

Casi todos los bancos importantes de España, Francia e Italia recibieron miles de millones de euros del BCE, según los informes de las empresas y fuentes cercanas. Entre las instituciones figura Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, el segundo banco español por activos, que tomó 11.000 millones de euros, informó su presidente ejecutivo la semana pasada. La británica HSBC Holdings PLC no necesitaba los fondos pero participó para aprovechar la baja tasa de interés, dijo una fuente cercana.

By ALEXANDRA WEXLER

Soaring competition in Asia’s low-cost airline industry is a sign that the model works, says Lance Gokongwei, chief executive of Philippines-based carrier Cebu Pacific.

Thai Airways, All Nippon Airways and Singapore Airlines have all announced plans for new low-cost carriers in recent months, while last week Australia’s Qantas Airways and Japan Airlines said they are planning a low–cost joint venture too. These new entrants will have to fight it out with the likes of Indonesia’s Lion Air, Singapore’s Tiger Air, and market leader AirAsia of Malaysia, as well as Cebu Pacific.

“Basically, the market has seen the value of low-cost carriers in Asia,” says Mr. Gokongwei. “I think it’s really a validation of the model.”

Asia’s travel sector is expanding rapidly on the back of the region’s growing wealth. But competition will make business tougher and could drive down fares. The industry is also coping with rising fuel costs, while a slowdown in the global economy would also put a dent in traffic.

Cebu Pacific launched in 1996 and began flying to international destinations in 2001. The no-frills airline had the second largest ever initial public offering on the Philippine Stock Exchange in October. It said last week that first-half net profit fell about 23% mainly due to a 50% jump in the price of fuel.

Passenger revenue continue to rise, however, and the airline has placed orders for new aircraft that will more than double its existing fleet.

Mr. Gokongwei spoke to The Wall Street Journal’s Alexandra Wexler about the challenges of keeping true to the low-cost model amid soaring fuel costs, planning for an expanding market, and distinguishing Cebu Pacific from the competition. The following interview has been edited.

WSJ: Are you concerned about rising competition including from Qantas, Singapore Airlines and others?

Mr. Gokongwei: There are very few examples of full-cost carriers executing on the low-cost carrier model. I think that the DNA of a low-cost carrier and a full-cost carrier is really very different.

WSJ: How will AirAsia’s plans to enter the Philippines affect your business?

Mr. Gokongwei: One, the market will continue to grow. It will also further boost tourism into the Philippines, and that will help our domestic network. Very few tourists stay in Manila, and Cebu Pacific has 45% of the domestic market in the Philippines.

WSJ: What are your biggest challenges?

Mr. Gokongwei: There’s always a temptation to stray from the low-cost carrier mindset, and we have to be very focused on keeping our operations very simple and scalable. We see a lot of low-cost carriers stray from their roots, which made them successful. They start offering premium seats or lounges in that effort to get that extra 1% of business.

WSJ: What are some of the rising costs you’re dealing with?

Mr. Gokongwei: As we grow, the biggest issue we’re facing is the cost of fuel. Over 50% of our cost today is fuel. We have to improve efficiency and reduce our non-fuel unit cost. We have tried to recover this through fuel surcharges and increased ancillary revenues.

WSJ: How are consumers on budget airlines different than customers on traditional carriers?

Mr. Gokongwei: I don’t think there’s a major distinction. Everyone is focused on value today. I learned the hard way about trying to introduce business class and lounges- the Philippines itself is not a hub conducive for that. I have to focus on not getting caught in the middle market, because the middle is disappearing.

WSJ: Hong Kong issued a travel alert on Manila last August after a hostage crisis that resulted in the deaths of several travelers from the city. How has that affected Cebu Pacific?

Mr. Gokongwei: We at Cebu Pacific first want to convey our deepest sympathies with those who had loved ones who were lost last year. We are very hopeful that there will be a resolution between the Philippines government and those who were affected as soon as possible. I think on a traffic basis, initially of course there was an effect, especially on the Hong Kong-to-Cebu route. It seems to have recovered for the first six months of this year–traffic is up 9% year over year.

WSJ: Where do you expect to see the most growth?

Mr. Gokongwei: We prefer to offer more frequent flights on routes we already have, versus introducing new routes. In the last six months, we’ve added frequency to Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok. In terms of new routes, there are lots of opportunities in northern Asia. There are lots of cities in Thailand and Japan that we’d like to add flights to.

WSJ: How do you expect the airline industry to grow in the next five to 10 years?

Mr. Gokongwei: In 2005, we were carrying 2 million passengers a year, and I think we had about a third of the domestic market. The domestic market will be 20 million this year, and we expect to carry 12 million passengers. We believe that air traffic [in the Philippines] will grow two to three times the GDP growth. In addition, low-cost carriers will continue to gain market share from traditional carriers. We have made the necessary plane orders to support this type of growth, including taking in a total of 53 new aircraft between September of this year and 2021.

Por DANA MATTIOLI e JOANN S. LUBLIN

A Avon Products Inc. sondou Mindy Grossman, a executiva principal do canal de televendas HSN Inc., para ser sua nova diretora-presidente, segundo uma pessoa a par do assunto, levando a empresa de cosméticos um passo adiante na substituição de Andrea Jung, que está há um longo tempo no cargo.

Não está claro quantos outros nomes podem estar sendo cogitados.

A Avon espera superar uma série de resultados financeiros decepcionantes e esforços fracassados de reestruturação sob o comando de Andrea Jung, que irritaram os investidores e prejudicaram a ação da empresa. A firma, que também está sendo investigada pelos órgãos federais dos Estados Unidos por possível suborno de funcionários estrangeiros, disse em dezembro que Jung deixaria o cargo logo que se encontrasse um novo diretor-presidente. A empresa afirmou que está cooperando com as investigações.

A firma de colocação de executivos Spencer Stuart está realizando o processo de busca, segundo uma pessoa a par do assunto. Tanto a Avon como a HSN não quiseram comentar sobre a procura de um novo diretor-presidente.

Grossman foi elogiada por criar uma imagem mais sofisticada para o canal de televendas, atraindo estilistas como Naeem Khan e Sam Edelman para vender suas coleções pessoalmente no HSN, enquanto descartava marcas que não estavam contribuindo.

Ela entrou na HSN em 2006 e abriu o capital da empresa em 2008, quando esta foi desmembrada da IAC/InterActiveCorp. Nos primeiros nove meses de 2011, as vendas da HSN cresceram 6,8%, para US$ 2,2bilhões.

No quarto trimestre, a Avon registrou prejuízo de US$ 400.000, em comparação com um lucro de US$ 229,5 milhões um ano antes, havendo dada baixa contábil da aquisição, em 2010, da Silpada Designs Inc., firma de venda direta de jóias. A receita caiu 4,2%, para US$ 3,04 bilhões. A margem bruta também diminuiu, de 61,8% para 61,1%, refletindo a alta no custo das matérias-primas, bem como uma despesa relativa aos estoques no Brasil.

Os investidores ficaram aliviados quando a empresa lhes garantiu que seus consideráveis dividendos seriam mantidos, e que ela tem caixa suficiente para fazer esses pagamentos. A ação da Avon fechou em alta de 1,5% ontem, em US$ 17,80. Ela perdeu mais de um terço do valor no ano passado.

(Colaborou Paul Ziobro.)

Por
GREGORY ZUCKERMAN
e LIAM PLEVEN

O ouro foi um dos melhores investimentos em 2011.

E as ações das mineradoras de ouro? Ficaram entre os piores.

O ouro subiu 12% este ano, mas as ações das mineradoras de ouro caíram quase 16%. As mineradoras de ouro menores caíram quase 40%, com base nos rendimentos dos principais fundos negociados em bolsa que acompanham essas ações.

Esse surpreendente abismo prejudicou alguns dos maiores nomes de Wall Street, incluindo John Paulson, George Soros e David Einhorn, muitos dos quais acumularam ações de mineradoras de ouro no ano passado, às vezes retirando recursos do próprio ouro.

Os otimistas calcularam que as mineradoras eram mais vantajosas do que o ouro, em parte porque as ações de mineração tiveram desempenho superior durante outras fases de alta do metal.

Mas este ano as mineradoras sofreram com problemas que não atingiram a cotação do próprio ouro. Os investidores se preocupam ao ver que os custos da mineração estão subindo, e que governos do mundo todo estão ficando mais agressivos ao taxar as empresas de commodities. Também temem que as mineradoras desperdicem algum ganho inesperado fazendo aquisições ou outras operações mal pensadas.

Além disso, em um ano turbulento, as ações do ouro sofreram junto com a maioria das outras, pois muitos investidores buscaram a segurança dos títulos do governo americano.

“Quando você vende a sua carteira, você diz, bem, isso é cíclico, e aqui se incluem as ações de mineradoras”, diz o analista do HSBC Patrick Chidley, que considerou as ações das mineradoras de ouro “uma oportunidade de compra” em um relatório de pesquisa de junho, e continua achando que essa aposta vai compensar.

Investidores que antes buscavam as mineradoras para ganhar exposição ao ouro em barras agora podem comprar fundos negociados em bolsa lastreados em ouro.

“Os que querem comprar ações de ouro por causa do próprio ouro estão decepcionados”, diz Chidley. “Isso leva cada vez mais investidores a comprar apenas o próprio ouro.”

No terceiro trimestre, a Greenlight Capital, de David Einhorn, mais que dobrou sua participação no índice Market Vectors Gold Miners Index ETF, fazendo dele a terceira maior propriedade desse fundo de hedge, que agora constitui mais de 7% do total da carteira da firma, segundo a FactSet Research.

Einhorn está entre os investidores que dizem estar conservando suas ações de mineradoras de ouro. “A situação chegou ao ponto em que as ações de mineração de ouro devem ter bom desempenho, mesmo em um mercado de ouro estável,” escreveu Einhorn em sua mais recente carta aos investidores. “Esperamos que a cotação do ouro suba ainda mais e, portanto, as (ações das) mineradoras devem se recuperar.”

A Paulson & Co., de Paulson, foi este ano a maior portadora de ações da mineradora AngloGold Ashanti Ltd., de Joanesburgo, na África do Sul, com 9,6% das ações em circulação da empresa no final do terceiro trimestre.

A ação da AngloGold caiu cerca de 14% até agora este ano. Paulson detém cerca de 3,4% de ações em circulação da Gold Fields Ltd., que perderam cerca de 14% em 2011, e mais de 8% da NovaGold. Isso ajuda a explicar por que o fundo de Paulson dedicado a investimentos em ouro perdeu quase 6,6% do valor em 2011, segundo investidores.

O bilionário George Soros vendeu quase todas as suas posses em barras de ouro no primeiro trimestre, de acordo com informes apresentados à a comissão de valores mobiliários dos Estados Unidos, a SEC, enquanto aumentou seus investimentos em ações de diversas mineradoras de ouro este ano. Desde então, o ouro subiu cerca de 11%, enquanto uma das ações que o investidor comprou, a Barrick Gold, caiu cerca de 14%.

Porta-vozes de Paulson e de Soros não quiseram comentar. Einhorn também não quis comentar.

Apesar de que todos esses investidores eram grandes portadores de ações de mineradoras de ouro no final do terceiro trimestre, com base nos informes à SEC, não está claro quais são as suas participações hoje, ou de que forma eles as negociaram ao longo do ano.

Os investidores também ficaram frustrados ao ver que o próprio ouro vem caindo recentemente, apesar de que a turbulência na Europa continua. É um possível sinal de que o metal pode estar perdendo parte do seu status de porto seguro.

“É um pouco perverso que o ouro esteja perdendo valor quando há uma crise da moeda ocorrendo na Europa” que deveria despertar o interesse pelo ouro, diz Darren Pollock, que é um dos gestores da Cheviot Value Management LLC em Los Angeles e tem sido favorável às ações de ouro.

Ma nem todos estão convencidos de que uma recuperação é iminente. Depois que a cotação do ouro caiu, e não deu sinais de recuperação rápida apesar do ambiente de turbulência, os fundos Wealth Opportunities, do HSBC, que investem US$ 2,2 bilhões de pessoas abastadas e não trabalham com Chidley, o analista do banco, primeiro venderam ações de mineradoras de prata, e depois descartaram as de mineradoras de ouro. Os fundos continuam passando longe dessas ações, segundo informaram recentemente aos seus clientes.

Por ÁNGEL GONZÁLEZ, en Houston, y LAURENCE ILIFF, en Ciudad de México

El regulador mexicano de la industria petrolera hizo sonar la alarma sobre los planes de la estatal Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) para perforar dos pozos en aguas ultra profundas este año. Manifestó que ni la empresa ni la comisión que él mismo preside están preparadas para afrontar un accidente serio o un derrame de petróleo en esa región.

Juan Carlos Zepeda, presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos, señaló que Pemex tiene poca experiencia en la exploración en aguas profundas, ni hablar de los pozos ultra profundos, que superan los 1.800 metros de profundidad, en los que podría empezar a trabajar el próximo mes. Pemex planea perforar un máximo de seis yacimientos en aguas profundas este año, incluyendo dos en aguas ultra profundas, la mayor cantidad de su historia.

Zepeda dijo que la agencia que preside tampoco está a la altura de las circunstancias al contar con 60 empleados y un presupuesto de US$7,3 millones, cerca de 2% de lo que gastó el año pasado su contraparte en Estados Unidos. Mientras los inspectores estadounidenses supervisan las obras de exploración en altamar desde helicópteros, “lo que tengo es un auto prestado”, un viejo Nissan Sentra de propiedad de la Secretaría de Energía, lamentó Zepeda.

Pemex dice que acata las normas de la comisión y que confía en que abordará sin inconvenientes el desafío de la exploración en aguas profundas.

Los expertos señalan que las palabras de Zepeda buscan superar la resistencia a una mayor supervisión tanto de Pemex como de la Secretaría de Energía, que esperan que los hallazgos en aguas profundas reviertan el declive de la industria. La agencia encabezada por Zepeda nació en 2009 para permitir una supervisión más técnica e independiente de los hidrocarburos.

La advertencia de Zepeda se produce después del accidente de la plataforma Deepwater Horizon en abril de 2010, que causó la muerte de 11 trabajadores y se convirtió en el mayor derrame offshore de crudo en la historia de EE.UU. Eso, a su vez, intensificó la preocupación de EE.UU. por cualquier proyecto de exploración en aguas profundas cerca de las costas del país. En enero, funcionarios del Departamento de Interior de EE.UU. inspeccionaron una plataforma de perforación que operará en aguas cubanas.

El Servicio de Guarda Costas de EE.UU. declinó referirse a los planes de México, pero dijo que sostiene reuniones periódicas con el gobierno mexicano sobre cooperación medioambiental y que los países mantienen una relación de larga data en respuestas a derrames de crudo.

No obstante, algunos expertos indicaron que las aprensiones de Zepeda se justifican. A pesar de que se espera que trabaje con empresas experimentadas en la materia, Pemex “va a aguas muy profundas sin tener mucha experiencia en aguas menos profundas”, manifestó David Shields, analista independiente del sector mexicano de energía.

La Comisión de Hidrocarburos le dio a los planes de Pemex un visto bueno condicional, que exige a la petrolera contar con un sistema que le permita sellar rápidamente un pozo que filtre petróleo. Zepeda dice que Pemex aún no ha demostrado que tiene esa capacidad.

En la actualidad, la agencia revisa un plan de Pemex para perforar un sitio cerca del borde marítimo con EE.UU. a unos 2.700 metros de profundidad. Se trata de un salto importante para Pemex, dijo Zepeda. A pesar de que aún no ha recibido el permiso de la comisión, Pemex sigue adelante con los planes, señaló Zepeda, quien añadió que la entidad divulgará pronto un informe crítico del proyecto.

Carlos Morales Gil, director general de exploración y producción de Pemex, indicó que la empresa está en conversaciones con Helix Well Containment Group, un consorcio estadounidense que heredó y mejoró parte de los equipos usados para contener el derrame de Deepwater Horizon. Agregó que Pemex también evalúa fabricar su propio sistema.

Pemex, en todo caso, rechaza las críticas de la agencia liderada por Zepeda. “Tenemos la capacidad. Tenemos las plataformas”, aseveró Morales. “No se debe subestimar a Pemex”.

La petrolera estatal dijo que su tasa de accidentes industriales es mejor que el promedio de la industria. Pero no ha estado exenta de algunos desastres en su historia.

Pemex, cuya producción ha descendido en siete años consecutivos, tiene sólo alrededor de 10 años de reservas comprobadas de crudo y ha estado tratando de compensar la caída en la producción del gigantesco yacimiento de Cantarell, que fue descubierto en los años 70.

Newt Gingrich at least is the kind of conservative that conservatives can rely upon to settle their scores for them, especially when that means getting off a bon mot at the expense of the media. Rick Santorum is at least an anti-Mitt who is also an anti-Newt—walking the talk when it comes to family.

Yet what conservatives like least about Mitt Romney—aka Mr. Calculation—is exactly the quality paid off in his swift and effective response to the rise of Newt Gingrich in Florida. It’s not just that Mitt stuck the knife in; he did it when necessary, coolly, and without malice. Yes, Mr. Romney still needs a big idea or two, but he’ll always be the get-it-done candidate.

But get what done? Off to the side persists the debate about his business career and his taxes, and meanwhile President Obama just put taxes at the center of the 2012 election with his new campaign document, er, budget that fleshes out his premise that making the rich “pay their fair share” is the solution to all America’s problems.

Why not pick up this gauntlet? Mr. Romney might give his candidacy some life with a straightforward promise: Tax reform will deliver prosperity, and I will deliver tax reform. His campaign would finally have a theme for its pudding. It would also have the inestimable additional benefit of challenging the central myth of Mr. Obama’s political persona.

Let us quickly acknowledge that the phrase “dishonest political rhetoric” is often a case of using three words where two will do. Mr. Obama blazes no trails in this regard. You might even say he and Mr. Romney deserve each other in the fall, since both are—and we mean this in the most respectful way—utter political fakers. But nonetheless it’s past time that somebody challenged Mr. Obama on the claim, so central to his presidential appeal four years ago, that he is a pure soul who transcends partisanship.

Bipartisan is when the parties act on matters on which there is agreement. Bipartisan leadership is when a president challenges his opposition to vote for things it claims to support. There is no clearer case than tax reform, which was endorsed by Mr. Obama’s fiscal commission, by Rep. Paul Ryan, by countless other Republicans in the Reagan mold, by economists of every complexion.

Mr. Obama himself, when exhibiting his post-partisan reasonableness for the press, pays lip service to a flatter, less-distorting tax code. He did so again this week, even as he proposed to festoon the tax code with more distortions.

A pro-growth tax reform enacted a year or two ago, we’re convinced, would have given employers and investors a badly needed jolt of confidence and voters the pleasure of seeing that their country can govern itself successfully. It would have helped repair the nation’s strained finances. It would have coaxed Americans to begin the necessary job of saving and budgeting for their own retirement and health care. It would have done nothing to prejudice Mr. Obama’s expansionist social welfare agenda—unless, that is, Mr. Obama believes recovery itself would have been prejudicial to his agenda (perhaps a subject for Tim Geithner’s memoirs).

Mr. Obama’s insincerity on tax reform has been a giant missed opportunity. Mr. Romney is the get-it-done candidate. He could not only point to Mr. Obama’s failure to act, but explain why—because it would conflict with the campaign of class resentment that he and his surrogates are so busy denying they intend to run on in the fall.

Mr. Romney needs to do something. Mr. Santorum’s rise is a telling rebuke—a “conservative” who hails from a blue state and yet who succeeded because he found a natural way to bridge the gap, thanks to his affiliation with unions and hard-hat workers. Yes, his resulting tax and subsidy prescriptions may be unwise, but at least he’s made his way without repeatedly flipping positions on fundamental issues.

Mr. Romney has been as mealy-mouthed, in his own way, as Mr. Obama on taxes, favoring a pro-growth tax code for everybody but “the rich.” Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney could both do themselves a favor, talking honestly for a change about what they believe, if they turned the campaign into a debate about whether we want a tax code geared toward redistribution or toward growth.

For that matter, all Republicans in the race, including Mr. Santorum, could learn from Ronald Reagan, whose name they constantly invoke. In a parting address to his White House staff on Dec. 13, 1988, Reagan touched all the conservative hot buttons but placed instructively narrow brackets on his own administration’s contributions, saying: “As a first step, we said that the way to restore vitality to the economy was to cut marginal tax rates and cut needless regulations.”

This is wisdom. Americans know the right way to live and don’t need either party’s social engineering (to borrow a phrase from Newt Gingrich). What they need is more prosperity, to enable them to live the lives they aspire to.