stmichaeladelphi.org

Por LIZ RAPPAPORT e COLIN BARR

Um ano terrível para o mercado tem forçado Wall Street a reavaliar seus salários.

À medida que os bancos se preparam para a temporada de divulgação de resultados do quarto trimestre e tomam decisões sobre o pagamento de bônus para 2011, é provável que a remuneração total seja a mais baixa desde 2008, quando a crise financeira destruiu algumas empresas e deixou muitos dos sobreviventes nas mãos do governo.

Muitos dos cerca de 400 sócios do Goldman Sachs Group Inc. esperam que a remuneração de 2011 seja pelo menos a metade da recebida no ano anterior, segundo pessoas a par da situação. Alguns empregados da mesa de operações de renda fixa em Nova York terão um corte de 60% no salários, com alguns até ficando sem bônus, disseram as pessoas.

Os bônus dos banqueiros de investimento e operadores do Morgan Stanley devem cair de 30% a 40% em relação aos do ano passado, disseram as pessoas familiarizadas com a situação.

Depois de meses de preocupação em Wall Street, os cortes nos salários ocorrem num momento em que as corretoras se preparam para divulgar os resultados do quarto trimestre — e pagar os bônus de 2011. Foi um ano ruim por causa de uma queda na receita operacional, poucas fusões e aquisições, nova regulamentação e falta de confiança na economia mundial. Entre os outros fatores que contribuíram para reduzir os salários do setor estão a queda nas cotações e a indignação do público que culminou no movimento Ocupe Wall Street, que montou um acampamento de protesto no centro financeiro de Nova York.

Executivos de algumas firmas financeiras preveem mudanças de longo prazo por causa das transformações econômicas e de regulamentação, que devem limitar a rentabilidade. “As empresas realmente precisam entender que acabou a festa de antigamente”, disse Rose Marie Orens, sócia sênior da Compensation Advisory Partners, uma firma de Nova York que presta serviço a comitês salariais de conselhos de empresas abertas.

O pagamento de 2011 para o sócio médio do Goldman, incluindo salário e bônus, provavelmente ficará na faixa de US$ 3 milhões a US$ 6,5 milhões, segundo pessoas a par da questão. Em anos melhores, o pagamento foi pelo menos o dobro, disseram as pessoas.

Em muitos casos, os cortes salariais de Wall Street ocorrerão principalmente no topo da hierarquia, onde se paga os maiores bônus. As firmas financeiras concorriam agressivamente antes da crise financeira para atrair e cultivar os novos talentos.

O resultado dos cortes atuais é que alguns empregados de médio escalão dos bancos de investimentos podem ganhar mais que seus superintendentes e chefes executivos este ano, disseram pessoas a par da questão.

Wall Street sempre cortou os salários em tempo de vacas magras, mas a concorrência pelos operadores e banqueiros de investimento mais talentosos impedia as firmas de impor grandes mudanças. Mas depois da crise financeira, algumas firmas diminuíram os bônus e aumentaram o salário básico por causa da pressão política. As autoridades argumentaram que a dependência exagerada nos bônus estimulou a aceitação de riscos excessivos.

O setor também está pagando seus pecados com várias demissões em massa. Duas dezenas de bancos e corretoras globais anunciaram planos no segundo semestre do ano passado de demitir um total de mais de 103.000 pessoas.

No momento, as firmas estão sendo obrigadas a usar fatias maiores da receita para pagar os empregados. Uma análise do The Wall Street Journal sobre os resultados de firmas do setor e estimativas de analistas sobre 34 empresas de capital aberto calculam que elas preveem gastar 36% da receita com salários e benefícios, 33% a mais que 2010.

Por DREW FITZGERALD

Moody’s Investors Service rebajó el lunes las calificaciones de deuda de seis países europeos y advirtió que sus calificaciones máximas para Austria, Francia y Reino Unido podrían estar en riesgo.

La firma rebajó la calificación de deuda de Italia en un escaño a “A3″, lo que corresponde a cuatro escaños sobre el territorio de grado especulativo, y mantuvo la perspectiva Negativa para la tercera mayor economía de la eurozona.

Las calificaciones de España, Malta, Portugal y Eslovenia también se rebajaron en un escaño y mantuvieron sus perspectivas Negativas, indicó Moody’s.

Las perspectivas de Austria, Francia y Reino Unido pasaron a Negativas.

La medida de Moody’s sigue medidas similares tomadas el mes pasado por Standard & Poor’s y Fitch Ratings donde se rebajaron las calificaciones de varios países de una sola vez. Al igual que S&P y Fitch, Moody’s citó las preocupaciones por la actual crisis de deuda, la manera en la que está siendo manejada y el impacto sobre varias economías de la región como causal de las rebajas. Moody’s mencionó además la fragilidad de los mercados financieros en Europa y las posibilidades de futuros problemas en el sistema debido a la crisis.

Moody’s rebajó el lunes las calificaciones de deuda de Italia, Malta, Portugal, Eslovaquia, Eslovenia y España. Las calificaciones de los seis países fueron rebajadas el mes pasado por S&P. En tanto, Fitch rebajó el mes pasado las calificaciones de deuda de Italia, Eslovenia y España.

Si bien Moody’s fue el último en tomar medidas, fue el más severo con Portugal y España. La rebaja de Moody’s a la deuda de Portugal lleva la calificación de deuda del país más hacia territorio chatarra, con “Ba3″, tres escaños por debajo del grado de inversión.

Donde Moody’s sí se diferenció de las medidas recientes tomadas por otras calificadoras fue al modificar la perspectiva para Reino Unido. Moody’s señaló el lunes que los recientes acontecimientos señalan débiles prospectos macroeconómicos para Europa, lo que hace más difícil para los países implementar medidas de austeridad para reducir su deuda.

By SHELLY BANJO

As investors look for guidance in these troubled markets, one question looms above all others:

Whom can you trust?

During boom times, it was easy to hire a financial adviser and put your money on autopilot. Now the market is in chaos and thousands of investors have been devastated by fraud, with Madoffed threatening to become an all-too-common verb.

Small wonder that many investors are getting reluctant to put their faith in experts. More than three-quarters of individuals with at least $1 million to invest intend to move money away from their financial advisers, and more than half intend to leave their advisers altogether, according to Prince & Associates Inc., a market-research firm.

The trouble is, many investors don’t have the time or expertise to make all of their own investment decisions. So, having a professional on your side is crucial. But how can you guarantee that your expert is reliable?

The short answer is that you can’t. There are no guarantees. But you can be a lot more sure than many investors are today.

The first step is to realize that you’re ultimately responsible for your family’s money — you’re the chief executive of your own investment company. Your financial adviser, mutual-fund manager, wealth manager and anyone else who handles your investments should report directly to you. Even if you don’t understand the ins and outs of investing as well as they do, you’re responsible for ensuring that they handle your money properly.

“Being a CEO doesn’t mean you make every trade, but you do have to be able to manage a team of people with quality expertise, realizing that not everyone in the profession knows what they are doing,” says Michael Sonnenfeldt, co-founder of Tiger 21, a peer group for wealthy investors based in New York.

Once you recognize that you’re in charge, you can approach your advisers like a boss — not just a client. That means putting them through a tough vetting process to make sure they’re competent, trustworthy and looking after your best interests. Here are some big questions to keep in mind as you review your candidates:

1. What’s in the adviser’s background?

“Think like an employer,” looking at a potential adviser’s criminal and regulatory record, as well as references from past employers, says Wayne Cooper, founder of Wealth Management Exchange, a social-networking site for high-net-worth investors.

You can find regulatory records for stockbrokers, investment advisers, insurance agents and their firms online, starting at Finra.org, the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency’s Web site. Finra’s BrokerCheck will tell you which states and regulatory organizations that brokers and their firms are registered with, along with the licenses they hold, the exams they’ve passed, and their employment history.

 

How Should Investors Vet Their Money Managers?

3:27

Following news of million-dollar frauds executed by Allen Stanford and Bernie Madoff, investors may be re-examining their own money managers. Dow Jones Newswires’ Shelly Banjo discusses ways to check up on your financial advisor’s credibility.

The site also lists any formal investigations and disciplinary actions initiated by regulators, along with customer disputes, certain criminal charges and financial disclosures, including bankruptcies.

For investment advisers with firms regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission — usually those managing more than $25 million — go to http://adviserinfo.sec.gov and click on “Investment Adviser Search” to see part of the “Form ADV,” a document the SEC requires all investment advisers to fill out when registering.

The online portion of the form will give you information about an adviser’s clients, fees, business and disciplinary history within the past 10 years. The second part of the form — which isn’t online — contains information on an adviser’s services, fees, code of ethics and investment strategies. To see a copy, ask the adviser’s firm, your state regulator or the SEC.

Investors can find more information about advisers, including education and work history, at the Web sites of organizations such as the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. (www.cfp.net) and the Financial Planning Association (www.fpanet.org).

But all of that leaves an important question open: What exactly constitutes a red flag in an adviser’s history?

“A discriminating person wouldn’t just look at the fact the adviser had a complaint,” says George Brunelle, a New York securities lawyer. He suggests looking for complaints related to customer disputes, fraud or excessive buying and selling of securities, called churning. Investors should zero in on disputes that led to a substantial arbitration award.

On the other hand, some technical infractions — such as failure to comply with continuing-education requirements on time are more common and may be permissible. Either way, there are lots of advisers out there, so “it is best to comparison-shop,” Mr. Brunelle says.

2. What do the adviser’s clients say?

Don’t wholly depend on the reputation of a big firm or recommendations from friends, family or members of your country club. After all, Bernard Madoff would likely have gotten glowing recommendations from many noted people, says David Kudla, chief executive of Mainstay Capital Management in Grand Blanc, Mich.

Stephen Webster

People who refer you to an adviser may also have different goals than you. For instance, your golf buddy may want to retire before age 40 and doesn’t have any kids to think about. But you may be planning to retire at age 75 with money left over for your three kids. Thus, your financial plans and needs will vary drastically.

So, it can be helpful to ask for references from past and current clients in life situations similar to yours. When talking to the clients, get specific about their experiences. How often did the adviser communicate with them? Has the adviser ever admitted to making a mistake? How often do they evaluate their goals with the adviser? Has anything about their relationship surprised or disappointed them? Has the adviser performed well in bull and bear markets? Is the adviser ethical?

Then ask them for additional references from people the adviser hasn’t solicited, says Greg Rogers, founder and president of RayLign Advisory LLC in Greenwich, Conn. “Try to find six degrees of separation from the adviser,” he says. “You’ll get better information if you get indirect references.”

3. How does the adviser get paid?

Knowing how advisers get paid will help you tell if they’re working in your best interest. “It’s no different than going into a clothing store — when a salesperson says you look great, you know they have a bias to sell you clothes,” says Mr. Sonnenfeldt, the Tiger 21 co-founder.

Advisers use a bunch of compensation structures. They may get a commission on the securities they sell; charge fees, either flat or a percentage of the assets they manage for you; work at an hourly rate; or a combination of all of them. Ask advisers to detail exactly how they work and the total compensation picture from managing your portfolio. Be wary of anyone who shies away from answering these questions in a transparent way, Mr. Sonnenfeldt says.

Also ask about conflicts of interest. For example, if advisers work on commission, ask for their firm’s commission schedule and find out if there are a limited number of products or services they can recommend and why. If they can’t justify the limited choice, that’s a red flag. Meanwhile, if advisers take a percentage of assets as a fee, remember that they may be inclined to advise you to avoid moves that may reduce those assets, including charitable giving or buying a new house. Also be wary of an adviser who charges more than 1% or 2% of assets.

4. Where are the adviser’s checks and balances?

The most glaring red flag in the Madoff scandal was the lack of checks and balances. Mr. Madoff’s clients wrote checks and wired money to, and received statements from, Bernard L. Madoff Securities. The operation’s auditing firm, Friehling & Horowitz, had only one licensed accountant and was operating out of a storefront in New City, N.Y. Madoff investors relied on this firm to verify the authenticity of trades, the SEC said in a complaint.

When purchasing investments, make sure you are writing checks to a third-party custodian, like Fidelity Investments Co. or Charles Schwab & Co., not to your financial adviser directly. This way, “an adviser can make purchase decisions based upon my instruction, but they can’t run away with my money,” says Wealth Management Exchange’s Mr. Cooper.

Call the independent institution to verify it’s serving your adviser, and never send checks anywhere but that firm’s business address. What’s more, don’t allow your transaction confirmations and account statements to be mailed to your financial adviser instead of you. You should receive account statements from a third-party custodian.

Likewise, find out what auditors your adviser’s firm uses. Auditors are crucial, since they verify the existence of the assets your adviser manages. Each state has its own database to check if an auditor is licensed. (While you’re at it, check if your adviser has switched accounting firms or custodians recently, a move that could indicate trouble with the previous firm.)

It’s also important to ask advisers about another kind of oversight: how the advisers conduct due diligence on any money managers they recommend investing with. Do they check out the managers’ balance sheets, and how their actions line up with their investment strategies? Do the advisers have a personal relationship with the managers or get kickbacks from referring you?

Note, though, that it isn’t uncommon for advisers to get a referral fee, “as long as they disclose who is getting the money and demonstrate why they are recommending” the particular money manager, says Ken Springer, president of Corporate Resolutions Inc., a corporate-consulting and investigative firm.

5. What’s the adviser’s track record?

Advisers sometimes say they can’t easily describe their track record, since they tailor each portfolio to an individual client’s needs. But that excuse doesn’t hold up. “There are many ways to evaluate an adviser’s track record,” Mr. Sonnenfeldt says.

For example, you might ask: How many clients beat their benchmarks or are in line with their goals? How have clients similar to me fared during recessions? Can you combine all of your clients into a single portfolio and tell me how the overall portfolio did? Remember to ask about both short-term (one year) and long-term (10 years or more) records, and ask if your adviser is using absolute returns or returns relative to the performance of the market.

Next, use the advisers’ record to understand how they make decisions. “You can ask about performance, but what you’re really after is how the adviser processes decisions,” says Mr. Rogers of RayLign Advisory.

He suggests asking advisers to dissect a specific situation that has occurred to them. For instance, you could say, “ ’Take your worst investment and evaluate how you made the investment, monitored it and the decisions you made along the way to stick with it or get out,’ ” he says.

“If you feel they are dodging the question or putting a positive spin on everything, it’s a red flag,” Mr. Rogers says. “It could mean they’re not going to deal with or handle the tough decisions.”

Finally, be watchful for claims of all-too-consistent returns. No adviser can deliver 10% to 20% returns every year. More reasonable — and responsible — is an adviser who says they may get you 10% one year, 2% the next and so on, Mr. Rogers says.

6. Can the adviser put it in writing?

Ask for a formal written outline of the services the adviser will be providing and what fees you will be paying. By setting concrete expectations, you can determine if an adviser is going to, say, “help you set goals and do budgeting or just make investment decisions,” says Ellen Turf, chief executive of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors.

For instance, you can ask advisers to spell out what they think you are trying to achieve and what they think you should do to get there, including investment strategies, specific benchmarks and suggested financial products. If advisers can’t explain their plan in simple terms, another red flag should go up. Secret strategies like those touted by Mr. Madoff are no longer acceptable, Mr. Sonnenfeldt says.

Also ask advisers to spell out who else stands to gain from your relationship — such as affiliated broker-dealers and insurance agencies — as well as exactly how much the adviser, the adviser’s firm and all those other parties will earn from your business.

Finally, find out whether the advisers are going to take on fiduciary responsibility, in which they are legally bound to act in your best interest. If advisers don’t take this oath, they’re only required to sell you products that are deemed suitable for you — and those may not always be the best fit for your financial situation or objectives.

7. What do other pros think?

Sure, you pay your adviser to do the heavy lifting, but it’s imperative that you double-check any big moves — especially in this turbulent economy.

That means knowing the basics behind your investments, insurance, estate planning and taxes, and then turning to other experts for confirmation. For instance, if your financial adviser recommends investing in commodities, read up on recent news affecting the commodities markets and then search out an expert and ask questions.

“Just like you would ask a specialist for a second opinion on your doctor’s diagnosis,” ask your accountant, lawyer and other financial professionals for their opinions on individual strategies, Ms. Turf says.

—Ms. Banjo is a staff reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in Jersey City, N.J.

Write to Shelly Banjo at shelly.banjo@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page R1

Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos told a group of labor-union leaders Wednesday that he expected that a deal on a 50% haircut on Greek government bonds would be sealed within two weeks. A day earlier, a government spokesman had warned that without a deal, Greece would be forced out of the euro and into a hard default. The trouble for Athens is that the prime minister’s statement looks increasingly doubtful, and avoiding default may no longer be possible.

Of Greece’s €350 billion or so in debt, only about €206 billion is still held by investors. The rest is owed to the EU, the IMF, or held by the ECB through its emergency bond-purchasing program. It is only that first €206 billion that is being threatened with haircuts and restructuring, which is why Athens needs a 50% reduction in the value of that debt to reduce the total it owes by €103 billion. The IMF, in turn, has estimated that this would leave Greece with a sustainable debt burden of only 120% of GDP. That assumes fairly optimistic things about future economic growth, tax collection and so on.

Most of Greece’s big creditors agreed in principle to a 50% reduction in the value of what they’re owed back in October. That was after an earlier agreement on a 21% reduction was revealed to be woefully inadequate.

But one of the problems facing this deal is that the world’s big banks only own about 60% of that debt. The rest is in the hands of hedge funds and other distressed-debt investors, not all of whom are necessarily inclined to play along. Some own credit-default swaps on Greek debt, meaning they may actually have an incentive to force a default, so that their CDS, a form of insurance against default, will pay them in full for the value of their holdings. Others may hold debt maturing over the next few months, and so may figure that if they hold out just a bit longer, they could get paid in full. There’s about €36 billion in Greek debt maturing this year.

An agreement could be reached without the participation of some holdouts. But that would have two effects. First, if even a single holdout is handed an involuntary haircut, that would constitute a default, something the EU has been at pains to avoid. Second, in order to reach the target of €100 billion in debt reduction, everyone else would have to take even deeper haircuts, something that the creditors’ committee has made clear it does not want.

We may get a deal with the biggest creditors in the next couple of weeks, but that may not be enough to prevent at least a partial default. Being declared in default would not necessarily be the worst thing that could happen to Greece. Being unprepared for it, or telling everyone in advance that default is tantamount to the end of the world, will only make it worse.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 16

Por AMIR EFRATI

O diretor-presidente da Yahoo Inc., Scott Thompson, foi contratado no mês passado para dar uma virada no negócio principal da empresa de internet. Ele agora tem novos problemas, talvez maiores, com que se preocupar.

Na terça-feira, um dos alicerces da estratégia da Yahoo — vender seus ativos na Ásia sem pagar muito imposto — aparentemente desmoronou. Como se não bastasse, o acionista ativista Dan Loeb iniciou uma campanha para renovar o conselho diretor.

Pessoas a par da situação dizem que o acordo pelo qual a Yahoo venderia grande parte das suas participações em duas empresas asiáticas de internet, a Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. e a Yahoo Japan, estava agora fora de questão. O elaborado negócio, de US$ 17 bilhões, deveria economizar uma pesada carga tributária.

No final do dia, Loeb indicou quatro possíveis diretores para entrar no conselho da Yahoo, mostrando insatisfação com as recentes mudanças no conselho feitas pela própria empresa. O fundo de hedge de Loeb, Third Point, que controla cerca de 5% das ações da Yahoo, indicou Loeb e outras três pessoas, incluindo o ex-diretor-presidente da NBC Universal, Jeff Zucker, e o ex-executivo da MTV Networks, Michael Wolf.

Em um informe, o fundo Third Point disse que as recentes saídas do conselho da Yahoo “não acalmam em absoluto os temores dos investidores de que a Yahoo está em vias de repetir os erros do passado”.

O comunicado fez referência a um artigo recente do The Wall Street Journal, que informava que a Yahoo iria buscar mais receitas derivadas de transações, numa tentativa de se diversificar e diminuir a dependência de anúncios on-line nos seus sites.

Essa abordagem “coloca em grande risco o núcleo gerador de receitas da Yahoo, não reconhece a tremenda oportunidade de crescimento na área de vídeo, e resulta diretamente de uma falta de conhecimentos essenciais sobre mídia e entretenimento”, diz o informe.

A chapa proposta por Loeb para o conselho deve entrar em votação na assembléia anual dos acionistas da Yahoo, que normalmente é realizada em meados do ano, mas ainda não foi agendada.

Em um comunicado, o Yahoo disse que era “decepcionante que o Sr. Loeb tenha optado por um caminho potencialmente destrutivo” e que continua a procurar novos candidatos ao conselho, por conta própria.

Um porta-voz da Yahoo não quis comentar sobre as negociações dos ativos asiáticos.

Thompson, que foi contratado no mês passado, vindo da divisão PayPal da eBay Inc., está começando a se inteirar dos problemas da Yahoo e vem estudando direcionar a firma para as “receitas transacionais”, em vez de concentrar-se apenas na a publicidade on-line, segundo pessoas a par do assunto.

Na semana passada Roy Bostock, que foi presidente do conselho da Yahoo por muito tempo, disse que ele e outros conselheiros iriam sair da empresa ainda este ano, enquanto o cofundador da Yahoo, Jerry Yang, deixou abruptamente o conselho e seu cargo na empresa no mês passado.

Alguns analistas disseram que os novos problemas que Thompson tem que enfrentar talvez não sejam ruins para a Yahoo no longo prazo. Como a participação da Yahoo na Alibaba está aumentando de valor, Thompson talvez “queira conservá-la até que se ofereça um preço mais alto”, disse Jordan Rohan, analista de ações da internet da Stifel Nicolaus & Co.

Durante meses a Yahoo manteve conversações com a Alibaba, sediada na China, e com a Softbank Corp., com sede no Japão, para vender grande parte das suas participações na Alibaba e na Yahoo Japan, uma joint venture em que a Softbank é um dos principais acionistas. A Yahoo possui cerca de 40% da Alibaba e cerca de 33% da Yahoo Japan.

Mas, em reuniões realizadas durante o último fim de semana em Hong Kong, a Alibaba disse que um complexo negócio de troca de ações, incluindo quase US$ 4 bilhões em economia de impostos, já não era uma opção viável, segundo as pessoas a par do assunto.

Não está claro por que o negócio se desmanchou. As pessoas a par das negociações disseram que o vantajoso acordo seria sido difícil de concretizar, podendo atrair um exame rigoroso da Receita Federal dos Estados Unidos, devido à sua grande envergadura e às diversas partes envolvidas.

O ponto final na operação com vantagens tributárias não significa que a Yahoo e a Alibaba tenham parado de negociar. Pessoas a par do assunto disseram que as partes continuarão a conversar esta semana sobre um acordo tributável.

(Contribuíram Anupreeta Das, Vipal Monga e Joann S. Lublin.)

Por JOHN W. MILLER y DANA CIMILLUCA

La fusión propuesta entre Glencore International AG y Xstrata PLC crea un rival de temer para los pesos pesados que dominan la minería global como Vale SA, Rio Tinto y BHP Billiton, y ejerce presión para que empresas de mediano calibre, como Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. y Anglo American PLC, se combinen o crezcan a través de adquisiciones.

En juego están recursos naturales como el carbón, el cobre y el mineral de hierro que son cruciales para el auge en Asia y que en los últimos años han beneficiado a exportadores latinoamericanos como Brasil, Chile y Perú.

De fructificar, la unión entre Glencore y Xstrata alentaría dos tipos de fusiones. “Tendremos las megafusiones, que producirán niveles de concentración mucho más altos”, dice Michael Locker, presidente de la consultora Locker Associates. Agrega que las mineras también adquirirán activos más pequeños y riesgosos en países en desarrollo como Zambia, Mozambique y Mongolia.

La potencial combinación de Glencore y Xstrata, compañías con amplia presencia en América Latina, se produciría en medio de una época dorada de las fusiones y adquisiciones en el sector minero y metalúrgico, aunque no ha sido inmune a las recientes turbulencias económicas y financieras. El número de acuerdos ha aumentado de 392 en 2000 a 1.008 en 2011, según un sondeo que Ernst & Young divulgará hoy.

“Hemos estado en un auge de fusiones desde que empezó el repunte de las materias primas”, dice David Lipschitz, analista de CLSA/Crédit Agricole. Los precios de muchos commodities, desde el carbón hasta el níquel, despegaron a comienzos de la década de 2000, impulsados por el ingreso de China a la Organización Mundial del Comercio.

Las condiciones son propicias para la actividad de fusiones, dicen analistas. Los precios de las materias primas siguen al alza mientras que las valuaciones de las empresas del sector y los costos de endeudamiento siguen siendo relativamente bajos. Las compañías mineras y de metales emitieron en 2011 un récord de US$84.000 millones en bonos, un alza de 16% frente al año previo, mientras que los préstamos bancarios totalizaron US$178.000 millones, un alza de 2% frente a 2010, según Ernst & Young.

La posible unión de Glencore y Xstrata añade un catalizador. La empresa combinada tendría una capitalización en torno a los US$80.000 millones y, lo que es más importante, tendría influencia en varias áreas.

Controlaría, por ejemplo, un tercio del mercado del carbón térmico usado en la generación eléctrica y se convertiría en el mayor productor de zinc del mundo, con 15% de la producción total. También competiría con Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. por el título del segundo productor de cobre, detrás de la estatal chilena Codelco.

A medida que se disipan los temores de un desplome financiero y económico global, aumentan las probabilidades de megafusiones entre las 10 mayores empresas del sector, lo que incluiría un nuevo intento de BHP para adquirir Rio Tinto, dicen banqueros y analistas. Ambas mineras anglo-australianas y la brasileña Vale controlan cerca de 70% del comercio de mineral de hierro transportado por mar en el mundo.

En todo caso, no hay ninguna garantía de que prospere la fusión de Glencore y Xstrata la que, tal como se espera, se podría anunciar mañana martes, cuando Xstrata reporte sus resultados de 2011.

Las autoridades de la competencia ya han bloqueado pactos que consideran reñidos con la libre competencia y no hay indicios de que relajarán su postura.

Los accionistas, igualmente, pusieron una vara alta. El pacto que Xstrata y Glencore negocian (un acuerdo entre iguales que personas al tanto dicen incluiría, en el mejor de los casos, una prima modesta para los accionistas de Xstrata) es uno que muchos inversionistas han sido renuentes a apoyar. En 2009, un año después de que BHP fracasó en su intento por adquirir Rio Tinto, Xstrata trató de comprar Anglo American PLC, un conglomerado anglo-sudafricano mediano. El negocio no prosperó debido a las protestas de los accionistas de Anglo American.

Cualquiera de esos acuerdos podría resucitar, dicen analistas. Freeport también sería un blanco atractivo, pero su capitalización de mercado de US$44.000 millones la haría una compra costosa.

El otro tipo de acuerdo representa una búsqueda de recursos en países de alto riesgo como Zambia, Mozambique y Mongolia, donde hay depósitos valiosos pero en áreas remotas y de difícil acceso. Estas inversiones son riesgosas debido a las condiciones políticas y logísticas. Locker lo pone de esta manera: “Si construye una mina en Guinea, no sabe si la tendrá en cinco años”. En Mozambique, por ejemplo, Rio ha tenido que construir una vía férrea de US$1.000 millones. “Y no se la puede llevar cuando salga del país”, concluye Locker.

Por MATTHEW DALTON y STEPHEN FIDLER

BRUSELAS— Se espera que el Fondo Monetario Internacional contribuya sólo con 13.000 millones de euros al segundo paquete de ayuda de Grecia, valorado en 130.000 millones de euros, lo que hará que los gobiernos de la eurozona tengan que aportar una proporción de fondos mucho mayor que en los tres rescates anteriores a otros países europeos, dijeron fuentes cercanas a la situación.

La menor contribución del FMI refleja los temores de los miembros del fondo por un exceso de exposición a la eurozona, según las fuentes. El fondo ya ha acordado prestar 30.000 millones de euros a Grecia, 22.500 millones de euros a Irlanda y 26.000 millones de euros a Portugal, cantidades todas ellas varias veces mayor que la cuota de esos tres países al FMI.

Las fuentes dijeron que el tamaño de la contribución del FMI no se ha definido. Será un asunto de discusión de los funcionarios de la eurozona el domingo y de los ministros de Finanzas el lunes, con el fin de alcanzar un acuerdo sobre el segundo rescate para Grecia después de meses de negociaciones. Se prevé que los funcionarios del FMI asistan el lunes a la reunión de ministros de Finanzas de la eurozona en Bruselas.

El FMI contribuyó con 27% del primer plan de rescate de Grecia, de 110.000 millones de euros. Sin embargo, después de que los líderes de la eurozona acordaran en julio entregar a Grecia un segundo rescate, los funcionarios del FMI dijeron que la contribución del fondo sería significativamente menor a un tercio.