asianculturalfestival.org

By PETER LOFTUS and LOUISE RADNOFSKY

PHILADELPHIA—A doctor who performed abortions was convicted Monday of first-degree murder in the deaths of three babies who were killed with scissors after they were born alive.

In a case where the grisly details only compounded the emotional debate over abortion, Kermit Gosnell also was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the 2009 sedation-overdose death of a 41-year-old woman during an abortion procedure. Dr. Gosnell was found not guilty on a third-degree-murder charge in the woman’s death, and he was acquitted of first-degree murder of a fourth baby.

Dr. Gosnell, 72 years old, faces a possible death sentence when the jury reconvenes next week to consider sentencing.

Foes and supporters of abortion rights have seized on Dr. Gosnell’s case. Antiabortion activists said charges that the doctor and members of his staff severed babies’ spinal cords showed the violence inherent in terminating pregnancies. Such groups have sought to draw attention to abortions later in pregnancy, an issue they believe could sway Americans who generally support abortion rights but also believe there are at least some instances in which abortion should be illegal.

“The few inches that separate a child in the womb from a child outside the womb should never determine whether its intentional ‘demise’ is permitted by law or whether a ‘right’ to kill it no longer exists,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that focuses on electing antiabortion women lawmakers.

Some supporters of abortion rights have blamed curbs on abortion funding and abortions later in pregnancy for driving vulnerable women to Dr. Gosnell, whose small West Philadelphia clinic was shut down in 2010. His clinic had a reputation for performing late-term abortions that other Philadelphia-area clinics wouldn’t, according to a 2011 grand-jury report recommending charges against Dr. Gosnell.

“In Pennsylvania and many other states with restrictive laws, women face incredible barriers that affect their ability to obtain quality care,” said Nancy Stanwood, board chairwoman-elect of Physicians for Reproductive Health. “Gosnell preyed on low-income women who had few options to obtain the care they needed. His practice was illegal, unethical and unsafe.”

Dr. Gosnell also was convicted of several counts of performing abortions beyond the 24-week gestation limit under Pennsylvania law, and other charges. He had initially been charged in the deaths of seven babies but was acquitted of three of the murder counts, after his lawyer argued there was insufficient evidence the babies were born alive.

The case first came to light when city and federal agencies were investigating reports of illegal prescription-drug activity at the clinic, the Women’s Medical Society. During that probe, detectives were told that the 41-year-old woman, Karnamaya Mongar, had died during an abortion procedure in 2009. In a 2010 raid, federal and city law-enforcement officers discovered conditions at the clinic that prosecutors said were unsanitary, such as blood on the floor and fetal remains being stored in containers and in freezers.

The case prompted the Pennsylvania Legislature to tighten regulations governing inspections of abortion clinics by state health authorities. The clinic hadn’t been inspected for more than a decade before the 2010 raid.

During more than five weeks of testimony in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, more than 50 witnesses were called by prosecutors to testify, including clinic workers who said Dr. Gosnell allowed his clinic to become unsanitary and that he didn’t properly supervise staff. In a closing argument last month, Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron told jurors the case was “about getting justice” for Ms. Mongar and for “those four babies who ended up dead.”

Mr. Cameron showed jurors some of the equipment from the clinic, which he said was substandard, and showed a picture of one of the babies who was killed after being born alive. He noted that clinic workers, including some who have pleaded guilty to murder charges, testified they saw some babies move and heard a baby make a sound before their spinal cords were severed.

Dr. Gosnell’s lawyer, John McMahon, had disputed the allegations. He said fetuses were injected with a drug designed to cause fetal demise before labor was induced. He noted some clinic workers testified the babies didn’t appear to be alive after birth. Mr. McMahon said movement in babies’ limbs could have been because of postmortem spasms.

“Those babies were not alive, that’s the evidence,” he said.

Dr. Gosnell didn’t testify, and his lawyer didn’t call any witnesses. When the verdict was read, Dr. Gosnell showed little visible reaction. Afterward Mr. McMahon said Dr. Gosnell was disappointed over the conviction, but he added, “The jury has spoken.” The Philadelphia district attorney’s office declined to comment.

Bernard W. Smalley, an attorney representing the family of Ms. Mongar, said, “I think justice was done today.” He has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Dr. Gosnell, which is pending.

Antiabortion activists following the case have focused particularly on questions about babies born alive in the course of induced abortions, renewing a campaign around the issue more than a decade after they secured a 2002 federal law that set out legal rights for infants delivered with signs of life in the course of an attempted abortion.

The legislation had bipartisan support at the time, including from lawmakers who favor abortion rights but who gained assurances that the law wouldn’t be used to undermine abortion laws or to interfere with physicians’ judgments about how to treat premature babies.

Some states also have renewed a push to pass legislation echoing the federal requirement. Florida lawmakers passed a measure in April to give infants delivered with signs of life during or immediately after an attempted abortion “the same rights, powers, and privileges as any other child born alive in course of natural birth.”

Write to Peter Loftus at peter.loftus@dowjones.com and Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared May 14, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Abortion Doctor Convicted Of Murder in Baby Deaths.

By SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN

Sylvester Chisom began paying a consultant last summer to blog on Twitter, post status updates on Facebook and run marketing campaigns on both sites for his auto-detailing business.

He thinks the service, which costs $450 a month, is worth it. “It’s just better having somebody else dedicated to thinking of stuff to put up,” says Mr. Chisom, co-owner of Showroom Shine Express Detailing LLC in St. Louis.

Some small-business owners, overwhelmed by the time commitment required of marketing their products and services via social media, are hiring consultants to lend a hand. But the price of such support can vary widely based on the extent of work involved, and many entrepreneurs with already meager resources for marketing and advertising may need to think carefully before taking on the extra cost.

The start-up 3 Green Angels, for example, charges clients a $400 fee to organize Twitter parties — real-time discussions on specific topics. Everywhere LLC, another specialty firm in Atlanta, charges clients up to $20,000 to arrange three streaming video press conferences led by popular bloggers.

Other agencies simply tack on social-media support as part of a package of advertising and public-relations services. Red Square Agency Inc., in Mobile, Ala., charges clients around $200 an hour, and ThinkInk LLC charges $10,000 to $20,000 a month for the integrated services.

Showroom Shine’s Mr. Chisom says he’s received several inquiries from potential customers who said they learned about his company through a recent promotion on Facebook. Revenue and traffic to his company’s Web site are up slightly from this time last month, he adds.

But Jonathan Zadok, co-owner of the Coffee Groundz LLC in Houston, says he wouldn’t pay another firm to blog on behalf of the four-year-old café.

“The idea with Twitter is that you get close to an immediate response,” he says. With an in-house person handling it, “there’s no middle man that has to go check with the company,” he says.

Mr. Zadok says last fall Coffee Groundz’s general manager, J.R. Cohen, set up profiles for the café on Twitter and Facebook. Customers started tweeting orders and special requests such as booth reservations, and in-store events promoted on the sites drew crowds three times as large as those previously advertised through signs and other traditional means.

Mr. Cohen, 31 years old, says he simultaneously posts blog entries on Twitter, Facebook and his employer’s Web site three times a day, often from his BlackBerry. He receives text-message and email alerts whenever messages are posted to Coffee Groundz’s feed so he can respond, if necessary, in a timely manner.

Mr. Cohen taught himself how to use Twitter and Facebook in about a month despite being someone who’s “not tech savvy at all,” he says. He estimates he devotes no more than 30 minutes a day to managing his employer’s presence on social media. “That’s really all you need,” he says.

Larry Chiagouris, professor of marketing at Lubin School of Business at Pace University, says it makes sense for some companies to pay for help to quickly learn social-media basics. But to use sites like Twitter and Facebook effectively, he says small firms typically need to be in control to show they are legitimate and sincere. “Unless a third party lives with you a long time, they can’t do that very well,” he says.

Some small-business owners say they are paying only for training and will eventually take full responsibility for managing their companies’ day-to-day presence on social media. Still, others say they need continuous support for handling certain tasks and promotions because they lack the necessary manpower and expertise.

Back of the House USA LLC, a St. Petersburg, Fla., provider of back-office support to solo entrepreneurs, falls into the latter category. Founder Erik Vonk says he and the firm’s 12 employees are getting “technical guidance” in using social media from consultants at Everywhere. But he adds that any opinions expressed on the sites “are ours.”

Back of the House has been paying Everywhere a monthly retainer since the spring and expects the social-media training to wrap up late next month. Afterward, Everywhere’s consultants will continue to help the firm take advantage of social media by organizing special promotions, monitoring what’s being said about the company and more.

The service is costing Back of the House between $5,000 and $15,000 a month (Mr. Vonk declined to be more specific).

So far Mr. Vonk says the investment is paying off. “I’m learning enormous amounts about how social media work, where to find the right software, how to search, what lingo to use, etc.,” he says.

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page B5

By TODDI GUTNER

Voluntary buyout packages seem to be commonplace in Corporate America during troubled times. Deciding whether to accept or reject that offer is never easy. There are a few things to consider as you decide. Most important is to realize that you have “some leverage in the negotiation process,” says Paul Gavejian, managing director of Total Compensation Solutions in Armonk, N.Y.

Determine the financial feasibility. Work with your financial adviser to help you figure out how much money you’ll need until you land another job — or whether retiring earlier than you’d planned is feasible. If you decide to take the offer, discuss with your planner how you should take it: as a lump sum, which could have steep tax implications, or in installments. Consider installments only if you have confidence in the financial health of the company.

Assess the remaining job. Ask yourself why the company is offering the buyout. “If business is really bad and the company is a sinking ship, do you really want to hang around?” says Brad Karsh, president of JobBound, a career-consulting firm in Chicago. Try to figure out what your job will be like if you stay. “Ten people might be doing the work of 20 since they won’t be replacing those who leave,” says Mr. Karsh. If you believe the thinned ranks means more opportunity, you might want to wait it out.

Know your numbers. Not everyone is offered the same terms, so ask colleagues about the packages they received. While buyouts vary, most severance packages typically offer six months to a year of salary for vice president titles and above. “Ask how the severance has been calculated,” says Alane Baranello, a managing director at Eileen Finn & Associates, an executive search firm. Standard best practice is two weeks’ pay for every year you’ve been with a company, with up to four weeks at senior levels. Make sure pay for unused vacation and sick days is included in your package.

Secure your future. Hammer out the least-restrictive noncompete agreement you can get and get clarity about the impact of the buyout on any stock options, restricted stock, or retirement accounts you have with the firm, says Mr. Gavejian. Ask to convert the company’s group life-insurance policy into an individual plan. And request a positive reference letter or recommendation to help you in your job hunt.

Consult with an attorney. Don’t sign any offer until an attorney has reviewed the terms in writing. By law, you are entitled to a certain amount of time to review the package, typically 45 days if a group of employees is affected, Ms. Baranello says. If the terms aren’t favorable, go back to the bargaining table. You have more power if your particular group is a target of trimming or if you are a high performer.

Take stock of the job market. If you aren’t ready to retire, ask yourself whether your skills are in demand, or if, conversely, the market is flooded with professionals in your field. Ask executive recruiters or people in your network how long a search in your field will take. To make the search easier, ask your employer if you can continue to have a title — like project consultant — at the company until you find a new position, advises Mr. Gavejian.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page D6

By REBECCA SMITH

If there ever were a time that seemed ripe for nuclear energy, it’s now.

For the first time in decades, popular opinion is on the industry’s side. A majority of Americans thinks nuclear power, which emits virtually no carbon dioxide, is a safe and effective way to battle climate change, according to recent polls. At the same time, legislators are showing renewed interest in nuclear as they hunt for ways to slash greenhouse-gas emissions.

The industry is seizing this chance to move out of the shadow of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and show that it has solved the three big problems that have long dogged it: cost, safety and waste. Researchers are working on reactors that they claim are simpler, cheaper in certain respects, and more efficient than the last generation of plants.

Some designs try to reduce the chance of accidents by automating safety features and minimizing the amount of hardware needed to shut down the reactor in an emergency. Others cut costs by using standardized parts that can be built in big chunks and then shipped to the site. Some squeeze more power out of uranium, reducing the amount of waste produced, while others wring even more energy out of spent fuel.

“Times are exciting for nuclear,” says Ronaldo Szilard, director of nuclear science and engineering at the Idaho National Lab, a part of the U.S. Energy Department. “There are lots of options being explored.”

But nuclear is far from a sure thing. Yes, the plants of tomorrow some of which could enter construction as soon as 2012 go at least part way toward solving some of the problems of yesterday. But they are still more expensive than fossil-fuel plants, and they still generate waste that must be stored safely somewhere.

And while the industry is winning converts, plenty of powerful enemies remain. Many scientists and environmentalists still distrust nuclear power in any form, arguing that it can never escape its cost, safety and waste problems. What’s more, critics say, trying to solve the problems in one area, such as safety, inevitably lead to more problems in another area, such as costs.

Here’s a closer look at how the industry says it’s addressing its longstanding problems and where skeptics say nuclear energy is still coming up short.

MAKING IT SAFER

For many people, talk of nuclear power conjures up memories of two accidents: the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the more extensive power surge that destroyed the reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986.

As a whole, though, the U.S. nuclear industry has a solid safety record, and the productivity of plants has grown dramatically in the past decade. The next generation of reactors so-called Generation III units is intended to take everything that’s been learned about safe operations and do it even better. Generation III units are the reactors of choice for most of the 34 nations that already have nuclear plants in operation. (China still is building a few Gen II units.)

“A common theme of future reactors is to make them simpler so there are fewer systems to monitor and fewer systems that could fail,” says Revis James, director of the Energy Technology Assessment Center at the Electric Power Research Institute, an independent power-industry research organization.

The current generation of nuclear plants requires a complex maze of redundant motors, pumps, valves and control systems to deal with emergency conditions. Generation III plants cut down on some of that infrastructure and rely more heavily on passive systems that don’t need human intervention to keep the reactor in a safe condition reducing the chance of an accident caused by operator error or equipment failure.

For example, the Westinghouse AP1000 boasts half as many safety-related valves, one-third fewer pumps and only one-fifth as much safety-related piping as earlier plants from Westinghouse, majority owned by Toshiba Corp. In an emergency, the reactor, which has been selected for use at Southern Co.’s Vogtle site in Georgia and at six other U.S. locations, is designed to shut down automatically and stay within a safe temperature range.

The reactor’s passive designs take advantage of laws of nature, such as the pull of gravity. So, for example, emergency coolant is kept at a higher elevation than the reactor pressure vessel. If sensors detect a dangerously low level of coolant in the reactor core, valves open and coolant floods the reactor core. In older reactors, emergency flooding comes from a network of pumps which require redundant systems and backup sources of power and may also require operator action.

Another big concern is how well a plant can handle a terrorist attack, especially the nightmare scenario of someone flying a jetliner into the reactor area. The Evolutionary Power Reactor from France’s Areva SA, another Generation III design, guards against such an accident by putting the reactor inside a double containment building, which would shield the reactor vessel even if the outer shell were penetrated. The design also boasts four active and passive safety systems twice the number in many reactors today that could shut it down and keep the core cool in case of a mishap. Areva’s EPRs are being built in Finland, France and China and four are under consideration for construction in the U.S. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a group critical of nuclear expansion, considers this the only design that is less vulnerable to a serious accident than today’s operating reactors.

Further out, Gen IV reactors, which use different fuels and coolants than Generation II and Generation III reactors, are designed to absorb excess heat better through greater coolant volume, better circulation and bigger containment structures. Advanced research into metal alloys that are resistant to cracking and corrosion should result in more suitable materials being used in plants, too, and giving them longer useful lives.

Still, Generation III reactors are incredibly complex systems, requiring the highest-quality materials, monitoring and training of personnel. Critics say it’s unrealistic to think they can operate flawlessly. Corrosion of vital equipment remains a potential problem, especially if it goes undetected deep within parts of the reactor that are difficult or impossible to directly inspect.

What’s more, none of the Generation III designs have been cleared for construction by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Some Generation IV concepts haven’t even been presented to the NRC for review, and they still are years away from crossing that threshold.

“The designs are safer and the safety culture is better than 20 years ago,” says Tom Cochrane, senior scientist with the nuclear-analysis team of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental-advocacy group. But he’s still not convinced reactors are safe enough to proceed. Critics remain concerned about possible physical breaches of security in the case of a terrorist attack.

Some researchers see the answer to the safety problem in revolutionary reactor designs that promise to be more “inherently safe” physically incapable of suffering a catastrophic meltdown. One such design, at least in theory, is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, being developed in China and South Africa. It’s powered with balls of uranium-filled graphite rather than the typical fuel rods. If the cooling system were to fail, the reactor temperature stays well below the balls’ melting point and then automatically cools down.

Westinghouse is working with the Department of Energy toward the possibility of getting a design certified by the NRC by 2017 or so. China currently has a small prototype pebble-bed reactor and plans to start construction this year on a 200-megawatt plant using the technology.

Most industry observers think the design is intriguing but faces big hurdles in this country because it uses a gas coolant, instead of water, and different fuel. The NRC would have to develop special processes for reviewing such a design because its expertise is in pressurized water or boiling water reactors.

Exelon Corp.,

which operates 17 commercial reactors in the U.S., was interested in the pebble-bed reactor in the late 1990s but is no longer involved. “There were technical problems such as fuel issues that made us decide we didn’t want to proceed,” says Amir Shahkarami, senior vice president of nuclear generation at Exelon.

CUTTING THE COST

While safety may be nuclear power’s biggest PR problem, cost is what killed development a generation ago, ultimately determining that only half the plants licensed by the NRC got built. And nuclear plants generally face an unfortunate trade-off: making them more safe can make them more expensive.

Makers of Generation III models are addressing the cost issue in a number of ways. For one, they claim the reactors will remain in service more years, so construction costs will be spread over a longer operating life. Today’s plants are being designed to last at least 60 years longer than any other plants except hydroelectric dams. Existing nuclear plants were expected to be retired after 40 years, though roughly half have gotten 20-year license extensions.

The new plants are also designed to be much simpler and quicker to build, reducing financing costs by potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. For instance, there’s the ABWR reactor, which has been built in Japan by GE-Hitachi and which NRG Energy Inc. hopes to build with Toshiba’s help in South Texas. The reactor is built in modules, vastly speeding construction time. GE-Hitachi, a joint venture of General Electric Co.

and Hitachi Ltd., says it has built the plant in 42 months in Japan, which is more than twice as fast as the Generation II reactors it built in the 1980s. The company compares construction methods to putting up a modular home versus constructing a stick-built house.

NRG hopes to build two ABWR reactors in Texas, next to its existing South Texas Project nuclear plant. Each plant will employ 190 modules, which NRG believes will cut field labor costs by 30%. Faster construction also will reduce the length of time it will have to rent a heavy crane at $400,000 a month.

Still, nuclear plants will remain very expensive. Recent estimates put Generation III plant costs at $4,000 to $6,700 per kilowatt of capacity, or $4.4 billion to $11 billion, for plants ranging from 1,100 megawatts to 1,600 megawatts in size. In comparison, a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study estimated the price of a coal plant at about $2,300 a kilowatt of capacity and a gas-fired plant at about $850 a kilowatt of capacity.

In fact, only a handful of U.S. utilities are big enough to build Generation III reactors alone, without being part of a consortium. As a result, some see nuclear power’s future in small reactors that could be manufactured in factories instead of on site and cost only $3,500 to $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity, or millions of dollars instead of billions.

Babcock & Wilcox, a unit of McDermott International, has designed a small 125-megawatt reactor that would be built at its U.S. factories and then delivered to power-plant sites by rail or barge. This would eliminate a bottleneck and the associated higher costs for ultra-heavy forgings that are required for large reactors. Small reactors could be built at a number of domestic heavy-manufacturing sites. The Lynchburg, Va., company has been building small reactors and other key components for Navy ships for decades, at plants in Indiana and Ohio.

Another plus of small reactors: They’re designed to be refueled less frequently, reducing the number of refueling outages. Instead of every 18 months to two years, they could go four or five years, reaping a saving from having less down time. Another feature of some reactors is the ability to do more maintenance while plants are running, again reducing idle time.

Babcock & Wilcox hopes to apply for certification of a design for its mPower modular reactor in 2011. It’s too early to seek orders, but it’s working with Exelon and the Tennessee Valley Authority on a preliminary design, to make sure it would meet the needs of utilities. It’s unlikely any could be built in the U.S. before the middle of the next decade.

Critics say there’s not enough practical experience to know if any of the U.S. designs, big or small, will function as proponents say. Only one, the ABWR, has completed the review process at the NRC and completed the detailed design that would be used as the basis of actual construction.

What’s more, critics say that the economics of small plants simply don’t work: The licensing costs are so great for nuclear plants, somewhere between $50 million and $100 million per site, and security and construction costs are so high that the economics work only for big plants, with lots of output, so costs can be spread over many kilowatt-hours of electricity. Proponents hope factory-like construction techniques and a wider availability of suitable sites will help them overcome that drawback.

PRODUCING LESS WASTE

It’s one of the most contentious issues surrounding nuclear power: Where do you put the spent fuel?

Tens of thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste mainly spent fuel rods are sitting at power-plant sites while the federal government struggles to come up with a site to store it all. No nation has yet built a permanent waste site, although the current situation can continue for some time: Even critics say storage methods in place now should allow fuel to be stored safety for 50 to 100 years, while permanent plans are worked out.

The big problem with controlling waste: Today’s reactors capture only about 5% of the useful energy contained in uranium which means lots of radioactive leftovers once the fuel is used. Some Generation III reactors promise to address this problem by squeezing more electricity out of their fuel, reducing the total amount of waste produced, but it’s only by a relatively small amount. In short, it does nothing to solve the looming waste issue, though it does produce more megawatts of electricity in the short run.

Some Generation IV reactors, known as fast reactors, may offer a breakthrough in the future because they’re designed to burn previously used fuel.

GE-Hitachi, for example, is developing a fast reactor called Prism that would take spent fuel or weapons waste, sitting in storage today, and use nearly all of it as fuel, leaving little waste. What’s left would also be less radioactive than current waste, and would need to be stored for hundreds of years instead of thousands of years, scientists say. Fast reactors are able to unlock energy in waste because they can burn plutonium, neptunium and other materials that Generation II and Generation III reactors leave behind.

GE-Hitachi estimates there’s enough energy sitting in nuclear storage sites in the U.S. to completely meet the nation’s energy needs for 70 years, if fast reactors were used to convert waste into electricity.

The company hopes to apply for NRC certification of its Prism design in 2011 and build a prototype reactor at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion within the next decade. The cost is enormous for a reactor that would be only 311 megawatts in size, amounting to $10,000 per kilowatt of capacity, but the company says costs for subsequent units should drop.

Critics point out that the U.S. tried to develop fast reactors in the past, but dropped its efforts because the technical hurdles and cost appeared too great. The NRDC, in a recent report, said that fast reactors would be “expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdowns…and difficult and time-consuming to repair.”

–Ms. Smith is Wall Street Journal staff reporter in San Francisco. She can be reached at rebecca.smith@wsj.com.

By BRETT ARENDS

You would have to be crazy to invest in the Italian stock market, right?

After all, the country is plunged into yet another political crisis. It is struggling through its longest recession since World War II. Italy’s national debts are among the largest in the world, both in absolute terms and in relation to gross domestic product, and bond markets consider the country’s debt to be risky.

The Wall Street Journal

Yet successful investing is often counterintuitive. Research shows that the greatest investment gains over the long term typically accrue to those who buy stocks when they are inexpensive.

And that tends to be at times of financial distress, political uncertainty, or both.

If you have the patience and the appetite for risk, Italian stocks today look like an intriguing investment.

The FTSE MIB index of Italian stocks is down 8% in U.S. dollar terms so far this year, underperforming the 2% rise in the broader European markets, as measured by the Euro Stoxx index, and the 8% rise in the MSCI World index, which tracks global markets.

Italy has largely been left behind by the world-wide rally that began in March 2009. At 15339, the FTSE MIB is barely one third of the peak seen in 2007 and is up only about a fifth from the 2009 lows.

In comparison, the MSCI World index has doubled from its lows, in U.S. dollar terms, and today is about 15% below the 2007 peak.

How cheap is Italy? It trades at less than 11 times forecast per-share earnings for the next 12 months, according to data provider FactSet. That is far below the average of about 15 times seen over the past 25 years. It is also much lower than the world average of 13 times forecast earnings.

What’s more, Italy’s dividend yield, meaning annual dividends divided by the stock price, is above 4%, compared with just 2.7% for the world overall. That is a sign that Italian stocks are inexpensive in relation to company profits, and means investors collect more income from the stocks.

Credit Suisse

recently concluded that Italy was the cheapest market in Europe by a significant margin on a number of measures designed to show long-term value, such as comparing stock prices with companies’ net asset values.

Analysts at SG Securities agree. European strategist Paul Jackson calculated Italy is the cheapest market in a region itself underpriced.

While many experts point to Italy’s problems, some contend that the financial situation isn’t as bad as it appears.

“It’s not going bust, and the economy is going to recover over the summer,” says Holger Schmieding, chief economist for Berenberg Bank, a private bank in Hamburg with about $30 billion under management. “The political situation is a mess, but it is usually a mess, and the country will live with it.” Mr. Schmieding says the banks, despite recent debt losses, are in reasonable shape.

The iShares MSCI Italy Capped Exchange-Traded Fund is the only pure-play Italian fund available to retail investors. It has annual expenses of 0.51%, or $51 for every $10,000 invested, and a dividend yield of 3%. About 28% of the fund is invested in financial stocks, and another 22% in Italy’s most valuable company, oil-and-gas giant Eni.

Leila Heckman, managing director of Roosevelt Investment Group, an investment firm in New York with $4.4 billion under management, likes the fund and holds it in client portfolios. She says Italy looks like a cheap market and over the long run those tend to pay off well. This is the simplest low-cost way to invest, she adds.

U.S. investors also can buy individual Italian stocks on U.S. exchanges, but this is a different proposition. An individual stock’s performance is mainly tied to that of the company and its industry, rather than the national market. Strategists suggest looking for high-quality companies, including multinationals, whose stocks may be trading cheaply simply because they are based in Italy.

Eni is Italy’s version of Exxon Mobil,

and it is far cheaper, trading at 1.2 times net asset value, compared with 2.5 times for the U.S.-based blue chip. That might present an opportunity. If Italian stocks come back into favor, Eni investors could get an uplift.

Edward Smith, global strategist at investment firm Collins Stewart in London, with $15 billion under management, highlights northern Italian firm Danieli & C. Officine Mecchaniche, which makes equipment for steel mills. Mr. Smith says the company’s balance sheet is rock solid, most of its sales are outside Italy, and the stock trades at less than nine times forecast per-share earnings.

“They’ve been unfairly tarnished with the Italian equity-risk premium,” he says.

Still, funds offer the simplest way to invest—and the latest political developments in Rome suggest the situation over there is complicated enough.

Write to Brett Arends at brett.arends@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared March 30, 2013, on page B6 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why Italy Looks Cheap.

Por BEN FOX RUBIN

La ganancia de Cisco Systems Inc.

registró un crecimiento interanual de 14% en el tercer trimestre fiscal, luego que la firma de equipos de redes aumentara los ingresos de sus principales segmentos, encabezados por las ventas de servicios.

Las acciones subían 4,6% a US$22,19, debido a que la compañía superó su estimación de ganancia para el trimestre. Al cierre del miércoles, la acción había registrado un alza de 7,9% en lo que va del año.

Cisco, el mayor proveedor de routers e interruptores de Internet, ha tenido problemas en el último año debido a que clientes corporativos y de gobierno han restringido el gasto, y los precios de los equipos han bajado.

En el trimestre que finalizó el 27 de abril, Cisco registró una ganancia de US$2.480 millones, o 46 centavos por acción, superior a los US$2.170 millones, o 40 centavos por acción, de un año antes. Excluyendo gastos basados en compensación de acciones, algunos costos de amortización y otras partidas, la ganancia por acción ascendió a 51 centavos respecto de 48 centavos.

Los ingresos aumentaron 5,4% a US$12.220 millones.

En febrero, Cisco estimó una ganancia ajustada de 48 centavos a 50 centavos por acción y un crecimiento de los ingresos de entre 4% y 6%.

El margen bruto disminuyó de 61,9% a 61,5%.

Las ventas del segmento de productos, el mayor contribuidor a los ingresos de Cisco, crecieron 5%, mientras que los ingresos de su segmento de servicios aumentó 7,1%.

Los gastos operativos se incrementaron 3,4% en el período.

By ELIZABETH HOLMES

Who would have thought typing such short messages could be so tricky?

By now, even the stodgiest companies have found their way onto Twitter. They have discovered it isn’t just another marketing channel with a funny name, it’s more like a conversation they need to join or risk losing influence over how consumers view them or their brands.

The service, which lets users send 140-character texts, or “tweets,” to people who have signed up to follow them, has proved to be an effective way to reach younger consumers and to help build a brand.

But there’s a flip side. The nearly six-year-old medium has become a very public complaint line, and ill-considered tweets or hacked Twitter accounts have caused plenty of embarrassment.

In March Chrysler Group LLP cut ties with an agency that handled its Twitter account after the agency sent a tweet that read: “I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to f— drive.”

Kenneth Cole Productions Inc. apologized after making a joke on its Twitter page suggesting the Egyptian protesters who toppled the country’s government earlier this year were really clamoring for the company’s fashions. “Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online” the tweet read.

An April tweet on American Express Co.’s

account that urged support of Planned Parenthood was sent after the account was compromised, the company said.

In the age of Twitter, companies have to engage with their customers on the public social platform. But there are some high-profile ways things can go wrong, Elizabeth Holmes reports on The News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.

This week AMR Corp.’s

American Airlines found itself caught in a public spat after actor Alec Baldwin vented on Twitter after being removed from an American flight. “Flight attendant on American reamed me out 4 playing WORDS W FRIENDS,” Mr. Baldwin tweeted, referring to a Scrabble-like online game.

American replied via Twitter asking for his contact information. A day later, American tweeted, “UPDATE: Facts about yesterday’s removed passenger” along with a link to a statement giving a less-flattering account of the passenger’s behavior without mentioning Mr. Baldwin’s name. Mr. Baldwin deactivated his Twitter account after the incident and apologized to his fellow passengers.

Companies are adopting a variety of strategies for navigating Twitter’s pitfalls. One of the biggest issues is how many people to trust with a company’s account, known as its handle. Spread the authority too thin, and the burden can be overwhelming. Authorize too many people, and the risk of mishaps multiplies. Here’s how three very different companies—Southwest Airlines Co.,

Whole Foods Market Inc.

and Best Buy Co.—are approaching the task:

Southwest Airlines

About 10 people have a hand in Southwest’s Twitter account, fielding questions about lost baggage, delayed flights and misplaced drink coupons.

Southwest started its account, @SouthwestAir, in 2007, initially placing it under the advertising division, but later moving it the public-relations department, where it was handled by social-media specialist Christi McNeill.

Ms. McNeill soon found she lacked the knowledge to answer some tweeted questions, such as the ticket counter’s opening time at a specific airport, or the authority to quickly resolve other matters, such as refund requests.

“I was a traffic cop of information,” Ms. McNeill said. “Can you imagine if you called into an airline and the person who answered the phone had to ask someone else for the answer?”

This year the airline’s communications department teamed up with its customer-relations team to recruit and train employees to answer questions on Twitter. At least one person from each unit monitors the account from about 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. central time, roughly matching Southwest’s flight schedule. The team is on call in the event of bad weather or service disruptions.

If someone tweets a complaint to @SouthwestAir, the reply may come from Whitney Bartels, via her account @SouthwestWhit. “So sorry to hear about your [lost] luggage. Have you filed a claim? Any progress yet?” she recently tweeted to an upset customer.

Southwest’s Twitter feed reflects its casual culture. That temporarily changed in April, when the fuselage on a Southwest plane ruptured in midflight. The carrier’s earlier tweets joking bout April Fool’s Day, quickly gave way to serious statements about the incident and Web links on how to rebook flights.

Using a modified version of the company’s social-media crisis plan, which covers how best to communicate and what to say in the event of an emergency, Ms. McNeill says, “We shifted our tone to be a little bit more corporate.”

“Enjoy the wifi!” Ms. McNeill tweeted to a customer before the incident. Shortly afterward, she got more serious, tweeting, “Southwest Airlines responds to loss of pressurization event on flight from PHX to SMF,” with a link to a Southwest statement about the event. She continued to provide updates.

Whole Foods

The upscale grocer has put its Twitter account, @WholeFoods, in the hands of a single employee, Michael Bepko, its global online community manager. Mr. Bepko says he spends about a third of his day on Twitter, monitoring mentions of Whole Foods, tackling shoppers’ questions and posting recipes.

“They’re easy, they’re delicious…serve a roast with the most!” he tweeted recently along with a link to a recipe for Italian pot roast.

Whole Foods launched its Twitter account in June 2008 and now has more than 2.1 million followers. Mr. Bepko, who took the reins about a year ago, says his goal is broader engagement with customers. Many of the chain’s stores now have separate accounts to answer local questions. In November, Whole Foods began a weekly Twitter chat, for an hour every Thursday, to discuss topics such as holiday menu planning, with its followers.

Mr. Bepko says he spends about 90% of his time talking to individual shoppers. Most of their inquiries are basic, such as when a Whole Foods will come to their neighborhood. Others, he says, require more research. Occasionally a customer will make an unusual complaint, about a dog outside a store, for example, or a bug in a bag of salad.

“Sorry to hear about this. Did you mention it to the store where the salad was purchased?” he replied to the bug complaint.

Mr. Bepko checks the company’s Twitter feed many times a day. “The online community doesn’t recognize office hours—nor should they,” he says. If a questioner has a request on Friday evening, “waiting until Monday is just not good enough.”

Best Buy

The electronics retailer has employed an army of associates to handle its various Twitter feeds. The main account, @BestBuy, sends its own tweets but also incorporates some from its more-specialized handles, such as @BestBuy_Deals, @GeekSquad and @BBYNews.

The Twitter arm of Best Buy’s help desk, which publishes under the handle @Twelpforce, exemplifies the company’s more-is-more approach to the medium. Tweets to the desk are answered by one of the roughly 3,000 Best Buy employees who have signed up for the task since the handle was launched two years ago, according to Gina Debogovich, who oversees U.S. social-media activity for Best Buy.

Having a range of workers participate lets the company tap many areas of expertise, Ms. Debogovich says. Questions tend to be about items a customer is interested in purchasing. “There is no right answer often,” she says.

To be part of @Twelpforce and other social-media outlets, Best Buy requires employees to enroll via a website that verifies their employment status and lays out terms and conditions. The company uses an internal video and its publicly available social-media policy, which prohibits such things as sharing nonpublic financial data and customers’ personal information, to explain what it calls its healthy usage guidelines to the @Twelpforce participants.

“Remember, your responsibility to Best Buy doesn’t end when you are off the clock,” the policy says.

Best Buy’s chief executive, Brian Dunn, tweets from his own handle, @BBYCEO. His musings range from sports topics to support for veterans. Sometimes customers use his account for complaints.

A customer recently tweeted Mr. Dunn to complain about the customer service at Store #310. He replied the same day with his personal email address and a request that the tweeter send him contact information. “We will be in touch. I want us to make it better,” he tweeted.

Write to Elizabeth Holmes at elizabeth.holmes@wsj.com

By SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN

Sylvester Chisom began paying a consultant last summer to blog on Twitter, post status updates on Facebook and run marketing campaigns on both sites for his auto-detailing business.

He thinks the service, which costs $450 a month, is worth it. “It’s just better having somebody else dedicated to thinking of stuff to put up,” says Mr. Chisom, co-owner of Showroom Shine Express Detailing LLC in St. Louis.

Some small-business owners, overwhelmed by the time commitment required of marketing their products and services via social media, are hiring consultants to lend a hand. But the price of such support can vary widely based on the extent of work involved, and many entrepreneurs with already meager resources for marketing and advertising may need to think carefully before taking on the extra cost.

The start-up 3 Green Angels, for example, charges clients a $400 fee to organize Twitter parties — real-time discussions on specific topics. Everywhere LLC, another specialty firm in Atlanta, charges clients up to $20,000 to arrange three streaming video press conferences led by popular bloggers.

Other agencies simply tack on social-media support as part of a package of advertising and public-relations services. Red Square Agency Inc., in Mobile, Ala., charges clients around $200 an hour, and ThinkInk LLC charges $10,000 to $20,000 a month for the integrated services.

Showroom Shine’s Mr. Chisom says he’s received several inquiries from potential customers who said they learned about his company through a recent promotion on Facebook. Revenue and traffic to his company’s Web site are up slightly from this time last month, he adds.

But Jonathan Zadok, co-owner of the Coffee Groundz LLC in Houston, says he wouldn’t pay another firm to blog on behalf of the four-year-old café.

“The idea with Twitter is that you get close to an immediate response,” he says. With an in-house person handling it, “there’s no middle man that has to go check with the company,” he says.

Mr. Zadok says last fall Coffee Groundz’s general manager, J.R. Cohen, set up profiles for the café on Twitter and Facebook. Customers started tweeting orders and special requests such as booth reservations, and in-store events promoted on the sites drew crowds three times as large as those previously advertised through signs and other traditional means.

Mr. Cohen, 31 years old, says he simultaneously posts blog entries on Twitter, Facebook and his employer’s Web site three times a day, often from his BlackBerry. He receives text-message and email alerts whenever messages are posted to Coffee Groundz’s feed so he can respond, if necessary, in a timely manner.

Mr. Cohen taught himself how to use Twitter and Facebook in about a month despite being someone who’s “not tech savvy at all,” he says. He estimates he devotes no more than 30 minutes a day to managing his employer’s presence on social media. “That’s really all you need,” he says.

Larry Chiagouris, professor of marketing at Lubin School of Business at Pace University, says it makes sense for some companies to pay for help to quickly learn social-media basics. But to use sites like Twitter and Facebook effectively, he says small firms typically need to be in control to show they are legitimate and sincere. “Unless a third party lives with you a long time, they can’t do that very well,” he says.

Some small-business owners say they are paying only for training and will eventually take full responsibility for managing their companies’ day-to-day presence on social media. Still, others say they need continuous support for handling certain tasks and promotions because they lack the necessary manpower and expertise.

Back of the House USA LLC, a St. Petersburg, Fla., provider of back-office support to solo entrepreneurs, falls into the latter category. Founder Erik Vonk says he and the firm’s 12 employees are getting “technical guidance” in using social media from consultants at Everywhere. But he adds that any opinions expressed on the sites “are ours.”

Back of the House has been paying Everywhere a monthly retainer since the spring and expects the social-media training to wrap up late next month. Afterward, Everywhere’s consultants will continue to help the firm take advantage of social media by organizing special promotions, monitoring what’s being said about the company and more.

The service is costing Back of the House between $5,000 and $15,000 a month (Mr. Vonk declined to be more specific).

So far Mr. Vonk says the investment is paying off. “I’m learning enormous amounts about how social media work, where to find the right software, how to search, what lingo to use, etc.,” he says.

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page B5

Por SHIRA OVIDE e IAN SHERR

Apenas seis meses depois do maior projeto de reparos da Microsoft,

a empresa volta à prancheta.

Num reconhecimento marcado por rara sinceridade das deficiências de seu sistema operacional Windows 8, o colosso da área de software confirmou que está mudando sua estratégia de vendas e seu software para solucionar reclamações dos usuários, com uma atualização a ser lançada em breve batizada de Windows Blue.

“O mundo está mudando, e mudando rapidamente, e para ser sincera nós também não conseguimos fazer tudo o que sonhamos no primeiro lançamento”, disse Tami Reller, codiretora do Windows, a principal divisão da Microsoft, em entrevista concedida na semana passada.

Tami disse que nas próximas semanas a Microsoft pretende fornecer mais detalhes sobre o produto, que lançará novos recursos e solucionará as reclamações dos usuários de que o Windows 8 é confuso demais de usar. Ela não deu esses detalhes na entrevista nem em sua postagem de ontem no blog corporativo.

Mas analistas especularam que a Microsoft poderá mudar um dos alvos principais da fúria dos detratores do Windows 8: a retirada do conhecido menu “Iniciar” da Microsoft, e uma fusão às vezes canhestra da tradicional área de trabalho do Windows com um novo tipo de tela que mostra fileiras de ladrilhos coloridos semelhantes a uma tela de smartphone. Alguns usuários disseram que não gostam de ter de voltar e avançar continuamente entre esses módulos.

Alguns analistas criticaram o reconhecimento, há muito adiado, da Microsoft de que o Windows 8 precisa de uma reinicialização.

“Quase todo mundo do setor tecnológico já sabe que a experiência [do Windows 8] ficou aquém do nível ótimo”, disse Patrick Moorhead, presidente da empresa de pesquisa Moor Insights & Strategy. “A Microsoft foi a última a perceber que era o caso de fazer isso.”

O Windows 8, o software operacional lançado em outubro, pretendia catapultar a Microsoft e suas aliadas ao mercado de novos tipos de aparelhos de computação – - entre os quais os tablets – e contribuir, de modo geral, para aumentar o interesse dos consumidores na compra de novos PCs. Seis meses após a estreia do software operacional, ele ainda não é sucesso, na opinião de alguns executivos e empresas de pesquisa de PCs.

A empresa de pesquisa de mercado IDC chegou ao ponto de dizer que o Windows 8 foi além de deixar de revitalizar o mercado de PCs – ele, na verdade, repeliu os usuários ao mudar elementos básicos do sistema operacional amplamente utilizado.

Tami contestou os argumentos da IDC, e disse que a empresa está observando avanços firmes, ou mesmo contundentes, das vendas. Ela disse que a Microsoft vendeu 100 milhões de exemplares do Windows 8 desde outubro, em relação aos 60 milhões computados em janeiro.

A disposição da Microsoft de mudar sua estratégia para o Windows 8 põe à prova o principal executivo da Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, cuja liderança foi criticada por alguns investidores. Ballmer fez uma aposta pretensiosa numa filosofia de computação baseada no princípio de que os PCs, os tablets e os smartphones deveriam compartilhar os mesmos elementos, estilo e software básico.

“O Windows 8 é simplesmente o maior negócio da nossa empresa dos últimos 17 anos, pelo menos”, disse Ballmer em evento realizado em julho.

Os contratempos sofridos pelo Windows 8, no entanto, puseram em evidência o ajuste às vezes desajeitado resultante da inserção de um software tanto num tablet empregado para assistir a filmes e para navegar na internet quanto num PC de mesa de 27 polegadas primordialmente voltado para funções realizadas no local de trabalho. A Apple, concorrente da Microsoft, tem softwares diferentes para tablets e para computadores, com base na convicção de que o tablet é uma categoria de computador totalmente distinta e de que ele não deveria tentar ser um PC com aparência diferente.

Como parte de uma onda de mudanças planejada pela Microsoft para os próximos meses, Tami também traçou um quadro de como a Microsoft está se empenhando em ajudar as pessoas a contornar os obstáculos em aprender a usar um software drasticamente reformulado, como a empresa está mudando a experiência de compras para os consumidores, disponibilizando mais aplicativos preferidos das pessoas para o Windows 8 e cuidando para que uma linha mais ampla de aparelhos baseados no Windows 8 entrem no mercado.

Tami disse o que os usuários e varejistas do Windows 8 falam há vários meses – o Windows 8 é uma experiência melhor em computadores de tela sensível ao toque – e prometeu que a Microsoft apostará todas as suas fichas em aparelhos de telas sensíveis ao toque. Mas ela reconheceu que a Microsoft perdeu oportunidade de vendas ao não contar com volume suficiente de aparelhos baseados no Windows 8 com tela sensível ao toque desde o princípio, especialmente a preços na casa das centenas de dólares, e não na de US$ 1 mil, como o cobrado por alguns computadores com Windows 8 mais sofisticados.

“Se tivéssemos sido mais eficientes em conseguir isso no lançamento, na época de festas de fim de ano, ou na temporada de vendas seguinte, isso certamente teria sido um diferencial positivo”, disse Tami. Ela informou que a Microsoft vem mantendo conversações com fabricantes de PCs como a Dell para que a ajudem a entender quais são os aparelhos que merecem mais atenção, para que a empresa não aposte num número insustentável de aparelhos diferentes.

Tami disse também que a Microsoft está dando às varejistas o recado que, se quiserem ser ajudadas pela força da Microsoft nas áreas promocional e de marketing, terão de oferecer uma variedade cada vez maior de aparelhos com tela sensível ao toque baseados no Windows 8.

A Microsoft também deixou de se beneficiar de um surto de crescimento das vendas dos tablets pequenos que alcançaram repentino sucesso junto aos consumidores no quarto trimestre do ano passado. Pessoas familiarizadas com os planos de produtos da Microsoft disseram que a empresa não previu a ascensão dos tablets de menos de 8 polegadas, que responderam por quase metade do mercado de tablets no quarto trimestre, segundo a IDC.

By EMILY VEACH

Privately-owned Ruckus Wireless Inc. has some tough competition in the design, manufacturing and marketing of wireless technology systems. The 6-year-old California-based company has to fight for clients with the likes of Cisco Systems Inc.

and other hardware manufacturers. Under Ruckus’ Hong Kong-born President and Chief Executive Officer Selina Lo, the company has signed up companies including Hong Kong telecom service provider PCCW Ltd.,

Singapore Telecommunications and Deutsche Telekom AG

of Germany. Ruckus has also brought on some significant investors including Sequoia Capital and Motorola Ventures.

Ruckus Wireless’ Hong Kong-born President and Chief Executive Officer Selina Lo discusses her management style and opportunities for businesswomen in Asia.

Kerry Seed/The Wall Street Journal

Résumé:

Education: B.A. in computer science from University of California Berkeley

Career: President and CEO of Ruckus Wireless, founded in 2004. Before that, was with startup Alteon WebSystems, which was sold to Nortel in 2000.

Extracurricular: Taking tennis lessons, enjoys cleaning up the garden and deadheading flowers.

On partnerships: “Nowadays you need the whole ecosystem. You’re not marketing boxes anymore. One of the key reasons partnerships are important to us is that we don’t do direct sales. We do our selling through channels. Being able to maintain the partnership with the channels is very important.”

On women in Asia: “I have never found being a woman in Asia as a disadvantage. Part of it may be that cliché that in a lot of Asian tradition, the woman is really the one behind the scenes pulling the strings.”

Ms. Lo says the company is especially interested in developing countries such as India, where mobile phones are becoming more popular and smartphones and netbooks are less prevalent. When they are equipped with WiFi, they can be a tool for more and more people to become connected to the Internet. Ms. Lo recently spoke with Emily Veach in Hong Kong. The following interview has been edited:

WSJ: A recent post on the Ruckus blog is a rant about Cisco’s WiFi offerings. Do you police what employees are posting?

Ms. Lo: We are a pretty flat and open and transparent company. Sometimes we may be too transparent. We compete with Cisco, so obviously we have an opinion. I admire Cisco as a company. I think it has done an amazing job in terms of its influence over IT. But you do see that there are many things where people would buy Cisco just because of the brand or because of the bundling of all of Cisco’s solutions. We also see a lot of products and services from Cisco that are inferior to others in the market. But they carry a lot of weight just because they’re Cisco. Other people are afraid to comment. In Ruckus there’s almost nothing that we are afraid to say.

WSJ: On the Ruckus website there’s a slogan, “We make WiFi suck less.” Have you tried to push that edgy angle?

Ms. Lo: I didn’t have to. I hired a VP of marketing who is the hip nerd. He really is his personality and his character. I’d take a little credit in terms of my hiring him. Talented people, you kind of have to take some risk. Obviously my shoe cabinet is now online and there are a lot of things that I would not personally do, but people seem to like it.

WSJ: What’s your take on how Steve Jobs handled the iPhone’s antenna problem?

Ms. Lo: I think he has stepped up and confronted it. I’m sure they will come out with fixes. Somehow the market is on the up for Apple. We are willing to forgive a lot at this stage. This is the time to admit the issues and come out with fixes. I think the public is very willing to forgive Apple.

WSJ: You travel a lot all over Asia and in the U.S. How do you make sure you’re on top of managing the business?

Ms. Lo: Especially in the startup environment things happen very fast. There’s a running joke that I am a drive-by shooter. If you end up in my path, you get something delegated to you. That’s somewhat true. The people who work for me know me very well. I don’t hide my personality. Part of how other people can learn to work with you is to be able to know how you are and anticipate what you are going to want.

WSJ: In the past you found that some people didn’t want to work with you. Did that make you want to change your management style?

Ms. Lo: Losing people were wakeup calls. I’ve learned to be a little more patient, I’ve learned to listen better. It’s key to me that I don’t lose my strength while I learn to adapt to others. Part of delegating is you have to walk away sometimes. I know that if I’m in the office I’ll go around and look at what everybody’s doing and tell them what they should be doing. I decided that the people in the office are very capable. Once in a while they want my opinion.

I try and travel more, talk to more customers and partners. It’s a way to capitalize on my strength.]

WSJ: What differences have you found in relationship building in Asia compared to the U.S.?

Ms. Lo: Asia is definitely a lot more relationship driven rather than transaction driven. As much as you think the Internet pulls the world together and you can do everything over email or Facebook, in Asia that’s not the way to go. In the U.S. we almost never do face-to-face seminars anymore. It’s all webinars because people just don’t want the inconvenience of having to travel to a seminar. In Asia, webinar just doesn’t fly. People don’t like it. They really want that face-to-face interaction.

WSJ: What’s your take on cloud computing?

Ms. Lo: I think for consumers, cloud computing is here. As a consumer myself, I can see that there’s a lot of stuff I have to do today that I would love to just put on the net. I travel around still with my laptop. Why? If I really can trust a secure place in the cloud where I can put all my information and it’s always there 100% of the time and I always have enough bandwidth to get to that information, I’d put it in the cloud. For consumers, I definitely think it’s a clear winner. I don’t think everything would move to the cloud. For things that are vital to people’s businesses, I don’t think the security is there yet. I don’t think the comfort level is there yet.

WSJ: You’ve said you’re not a gadget person. How does that work?

Ms. Lo: Sometimes I wonder how I got into high tech. I’m just so not a gadget person. I only learn the tools that I need so that I can do my job. Once I learn it, I really resist changing. It took me so long to move to a Mac. On the IT side, I appreciate products, I appreciate architecture, I appreciate the big picture. I just don’t like reading manuals. They’re really not that related.