By JOE LIGHT

A tight job market might have taken away some jobseekers’ leverage in a salary negotiation, but that doesn’t mean they should roll over and accept the first offer, says New York-based executive coach Rabia de Lande Long. To get the top compensation possible—without putting a sour taste in your potential employer’s mouth—take these steps.

1. Do your research.

It used to be hard to find out what your coworkers and other professionals in your industry get paid. But now, several resources have attempted to opened that black box, says Ms. de Lande Long. Salary.com and Payscale.com give salary ranges to expect based on a job seeker’s position, location, and experience. Employees at the actual company you’re applying to might have also posted their salaries at GlassDoor.com.

2. Don’t give out the first number.

You’ll be pressured to do this through the application process. “What’s your salary requirement?” “What salary range are you looking for?” “What do you get paid now?”

Whatever you do, never give out the first number, says Ms. de Lande Long. If your answer is too high, you might not make it to the next stage. Too low, and an employer will either think you’re not qualified or desperate. So, if possible, write “NA” on applications.

If you’re pressured to say how much you make during the interview process, try giving your “total compensation,” which many large employers will break out for you on the company’s internal human resources website. If your current employer doesn’t do that, just spell out your salary, benefits, bonuses, and anything else your current employer offers, says Decatur, Ga. career coach Walter Akana. If the new company doesn’t offer some of similar benefits, the HR manager will know that your new salary would have to be bumped up to reflect that, he says.

If the interviewer still presses for a required salary, try giving a range of $15,000 rather than a specific number, Mr. Akana says.The low amount should be the minimum you’d be happy with and the high amount should be what would make you happy.

3. Don’t lie.

“It’s so easy to get someone in HR to verify a salary, even if they’re not supposed to,” says Ms. de Lande Long. Even if you make it to a job offer, the false salary could come out during a background check, which could result in an outright retraction of the offer or at least upset an employee’s new boss. “And from that point onward, you might face trouble in negotiations not just with your new employer, but with everyone in your industry who has heard. Word gets around,” says Ms. de Lande Long.

4. Don’t take the first offer.

Most employers expect candidates to try to negotiate. So they leave room in the first offer for a raise, says Mr. Akana. If possible, try to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the hiring manager rather than someone in human resources. The hiring manager is more likely to be flexible, says Mr. Akana. “

Say that you’re flattered to have an offer and really want to join the team, but that there are a couple specific items that you’re sure you could resolve if you put your heads together,” says Mr. Akana. Despite the pressure on salaries during the downturn, a good rule of thumb is to ask for a 10% higher salary, says Ms. de Lande Long.

If the hiring manager says budget restrictions keep him from going as high as you’d like, it might be that the position is “graded” to be within a certain salary band by HR, says Mr. Akana. It’s worth asking if the boss can ask the appropriate person for the job to be re-graded. The worst he can say is no.

5. Once that’s locked in, go for other benefits.

Despite what you might have heard, many benefit packages aren’t flexible, says Ms. de Lande Long. So, while it’s worth asking, it might be difficult to modify the health plan. Your success in getting more vacation days depends on the employer, says Ms. de Lande Long.

Your potential boss might be hesitant to give you more days if it will make other employees think they’re being treated unfairly. Instead, focus on things that are easy for the employer to provide, such as a work-from-home arrangement for one day a week, if the employer has made such arrangements in the past, says Mr. Akana.

If you still feel your package is too low, ask if it can be reviewed again in six months. “That way, you can show them that you’re worth the money,” he says.

By KELLY GREENE

Robert Woods has been “chomping at the bit,” he says, to open a Roth individual retirement account. Next year, the 54-year-old American Airlines pilot finally will get the chance.

Starting Jan. 1, the income limits that have prevented many individuals, including Mr. Woods, from converting a traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth will be eliminated. The change one of the biggest and most important on the IRA landscape in years will widen the entryway to one of the best deals in retirement planning. With a Roth IRA, virtually all income growth and withdrawals are tax-free.

The new rules come at a time when many IRAs have plummeted in value, meaning the taxes on such conversions (and you do pay taxes when you convert) will likely be lower, as well. And with taxes at all levels expected to rise in coming years, the idea of an account that’s safe from tax increases appeals to many people heading into retirement.

“It’s potentially quite a big deal,” says Joel Dickson, a principal with Vanguard Group in Valley Forge, Pa. “We’re getting a lot of questions, and investors certainly should be thinking about it.”

Here’s a look at how the new rules work, how to take advantage of them and the possible pitfalls.

Nuts and Bolts

At the moment, many people make too much money to use Roths. Individuals whose modified adjusted gross income for 2009 is $120,000 or more can’t contribute. For couples who file joint tax returns, the cutoff is $176,000.

You aren’t allowed to convert traditional IRA assets to a Roth if your household’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000. A married person who files a separate tax return is prohibited from converting no matter how much or how little he or she makes, says Ed Slott, an IRA consultant in Rockville Centre, N.Y.

But while the income limits for funding a Roth will remain, the rules for conversions are about to change.

John Kuczala

As part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act enacted in 2006, the federal government is eliminating permanently, starting Jan. 1, the $100,000 income limit for Roth conversions, as well as the restriction on spouses who file separate tax returns. That should make it easier for people with higher incomes to invest through Roth accounts. The changes also should enable more retirees who rolled over their holdings from 401(k)s and other workplace savings plans into IRAs to convert to Roths.

Of course, there’s still the matter of taxes. When you convert assets from a traditional IRA or workplace plan to a Roth, you have to pay income tax on all pretax contributions and earnings included in the amount you convert.

The law does provide some wiggle room, however: You can report the amount you convert in 2010 on your tax return for that year. Or, you can spread the amount converted equally across your 2011 and 2012 tax returns, paying any resulting tax in those years. For example, if you convert $50,000 next year and choose not to declare the conversion on your 2010 return, you must declare $25,000 on your tax return for 2011 and $25,000 on you return for 2012. The two-year option is a one-time offer for 2010 conversions.

The fact that Uncle Sam is allowing you to stretch out your tax bill could help people who convert keep their nest eggs intact. Financial planners uniformly say it makes no sense to convert to a Roth unless you can pay the taxes from a source other than your IRA. If you need to tap your IRA for the tax money, you’re defeating, in part, the purpose of the conversion: to maximize the long-term value of the Roth.

One other note: If you are age 70½ or older and taking required minimum distributions from a traditional IRA or workplace plan, you can’t convert that required withdrawal to a Roth. However, after you take your required minimum distribution for the year, you can convert remaining traditional IRA assets to a Roth. For 2009, Congress has waived required withdrawals in an attempt to help retirees rebuild savings. But required withdrawals resume in 2010.

So, if you’re over the income limits for contributing to a Roth, what’s the simplest way to fund one when the conversion rules change? If you haven’t already done so, open a traditional IRA (which has no income limits), contribute the maximum amount allowable ($6,000 in 2009 for individuals age 50 and older), and convert the assets to a Roth next year.

John Blanchard, a 41-year-old executive recruiter in Des Moines, Iowa, has “maxed out” IRA contributions for himself and his wife since 2006 in anticipation of the 2010 rule change. He plans to convert about $34,000 in holdings next year. “If they would let me do more, I would do more,” he says. “This planning is purely for retirement.”

You could continue this strategy each year after that opening a traditional IRA and converting it to a Roth. In fact, you would have to use this approach if your income exceeds the limits for making Roth contributions.

But how do you do this over a number of years without winding up with multiple Roth accounts? Mr. Slott recommends holding two Roths. When you first convert the assets, put them in your “new” Roth. That way, if that holding suffers a loss in the first year, you can recharacterize it as a traditional IRA so you don’t have to pay tax on value that no longer exists. (More on that below.) If the account increases in value before that deadline expires, you could then transfer the assets to your “old” Roth after the time to recharacterize expires. Each year, you could repeat those two steps.

Why It’s a Good Idea…

Why convert? Roth IRAs have several big advantages over traditional IRAs:

• For the most part, withdrawals are tax-free, as long as you meet rules for minimum holding periods. Specifically, you have to hold a Roth IRA for five years and be at least age 59½ for withdrawals to be tax-free. Early withdrawals are subject to penalties.
• There are no required distributions. With traditional IRAs, you must begin tapping your account after reaching age 70½. In doing so, you increase your taxable income starting in your 70s.
• Your heirs don’t owe income tax on withdrawals. That can be a big deal for middle-aged beneficiaries earning big paychecks. One caveat: Roth beneficiaries do have to take distributions across their life expectancies, and Roth assets are still included in an estate’s value.

The fact that anyone who inherits a Roth could make withdrawals with no income tax has led some older adults to consider Roth conversions as an alternative to life insurance. Jonathan Mazur, a financial planner in Dallas, already has suggested that strategy to Shayne Keller, a 55-year-old semi-retired telecommunications consultant. Mr. Keller’s heart disease has made it tough for him to get life insurance. Instead, he’s now planning to convert a traditional IRA worth about $300,000 to a Roth, and then name his two grandchildren as the Roth’s beneficiaries.

Another big advantage: A Roth IRA provides what many financial planners refer to as tax diversification.

“In the future, when you’re going to be taking assets out of your account, you don’t know what your personal situation is going to be, and you don’t know what tax rates are going to be,” says Sean Cunniff, a research director in the brokerage and wealth-management service at TowerGroupin Needham, Mass. “So, if you already have a taxable account, like a brokerage account or mutual funds, and you have a tax-deferred account like a 401(k) or traditional IRA, adding a tax-free account gives you the most flexibility” to keep taxes low in retirement.

…And Why It’s Not as Easy as It Looks

The trickiest part of paying the tax for a Roth conversion involves the IRS’s pro-rata rule. In short, you can’t cherry-pick which assets you wish to convert.

Let’s say you have a rollover IRA (from an employer’s 401(k) plan) with a balance of $200,000, and an IRA with $50,000. The latter contains $40,000 in nondeductible contributions made over a number of years. As much as you might wish, you can’t convert the $40,000 alone tax-free to a Roth IRA.

Rather, you have to follow the pro-rata rule. The IRS says you must first add the balance in all your IRAs in this case, $250,000. Then you divide nondeductible contributions by that balance: $40,000 divided by $250,000. This gives you the percentage 16%, in our example of any conversion that’s tax-free. So, let’s say you want to convert $30,000 of your two IRAs to a Roth. The amount of the conversion that would be tax-free would be $4,800 ($30,000 x 0.16).

“If you’re thinking about doing a Roth conversion, leave your 401(k) alone” rather than rolling it into an IRA beforehand to keep your share of nondeductible contributions higher in the calculation above, says John Carl, president of the Retirement Learning Center LLC in New York, which works with investment advisers. And if you’ve already rolled over your 401(k) into a traditional IRA, you may want to roll it back a move that many employer plans allow, he adds.

Perhaps the toughest part of all this is “gathering the data” showing which of your past IRA contributions were deductible and nondeductible, says Kevin Heyman, a certified financial planner in Newport News, Va. “You have to keep one heck of a record to know which IRAs were nondeductible over the years.”

It’s involved, but possible, to reconstruct your after-tax basis in a traditional IRA, and it makes sense to do it now so you can weigh whether to convert to a Roth in 2010, says Mr. Slott, the IRA consultant.

First stop: tax returns you still have. You’re supposed to keep a running record of nondeductible IRA contributions on IRS Form 8606 and file it with your tax return. If you haven’t done so, you can either buy back your old tax returns from the IRS, using Form 4506, or you can order a free transcript of everything that’s reported about you to the IRS, using Form 4506-T. Included in your transcript is information from IRS Form 5498, which reports contributions you made to an IRA. Other resources are year-end statements from your IRA custodian.

As mentioned above, you should be able to pay any tax involved from a source other than the IRA itself to make the conversion worthwhile. Some retirees already are setting up piggy banks for that purpose. “I’m putting my savings plan together so we have money to pay for the tax,” says Marjorie Hagen, 60, a retired postmaster in Minneapolis. She and her husband plan to convert at least $150,000 in IRA assets next year to give them “more control and flexibility,” she says.

An IRA withdrawal made simply to pay taxes on a Roth conversion could be a particularly bad move for battered investments because you’d be locking in losses. And if you’re under age 59½, you would get dinged with a 10% penalty for withdrawing IRA assets at the time of the conversion. The silver lining, of course, is that those battered investments probably would be taxed at relatively low value, meaning any tax you have to pay should be relatively low, as well.

Indeed, tax rates what you’re paying now and what you might pay in the future invariably complicate decisions about whether to convert. Linda Duessel, a market strategist at Federated Investors Inc.,

an investment-management firm in Pittsburgh, points out that the income tax you pay on a Roth conversion while you’re working would be at your top rate, since it’s added to your regular income. But in retirement, when IRA distributions presumably would help take the place of a paycheck, you’d be paying tax at your “effective” rate, or the total tax you pay divided by your taxable income.

If you expect your income to be lower in retirement and tax rates to stay about where they are then a Roth conversion might not make sense. The upshot: Whether you convert or not basically depends on what you expect to happen with your income in retirement, compared with your income while working, and whether you’re more comfortable paying taxes sooner at current rates or betting on lower taxes later.

Strategies to Consider

What’s the best way to take advantage of the rule change? First, keep in mind that you don’t have to convert your entire IRA next year. You can do it piecemeal, as you can afford it, over a number of years. A Roth conversion “isn’t an all-or-nothing option,” says TowerGroup’s Mr. Cunniff. If you hold traditional IRAs made up largely of pretax contributions, such as a 401(k) rollover, your tax bill could be steep. One way to mitigate the tax-bill pain is to get your accountant to help you figure out how much you could convert within your current tax bracket each year without bumping yourself into a higher one.

It’s also a good idea to put converted holdings in a new account, rather than an existing Roth. Here’s why: If the value of your converted assets falls further after you have paid taxes on their value you can change your mind, “recharacterize” the account as a traditional IRA, and, in turn, no longer owe the tax. Later on, you could reconvert the assets to a Roth again. (See IRS Publication 590 for the timing details.) This dilutes the tax benefit if you’ve combined those converted assets with other Roth holdings that have appreciated in value.

In fact, you might consider opening a separate Roth for each type of investment you make with the converted money. That way, you could “cherry-pick the losers,” recharacterizing investments that perform poorly, suggests Mr. Slott. Let’s say you made two types of investments one that doubled in value and another that lost everything. If those investments were in the same Roth, the account value would appear unchanged. But if they were in separate accounts, you could recharacterize the one that suffered and allow the one doing well to continue appreciating in value as a Roth.

Some owners of IRAs that hold variable annuities with depressed account values are planning to convert those investments to Roth IRAs as well. The current value of the underlying investments in their variable annuities has fallen below their income benefit or death benefit. In that situation, if you convert to a Roth, you’d pay tax on the lower account value and potentially get a higher benefit in the future tax-free.

Still, if you have a variable annuity and you’re considering a Roth conversion, make sure you value the account according to the latest IRS rules, Mr. Slott cautions. The IRS cracked down on annuity holders using “artificially deflated” variable-annuity values in Roth conversions a few years ago to lower their taxes, he says. “The IRS ruled that you have to get the actual fair-market value of the account from the insurance company and use that number.”

What You Should Do Now

There are a few ways to get ready for next year. Again, as noted above, if you have money to invest, consider funding an IRA before Dec. 31. That way, you can convert those assets to a Roth as soon as Jan. 2.

Also locate and organize your paperwork for any nondeductible IRA contributions you’ve made in the past. By taking that step, you should be able to come up with an estimate of how much of your potential conversion would be taxable. If you expect your 2010 income to be similar to this year’s, you can look up the tax brackets at www.irs.gov to get a ballpark idea of the taxes involved.

Next comes the tough part: Identifying ways to pay those taxes with money outside of your IRA.

To think through all the moving parts, it may help to consult a financial planner or accountant who has extensive experience working with retirees relying on IRAs. The tax rules governing IRAs are intricate, nonintuitive, and arcane. One misstep can unwind a tax-deferred nest egg in a way you might not have intended.

For example, if you’re already taking regular, so-called 72(t) retirement payments, which allow IRA holders to make “substantially equal” withdrawals penalty-free before age 59½, converting that IRA to a Roth is even trickier, Mr. Slott says. The new Roth can contain no other Roth IRA assets, and the 72(t) payments must be continued from the Roth but no 72(t) payments from the traditional IRA can be converted to the Roth. And if you have company stock in your 401(k), you might wind up with a lower tax bill if you withdraw the stock from the account before doing an IRA rollover and Roth conversion, he adds.

Seek out online tools to help you devise your conversion strategy as well. One resource is Mr. Slott’s Web site, www.irahelp.com, which has a discussion forum where consumers can post questions about Roth IRA conversions and get answers from investment advisers who specialize in IRA distribution work.

At least one free, interactive calculator has been developed to help people think through the decision. Convergent Retirement Plan Solutions LLC, a retirement-services consulting firm in Brainerd, Minn., released a Roth Conversion Optimizer calculator in May for investment advisers with Archimedes Systems Inc., a Waltham, Mass., maker of financial-planning software. A consumer version of the calculator is available at www.RothRetirement.com.

“For the vast majority of middle America, the question is, ‘What’s the best portion of my IRA to put into a Roth?”‘ says Ben Norquist, president of Convergent.

The calculator takes several factors into account, including your income needs from retirement assets, future tax rates and the portion of your assets you convert to a Roth. Then, it crunches those variables to show you, using a simple bar graph, the impact of a Roth conversion on your future assets.

One caveat: With any calculator that lets you adjust the future tax rate, as this one does, it’s easy to manipulate the answer if you’re predisposed to doing a conversion now or avoiding it because you don’t want to pay the resulting tax bill, Mr. Slott says.

Still, the calculator does help you pin down the answer to the big question you should answer for yourself this year, Mr. Norquist says: “If I can take a portion of my assets and shift them over to a Roth, am I going to sleep better knowing they can’t be touched by future tax increases?” If your answer is “yes,” it’s time to start digging out records and number-crunching.

–Ms. Greene is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in New York. She can be reached at encore@wsj.com.

Por ANDREW PEAPLE

La desaceleración del crecimiento chino preocupa a los inversionistas. Para las grandes empresas mineras, es algo que podría cambiar las reglas del juego. El apoyo de China a la industria minera se ha vuelto una historia familiar: Su participación en la demanda de mineral de hierro transportado por vía marítima habría alcanzado el 66% el año pasado, duplicándose desde 2004. Pero si Beijing demuestra ser incapaz de manejar los desafíos económicos y políticos que el país enfrenta, algunas mineras podrían tener que repensar sus planes de inversión.

Algunas mineras ya han reducido sus expectativas, a medida que China se adentra en una fase en la que las inversiones juegan un papel menos importante en el crecimiento. BHP Billiton -que junto a Río Tinto y Vale suman cerca del 70% de la producción global de mineral de hierro- espera un crecimiento compuesto anual del 4,4% en la demanda marítima global desde 2010 a 2020, frente a un 8,4% en la década anterior. Sin embargo, esto implica que los envíos anuales, que ahora llegan a 1.000 millones de toneladas, se elevarán en 60 millones de toneladas al año en promedio, según estimaciones de Liberum Capital.

Eso parece justificar los actuales planes de expansión de las mineras. Un ejemplo es el proyecto de BHP Billiton, estimado en US$21.000 millones, para expandir su puerto Outer Harbour en el oeste de Australia, que debería incrementar su capacidad exportadora en 100 millones de toneladas a partir de 2016. Para entonces, la demanda global por mineral de hierro podía haberse incrementado en 300 millones de toneladas.

No obstante, los beneficios estas decisiones de inversión son cada vez menos claros. La inversión en Outer Harbour podría generar una tasa de retorno interno del 14,1%, justo por debajo de la tasa del 15% a la que suelen apuntar las mineras, estima Deutsche Bank. Pero si el gasto en capital se excede en un 20%, el retorno esperado podría caer al 12,6%. Y si los precios del mineral de hierro caen un 20% por debajo de su proyección a largo plazo, de US$75 la tonelada larga, el retorno podría descender al 10,9%, justo por sobre el costo de capital estimado de BHP de un 8,9%.

Con los precios al contado del mineral de hierro cerca de US$145 la tonelada en la actualidad, tal caída en los precios podría parecer poco probable. Pero, dado el reciente malestar político en Beijing, podría ser igual de improbable que la economía no tropiece durante la próxima década. A su vez, eso fortalece la posición de inversionistas que piden a las mineras que les devuelvan más dinero ahora, en vez de gastar en proyectos inciertos a largo plazo.

“En China confiamos” quizás ya no sea un lema en que las mineras puedan promulgar.

Por STEPHEN FIDLER e DAVID ENRICH de Bruxelas

Uma moeda comum levou os investidores aos confins da Europa, para depois afugentá-los.

A primeira década do euro entrelaçou os sistemas financeiros do continente como nunca antes. Bancos e fundos de investimento de um país que usa o euro se empanturraram de títulos de dívida de outros países da região, sem se preocupar com possíveis desvalorizações de moedas mais suscetíveis, como o dracma, a lira, a peseta e o escudo.

Mas conforme o risco da desvalorização diminuía, outro foi crescendo, quase despercebido pelos investidores: a chance de que os governos, agora sem o apoio de seus bancos centrais, pudessem deixar de pagar suas dívidas.

A primeira pista desse perigo surgiu com os problemas do orçamento da Grécia e, à medida que os investidores foram ficando mais cautelosos em relação à Grécia, as preocupações com a dívida se espalharam até colocar em marcha a ré o processo histórico de integração financeira da Europa — com consequências que agora se evidenciam.

Bancos, seguradoras e fundos de pensão do norte da Europa cortaram os empréstimos aos países mais vulneráveis para proteger o seu dinheiro. Muitos agora só se sentem confortáveis investindo dentro de casa ou nos mercados mais seguros, como a Alemanha.

“Nós estamos vendo a desglobalização, a ‘deseurização’ da zona do euro”, disse Andrew Balls, diretor da administradora de carteira europeia da gigante americana de fundos de investimento Pimco. “Os investidores estão se voltando para seus próprios mercados. Eles ainda podem ter títulos de dívida em carteira, mas não da zona do euro em geral como tinham antes.”

Se a imprudência fiscal em alguns lugares plantou as sementes da crise do euro, foram as decisões de investimento dentro da zona do euro que a aprofundaram, tornando-a intratável.

Depois de bater em retirada, os grandes investidores do norte da Europa provavelmente não vão retornar tão cedo ao mercado de dívida da periferia da zona do euro, dizem participantes do mercado. Carsten Brzeski, um economista do ING Bank, em Amsterdã, acredita que a propensão de investir no mercado doméstico vai persistir mesmo se os líderes políticos conseguirem encontrar uma solução imediata para a crise. “Investidores não esquecem facilmente”, disse.

“Todo mundo parou de investir em certas partes da zona do euro”, disse Philippe Delienne, presidente e diretor-presidente da Convictions Asset Management, em Paris, que tem 776 milhões de euros em ativos sob gestão.

Ele acrescentou, referindo-se aos títulos de dívida soberana da Alemanha: “Você não pode mais dizer que a Itália é como o ‘bund’ [...] Para nos proteger, estamos agora comprando ‘bunds’.”

Para as nações muito endividadas que precisam emitir dívida para quitar as que estão vencendo, a maré de baixa é presságio de uma longa batalha.

A escala da mudança sugere que a zona do euro não está meramente sofrendo uma crise de confiança de curto prazo mas que a tábua de salvação de alguns governos está se encurtando, e talvez fique pequena por muitos anos, deixando alguns países expostos e em risco de colapso financeiro.

Na pior das hipóteses, o aperto poderia dar início a uma onda de moratórias que ameaçaria aleijar o sistema bancário europeu, provocando um profundo processo de recessão. Um resultado poderia ser a saída de um ou mais países da união monetária, ou mesmo a sua desintegração.

Esse recuo dos investidores não deu sinal de reversão depois da recente reunião de cúpula dos líderes europeus, que não produziu medidas que parececem capazes de resolver a crise.

A primeira década do euro foi muito diferente. A moeda foi introduzida em 1999. Os investidores — não mais preocupados com as desvalorizações cambiais — passaram a ver os títulos de dívida das economias mediterrâneas como substitutos próximos para aqueles da Alemanha ou de outras economias sólidas, e se deixaram seduzir pelos retornos ligeiramente mais altos.

Outra atrativo era que os fundos de pensão preferiam que seus investimentos estivessem denominados na mesma moeda que suas obrigações, o euro.

Incentivos regulatórios também contribuíram. O Banco Central Europeu permite que qualquer banco da região deposite títulos de dívida soberana em troca de empréstimos de curto prazo, dentro dos chamados acordo de recompra, ou “repos”. Isso era rentável para os bancos, uma vez que o rendimento dos títulos excedia o custos dos empréstimos, e inicialmente foi um incentivo para a compra de títulos da zona do euro.

As operações monetárias do ECB contribuíram para facilitar a tomada de empréstimos muito baratos pelas nações mais fracas. E as operações estimularam a visão de que nunca seria permitida a quebra de um credor soberano da zona do euro, dizem Simon Johnson, um ex-economista-chefe do Fundo Monetário International, e Peter Boone, em um trabalho escrito para o Instituto Peterson para Economia Internacional.

Como o risco de moratória era visto como zero, os bancos europeus não tinham que fazer reservas de capital contra os títulos soberanos da zona do euro que tinham em carteira. Isso dava aos bancos uma razão a mais para comprá-los, especialmente depois que a crise financeira de 2008 corroeu os colchões de proteção dos bancos.

Um raro dissidente do clamor para investir nesses títulos de dívida foi o fundo de pensão da Heineken NV. Logo no começo de 2005, o fundo de desfez de dezenas de milhões de euros em títulos de governos menos sólidos. “A diferença de rendimento [...] era tão pequena comparada ao risco envolvido que nós decidimos vender tudo ao redor do Mediterrâneo e investir apenas em dívida soberana da Holanda e da Alemanha”, disse Frank de Waardt, diretor-gerente do fundo de 2,2 bilhões de euros. “Nós vendemos Grécia, Itália, França e Portugal. Nós vendemos até Finlândia”, disse ele.

O desempenho do fundo foi pior que o de seus pares, já que vários mergulharam em títulos de dívida de nações da periferia.

Na Grécia, onde no passado a maioria da dívida emitida pelo governo estava nas mãos dos gregos, estrangeiros chegaram a ter 55% dela em 2003. No terceiro trimestre de 2009, a fatia chegou a 76%.

Isso foi apenas semanas antes do novo governo grego tornar público que o déficit orçamentário do país era muito maior do que se acreditava. A crença de que os títulos soberanos da zona do euro eram quase intercambiáveis e que nenhum país entraria em moratória começou a ruir.

Primeiro, a Grécia foi forçada a passar o chapéu para o FMI e para outras zonas do euro. Depois, a Alemanha deixou claro que não pretendia financiar indefinidamente as dívidas daqueles países que considerava esbanjadores.

As preocupações dos alemães se cristalizaram em regras da zona do euro.

Em outubro de 2010, no resort francês de Deauville, a chanceler alemã, Angela Merkel, e o presidente francês, Nicolas Sarkozy, chegaram a um acordo de que qualquer resgate após 2013 necessitaria do envolvimento do setor privado, que precisaria aceitar uma redução no valor dos títulos soberanos em seu poder.

Essa possibilidade levou os investidores a correr de um grande número de governos, provocando um salto nos custos de captação que, em alguns casos, foi contido por compras de títulos de dívida pelo BCE.

Desde então, a fatia de dívida soberana grega em poder de investidores estrangeiros caiu acentuadamente para bem abaixo dos 50%.

Dados da agência Fitch Ratings mostram que os estrangeiros reduziram sua exposição ao mercado de títulos soberanos das nações mais fracas da zona do euro, deixando os papéis nas mãos de investidores domésticos.

E não foi apenas no mercado de dívida soberana que a integração financeira da Europa recuou. Ativos de diversas categorias, incluindo dívida de emrpesas, em Chipre, Grécia, Irlanda, Itália, Portugal e Espanha em poder dos bancos da zona do euro chegaram a US$ 1,9 trilhão em 2007, seis vezes mais que em 2001, mas despencaram 44% , até 30 de junho, de acordo com o Barclays Capital. O Barclays fez os cálculos com base em dados do Banco Internacional de Compensações, o BIS.

O banco português BPI SA já foi um ávido comprador de títulos soberanos de outros países da zona do euro no passado. Em setembro, tinha cortado seu portfólio em cerca de 30%, de acordo com informes obrigatórios do banco às autoridades do mercado.

Agora, “nós provavelmente vamos investir em títulos alemães ou algo similar”, disse Fernando Ulrich, presidente do conselho do comitê executivo.

Rebaixamentos pelas agências de crédito também detiveram os investidores, alguns dos quais têm limites em relação à quantidade de papéis de baixa classificação que podem ter em carteira.

Os títulos de dívida italianos por muito tempo se mantiveram estáveis. Os bancos franceses estavam comprando esses papéis no início do ano e tinham 9% mais em meados de 2011 que no fim de 2010, de acordo com dos dados do BIS.

Mas a estabilidade não durou. O mercado italiano se tornou volátil em julho e agosto, depois de desentendimentos entre o então primeiro-ministro Silvio Berlusconi e seu ministro da Fazenda, Giulio Tremonti, em relação a uma série de assuntos.

Um divisor de águas para os investimentos na zona do euro ocorreu em julho. Líderes europeus, em negociação para expandir o resgate grego, confirmaram que os investidores dos títulos de dívida do país teriam perdas.

“Foi um chamado de alerta para o setor”, disse o executivo de um importante banco francês, que logo começou a se desfazer de seus títulos soberanos italianos. O Deutsche Bank AG informou que reduziu significamente sua “exposição líquida” à Itália, vendendo títulos e comprando proteção para calotes.

Medidas tomadas pelas autoridades europeias este trimestre também podem ter exacerbado os desinvestimentos entre países. Novas regras para garantir que os bancos da região poderiam aguentar marés baixas podem tê-los levado a se desfazerem de dívida mais arrsicada.

O Fundo de Pensão da Indústria de Transportes da Holanda vendeu divida grega no ano passado, e depois espanhola e, então, títulos de curto prazo da Itália, segundo seu diretor de investimentos, Patrick Groenendijk. Ele ainda detém alguns títulos italianos de longo prazo.

Quando indagado se poderia voltar a investir no mercado italiano, Groenendijk foi curto e grosso: “Se você quer uma resposta honesta, quando eles tiverem sua própria moeda”, disse ele.

(Colaboraram Brian Blackstone, Tom Lauricella, William Horobin e Laura Stevens.)

By BETH GARDINER

Just like large companies eager to get a foothold in one of the world’s most important markets, international business schools are moving into China in a big way.

Eager to capitalize on demand in a fast-growing economy that has a huge need for well-trained managers, big name B-schools from Europe and the U.S. are launching and expanding M.B.A.-program collaborations with Chinese universities or going it alone with courses aimed at mid-career executives.

Experience in China is also a selling point at home, since Western students increasingly see the benefits of studying at an institution whose faculty have close-up experience of the country. Such links can also give M.B.A. students the chance to study in China for a module or a semester.

“The lure is to go and learn about what’s happening, and be in the middle of the action in one of the most dynamic economies in the world,” says Krishna Palepu, senior associate dean for international development at Harvard Business School. The school has had a faculty research base in China for about 20 years but now shares a new Shanghai classroom with other Harvard schools.

“In the last four or five years we have ramped it up to a much larger scale,” he says.

A flurry of deans from top international institutions who have moved recently to run programs in Asia shows the influence the continent’s institutions now wield in the B-school world, says Matt Symonds, whose company, Symonds GSB, does consulting for business schools.

George Yip is leaving the top post at the Rotterdam School of Management in the Netherlands for the China Europe International Business School, or CEIBS, where John Quelch, a onetime head of London Business School, recently became dean. Arnoud De Meyer quit his job as director of the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School last year to become president of the Singapore Management University.

China has scores of its own business schools, which now attract thousands of students a year.

“But nonetheless, such is the thirst for a managerial talent pool that there remains tremendous demand for the Western business-school product,” Mr. Symonds says.

Duke University is setting up a campus in Kunshan, near Shanghai, and its Fuqua School of Business is slated to be the first to offer programs there. Some other Western universities run full-fledged M.B.A. programs in partnership with Chinese institutions, and many more offer shorter training courses.

Chinese companies are growing so quickly that training programs can barely keep up with the demand for qualified managers. With companies vying for their services, such employees jump ship frequently, so firms must make sure they have a pipeline of new talent available to manage their own growth, says Mr. Palepu.

Big multinational firms also look to the major business schools to train managers for their Chinese operations. And given the projections for China’s economic growth, the need is only likely to get bigger.

“The demand is already huge, but it’s going to grow several-fold,” says Rama Velamuri, academic director of the international executive M.B.A. program at the China Europe International Business School. CEIBS was one of the first international business schools in China when it opened in 1994 as a joint effort of the European Union and the Chinese government.

But Chinese students are no longer willing, as they were then, to listen unquestioningly to anyone bringing Western ideas to the classroom, he says.

“The market has become very discerning now,” Mr. Velamuri says. “It’s no longer good enough for you to come up with a theory that was done up in the West and present it to an audience in China. The Chinese will push back and say ‘Tell us how it will apply here.’”

The most promising new source of students may be from Chinese companies that are looking to expand globally and seeking to educate employees about Western markets.

Chinese companies “are now looking outward to the rest of the world,” Mr. Symonds says. “A lot of their executive-training demands will focus on the Western business schools teaching them how to reach out.”

Harvard Business School is among those seeking to tap that market with a new, simultaneously translated program for Chinese CEOs who do not speak English and whose companies are aiming to go international.

It is not just Chinese students who want a global perspective. Building a presence in China is key to a school’s attractiveness at home too, says Bernard Ramanantsoa, dean of HEC Paris business school, which offers joint M.B.A. degrees in China with Tsinghua University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and executive M.B.A.s in partnership with Chinese government agencies.

“It becomes a strong marketing tool if a school has this China engagement,” Mr. Velamuri of CEIBS says.

In many ways, though, China is still not an easy place for foreigners to do business. Bureaucratic and cultural hurdles can be high, Mr. Symonds says. And while many Western schools boast of their links with Chinese universities, “they happen at such different levels,” Mr. Symonds notes. “There are lots of flimsy partnerships.”

Markets like Singapore are becoming overcrowded with international B-schools, but Mr. Symonds predicts China may get only a few more.

“If it was as easy to do business in China as it is in Singapore, perhaps we’d see other main players setting up there,” he says.

By CHUN HAN WONG

Despite all the hand-wringing over China’s growth trajectory, the Middle Kingdom remains a land of milk and honey for Singapore real-estate company CapitaLand Ltd. President and Chief Executive Liew Mun Leong is a longtime bull on China’s property market, often expressing confidence in the macroeconomic fundamentals that fuel housing and commercial-property demand there.

Under his leadership, the developer—Southeast Asia’s largest by market value—expanded aggressively into China over the past decade, and now owns there a portfolio worth about 12 billion Singapore dollars ($9.5 billion), or 38% of the company’s total assets, including residential properties, offices and shopping malls.

CapitaLand’s China push isn’t without its detractors, especially among investors who have shied from the stock amid rumblings of a possible hard landing for the Chinese economy and its softening property market.

But Mr. Liew remains unfazed. “Urbanization and economic growth will support demand, and the Chinese people love to buy their own homes,” he said. “Also, there’s no alternative class of investment—they can’t invest outside of China, they don’t understand anything about equities, but they understand how to buy an apartment.”

Mr. Liew shared with Chun Han Wong his views on real-estate trends and management experiences. The following interview has been edited.

WSJ: How has recent market turmoil and global economic woes affected real-estate investment in Asia? Are you concerned about policy risks in your key China and Singapore markets?

Mr. Liew: Asia is still attractive for investors, but they will be selective. For instance, I doubt they will put much money in India. Instead they would look at countries like China, Singapore, Hong Kong, while the more daring ones may put money in Vietnam, even if they may be worried about the macroeconomic situation there.

Cooling measures are good. We’d be worried if there weren’t any; that means people will be speculative, and bubbles will generate. If there are cooling measures, we will account for them, but we won’t slow down or halt our investments.

After the global financial crisis, we bought [Orient Overseas (International)'s real-estate business] for US$2.2 billion. Now with the euro-zone debt crisis, we’ve put S$4.3 billion in Chongqing [for the Chaotianmen mixed-used project]. We can do this because we do our capital management on a long-time-horizon basis.

For China, we’re there for the long term; we have always reinvested our profits there. With the recent cut to the reserve-requirement ratio, China has signaled that they know they have to relax. It won’t be sudden; it will be incremental.

In Singapore, there’s still an underlying shortage of residential units. From 2005 to 2011, the resident population grew 9.3%, or 320,000 people, but the number of dwelling units increased only by 6.4%, or about 70,000 units. The government may intervene from time to time, but the demographics are positive.

WSJ: Credit availability in China is a concern for some real-estate market watchers. How might the industry be affected?

Mr. Liew: The days in which small developers can get started by borrowing a hundred million yuan are gone. Consolidation is possible; more and more will realize the burden of debt and run into trouble. If these companies have good assets, we will look at them for possible acquisitions.

During the global financial crisis, we secured over 20 billion yuan (US$3.16 billion) in credit allocation from the likes of Bank of China, ICBC, Agricultural Bank, and China Merchants Bank. It’s a flight to quality. They have to lend, and between some small Chinese companies—in which they have little confidence—and CapitaLand, who would they choose to lend to?

WSJ: What about prospects closer to home in Southeast Asia and India?

Mr. Liew: I think Vietnam will grow very well in the next five to 10 years. It’s a big economy with a young population—the Vietnamese are hardworking and very prepared to learn—and has got stable government as well. We have a presence in India—serviced apartments and some shopping malls—but progress is slow. We haven’t made money yet. I worked on an IT project in Bangalore back in 1993, but from then till now, I haven’t seen any visible signs of change in the business environment.

WSJ: What’s your approach to managing your large work force and businesses in more than 20 countries?

Mr. Liew: I don’t manage the business; I select the right people and manage them. We’ve been successful in attracting and retaining talent and the key is staying close to them. I spend a lot of time on people—interviewing them, looking at their training, reviewing their postings, and visiting overseas staff regularly. Every year, I give lectures on management and leadership for two days, eight hours a day. Anyone can write to me, and I get many responses to my weekly emails to staff, which address a broad range of business and human topics in a casual, conversational tone.

We also devise a lot of family-friendly policies. For instance, every employee can book a free four-day stay at our Ascott (serviced residences).

WSJ: During the financial crisis, you cut your pay by 20% to avoid retrenching staff. What was the philosophy behind that move?

Mr. Liew: As a company, we all have to pool together and suffer together. I call it the “theory of common happiness and common misery”—something I learned from my days in the Ministry of Defense. I always tell my staff: “I’m not the lao-ban (“boss” in Mandarin). I’m also a salaried worker.” I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth; I champion the proletariat.

WSJ: What did you take away from your civil-service experience, and how did you manage your transition into the private sector?

Mr. Liew: The civil service taught you integrity—we were “brainwashed” into being honest—and the importance of good corporate governance and compliance. You also learned how to work with systems, and deal with people and policy makers. The Singapore government is very paranoid; they plan for everything. I worked at the Ministry of Defense—and the concept of defense is founded upon paranoia—so I learned to be even more paranoid and plan for things.

But I think I am basically a private-sector person, but was caged in the public sector for too long before I was released to become my natural self. By nature, I am outgoing and more prepared to take risks.

Write to Chun Han Wong at chunhan.wong@dowjones.com

Résumé

Education: Bachelor’s degree in civil engineering, University of Singapore (now the National University of Singapore)

Career: 22 years in the public sector; chief executive of L&M Investments; president of Pidemco Land, which merged with DBS Land to become CapitaLand

Interests: Daily treadmill jogs and qi-gong exercises.