Gadgetwise Blog: Q&A: How to Reinstall the Google Chrome Browser

The Google Chrome browser no longer works on my Windows computer. How do I delete it so I can try to install it again?

To uninstall Google Chrome on a PC running Windows Vista or later, close the browser program and then go to the Start menu and open Control Panel. (On Windows 8, press the Windows key and the X key to pop up a menu with Control Panel listed.) Next, click the Programs and Features icon and double-click Google Chrome in the list. Click the Uninstall button at the top of the list and confirm your intention to remove the program.

On a Windows XP system, go to the Start menu to Control Panel and select Add or Remove Programs. Double-click Google Chrome, click Remove and confirm that you would like to uninstall the browser.

If you have trouble removing the browser, check out Google’s instructions for manually yanking Chrome off a Windows system. The company has more information about uninstalling Chrome if it has been installed systemwide, as well as for removing it from Mac and Linux systems here.

Once you have removed the nonfunctioning copy of Google Chrome from your system, you can download and install it again. If you are still having problems with the software, check Google’s page of known issues with Chrome to see if there might be a solution.

Read More..

Google Chief Urges North Korea to Embrace Web





BEIJING--Eric E. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, returned from a four-day visit to North Korea on Thursday with a message for the reclusive nation’s young new leader: embrace the Web or else.




Mr. Schmidt, part of private delegation led by former Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico that also sought to press Pyongyang on humanitarian and diplomatic issues, said North Korea risked falling further behind if it did not provide more access to cell phone service and the Internet.


“As the world becomes increasingly connected, their decision to be virtually isolated is very much going to affect their physical world, their economic growth and so forth and it will make it harder for them to catch up economically,” he told reporters after arriving at Beijing International Airport. “We made that alternative very, very clear.”


Their visit, the highest-profile delegation of Americans since Kim Jong-un took power upon the death of his father in December 2011, comes at precarious time for U.S.-North Korean relations following Pyongyang’s rocket launch last month that drew international condemnation. North Korea insists its Unha-3 rocket is part of a peaceful space program; South Korean and American intelligence officials say the North was testing a long-range ballistic missile that could one day reach the United States.


The State Department was not exactly thrilled with Mr. Richardson’s freelance diplomacy, at least not publicly. A spokeswoman described Mr. Richardson’s visit as not “particularly helpful” given that the U.S. is seeking to rally support for tougher international sanctions on Pyongyang. Some North Korea experts have described the self-described humanitarian mission as naïve, saying it will ultimately serve Pyongyang’s propaganda needs.


Although Mr. Richardson did not address the criticism on Thursday, he said his hosts were receptive during discussions about ways to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula as well as his effort to seek the release of a Korean-American who was detained in November in the north of the country.


“We had a very positive reaction,” Mr. Richardson said.


The delegation did not meet with the detained American, Kenneth Bae, 44, a tour operator from Washington who has been accused of “hostile acts,” but Mr. Richardson said he was assured Mr. Bae was being treated well and that judicial proceedings would begin soon.


There was one tangible success of their visit: the authorities, Mr. Richardson said, had agreed to deliver to Mr. Bae a letter from his son.


But Mr. Richardson’s efforts to promote peace, love and understanding were overshadowed by the billion-dollar wattage of Mr. Schmidt, a vocal proponent of Internet freedom. The delegation, which included Mr. Schmidt’s daughter and Jared Cohen, a former State Department official who heads Google’s think tank, made highly choreographed visits to several sites meant to display the nation’s information technology prowess.


At the elite Kim Il Sung University, computer science students showed off their ability to surf the Internet, stopping on a Web site run by Cornell University. At one point, a student opened up Google’s site and typed in New York City, according to the Associated Press, the only American news organization with a bureau in North Korea. “That’s where I work,” Mr. Schmidt exclaimed, pointing to a photograph on Wikipedia. “That’s where I live.”


For most North Koreans, using a computer, let alone accessing Google, is all but impossible. Although the country has global broadband Internet, few people are allowed to access it, and if they do, their surfing is strictly monitored. Experts say fewer than a thousand people have such access, most of them software developers, government officials and well-connected party loyalists.


At the main library in Pyongyang, the Grand People’s Study House, the Americans watched as users in thick winter coats crowded around computer screens that provide access to North Korea’s Intranet, known as Kwangmyong, which serves up government-approved documents, books and archival newspapers.


They later toured the Korea Computer Center, an incubator for domestic software and hardware, where they played with a homegrown tablet and other gadgetry, most of it developed with help from Russia, China and India. A quote from Kim Jong Il, the current leader’s father, graced the room: “Now is the era for science and technology. It is the era of computers.”


Since he came to power last year, the 20-something Mr. Kim, who was educated in a Swiss boarding school, has emphasized the importance of science and technology for economic development. But he has made no mention of addressing North Korea’s status as one of the world’s least wired nations.


Mr. Schmidt appears to have learned a great deal from his visit. Speaking to reporters in Beijing, he spoke in some detail about the nation’s 3G cellular phone service, developed by the Egyptian telecom company Orascom. But he noted with disappointment that little more than one million of the country’s 24 million citizens had cell phones.


That system, he added hopefully, had the potential to provide Internet access but that so far the feature was unavailable. “It would be very easy for them to turn it on,” he said.


Read More..

Safety of Boeing 787 Dreamliner Called Into Question







NEW YORK — For Boeing, much rides on the success of its newest and most sophisticated jet, the 787 Dreamliner. But a spate of mishaps is reviving concerns about the plane’s reliability and safety.




The plane had a new problem Wednesday, when the Japanese carrier All Nippon Airways canceled a domestic flight after a computer on board erroneously showed problems with the aircraft’s brakes. A spokeswoman for the airline, Megumi Tezuka, said the computer glitch was similar to one that appeared when the carrier first started flying the Dreamliners in 2011.


The flight, NH698, had been due to depart from Yamaguchi Ube airport in southern Japan for Tokyo’s Haneda airport at 4:50 p.m. local time. The flight’s 98 passengers were transferred to a later flight.


On Tuesday, a fuel leak forced a 787 to return to its gate minutes before taking off from Boston. On Monday, an electrical fire had broken out on another plane. Both of those incidents affected planes operated by Japan Airlines at Logan International Airport in Boston.


The three events were the latest in a series of problems with the 787, which entered commercial service in November 2011 and has had technical and electrical malfunctions since then. Boeing delivered 46 planes last year, more than any analyst had predicted, and has outlined ambitious plans to double its production rate to 10 planes a month by the end of this year.


Boeing expects to sell 5,000 of the planes in the next 20 years. The basic model has a list price of $206.8 million, but early customers typically received deep discounts to make up for the production delays and teething problems. All this means it could be years before Boeing starts recouping its investment costs and turning a profit on the planes.


Shares of Boeing dropped 2.6 percent to $74.13 Tuesday, extending the drop of 2 percent Monday.


The 787 makes extensive use of new technology, including a bigger reliance on electrical systems, and is built mostly out of lightweight carbon composite materials. While the problems so far do not point to serious design problems with the airplane, they represent an embarrassment to Boeing’s manufacturing ability.


“None of this is a showstopper, and none of this should signal this product is fundamentally flawed,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, a consulting firm. “But whether these are design glitches or manufacturing glitches, either way it’s a serious hit to Boeing’s image.”


The fuel leak Tuesday was spotted by another pilot as JAL Flight 007, bound for Tokyo, was taxiing and getting ready to take off, said Richard Walsh, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Port Authority. The plane was towed back to its gate and the leak of about 40 gallons, or about 150 liters, was cleaned up.


The flight with 178 passengers and 11 crew members, scheduled to take off at noon, eventually left Boston at 3:47 p.m.


An electrical fire Monday on a 787 was traced to a battery connected to the plane’s auxiliary power unit, which runs electrical systems when the plane is not getting power from its engines.


The fire broke out about 30 minutes after the flight landed from Tokyo, and all 183 passengers and crew members had left. The smoke was first detected in the cabin by maintenance and cleaning personnel who were on the parked plane and notified the airport’s fire department.


The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the electrical fire, said the battery had “severe fire damage.”


New planes often experience problems in the first few years of production. But the succession of issues with the 787, which has already been marred by production delays of years, has revived concerns about the plane’s reliability and safety.


Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration ordered inspections of fuel line connectors on all 787s, warning of a risk of leaks and fires. Separately, a United Airlines 787 was also diverted in December after one of six electrical generators failed in flight.


In a statement Tuesday, Boeing said that it saw no relationship between the battery problem and previous incidents with the 787’s power system, which involved faults in power panels elsewhere in the electrical equipment bay.


“Boeing is cooperating with the N.T.S.B. in the investigation of this incident,” the company said. “Before providing more detail, we will give our technical teams the time they need to do a thorough job and ensure we are dealing with facts, not speculation.”


A Boeing spokesman, Marc Birtel, said the plane maker was aware of the fuel leak incident but declined to comment.


A spokeswoman for Japan Airlines in Tokyo said that the company was still gathering the details about the two incidents and that there were no plans to change its orders for 787s. The airline has seven 787s already in service, and 38 more on order. The spokeswoman declined to be named, citing company policy.


All Nippon Airways, which also operates Dreamliners, likewise said there were no plans to change its orders for the aircraft. Ms. Tezuka, the spokeswoman for ANA, said the airline had 17 787s in service and another 49 on order.


United Airlines, currently the only airline in the United States operating 787s, said it had performed inspections on all six of its 787s after the electrical fire Monday. It did not cancel any of its flights today, said Mary Ryan, a spokeswoman for the airline. She said United “continues to work closely with Boeing on the reliability of our 787s.”


But she declined to comment on a report in The Wall Street Journal that said the airline had found improperly installed wiring in components associated with the auxiliary power unit.


Bettina Wassener reported from Hong Kong.


Read More..

Recipes for Health: Cauliflower and Tuna Salad — Recipes for Health


Andrew Scrivani for The New York Times







I have added tuna to a classic Italian antipasto of cauliflower and capers dressed with vinegar and olive oil. For the best results give the cauliflower lots of time to marinate.




1 large or 2 small or medium cauliflowers, broken into small florets


1 5-ounce can water-packed light (not albacore) tuna, drained


1 plump garlic clove, minced or pureéd


1/3 cup chopped flat-leaf parsley


3 tablespoons capers, drained and rinsed


1 tablespoon fresh lemon juice


3 tablespoons sherry vinegar or champagne vinegar


6 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil


Salt and freshly ground pepper


1. Place the cauliflower in a steaming basket over 1 inch of boiling water, cover and steam 1 minute. Lift the lid for 15 seconds, then cover again and steam for 5 to 8 minutes, until tender. Refresh with cold water, then drain on paper towels.


2. In a large bowl, break up the tuna fish and add the cauliflower.


3. In a small bowl or measuring cup, mix together the garlic, parsley, capers, lemon juice, vinegar, and olive oil. Season generously with salt and pepper. Add the cauliflower and toss together. Marinate, stirring from time to time, for 30 minutes if possible before serving. Serve warm, cold, or at room temperature.


Yield: Serves 6 as a starter or side dish


Advance preparation: You can make this up to a day ahead, but omit the parsley until shortly before serving so that it doesn’t fade. It keeps well in the refrigerator for up to 5 days.


Nutritional information per serving: 188 calories; 15 grams fat; 2 grams saturated fat; 2 grams polyunsaturated fat; 10 grams monounsaturated fat; 10 milligrams cholesterol; 8 grams carbohydrates; 3 grams dietary fiber; 261 milligrams sodium (does not include salt to taste); 9 grams protein


Martha Rose Shulman is the author of “The Very Best of Recipes for Health.”


Read More..

Recipes for Health: Cauliflower and Tuna Salad — Recipes for Health


Andrew Scrivani for The New York Times







I have added tuna to a classic Italian antipasto of cauliflower and capers dressed with vinegar and olive oil. For the best results give the cauliflower lots of time to marinate.




1 large or 2 small or medium cauliflowers, broken into small florets


1 5-ounce can water-packed light (not albacore) tuna, drained


1 plump garlic clove, minced or pureéd


1/3 cup chopped flat-leaf parsley


3 tablespoons capers, drained and rinsed


1 tablespoon fresh lemon juice


3 tablespoons sherry vinegar or champagne vinegar


6 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil


Salt and freshly ground pepper


1. Place the cauliflower in a steaming basket over 1 inch of boiling water, cover and steam 1 minute. Lift the lid for 15 seconds, then cover again and steam for 5 to 8 minutes, until tender. Refresh with cold water, then drain on paper towels.


2. In a large bowl, break up the tuna fish and add the cauliflower.


3. In a small bowl or measuring cup, mix together the garlic, parsley, capers, lemon juice, vinegar, and olive oil. Season generously with salt and pepper. Add the cauliflower and toss together. Marinate, stirring from time to time, for 30 minutes if possible before serving. Serve warm, cold, or at room temperature.


Yield: Serves 6 as a starter or side dish


Advance preparation: You can make this up to a day ahead, but omit the parsley until shortly before serving so that it doesn’t fade. It keeps well in the refrigerator for up to 5 days.


Nutritional information per serving: 188 calories; 15 grams fat; 2 grams saturated fat; 2 grams polyunsaturated fat; 10 grams monounsaturated fat; 10 milligrams cholesterol; 8 grams carbohydrates; 3 grams dietary fiber; 261 milligrams sodium (does not include salt to taste); 9 grams protein


Martha Rose Shulman is the author of “The Very Best of Recipes for Health.”


Read More..

Online Banking Attacks Were Work of Iran, U.S. Officials Say





SAN FRANCISCO — The attackers hit one American bank after the next. As in so many previous attacks, dozens of online banking sites slowed, hiccupped or ground to a halt before recovering several minutes later.







Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times

James A. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington believes that recent online attacks on American banks have been the work of Iran.







But there was something disturbingly different about the wave of online attacks on American banks in recent weeks. Security researchers say that instead of exploiting individual computers, the attackers engineered networks of computers in data centers, transforming the online equivalent of a few yapping Chihuahuas into a pack of fire-breathing Godzillas.


The skill required to carry out attacks on this scale has convinced United States government officials and security researchers that they are the work of Iran, most likely in retaliation for economic sanctions and online attacks by the United States.


“There is no doubt within the U.S. government that Iran is behind these attacks,” said James A. Lewis, a former official in the State and Commerce Departments and a computer security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.


Mr. Lewis said the amount of traffic flooding American banking sites was “multiple times” the amount that Russia directed at Estonia in a monthlong online assault in 2007 that nearly crippled the Baltic nation.


American officials have not offered any technical evidence to back up their claims, but computer security experts say the recent attacks showed a level of sophistication far beyond that of amateur hackers. Also, the hackers chose to pursue disruption, not money: another earmark of state-sponsored attacks, the experts said.


“The scale, the scope and the effectiveness of these attacks have been unprecedented,” said Carl Herberger, vice president of security solutions at Radware, a security firm that has been investigating the attacks on behalf of banks and cloud service providers. “There have never been this many financial institutions under this much duress.”


Since September, intruders have caused major disruptions to the online banking sites of Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, PNC, Capital One, Fifth Third Bank, BB&T and HSBC.


They employed DDoS attacks, or distributed denial of service attacks, named because hackers deny customers service by directing large volumes of traffic to a site until it collapses. No bank accounts were breached and no customers’ money was taken.


By using data centers, the attackers are simply keeping up with the times. Companies and consumers are increasingly conducting their business over large-scale “clouds” of hundreds, even thousands, of networked computer servers.


These clouds are run by Amazon and Google, but also by many smaller players who commonly rent them to other companies. It appears the hackers remotely hijacked some of these clouds and used the computing power to take down American banking sites.


“There’s a sense now that attackers are crafting their own private clouds,” either by creating networks of individual machines or by stealing resources wholesale from poorly maintained corporate clouds, said John Kindervag, an analyst at Forrester Research.


How, exactly, attackers are hijacking data centers is still a mystery. Making matters more complex, they have simultaneously introduced another weapon: encrypted DDoS attacks.


Banks encrypt customers’ online transactions for security, but the encryption process consumes system resources. By flooding banking sites with encryption requests, attackers can further slow or cripple sites with fewer requests.


A hacker group calling itself Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters has claimed in online posts that it was responsible for the attacks.


The group said it attacked the banks in retaliation for an anti-Islam video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad, and pledged to continue its campaign until the video was scrubbed from the Internet. It called the campaign Operation Ababil, a reference to a story in the Koran in which Allah sends swallows to defeat an army of elephants dispatched by the king of Yemen to attack Mecca in A.D. 571.


But American intelligence officials say the group is actually a cover for Iran. They claim Iran is waging the attacks in retaliation for Western economic sanctions and for a series of cyberattacks on its own systems. In the last three years, three sophisticated computer viruses — called Flame, Duqu and Stuxnet — have hit computers in Iran. The New York Times reported last year that the United States, together with Israel, was responsible for Stuxnet, the virus used to destroy centrifuges in an Iranian nuclear facility in 2010.


“It’s a bit of a grudge match,” said Mr. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


Read More..

Online Banking Attacks Were Work of Iran, U.S. Officials Say





SAN FRANCISCO — The attackers hit one American bank after the next. As in so many previous attacks, dozens of online banking sites slowed, hiccupped or ground to a halt before recovering several minutes later.







Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times

James A. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington believes that recent online attacks on American banks have been the work of Iran.







But there was something disturbingly different about the wave of online attacks on American banks in recent weeks. Security researchers say that instead of exploiting individual computers, the attackers engineered networks of computers in data centers, transforming the online equivalent of a few yapping Chihuahuas into a pack of fire-breathing Godzillas.


The skill required to carry out attacks on this scale has convinced United States government officials and security researchers that they are the work of Iran, most likely in retaliation for economic sanctions and online attacks by the United States.


“There is no doubt within the U.S. government that Iran is behind these attacks,” said James A. Lewis, a former official in the State and Commerce Departments and a computer security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.


Mr. Lewis said the amount of traffic flooding American banking sites was “multiple times” the amount that Russia directed at Estonia in a monthlong online assault in 2007 that nearly crippled the Baltic nation.


American officials have not offered any technical evidence to back up their claims, but computer security experts say the recent attacks showed a level of sophistication far beyond that of amateur hackers. Also, the hackers chose to pursue disruption, not money: another earmark of state-sponsored attacks, the experts said.


“The scale, the scope and the effectiveness of these attacks have been unprecedented,” said Carl Herberger, vice president of security solutions at Radware, a security firm that has been investigating the attacks on behalf of banks and cloud service providers. “There have never been this many financial institutions under this much duress.”


Since September, intruders have caused major disruptions to the online banking sites of Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, PNC, Capital One, Fifth Third Bank, BB&T and HSBC.


They employed DDoS attacks, or distributed denial of service attacks, named because hackers deny customers service by directing large volumes of traffic to a site until it collapses. No bank accounts were breached and no customers’ money was taken.


By using data centers, the attackers are simply keeping up with the times. Companies and consumers are increasingly conducting their business over large-scale “clouds” of hundreds, even thousands, of networked computer servers.


These clouds are run by Amazon and Google, but also by many smaller players who commonly rent them to other companies. It appears the hackers remotely hijacked some of these clouds and used the computing power to take down American banking sites.


“There’s a sense now that attackers are crafting their own private clouds,” either by creating networks of individual machines or by stealing resources wholesale from poorly maintained corporate clouds, said John Kindervag, an analyst at Forrester Research.


How, exactly, attackers are hijacking data centers is still a mystery. Making matters more complex, they have simultaneously introduced another weapon: encrypted DDoS attacks.


Banks encrypt customers’ online transactions for security, but the encryption process consumes system resources. By flooding banking sites with encryption requests, attackers can further slow or cripple sites with fewer requests.


A hacker group calling itself Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters has claimed in online posts that it was responsible for the attacks.


The group said it attacked the banks in retaliation for an anti-Islam video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad, and pledged to continue its campaign until the video was scrubbed from the Internet. It called the campaign Operation Ababil, a reference to a story in the Koran in which Allah sends swallows to defeat an army of elephants dispatched by the king of Yemen to attack Mecca in A.D. 571.


But American intelligence officials say the group is actually a cover for Iran. They claim Iran is waging the attacks in retaliation for Western economic sanctions and for a series of cyberattacks on its own systems. In the last three years, three sophisticated computer viruses — called Flame, Duqu and Stuxnet — have hit computers in Iran. The New York Times reported last year that the United States, together with Israel, was responsible for Stuxnet, the virus used to destroy centrifuges in an Iranian nuclear facility in 2010.


“It’s a bit of a grudge match,” said Mr. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


Read More..

DealBook: In Deal, Bank of America Extends Retreat From Mortgages

Correction Appended

9:00 p.m. | Updated

Bank of America is continuing a large-scale retreat from its costly expansion into the home mortgage market, a shift that concentrates more power in the hands of its biggest rivals and leaves fewer options for some home buyers.

The bank, which already has sharply scaled back in making mortgages, on Monday sold off about 20 percent of its loan servicing business as part of its agreement to pay the housing finance giant Fannie Mae more than $11 billion to settle a bitter dispute over bad mortgages.

The payment resolves claims that Bank of America made bad mortgages before the financial crisis that home buyers had a hard time repaying, and then sold those troubled mortgages to the government. When borrowers defaulted — sometimes within months of taking out a mortgage — the taxpayer-supported Fannie Mae suffered immense losses.

Less competition in the mortgage market could hurt consumers, potentially raising the costs of borrowing. The problems at Bank of America have cut down its mortgage ambitions; it accounts for 4 percent of the nation’s mortgage market, a slide from just over 20 percent in 2009, ceding market dominance to Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase.

“This is part of a broader consolidation of banks and that is something that we should all be very, very concerned about,” said Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. “Anything that leads to less competition can only be bad for consumers.”

Also Monday, Bank of America and nine other lenders agreed to an $8.5 billion settlement with banking regulators to resolve claims of foreclosure abuses that included flawed paperwork and bungled loan modifications. While the two agreements were separate, they represented one of the biggest single days for government settlements with United States banks, totaling $20.15 billion, and illustrated the extent of the banks’ role in the excesses of the credit boom, from the making of loans to the seizure of homes.

While costly, analysts said, the settlements may reduce legal uncertainties for lenders and spur more banks to compete for home loan business.

In its agreement with Fannie Mae, which the government controls, Bank of America will pay the agency about $3.6 billion to compensate for faulty mortgages and $6.75 billion to buy back mortgages that could have resulted in future losses for the government. The bank also agreed to sell to other firms the right to collect payments on $306 billion worth of home loans.

“Bank of America is sending a clear message that the bank only wants to be the mortgage lender to a select, small group of people,” said Glenn Schorr, an analyst with Nomura.

Bank of America has been battered by a steady stream of losses after its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial, the subprime lender that has come to symbolize the reckless lending practices of the real estate bubble. Before Monday, the $4 billion Countrywide acquisition had cost Bank of America more than $40 billion in losses on real estate, legal costs and settlements. Most of the loans covered in the Fannie Mae settlement were issued by Countrywide from 2000 to 2008.

“These agreements are a significant step in resolving our remaining legacy mortgage issues, further streamlining and simplifying the company and reducing expenses over time,” the bank’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, said in a statement.

Bank of America said it expected the settlement to depress its fourth-quarter earnings by $2.5 billion. Its shares, which doubled in 2012, on Monday essentially closed flat at just over $12.

While the settlement will resolve all of the lender’s disputes with Fannie Mae, which weighed on the bank, Bank of America still faces billions of dollars in claims from investors and federal prosecutors.

While the mortgage market is consolidating in the hands of a small number of banks, the housing market is showing signs of recovery. The Federal Reserve has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy, driving down interest rates on 30-year mortgages to 3.34 percent. In the last year, this has helped lift house prices from their lows and prompted a boom in refinancings. At the same time, though, even borrowers with strong credit complain about onerous checks and backlogs in the application process. This suggests banks are still struggling to efficiently follow the higher standards introduced since the financial crisis.

Nearly all mortgages that banks make right now are transferred to the government, which guarantees that they will be repaid.

Most analysts agree that mortgage rates would be lower if banks were competing more vigorously for business. Because the settlements could ease legal uncertainties surrounding mortgage lending, a wider array of banks might be encouraged to lend more, eating into the market share of giants like Wells Fargo.

“Every one of these puts a little more distance between the banks and their subprime problems,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry publication.

Wells Fargo made 30 percent of all new mortgages in the first nine months of 2012, far ahead of the second-place JPMorgan, which accounted for 10 percent of the market, according to figures from Inside Mortgage Finance. In 2007, Wells Fargo originated 11 percent of new mortgages.

“The markets are actually more competitive than ever,” said Vickee Adams, a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. She says smaller banks are making gains in some of the nation’s biggest urban markets.

Some mortgage analysts said the settlements did not provide the level of legal clarity that the banks crave. “We haven’t done enough listening to the banks,” said Christopher J. Mayer, a professor at Columbia Business School. For instance, he says, the banks need clearer rules on when they have to take back loans they have sold to government housing entities.

But a big problem may be that many banks are too poorly run to compete, a situation that may not quickly change even with greater legal clarity. Bank of America’s servicing operations have struggled for several years.

“It may be that Bank of America decided that it wasn’t good enough at servicing,” said Thomas Lawler, a former chief economist of Fannie Mae and founder of Lawler Economic and Housing Consulting, a housing analysis firm.

The bank is looking to refocus beyond the mortgage business. To that end, Bank of America agreed to offload the servicing rights on two million loans with an outstanding principal of $306 billion. Those rights were scooped up by specialty mortgage servicing firms, including Nationstar Mortgage Holdings and the Newcastle Investment Corporation, which collect payments from borrowers.

Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for Bank of America, said, “The strategy is simple: to focus on our core retail customers, to be able to provide an entire array of products and services to them, in which mortgage is an integral product, but not the only product.”


Correction: January 8, 2013

An earlier version of this article omitted one element of the settlement between Bank of America and Fannie Mae, and summaries of the article in some sections of nytimes.com consequently understated the total amount of the two mortgage-related settlements announced Monday. It is more than $20 billion, not $18.5 billion.

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: Who Should Receive Organ Transplants?

Joe Gammalo had been contending with pulmonary fibrosis, a scarring of the lungs, for more than a decade when he came to the Cleveland Clinic in 2008 seeking a lung transplant.

“It had gotten to the point where I was on oxygen all the time and in a wheelchair,” he told me in an interview. “I didn’t expect to live.”

Lung transplants are a dicey proposition, involving a huge surgical procedure, arduous follow-up, the lifelong use of potent immunosuppressive drugs and high rates of serious side effects. “It’s not like taking out an appendix,” said Dr. Marie Budev, the medical director of the clinic’s lung transplant program.

Only 50 to 57 percent of all recipients live for five years, she noted, and they will still die of their disease. But there’s no other treatment for pulmonary fibrosis.

Some medical centers would have turned Mr. Gammalo away. Because survival rates are even lower for older patients, guidelines from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation caution against lung transplants for those over 65, though they set no age limit.

But “we are known as an aggressive, high-risk center,” said Dr. Budev. So Mr. Gammalo was 66 when he received a lung; his newly found buddy, Clyde Conn, who received the other lung from the same donor, was 69.

You can’t mistake the trend: A graying population and revised policies determining who gets priority for donated organs, have led to a rising proportion of older adults receiving transplants.

My colleague Judith Graham has reported on the increase in heart transplants, but the pattern extends to other organs, too.

The number of kidney transplants performed annually on adults over 65 tripled between 1998 and last year, according to data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. In 2001, 7.4 percent of liver transplant recipients were over 65; last year, that rose to 13 percent.

The rise in elderly lung transplant candidates is particularly dramatic because, since 2005, a “lung allocation score” puts those at the highest mortality risk, rather than those who’ve waited longest, at the top of the list.

In 2001, about 3 percent of those on the wait list and of those transplanted were over 65; last year, older patients represented almost 18 percent of wait-listed candidates and more than a quarter of transplant recipients. (Medicare pays for the surgery, though patients face co-pays and considerable out-of-pocket costs, including for drugs and travel.)

The debate has grown, too: When the number of adults awaiting transplants keeps growing, but organ donations stay flat, is it desirable or even ethical that an increasing proportion of recipients are elderly?

Dr. Budev, who estimated that a third of her program’s patients are over 65, votes yes. As long as a program selects candidates carefully, “how can you deny them a therapy?” she asked. So the Cleveland Clinic has no age limit. “We feel that everyone should have a chance.”

At the University of Michigan, by contrast, the age limit remains 65, though Dr. Kevin Chan, the transplant program’s medical director, acknowledged that some fit older patients get transplanted.

“You can talk about this all day — it’s a tough one,” Dr. Chan said. Younger recipients have greater physiologic reserve to aid in the arduous recovery; older ones face higher risk of subsequent kidney failure, stroke, diabetes and other diseases, and, of course, their lifespans are shorter to begin with.

Donated lungs, fragile and prone to injury, are a particularly scarce commodity. Last year, surgeons performed 16,055 kidney transplants, 5,805 liver transplants and 1,949 heart transplants. Only1,830 patients received lung transplants.

“What if there’s a 35-year-old on a ventilator who needs the lung just as much?” Dr. Chan said. “Why should a 72-year-old possibly take away a lung from a 35-year-old?” Yet, he acknowledged, “it’s easy to look at the statistics and say, ‘Give the lungs to younger patients.’ At the bedside, when you meet this patient and family, it’s a lot different.”

These questions about who deserves scarce resources — those most likely to die without them? or those most likely to live longer with them? — will persist as the population ages. They’re also likely to arise when the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation begins working towards revised guidelines this spring. (I’d also like to hear your take, below.)

Lots of 65- and 75-year-olds are very healthy. Yet transplants themselves can cause harm and there’s no backup, like dialysis. Without the transplant, they die. But when the transplant goes wrong, they also die.

More than four years post-transplant, the Cleveland Clinic’s “lung brothers” are success stories. Mr. Conn, who lives near Dayton, Ohio, can’t walk very far or lift more than 10 pounds, but he works part time as a real-estate appraiser and enjoys cruises with his wife.

Mr. Gammalo, a onetime musician, has developed diabetes, like nearly half of all lung recipients. But he went onstage a few weeks back to sing “Don’t Be Cruel” with his son’s rock band, “a highlight of both our lives,” he said.

Yet when I asked Mr. Conn, now 73, how he felt about having priority over a younger but healthier person, he paused. “It’s a good question,” he said, to which he had no answer.


Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: Who Should Receive Organ Transplants?

Joe Gammalo had been contending with pulmonary fibrosis, a scarring of the lungs, for more than a decade when he came to the Cleveland Clinic in 2008 seeking a lung transplant.

“It had gotten to the point where I was on oxygen all the time and in a wheelchair,” he told me in an interview. “I didn’t expect to live.”

Lung transplants are a dicey proposition, involving a huge surgical procedure, arduous follow-up, the lifelong use of potent immunosuppressive drugs and high rates of serious side effects. “It’s not like taking out an appendix,” said Dr. Marie Budev, the medical director of the clinic’s lung transplant program.

Only 50 to 57 percent of all recipients live for five years, she noted, and they will still die of their disease. But there’s no other treatment for pulmonary fibrosis.

Some medical centers would have turned Mr. Gammalo away. Because survival rates are even lower for older patients, guidelines from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation caution against lung transplants for those over 65, though they set no age limit.

But “we are known as an aggressive, high-risk center,” said Dr. Budev. So Mr. Gammalo was 66 when he received a lung; his newly found buddy, Clyde Conn, who received the other lung from the same donor, was 69.

You can’t mistake the trend: A graying population and revised policies determining who gets priority for donated organs, have led to a rising proportion of older adults receiving transplants.

My colleague Judith Graham has reported on the increase in heart transplants, but the pattern extends to other organs, too.

The number of kidney transplants performed annually on adults over 65 tripled between 1998 and last year, according to data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. In 2001, 7.4 percent of liver transplant recipients were over 65; last year, that rose to 13 percent.

The rise in elderly lung transplant candidates is particularly dramatic because, since 2005, a “lung allocation score” puts those at the highest mortality risk, rather than those who’ve waited longest, at the top of the list.

In 2001, about 3 percent of those on the wait list and of those transplanted were over 65; last year, older patients represented almost 18 percent of wait-listed candidates and more than a quarter of transplant recipients. (Medicare pays for the surgery, though patients face co-pays and considerable out-of-pocket costs, including for drugs and travel.)

The debate has grown, too: When the number of adults awaiting transplants keeps growing, but organ donations stay flat, is it desirable or even ethical that an increasing proportion of recipients are elderly?

Dr. Budev, who estimated that a third of her program’s patients are over 65, votes yes. As long as a program selects candidates carefully, “how can you deny them a therapy?” she asked. So the Cleveland Clinic has no age limit. “We feel that everyone should have a chance.”

At the University of Michigan, by contrast, the age limit remains 65, though Dr. Kevin Chan, the transplant program’s medical director, acknowledged that some fit older patients get transplanted.

“You can talk about this all day — it’s a tough one,” Dr. Chan said. Younger recipients have greater physiologic reserve to aid in the arduous recovery; older ones face higher risk of subsequent kidney failure, stroke, diabetes and other diseases, and, of course, their lifespans are shorter to begin with.

Donated lungs, fragile and prone to injury, are a particularly scarce commodity. Last year, surgeons performed 16,055 kidney transplants, 5,805 liver transplants and 1,949 heart transplants. Only1,830 patients received lung transplants.

“What if there’s a 35-year-old on a ventilator who needs the lung just as much?” Dr. Chan said. “Why should a 72-year-old possibly take away a lung from a 35-year-old?” Yet, he acknowledged, “it’s easy to look at the statistics and say, ‘Give the lungs to younger patients.’ At the bedside, when you meet this patient and family, it’s a lot different.”

These questions about who deserves scarce resources — those most likely to die without them? or those most likely to live longer with them? — will persist as the population ages. They’re also likely to arise when the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation begins working towards revised guidelines this spring. (I’d also like to hear your take, below.)

Lots of 65- and 75-year-olds are very healthy. Yet transplants themselves can cause harm and there’s no backup, like dialysis. Without the transplant, they die. But when the transplant goes wrong, they also die.

More than four years post-transplant, the Cleveland Clinic’s “lung brothers” are success stories. Mr. Conn, who lives near Dayton, Ohio, can’t walk very far or lift more than 10 pounds, but he works part time as a real-estate appraiser and enjoys cruises with his wife.

Mr. Gammalo, a onetime musician, has developed diabetes, like nearly half of all lung recipients. But he went onstage a few weeks back to sing “Don’t Be Cruel” with his son’s rock band, “a highlight of both our lives,” he said.

Yet when I asked Mr. Conn, now 73, how he felt about having priority over a younger but healthier person, he paused. “It’s a good question,” he said, to which he had no answer.


Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..