GLOBAL MARKETS-World stocks dip on China worries, France warning
* China growth data, French rating threat weigh* Government bonds, dollar riseLONDON/NEW YORK, Oct 18 (Reuters) - World stocks dipped on
Tuesday and government bonds rose as slower-than-expected
Chinese growth and a credit warning on France added to a
cautious outlook for investors.The warning compounded investor jitters already unsettled
this week by comments from Germany’s finance minister, who said
he saw no imminent definitive solution on the euro zone debt
crisis.The MSCI world equity index was down 0.8
percent, although the world index is still up more than 11
percent after hitting a 15-month low earlier this month.U.S. stocks opened little changed, with investors eyeing
earnings from Apple later in the day. European stocks dipped 0.2 percent while emerging stocks
lost 2.3 percent.”Growth concerns in China along with renewed euro debt
concerns are bringing some hesitation into” the market, said
Andre Bakhos, director of market analytics at Lek Securities in
New York.China’s annual gross domestic product growth eased to 9.1
percent in July-September, slightly below forecasts of 9.2
percent, indicating the world’s second-largest economy expanded
at its slowest pace since the second quarter of 2009.Moody’s cautioned it may slap a negative outlook on
France’s Aaa credit rating in the next three months if costs
from helping to bail out banks and other euro zone members
stretch its budget too thin.Optimism over a key European Union summit on Oct. 23 waned
after German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said on Monday
that even though European governments would adopt a five-point
platform to address the crisis, a definitive solution would not
be reached at the summit.U.S. Treasuries edged higher, pushing benchmark yields to
their lowest in two weeks.Benchmark 10-year Treasury prices rose 5/32 in
price to yield 2.14 percent, from 2.18 percent late on Monday.
Yields fell as low as 2.08 percent, their lowest since Oct 7.The French/German 10-year government bond yield spread widened to a euro era record of 101 basis points.
French debt also underperformed its triple-A rated peer the
Netherlands.Brent crude oil prices were lower, while the dollar
gained 0.4 percent against a basket of major currencies. The
euro fell 0.3 percent to $1.3701.Shares of Apple were down 0.5 percent at $417.80. Earlier
in the day, International Business Machines Corp’s quarterly
results failed to impress investors used to a robust showing
from the technology bellwether. That added to worries over
lackluster corporate information technology spending. IBM shares fell 4.7 percent to $177.88.
China mulls stock repurchase business by brokerages -sources
Under the proposal, which has been submitted to the China
Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) for approval, qualified
investors can sell their stock holdings to brokerages, agreeing
to buy them back at a pre-determined price after a certain
period of time, the sources said.That would effectively allow companies to borrow against
their stock holdings should they need cash for operating
expenses or other short-term needs, rather than forcing them to
sell shares to raise cash.The sources declined to be identified because they are not
authorised to speak to the media.Spokesmen at the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the CSRC
declined to comment.The pilot programme, which is similar to bond repurchase
transactions in the money market, would create a financing
channel for shareholders in publicly-listed companies, who would
typically be under pressure to reduce their stock holdings
during liquidity shortages.The minimum transaction amount required would be set at
100,000 shares or 1 million yuan ($157,000), with the maximum
buyback period capped at 12 months, according to the plan.Haitong Securities , Citic Securities
and Galaxy Securities are likely to be picked to join the
programme once the plan gets the nod from the securities
regulator, the sources said.
($1 = 6.371 Chinese Yuan)
Coronary calcium tests not always worthwhile: study
That’s according to a new study that used a computer simulation to compare the expense, as well as the benefits and side effects, of different ways to treat people thought to be at moderate risk for heart disease.A CT scan of coronary calcium allows doctors to see how much build-up there is in the blood vessels leading to the heart. A lot of build-up raises a warning flag that a person is more likely to get heart disease, while little build-up means the risk of disease is low.Being able to better define a patient’s risk tells doctors the best way to treat them — for example, whether they should be taking drugs to lower cholesterol and blood pressure.”That’s what the Holy Grail is here, to precisely (define) someone’s risk,” said Colonel Patrick O’Malley, of the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland.”You want to aggressively treat high-risk patients and withhold treatments for low-risk patients,” explained O’Malley, who has studied coronary calcium screening but wasn’t involved in the new research.All the hypothetical patients considered in the computer analysis were assumed to have a moderate risk of heart disease based on traditional measurement tools, including cholesterol, blood pressure, gender and age. On average, they were older than 69.Moderate, or intermediate, risk means a person has a 10 to 20 percent chance having a heart attack or other heart-related “event” in the next decade.Researchers looked at four different scenarios in their model, considering for each the chances that patients would have a stroke or heart attack along with the costs of appointments, procedures and drugs and the possible risks and side effects associated with the treatments themselves.Those scenarios included: treating patients without any special heart-related interventions, giving patients healthy lifestyle advice and putting those with high cholesterol or blood pressure on medication, having every patient take a cholesterol-lowering statin drug or using coronary calcium screening to better estimate heart risks and decide who needs extra treatment.When all the calculations were done, coronary calcium screening was the most effective and also the most expensive option in men. Researchers calculated that about $49,000 would have to be spent on testing and associated treatment to get a man one extra year in excellent health.In comparison, following current guidelines that recommend giving lifestyle advice to all moderate-risk women and drugs to those who need them would be more effective than coronary CT scans and cost a similar amount, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.CT scans for coronary calcium can cost anywhere from $50 to $600, researchers said, and usually aren’t covered by insurance.”You want to know beforehand whether performing such a (test) is worth the risk and the cost,” said Dr. Myriam Hunink, from Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, who worked on the study.Those risks include extra radiation from CT scans and the chance of having an “incidental finding,” something that wouldn’t have caused a patient harm but requires more procedures and testing — with possible side effects — to check out.”The bottom line is there’s still a lot of uncertainty,” she told Reuters Health. “It’s probably cost-effective in men, but it’s unlikely to be cost-effective in women,” although the data in men is still shaky, she said.The study didn’t look at any other potential tests, such as blood tests to detect signs of inflammation, which could also help doctors more accurately estimate heart disease risk.Researchers agreed that because of the inconclusive findings, carefully-conducted studies done in people are needed to see how cost-effective coronary calcium screening is in reality.”All a model like this does is tell us it might be worthwhile doing, but… it still looks like it’s a pretty expensive endeavor,” O’Malley told Reuters Health.Leslee Shaw, who studies risk detection at Emory University in Atlanta, said there’s evidence showing that coronary calcium screening does help determine a patient’s likelihood of getting heart disease. But she said it was “disappointing” that the current study didn’t always find it to be cost-effective.She said some patients may want to discuss the test with their doctors, but researchers emphasized that it’s not helpful or worth the risks in all people.”You only limit coronary calcium (screening) to people who have a few risk factors,” such as high cholesterol, diabetes or a family history of heart disease, Shaw told Reuters Health. “You wouldn’t just go out and massively screen everyone.”
Coronary calcium tests not always worthwhile: study
That’s according to a new study that used a computer simulation to compare the expense, as well as the benefits and side effects, of different ways to treat people thought to be at moderate risk for heart disease.A CT scan of coronary calcium allows doctors to see how much build-up there is in the blood vessels leading to the heart. A lot of build-up raises a warning flag that a person is more likely to get heart disease, while little build-up means the risk of disease is low.Being able to better define a patient’s risk tells doctors the best way to treat them — for example, whether they should be taking drugs to lower cholesterol and blood pressure.”That’s what the Holy Grail is here, to precisely (define) someone’s risk,” said Colonel Patrick O’Malley, of the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland.”You want to aggressively treat high-risk patients and withhold treatments for low-risk patients,” explained O’Malley, who has studied coronary calcium screening but wasn’t involved in the new research.All the hypothetical patients considered in the computer analysis were assumed to have a moderate risk of heart disease based on traditional measurement tools, including cholesterol, blood pressure, gender and age. On average, they were older than 69.Moderate, or intermediate, risk means a person has a 10 to 20 percent chance having a heart attack or other heart-related “event” in the next decade.Researchers looked at four different scenarios in their model, considering for each the chances that patients would have a stroke or heart attack along with the costs of appointments, procedures and drugs and the possible risks and side effects associated with the treatments themselves.Those scenarios included: treating patients without any special heart-related interventions, giving patients healthy lifestyle advice and putting those with high cholesterol or blood pressure on medication, having every patient take a cholesterol-lowering statin drug or using coronary calcium screening to better estimate heart risks and decide who needs extra treatment.When all the calculations were done, coronary calcium screening was the most effective and also the most expensive option in men. Researchers calculated that about $49,000 would have to be spent on testing and associated treatment to get a man one extra year in excellent health.In comparison, following current guidelines that recommend giving lifestyle advice to all moderate-risk women and drugs to those who need them would be more effective than coronary CT scans and cost a similar amount, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.CT scans for coronary calcium can cost anywhere from $50 to $600, researchers said, and usually aren’t covered by insurance.”You want to know beforehand whether performing such a (test) is worth the risk and the cost,” said Dr. Myriam Hunink, from Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, who worked on the study.Those risks include extra radiation from CT scans and the chance of having an “incidental finding,” something that wouldn’t have caused a patient harm but requires more procedures and testing — with possible side effects — to check out.”The bottom line is there’s still a lot of uncertainty,” she told Reuters Health. “It’s probably cost-effective in men, but it’s unlikely to be cost-effective in women,” although the data in men is still shaky, she said.The study didn’t look at any other potential tests, such as blood tests to detect signs of inflammation, which could also help doctors more accurately estimate heart disease risk.Researchers agreed that because of the inconclusive findings, carefully-conducted studies done in people are needed to see how cost-effective coronary calcium screening is in reality.”All a model like this does is tell us it might be worthwhile doing, but… it still looks like it’s a pretty expensive endeavor,” O’Malley told Reuters Health.Leslee Shaw, who studies risk detection at Emory University in Atlanta, said there’s evidence showing that coronary calcium screening does help determine a patient’s likelihood of getting heart disease. But she said it was “disappointing” that the current study didn’t always find it to be cost-effective.She said some patients may want to discuss the test with their doctors, but researchers emphasized that it’s not helpful or worth the risks in all people.”You only limit coronary calcium (screening) to people who have a few risk factors,” such as high cholesterol, diabetes or a family history of heart disease, Shaw told Reuters Health. “You wouldn’t just go out and massively screen everyone.”
