Exotic Foods

There are two kinds of investors: those who run away from a fire and those who run toward it.

To invest in natural-gas stocks, you had better be the kind who runs toward a fire.

Prices have collapsed—for natural gas and for the shares of companies that produce it. Every day, the U.S. natural-gas market is flooded with an average of 3 billion cubic feet more than the nation consumes. Shares of gas companies are down—in a rising stock market—by an average of 22% over the past year. Even Warren Buffett lost money when natural-gas prices fell further and faster than he expected.

In short, the news about natural gas is awful—exactly the type of conflagration that growth investors hate, but value investors love. “Everyone who has a brain should be thinking of how to make money on this in the longer term,” the renowned investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO wrote recently.

In mid-2008, natural gas traded above $10 per futures contract; today you can buy the equivalent for $2. The fuel is so cheap that if you could somehow magically transport it to Europe or Asia, you could sell it for four to eight times what you paid for it here.

New discoveries and innovative drilling techniques, along with the recent balmy winter, have led to a vast oversupply. Nationwide, inventories have risen 56% over the past year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The market is so awash in natural gas, according to many analysts, that there could be no space left to store the stuff in the entire U.S. by this autumn unless demand surges or producers seal their wells.

Charles Maxwell, an energy analyst at Weeden & Co. with 45 years of experience, says, “I cannot in my memory recall a time like this, when we have created a surplus that may be beyond our capacity to store.”

Historically, says David Tameron, an analyst at Wells Fargo Securities, natural gas has been about 10 times cheaper than crude oil. At today’s depressed prices, gas is roughly 50 times cheaper. “That discount is enormous and unsustainable,” he says. “If you look to the future of the U.S., the free market will turn natural gas into the answer for this country’s energy problems.”

In what could be a multiyear shift, electrical utilities and trucking companies, among others, are already switching from coal or diesel to natural gas—and more industries are bound to follow if it stays cheap.

Eventually, the rise in demand is bound to drive prices higher. Then the profitability of the companies that discover and produce natural gas will heat up.

“Investors can make big money longer-term,” says Dan Rice, co-manager of the BlackRock Energy & Resources

fund, “but you tell me how many people have horizons longer than three or six months.”

Mr. Rice likes Range Resources,

a Fort Worth, Texas-based producer with broad exposure to the “sweet spots,” or rich fields, in the Appalachian region that produce gas at very low cost. That should enable it to survive a prolonged period of depressed prices for gas.

Range is one of the few natural-gas plays to have gone up over the past year, but its profits are so depressed that the stock is trading at a triple-digit multiple of earnings. Still, Mr. Rice estimates the company’s assets are worth up to $200 per share.

Mr. Maxwell is a fan of Encana,

an Alberta-based producer whose shares are down 36% over the past year. The company is trading at slightly under its book value, or the surplus of what it owns over what it owes, and at four times its cash flow—making it statistically cheap on two key measures. Much of its gas reserves are in northern Canada, a potentially rich source that Mr. Maxwell calls “one of the greatest gas plays of the coming 30 years.”

If you can stand not just risk but controversy, you might even consider Chesapeake Energy

. Its chief executive, Aubrey McClendon, borrowed more than $1 billion to take direct personal stakes in the company’s wells. After these arrangements were widely criticized (and the stock fell 27% in the past month), Chesapeake said they won’t be renewed.

A tattered stock in a battered industry, Chesapeake recently traded at three-quarters of book value and less than four times cash flow, according to Standard & Poor’s. The company has extensive holdings in gas-rich shale, analysts say. Chesapeake has lots of debt and not much cash. It’s an extra-risky bet that natural gas will rebound sooner rather than later.

Don’t touch these stocks unless you can withstand the high probability of getting a short-term scorching. There’s also a lesser risk that some of these companies could flame out completely. Investors here need patience, deep pockets and an implacable tolerance for pain.

—
intelligentinvestor@wsj.com; twitter.com/jasonzweigwsj

A version of this article appeared April 28, 2012, on page B1 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A Flaming Buy? Natural Gas Won’t Stay Low Forever.

Long-term-care insurance. It’s a subject most people don’t want to think about—but many people know they need to.

At first blush, policies that help pay the costs of extended nursing care make perfect sense. Bills add up quickly when you can no longer take care of yourself and your needs exceed what family and friends can provide. Nursing homes, assisted-living centers and home care all are expensive, and there is no telling for how long you may need the service. Buying a long-term-care insurance policy can be a way of making sure your future physical needs will be met. Policies designed in partnership with state governments also give individuals and their families a way to protect savings in the event of burdensome care costs that stretch on for years.

Critics, however, say insurers are using scare tactics to sell their products, which come with a hefty price. For most people, these critics say, long-term-care policies are either unnecessary or cost more than their benefits are worth. They believe that a great many people would be better off essentially self-insuring or relying on government-funded programs.

Mark Meiners, a professor of health administration and policy at George Mason University, argues in favor of long-term-care insurance. Prescott Cole, a senior staff attorney at California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, argues against.

Yes: Don’t Just Hope for the Best

By Mark Meiners

Being financially ready for the possibility that you will require long-term care is an important part of retirement planning. But too many people are still preparing merely by hoping for the best.

For anyone 65 and older, the odds are not in your favor. Statistics show 70% of those who reach 65 will need long-term care. With long-term care costing as much as $250 a day, it doesn’t take long to completely deplete a lifetime of savings—even if you’re “lucky” enough to only need it for a relatively short period of time.

For those who buy and keep their policy it is a no-regret proposition. No one who has paid premiums and receives their benefits from the policy regrets having paid those premiums. And no one ever regrets being fortunate enough to never need those benefits.

The sad fact, though, is that only seven million to eight million people have bought the insurance so far. The market should be at least twice that size by now. Certain misconceptions, and some wishful thinking, are holding it back.

Some Misconceptions

The biggest misconception is that Medicare covers long-term care. It does not. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for various kinds and amounts of long-term-care services and support—for the poor. But many states are cutting back on Medicaid benefits, and access to good care is always uncertain.

That isn’t to say long-term-care insurance is right for everyone. It’s not. The wealthy can be reasonably sure their savings will be enough to pay directly for long-term care, whatever its duration. And despite concerns about quality, Medicaid is there for the poor.

But what about consumers with midlevel savings—in other words, most people? These consumers need long-term-care insurance the most. They tend to have too little savings to pay for even a couple of years of care without impoverishing themselves and their families, and too much to qualify for Medicaid.

Critics of long-term-care insurance argue that many who need long-term care use it for less than 90 days, and that most policies have a 90-day deductible, meaning most owners of long-term care insurance will receive no benefits. But who wants to play those odds, hoping they’ll be one of the people who only need such care for less than 90 days? And the fact is that most people who need long-term care need it for at least a year or two.

The important thing to understand is that there are a wide range of policies offering different degrees of security, but all preferable to taking the chance of being financially decimated. According to estimates done by the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance, a typical couple buying a shared policy providing immediate benefits worth $328,500 at age 55 pays an annual premium averaging $2,700. By age 80 their joint benefit has grown to $708,000 with the built-in inflation protection. Alternatively, a typical couple buying a shared policy with $219,000 of coverage could reduce their premium by about 20% to 25%. That’s a viable option for those who are worried about this risk. If more coverage is affordable, buy more coverage. But some is better than none.

In theory, it’s true, if a person invested $3,500 a year instead of using it to pay insurance premiums, the investment might grow enough to cover any eventual long-term-care bill. But as nice as it sounds, most people simply won’t set aside additional savings for long-term-care needs. Moreover, savings of $3,500—should the need for care come sooner than expected—will pay for only $3,500 of care.

Partnership Policies

In a worst-case scenario, a person in nursing care might outlive by many years the coverage that they purchased, wiping out his or her savings. People especially concerned about this might consider so-called Partnership Policies, developed by private insurers and state governments and offered in 40 states. These plans let people qualify for Medicaid’s long-term-care benefits while they still have a good amount of savings to spend on other things or leave for their family. (Normally, a person can have no more than $2,000 in savings for Medicaid to pay their long-term-care costs.)

Partnership plans that offer to protect savings of up to $100,000, for example, will pay up to $100,000 in benefits. Then, if the purchaser has savings of more than $100,000, he or she becomes responsible for their long-term-care costs until their savings are reduced to $100,000. At that point, Medicaid will take over the expenses.

Dr. Meiners is a professor of health economics and policy at George Mason University. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

No: The Cost Is Too High

By Prescott Cole

Buying insurance is basically gambling. You calculate the costs, risks and benefits—and hope that you come out ahead. In the game of long-term-care insurance, however, you are playing with a stacked deck.

The industry touts scary statistics about the probability of ending life in a nursing home. It’s not uncommon to see ads claiming “50% of all seniors will go into a nursing home,” or “the average stay is two and a half years.”

It may be more useful to learn that 67% to 70% of seniors who do go into a nursing home are discharged within 90 days, and that after two years, less than 6% of those admitted will still be there. Actually, out of 40 million American seniors alive today, approximately 1.5 million currently live in nursing homes, about 3.7%.

Long-term-care insurance does not compare favorably with other insurance products. Using a cost-risk-benefit analysis reveals an “inverted formula”: With long-term-care insurance the costs are high, the risks are low, and the benefits are low, but with, for instance, fire insurance the costs are low, the risks are low and the benefits are high.

Homeowners-insurance premiums run from $300 to $1,000 per year, whereas long-term-care insurance averages $3,500. Compare the fact that you can insure a half-million-dollar home annually for less than $800 with what you get for $3,500 in long-term-care insurance premiums and you will see that clearly the latter is not a good deal.

The 90-Day Rule

Another important point: Most long-term-care policies don’t pay anything until the person has been in a nursing home for more than 90 days. If more than two-thirds of those going into nursing homes leave before 90 days are up, it is unlikely that most consumers will receive any benefits at all.

Proponents argue that having a longer exclusionary period helps the insurers offer lower premiums. Another way to look at it is the lower premiums reflect the companies’ view that their liability is reduced and that payouts are less likely on those policies. It doesn’t matter if the policy costs less if you can’t use it.

Does that mean long-term-care insurance is unsuitable for everybody? To some extent, it depends on their personal wealth.

For those with little wealth, a policy will never be suitable. They will be covered by the long-term care provided by Medicaid. For individuals with incomes of at least $250,000 a year and substantial savings, the smarter move might be to either self-insure or use their resources to pay for high-level in-home health care.

For mid-wealth individuals, the answer isn’t so clear. The average annual premiums for policies sold to seniors run around $3,500 per year. But few—if any—policies pay 100% of the daily private pay rate, currently about $250 per day. Policies typically pay $150 a day. So, even a resident with a policy will have to dig into savings to pay the difference.

But instead of buying a policy and paying premiums, the consumer could set aside savings for long-term care. At $3,500 a year, in 20 years he or she could have $70,000 plus interest. In the statistical unlikelihood they end up in a nursing home, they could use these savings to pay the bills.

Admittedly, if a stay in a nursing home exceeds the set-aside savings, they will be worse off than if they had long-term-care insurance. On the other hand, if their stay doesn’t exhaust their savings, they will have kept their money and done better than if they had insurance. It’s a risk either way.

Unprofitable Partnerships

Some proponents tout Partnership Policies as a good solution for mid-wealth consumers, because they allow purchasers to retain more than the usual amount of savings and still qualify for Medicaid to pay their long-term-care costs. But before buying one of these policies, consumers need to ask two basic questions, “How long do I need to be in a nursing home before I can qualify for Medicaid?” and “Do I really want to end up on Medicaid?”

Indeed, getting onto Medicaid may be a phantom value. Even if a Partnership Policy holder were to survive in a nursing home long enough to shield their assets, would he or she really want to give up their private room to spend their remaining days in a Medicaid ward?

Buying any insurance can be considered a gamble. But with long-term-care policies, the high cost and the low probability of qualifying for benefits add up to a losing bet for most consumers.

Mr. Cole is a senior staff attorney at California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

A version of this article appeared May 14, 2012, on page R4 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Should You Purchase Long-Term-Care Insurance?.

By ROBIN SIDEL

Jim Stein no longer has to worry when one of his shareholders dies or gets divorced.

As chief executive of Bank of Houston, Mr. Stein used to fret about tripping a regulation that required the community bank to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it has more than 500 shareholders. The bank, a unit of BOH Holdings Inc., carefully maintained its shareholder count at 350 because it wanted to avoid the cost and hassle of registering. But the level was always at risk of rising.

“One shareholder could turn into four through unexpected consequences,” Mr. Stein said.

Now, Mr. Stein and other small-bank CEOs can stop counting shareholders as closely and turning potential investors away at the door. The JOBS Act signed into law this month includes a provision that raises the number of shareholders at which small banks must register with the SEC to 2,000. The JOBS Act aims to increase jobs by reducing regulations on companies.

The change means that small banks are free to raise capital by attracting new investors without taking on regulatory burdens that are associated with the SEC filings. It also could breathe some new life into bank mergers and acquisitions, which last year stood at the second-lowest level since 1980.

“This will create opportunities for us that didn’t exist before,” said Mr. Stein. The 7-year-old bank, which has six branches, wants to expand in the Houston area and potentially find a merger partner.

The new rule comes at a time when community institutions are struggling to stay profitable in a period of low interest rates, stagnant lending and rising compliance costs from other new regulations. Returns on assets at institutions with $1 billion or less in assets was a third less than the industry average in 2011, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The move potentially could affect hundreds of community banks around the country. Just 16% of the nation’s roughly 7,400 banks and thrifts are publicly traded, according to research firm SNL Financial. Many of those are thinly traded, but most are required to file quarterly and annual financial reports with the securities agency.

The JOBS Act also makes it easier for small banks to deregister with the SEC, permitting them to do so with 1,200 shareholders, compared with the current threshold of 300.

Many banks aren’t likely to raise their shareholder base; community banks are often closely held among a small group, especially those that are family-run institutions. Some, however, are eager to attract more capital and investors, especially if they can now avoid the expense, which could be as much as $200,000 a year, of filing quarterly and annual financial reports with the SEC.

Maintaining the shareholder numbers game has been tough for Roland Williams, who monitors the 492 holders at Post Oak Bank in Houston. As chief executive of the seven-branch bank, a unit of Post Oak Bancshares Inc., he already had resigned himself to breaking through 500 shareholders this year because the bank is planning to raise up to $20 million of capital.

“You just can’t have enough capital,” he said.

The new rule isn’t expected to threaten the safety and soundness of the community-bank industry; banks of all sizes must regularly file financial data with the FDIC and submit to examinations from national and state regulators.

Industry consultants say the raising of the 500-shareholder rule could fuel new life in the strapped sector by giving banks flexibility to build new branches or pursue growth through mergers and acquisitions. Some industry observers have long said that the U.S. banking system would be more efficient with fewer institutions even though the number of commercial banks and thrifts already has dropped 60% since 1985.

Several bank executives said the 500-shareholder barrier prevented them from pursuing mergers because they didn’t want to issue new shares.

The 500-shareholder bar “has been something on the mind of every board in every merger discussion,” said Curtis Carpenter, managing director at Sheshunoff & Co., an Austin, Texas, investment firm that focuses on the banking industry.

The new threshold also is likely to trigger a wave of community-bank stock offerings, according to Mindi McClure, managing principal at Bear Cos., an investment firm in Arlington, Va., that specializes in community banks.

“Having an additional way for banks to get more shareholders is a real positive,” she said.

Jack Hartings, chief executive at Peoples Bank Co. in Coldwater, Ohio, already had warned his 465 shareholders that the bank might have to pursue a reverse stock split in order to avoid tripping the 500-shareholder barrier. Mr. Hartings, whose bank is a unit of Peoples Holding Co., also dissuaded potential investors from buying stock, telling them, “We appreciate your confidence in the bank, but right now we are not seeking new shareholders.”

Mr. Hartings said the bank has no immediate plans to expand its shareholder base as a result of the law even though “everyone likes to own a piece of a company that they see in town.”

“We have willing buyers, but not many willing sellers,” he said.

Write to Robin Sidel at robin.sidel@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared April 23, 2012, on page C1 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A Freer Hand for Small Banks.

By ANGUS LOTEN

Small businesses in Oklahoma City may be less frustrated with local regulations than small businesses elsewhere.

Local business owners gave Oklahoma City top marks for “overall regulatory friendliness” – including health and safety, environmental and labor rules, according to the survey of 6,000 small firms by Thumbtack.com, an online marketplace for local services, such as general contracting, plumbers and florists.

The city received a grade of A-plus. By contrast, San Francisco and New York both received Ds, at least from this sample of business owners.

Oklahoma City also ranked high for low hiring costs, lighter licensing regulations and more robust networking programs.

The online poll asked business owners to rank the most and least friendly states and cities for small business in more than a dozen categories.

Dallas-Fort Worth, Tex., came in second for least burdensome regulations, followed by San Antonio and Austin.

Across the board, business owners who responded to the survey were nearly twice as concerned with onerous licensing issues, at state and city levels, than tax rates.

Sacramento, Calif., and Albuquerque, N.M., had the least small-business friendly regulations, both receiving Fs in taxes, among other factors—at least, according to this group.

Among states, Idaho, Texas and South Carolina ranked highest, in the eyes of the small business owners.

However, the ranking excluded Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, because those states received fewer than 10 responses apiece in the survey.

The survey also didn’t ask businesses for their views on local crime rates, for instance.

Thumbtack.com says it decided to undertake the survey because most of its customers are small businesses. It worked in partnership with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation to develop the survey.

In fact, here’s a profile in the Wall Street Journal in November on Thumbtack.

Readers, please share your comments. How would you rank your city and state in terms of small-business regulations?

Consumers at their wits’ end over a health-coverage problem sometimes try reaching out to the company’s chief executive. In a surprising number of cases, it works.

Billy Rogers of Dallas says he struggled for months last year to get Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield to process bills of around $1,350 from doctor visits. The holdup came because the company was investigating whether Mr. Rogers fully disclosed his medical condition when he bought his policy, he says. The 47-year-old political consultant says he was healthy, though one check after he was insured showed somewhat elevated blood sugar that he says quickly dropped in later tests.

Fed up, Mr. Rogers fired off an email with the subject line “Horrible Anthem Coverage.” It went to Chief Executive Angela Braly and a public-relations official at Anthem parent WellPoint Inc.

He also sent it to several reporters and documentary filmmaker Michael Moore. Within hours, Mr. Rogers says, he got an email from the WellPoint spokesman, and days later the claim went through. The tactic “sends a signal that you’re not going to give up on this,” says Mr. Rogers. “I was really, really angr

WellPoint and other insurers say they don’t bend their rules just because a consumer carps to a top official. Indeed, companies say that only a tiny share of customer-service matters result in appeals to high-level executives and that such appeals are often unsuccessful. But in general, health-plan officials say they take such missives seriously, partly because they may reflect broader service breakdowns that need to be fixed.

“We want people to know we are very responsive to our members,” says Sam Nussbaum, WellPoint’s chief medical officer. He says he reads written individual complaints sent to him, and sometimes personally calls other company officials to help decide a response. WellPoint says it isn’t able to comment on Mr. Rogers’s specific situation because of federal privacy law.

Many health plans have special procedures for handling consumer issues that come in via their executive suites, though they usually don’t publicize them. These complaints often get reviewed by higher-level officials, rather than shunted back to front-line customer-service representatives. Cigna Corp.

says it refers such communications to a “specially trained service team that is staffed by people who are experts in resolving complex issues.” Humana Inc.

says its chief executive, Mike McCallister, “makes an effort” to read emails sent to him by members.

Reading Every Letter

Aetna Inc.

Chief Executive Ron Williams says he does “read every one personally,” and “when I see a letter that is particularly concerning for whatever reason…I will ask to see the response to really understand the issue.” Aetna has an executive resolution team that draws on internal experts to work out complex member problems that come in to top executives and board members. But the company says these officials “don’t have any extra authority” to alter its rules.

Mr. Williams says that in one incident, a consumer contacted him to protest that coverage through a former employer was mistakenly being cut off just before a major medical procedure. It turned out that because of a glitch in data from the employer, the person’s termination date was recorded incorrectly. The procedure was covered, Mr. Williams says.

Of course, consumers also lodge complaints with top officials in other industries. Airline passengers have received compensation for lost baggage and bumped and delayed flights after reaching out to company CEOs, says Thomas Hinton, chief executive of the nonprofit American Consumer Council. And the Consumerist.com blog is pocked with examples of people who have sought to resolve problems by contacting leaders of firms ranging from computer makers to rental-car companies. “It definitely can work to go straight to the top,” says Alison Southwick, a spokeswoman for the Better Business Bureau.

Trying to resolve problems with a health insurer can be frustrating. A recent consumer-satisfaction survey on health coverage by J.D. Power & Associates found that around 9% of more than 33,000 insured people polled had required three or more calls to resolve a service issue with their health insurer in the past year. Asked about their most recent contact with their health plans, 39% of the respondents said they’d had to repeat the same information to more than one person, and a quarter said they hadn’t gotten promised callbacks.

If you’re thinking of trying the executive-appeal route for a health-insurance issue, here are some strategies to improve your chances.

First, make sure you’ve exhausted all the standard customer-service approaches and appeals. Also, closely document your interactions and the results. If you don’t, you risk being brushed off and sent back to square one. “Stay on the phone until you get the answer that you need” from customer service, including requesting a supervisor, says Jerry Coy, senior vice president for customer service at Kaiser Permanente, the big nonprofit health system. Elevating something to high levels of a company is “for those things that need escalation, that can’t be resolved in that [lower] channel,” he says.

If your health benefits are through your workplace, and the employer has self-funded coverage, the ultimate decision maker may be there, not with the insurer that administers the plan. You may want to check with your human-resources department.

Nancy Davenport-Ennis, chief executive of the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation, says self-insured employers sometimes will make exceptions or change their rules. For instance, she says, one schoolteacher whose stem-cell treatment for breast cancer was being denied by her plan appealed to her community’s school board, which voted to start covering such procedures.

Prepare your case and be ready to document it, as you would for a formal insurance appeal. In the case of a denied claim, you’ll want to be ready with the history, including names of the doctors and other health-care providers you’ve seen, dates of services and other details, and records of your interactions with the health plan. You may also want to research scientific or other evidence for the treatment you seek. Consider sending a letter that includes the documentation, even if you plan to start with a phone call. This will help officials research your case more quickly.

Robert Skole, 80, a journalist in Boston, says he fought with Aetna for about seven months over a $1,650 bill for removing a cyst from his wife’s breast several years ago. The insurer said she wasn’t covered under his retiree benefits, though his former company assured him that she was. Finally, Mr. Skole sent a letter to Aetna’s then-CEO, including copies of several of his emails and other documents. A few days later, he got a check for the full amount. “I couldn’t believe it,” Mr. Skole says.

An Aetna spokeswoman says Mr. Skole “did not receive the level of service we expect to deliver, but we were pleased to have the opportunity to fix the problem.”

Strike the Right Tone

Think about the tone you want to take in your letter, email or call. Insurance executives say they give the same treatment to consumers regardless of their attitude. Still, says Jackie Jennifer, senior vice president for service at Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, “the more pleasant, I think, the more people are inclined to feel, ‘I really want to help you.’ ”

After Blue Cross of California declined to issue a policy to her husband a few years ago, Becky Castle contacted WellPoint, the insurer’s parent. Ms. Castle says her husband had had a soft-tissue cancer near his ankle eight years earlier that hadn’t returned, as well as a heart condition that was corrected through surgery. She believed he should be able to get coverage because his conditions were in the past.

Ms. Castle, a 39-year-old fundraising consultant in Pasadena, Calif., went online to find the name of WellPoint’s chief medical officer, Dr. Nussbaum, and then made her way through the switchboard to his assistant. The assistant listened closely to Ms. Castle’s concerns, asked her to fax documentation, and promised to look into the matter. Within a week, her husband was issued a policy, though it included higher-than-normal premiums. “You just have to be dogged and not give up, and be polite,” Ms. Castle says.

Although WellPoint says it can’t comment on Ms. Castle’s case because of privacy law, Dr. Nussbaum says the company’s “goal is to try to find a way to cover” people. Sometimes a decision can be altered if a consumer presents new information, he says.

Write to
anna wilde mathews at anna.mathews@wsj.com