How one dairy company controls the world market ? - Bloomberg

In the shadow of a snow-dusted volcano on a corner of New Zealand’s North Island, a sprawling expanse of stainless steel vats, chimneys and giant warehouses stands as a totem of the tiny nation’s dominance in the global dairy trade.

The Whareroa factory was until recently the largest of its kind, churning out enough milk powder, cheese and cream to fill more than three Olympic-sized swimming pools a week. The plant has helped make owner Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd. the world’s top dairy exporter and its farmer-suppliers among the greatest beneficiaries of China’s emerging thirst for milk. Now, faced with reduced Chinese demand that’s eroded milk prices and helped drag 80 percent of New Zealand’s dairy farmers into the red, the 44-year-old factory has come to symbolize Fonterra’s struggle to climb the value chain.

Fonterra’s Whareroa factory

  

Photographer: Brendon O’Hagan/Bloomberg

While a global shift toward more natural foods has spurred even Coca-Cola Co. to develop new milk products, Fonterra’s business remains largely wedded to commodities traded on often-volatile international markets. That’s frustrated the ranks of the cooperative’s 10,500 farmer-shareholders, who are set to receive the lowest return in nine years for the milking season just ended, and turned Fonterra’s strategy into the subject of national debate.

“Fonterra hasn’t taken the opportunity to put itself in a position to really weather these storms as well as they should be able to,” said Harry Bayliss, 63, a former Fonterra director who still supplies the cooperative from farms about 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of the Whareroa factory. “What the board has focused on in the last 10 years haven’t been areas that have created real ongoing value for the shareholders or the company.”

‘Nokia Down Under’

Auckland-based Fonterra has responded by selling assets, cutting jobs and closing a factory to improve efficiency and strengthen its balance sheet.

“We have confidence in the long-term fundamentals of dairy, and we remain focused on securing the best possible returns for our farmers by converting their milk into high-value products for consumers around the world,” Chief Executive Officer Theo Spierings said in a statement Thursday that announced a 10 New Zealand-cent dividend payment and reiterated a forecast for improved earnings.

Forged in 2001 from the merger of New Zealand’s two largest dairy companies and the agency that controlled the nation’s dairy exports, Fonterra was promoted as a means of creating critical mass for Kiwi farmers. A kind of Nokia Down Under, it was to drive innovation and thrust the country onto the world stage by taking on the likes of Nestle SA and Kraft Foods Group Inc.

Yet, even with a near-monopoly over New Zealand’s milk output and an empire spanning Australia, the Americas and China, Fonterra is more likely to supply those companies than compete with them on supermarket shelves.

“The idea was to move New Zealand’s dairy industry up the value chain, and push hard to become a global brands company,” said Oyvinn Rimer, a research analyst at Harbour Asset Management Ltd. in Wellington, who has tracked the cooperative for about five years. “It just has not happened.”

Every six hours, a train pulls in to the Whareroa factory, near Mount Taranaki in the small town of Hawera, to pick up five containers of Fonterra product -- milk powder makes up almost half.

The commodity, with a six-month shelf life, has been New Zealand’s core farm export for more than 20 years. In fact, the South Pacific nation supplies about two-thirds of the whole milk powder traded internationally. 

Powder Keg

“The problem is we put all our eggs, or nearly all our eggs, in that whole milk powder basket,” said Keith Woodford, an honorary professor of agri-food systems at New Zealand’s Lincoln University, who has followed Fonterra since its formation. “We locked ourselves into this one product and Fonterra lacks the capital at hand to now change direction quickly.”

Prices for whole milk powder, an ingredient in everything from cookies to ice cream, have dropped by half over the past three years as purchases by China, the biggest buyer, dwindled amid a glut in global dairy supplies. That dragged down the fortunes of export-dependent dairy farmers worldwide, but especially in New Zealand, where they rely on China and other major markets to buy about 95 percent of their output.

“In my 35 years of farming, this is by far the worst downturn that we’ve been in,” said Phil Nixon, 59, a second-generation farmer whose 350-cow herd supplies the Whareroa factory. While Nixon is “very, very passionate” about Fonterra, he says the cooperative has been a frequent source of frustration. “I’m damn sure that with everything efficient, they could return us more than what they have,” Nixon said.

Milk payments to farmers dropped to an estimated NZ$3.90 ($2.80) a kilogram of milk solids for the year ended May 31, half the record NZ$8.40/kg paid two years earlier. While the current season’s price is predicted to increase to NZ$4.25/kg, at that level it will still be about 20 percent below what farmers need to cover their costs. Whole milk powder at Fonterra’s GlobalDairyTrade auction this week jumped 19 percent, but at $2,695 a metric ton is still 17 percent below its average price over the past five years.

S&P Global Ratings downgraded Fonterra to A- in October, four rungs above junk, citing its “peak capital expenditure,” as well as global market volatility. Capex exceeded operating cash flow by NZ$948 million in the year ended July 31, 2015, as dairy prices plummeted.

Earnings are forecast to improve as the milk glut abates, reaching 50-to-60 New Zealand cents a share in the current financial year, Fonterra said in an Aug. 1 statement, from an estimated 45-to-55 cents a year earlier. This shows the company is making “good progress in continuing to increase value through our consumer and foodservice businesses,” CEO Spierings said at the time.

The relatively wide earnings range indicates Fonterra remains sensitive to commodity-price variability, said Arie Dekker, head of institutional research at First NZ Capital Securities Ltd. in Auckland, in a report. “Ultimately, investors are looking for more consistent results.”

Shedding Suppliers

Farmers, too, want more. Some sold their equity in the cooperative and switched to supplying competitors. Fonterra’s share of New Zealand’s milk supply has dropped to 84 percent from more than 95 percent in 2001, according to Wellington-based Infometrics Ltd.

A dairy farm that supplies Fonterra, near Mount Taranaki.

  

Photographer: Brendon O’Hagan/Bloomberg

Laws passed at Fonterra’s creation aimed at safeguarding competition in New Zealand’s dairy industry compel the cooperative to collect fresh milk from any farmer who wants to supply it. That guarantee has contributed to a quadrupling of the nation’s milk supply since 1984. Kiwi farms are forecast to produce about 22 billion liters (5.8 billion gallons) of milk this year -- almost four times the production of Ireland, which has a similar climate and population size, according to KPMG.

‘Huge Wave’

Collecting this “huge wave of milk,” as Fonterra director David MacLeod calls it, has become less economic as a 22 percent increase in land used for dairy farming in New Zealand since 2008 forces the cooperative to travel further from its factories to pick up supplies. The legislation, which also requires Fonterra to sell milk at regulated prices to smaller processors, is currently under review, with the government proposing that Fonterra no longer be obliged to collect output from dairy startups.

“It will give us more options,” said Rob Spurway, Fonterra’s chief operating officer for global operations, in an interview. “We can invest more in the value-add areas in the business rather than simply coping with large volumes of milk.”

As it is, Fonterra creates less value from raw milk than Danone SA, Nestle and the majority of its global competitors, according to estimates compiled by the International Farm Comparison Network this year.

“Danone and Nestle, they just buy milk as they require,” CEO Spierings said in an interview at one of Fonterra’s cheese plants in June. “We are a cooperative, we have to take all the milk. We have to take it in and we have to create value off everything -- we will never be the same.”

Geography is a challenge, too. While New Zealand has a temperate climate and abundant rainfall, making it ideal for dairying, it’s 2,500 kilometers from Australia, its closest major market. Going abroad hasn’t been without difficulty either.

In Australia, where Fonterra is facing a backlash from its farmer-suppliers over milk-price cuts, it is selling its loss-making yogurt and dairy desserts brands to the local unit of Italy’s Parmalat SpA, after shedding a 9 percent stake in Bega Cheese Ltd. in October. 

A key part of Fonterra’s current strategy is to expand supply to 30 billion liters by 2025 in as many as six so-called global milk pools. That includes China, where the company has two farming hubs that posted a NZ$29 million first-half loss before interest and taxes. 

Fonterra is now counting on an investment in Beingmate Baby & Child Food Co Ltd. -- which has about 7 percent of China’s baby food market -- as a salve for the collapse of its former partner Sanlu Group amid a food scandal involving melamine-tainted infant formula in 2008.

Some farmers are wary of developing an over-dependence on China.

China’s consumers “are great for New Zealand -- they’re great for the world,” said Dave Ellis, whose farm in South Canterbury on the South Island is one of Fonterra’s biggest suppliers. “But we’ve gotten very reliant on them.”

The broader issue for Fonterra, said Ian Proudfoot, global head of agribusiness for KPMG in Auckland, is the need to extract more from its milk.

“Having a strong position in an important sector like dairy is valuable to New Zealand,” he said. “The challenge for us, though, is we’ve got to ensure that’s a high-value position and we’re not just sweat-shopping out low-value commodities.”

UK public finance was weaker in wake of Brexit - Independent

The public finances were weaker than expected in the wake of the Brexit vote, official figures showed today.

July has traditionally been a month of surplus for the public finances as it is one of the four months when companies pay a share of their annual corporation tax dues over to HMRC. City of London analysts had expected a surplus of £1.6bn.

But the outturn was a surplus of just £1bn according to the Office for National Statistics. The surplus was also £200m lower than the same in the same month last year.

The figures imply the Government is set to breach the £55.5bn deficit target for 2016-17 outlined by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the March Budget. 

READ MORE

Are we heading for a post-Brexit vote recession?

Economists expect the shock Brexit referendum result on 23 June to slow the economy markedly, which will result in tax revenues falling well short and leaving the Government’s deficit reduction plans adrift.

"July’s UK public finances figures gave us the first indication of how the vote to leave the EU will slow progress in reducing the deficit over the coming years" said Paul Hollingsworth of Capital Economics.

Samuel Tombs of Pantheon said that if the weaker trend of the first four months of this fiscal year were to continue the Government would overshoot the full year target by around £11.2bn.

the month were £7.5bn, up a decent 8.4 per cent on the same month last year and helped by the first payment of the Government's bank corporation tax surcharge. But taxes on production, including VAT were 0.8 per cent lower.

"The public finances...corroborate downbeat activity surveys which suggest the economy is struggling" said Mr Tombs.

Receipts heading down with business activity?

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has already said he will "reset" fiscal policy in the forthcomiing Autumn Statement, with anticipation that he could announce a form of fiscal stimulus to prop up growth and help avert a recession.

"Some form of fiscal stimulus to support the economy in the face of Brexit-related worries seems almost certain" said Martin Beck of the EY Item Club. "And with the Exchequer enjoying record-low borrowing costs, there is unlikely to be a more opportune time to turn on the fiscal taps.”

In response to today's figures the chief secretary to the Treasury David Gauke said: "As we keep working to cut the deficit, we are well-placed to handle any challenges and seize the opportunities as our economy adjusts. We are determined to build on our economic strengths to ensure Britain is a country that works for everyone.”

Borrowing for the fiscal year to date is now £23.7bn.

This is 11.3 per cent (£3bn) lower than the same point in 2015-16 but well undershooting the 26 per cent reduction forecast by the OBR in March for the full fiscal year.

UN admits it started cholera epidemic in Haiti in 2010 - CNN

first time, the United Nations has acknowledged its own involvement in a devastating cholera outbreak in Haiti in 2010 that killed at least 10,000 people.

The UN has always disputed claims that Nepalese peacekeepers brought cholera to the island nine months after an earthquake struck Haiti, the first known appearance of the disease there in over 150 years.

Cholera is an acute gastrointestinal illness caused by ingesting food or drink contaminated with Vibrio cholerae bacteria. It can cause severe diarrhea and vomiting, which leads to extreme dehydration. Patients who are not treated quickly to restore lost fluids can die within hours. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 3 million to 5 million cases of the illness every year worldwide and 100,000 deaths. 

After a leak Thursday to the New York Times of a scathing report by a UN investigator, UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq told CNN that "over the past year, the UN has become convinced that it needs to do much more regarding its own involvement in the initial outbreak and the suffering of those affected by cholera." The UN says it is considering several options.

Haiti cholera victims demand U.N. compensation

The draft report the New York Times obtained, prepared by Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights Philip Alston and commissioned by the UN, says the epidemic "would not have broken out but for the actions of the United Nations."

The UN is not saying that it caused the epidemic. 

It can choose to accept the findings of the report or adjust the findings after discussions with Haiti and other member countries. The final version will be presented to the United Nations within two months.

"We're trying to figure out how to resolve this," Haq said Thursday, "figuring out how to do the right thing."

Reports have claimed that poor sanitation at a UN peacekeeper camp allowed sewage to seep into a river.

When asked whether the UN was saying for the first time that it was responsible for the outbreak, Haq said, "I don't have anything to say about that."

Haiti searches for clean water solutions

Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said on CNN's "Amanpour" on Thursday that the UN is seeking to combine "an element of compassion" with the organization's strict legal position on immunity for actions of peacekeepers.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has instructed aides to work out a solution, he said, and "we expect UN member states to accept moral responsibility" for the outbreak.

In the past, UN member countries have feared heavy financial obligations for Haiti and other cases that could arise around the world.

Activists fighting for justice for the Haitian victims were overjoyed at the possibility that the UN was changing its position. Beatrice Lindstrom of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti said, "this is a groundbreaking first step for justice."

U.N. sued for 'bringing cholera to Haiti,' causing deadly outbreak

However, Lindstrom added, "the real test is what comes next. Promises will not stop cholera's killing or compensate for the damage to poor families in Haiti." She wants a public apology from the UN and a plan to compensate victims.

US Sen. Ed Markey, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the acknowledgment is "an important first step in reinstating trust with the Haitian and global community." He called on the UN to "support the development of solutions that prevent disease transmission and provide treatment for the thousands of people suffering from this deadly scourge."

Several lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the victims. But the UN never budged from its denial of involvement in the deaths.

A class-action lawsuit in a Brooklyn federal court blames the UN for the spread of the disease. Haq said Thursday that the UN's legal position has not changed.

Join the conversation

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

At one point in the long-running saga, Ban was served on a New York sidewalk with legal papers regarding the case.

The UN says it has been involved since 2010 in trying to eradicate cholera in Haiti.

However, five special investigators for the UN chastised Ban this year, saying he undermined the credibility of the organization by denying responsibility for the cholera outbreak.

Clinton's tie to Lebanese businessmen questioned - CNN

(CNN)Hillary and Bill Clinton's ties to two influential Lebanese-Nigerian businessmen are raising fresh questions about whether the State Department showed favoritism to Clinton Foundation donors -- an issue that has continued to dog the Democratic nominee during the 2016 presidential contest. 

Newly released documents, obtained by the conservative watchdog group Citizens United and provided to CNN, show the State Department was interested in purchasing land for a new US consulate in a development called Eko Atlantic on the coast of Lagos in 2013, in a story first reported on by Fox News. The development is managed by Ronald Chagoury and funded by an umbrella company owned by him and his brother Gilbert Chagoury.

Responding to the report, the State Department said this week that the land was considered but not acquired.

Clinton had left the State Department before it sent a letter three years ago expressing interest in possibly buying the property. While the letter was sent after she had left office, the State Department had identified the Eko project as a potential location when Clinton was still secretary of state in 2012. Asked if Clinton was cognizant of that, a department spokeswoman said earlier this week, "I'm not aware she was."

"You know we've not, as of today, contracted or acquired any property for a new consulate in Lagos," State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Wednesday. "We have over the past couple of years identified, and looked at, and evaluated multiple properties. We've had conversations about multiple properties with their property owners and their representatives because we are looking, as we've noted, to acquire property for a new consulate in Lagos. And this process is in no way connected to or subject to individual preferences or pressure ... it's managed by career real estate industry professionals."

But the Clinton Foundation's ties to Gilbert Chagoury and Eko Atlantic have led critics to allege the development was given special consideration.

Gilbert Chagoury has donated over $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the foundation's website, which also notes that The Chagoury Group -- run by the brothers -- pledged to commit $1 billion to fight coastal erosion through the Eko Atlantic development as part of a Clinton Foundation initiative on climate change. Eko Atlantic is built on reclaimed land protected by a sea wall. 

Bill Clinton attended the project's dedication ceremony in 2013 and was photographed with the Chagoury brothers, and he appears in Eko Atlantic promotional videos.

"Another week and another example of Clinton-Chagoury corruption," Citizens United President David N. Bossie told CNN in a statement. "A month after Bill Clinton visits a Gilbert and Ronald Chagoury-run land project in Nigeria, the U.S. State Department wants to buy the same land. Who could be so lucky? A major donor to the Clinton Foundation, that's who."

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said, "Citizens United is a right-wing group that's been attacking the Clintons since the 1990s and, once again, is trying to make something out of nothing. This draft letter was written after Hillary Clinton had already left the State Department and it never led to any deal." 

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Gilbert Chagoury, told CNN in a statement, that "Eko Atlantic was just one of several locations being explored by the United States for its new consular facilities in Lagos."

He continued, "Considering its size, modern infrastructure, technology and security, it should come as no surprise that the United States government and other governments from around the world are considering Eko Atlantic." 

This isn't the first time the State Department has faced questions about the Chagourys.

Last week, documents released by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed a top Clinton Foundation official had asked two Hillary Clinton aides at the State Department to put Gilbert Chagoury in contact with the department's "substance person" on Lebanon. Emails were exchanged, but a meeting never took place.

The Clinton Foundation has become a lightning rod for criticism in the presidential race.

On Tuesday, The Boston Globe published an editorial calling for the foundation to "remove a political -- and actual -- distraction and stop accepting funding."

And former Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, told The New York Daily News over the weekend the foundation should be disbanded if she's elected. 

"I definitely think if she wins the presidency, they have to disband it. I know it'll be hard for President (Bill) Clinton because he cares very deeply about what the foundation has done," Rendell said. "It'd be impossible to keep the foundation open without at least the appearance of a problem."

A US official also told CNN last week that the FBI and Department of Justice met several months ago to discuss opening a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation, after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the foundation.

Clinton has yet to address the future of the foundation or her husband's role in it should she win the White House. At a CNN town hall in June, she told Anderson Cooper, "We'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it."

Why experts want to do away with cash altogether - Economist

CASH is one of mankind’s greatest inventions; a vast improvement, one would imagine, on carting around sheep or bales of hay. Despite the proliferation of other forms of payment, cash retains qualities that alternative methods cannot match, including anonymity, instant clearing, universal acceptance and a relatively tech-free mechanism. It can be used even if the power grid goes down or the banks are all hacked. Yet a growing number of economists are now calling for cash to be phased out. Why?

In “The Curse of Cash”, published on August 16th, Kenneth Rogoff makes the case for gradually getting rid of most paper currency. It certainly has benefits, he admits, but these are outweighed by the costs associated with its murky side. Take anonymity. The same virtue that provides the ability to pay for a self-indulgent treat or a naughty service without its appearing on bank records or credit-card statements also allows criminals to fund their activities and tax-dodgers to avoid levies. The record $1.4 trillion circulating outside of banks in dollars alone, mostly in high-denomination bills, might suggest that every four-person American family has $13,600 in $100 bills stashed in a jam jar. That is unlikely. According to Mr Rogoff, the bulk of the rich world’s currency supply is used to facilitate tax evasion and illegal activities such as human trafficking and financing terrorism. A cashless world would also make monetary policy more effective, argue some, including Mr Rogoff, because savers would no longer be able to stuff cash under mattresses in case of negative rates. And as shopkeepers and businesses in relatively cash-light countries such as Sweden are discovering, there are other real benefits to preferring electronic payments over cash, including security, lower costs, hygiene and convenience, for both business and customer. 

Moving away from cash would not be without complications. Some objections can be easily dismissed, such as a claim expressed by a fifth of a sample of Germans, who said in a recent survey that they like the feel of carrying cash. But other problems are harder to pooh-pooh. The most intractable are the loss of anonymity and the risk that parts of society will be left out of the financial system, in a world where smartphones and plastic become the only ways to pay. The anonymity problem can in part be solved by retaining smaller notes and coins; enough for punters to keep buying porn, weed and birthday presents, but not so much as to buy property. The point about financial exclusion is trickier. In a near-cashless world vulnerable groups, such as the poor, the elderly and migrants, could become further marginalised, and those who are especially cash-dependent for income, such as churches, charities and the homeless, could expect to see a drop in their incomes. But changes can be made gradually and intelligently, for example by paying benefits on prepaid debit cards and supplying charities with contactless card machines. The switch could in fact increase financial inclusion, by ensuring that the unbanked become banked.

The debate elicits strong reactions; Bild, a German newspaper, recently organised a reader protest against a €5,000 ($5,633) limit on cash transactions. And German academics have argued that banning cash won’t magically end crime and black-market dealings: electronic fraud, cyber-crime and anonymous payments online are easy enough for those with skill and determination. Yet as countries in the rich world grow increasingly detached from cash, with some shops and cafes flat-out refusing to accept the stuff, economists can already see early evidence of the benefits of going cashless—as well as the relatively painless nature of the transition.

Failed mission to tame Donald Trump's way ward tongue - New York Times

Donald Trump was in a state of shock: He had just fired his campaign manager and was watching the man discuss his dismissal at length on CNN. The rattled candidate’s advisers and family seized the moment for an intervention.

Joined by his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, a cluster of Mr. Trump’s confidants pleaded with him to make that day — June 20 — a turning point.

He would have to stick to a teleprompter and end his freestyle digressions and insults, like his repeated attacks on a Hispanic federal judge. Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey argued that Mr. Trump had an effective message, if only he would deliver it. For now, the campaign’s polling showed, too many voters described him in two words: “unqualified” and “racist.”

Mr. Trump bowed to his team’s entreaties, according to four people with detailed knowledge of the meeting, who described it on the condition of anonymity. It was time, he agreed, to get on track.

Nearly two months later, the effort to save Mr. Trump from himself has plainly failed. He has repeatedly signaled to his advisers and allies his willingness to change and adapt, but has grown only more volatile and prone to provocation since then, clashing with a Gold Star family, making comments that have been seen as inciting violence and linking his political opponents to terrorism.

Interactive Feature: Who Will Be President?

Advisers who once hoped a Pygmalion-like transformation would refashion a crudely effective political showman into a plausible American president now increasingly concede that Mr. Trump may be beyond coaching. He has ignored their pleas and counsel as his poll numbers have dropped, boasting to friends about the size of his crowds and maintaining that he can read surveys better than the professionals.

In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change.

He broods about his souring relationship with the news media, calling Mr. Manafort several times a day to talk about specific stories. Occasionally, Mr. Trump blows off steam in bursts of boyish exuberance: At the end of a fund-raiser on Long Island last week, he playfully buzzed the crowd twice with his helicopter.

But in interviews with more than 20 Republicans who are close to Mr. Trump or in communication with his campaign, many of whom insisted on anonymity to avoid clashing with him, they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.

He is routinely preoccupied with perceived slights, for example raging to aides after Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, in his re-election announcement, said he would stand up to the next president regardless of party. In a visit to Capitol Hill in early July, Mr. Trump bickered with two Republican senators who had not endorsed him; he needled Representative Peter T. King of New York for having taken donations from him over the years only to criticize him on television now.

And Mr. Trump has begun to acknowledge to associates and even in public that he might lose. In an interview on CNBC on Thursday, he said he was prepared to face defeat.

“I’ll just keep doing the same thing I’m doing right now,” he said. “And at the end, it’s either going to work, or I’m going to, you know, I’m going to have a very, very nice, long vacation.”

Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, said the Republican nominee was still determined to win, and dismissed accounts that he was downcast. Mr. Miller pointed to the crowds Mr. Trump attracts as a sign of strength.

“Behind the scenes we have a very motivated and very focused candidate in Donald Trump, who knows what he needs to do to win this race,” Mr. Miller said.

People around Mr. Trump and his operation say they are not ready to abandon hope of a turnaround. But he is in a dire predicament, Republicans say, because he is profoundly uncomfortable in the role of a typical general election candidate, disoriented by the crosscurrents he must now navigate and still relying impulsively on a pugilistic formula that guided him to the nomination.

His advisers are still convinced of the basic potency of a sales pitch about economic growth and a shake-up in Washington, and they aspire to compete in as many as 21 states, despite Mr. Trump’s perilous standing in the four states — Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina — likely to decide the election.

Charles R. Black Jr., an influential Republican lobbyist supporting Mr. Trump, said the campaign was in a continuing struggle to tame him.

Graphic: Donors for Bush, Kasich and Christie Are Turning to Clinton More Than to Trump

“He has three or four good days and then makes another gaffe,” Mr. Black said. “Hopefully, he can have some more good days.” Of Mr. Trump’s advisers, Mr. Black said, “They think he is making progress in terms of being able to make set speeches and not take the bait on every attack somebody makes on him.”

Mr. Trump’s advisers now hope to steady him by pairing him on the trail with familiar, more seasoned figures — people he views as peers and enjoys spending time with, like former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.

Mr. Giuliani, who campaigned with Mr. Trump early in the week, said he did not see the candidate as unmoored or unhappy. If anyone was disconcerted, Mr. Giuliani suggested, it was the people steering his campaign.

“He doesn’t seem to be as unnerved by these things that go wrong as the people around him,” Mr. Giuliani said. Still, he allowed, “I think it is true that maybe it took him a little while to realize that we’re moving from a primary campaign to a presidential campaign.”

Mr. Trump, he said, had become “a little bit more realizing there are certain days left and you’ve got to get messages out on those days.”

Even before Mr. Trump’s most recent spate of incendiary comments, Republicans who dealt with him after the primaries came away alarmed by his obvious unease as the de facto party leader. After a meeting in late May between Mr. Trump and Karl Rove, the architect of George W. Bush’s presidential victories, Mr. Rove told associates he was stunned by Mr. Trump’s poor grasp of campaign basics, including how to map out a schedule and use data to reach voters.

n apartment of a mutual friend, the casino magnate Steve Wynn, Mr. Trump said he would compete in states like Oregon, which has not voted Republican since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide. Mr. Rove later told people he believed Mr. Trump was confused and scared in anticipation of the general election, according to people who have heard Mr. Rove’s account.

A few weeks later, when Governor Christie brokered a meeting at Trump Tower between Mr. Trump and governors from around the country, Mr. Trump offered a desultory performance, bragging about his poll numbers, listening passively as the governors talked about their states and then sending them on their way.

Mr. Trump never asked them for their support, three people briefed on the meeting said.

With donors, Mr. Trump has been an indifferent ambassador for his campaign. He has resisted making fund-raising calls and, during at least two major events in July, in New York and Chicago, burned valuable hours with potential contributors by asking them to go around the room, one by one, giving him their thoughts on whom he should pick as his running mate.

That left little time for the donors to query Mr. Trump about policy or strategy, or for him to reassure them about his campaign. Jay Bergman, an Illinois oil executive who attended the event in Chicago, said he wondered if Mr. Trump had taken that approach “to avoid answering questions.”

On matters of policy, too, Mr. Trump has engaged only fleetingly, and idiosyncratically. Before delivering a policy speech in Detroit on Monday, he delegated the formation of an economic plan to a few conservative economists outside his campaign, who consulted him from time to time and ultimately haggled over the details in his office as he followed their conversation.

Stephen Moore, a Heritage Foundation fellow, said he and Arthur Laffer, the supply-side economist, had tangled over the top tax bracket while Mr. Trump observed from behind his desk, eventually siding with Mr. Moore. Mr. Trump, he said, also expressed strong views about the taxation of interest on business loans, citing his experience as a developer.

“He’s a typical businessman, right?” Mr. Moore said. “He lets people argue it out, and Arthur made his case and others made their case.”

“He’s not the world’s expert on the tax code,” Mr. Moore added, “but he has very good intuition about how these things will affect real people.”

At the last minute, Mr. Trump interjected to direct his advisers to incorporate a tax deduction for the cost of child care in his economic plan. The issue, which Mr. Trump had not discussed on the campaign trail, is a favorite of his daughter Ivanka.

Mr. Trump’s reliance on his family has only grown more pronounced. Mr. Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, who has no background in politics, has expanded his role: He now has broad oversight over areas including the campaign’s budget, messaging and strategy, with the power to approve spending. Mr. Trump has also continued to seek advice from Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager whom Mr. Trump ousted in June at his children’s urging.

Efforts to bring in high-profile, experienced hands have been fruitless. Mr. Kushner had suggested enlisting Steve Schmidt, Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign manager, but despite having met once with Mr. Trump during the primaries and speaking with him a few times, Mr. Schmidt never signed on.

Mr. Trump’s advisers believe he is nearly out of time to right his campaign. On Tuesday, hours before his explosive comment about “Second Amendment people” taking action if Mrs. Clinton is elected, his brain trust reassembled again at Trump Tower in a reprise of their stern meeting in June.

They again urged Mr. Trump to adjust his tone and comportment. The top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, gave an unvarnished assessment, warning that Mr. Trump’s numbers would only move in one direction, absent a major change.

Mr. Trump, people briefed on the meeting said, digested the advice and responded receptively.

It was time, he agreed, to get on track.