Take Off The Kid Gloves

Take Off The Kid Gloves

The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) ended its fiscal year in September having filed a record number of cases (735), up almost 10% from their pace (677) last year. They collected nearly $3 billion in penalties both years. Meanwhile the annual Johnson Associates’ “Executive Compensation Study” shows an alarming drop in pay for the folks on Wall Street, as much as 20% - 30%. Alarming perhaps to the Wall Street types, but to those who are trying to make ends meet the Wall Street pay scale, that begins at a hundred grand and can escalate into seven or eight figures, still looks really good. 

Reuters reports that over the last two years the SEC has removed a management layer and restructured their enforcement division. And, they have created a new whistleblower bounty program alongside other incentives to encourage witnesses to cooperate. Given the two record years they have registered, it must be working.

Or is it? It appears that the SEC is still treading softly with the big banks and the individuals behind the misdeeds (AKA CEOs etc.).  A Federal District Judge, Jed Rakoff, doesn’t seem convinced that a proposed settlement with Citibank is tough enough on the bank. Citi is charged with fraud; selling customers crappy financial instruments at the same time the bank was betting they would fail. The very same double dealing that triggered the financial collapse we are enduring.

In a hearing last week Judge Rakoff questioned the SEC on the settlement: $95 million when the investors Citi ripped off lost $700 million. The judge has taken a similar position with several lowball settlements the SEC proposed in the past. Rakoff also questioned why only one individual in this case has been charged with wrongdoing.

We –along with many others, including State Attorney Generals across the country– have been wondering about the SEC slap-on-the-wrist penalty proclivity. A concern the Attorney Generals also direct toward the Justice Department; why has it not zealously prosecuted bankers who triggered the recession? We know who they are and what they did. Instead, after bailing them out we are forced to watch as they go back to the same risky stuff all over again, sure that we will bail them out again when it collapses. All the while taking home eight-figure bucks.

The banks’ reaction to the relatively mild restraints of the Dodd/Frank Act is to pile new fees on their customers. They have grown so accustomed to inflated profits from what are nothing more than risky gambling schemes that when a little of that revenue stream is cut off, they sock it to their customers instead of living lean. In the meantime we have to listen to Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase “Whiner in Chief,” and Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein (AKA The Artful Dodger) complain. They are so misunderstood and unappreciated after all they do for us, poor babies.

Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, the firm that carried out the Wall Street wage study, put the ethical issue very succinctly, “Wall Street executives,” he said, “haven’t gotten the memo at all.”

Not for Sale

Not for Sale

There are –and always have been– so-called “pay for play” print and broadcast deals. That’s why federal law requires them to be labeled “advertising” or “paid programming”. Unfortunately, there is no such law covering internet content. So it should come as no surprise that web based news sites are being targeted by those looking for a plug for one thing or another.

While we understand legitimate efforts to gain media exposure, when there is money involved the ground rules need to be crystal clear.  Apparently, with no legal firewall, some of the slime that inhabits the fringe of every sector of media and marketing will attempt to slip over the ethical wall that protects most all of the world of commerce.  

Hamilton Nolan, who writes for the popular blog Gawker, recently received an email from a marketer suggesting an easy way to earn a little extra money. All he had to do was drop in a website link for one of their clients, only –of course– if it “fits naturally in the context of the article.” In a series of emails this solicitation was identified as coming from a so-called “marketing agency” specializing in this kind of placement. Payment offered began at $130 and escalated quickly to $175. Not bad, as Nolan noted, for five seconds’ work.  

The “agency” claimed to represent a number of “major” clients, Motorola, Dell, and T-Mobile, all of whom denied any connection. The agency also told Nolan that they had writers taking their bucks from a wide range of top ranked internet sites including The Huffington Post. You can guess Huffington’s response; it was mirrored by the other sites where writers and/or editors were said to be on the “take”.

Who knows how many clients these guys really represent? Or how many writers and/or editors at internet sites have succumbed to this siren call? There is always a certain amount of slime on both sides of the ethical wall. Sadly, one cannot exist without the other.

The Return of the Robber-Barons

The Return of the Robber-Barons

At the dawn of the 20th century America experienced unprecedented change. The young were moving off the farms into the cities. Steel, rail, and oil giants wrought permanent change; change that created a chasm between the wealthy few and the vast number of Americans struggling far below.

Into this moment stepped Theodore Roosevelt.  A brash young President who recognized that a nation so divided could never achieve the greatness that would allow its people to thrive. His trust-busting crusade initiated a series of legal restraints on the robber-barons culminating in the Glass–Steagall Acts of 1932 and 1933. These boundaries, along with labor laws and a variety of safety nets, allowed our free enterprise system –and our people– to thrive and grow.

The loosening of those restraints as the 20^th century faded into the 21st brought a return of the practices they were designed to control. A study of the effect of wide spread deregulation was ordered several years ago by Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley, then ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee. The Congressional Budget Office delivered the study just last week. Its findings paint a bleak picture: the middle class is fast shrinking while those on the bottom are sinking farther away from those on the top of the pile.

Over the last few decades the top 1% of Americans enjoyed a 275% jump in their income. The bottom 20% not so much, they gained 18%. Do the math, 275% is over 15 times greater than 18%. The report points to the move from progressive income taxes to payroll taxes, easing the tax burden on those with the 275% gain while increasing the tax rate of those who have seen a measly 18% improvement.

As the giants of industry are quick to point out, our corporate taxes are among the highest in the world. However, since most of them have successfully lobbied their way out of paying taxes at the local, state and federal level, the federal tax rate has little or no effect on the corporate titans. Our hefty corporate rate does hit small businesses – the folks who are struggling to stay afloat in the aftermath of the collapse triggered by the bankers’ reckless gambling.

Since everyone agrees that small businesses create jobs, we find ourselves taxing these job creators, while the Fortune 500 (who rang up a net job loss over the last twenty years) pay little taxes, if any. The banks we bailed out are swimming in profits generated from the same risky games that got us into this mess. Weren’t they were supposed to help small businesses who want to grow and create jobs? What happened to that?

Meanwhile the top 1% (the 275% folks) are investing overseas or gambling on commodities (like oil – boosting gas prices and adding to the woes of the poor) all the while giving luxury marketers like Tiffany’s a boost. Sales in Tiffany’s New York flagship store increased 41% in the second quarter ending in July, up 33% thus far for the year. Tiffany’s stores worldwide are booming as well, thank you.

If you missed the ethical issues in this scenario, read it again.

W.T.”Bill” McKibben is a Buffalo based author. © 2011 GLG

The Essential Benefit

The Essential Benefit

We are puzzled by a decision retail giant Wal-Mart announced limiting access to its health insurance programs. Access to healthcare benefits is important to the individuals in our workforce and to society as a whole. Living without coverage is a nightmare experience. The number of Americans who find themselves without health insurance –about 50 million– is shocking.

Two groups dominate this segment of our neighbors.
    1) The young: They believe they are immune to serious illness. They often have health insurance available –and they could afford it– but they would rather spend their bucks on something else. For minor issues they visit tax and/or community supported clinics. They pay a few bucks for routine care, leaving the rest of the cost for their treatment to the taxpayers, or those who support these clinics through charitable gifts. If they become seriously ill they often end up with a crushing debt, or bankruptcy. In the end we all pay for it.

   2) The working poor: They are not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, or any of the other government funded programs that provide healthcare benefits for roughly half of all Americans. They worry about their health and try to ignore problems until a condition is really serious. Then it costs a ton to treat, either through the emergency room, or hospitalization. They can’t pay and so the hospitals pass the costs on to all their other patients driving up the cost of healthcare. Once again, we all pay for it.

This is where Wal-Mart, etc. –who employ the young and the working poor– can make a huge difference. Nobody expects any of these companies to pick up the health insurance premiums for these folks, but what they can do is make it available at a fraction of the cost of healthcare coverage in the open market.

When the working poor go direct to the insurers they face premiums far beyond their ability to pay, often three or four times the cost of a group plan offered through an employer. The reason for that hinges foremost on the ability of a company with thousands of employees to negotiate favorable rates. Add to that the much higher costs insurers incur in administering individual policies. A part of this cost –group insurance administration– is borne by the companies. We would guess that’s one of the reasons behind the decision at Wal-Mart to exclude some of their employees.

A short-sighted decision in our view. Access to affordable healthcare insurance is vital; it’s the kind of benefit that stabilizes a workforce. Less employee turnover cuts retraining costs and makes for better customer service, the lifeblood of a retail company. Moreover, taking care of your employees in this fashion says a lot about an employer, it makes people loyal and more productive. Not having to worry about their family’s healthcare costs keeps them focused on their job.

And besides, it’s the right thing to do; Ethics 101.

W.T.”Bill” McKibben is a Buffalo based author. © 2011 GLG

The Rich get Richer, Redux

We’ve been reading a Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management report on High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI). There are a number of metrics to define this group, but most include those who have at least a million bucks to play with. That’s a million+ not counting homes, yachts, private jets, etc. Then there is a subset, Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs), those with 30-50 million in play money. There are about 10 million worldwide in the HNWI playpen; North America has by far the most, over 3 million.

The HNWIs took a hit when the economy collapsed. Not that they had to make any lifestyle changes, but it got their attention. Not to worry, you’ll be happy to hear that this report shows they pretty much recovered from the beating they took — within one year. The Merrill Lynch study was just released but it covers the HNWI world as it was in 2009, just one year after the collapse. At that point the HNWIs were up 18.9% with a total of $39 Trillion in their piggybanks. The subset UHNWIs were up 21.5%. Apparently the Joneses couldn’t quite keep up.

What are they doing with their money? Here’s what Merrill Lynch sees in the research, “By 2011, HNWIs are expected to further reduce investments in their home regions and look to those regions in which growth is expected to be more robust. While HNWIs from the mature economic regions of North America and Europe are expected to continue increasing their allocations to Asia-Pacific in search of higher returns, HNWIs in Europe are also likely to increase their North American holdings to inject stability into their portfolios.”

So Merrill Lynch says the 1% of Americans who have almost all the bucks are going to invest in Asia. Their tax advisors will -of course- have them leave their profits offshore so they aren’t bothered by those pesky IRS types. On the other hand, the HNWIs from Europe will be investing over here; in our Treasury Bonds if they are looking for stability. One way or the other, none of the HNWIs are doing anything for our economy, except maybe for Tiffany & Co. along with all the others in the booming luxury markets.

None of this creates the jobs we need. Small businesses create jobs and there are precious few small business owners in the HNWI class. Most are lucky to take home healthy five figure paychecks and everything they have is in their business. To grow they need help from the banks whose coffers are bulging with bucks (thanks to the tax payers), but they aren’t lending. So the folks who create jobs are stuck, in many cases barely hanging on in a slow economy the banks created.

If the HNWIs think they are immune from the growing discontent rising in America they are mistaken. If they believe they have no responsibility to restore and maintain the safety nets put in place following the Great Depression, they are mistaken. “With great power there must also come great responsibility,” so saith Peter Parker (AKA Spiderman). That is the essence of ethics.  

W.T.”Bill” McKibben is a Buffalo based author. © 2011 GLG

The Bottom Line

Dog Eat Dog, nothing but the bottom line matters. Surprisingly there are those in business who still buy into this myth. Understand, it works. Goldman Sachs and many of the other Wall Street types come quickly to mind. It is always those who get away with playing dirty and breaking the rules who make the headlines. As the saying goes, “Good News is not News.”

Truth is, from the days of the industrial revolution businesses that treated their stakeholders well– their employees, their customers, their community, their suppliers, and the environment– found that the bottom line took care of itself.   Does that mean the good guys always win? Of course not. It does mean they have a better chance of winning.  And when they do, they win bigger than those who choose the alternative path.

The problem is documenting this truism. A few years ago a writer and couple of  college professors set out to do just that. Their book, Firms of Endearment, showed that those who took care of all their stakeholders returned eight times as much as the Standard and Poors average over the ten years prior to their study. That’s not eight times the worst, that’s eight times the AVERAGE return; that’s the kind of bottom line every company dreams of.

A massive research effort, 10,000 consumers in ten countries, The Cone/Echo 2011 Global Corporate Responsibility Study, shows that consumers not only support those who follow this business model, they will punish businesses that focus solely on the bottom line. The margins surprised the researchers as they did us. Over nine out of ten respondents said that to win their business companies must go beyond the legal requirements and that they need to look at their practices and make sure their overall impact on society as a whole is as positive as possible.

Their number one concern is a company’s efforts to support and expand the economy. Nearly all the respondents (96%) placed economic development at the top of the list they expect companies to strive for. The environment comes in at the same level (96%), followed by human rights, education, health, and poverty, all above -or just below- the ninety percentile mark. That’s pretty dramatic.

And it’s widespread; the study covered a lot of geography: Canada, China, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, The United Kingdom and The United States. Nations that house almost half the people on the planet and by far the majority of enlightened consumers. Consumers who told the researchers that they would switch brands to be assured of their makers’ devotion to high ethical standards.

Pack that all together and it makes for an overwhelming argument for the ethical business model. It makes sense; who would want to do business with someone or a company that is trying to rip you off? Who wants a company that does not care about you, your community, the air you breathe, the water you drink? Who needs those kind of people? You can no more run a company by focusing on the bottom line, than you can win a ball game by focusing on the scoreboard. 

© 2011 GLG

CEO Meltdown

What is it with these people? The banking class seems to forget how we got into this mess and who is primarily responsible. Wholesale stripping away of the rules of the road –read banking regulations–over the last few decades opened the doors to unbelievable levels of greed.

Now that the rather mild (after the lobbyists beat it down) Dodd-Frank Act is in place, they are whining about too much regulation. In truth that unregulated playground where greed-monger bankers frolicked, it’s still open. They are playing the same game with reckless abandon. While the law says we won’t bail them out again, they know we can not allow “too-big-to-fail” banks to fail.

The mere mention of restraint triggers an explosive response. Take the reports leaked from a meeting of the Financial Stability Forum in Washington. Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, endured a hissy fit from JP Morgan Chase Honcho, Jamie Dimon. Dimon found suggested changes to the Basel III banking standards, “anti-American.”  

When banks like Chase were fighting for their lives and begging our taxpayers to bail them out, Canada’s banks were fine. Carney’s response to Dimon’s attack was measured: "If some institutions feel pressure today, it is because they have done too little for too long, rather than because they are being asked to do too much, too soon." Based on sixteen attributes worldwide, 42,000+ respondents to The Reputation Institute's 2011 annual study ranked Canada #1. Is it any wonder the US came in 23^rd – behind even Greece?

It’s not as though JP Morgan Chase is a “Poster Child.” They are mired in a smarmy Jefferson County, Alabama bribery mess where political types have been convicted of pocketing $8 million. Birmingham’s mayor went down for taking $235,000. As part of the settlement, Chase eats $647 million in fees, pays Jefferson County $50 million, plus a $25 million SEC penalty. This does the county little good; it is still drowning in over $3 billion in derivative based financial instruments.

The ethical no-man’s-land JP Morgan Chase seems to inhabit extends to our fighting men and women as well. The law is crystal clear when it comes to mortgage holders and the military. But, Chase may have missed that memo. In just one case, a Marine captain flying F-18 missions overseas suffered an ongoing nightmare. He and his wife did everything right. To their surprise Chase ignored their on-time mortgage payments, began foreclosure proceedings, and set collection agency dogs on them. The captain’s wife was raising their small children on her own, one with health issues, all the while the Chase collection goons are ringing her telephone around the clock.

When Chase finally recognized the string of goof-ups on the military that included the Marine Captain, a mid-level banker apologized. That – is – pathetic! JP Morgan Chase and its spoiled brat CEO, Jamie Dimon, that’s who is “anti-American” in this sad tale.