Published – CommPRO.biz 2013.10.18

Shortages That Kill

It seems that every time we try to get something right, some scumbag figures out a way to game the system. While this fact of life is annoying wherever it shows up, it’s deadly when it rears its viperous head in life and death situations. So it is with generic drugs. Once we get past the inflated profits Big Pharma reaps -based on the phonied-up costs to develop a truly new drug- our expectation is that generic versions will serve us at reasonable costs.

We know all about the inexplicably legal game Big Pharma plays where they get to pay off the generic manufacturers to hold off production until they can squeeze the last drop of bloated profit out of the original patented version. As if that isn’t bad enough, it turns out there’s another equally ridiculous legal loophole allowing drug buying groups to bribe their way to higher profits at a cost of billions (out of our pockets) and -more important- at the cost of life itself.

This situation, according to published reports from medical and pharmaceutical practitioners, has its roots in 1987. You remember the “eighties” when “K” Street lobbyists seemed able to write any crazy thing into a law and find one of those we elected to serve us, willing to serve their special interest – for cash. Well, in 1987 Congress passed the “Medicare Safe Harbor Act” giving pharmaceutical buying groups a get-out-of-jail-free card to take vendor kickbacks (AKA bribes).

Since then these huge entities have controlled the manufacturers of generics that are mostly injectables used in hospital settings, antibiotics, pain meds, chemo drugs and anesthetics among others. These buying groups have in some cases limited manufacture to a single company. They have driven pricing so low, that eventually no competitors to their “Favored One” are left standing.

How are low prices bad for us? When a dominant buyer is able to drive pricing below the level of reasonable profits for the producers, there is no longer a truly competitive marketplace. That’s exactly what’s happened in the generic pharma world, resulting in unacceptable and dangerous shortages. A buying group source claims that they “encourage the free market by competitive bidding and multiple rewards for the best supplier performance.” We are with him until the multiple rewards part (sounds like bribes to us).

All of this was thought to be addressed in a 2012 law. Instead by mid-2013 drugs in short supply had soared from near two hundred to near three hundred, a fifty percent surge in one year. How did that happen? While we have no details, we’re betting it had to do with the buying group lobbyists. While we don’t pick up these drugs from our family drug store, we all have a vital stake. It is past time for this perverse law, the innocent sounding 1987 “Medicare Safe Harbor Act,” to have its quarter century of greed driven rule brought to an end. It is time to restore ethics and a true free market to this vital healthcare sector.

Published CommPRO.biz 2013.10.11

Reputation – A Road to Profitability

 

In the run up to its 2013 COMMIT!Forum this week (2013.10.8-9), CR Magazine released the results of a piece of research it commissioned on the effect corporate responsibility and reputation have on recruiting. They had a pollster ask people if reputation would impact their thinking before they took a job. These days you wouldn’t think it would be a big deal. Surprise! 69% said they would pass up a job offer from a smarmy company. This was true of those who have a job and those who are unemployed.

When asked what it would take to get them to take a job with a less than top rate company, the answer was a huge raise, at least 50%, more and in some cases they would not move unless their pay was doubled. On the other hand, 84% would move to a more reputable company if offered as little as 1% to 10% more pay. It seems pretty clear that a quality workforce is easier to hire and less costly for reputable companies. And your best people are at risk if your reputation is shaky.

More than their workforce is at risk for financial organizations with a less than stellar reputation, according to the 2013 Makovsky Wall Street Reputation Study. Communications firm Makovsky commissioned this study to measure the impact of reputation on financial companys’ revenues. We know this segment enjoyed a robust recovery thanks to the bailouts and zero interest FED loans. Their smarmy reputation is costing them revenue, however.

The researchers contacted communications professionals in the sector and asked a range of questions about revenues and what their companies are doing to deal with customers’ negative views. On average, revenues are down 9%, a hefty price to pay. Lost revenues total hundreds of millions. Six in ten companies believe it will take five more years to catch up to where their reputations were before the crash. Only one in four say their firm has already reached that level; obviously that may include wishful thinkers.

Study after study show that firms working to do the right thing see a positive impact on their bottom line. The CR Magazine study shows that most people are focused on working for companies with a reputation for doing the right thing. The Makovsky Reputation Study shows that even Wall Street firms can profit by doing the right thing. Makes you wonder why people like Jamie Dimon at Chase and Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs keep pushing a culture of profits before any thought about doing the right thing.

Too many business leaders confuse compliance with ethics. Blankfein is a lawyer, trained to see the edge of the law as defining right and wrong; that’s compliance, not ethics. Doing the right thing has nothing to do with compliance. Compliance is what you can get away with, not the right thing. Reputation is about the right thing. Research shows if you strive to do the right thing, profit takes care of itself.

Published CommPRO.biz 2013.10.03

Wall Street Ethics

Mid-September (2013.09.15) marked five years since Lehman Brothers, one of the largest investment banks ever, filed the largest bankruptcy ever, sending sky rockets up all over the world and marking the beginning of what we’ve come to call the “Great Recession.” Lehman’s implosion triggered a serious of herculean bailouts of the rest of our banking sector by the American taxpayers.

Hank Paulson, who became Treasury Secretary after a career at Goldman Sachs, saw a danger of another depression if the banking sector collapsed. He hurriedly threw together the bailouts. However, he failed to impose the controls needed to keep the banks from abusing these funds, leaving them free to award themselves over the top bonuses. The Federal Reserve kicked in billions more, throwing open the doors to the risky gambling (see London Whale) that caused the collapse.

Lehman wasn’t the only bank gone wild; all of the dozen or so monster banks were behaving badly. Lehman was just pushing the limits of the regulation-free climate the banking lobby created over the preceding two decades. Repo 105 was the accounting gimmick of choice at Lehman. The tricksters there would sell off billions of their really bad stuff before each quarterly reporting period, making their books look as though they were sound when in fact they were anything but. Emails, written just before the bankruptcy, show that senior management pushed their subordinates to cover their tracks.

On May 18, 2008, almost exactly two months before the bankruptcy filing, Senior Vice President Matthew Lee had a letter hand delivered to four of Lehman’s top executives with a copy to their house counsel. In it he detailed these practices and questioned both their legal and ethical grounds. Management responded by firing him. Later, Lee identified Repo 105 as one source of the collapse for the federal investigators. Matthew Lee is still out of a job today; nobody on Wall Street has hired this honest man.

Not so most of the schemers who played fast and loose with the financial facts at Lehman. According to a Huffington Post tally, three quarters of the Lehman folks -47 of 63 involved in the Repo 105 scam- are employed in the financial world and doing just fine thank you. In fact, while most Americans are struggling to recover from the crash and millions are unemployed, the Wall Street banksters are fine.

And why shouldn’t they be –aside from ethics and stuff like that– the banks know if they overplay their hand again, Repo 105 or whatever, a taxpayer bailout is just around the corner. So they gamble with your savings, secure in the knowledge that the FDIC will cover their losses and that we’ll loan them whatever they need to get back on their feet. Just don’t ask them to support the small businesses that create jobs or anything like that. Leave that to the suckers who run the regional and community banks.

Published in CommPRO.biz 2013.09.24

The Beat Goes On & On & ON

Remember the scene in a Pirates of the Caribbean movie where Captain Jack is gazing from a crow’s nest soon disclosed to be on the mast of a sinking vessel as it approaches a dock where the never-say-die pirate leader steps off and heads off into another hilarious adventure? That must be how Jamie Dimon, the captain at JP Morgan Chase, is feeling these days. Problem is, there is no dock in sight for this buccaneer; he’s up to his neck in trouble and nobody is laughing.

Dimon just can’t seem to catch a break, or more appropriately dodge a bullet. The slowly unraveling London Whale loss of billions involves at least three Chase minions, two of whom are facing criminal charges. The third has to be bothering the folks in carpetland back at Chase headquarters in New York City. Bruno Iksil has not been charged, apparently because he is supplying information on the two guys who have been charged. Bruno is a Chase Vice President. Nonetheless, since Chase has tens-of-thousands of VPs, Bruno is still a grunt. You know your bank is too big when you count the VPs by the tens-of-thousands.

We all know what’s going to happen when one guy starts pointing fingers, it won’t be long until others join in. That fact, along with reports that all these guys kept pointing up the line when this disaster started to unfurl, has to be unsettling. It played out in London, but the players there pointed to headquarters in New York City time and again when the losses were skyrocketing; at last report well north of six billion dollars. The finger pointing is going to spread up the food chain. The London traders claim they acted on guidance from headquarters. That could get very ugly for all the players right up to Jamie Dimon.

As if all that wasn’t enough, The New York Times broke a story about Chase bank hiring practices in China. The bottom line is that Chase seems to have a history of giving jobs to the off-spring of high ranking individuals in the Communist Party who head state owned businesses. Often businesses that have no relationships with Chase, at least not until they hire somebody’s kid. Reports say the Feds have a spreadsheet showing how hires connect to deals Chase was chasing.

Any one of these could be dismissed –as Chase is depicting them– as the acts of lower level rogue employees. Taken together it seems clear that the employees at JP Morgan Chase are under pressure to maximize profit by any means necessary by a management that knows that the taxpayers are on the hook to bail them out again. A management that reflects its leader’s ethics, Jamie Dimon’s ethics. 

Published in CommPRO.biz 2013.09.17

Good News “IS” News, Occasionally

We find ourselves largely focused on a minority. The majority, most of us, are trying to do the right thing everyday. By nature we are an honest hard-working people. And most businesses understand that an ethical model is a roadmap to long-term strong profitability. Take care of your customers, employees, vendors, community, and the environment; and the bottom line takes care of itself.

In our weekly pursuit of ethical issues, we find ourselves largely commenting on players who choose to ignore the ethical model. Those not interested in long-term growth. Then there are those who operate in a non-competitive market. A market that is structurally immune to competition such as healthcare. When was the last time someone struck a deal with a surgeon whilst headed for the operating room?

More disturbing are those made immune to failure through their lobbying efforts. Take the monster banks. They have created a world where they are not only too-big-to-fail; they are permitted to take part in unimaginably outrageous practices. They make huge bets –outright gambling– on anything they can label “investing;” even with depositors’ funds insured by the United States taxpayers. Worse, our Department of Justice is afraid to go after these scumbags; a monumental failure.

So between big pharma, predatory healthcare entities, and smarmy bankers, we have lots of unethical issues. We aren’t forgetting that the scumbags make up a tiny minority. Most folks in healthcare are there for the right reasons, executing herculean efforts everyday. Most bankers focus on depositors and businesses in their community. They guard depositors’ savings; make loans to keep businesses growing, homes building, and dreams evolving.

However, good news rarely makes “The” news. That’s what we like when we find a major story about a newsworthy ethical happening. IBM, a pioneer in personal computers, sold that business in 2005 to Lenovo, a Chinese company most of us never heard of. Since then Lenovo has grown their share of the home computer market, recently surpassing Hewlett-Packard. Ninety days ago Lenovo opened an assembly plant in North Carolina. 

All of that is nice, but the icing on the cake came earlier this month (2013.09.02) when Lenovo CEO, Yang Yuanqing, announced that he was splitting $3.25 million –most of his annual bonus– with his workers. For the workers in North Carolina the $300 bucks they received was a nice surprise. For the vast majority in China the $300 is roughly a month’s pay.

Hats off to Yang. He gave away $3 million of his bonus last year. It wasn’t news here until Lenovo built their plant and Yang announced that he would split his time between two headquarters in Beijing and Morrisville, NC. Those who see this as a marketing ploy may have a point, but the impact on Lenovo workers in twenty countries is still there. Unlike other big players, Lenovo produces their computers, phones, laptops and tablets in their own factories. And we’ll bet they don’t have nets stretched around them to prevent the workers from jumping to their death.

Published in CommPRO.biz 2013.09.04

Too Small to Ignore?

It appears that Darryl Layne Woods may spend a year in jail and have to cough up a hundred grand in fines. Woods is the majority owner and former Chairman and CFO of the Mainstreet Bank in Ashland, Missouri; the bank has branches in Bunceton and Prairie Home. The three small towns with a total population of a little over 4,300 are in the Columbia, Missouri area. In addition to likely jail time and the fine, Darryl has been barred from ever again having any role in banking.

You see when the government was passing out money to support the banking sector following the crash, Mainstreet was given a little over a million dollars. Darryl “invested” about a third of that in a luxury condo in Florida. When asked what they had done with the money, the bank was not totally forthcoming about the condo. Darryl signed that document and is taking the fall. Part of the plea deal absolved his wife from any involvement. The bank will, of course, have to pay back all of the TARP funds if they haven't already. It turns out that the bank sold the condo in Florida this spring and made a few bucks on their investment.

A statement on the Mainstreet website from the bank’s Board seems to indicate that it’s all some big misunderstanding and that the bank had been making real estate investments of this nature for some time. The government claimed that the Florida condo was intended for use by Darryl and other bank executives.

Mainstreet Bank has been around for ninety years. It’s the kind of community bank that’s vital to small town America. Darryl Woods is 48 years old and listed as “majority owner.” That could mean anything from 51% up; a local newspaper just referred to him as the bank’s “owner.” We would guess he was used to doing whatever he felt like and this time he went too far, or was careless with the paper work.

It’s hard to understand how this differs from the banks taking billions in TARP and subsequent billions from the Federal Reserve while somehow managing to pay $140 billion in bonuses to their executives in 2009 alone. That’s the same year Darryl Woods spent $381,487 to buy a condo in Florida. Did the big banks just do a better job filling out paper work than the Mainstreet Bank in small town Missouri?

Last week (2013.08.27) Bush era Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the architect of TARP, said he was very disappointed with the bonuses. That would seem to be about five years too late. Paulson went on to claim that he could not have made bonuses a part of the deal for TARP funds or the banks would have backed away. If that was true, why were those same big banks desperately sucking up hundreds of billions from the Fed month after month even after they took the TARP funds? The Mainstreet Bank folks -being from Missouri- have to be saying, “Show Me.”

Published in CommPRO.biz 2013.08.28

The Customer Is Not Always Right

Let’s review – America has been struggling to rise out of what has been called the Great Recession. A recession brought on by a systematic dismantling of safeguards that protected us for decades after the Great Depression. Engineered by lobbyists working for Wall Street banks and the super rich –the 1% of the 1%– this tearing down of the walls was not intended to cause a recession, just to allow those at the top to make more money.

The recession was an unintended consequence. The big banks had been buying up mortgages to create bundles that investors, pension funds and the like could stash away and collect interest on month after month. What could be safer, we all know real estate never loses value; it always goes up, right? Besides, the banks had these packages checked out; the credit rating services marked them AAA.

This new idea caught on like wildfire. Pretty soon the supply of mortgages wasn’t keeping pace with the need. So the banks pushed the mortgage brokers down the line for more and more mortgages. The brokers urged people to buy, coaching them and fudging the numbers when they didn’t qualify. The banks learned to pile the mortgages with the not-so-nice on the bottom. The rating services were overwhelmed. Under intense pressure from the banks to anoint the investment packages with top ratings, it appears that the services buckled. Soon packages the bankers were calling “Crap” were gaining AAA ratings and being sold by those same bankers to trusting customers.

To understand why the rating services would hang a AAA on what the bankers called “Crap,” we have to look at their business model. The banks asking for AAA ratings paid for them. The banks are the rating service’s customers. They feared that saying no to the banks would just send them to another rating service. They anointed the “Crap” AAA to keep the bucks coming through the door.

That’s pretty much what the Justice Department is saying that Standard & Poor’s did when they sued the rating agency for $5 billion. The DOJ and 14 states are suing S&P, the largest of the rating services. The other two, Moody’s and Fitch, are likely to be next. The $5 billion suit is moving through the California court of District Judge David Carter. S&P rated $4 trillion in various bank investment vehicles over the four years leading up to the collapse.

While S&P is facing the $5 billion lawsuit, keep in mind that the real bad guys are the handful of monster banks that put together the piles of crap and coerced an AAA out of the rating services. What’s more the same banks are back at it– gambling wildly secure in the knowledge that we will have to bail them out again when they stumble. We like to think that doing the right thing is easy. It’s not, what’s easy is taking that first step in the wrong direction