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.  

Murdoch Woes

It just keeps getting worse for the Murdoch Empire. An empire so vast that it’s hard to grasp the wide flung tentacles that encompass a host of newspaper, television and entertainment entities spread across the planet. Rupert Murdoch’s shadow darkens almost every English speaking nation in the world, from his birthplace in Australia, to Great Britain and of course the United States. They are all rife with Murdoch properties. 

Things first began to get out of hand in Great Britain. London’s rough and tumble Fleet Street newspaper world, the world that formed the Murdoch culture has ironically exposed behaviors that may end it all for the clan. A rival newspaper, the Guardian, has unearthed one misdeed after another. Most of the media coverage has focused on the telephone hacking the Murdoch London newspapers seemingly used at every opportunity. That, however, is the least of it.

Murdoch scion, James –who heads (in title if not in fact) much of the family enterprise– testified before Parliament that he knew nothing of any hacking beyond one rogue reporter. When the then editor of the now shuttered News of the World and their legal manager came forth with detailed testimony to the contrary, it left James flopping about like a fish out of water. 

Rupert started with a tabloid stable his daddy left him in Australia. He moved on to London while still in his early twenties and much later came to America where he owns a wide array of media from newspapers to motion pictures to television entities. Actually it isn’t “his;” while Murdoch effectively controls News Corp, it is a public company. In fact it is an American company headquartered in New York City.

While fibbing to a parliamentary committee is serious stuff, it is not the worst of the specters looming over the Murdoch Empire. The courts present the most serious threat. News Corp stockholders are lining up to sue. These law suits are serious but not nearly as serious as the gathering storm in Washington. Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen, and News Corp is an American company; both are subject to American laws.

The U.S. Justice Department is looking at bribes paid to London police by News Corp newspapers. Under our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) American companies are not permitted to practice bribery abroad. News Corp is taking this threat very seriously, as well they should. They have hired a flock of lawyers to deal with it, many of them former Department of Justice FCPA experts.

As the noose tightens it’s hard to see any outcome short of the collapse of the Murdoch Empire. An outcome that would seem foreordained in a company run by a man described by one of his executives as, “a man who wants it all, and doesn't understand anybody telling him he can't have it all." That sounds more like a spoiled child than the kind of person we want running the largest media company in the world. While it fits the trashy tabloid culture that spawned Murdoch, a person of character would have grown into a more ethical mode. It seems a waste to have the resources Rupert Murdoch has amassed devoted to the smarmy ends he put them to.

Unexpected Consequences

Unexpected consequences frequently arise from actions at every level of life. Not in the least when it comes to enacting new legislation. Take the Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act (AKA Dodd–Frank), created in response to the reckless actions of a handful of bankers that triggered the 2008 financial collapse.

(Actually the collapse was triggered by the banking lobbyists’ success in conning a brain dead 1999 Congress into removing one of the last remaining firewalls in the circa 1933 Banking Act (AKA Glass–Steagall). This Act protected us from this kind of nonsense for +/- 70 years; anybody for reinstating Glass–Steagall? Dodd–Frank left the gap opened in 1999 unfilled and the banks are headed full tilt for the same cliff they took us over in 2008. But that’s another subject for another day)

Dodd–Frank will “undermine existing compliance programs” according to its critics–read lobbyists. That pile of bovine excrement has vanished in the light of a study conducted by the SCCE (Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics).

The SCCE surveyed compliance and ethics professionals on Dodd–Frank. Surprise, they found the exact opposite of the banking lobby fueled fears and expectations. The SCCE found more transparency; companies are making employees more aware of how to react when they come across misdeeds or misbehavior in the workplace, even if it’s your boss. They found compliance programs grown stronger thanks to Dodd–Frank.

The Act has also triggered more ethics training at the management level. Anything that improves ethics in our society is good news. Business ethics is not an oxymoron. Most people strive to do the right thing day in and day out. The impression that nice guys finish last is dead wrong. Study after study shows that –all things being equal– an ethics driven business model will out perform any alternative. Does that mean that dog-eat-dog never wins? Of course not, but even then the good guys will win bigger.

If that’s true, then why do we never hear about it? Simple, good news is no news. We want to hear about the unusual, the dramatic. Same thing with drama, on

stage, television or the movies, if it’s not comedy it’s got to be action. Even in the most famous good guy movie of all time, It’s a Wonderful Life, it took divine intervention to save George Bailey.

Aristotle is quoted* as declaring that Philosophy** led him, “to do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law” That exactly defines ethics. And while ethics often gets bundled up with compliance, there’s a vast chasm between complying with a rule or law and doing the right thing.

 

* Supposedly uttered by Aristotle according t0 Laërtius Diogenes, who lived six or seven hundred years after Aristotle    (BTW not the lantern dude, Diogenes of Sinope. He also lived six or seven hundred years before Laërtius Diogenes).

** Philosophy, a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs. – Dictionary.com 09.20.11

Crooks?

Three years after the big banks drove our economy off the cliff we are beginning to call some of the players to task. It’s been no secret that mortgage entities lured people into buying properties they could not afford. They coached them on deceptive practices, like lying about their income and most everything else. These subprime (read unlikely to be repaid) mortgages were gobbled up largely by the big Wall Street banks who demanded more, ever more from these small time con artists.

The banks bundled them into investment instruments called Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs). These mortgage packages were blessed with AAA (the very best) ratings by Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings, and Moody’s Investor’s Service. Soon they were being bought and sold all over the world. This charade* carried on until the rotten mortgages in these packages began to collapse.

The agency that oversees Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac (who live on taxpayer dollars) is gearing up to sue a bunch of the big banks for +/- $30 billion in losses (our money). Add to this, lawsuits from various individuals along with AIG – they got suckered into insuring some of the banks against losses from these loans. And the Attorneys General of all 50 states who are in settlement negotiations with a bunch of the big banks. There’s trouble on Wall Street.

As you can imagine, this has triggered a flurry of finger pointing. The banks shrug and point to the rating agencies, ignoring the obvious. The agencies were seriously overmatched by the fast talking bankers. Plus, the banks are among the rating agencies’ best customers. Everybody is pointing to the “sophisticated investors, who knew what they were buying.” Again, maybe overmatched by the fast talking bankers?

This whole dance is ridiculous. The California farm hand earning $14,000 a year had to be conned into buying a $750,000 house, as did many like him who had never heard of a subprime mortgage. The big banks knew what they were buying; they cynically put decent mortgages on top of the losers in the CDOs to make them smell better. Internally they referred to these CDOs as “Crap.” They hustled this “Crap” to their customers; all the while buying insurance to cover the “Crap” they were holding.

When it all fell apart, the taxpayers were forced to bail them out to keep the banking system from collapsing. A generation ago we had the S&L crisis. An avalanche of bad mortgages threw the nation into a recession. The savings banks took a hit, nearly 750 were closed, about a fourth of the national total. The taxpayers took a $90 billion hit – the beginning of the national debt that has been building over the last decade.

There’s a difference between what happened to the peddlers of “Crap” in the last decade and those responsible for the S&L disaster twenty years ago. The S&L flimflammers (AKA crooks) were nailed for racketeering and other crimes. They were fined and in some cases jailed. The flimflammers who triggered the recession we are now suffering through still have their big jobs, big pay checks and bonuses, just as if nothing happened. Meanwhile the poor and the middle class suffer. What’s wrong with this picture?

*Dictionary.com – “Charade”  A blatant pretense or deception,  

especially something so full of pretense as to be a travesty.  

© 2011 GLG