Brokers vs Advisors vs Clients’ Best Interests

Last week the NYT ran another story on the screwy financial regulatory landscape here in the States.  With so many financial professionals calling it quits with big firms and hanging out shingles as advisors,  the big money (brokerage firms) do their best to obfuscate their incentive to SELL, rather than ADVISE or MANAGE.

The story ably illustrates how some individual brokers provide advisor-like services while some advisors closely resemble brokers.

One advisor’s view

I interviewed Derek Hernquist, Chief Investment Officer at Integrative Capital, LLC in Charlotte, NC on this matter.

Derek: “It makes no sense to me that there are two standards, and I think the brokerage industry has blurred the lines by changing titles to “financial advisor” from broker or registered rep. Most people I speak with are unaware of the distinction between financial advisors and investment advisors.

“Seriously, how can anyone read this line from the article and not think there’s a problem “Congress is now considering a provision that could alleviate some of this confusion by requiring brokers to act in their clients’ best interest. ‘Requiring brokers?’ Shouldn’t a client be able to trust this is already the case?”

Derek’s a smart guy with principles. While I had his ear I asked a few more questions:

Q: Why did you launch your own advisory practice?

A: I found myself frustrated with my answer when friends asked “What do I do with my money? The growth of Wall St. left investors with an overwhelming array of underwhelming choices. It became harder and harder for the true risk managers to be noticed amidst the race to beat the benchmark. I felt compelled to step in and help filter the noise for those without the time to do so.

Q: Why did you choose Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) registration?

A: I needed complete independence of investment choices as well as fair pricing to give clients a shot at attractive risk-adjusted returns. This eliminates everything but the hedge fund and investment advisory models,and I felt that the demographic I wanted to help was outside the scope of hedge funds.

Q: Compensation is a big issue. How did you determine your fee structure?

A: I love the performance-driven aspect of hedge fund fees, but had to compromise in order to open my tent to individuals that don’t qualify as accredited investors.

In Warren Buffett’s early days, he charged nothing for the 1st 6% of return and asked for 25% of profits above that.  I’d love to do that, but that’s outlawed for non-accredited investors under the 1940 Act. To this point, I’ve settled for charging clients 1% of assets up to a max of $10,000 per year. Account size doesn’t dictate required workload, so this is my way of flattening the cost curve a little as clients grow into accredited investors.

Prompts for Professionals

I wrote about compensation and the need for some honest disclosure on how any professional is paid last June. One of the comments included this observation: “Funny – no one asks their doctor how they get paid either.  Might be worth asking. Most doctors I know have incentive to rush you through their office because they are paid by the HMOs based on how many patients they see per day.”

• If you own your firm, tell your clients why you decided to structure your compensation as you did.   If you work for a broker or agency, tell your clients why you believe the comp structure you work under is fair to you and to them.
• Explain how you balance the competing interests of your financial future and theirs.
• Have an up-front discussion about how they can challenge your ethics.
• Do you belong to a professional organization that requires credentialing?  Tell your clients about the credentialing process and how your preparation and credentialing benefit them.
• Publish your continuing education plans for the year.
• Solicit feedback from clients: what topics do they find most confusing?

How about it? Let’s have a hearty discussion in the comments section.

BofA Taking one for Team USA?

In a banking town like Charlotte, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a VP of one bank or another. Well, these days make that “or a former VP.”

One of my friends works for Bank of America and another is a criminal defense lawyer. The banker persists that Ken Lewis and BofA are being singled out for bad treatment by the feds. Here’s what the lawyer says on the matter of Mr Lewis and the Merrill Lynch deal:

Q: Did Mr. Lewis breach his fiduciary duty to BOA shareholders when he did not terminate the deal noting a contractual clause that losses were way over what was projected?

Q: Did Merrill execs enter into a contract knowing of these losses, hiding them in some way and using “fraud in the enducement”? Charges coming against Merrill execs.?

Q: Would BOA’s stock price settled at a higher price when the market hit rock bottom? i.e. not as big a loss to shareholders.

A: If yes, to any of these, then he failed in his duty as CEO. Thus, a jury must decide if that is negligent (fired for that) or criminally negligent or culpable (go to jail for this).

Bottom line: Taking one for the USA team is not a defense, it is mitigating.

Banker Motivation

As I mentioned in December Book Lust I’m reading Dan Pink’s new book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. The book’s publisher had perfect timing, with  January’s headlines of banker bonuses and the prospect of taxing TARP recipients.

There’s a lot of hand wringing about what will happen to the entire economy if the financial sector is reined in:

• Will “under paid” (therefore presumably under qualified) bankers screw up the economy?
• Will all the good financiers move to hedge funds, leaving our big banks in the hands of a bunch of brain-dead drones willing to work for a mere 25x their average company worker’s wage?
• Is limiting banker compensation the last nail in capitalism’s coffin?

And then there’s the rumor that Goldman Sach’s Lloyd Blankfein will be taking a $100m bonus for 2008’s work. That’s in contrast to the US Census Bureau’s report that the average 2008 per capita income was just under $27k. I don’t think the feudal lords of the dark ages made those multiples.

Before jumping in with Drive’s analysis of human motivation,  I’ll let The Daily Show guide us down memory lane with those to whom much was given and nothing was demanded:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission-Team
www.thedailyshow.com

The evolution of motivation

Mr Pink says Motivation 1.0 centered around survival. Sometimes survival meant stealing a meal or a spouse but eventually the human species figured out that cooperation was a less painful, more humane way to conduct ourselves, and Motivation 2.0 came into being.

Motivation 2.0 centered around punishment and reward and “it is so deeply embedded in our lives that most of us scarcely recognize that it exists.”

Despite its greater sophistication and higher aspirations, Motivation 2.0 still wasn’t exactly ennobling. It suggested that, in the end, human beings aren’t much different from horses — that the way to get us moving in the right direction is by dangling a crunchier carrot or wielding a sharper stick. But what this operating system lacked in enlightenment, it made up for in effectiveness. It worked well, extremely well. Until it didn’t.

The Seven Deadly Flaws of Carrots and Sticks:

1. They can extinguish intrinsic motivation
2. They can diminish performance
3. They can crush creativity
4. They can crowd out good behavior
5. They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and unethical behavior
6. They can become addictive
7. They can foster short-term thinking

This is not to say that carrots and sticks are always bad

Drive has a chapter on circumstances where punishment and rewards work very well, thank you very much. But we’re headed full gallop into Motivation 3.0, which recognizes that while people are at times profit maximizers (and therefore extrinsically driven), we are also “purpose maximizers,” which means we’re motivated intrinsically as well.

For the word lovers among us, “purpose maximizers” has its own Latinate descriptor: Homo Oeconomicus Maturus (Mature Economic Man).

Bruno Frey, an economist at the University of Zurich says “Intrinsic motivation is of great importance for all economic activities. It is inconceivable that people are motivated solely or even mainly by external incentives.“

Mr Pink lists several highly successful business people who are driven by intrinsics to achieve and even asks us to ponder whether the intrinsically-motivated Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey are any less economically successful than Jeff Skilling and Donald Trump (whom most would agree are Motivation 2.0 poster boys). 

What about the bankers?

Americans are stuck in Homo Oeconomicus (Economic Man) mode, instead of Homo Oeconomicus Maturus mode. We aspire to big bucks ourselves, so while there’s still a chance we can make the current system work for us, we’re loathe to reform it. I think this is why we  didn’t DEMAND taxpayer representation on the boards of the organizations we taxpayers saved from the ash heap in October 2008. That,  plus the fact that the moneyed class and the politicians they own have convinced us that we should fear big government more than big business (or perhaps anything else).

We’ve seen what extrinsically motivated bankers can do for society. I’m sure we can find some Homo Oeconomicus Maturus boards and managers out there — aren’t they the ones running credit unions?

Maybe Sir Richard Branson could bring “Virgin Money” to the US, too. The CEO (a woman!) says “Our aim is to make ‘everyone better off’ in the way we do business by offering good value to customers, treating employees well, making a positive contribution to society and delivering a growing profit to shareholders. Our approach to banking is founded on developing a sustainable, savings-based business.”

Finally, I’m not in a position to judge whether Lloyd Blankfein believed himself when he declared that his firm does “God’s work.” Stephen Colbert seems to have an answer to that question:

The Colbert Report	Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Goldman Sachs Does God’s Work
www.colbertnation.com

Because You Can’t Spell Gold without G-O-D

In our current frenzy for certainty in an uncertain world, gold is back in the news. Time for a little context on the current gold rush, starting with a tale from antiquity:

A man who wanted riches dutifully installed a money god in his home altar. He prayed to it for hours every day. His knees ached and his forehead bore a bruise from his repeated prostrations.  He persisted in the fanatical belief that he was on the true path to prosperity despite the daily worsening of his situation.  One day he flew into a rage with the god for all the time he’d wasted, picked up the little clay god and smashed it on the altar board, revealing a cache of gold coins.

The moral? I’ve heard a few including:

• We must slay our conceptions to achieve a breakthrough
• Praying for money brings us to rage and despair
• Money can be hidden in plain sight
• Go deep inside religion/a spiritual path to find true prosperity

The Wizard of Oz: an American tale of gold?

The last time I gave gold any thought was business school ten years ago when my micro-economics prof told us that some people considered The Wizard of Oz to be an allegorical story about America and the gold standard.  BBC News summed up this story, reminding us that Judy Garland’s ruby slippers were a departure from the silver slippers of Baum’s original tale, which some believe represented the promise of a dual gold-silver standard.

Baum published the book in 1900, just after the US emerged from a period of deflation and depression. Prices had fallen by about 22% over the previous 16 years, causing huge debt.

Farmers were among those badly affected, and the Populist political party was set up to represent their interests and those of industrial labourers.

The US was then operating on the gold standard – a monetary system which valued the dollar according to the quantity of gold. The Populists wanted silver, along with gold, to be used for money. This would have increased the US money supply, raised price levels and reduced farmers’ debt burdens.

CHARACTER SYMBOLISM

Dorothy: Everyman American

Scarecrow: Farmer

Tin Woodman: Industrial worker

Lion: William Jennings Bryan, politician who backed silver cause

Wizard of Oz: US presidents of late 19th Century

Wicked Witch: A malign Nature, destroyed by the farmers’ most precious commodity, water. Or simply the American West

Winged Monkeys: Native Americans or Chinese railroad workers, exploited by West

Oz: An abbreviation of ‘ounce’ or, as Baum claimed, taken from the O-Z of a filing cabinet?

Emerald City: Greenback paper money, exposed as fraud

Munchkins: Ordinary citizens

A post-Depression history of gold prices

With a new gold rush in the news I wanted some historical context, which I plucked selectively from USAGold.

April 5, 1933: President Roosevelt, acting under the sweeping authority passed to him by Congress on March 9, invoked his authority to make it unlawful to own or hold gold coins, gold bullion, or gold certificates. The export of Gold for purposes of payment was also outlawed, except under license from the Treasury.

January 31, 1934: President Roosevelt fixed the weight of the Dollar at 15.715 grains of Gold “nine-tenths fine”. The Dollar was thereby devalued from $20.67 to one troy ounce of Gold to $35.00 to one troy ounce of Gold – or 40.94%. The Treasury, which had become the possessors of all the nation’s Gold on the previous day, saw the value of their Gold holdings increase by $US 2.81 Billion. The Treasury now “owned” the Gold, and no one else inside the U.S. was allowed to own any Gold except by the express permission of the Treasury.

Bretton Woods in July 1944: The new ratio of $US 35 was adopted and the U.S. Dollar was made the world’s Reserve Currency.  The now international ratio of 35 U.S. Dollars to one troy ounce of Gold lasted until August 15, 1971.

January 1961: Shortly after President Kennedy was Inaugurated and  newly-appointed Undersecretary of the Treasury Robert Roosa suggested that the U.S. and Europe should pool their Gold resources to prevent the private market price of Gold from exceeding the mandated rate of $US 35 per ounce. Acting on this suggestion, the Central Banks of the U.S., Britain, West Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg set up the “London Gold Pool” in early 1961.

The Pool came unstuck when the French, under Charles de Gaulle, reneged and began to send the Dollars earned by exporting to the U.S. back and demanding Gold rather than Treasury debt paper in return. Under the terms of the Bretton Woods Agreement signed in 1944, France was legally entitled to do this. The drain on U.S. Gold became acute, and the London Gold Pool folded in spring of 1968.

January 1975: After 42 years, it again became “legal” for individual Americans to own Gold. Anticipating the demand, the U.S. Treasury in particular and many other Central Banks sold large quantities of Gold, taking large paper profits in the process.

July 1979: Paul Volcker was appointed as Fed Chairman while  gold continued to surge, hitting $400 in October. While this was happening, Mr Volcker was attending a conference in Belgrade. There the assessment was made that the global financial system was on the verge of collapse. When Mr Volcker returned to the U.S. from Belgrade, he took a momentous step. He announced that the Fed was swiching its policy from controlling interest rates to controlling the money supply.

I worked at a jewelry store in 1980 and learned how to spot-price our gold merchandise because it was a waste of time to affix labels to the inventory.  U.S. interest rates skyrocketed. As they rose, the dollar first slowed it’s descent, then stopped falling, and then began to rise. Both the public and the investment community which had stampeded into Gold was lured back into paper by this huge rise in interest rates – and by the prospect of a higher U.S. Dollar. The threat of financial meltdown was averted, but at a cost. The U.S. Prime rate hit 20% in April 1980 and stayed there (with a brief dive in mid-1980) until the end of 1981. There was a rush out of Gold and back to Dollars.

Once interest rates began to come down, in early/mid 1982, the choice of where to put the Dollars faced investors once more. The initial solution was just as it had been in the 1970s. The Dow took off – rising from 776 to almost 1100 between mid August 1982 and late January 1983. Gold fell $105 in the last four trading days of February 1983. As it fell, the Dow broke above the 1100 point level for the first time. The long bull market in stocks, and the long stagnation of Gold, had begun.

Post-meltdown gold rush

Fast forward to 2010 with stories about home parties where a jeweler brings in scales to buy party goers’ jewelery.  What gives? As investor Jim Gobetz said to me, “Gold is traditionally (at least in the age of fiat currencies) a hedge against inflation.” Problem is, in certain circles, the fear mongering is unavoidable, deafening and self-serving.  Take Glenn Beck’s hucksterism, as exposed on The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Beck – Not So Mellow Gold
www.thedailyshow.com

If you prefer something more buttoned down, PBS’s NewsHour did a thorough job examining the current gold rush.

Gold as a sure thing

Gold investor Bob Chapman recently said “Gold and silver are the only real way to protect against financial calamity and offer possibilities for profit simultaneously.”

Really? If so, why are gold promoters letting the rest of us in on the security? Because they want to sell us something and make money on our insecurities. If gold really offered true protection, guys like Beck and Chapman would be hoarding — not promoting.

In The Secret Life of Money, I learned a lot about the history of money, including its many forms, from seashells and porpoise teeth to tobacco and beaver skins, to, of course, gold.  Author Tad Crawford tells stories of how belief in the value of something transcends rationality, and sometimes, practicality.

For example, the Yap people of Micronesia used giant limestone discs for currency.  These discs were so difficult to transport that eventually people left them in place with the communal understanding of who truly possessed the “wealth.”  So isn’t gold similarly “accepted” as valuable despite its impracticalities as a currency?  Do we really expect to carry bullion around? And do we want to carry a beaker of acid with us every day to test the purity of coins and bullion exchanged for goods and services? If we all believe gold is the only ultimate thing with intrinsic and everlasting value, then it is. It’s our belief that matters.

Crawford’s book discusses at great length the connection between money and the divine, from the ancients who minted coins with faces of divinities (see Juno Moneta at the top of the post) to the practice of stamping “In God We Trust” on American currencies since 1864.  ”If the phrase means nothing, perhaps we should put ‘In the Federal Reserve We Trust’…In times of recession and depression, this slogan offers a way to understand why money fails us. Money, although a secular tool, requires our belief in the richness of a divine power.”

I think times like these serve the purpose of reminding us of how uncertain life really is. We middle-class Americans thought we’d somehow transcended subsistence issues like food and shelter, but the meltdown has driven record numbers of Americans onto food stamps and out of their homes. We thrash about for something certain and land on gold — the modern analog of a Micronesian Yap’s limestone.

Security is a head game — as JM Keynes reminded us, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”

Weighing in on the gold rush with some spiritual advice is Baha’u'llah, the Prophet-Founder of the Baha’i Faith:

Busy not thyself with this world, for with fire We test the gold, and with gold We test Our servants.

Private Equity and the Next Credit Crisis

My September Book Lust column included a preview of Josh Kosman’s book, The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Will Cause the Next Great Credit Crisis, which was released this month.

Monday I heard Kosman interviewed by Fresh Air’s Terry Gross (on NPR affiliates everywhere).

FASCINATING STUFF, including:

• How interest tax deductibility allows private equity (PE)  firms to dodge about $70b in federal taxes
• Why you can’t buy a two-sided mattress any longer
• Why PE  likes the hospital industry (and what it could mean to you if your local provider is bought by PE)
• PE firms (including the companies they own) are the largest employers in the country; even larger than Walmart (by a mile)
• Four of eight former treasury secretaries now in PE.  John Snow (under G. W.  Bush) is now at Cerberus which finagled bailout funds for its company, GMAC, by turning it into a bank (even though it didn’t have capital reserve requirements of “real” banks)
• Buyouts are facilitated by Collateralized Loan Obligations  (CLOs), the private equity version of the mortgage industry’s Collaterelized Debt Obligations (CDOs)
• Returns to PE  investors are below that of the S&P 500

SCARY STUFF, including:

• The conservative Boston Consulting Group estimates that half the companies owned by PE will default on their loans or go into bankruptcy
• If these companies lay off half their employees (which is reasonable) another 1.9m people will be out of work, which will ripple through the economy in consumer spending, mortgage foreclosures and so forth
• The trillion in bad debt will freeze lending everywhere
• Of the current 11% corporate loan default rate, 50% has PE involvement. Tsunami of defaults has begun

Prescription

Kosman would like to eliminate interest tax deductibility for corporate takeovers. This would make LBOs unprofitable and end the industry.

Why is the end of private equity considered a good thing?  Don’t buyout firms improve companies? According to Kosman,  PE firms only put down about 20% of the purchase price, then use CLOs to fund the remaining 80%. The acquired company has to service the debt out of profits instead of spending that money on R&D and other capital expenditures. PE has a 4-5 year horizon on its exit, so they’re not running companies for the long haul.  Theoretically, everyone’s supposed to win with PE, but the record shows that few do.

The Obama administration is reportedly looking into this.  Paul Volker is charged with considering the whole tax code, including tax deductibility of interest for buyouts.

Writing Prompts for Blogs and Newsletters:

• Here’s your chance to defend PE, and the enabling triumvirate of i-bankers,  hedge funds and ratings agencies!
• Do you work for a pension fund that invested in CLOs? How will you assure participants that YOUR CLOs will perform in spite of the 11% corporate loan default rate Kosman cites?
• GMAC fired its CEO this week. Do you regret giving TARP money to this non-diversified auto lender-cum-bank?
• Do you have a better idea for recouping the estimated $70b in federal taxes lost to PE deals than dis-allowing interest deductibility? Are we in for a national value-added tax or sales tax?

Die Broke Blogger

Follow your bliss and the universe will open doors where there were only walls ~Joseph Campbell

This month I began blogging on small business and the meltdown on the Die Broke blog, part of the StockTwits network.  My focus is helping small business owners deal with creditors, the IRS, family members and their own inner demons.

What qualifies me for this assignment? Personal experience.

Since shuttering the industrial cleaning businesses in 2007 I’ve continued to deal with creditors (including friends and family), the IRS and a loss of face.  I’ve learned a great deal about financial law, pondered business ethics and done a lot of navel gazing.

It is by going down into the abyss that we recover the treasures of life. Where you stumble, there lies your treasure ~Joseph Campbell

I won’t chronicle the whole debacle here…it will unfold over time over on Die Broke. But I will say that my entrepreneurial “failure” freed me to pursue the writing career I was always told would never be mine.  How?  Janis Joplin’s raspy lyric explains it best: Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.

In 2008, with no money to invest in a different company, a dismal job market and absolute loathing of corporate America anyway, I gave myself permission to hang out my shingle as a business writer.

The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are ~ Joseph Campbell

Fortunately my husband still has a job. The best off-balance-sheet asset an entrepreneur has is someone who lets them bunk in rent free.  Thanks, Matt.

More Joseph Campbell bon mots:

• We must let go of the life we have planned, so as to accept the one that is waiting for us

• Your life is the fruit of your own doing. You have no one to blame but yourself

• I think the person who takes a job in order to live – that is to say, for the money – has turned himself into a slave

• Is the system going to flatten you out and deny you your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system to the attainment of human purposes?

• Opportunities to find deeper powers within ourselves come when life seems most challenging

• The big question is whether you are going to be able to say a hearty yes to your adventure

• The goal of life is to make your heartbeat match the beat of the universe, to match your nature with Nature

Dan Ariely 3 of 3: Trust and Healthcare Reform

In the first of this three-post series I offered a sound file of Dan talking about the limits of rationality when devising and regulating public services.

In the second, we explored how  Treasury’s un-trustworthiness dealing with TARP and the financial meltdown has led to social anxiety and depression.

While writing that second post it occurred to me if our elected and appointed officials been truthful and upfront in their dealings with $700b bailout, we’d already have a healthcare reform bill.

It also occurred to me that we hold public servants to a higher standard than CEOs of healthcare. When healthcare execs earn blood money by standing between us and our doctors, we shrug it off by saying “Hey, that’s just capitalism,” or “Oh well, cost of doing business,” but when our elected officials stand between us and our doctors we get nuts because that’s rationing.

What Ariely has to say about our beloved invisible hand of the market

In the updated version of Predictably Irrational, Ariely observes about his own profession:

Rational economics has always been the basis for setting up policies and designing our institutions. What’s wrong with that? Neoclassical economics is built on very strong assumptions that, over time, have become ‘established facts.’   Most famous among these are that all economic agents (consumers, companies, etc., are fully rational, and that the so-called invisible hand works to create market efficiency). To rational economists, these assumptions seem so basic, logical, and self-evident that they do not need any empirical scrutiny.

Building on these basic assumptions, rational economists make recommendations regarding the ideal way to design health insurance, retirement funds, and operating principles for financial institutions. This is, of course, the source of the basic belief in the wisdom of deregulation: if people always make the right decisions, and if the “invisible hand” and market forces always lead to efficiency, shouldn’t we just let go of any regulations and allow the financial markets to operate at their full potential?

On the other hand, scientists in fields ranging from chemistry to physics to psychology are trained to be suspicious of ‘established facts.’ In these fields, assumptions and theories are tested empirically and repeatedly. In testing them, scientists have learned over and over that many ideas accepted as true can end up being wrong; this is the natural progression of science. Accordingly, nearly all scientists have a stronger belief in data than in their own theories. If empirical observation is incompatible with a model, the model must be trashed or amended, even if it is conceptually beautiful, logically appealing, or mathematically convenient.

Unfortunately, such healthy scientific skepticism and empiricism have not yet taken hold in rational economics, where initial assumptions about human nature have solidified into dogma. Blind faith in human rationality and the forces of the market would not be so bad if they were limited to a few university professors and the students taking their classes. The real problem, however, is that economists have been very successful in convincing the world, including politicians, business people, and everyday Joes not only that economics has something important to say about how the world around us functions (which it does), but that economics is a sufficient explanation of everything around us (which it is not). In essence, the economic dogma is that once we take rational economics into account, nothing else is needed (emphasis added).

In sum, we trust theories more than facts.  No wonder we’re in such a quandry.

Dan Ariely 2of 3: Trust and the Meltdown

Last week I set the foundation for today’s installment, complete with a sound file of bestselling author Dan Ariely’s talk to our Business School Alliance in Charlotte. This post will make the most sense to those who read that first.

New insights on the meltdown

The 2nd edition of Ariely’s book,  Predictably Irrational, includes a full chapter on the 2008 meltdown.  In it, he emphasized trust (and the breach thereof), saying that no matter the long list of expensive “heroic measures” the central banks take, they’re unlikely to achieve the desired effect without taking measures to restore trust.” After all, trust is the foundation of paper money to start with.

“Imagine how different things would have looked if the banks and the government had understood the importance of trust from the get-go. Had that been the case, they would have worked harder to explain more clearly what went wrong and how the bailout would be used to clean up the mess. They would not have ignored the public’s sentiment; they would have used it for guidance. They would have included some trust-building elements in the bailout legislation itself thoughts about the subprime mortgage crisis for example, they could have guaranteed that every bank bailed out with taxpayers’ money would have to commit to transparency, limit top managers’ salaries, and eliminate conflicts of interest.”

Trust and “learned helplessness”

Ariely says outright that Paulson’s behavior told us clearly that no one really understood what was going on. “One question we might ask is whether the general (psychological) depression that followed might have been mitigated if Paulson had been able to explain what went wrong in the first place, what his proposed measures were going to achieve, why he changed his decision to buy toxic securities, and what his plan was for the rest of the bailout money.

“As it turns out, even some answers could have made a difference. All creatures (including humans) respond negatively in situations where things don’t seem to make sense. When the world gives us unpredictable punishments without rhyme or reason, and when we don’t have any explanation for what is happening, we become prone to something psychologists call ‘learned helplessness.’” In a nutshell, those who’ve learned helplessness simply stop trying to help themselves because they believe such attempts are futile.

He suggested we help ourselves by changing “the way we consume news, from passive receptivity to actively thinking about the information and trying to make sense out of it.”

Amen to that. My prescription?  More NPR and NewsHour; complete abstinence from Fox(so-called) News.

Coming in part 3 of 3: How lack of trust in financial meltdown affected healthcare reform

Writing prompts for bloggers & newsletter writers

• I wrote a post with writing prompts in May based on The Atlantic’s Article “Why I Fired My Broker.”  I quoted Seth Klarman saying “The average person can’t really trust anybody. They can’t trust a broker, because the broker is interested in churning commissions. They can’t trust a mutual fund, because the mutual fund is interested in gathering a lot of assets and keeping them.  And now it’s even worse because even the most sophisticated people have no idea what’s going on.”  What steps is your firm (or are you) taking to communicate to your clients that you are trustworthy?  That your processes are fail safe (or at least properly audited)?
• Do you think more straight talk with your clients on your compensation will engender trust?  If you work for a broker or agency, why not tell your clients why you believe the comp structure you work under is fair to you and to them?
• In a post on compassion fatigue and shared trauma by financial advisors we discovered how and why advisors avoid client contact.  Ariely points out the need for trustbuilding, which can only happen with increased contact.  What steps have you seen advisors take (or have you taken) to step up client communications? Can you point your clients to more trusted information portals?

Dan Ariely 1 of 3: Trust, Revenge & Financial Reform

Bestselling author Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at  Duke, made a special appearance in Charlotte for our Business School Alliance last week. Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, just went into a second edition and — holy cow– is still in hardcover. I’ll write about his visit in this and two other posts this week. Here’s what’s in the new edition:

1.  A New Intro: Why the recent events in the economy make behavioral economics more important than ever before

2.  Reactions and Anecdotes: Expanding on some of the lessons we learned in the earlier chapters with interesting new stories and some more science

3.  Thoughts about the Subprime Mortgage Crisis and Its Consequences: A more in-depth look at how irrationalities played a role in the recent Subprime Mortgage Crisis, along with some of his thoughts on how we can fix those problems

Part One: we trust and seek revenge irrationally

Cliff’s notes: Ariely demonstrates that people aren’t always “selfish economic maximizers.” We will trust when we are rationally unwise to do so.  He also points out that we are, irrationally, “very happy to spend lots of money to make others suffer,”  joking that if you’ve any experience with divorce you’ll understand what he’s talking about. He explained the social utility of revenge in situations where lawlessness prevails.

Interesting factoid: PET scans of brains plotting revenge are quite similar to those experiencing pleasure.

I particularly like the novel way he approaches financial and healthcare reform.  He reminds us that roads and highways have wider lanes than a vehicle width, they have shoulders where people aren’t supposed to drive, they have protective medians and speed limits — none of which a “rational economist” would allow for.  Conclusion: when we devised our transportation system, we allowed that drivers would need room to make mistakes (or get out of the way of others who do).  We should plan ahead for “mistakes” in financial and healthcare reform efforts as well.

I had the foresight to bring my digital recorder, so enjoy what Dan has to say (click the link to play inside this window or download).

Trust-Revenge-Financial Reform

Writing prompts for bloggers & newsletter writers

• This is a time of great mistrust and financial churn. Perhaps you have either benefited professionally or been mistaken for a miscreant (or both). It’s not all in your control, is it? Do you have any anecdotes on how people irrationally trusted you or another advisor?  What about anecdotes where someone wrongly thought you had treated them badly and sought revenge? Does this make more sense now that you’ve heard Dan’s talk? You might offer some straight talk to your clients and prospects on this topic.
• Dan talked about AIG employees being harassed in public after the bailout. Can you relate any episodes of client anger that you handled particularly well or poorly? What lessons did such an episode teach you about yourself? Your profession? Human nature?
• If you’re an advisor, can you see yourself making use of the mango story when dealing with marriage or business partners who are dissolving their relationship? Or perhaps the Dr. Strangelove metaphor works better?
• What do you make of the parallel between how a “rational economist” would design a highway system and how we should revamp our healthcare system or re-regulate our financial system?

Dwight’s Death

Dwight was new to my small business, but had worked for a similar company doing the kind of work we did and he was good at it.  He’d been with me about a month when he asked for an aspirin to suck on.  He had a bad tooth and his dental appointment, at a public clinic for the poor and un-insured, was weeks away.  Unlike many of his co-workers, Dwight’s tooth didn’t get in the way of a good day’s work.

I nearly fell down that Sunday afternoon when his young daughter called my cell phone to tell me that Dwight had died. I was buying some tools and supplies for the next week’s work and probably made a scene on the floor of the hardware store when I burst into tears and repeatedly screeched “What?  How?”

Officially, we’ll never know the answer since the family couldn’t afford an autopsy.  We all speculate that the tooth was worse than Dwight had let on and that it had poisoned his bloodstream and led to organ failure — a condition called sepsis.  According to estimates by the University of Rochester Medical Center 750,000 cases of severe sepsis occur each year, more than congestive heart failure, or breast cancer, colon cancer and AIDS combined. It begins with an infection that triggers an inflammation response throughout a person’s entire body. This whole-body response to infection – termed sepsis – produces changes in temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, white blood cell count, and lung function. Half of all people diagnosed with sepsis will die.

At that point in time I could afford to offer my employees medical insurance but Dwight hadn’t passed the 90-day waiting period.  Truth is I don’t know if he could have passed the medical questionnaire required to qualify for coverage.

Since employee life insurance was bundled with medical, his family had to postpone his funeral twice while they raised money to bury him.  Everything I had (and then some) was already in the business or I’d have written the check myself.

Seeing both sides of the fence

Health care reform gets very personal to me as a result of being a small business owner who used to be an insurance company executive.  I have a view from both sides of the fence.

Dwight’s story tells the personal side. From the insurance side, I remind readers that the American courts have decided a corporation’s primary LEGAL responsibility is to its shareholders, therefore insurance companies must put their profit motive first — before quality of care, before anything. Regulations are in place to mitigate this profit motive, but they’re just speed bumps.

Blood money

We set private insurers in the business of earning “money gotten at the expense of others’ lives or suffering,” which is blood money by definition.  We Americans do this because we worship the market.  We don’t have a healthcare system in this country, we have a market for it.

Author Thomas Frank’s book One Market Under God walks us through the development of our cultural ethos that says we must leave everything to the markets. The mantra “Markets are good, government is bad” is why we’re in this healthcare jam.  After all, markets are interested in profits and profits only; service, quality and general affluence are different functions altogether.

According to Frank, here’s what Americans have come to believe: “You must liquidate the past; you must privatize, deregulate, and de-unionize; you must trust the market implicitly and allow the market to dictate every aspect of your existence. Only when you commit yourself fully, when you give it all to the market, will your voice be heard; only then will the little guy be empowered.”

He then reminds us what happens when the markets rule: “The market will give you a voice, empower you to do whatever you want to do – and if you have any doubts about that, then the market will crush you and everything you’ve ever known.”  Didn’t Lehman Brothers a year ago illustrate that?

In last year’s PBS Frontline special Sick Around The World, journalist TR Reid walked through how parts of the US healthcare “market” resemble the “systems” of other countries:

• VeteransAdministration = British NHS
• Medicare = Taiwanese system
• Employed people with workplace insurance = German system
• Any poor country = Americans not covered in one of the above

Limits on the magic of markets

If the crash of 2008 taught us anything it’s that we don’t REALLY trust markets.  If we did we wouldn’t have bailed anyone out and fallen into a Depression that would have made the 1930’s look downright prosperous.

Time to carve out an exception to the wisdom of the markets in this healthcare debate.  The market is just a market, not an omniscient, benevolent diety, and certainly not a responsible government guided by a collective conscience.

Next Page »