Want to scan your crypto wallet for risks? Check: AML crypto BTC, USDT, ETH. Checking cryptocurrency wallets for dirty money.

Bad News Mounts for Massey

It seems Massey Energy Co., the owner of the West Virginia mine where 25 people died in an explosion, made one bad decision after another in the time leading up to last week’s tragic event.

First, the company opted out of buying a little something called insurance — more specifically, business interruption insurance. Massey’s annual report acknowledged that its operations are subject to certain conditions and risks that may cause an interruption in operations, but that they “do not currently carry business interruption insurance.” The company must now deal with lost production (the mine is still closed) and the enormous workers compensation liability hanging over its head, not to mention the lawsuits Massey is sure to face. These glaring troubles have caused the company’s stock price to slip from its 52-week high of $54.80 on April 5th to this morning’s share price of $47.33, a 13.6% decrease.

Second are the decisions made by Don Blankenship, Massey’s CEO. His greed, hatred of regulators and unions, and mocking of environmentalists have been heavily broadcast throughout the media since the deadly April 5 event. The Kansas City Star ran a scathing editorial on the coal czar, highlighting the numerous fines levied on Blankenship’s various mines, his successful ousting of a West Virginia state Supreme Court Judge (which eventually saved Massey from a $50 million jury verdict) and his constant concern for profit over safety.

In the world of coal mines, Massey had a below average safety record, to put it nicely.

As the New York Times stated Tuesday:

J. Davitt McAteer, a former assistant director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, said the Massey company “is certainly one of the worst in the industry” when it came to safety and called recent violations at the mine for substandard ventilation and other problems “cardinal sins.” “The Massey record is without doubt one of the most difficult in the industry from a safety standpoint,” Mr. McAteer, now the vice president of Wheeling Jesuit University, said in an interview. He said other large, diversified coal operators had far better safety records than Massey.

That same article reports that, in 2009, the mine registered an unfathomable 458 violations, many of them regarding safety requirements. But for Blankenship, safety came last, profit came first, as noted in the Massey CEO’s now-infamous memo to his deep mine superintendents.

It states:

If you have been asked by your group presidents, supervisors, engineers, to do anything else other than to run coal (i.e. – build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the coal pays the bills.

The running of coal does pay the bills, but only when you operate a mine safe enough to keep workers alive. The “overcasts” that he refers to are necessary for proper mine ventilation.

The families and friends of the victims are rightfully pissed off at Mr. Blankenship. When he arrived at the mine to announce the death toll to those gathered there, shouting ensued — blaming the Massey CEO for caring more about profits than miners’ lives. Don Blankenship, in his efforts to increase profits at all costs, has instead almost halted his company’s revenue stream and severely scarred its reputation along with his own.

Was it worth it, Don?

coal miner

J. Davitt McAteer, a former assistant director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, said the Massey company “is certainly one of the worst in the industry” when it came to safety and called recent violations at the mine for substandard ventilation and other problems “cardinal sins.”
“The Massey record is without doubt one of the most difficult in the industry from a safety standpoint,” Mr. McAteer, now the vice president of Wheeling Jesuit University, said in an interview. He said other large, diversified coal operators had far better safety records than Massey.

Prioritizing profits over safety at Massey may have led to tragedy.

Greenwich Associates Names Top Insurance Brokers

Greenwich Associates, an international research-based consulting firm, has named the winners of its 2009 Greenwich Excellence Awards for Middle Market Insurance Brokerage. More than 9,000 companies with annual sales between $10 and $500 million were asked to name the insurance brokers and carrier they use and to rate their levels of satisfaction with their providers. The results are as follows:

National Winners

  1. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
  2. BB&T Insurance Services
  3. USI Holdings Corp.
  4. Wells Fargo
  5. Willis Group

Regional Winners

Northeast

  1. Aon Corporation
  2. Brown & Brown Inc.
  3. First Niagra
  4. Marsh & McLennan
  5. USI Holdings Corp.
  6. Wells Fargo
  7. Willis Group

South

  1. Aon Corporation
  2. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
  3. BB&T Insurance Services
  4. Brown & Brown Inc.
  5. J. Smith Lanier & Co.
  6. Marsh & McLennan
  7. Wells Fargo
  8. Willis Group

Midwest

  1. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
  2. Wells Fargo
  3. Willis Group

West

  1. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
  2. Lockton Companies Inc.
  3. Marsh & McLennan
  4. USI Holdings Corp.
  5. Wells Fargo
  6. Willis Group

The full list includes honorable mentions and carriers cited for broker-type servicing efforts. David Fox, a Greenwich Associates consultant, says that the award-winning brokers “have been cited by their corporate clients for their superior service in helping companies identify risks, create solutions for managing these risks and implement cost-effective coverage.”

After Record Fine, Toyota Extends Car Discounts. But Will It Continue to Drive Sales?

toyota recalls

For risk managers and others looking at the Toyota recalls as an ongoing lesson in corporate crisis response, seeing the daily headlines about the automaker’s woes is — both figuratively and literally — like watching a car crash.

Sure, in some ways, Toyota has handled the situation adequately, and its rebounding stock price and recent sales suggest that the immediate damage could have been worse. Then again, the company dragged its feet in addressing safety concerns publicly, and all the fines, recalls, class-action lawsuits, Congressional hearings and public scorn suggest that the long-term reputational damage could very well be lasting. This isn’t something that consumers will ever forget.

Especially not now.

Because on Monday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hit Toyota with a record $16.4 million fine, which is more than an order of magnitude larger than the watchdog’s previous highest penalty, a $1 million slap on the wrist to GM for faulty windshield wipers. The $16.4 million figure is also the largest allowed under civil law, according to NHTSA.

Said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood:

“We now have proof that Toyota failed to live up to its legal obligations,” said Secretary LaHood. “Worse yet, they knowingly hid a dangerous defect for months from U.S. officials and did not take action to protect millions of drivers and their families. For those reasons, we are seeking the maximum penalty possible under current laws.”

On Forbes.com, Ned Douthat advises Toyota to just pay the fine rather than try to fight the regulator’s decision.

Now, Toyota is faced with the choice of contesting the fine in court or simply paying the fine in order to get the episode behind in.  In comparison to the potentially lengthy and expensive legal battle, the nominal $16.4 million fine may be an attractive option.  However, in paying the fine the prestige of the Toyota brand may be forever damaged, as they would be admitting fault in hiding a very serious safety issue in their vehicles and thus endangering millions of drivers.  The number of incidences of stuck accelerators is still relatively small, but the recalls have affected some 8.5 million vehicles.  Furthermore, if Toyota admits fault and accepts this fine, it may open the litigation flood gates to hundreds of class action and personal injury lawsuits related to the stuck accelerator issue.

Amanda Bronstod of Law.com delves deeper into the idea that accepting the fine as handed down will be troublesome for Toyota, as it factually “validates the legitimacy of our allegations that Toyota has been misleading the federal government and consumers.”

With that damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t decision looming, Toyota also announced on Tuesday that it would extend its sales discount program. The program was successful in March and finally gave the company some positive headlines, but at least one industry expert seems skeptical that even this price-cutting measure will continue to push vehicles under the once-impeccable-but-now-tainted Toyota banner.

Last month’s incentive program helped Toyota “scoop up bargain hunters and loyalists” to achieve a 41% gain in sales over March 2009, said James Bell, an analyst with auto information company Kelley Blue Book.

But the increase was not as robust as it might seem, as results were tempered by the low sales in the same month a year earlier, he said.

“The question now is how many of those bargain hunters and loyalists are left. You have a finite number of people in the auto market at any one time,” Bell said.

Historically, Toyota has been among the stingiest automakers when offering incentives, helped by its historically high resale values and a reputation for building reliable cars, he said.

Last week at the International Auto Show, a Toyota rep spoke on the situation, specifically noting his thoughts that “people don’t buy a car they don’t trust just because you give them a good price.”

We’ll see, I guess.

For more on the risk management angle of the Toyota troubles, check out our past coverage. Morgan also covered “Toyota’s Total Recall” in the April issue of Risk Management.

Do the Risks of Cloud Computing Outweigh Benefits?

cloud computing

The idea of cloud computing, or internet-based computing, has become very popular over the past few years with its innovative cost benefits and efficiency. And as more organizations look to switch from company-owned hardware to per-use service-based models, the benefits of cloud computing have been touted over and over again. But what about the risks?

Well, according to The Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA), many feel the risks of such computing outweigh the benefits. In fact, 45% of those surveyed in ISACA’s first annual IT Risk/Reward Barometer survey feel that way. In addition:

The IT Risk/Reward Barometer found that only 10% of respondents’ organizations plan to use cloud computing for mission-critical IT services and one in four (26%) do not plan to use it for any IT services.

Consistent with this attitude is the appetite for overall IT-related risk in 2010. In the face of continued economic uncertainty and despite the potential to drive greater rewards, more than three-quarters of those surveyed believe that projects should offer the same or lower level of risk in 2010. Similarly, 79% will invest the same amount or only slightly more in risk management and compliance in 2010.

“The cloud represents a major change in how computing resources will be utilized, so it’s not surprising that IT professionals have concerns about risk vs. reward trade-offs,” says Robert Stroud, international vice president of ISACA and vice president of IT service management and governance for the service management business unit at CA Inc. “But risk and value are two sides of the same coin. If cloud computing is treated as a major governance initiative involving a broad set of stakeholders, it has the potential to yield benefits that can equal or outweigh the risks.”

The survey also revealed organizations’ attitudes and behaviors related to IT risk management. According to the IT professionals questioned, only 22% of organizations are very effective at integrating IT risk management with their overall business risk management. And, as usual, every organization employs people who further contribute to the company’s IT risks. The Barometer found that the top three high-risk ways in which employees contribute to risky business are:

  • Not protecting confidential work data appropriately (50%)
  • Not fully understanding IT policies (33%)
  • Using non-approved software or online services for their work (32%)

“Many employees are working around controls and using non-approved devices and programs so they have the tools they need to do their jobs,” said John Pironti, member of ISACA’s Certification Committee and president of IP Architects LLC. “Instead of prohibiting certain technologies, organizations should try to learn why their employees feel they need these technologies and train employees to use them safely.”

As with anything, proper training is essential to reducing inherent risks. As the popularity of cloud computing grows, organizations will be forced to step up their employee training while more responsiblity will be placed on IT professionals. Is it all worth it? Is cloud computing worth the risk?

Picture 8

Consistent with this attitude is the appetite for overall IT-related risk in 2010. In the face of continued economic uncertainty and despite the potential to drive greater rewards, more than three-quarters of those surveyed believe that projects should offer the same or lower level of risk in 2010. Similarly, 79 percent will invest the same amount or only slightly more in risk management and compliance in 2010.