Category Archives: Reputation Risk

Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

AIG: A Timeline to the End of the SEC Probe

Posted on by

It had to happen sometime. This morning it was announced that U.S. regulators have closed an investigation of AIG and some of its executives over the insurance giant’s near collapse that led to a $182 billion government bailout.

Let’s take a look at the timeline of many of the events surrounding the AIG disaster (with help from ProPublica, the New York Fed and Bloomberg).

  • August 5, 2007: During a conference call with investors, various high-ranking AIG officials stressed the near-absolute security of the credit-default swaps. “The risk actually undertaken is very modest and remote,” said AIG’s chief risk officer. Joseph Cassano, who oversaw the unit that dealt in the swaps, was even more emphatic: “It is hard for us with, and without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing $1 in any of those transactions…. We see no issues at all emerging. We see no dollar of loss associated with any of that business.” Martin Sullivan, AIG’s CEO, replied, “That’s why I am sleeping a little bit easier at night.”
    .
  • October 1, 2007: Joseph St. Denis, the VP of Accounting Policy at AIG Financial Products, resigns after Cassano tells him, “I have deliberately excluded you from the valuation of the [credit-default swaps] because I was concerned that you would pollute the process.”
    .
  • November 7, 2007: In an SEC filing, AIG reports $352 million  in unrealized losses from its credit-default swap portfolio, but says it’s “highly unlikely” AIG would really lose any money on the deals.
    .
  • December 5, 2007: In an SEC filing, AIG discloses $1.05 billion to $1.15 billion in further unrealized losses to its swaps portfolio, a total of approximately $1.5 billion for 2007. During a conference call with investors, CEO Martin Sullivan explains that the probability that AIG’s credit-default swap portfolio will sustain an “economic loss” is “close to zero.” AIG’s risk-modeling system had proven “very reliable,” Sullivan said, and since the transactions were so “conservatively structured,” AIG had “a very high level of comfort” with its risk models.
    .
  • February 28, 2008: In its year-end regulatory filing, AIG sets its 2007 total for unrealized losses at $11.5 billion. AIG also discloses that it had thus far posted $5.3 billion in collateral. It’s the first time the company has disclosed the amount of posted collateral. AIG puts the notional value of the entire swaps portfolio at $527 billion. But as we said above, about $61 billion of the swaps had exposure to subprime mortgages. AIG also announces that Joe Cassano, the chief of the unit that dealt in the swaps, has resigned. What AIG doesn’t disclose is that he’s kept on under a $1 million per month consulting contract.
    .
  • August 6, 2008: In its second quarter filing, AIG ups its unrealized loss in 2008 from the credit-default swaps to $14.7 billion, for a grand total loss of $26.2 billion. It also discloses another impressive number: It’s posted a total of $16.5 billion in collateral.
    .
  • September 16, 2008: The Federal Reserve Board saves AIG by pledging $85 billion [11]. As part of the deal, the government gets a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG.
    .
  • October 8, 2008: The Fed pledges another $37.8 billion to AIG.
    .
  • November 10, 2008: Board of Governors and Treasury announce the restructuring of the government’s financial support to AIG. The restructuring includes a Treasury purchase of AIG preferred shares through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), reduction of $85 billion revolving credit line to $60 billion and the creation of two limited liability companies (LLCs) to lend against AIG’s residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
    .
  • March 15, 2009: AIG, under pressure from regulators, releases a statement that discloses the names of its counterparties, which includes banks such as Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank AG. The counterparties received about $50 billion in forfeited collateral postings and Maiden Lane III payments since the Sept. 16, 2008, rescue, the statement says. The statement lists a sum of payments to each bank. It doesn’t identify the securities tied to the swaps or list the value of individual purchases by the banks.
    .
  • March 18, 2009: AIG Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy testifies before House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
    .
  • March 24, 2009: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and New York Fed President William C. Dudley testify before House Committee on Financial Services.
    .
  • May 7, 2009: AIG reports first quarter 2009 earnings. (Risk Management Monitor coverage)
    .
  • May 21, 2009: Edward Liddy leaves AIG after eight grueling months acting as chairman and CEO with no pay. (Risk Management monitor coverage)
    .
  • December 13, 2009: Eli Lehrer writes an editorial entitled “Kill AIG Now.” (Read Risk Management Monitor’s reaction to the piece, plus an in-depth comment from Lehrer himself)
    .
  • Jan. 7, 2010: Bloomberg reports that e-mails obtained by Representative Darrell Issa show the New York Fed pressed AIG to withhold details from the public about the insurer’s payments to banks.
    .
  • March 1, 2010: AIG agrees to sell its subsidiary American International Assurance Company Ltd. (AIA) to Prudential Financial, Inc. for approximately $35.5 billion.
    .
  • March 8, 2010: AIG agrees to sell its subsidiary American Life Insurance Company (ALICO) to MetLife, Inc. for approximately $15.5 billion.
    .
  • June 10, 2010: A Congressional watchdog criticized nearly every move the Fed has made during the AIG fiasco. “The government’s actions in rescuing AIG continue to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace,” said the congressional oversight panel led by Harvard University law professor Elizabeth Warren.
    .
  • June 17, 2010: The SEC ends its probe of AIG and its executives.

No charges were ever filed against AIG or its executives, and since the Justice Department’s probe ended and May and the SEC’s probe ended today, no charges will likely ever be filed.

[poll id=”7″]

Sustainability — Managing a Major Business Risk

Posted on by

sustainability

True, businesses need to make money to stay afloat in the competitive business world. But in this modern marketplace, companies are increasingly focusing on remaining profitable while incorporating sustainability. With evidence that business activities are influencing climate change and companies are depleting the earth’s resources at an alarming rate, environmental risks have become business risks.

Marsh recently released a white paper entitled, “Sustainability – Managing Your Risk” that addresses the risks companies face in trying to manage one of the newest business risks. First, the report stresses companies to look for tangible evidence that their own suppliers have signed up to a sustainability code, saying that not only should your company become sustainable, but your company’s supply chain as well.

With legislation passing, companies are realizing their operations may not be considered environmentally friendly. As an example, the European Union enacted the Environmental Liability Directive, meaning that businesses must now ensure that they do not cause damage to water, land or biodiversity.

But many companies believe “going green” is more costly. Though that may be true in the near-term for some instances, the long-term return is proof that green is good.

“There is evidence that changing business practices to a more sustainable model can reap financial rewards. The Fairtrade movement is an example where consumers are willing to pay higher prices to be reassured about how the products have been produced.”

Among the sustainability issues for businesses and society is water (we ran an in-depth feature on this topic in the June 2009 issue). Water-intensive companies (think Coca-Cola, Nestle, Texas Instruments) are now assessing the risk they pose to the areas in which they operate. In fact, the Carbon Disclosure Project is now asking the world’s biggest companies for the first time to disclose how much water they use. And this is no tree-hugging initiative — major investors “with trillions of dollars in assets have backed this call for such information.”

In today’s business world, people’s view of a company is not based simply on what it does, but how the company does it. As Marsh says:

“With the increasing pressure on depleted natural resources and a greater level of scrutiny concerning environmental performance from policymakers and investors, it makes more sense than ever to fully understand the impact that a business is having on the environment and to make changes to business process that are seen to be having a deleterious effect on the environment and society.”

Lagging behind on the issue of sustainability within business operations will eventually mean lagging behind the competition.

BP Mismanages a Coffee Spill and the Best of @BPGlobalPR

Posted on by

Not surprisingly, the whole world pretty much hates BP now. And more and more people are lashing out against the oil conglomerate with attacks. Some are vicious advocacy campaigns that include pocket-hurting measures like boycotts. Others are vicious satirical jabs at a company whose reputation is being destroyed, piece by piece, day by day.

Here is the funniest attack I’ve seen. From the Upright Citizens Brigade, it’s a spoof of how BP would try to handle a boardroom coffee spill. (There is one instance of NSFW language at the end.)

Good stuff.

And coming in at a close second is the fake BP public relations Twitter feed. If you’re not familiar, many companies use the social media site Twitter to inform the public of their latest news and offerings. And someone has created a satirical @BPGlobalPR account that sends out frequent humorous updates laced with acerbic cynicism for how BP is handling this mess. Often accompanied by the sarcastic “#bpcares” disclaimer, the account advocates charity causes such as offering “free bpcares” t-shirts that you can purchase for $25. (You can read more about @BPGlobalPR here and here.)

Here are the cleverest updates from the account so far:

SPOILER ALERT: The leak stops eventually, everyone forgets about it and we all buy another vacation home. #cantwait

Found driftwood that looks like Jesus crying oil. Not sure what it means but we’re charging 20 bucks to see it. #bpcares

If we’re being accused of being criminals, we want to be tried by a jury of our peers — wealthy execs who don’t give a damn. #fairisfair

I’ve gotta say, at night the gulf really doesn’t look that bad. #bpcares

OMG This isss ridciulsus. playing a drinking gamee where we drink a shot everytme we seeee an oily birdddd!!! LOL! so wasted!!11 #pbcares

What a gorgeous day! The ocean is filled with the most beautiful rainbows! #yourewelcome #bpcares

They want to fine us $4,300 for every barrel of oil spilled? Umm, we’re not spilling barrels, the oil is going directly into the gulf. DUH

A bird just stole my sandwich! You deserve everything you get, nature!!! #bpcares

If Top Kill doesn’t work, we’re just gonna toss a giant “Get Well Soon” card into the gulf and hope for the best. #bpcares

Just wrapped up a meeting with the EPA. Terry kept farting out loud at all the right moments. Not sure how he does it, but it’s SO FUNNY!

Funny, no one has thanked us for seasons 3-15 of Treme yet. #bpcares

The good news: Mermaids are real. The bad news: They are now extinct. #bpcares

Catastrophe is a strong word, let’s all agree to call it a whoopsie daisy.

Beverly Hillbillies marathon on TBS – now THESE guys knew what to do with an oil leak!

Not only are we dropping a top hat on the oil spill, we’re going to throw in a cane and monocle as well. Keeping it classy.

Does Saying “I Was Wrong” Help Repair the Brand?

Posted on by

For several years now, reputation risk has been among the top threats listed by company executives when they are asked what keeps them up at night. There are several reasons for this. The emergence of 24-hour news, the internet and social media have created a world where corporate snafus that would have been merely a one-day story in the paper into an ongoing PR nightmare. Similarly, advocacy groups are now much more evolved and can launch coordinated campaigns to encourage public outrage. But most of all, most companies simply have no idea how to repair their image after it’s tarnished.

There is no insurance that can fix the problem and even where coverage is available to fund a “PR swat team” to come to the rescue, the short-term damage is already done, and the brand will always be tied to the negative press. In the long term, the reputation smear may prove survivable, but it sure never seems that way in the initial hours, days, weeks and sometimes even months and years following the calamity.

In recent years, the most oft-repeated mantra for avoiding irreparable harm to the brand is to “get out in front of the story.” Basically, after a mishap occurs, be honest, transparent and don’t let your CEO wake up to be blind-sided with an unwanted Wall Street Journal headline. Tell the public that something went wrong and that you’re now doing everything in your power to fix the situation.

That certainly makes sense, and recent examples of companies who were criticized for their delayed response include Toyota, Massey Energy and BP. The fact that all three companies seemed to bury their heads in the sand — for years — when it came to safety issues still would have come out, but the instant backlash perhaps could have been different if the companies took charge of the situation sooner — at least with Toyota anyway.

buy xenical online familyvoicesal.org/resources/images/jpg/xenical.html no prescription pharmacy

I’m not sure there is anything BP could have done differently in the first week or two that would have made people feel much differently about the oil giant than they do today.

But, in trying to be honest and transparent, should the company’s executives go so far as to say “I was wrong” and “I’m sorry”?

Logic says yes.

As journalist and author Kathryn Shultz pointed out today in a guest post on the New York Times‘ Freakonomics blog, however, those who have admitted the error of their ways have not always been greeted with forgiveness.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Earlier this year, former Assistant Education Secretary Diane Ravitch published The Death and Life of the Great American School System, which denounced a series of school reforms (including educational testing, school choice, charter schools, and No Child Left Behind) that she herself had advocated for years.  When I interviewed Ravitch for Slate, the comments section lit up with the familiar charges: “Why is Diane Ravitch Making a Bundle Saying She Was Wrong All Along?” “Wow! Thanks Diane! It’s only taken you ten years to see the blindingly obvious.” “We’re supposed to be impressed by her contrition?”

And that is the central question: what are we supposed to do about the sincere contrition of those who err?

Schultz, who just wrote a whole book on the topic that looks interesting but I have yet to read called Being Wrong, says that the answer is a lot easier in our personal lives than it is in the public sphere. In our private lives — with relatives, friends or colleagues — the answer is usually forgiveness. People make mistakes and, often, when they are willing to admit and own up to their errors, they should be granted at least some level of reprieve.

But that courtesy is rarely extended to public officials (which is who she is really speaking about here) or corporate representatives (which is who I believe this concept may also apply to)/

When our public officials make mistakes, the costs (which are often not borne directly by them) can be horrifying.

buy tobradex online familyvoicesal.org/resources/images/jpg/tobradex.html no prescription pharmacy

It seems reasonable to demand not just an acknowledgment of error but some effort at ameliorating the consequences.
buy cialis soft generic buy cialis soft no prescription

Sometimes, though, this is simply impossible.  No one can bring back the war dead; no one can unspill the oil; no one can compensate a child for twelve years of bad schooling. All that truly contrite leaders can do in such a situation is work off their public debt the best way they know how – and live with the torments of their own conscience.
buy clomiphene generic buy clomiphene no prescription

But are those torments real?  Many people doubt it, and therefore find the idea of forgiveness galling.  As one commenter observed after listening to a conversation about wrongness over at The Takeaway, “A lot of people’s admitting to being wrong is little more than a PR ploy.  Public apologies do not impress me.

buy hydroxychloroquine online familyvoicesal.org/resources/images/jpg/hydroxychloroquine.html no prescription pharmacy

”  In the acid bath of cynicism that is contemporary American politics, it is all but impossible for public figures to convincingly establish their sincerity.  And fair enough: sometimes, political changes of mind really are craven or self-interested or simply for show.  But sometimes, presumably, they are not.

When our public officials make mistakes, the costs (which are often not borne directly by them) can be horrifying. It seems reasonable to demand not just an acknowledgment of error but some effort at ameliorating the consequences.  Sometimes, though, this is simply impossible.  No one can bring back the war dead; no one can unspill the oil; no one can compensate a child for twelve years of bad schooling. All that truly contrite leaders can do in such a situation is work off their public debt the best way they know how – and live with the torments of their own conscience.

But are those torments real?  Many people doubt it, and therefore find the idea of forgiveness galling.  As one commenter observed after listening to a conversation about wrongness over at The Takeaway, “A lot of people’s admitting to being wrong is little more than a PR ploy.  Public apologies do not impress me.”  In the acid bath of cynicism that is contemporary American politics, it is all but impossible for public figures to convincingly establish their sincerity.  And fair enough: sometimes, political changes of mind really are craven or self-interested or simply for show.  But sometimes, presumably, they are not.

Ultimately, her short post doesn’t offer any concrete solutions. It certainly does present a good amount of evidence that, publicly, forgiveness — especially when the act leads to death or major destruction — is tough to come by. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara is cited as a prime example.

Regardless, I have to believe that, in this day and age, corporate honesty and admission of guilt will better resonate with the public than anything else. But the alternative perspectives raised here sure do lead us to one indisputable conclusion: executives are right to be concerned with reputation risk.