Regulation and Severe Personal Penalties Needed to Get Ethical Management

Many accountants believed that markets are efficient and as such, a lot of the issues of earnings management would be corrected by the markets. But this belief has changed over time, and we understand better now that earnings manipulation occurs and does indeed affect markets.

Prof Ramy Elitzur, University of Toronto

The case of Enron is famous. The scandal in 2009 at Satyam Computer Services was called India’s Enron. The bank collapses in the last few years are worse. Satyam’s chairman, Ramalinga Raju, admitted to years of systematic inflation of earnings and assets, beginning with small manipulations of account statements that eventually inflated hugely. Elitzur:

For a long time we’ve asked ourselves, “How come smart, rational people carry out short term schemes that in the long-term undoubtedly are going to sink them?”.

So why do corporate managers do it? Why do they lie about their companies’ earnings eventually damaging themselves and their company. Elitzur, who is Edward J Kernaghan Professor in Financial Analysis said:

The answer is “we’re not rational”. We’re rational only in a limited sense.

A limited capacity to see the whole picture, known as “bounded rationality”, and a faulty ethical compass are the main reasons. More important perhaps, and certainly as important, is why shareholders let them get away with it. Elitzur’s study finds shareholders are just as guilty as their CEOs. They have the same weaknesses. In particular their opportunities for insider trading—an illegal practice still—is linked to the CEO’s earnings manipulation.

Prof Elitzur says that it took a decade to develop his model and get it published partly because of corporate resistance to his findings.

The study model combines game theory—used to predict strategic behaviour—with the idea of bounded rationality, that our decisions are always made within bounds, within the limits of available time, information, and the human capacity to analyze it. Rather obviously, Elitzur says:

If we would like to have managers who engage less in earnings manipulation and insider trading, we should look for managers who are more ethical, and suffer less from bounded rationality.

What is less obvious, indeed counter-intuitive, but potentially vitally important is that Elitzur’s model suggests that choosing less ethical managers is not in the best interests of shareholders, unless they are sold on dishonesty. Penalizing unethical and damaging behaviour and anyone encouraging it is the atraightforward way of stopping it from happening. Some provisions are already in place in the US to guard against these tendencies, the authors conclude.

But the fresh regulation that is desperately needed in our business and banking sectors, at the very top ought to include severe penalties for such transgressions. Pleas of ignorance should not be an adequate defence, for ignorance at the top is then negligence and that too should be severely penalized. Perhaps in such cases of criminal negligence, the notion of limited liability should be dropped. Negligent CEOs ought to be liable for the damage they have caused.

Bonuses and Distribution of Wealth in the UK

UK society, like the US, is skewed horribly in favour of the rich and against the poor. Some 53 of the UK’s richest 1,000 are billionaires. The wealth of these 1000 people has increased from £98.99 billion in 1997 to £335.5 billion today. Over the past 12 months, they got richer by an incredible 29 per cent. Despite the worsening economic situation, this is the largest annual increase in the wealth of this rich minority. What these figures show is an increasingly unequal society that has enriched the already megarich at our expense. The amount of gross domestic product (GDP, annual national production) dedicated to wages and salaries has declined over the past three decades. There is no way that such a distribution of wealth can be said to favour the common good.

The injustice of wealth distribution is in need of urgent debate. Why is the argument for higher taxation on the highest earners continually rejected out of hand? If the country wants better services then they have to be paid for. It is not possible to have something for nothing. And those who earn the most—and usually have got most out of the system—should pay more tax. Justice should be applied to the economic system by restoring higher levels of tax on those most able to pay. If they want to leave the country, then the country can put an even higher tax on any wealth they propose to take with them? Then we can say good riddance to bad rubbish, and let our youth have the chances they are now being denied.

In 1976, wages and salaries accounted for 65.1 per cent of GDP, this had reduced to 52.6 per cent by 1996, a time when the wealth of the richest 1,000 increased threefold. But society took a fairer proportion of that wealth increase. Levels of taxation were far higher on the rich. Tax rates above 80 per cent on those earning the most were not uncommon. Society was more equal and cohesive as a result. Reagan’s pandering to the megarich demands for tax cutting spread to his lapbitch, Margaret Thatcher, then to Bush’s lapbitch, Tony Blair, leading to today’s gross inequality and unfairness, in imitation of the USA.

Top FTSE 100 chief executives earned 47 times median earnings in 2000 and 88 times in 2010. In the public sector the ratio is far lower, more like 12 to one. Even so, the top 1% of public officials earned an average of £120,000. Why does a senior executive need a financial incentive, when every other worker does not get them and makes do with an agree wage? Would executives refuse to work? Would a hospital director let people die if not awarded a bonus?

The Big Society is an austerity program. The coalition government cynically chants its slogan “we’re all in it together” in reducing the deficit. Yet the policy implemented cuts public services, freezes public sector workers pay, cuts jobs and reduces pension rights, while inviting billionaires from everywhere to live here untaxed! When we discover that 1,000 people in Britain now have over £300 million each, we should be seriously complaining that the entire cost of deficit reduction is falling on the poor 65 million of us. At present it is the poorest who continue to pay for the deficit while the megarich grow ever wealthier. This cannot be right.

It has been suggested that there would be no deficit at all, if the treasury recooped some of the wealth the rich have robbed us of in the last thirty of forty years. MP Austin Mitchell thinks this 1,000 people with the most wealth could yield 25 per cent of it for the sake of the economy upon which the rich depend for future wealth. It would clear £84 billion from the deficit. Another suggestion was that the top 1 percent of the richest people, about 650,000 in the UK, could give up 20 percent of their accumulated wealth, clearing the deficit all together. Note that these megarich people would still be megarich under either scheme. They would still have 75 to 80 percent of their amassed riches.

The proposals are all the more attractive because of the neglible tax that most of these people pay and have ever paid, through their use of corporate lawyers to exploit taxation loopholes, and simply defraud the exchequer. Strict taxation on the rich is a basic justice that should be implemented now. The complaint of ordinary middle class people in the late Roman empire was that their megarich paid no taxes, or simply increased rents to cover any they had to pay. Soon after, the western empire collapsed. The people preferred barbarians to their own rulers.

A recent government inquiry considered that there should be a maximum pay ratio of 20:1 between top and bottom. It was meant to be only in the public sector, but, if it was considered just, why not overall? It was a hostage to fortune even to suggest it, so it disappeared in the final report. Instead, it recommended bonuses as being fair! CEOs should have a marginal element of their pay “at risk”, subject to meeting agreed objectives. Then public services would not be offering rewards for failure.

No research has shown that bonuses improve performance, nor do firms paying them do better. Paying students to get better passes did not work. The ones who did well, did it because they enjoyed what they were doing. The same should be applied to bankers and CEOs. If they don’t like it, then let them quit and join the oridnary Joes who have to like it or survive in frugality on benefits. In any case, who would judge the CEO’s performance? A team of bureaucrats?

Schemes like this are bogus, even where performance can be measured. Sir Fred Goodwin of RBS was awarded a discretionary £16m pension pot, while he wrecked the biggest bank in the world. The package was approved by the bank’s remunerators and non-executives, his friends and associates. Directors rip off shareholders with the collusion of institutions, so they get bonuses whether good or useless. Bankers’ bonuses are the biggest because the City is a massive gang of monkeys scratching each others’ backs furiously.

Bonuses are not incentives. They are measures of greed and selfishness, and are possible because corporate leadership is no longer properly accountable. Such schemes were thought up in the 1980s to let top earners take ever larger sums of money from their companies. It was unfair, dishonest, and, for the banks, disastrous. Top executives are paid above the average to work harder and more successfully than the rest of us. If they fail, they should be fired, with no golden handshakes.

Pay should be fixed and pay scales fairly flat. The bonus anyone should get is acclaim by peers and the public for doing a good job.

Reporting from the UK Morning Star and the UK Guardian.

How Incentives Destroy Co-operation and Will Destroy Society

Human societies depend upon each of us helping our neighbors, and not exploiting them, and about 80 percent of us are willing to participate fairly in joint projects of mutual benefit. The other 20 percent are skivers, people who will try to get the benefits with as little effort as they can get away with. The skiving free loaders are not popular with the others who pull their weight, and usually sanctions or punishments are applied to those who try to exploit other people’s mutual effort for their own gain. It is called norm enforcement, the norm being that everyone should pull their weight, and those who do not are deviants from the norm.

Data like these are not difficult to get by testing in controlled situations. If my neighbor and I could each build a house on our acre plot in six months, but by co-operating we could do a better job making use of our complementary skills and finish the two houses in eight months, then we have a clear benefit from co-operating. If the houses still took six months each and were no better, we might as well build our own, and we only have ourselves to blame for anything that goes wrong. The act of co-operating must itself have a benefit or there is no point in it. So setting up a test in which people can share a sum of money they have been given with other participants to get a benefit from the pooled resource mimics my neighbor and I helping each other build a house, as long as it is likely that by sharing we can all be better off.

In such tests, Professor Stephan Meier, Assistant Professor in Management at Columbia Business School, and co-worker, Andreas Fuster, PhD candidate, Harvard University Department of Economics, discovered that when people were given private incentives, norm enforcement became less effective. The incentives seemed to take the edge off the hard feeling towards the skivers.

1. Participants were asked to contribute to a common pool of cash to be divided equally among them all at the end of each of six rounds, whether or not all participants contributed. No kind of norm enforcement was used. People gave only small amounts to begin with, and gave less in each round.
   
2. By adding an incentive to contribute (a lottery ticket), with no opportunity to enforce norms, people contributed more gladly, including free riders.
   
3. Norm enforcement was introduced to the first test, in the shape of a fine on free riders at the end of each round. Those who were fined, most of them, increased their contributions in subsequent rounds.
   
4. Adding the lottery ticket incentive made contributors scale back their punishment of free riders by almost half, and free riders were less likely to make larger contributions in subsequent rounds whether or not they were punished. The result tended towards the previous test without incentives.
   

Fuster says:

Individual incentives can really change the structure of how we deal with one another, what the norms are, and how we enforce norms. If social forces in an organization are important, managers need to be attuned to norm enforcement and peer effects. They should understand that adding monetary incentives can dramatically change this dynamic and lead to a net negative effect.

The point is that the lottery ticket became the aim of participating, there being nothing to be gained by sharing through the common pool. Free riding therefore became irrelevant. Everyone would give just enough to get a lottery ticket, whether a free rider or not.

On the face of it the experiments are flawed. There is no co-operative gain to be made by contributing to the common fund. The pool needs to be enhanced in some way to make it more like human co-operation. Even so, it is easy to see that a separate incentive can draw attention from the whole point of a co-operative venture—the advantages of co-operating—by distracting attention from the primary objective.

It is the reason, for example, why sports can be so easily disrupted by gambling. Whatever is to be gained from illegal betting can make sportsmen actually want to sabotage the supposedly co-operative team objective, and lose for their personal gain.

The same is true of senior managers and board members who begin to give themselves bonuses from the company’s earnings. The drive to maximize bonuses distract from the corporate aims, and when shareholders will not sack managers and board members who are lining their own pockets at the expense of the shareholder, then the managers can run amuck.

That is what happened in our banks. Barclays’ shares for example sank by a half over several years when top managers in most banks lifted their own compensation, including bonuses, by obscene amounts, and shareholders let them get away with it. Needless to say, the holders of large blocks of shares, able to sway any shareholders’ meeting, are often themselves large banks and city institutions, so effectively they are in a scam to rob the ordinary small shareholder and the customers.

Politicians are the same. Their objective is supposed to be to represent the interests of the people who vote for them, but they are all too easily distracted by the wads of maney waved at them from corporate bosses. Tony Blair is getting his compensastion now for his sacrifice of pretending to be a Labour Party Prime Minister, when he was a Republican Quisling. The incentives of the rich soon make most career politics forget what they are there for.

Our societies used to take an extremely dim view of bribery, but no longer. Bribes are today incentives, and the law enforcers themselves are too ready to accept them. A cabal of superrich people have corrupted the western world beyond redemption. Western society is decadent and immoral. Democracy is superficial. We are run by this megarich class, which controls every party with its incentives, incentives to do as they want, and not what is good for society.

The often despised Arabs are showing more courage and awareness now than the once militant workers of the UK and France. Workers in the US have always been too easily fooled by their betters. Even after thirty years of declining real wages, longer hours and poorer conditions for those in work, and a labor pool of twenty or thirty million unemployed or part time workers, while the top thousand or so people have trebled their wealth, the average American is still beguiled by the moribund American dream, Republican crooks and pastors, and their own inability to comprehend what is going on. They are the ones without the incentives, but rather are offered carrots.

Carrots might be incentives for donkeys, but Americans ought to be more sophisticated than those famously uncomplaining beasts of burden. Its time they started to do what the Arabs have already begun. Get out in mass on to the streets, trash a few corporate HQs and banks, and threaten revolution. Social instability is one thing the rich do not like, and can do little about, except getting national guards to shoot citizens.

Then everyone will realize that the state is not theirs, and democracy is an illusion.

Congressmen Bail Out Firms to Protect their Own Investments

Equity ownership, stocks and shares owned by politicians, influenced their legislative and financial monitoring activities. The financial interests of politicians increased the probability that banks received bailout money, how much support these institutions received and how quickly.

Representatives’ stock ownership influenced members of the US House of Representatives to bailout the financial sector by voting for the bills HR 3997 on 29 September and HR 1424 on 3 October, 2008. In the initial vote, the likelihood of voting for the bailout was 41 percent for non-investors and 58 percent for equity owners. In the final vote, the likelihood was 55 and 69 percent respectively.

Congressional equity ownership in a given firm was also shown to affect the probability of receiving a bailout, the bailout amount and the timing of government support to that firm. Congressional committees with jurisdiction over the finance sector can affect regulatory outcomes. Equity ownership of members of these congressional committees affects bailout decisions, largely due to the powerful members in each committee, the chairs and ranking members.

Lobbying is indubitably an important means of exerting influence in politics. In the United States, campaign donations also matter. What has gone virtually unnoticed thus far though is that politicians also are investors. Part of their wealth rests with firms whose wellbeing falls under their legislative and regulatory influence.

Professor of Business Laurence van Lent of Tilburg University in the Netherlands and Ahmed Tahoun of Manchester Business School (UK) drew these conclusions on the basis of an analysis of 555 publicly listed financial sector firms, 295 of which received government support under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

It is Time We Removed Inequality

Robert H Frank, an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, wrote in the New York Times about the present financial crisis, comparing it with past times and using a new survey.

Incomes in the US rose at about the same rate, almost 3 percent a year, for all income levels in the three decades immediately after World War II. Prosperity extended across the whole population, irrespective of class. The country's infrastructure of highways, railroads, dams and bridges were well maintained, and new industries in communications, electronics and airlines were growing.

In the last three decades the economy has grown only slowly, infrastructure is decaying, and many people have trouble finding adequate work because industry is floundering.

Moreover the change in circumstances has not been evenly distributed. The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent. The rich have been getting richer ever more quickly while the poor and the squeezed middle classes have remained static or lost out. The situation is plainly unfair and antisocial by any standard.

Societies must be founded on a sense of fairness and justice even if they are not unquestionably fair. The people of the US have been ready to tolerate a degree of unfairness in income and wealth distribution providing that they felt they had a chance of joining the wealthy by dint of personal effort, and proving that living standards generally improved because a large number of people were working in concert to build a better country. In short, providing that income was not distributed unfairly to a minority of the already rich while everyone else struggled.

Frank notes that the founder of modern capitalist theory, the Scot, Adam Smith, who wrote Wealth of Nations, the capitalist's bible, peppered it with trenchant moral analysis. He was, after all, a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow.

Yet rising inequality has created enormous losses and few gains, even for its ostensible beneficiaries, the mega rich class, who now have reason to worry that social instability will ruin them, if it is allowed to develop further. In any case, increasing riches alone never improves overall happiness once people have sufficient not to feel insecure. All that happens is that they notice that others are just as well off, and they then want another increase. Everyone wants to keep up with the Joneses, but these people are already loaded!

Frank reveals that he and two co-workers have found that the US state counties where income inequality grew fastest also showed the biggest increases in symptoms of financial distress. Even after controlling for other factors, counties with the biggest increases in inequality had the largest increases in bankruptcy filings, and also reported the largest increases in divorce rates, divorce rates being reliable indicator of financial distress.

Families short on cash will try to make ends meet by moving to where housing is cheaper, usually farther from work. So, long commute times are another footprint of financial distress, and the counties where commute times had grown the most were those with the largest increases in inequality.

Even basic public services are no longer being properly maintained because of the persistent objection the rich have to paying their proportionate share of taxation. Rich and poor alike endure crumbling roads, weak bridges, an unreliable rail system, and insecure cargo containers, and many Americans live in the shadow of poorly maintained dams that could collapse at any moment. The right wing lobbyists and their academic parrots say nothing can be done, and most advocate policies like tax cuts for the wealthy that put the burden on the poorest in society.

There is no compelling evidence that greater inequality bolsters economic growth or enhances anyone’s well being. The rich remain a minority, though they hold a majority of the country's dollars. They can buy bigger mansions and host expensive parties, but it will not keep the majority employed and adequately compensated, and in any case the wealth of the rich is mainly invested abroad in places like China and India where the best rates of return can be had, and the exchange rate offer a hedge against losses. Then again the obscene bonuses wall street bankers and brokers pay themselves attract the most intelligent graduates, leaving vital sectors like industry, science, technology and engineering devoid of creative talent—and bang goes any competitive advantage we might expect to have in the future. Yet, any grifter can learn how to gamble in junk bonds but not how to succeed in science or engineering, or even in proper good stock picking.

No one dares to argue that rising inequality is required in the name of fairness. John Rawls in his theory of justice as fairness (A Theory of Justice) though inequality was only justifiable when the poor were nevertheless getting wealthier, albeit maybe not as quickly as the wealthy. So we should agree inequality is a bad thing, and do something about it.

In the UK, Professor Greg Philo suggested that the top 10% should pay a one off tax of 20% of their wealth. It caused some outcry, but surprisingly, a lot of wealthy people were willing to do it. They were the ones who realized it would be far worse if social unrest got so bad, especially if it were worldwide, as is the financial crisis, that all of their wealth might be threatened by social instability. They knew that the one off payment, though substantial, would repay itself if we got into a new ers of financial stability as a consequence. Their remaining investments would soon grow to pay back the lost 20%. Though the short sighted greedy rich would moan like hell until the benefits came through, everyone would end up happy.

Now Legislate a Maximum Wage!

The ongoing economic turmoil and the meltdown in the financial world have revealed the negative effect of the excessive “compensation” packages for bosses, Fred Goodwin CEO of RBS being the most infamous of them. All the main political parties talk about having better regulation of a corporate sector that paid itself vast bonuses for destroying the financial system. A few thousand—not enough!—protestors angrily descended on the bank of England, but British Trades Unionists lobbied Parliament for a higher minimum wage. In Britain, on All Fools Day, 1 April, we celebrated ten years of a legal minimum wage, set up by the New Labour government in one of its few sensible and useful policies. Yet, the minimum wage always remains too low to live on adequately. Set a minimum wage and the spread of wages above it simply extends, they rise to match. One way to counter it is to set the minimum as a proportion of the wage bill, instead of a fixed amount. Thus the Council of Europe set its decency threshold at 60% of net earnings. So increasing the range automatically raises the minimum. There is a danger then of a self sustaining wage inflation setting in. But this suited Blair. It kept the labouring classes silent while Blair occupied himself with bigger schemes in partnership with his neocon chum, Bush. What is needed now is a maximum wage! This is professor Gregor Gall’s proposal. He explains the notion of maximum wages is based on the idea that no matter what job a person does and no matter how many hours they work, no one’s skill, expertise, intelligence or experience can justify the payment of 100, 200, 300 or even 400 times the wages of the lowest paid worker in any organization. The only way executives’ astronomical salaries can be explained is that those who receive them steal from those that end up being the low paid of the organization. In February, President Obama floated the idea of a national cap on US executive salaries at $500,000 where state bailout money has been taken. In Britain, it would plainly mean the banks, but it should mean all organizations that receive public money—bosses of train operating companies, defense contract companies, local authorities, national health trusts, universities and so on. Such reformed executive salaries could also be tied to genuine performance measures under which an executive is only entitled to the full salary by performing above a certain line. Maximum wages would be based on a ratio of around 1:4 to 1:10, where the multiplier would be based on the lowest paid in the organization. These could be determined by law. By fixing a wage range, senior managers who want to increase their own pay, have to increase that of lower paid employees automatically to fit the rules. Ordinary people who can see the injustice of the unlimited managers’ salaries can see how this reform would deal with it. But if it was only maximum wages, bonuses would not be included, and if it was just salary, then other items like expenses would be exempt. We’d soon find greedy executives awarding themselves perks and benefits on top of their wages. Such creativity as they had would be devoted to devising endless avoidance schemes, just as these people find “legitimate” tax avoidance schemes. So the notion of maximum wages needs to cover all forms of remuneration. But there’d also be a need for transparency to make sure that the rules set by law were being adhered to. It would mean everything in the books must be open, so that employees as well as shareholders could understand fully the company's finances. So, trades unions ought to press for policies along the lines of a maximum wage, knowing that most people would see it as fair. It does not stop genuine talent, merit or success being rewarded, but transparently and not excessively though regulation. It also gives people at all levels a real incentive to achieve and do better, because they cannot just steamroller self indulgent packages to the detriment of others in the company and the nation simply to feed their own greed. No one therefore need feel hard done by. The rules apply to everyone equally. A salary range from a minimum to a maximum linked in some fixed ratio means financial reward comes from the position people achieve in the range, and that has to be worked for.