Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

Ethical Issues in the Financial Services Industry

Ethical Practices of Financial Services Organisations
1. What does an ethical financial services industry look like? It should perhaps be said from the outset that there need not be anything intrinsically unethical about the financial services industry. The industry provides essential services, which are fundamental to support a modern economy and society, such as safeguarding money and domestic lending. However, given the vital role that financial institutions play, the moral hazards may be more acute and it is therefore logical that the industry should be subject to higher ethical standards than other commercial sectors. The question of what these ethical standards should be, how we judge them, and what we are ultimately aiming for, is central to this debate. When an aspect of the law needs to be determined, there is a mechanism for deciding what the outcome should be. But how should ethics and its grey areas be determined? Should public opinion be the point of reference? To do so could be a dangerous approach as public attitudes can change over time ethics is not a static concept. Whilst we may agree the norms at a high level, how they are applied in practice will be hotly contested and bitterly fought. We can already see this in the retail sector, where the line between mis-selling and mis-buying can be closely contested. What constitutes a mis-sold product for one person, may be seen as a fair transaction for another. Clients and shareholders can also push firms to conclude transactions or pursue profits at the expense ofethics. Looking forward to the end picture, the fundamental principles that any ethical financial services industry should instil include: 1. Not pursuing profit at the expense of everything else including reputation.

P a g e 1 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

2.

Behaviour that is marked by integrity, fair dealing and acting in the best interests of clients.

3. 4. 5.

Commitment to and delivery of technical excellence. Prioritising good ethics over the instructions of clients where they conflict. Looking beyond the question of what is legal ie, being prepared not to act in a certain way on the basis that it is unethical, even though it is legal.

6.

Consistent application of positive ethical behaviour across the industry.

How should firms and regulators go about instilling an ethical culture? Building ethical cultures in firms is as difficult to do as ethics are to define. This section looks at the principles policy makers, regulators and firms should consider when building an ethical framework, what the regulatory/legislative approach may be, and what can be done at a practical level What criteria should be kept in mind? 1. For both individuals and organisations, behaviour is shaped by the interaction of

internal and external factors. For individuals those internal factors are their own ethical sense; for organisations it is their own structures, systems and culture. External factors in both cases arise from the social context (or as sociologists would say) the organisational field in which those individuals and organisations interact with one another. 2. As a result of this interaction, individuals personal ethical sense is socially

derived. It is shaped by immediate interpersonal interactions and by broader social factors in particular those of the organisations in which they work.

P a g e 2 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

3.

With respect to an organisations ethical culture the ethical whole is not the

sum of the parts, ie, is not the sum of the ethical cultures of those individuals within the organisation. Organisations are comprised of individuals, but individuals alone cannot necessarily withstand the structures, processes and the ethos of the organisation. As a result, those who may be quite ethical in their lives outside work may behave unethically in their corporate or professional lives. 4. Organisational structures and processes (notably remuneration structures) are

more likely to reinforce self-interested norms rather than those which are otherinterested. 5. Organisations are difficult to manage and run. The leaders of large organisations

face the same problem as regulators - thus management based regulation is not a solution to the regulators problem. It simply displaces it. Senior managers, like regulators, face problems of: seeing and knowing the activities which each is seeking to manage; governing at a distance: being able to affect a state of affairs or behaviour from a distance, both spatially and temporally (in the future); and scale and scope: being able to do so over a significant number of activities which in themselves may display significant variety. As a result, internal pronouncements may be misunderstood, may be counteracted by other practices, and simply may be ignored. 6. As a result of these factors: organisations risk sending contradictory signals about what behaviour is expected; individuals lower down the hierarchy may not trust senior management to behave ethically themselves, either in relation to clients or internally.

P a g e 3 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

Some advocate the introduction of more legislation, for example a legal obligation for firms and individuals to have regard to ethics, and/or more personal liability for unethical behaviour. Indeed, two attempts were made (albeit unsuccessfully) to introduce fiduciary obligations into the Financial Services Act 2012. Support for this approach may be drawn from the criminalisation of insider dealing, which had the effect of changing perceptions and conduct for the better. However, ethical duties are already in the regulatory1 and legal realm and have been for nearly 25 years they were first articulated in regulatory rules in 1988, and have been present in equitable duties for far longer. A better view may be that firms may have failed to understand, implement and execute the existing principles, and that the regulator failed to properly supervise, rather than there being a lack of regulation and law. One important objection to the introduction of a legal requirement to act ethically, is that it would not give guidance as to how a person should behave. Ethics vary according to the issues at hand and are very much a matter of judgement. Arguably, ethics is simply about how a person chooses to act because of who they are, and not because of what they are required to do by law. The more one places a reliance on the law as a substitute for taking responsible decisions, the more one devalues ethics as it then becomes a question about what is required, rather than what is just the right thing to do. 3. Incentives and levers A better angle would be to look at what drives the behaviour of individuals and firms and to examine how those drivers can be leveraged to incentivise ethical action. Firms and individuals are motivated to a large extent by the desire to: satisfy shareholders and clients; compete against industry peers; and maintain positive reputation and public image.

P a g e 4 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

A set of objective indicators of good and poor ethical behaviour could therefore act as benchmarks for firms to compete against one another and could provide an impetus for change. This would not require any significant costs or a change in law. Further, if clients and shareholders make it clear that they expect firms to act ethically, this could also provide a powerful incentive. Changing financial incentives and looking at remuneration structures (currently a fashionable area) will also be a key tool. The FSA enforcement process already publicly names and shames miscreants.

4. Self-regulation There could also be a role for self-regulation in this area, with the creation of an industry ethics group to collectively look at ethics across the industry.

5. Ethical scenario analysis and stress-testing Ethical scenario analysis and stress-testing within organisations could also be a way for regulators and firms to examine and address ethical weaknesses, in much the same way as stress-testing for capital and resolution issues operates. The results could have implications for regulatory strategy and serve to increase awareness within organisations. In order to ensure consistency across the industry, we would need agreement on the most ethical conduct and outcomes in the scenarios to be tested a likely challenge given how difficult it is to define ethics, but the approach could at least raise the profile of ethics within firms and across the industry as a whole, and form part of its dialogue with regulators. 6. Embed the regulator within firms? One possibility is for the regulator to embed staff within organisations. The physical presence of the regulator could help towards raising ethical standards where there are issues. However, this suggestion requires considerable levels of resourcing from the P a g e 5 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

regulator and does not sit comfortably with intention for the FCA to have less routine contact with firms. Whilst it might be possible to achieve these for a small group of domestic banks providing deposit taking services, it is clearly not a practical solution for the conduct regulator of upwards of 28,000 firms. There is also a risk of regulatory capture, although this could presumably be managed.

7. Translating the principles into practice How to translate the principles into practice will be challenging and vary from firm to firm. This section raises some suggestions. 1. Cultural change and embodiment

For cultural change to occur within an organisation, it must be stimulated from the top of the hierarchy, mainstreamed down and embedded at each level. Responsibility for cultural change cannot be delegated or siloed into compliance or risk divisions. The board must understand the need for an ethics policy and be committed to monitoring its effectiveness. Senior staff, including at board level, must be made an example of if their behaviour falls short of ethical compliance. rights terms, and that a host of safeguards would therefore need to apply which would make enforcement difficult. The FSA has also proposed (CP12/26) that the FCA and PRA should be able to make statements of principle that cover not only the conduct of persons in relation to their controlled functions, but in relation to any function that they carry on for the firm that relates to a regulatory activity. It is not clear what standards would apply in relation to those other functions. Firms need to consider what role they want their internal (and for that matter their external lawyers) to perform. Should they be advisers to business, or part of the institutions second line of defence? Should they act as gamers to help navigate the rul es P a g e 6 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

to facilitate innovation, or rather as gatekeepers, to ensure compliance? Should their role include advice on the ethical implications of decisions. 8. What should the role oflawyers be? The FSA has recently turned its attention to the role of in-house lawyers in financial institutions. If the disciplinary regime is extended to non-approved persons, and principles are created for approved persons in respect of non-controlled functions, this could have important implications for the position of in-house lawyers. The value in lawyers is the ability to give impartial legal advice and challenge decisions to help promote a strong compliance culture and to bring integrity and most importantly objectivity to the business. There are however a number of recent developments (in addition to the FSAs proposed extension of the scope of the approved persons regime) which present challenges to the way financial institutions structure their legal function and the roles which they require their in-house lawyers to perform. In an SEC case, an administrative judge held that a general counsel who was aware of an issue with a broker and was involved in addressing red flags, effectively became the brokers supervisor because his opinions were viewed as authoritative and his recommendations were generally followed (on appeal, the case was dismissed because the presiding Commissioners failed to reach a consensus). In Australia the High Court ruled that a general counsel, who also fulfilled the role of company secretary, was to be treated as an officer of the company in respect of all of his responsibilities, including those of general counsel, so that the statutory duty of care he owed as an officer by virtue of the national legislation therefore included the duty to take care and employ diligence to protect the company from legal risk in relation to its legal obligations. Finally, recent decisions of the European Court of Justice deny in-house lawyers legal privilege and the right to represent their own firms in proceedings before European courts. P a g e 7 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

9. Does the regulator need more powers or should it be using its current powers in a different way? The financial crisis has activated heated debate as to whether the regulator needs new powers, enhanced powers, or whether it just needs to make greater use of its existing powers. The ostensibly new product intervention powers were introduced into the Financial Services Bill with much fanfare. However, what was perhaps overlooked was that the FSA already had powers to make product interventions, and indeed had been using them. HM Treasurys consultation on Sanctions for the directors of failed banks which proposes that a director of a failed bank will be presumed unfit to hold further appointment, also raises questions as to whether these new powers are really needed, or whether they are being sought for political purposes. Arguably it is simply designed to relieve the regulator of the evidential burden of proving fitness. The case for the rebuttable presumption appears to be expedience HM Treasurys consultation suggests that the presumption would make it easier for the FSA to refuse permission, than to have to go through the current process. And, even more disconcertingly, this appears to be driven by a wish simply tooverride the presumption of innocence which exists in English (and EU) law. One for discussions/ As regards the introduction of criminal sanctions, even HM Treasury has acknowledged both that there will be difficulties in bringing such criminal prosecutions (including the time and expense) and most importantly, that it is already possible to bring a civil case. Criminal sanctions do not feature in the proposals being put forward at the EU level in the Liikanen report, which instead focuses on prohibitions and claw back of remuneration as appropriate sanctions. Should that not be enough?

10. Is enforcement the right focus point? P a g e 8 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

The FSAs credible deterrence enforcement policy has in many ways been successful in encouraging people to stop and think, albeit after the event. Perhaps criminal prosecutions would make directors stop and think although they may stop and think about taking the role at all, rather than about taking a particular commercial decision. However, is a policy of negative reinforcement the right way to drive long-term change in attitude and behaviour across the industry? Whilst enforcement action may alter the thinking and behaviour of those directly affected, it is unlikely to result in wholesale ethical change. Even if people sit up and take notice of enforcement cases generally, in practice, the risk of regulatory action may not ultimately influence a persons behaviour, particularly if they make decisions quickly and under pressure from external forces. A degree of negative enforcement is of course necessary. However, this must be accompanied by positive reinforcement of good behaviour, early intervention before issues arise (as the proposed strategy for product intervention), and addressing incentives which motivate unethical behaviour (including, but not limited to, financial incentives).

11. Conclusion There is little doubt that ethical standards across the financial services industry have been called into significant question across all areas, from the setting of benchmarks including Libor, to sales to retail investors. There is also little doubt that embedding ethical cultures within firms is a difficult task. Whilst regulation has a role to play in providing deterring unethical conduct and promoting appropriate behaviour, ultimate responsibility has to lie with firms themselves, including their shareholders. Firms need to focus on their incentives and remuneration structures to ensure that compliant and ethical conduct is rewarded, and provide clear and practical guidance on how it can be achieved. Ethical practice in financial organisation

P a g e 9 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

Financial institutions -including banks of all sorts, credit agencies, private equity firms, pension funds, insurance companies, and the like- have long been considered by most people to have no other object in view than the creation of wealth. The performance of financial institutions is therefore measured solely on the basis of their capacity to maximize financial assets, that is, it has been measured with evaluation factors that review only their monetary bottom-line results. How much return do they get on their investment decisions? How much are they able to maximize the assets in their custody? How much profit can they derive from the loans and credits they subscribe, from the bonds they float, from the equity they successfully issue on the financial markets? Banks are judged by their ability to develop financial instruments such as complex derivatives and sophisticated credit schemes that help connect the money of investors with the companies in need of those financial resources in the best possible way. In pursuing these ends, banks, and financial institutions in general, have long defended the confidentiality of the information pertinent to their business, be it data about their clients, the sources and the destinations of the economic resources they handle, their credit-giving policies and procedures, and many more aspects of the banking profession that tend to be little transparent and not very communicative about their way of doing business. Financial institutions have become very complex and sophisticated in the way they operate. The products and services they offer tend to be more and more complicated. The ways they invest resources, the way they design, promote, and implement credit facilities, all become less evident year after year, and the speed at which they evolve is ever accelerating. This complexity and sophistication of the industry is in part a response to the shifting and ever-growing needs of the banks clients. Companies in need of financing, and of financial services, tend to have more and more complex businesses with complex needs and requirements of capital. Globalization also plays an important role. Banks customers often do not have a localized headquarters but they operate virtually everywhere in the world. Today, it could be argued, it is more difficult for banks to know in detailwhere these customers operate and what exactly they do and how they run their businesses. Moreover, clients change, merge, get acquired, move in and out of businesses and markets much more rapidly than in the past. It is not only banks that change so quickly, but their clients, and their clients needs also move and evolve at a higher speed.

P a g e 10 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

Unfortunately, governments, regulators, and other institutions simply cannot cope with this rate of evolution in a satisfactory manner. Banks are moving too quickly for the reaction-time of governments and other organizations. As a consequence, many important issues are being overlooked by the institutions charged with directing our societies toward the common good. Were one to give only a superficial consideration to the financial institutions and the implications of their actions in the world, one could erroneously conclude that money is just another commodity being traded. There is a danger that money will be treated as just another product that makes things possible, as a simple means to accomplish an end. However, such an approach bears the risk of becoming a highly inhumane approach when we look it in detail. Money is not just another commodity being handled. Money, both in the form of credit and in the form of investments, makes a huge impact on the world. Money is a means, not an end; but, it is a powerful means to do things and therefore evil use of money can indeed create a considerably negative impact on our world. Where money comes from, and the destination it might have (that is, the sources from which it proceeds and the places where it ends up being used), should not be treated as just another business transaction. Money, in all of its forms, has implications and consequences. The things we do with money, and the things we allow to be done with money, are not irrelevant from a moral and an ethical perspective. Money implies actions, money allows things to happen, money promotes and enacts changes. Money is a very important, if not the most important fuel for the happenings in the world. Money helps, money builds, money buys, money creates and acquires, but money can also destroy, pollute, kill, and support evil. Money should not be considered simply in terms of the percentage points being generated as a return on an investment over a period of time. Given that banks are the official intermediaries of money, we need to look at how they handle money and what they do with it. By facilitating money to others, financial institutions enact and empower them to do things with it. What clients end up doing with the money they get from a bank, then, is then not irrelevant from an ethical viewpoint. This is all the more obvious when we consider that the money banks handle, is indeed to a large extent, investors money, not their own.

P a g e 11 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

To handle money as a commodity with no ethical implications and impact is to overlook critical moral issues, issues that could in fact be financed, and thus, enacted, promoted, and effectively created, by the investors money. In the end, whose money is the banks money? Who in fact owns the money that financial institutions are investing and lending? In the end, it is the money of individual investors. It is the money of pension funds, constituted in turn by the savings, the taxes, the retirement plans of single individuals like you reading this paper. Given the fact that money can be used in a wrong way -and it frequently does get used in such a way- and considering that money is eventually funded to a very large extent by individual investors, we should ask: is it still morally acceptable that financial institutions invest and lend money indiscriminately, watching only the bottom-line? Should bank secrecy and confidentiality never be held to answer for the moral and ethical implications that money can have in our world? Is it acceptable that governments and regulators lag behind financial institutions questionable way of doing businesses because the markets cant wait? Can we rightly ignore where our money is being used, what it is financing, where it is being invested, as long as it generates a good return in percentage terms? Can banks really justify their arms-length approach to their investments and financing consequences and impacts on our world as far as they generate more money? How banks use money is not irrelevant from a moral and ethical perspective. Crime, pollution, corruption, violation of human rights, threats to human life, totalitarian regimes, and all sorts of wrong-doing need and use money every year. Financial institutions play a key role in the supply and movement of money. In this essay we intend to draw your attention to the key role the banking industry plays in that supply chain of money. Moreover, we will call your attention to the fact that it is your money, which can play a key role in that supply chain and that is not morally or ethically avoidable anymore to investigate and to actively question how banks are using that supply chain to channel your money, with financial practices that can be fueling wrong doing across the world. Let us clarify that, whenever investors money is channeled to evilinvestments by financial institutions, it is the bank who is guilty of this wrong-doing and not the individual investor, unless of course, the individual investor were aware of the wrong-doing (and if he were just as easily able to invest his money elsewhere, and if he were a significant enough investor to influence the company or fund in question). What we attempt here is to call the P a g e 12 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

investors attention to the importance of the potential damage that their money could do when invested in the wrong destinations. What are our main concerns? We have several concerns regarding financial institutions and how they use money. Banks can channel economic resources in different ways that make money result in some form of evildoing. The two main ways in which banks can do this are (a) by lending money to others, that is, by issuing credit facilities to their clients, these being customers corporations, governments, individuals, etc., and (b) by actively and directly investing money, that is, owning shares, be it in the name of others or for themselves, in companies, projects, or countries, that conduct different forms of wrong-doing. Owning shares of companies that could be conducting wrong-doing is, of course, not exclusive to financial institutions; however, the large sums of funds that banks have available to invest make these investments particularly relevant when we analyze ethical issues facing banks. When banks lend money to others, the bank may not be doing wrong by itself; it is these other entities which might be engaged in wrong-doing. However, this does not excuse banks from their moral responsibility. Money enables and promotes actions, and in this sense, banks lending money to evil-doers are facilitating their activities. It is not valid to argue that a bank is only in the business of financing and lending and that therefore they carry no ethical responsibility in the wrong-doing. Banks effectively enact, enable, and promote the realization of actions with their lending of financial resources. In the lines below we will discuss how banks and financial institutions have been known to effectively fuel wrong-doing through the issuance of credit facilities to clients in questionable businesses, and through other actions that range from actively holding shares of companies with questionable practices, to speculation and other questionable matters. Ethical issues in the financial services industry affect everyone, because even if you dont work in the field, youre a consumer of the services. The Post Chair supports research and studies of the social responsibilities and ethical challenges facing the financial services industry. 1 .- Usurious practices. P a g e 13 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

Banking is a business concerned with protecting and growing peoples money. As such, one of its principal purposes is to generate wealth, in the form of financial returns for its shareholders. As in any industry, it is understandable and acceptable that banks try their best to maximize their investments and therefore, it is logical that banks charge interest rates on the loans and financing activities they offer to their clients. However, banks that charge excessive interest rates, abusive commissions, or ultra-profitable credit charges that go beyond reasonable standards for taking an extra benefit from a specific situation in detriment to their customers, are guilty of usury. Usury may be defined as demanding significantly more money back from customers than is just and fair. Financial institutions consistently engaged in usury are accordingly a subject of our concern. While we do not necessarily endorse bureaucratic regulations which may be excessively burdensome and counter-productive, we do expect banks to act morally with respect to lending practices within their organizations which are potentially usurious. We are concerned that banks are frequently charging excessive rates and imposing unfair advantages for themselves upon customers. We thus expect banks to take care to implement policies that prevent wrong-doing in the form of usury and similar sorts of abusive practices. Financial institutions are also guilty of some forms of usury when they encourage their customers, especially individuals, to go into excessive debt by taking irresponsible credit at too high interest rates. Some credit customers, specially those located in low-credit penetration communities are frequently being subjected to excessive marketing and pressure to drive them into credit at advantageous interest rates that go beyond what is customary in the industry. 2.- Speculative banking. The assets a bank lends and invest should be handled responsibly, even moreover so, when we consider that the bank is investing and lending money that belongs to other people, i.e., the individual and institutional investors whose money they manage. Engaging in excessively speculative investments and irresponsible credit lending practices is morally unacceptable, and in many cases, not even good business. We believe bankers and financial professionals should take a responsible approach in all investment and lending operations with its customers money. Even in the case of high-risk, high-return type of clients, a bank is the ultimate entity making the investment decisions for the investors, and practices of speculatively investing heavily in tooP a g e 14 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

risky securities just for the sake of short-term returns should be considered cautiously, especially given the massive loss of wealth that we have witnessed during the current financial crisis. The point is that there is always an ethical component involved in these too-risky investments that is being ignored. This crisis has made evident that investing in financial securities of questionable value (such as derivatives without the adequate collateral, sub-prime mortgages, irresponsible adjustable-rate-mortgages, and other investments that do not undergo the serious due-diligence required) have frequently resulted in clients wealth destruction. The situation of over-speculative, over-risky banking gets especially complicated from a moral perspective when we consider that clients seldom receive the necessary, detailed information to let them know what kind of investments their bankers are undertaking with their money. Another aspect of concern regarding speculative banking, which has also been evidenced in this crisis, is the fact that many financial institutions have been involved in speculative investments resulting in enormous losses for their customers while their executives continue to receive compensation packages and bonuses in the millions of dollars. While we understand that the banking profession has traditionally generated a lot of wealth for its executives, their excessive bonuses become an ethical concern when their clients wealth has been destroyed precisely because of these forms of speculative investment practices. 3.- Financing arms manufacturing and trade. Many banks are actively financing the military industry around the world. While we recognize the moral acceptability of a country taking care to defend its population, and thus investing in arms and weapons, we are concerned with excesses and human rights violations involved in this activity. We are specifically referring to indiscriminately destructive, overly-damaging weapons and their manufacturers and distributors. These usually fall in the category of so-called cluster munitions which are highly-destructive weapons which not only destroy an enemys military target, but quite frequently kill thousands of innocent civilian victims. Why are cluster munitions so harmful? Cluster-munitions are designed to destroy large areas, thus their use often results in the destruction of civilian settlements, killing innocent people. On top of this, cluster-munitions weapons cause damage after the military attack as they contain P a g e 15 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

many explosive components that did not act at the moment of the attack but remain active there, and explode afterwards. A potential mine field is created wherever cluster-munitions have been used and their destructive potential can last for years hidden under the ground. This information has been corroborated several times by different organizations around the world, and yet regulation does not actively prevent the manufacturing of these weapons, and of course, regulation doesnt prevent financial institutions from either investing or lending money to these companies. It is believed that a large percentage of cluster-munitions victims are civilians. Several studies support these statistics, and yet, manufacturing companies have no difficulties in securing credit from banks. More than 60 financial institutions have been identified to be involved in financing these companies, and it has become such a lucrative business that between the period of 20042007 more than 10 billion euro have been channeled to the six major cluster-munitions manufacturers which are: GenCopr (USA), Lockheed Martin (USA), Raytheon (USA), Textron (USA), Thales (France), and EADS (The Netherlands). All these companies openly produce cluster-munitions arms that have been used in several conflicts such as in Iraq (by the US army), in Lebanon (by the Israeli army), and many other places like the former Yugoslavia or Sudan. Some weapon-manufacturing companies have obtained credit facilities of very considerable sizes from well-kwon financial institutions. We are talking about credits in the billions of dollars. We cannot pretend that Banks did not know the purpose of the financing facilities they were arranging. Even worse is the fact that banks now also own shares in these cluster-munitions manufacturers. Several reputed financial institutions own shares in companies like GenCorp, Lockheed Martin, Textron, and Raytheon, which add up to double-digit equity positions in those companies. Owning shares in a company known to manufacture such weapons has ethical and moral implications. Money invested in securities enables companies to do things with it, and therefore, these investments have corresponding ethical repercussions. To own such a considerable amount of equity in a company means the owner is actually involved and interested in the progress of that company and in the performance of the products it manufactures and sells.

P a g e 16 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

4.- Financing and supporting totalitarian regimes. Banks frequently give loans to companies operating in countries governed by totalitarian regimes such as Burma, North Korea, or Sudan. Those companies in turn use the money to enter those markets. Some of these countries are plagued with corrupt government authorities that frequently require them to give substantial bribes to allow them to operate in those nations. By financing these companies, banks are allowing money to flow into these totalitarian regimes which have no respect for human rights and who use this money to strengthen their positions in their respective countries. The fundamental problem is not that a company be present in a country with a repressive regime, but that its business there is somehow complicit in propping up or perpetuating the repressive regime. 5.- Financing of companies with little or no commitment to social responsibility. The banking industry usually grants credit facilities to companies, and helps in raising capital in the financial markets, to companies operating with no socially-responsible agendas, or with little commitment to one. We are referring, amongst others, to companies operating in third-world countries that allow child-labor, overwhelming pollution of the environment, black economies, and so forth. We have observed companies that have little respect for their workers and which have consistently violated labor laws (mainly in developing countries) having no problem securing credits from well-known banks. So far, banks have not been interested in questioning clients about their human-rights or social-impact agendas. Banks tend to look at the risk-return ratio of their investment as the sole basis for granting the credit. Some banks are financing companies, for instance in the infrastructure industry, that operate in a highly utilitarian way in some countries. Some infrastructure developers, for example, that build water dams around the world have been accused of impacting the communities in which they operate by forcing the displacement of people from their home communities to build the dams wherever it is more economically convenient for them to build them, regardless of the social impact this might have. Moreover, these companies have been accused of manipulating potable water sources in poor countries by linking itself to corrupt governments like the Burma Junta or the regime in Sudan. Banks lending money to companies like these facilitate their operations, P a g e 17 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

and thus, often their wrong-doing. Making money available to companies operating in this manner fuels their wrong-doing. Funds channeled to these types of companies can easily end up in the hands of those totalitarian regimes. These funds are not only the banks money, but more importantly, the individual investors money. 6.- Ecological Impact. We should expect banks to start looking more in detail at the potential ecological damage that their clients could be generating when receiving financing from them. Companies known to be involved in activities that result in substantial environmental damage through the extraction of fossil fuels for instance; companies polluting the seas through the release of toxic chemicals; companies that manufacture products which persist in the environment and are linked to health concerns; and any other company damaging the world should not receive financing so easily as they do today from banks and financial institutions. While we recognize that avoidance of all possible environmental damage is often very expensive and hard to achieve, we believe that the efforts should be at least seriously pursued. We expect companies to actively search for a balance between their activities, their production processes, their use of natural and human resources and the respect for the environment. The same goes for companies involved in unsustainable harvest of natural resources, including fishing, timber, and other natural resources should also be severely questioned by banks when asked for financing. Moreover, banks, pension funds and in general, every investor, should be very cautious when it comes to buying or holding securities (be it bonds, shares, etc.) in all these kinds of companies. By investing in these environmentally unfriendly companies, financial institutions give them access to important sums of capital, which in turn, results in larger environmental damage. The same rationale goes for companies involved in aggressive, unnecessary animal testing of cosmetics and household products or ingredients. We recognize testing is an important step of many manufacturing processes; it is abusive, unnecessary, excessive, testing which we want to avoid. Intensive farming methods, blood sports, trade in the furs of endangered species, and other

P a g e 18 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

animal unfriendly businesses are also of our concern when they make use of animals for unnecessarily violent and superficial entertainment activities. 7.- Financing, donations, and sponsorships contrary to the good of the family. As financial institutions handle huge amounts of capital, the impact of their donations and sponsorships can be substantial and the money they channel through donations can have important impact on society. In this respect, we are particularly concerned with banks giving active support to organizations that advocate against the institution of family and against familyvalues. As we are convinced that the family is the basis for any healthy society, we are interested in seeing banks staying away from initiatives that somehow can affect the integrity of family or attack family values in any way. These activities could include granting financial support to causes that actively promote activism against family values. While we acknowledge that there are other points of view regarding the value of families and their role in society, we prefer to keep our investments, and recommendations for our clients investments away from companies promoting non-family friendly causes and activism. We prefer not to generate our wealth from investing in companies that opt for financing, promoting, and supporting entities and organizations that do not share our view on family and family values as the cornerstones of society, peace and harmony. 8.- Involvement in social enterprise. The banking industry plays a key role in the development of the markets in which it operates. By lending and raising money, a bank can effectively help develop a community, but further than that, a bank is expected to get actively involved in supporting the development of that community in which it operates. More and more banks and financial institutions are praised when they support organizations such as cooperatives or credit unions, or get involved in financing of community initiatives. Given the fact that a bank benefits directly from the economic resources of a community, we would be concerned when a bank openly neglects to help those communities in which it conducts business. Is a better banking industry possible? P a g e 19 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

The answer is absolutely YES. Better, ethically-responsible, respectful banking and financing industries are not only possible, but also highly desirable, and they are already starting to emerge. Some banks, mainly small institutions in developed countries have realized the importance of being ethical beyond their internal Code of Values, that is, beyond paper and beyond what is strictly within its operations. Individual investors will play a key role in putting pressure on banks and regulators to let them know that banking practices cannot go on as independent of ethics any longer. The relevance of what banks do with the peoples resources is material. A number of organizations around the world are starting to pay attention to how money is being used and to the moral implications it has. Some important institutional investors are becoming much more concerned with the handling of their investments. Institutions like the Government Pension Fund of Norway, the so called, Folketryfondet, the worlds largest single holder of equity securities, has been implementing strict ethical criteria to handle their investments. Some bank-industry watch-dogs like Bank Secrets Organization or Netwerk Vlaanderen of Belgium, have started to lobby regulators to implement stronger policies for the banking industry. Eiris Research of Ireland has been advising individual and institutional investors to make them conscious of the moral relevance of taking care where their money is been invested. Some banks like Triodos Bank of the UK are starting to offer their clients alternative ways to invest their money considering the ethical and the financial impact of their investments. Some government agencies like the UK Treasury have started to work on designing better regulation for the banking industry. The world is changing and investors both individual and institutional are starting to pay attention to the ethical implications of their money. A world where investments and loans are made on the pure basis of financial return is not any more acceptable and we at Fidelis International Institute are here to make our contribution. 1) Self-interest sometimes morphs into greed and selfishness, which is unchecked self-interest at the expense of someone else. This greed becomes a kind of accumulation fever. If you accumulate for the sake of accumulation, accumulation becomes the end, and if accumulation is the end, theres no place to stop, he said. The focus shifts from the long-term to the short-term, with a big emphasis on profit maximization. P a g e 20 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

For example, swaps (where two communication companies agree to exchange the right to use excess bandwidth on their networks) fall into this category. Each company recognizes the income generated in the quarter earned and defers the expenses through capitalizing them as an asset and logging the cost as a recognized expense over time, resulting in an inflated bottom line. This is what happened at Qwest during the first three quarters of 2001, when the company was selling $870 million of capacity, while at the same time buying $868 million of capacity. These swaps appeared to be round-trip transactions, which served no purpose other than to inflate Qwests revenues, Duska said. Companies were making money out of their finance departmentnot from selling products, not from doing what the company did, not from fulfilling the companys mission, but from playing around with its asset mix, he said. 2) Some people suffer from stunted moral development: I think this happens in three areas: the failure to be taught, the failure to look beyond ones own perspective, and the lack of proper mentoring, Duska said. Business schools, he said, too often reduce everything to an economic entity. They do this by saying the fundamental purpose of a business is to make money, maximize profit, or the really jazzy words maximize shareholder value, or something like that. And it never gets questioned, he said. Now if the fundamental purpose never gets questioned, the ethics never get quest ioned, because the fundamental purpose of something gives you the reason for its existence. It tells you whether you're doing it well or not. It's the ultimate ethical question: What's your purpose? 3) Some people equate moral behavior with legal behavior,disregarding the fact that even though an action may not be illegal, it still may not be moral. You ought to remember that the reason for all laws is that the moral agreement begins to break down, and the way to get other people in line is to legislate so that we can stipulate punishments, Duska said. Yet some people contend that the only requirement is to obey the law. They tend to ignore the spirit of the law in only following the letter of the law. For example, IRS regulations repeatedly single out actions with no legitimate business purpose (like swaps.) If you are doing things with no legitimate business purpose in order to avoid taxation, what are you doing? Youre violating the spirit, are you not? Youre staying within the letter, but theres no purpose there except to get you around the law, he said. P a g e 21 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

4) Professional duty can conflict with company demands. For example, a faulty reward system can induce unethical behavior. A purely self-interested agent would choose that course of action which contains the highest returns to himself or herself, he said. For example, consider the misguided practice of selling indexed annuities to the elderly. If a company is paying a high commission for that product, say 15 percent, versus a lower commission for a more appropriate product, say 3 percent, a salesperson may disregard the needs of the client and/or assume that the company supports this product and its applicability by its willingness to pay five fold the compensation. Sooner or later, people are going to give in to that temptation. The purely self-interested agent is just responding to the reward system that is in place, Duska said. You need to take a look at what you are rewarding. In general, organizations get exactly what they reward. They just dont realize that their rewards structures are encouraging dysfunctional or counter-productive behavior or turn a blind eye to the outcome 5) Individual responsibility can wither under the demands of the client. Sometimes the push to act unethically comes from the client. How many people expect their accountants to pad their expenses where possible? How many clients expect their insurance agents to falsify their applications or claims? Thats the temptationyou like your client, youve gotten to know your client, you really want to help your client outthats just another conflicting loyalty, Duska said. Mitchell concluded the presentation with several suggestions for improvements in the industry to encourage more ethical behavior. My experience [in the financial services industry] is that people who do business are, for the most part, highly ethical people trying to do the right thing most of the time. Most of them are trying to help their clients achieve their financial objectives, he said. But how could this be better, because clearly, even if Im right, there are still a lot of issues and problems in the business? First of all, consumers need to be better informed. It is your responsibility to take control of your own financial security, he said, which doesnt mean you need to know everything about the product you are buying in advance, but you should read enough to know what some of the right questions are to ask. Ask those insightful questions of an advisor whom you know, trust, and who has the proper credentials, if applicable. Other suggestions included: P a g e 22 | 23

Subodh Mayekar

Finance A

2012097

incentive compensation better aligned with customers interests, rather than agents more industry trade associations supporting ethics initiatives the Center for Ethics in Financial Services growing in influence and impact

P a g e 23 | 23