We Need More Corporate Ethics – Bring on the No-Maximum Mega Fines!

As noted in a recent article on Fine and Punishment, it has been a bumper summer for corporate fines and settlements. With firms in Britain and America agreeing to pay over 10 Billion in the past three months alone, there’s too much corporate wrong-doing these days. But the current fines are not enough. For example, a mere 5K for violating 10+2 is a CEO’s lunch money these days in most Global 3000’s. The only act close to defining a fine that will take a real chunk out of the corporate coffers of the guilty that the doctor knows of is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which allows 15 Million Dollar fines for first offenses and 30 Million Dollar fines for second offenses.

The reality is that a fine is only a deterrent if getting caught would mean a loss. Let’s say the fine for stock-fixing is 1 Million but an investor group could make 10 Million on the fix. Guess what’s going to happen? The stock is going to get fixed if the investor group has anything to do about it because, worst case, they only make 9 Million. The fine HAS to outweigh the reward, or corporate wrongdoing is going to continue to permeate both the financial sector, and the supply chain practices in industries where unlicensed knock-offs (especially in pharmaceuticals or electronics) can save a middle-man millions of dollars and push profits through the roof. As the Economist article stakes, given a risk-free opportunity to mis-sell a product, or form a cartel executives will grab it. To them, it’s all about the almighty dollar — and earning more than their peers to earn Wall Street’s favour and have something to boast about at the next charity dinner. (For a great Wall Street Perspective, you have to check out Randall Lane’s The Zeroes: My Misadventures in the Decade Wall Street Went Insane [now at a bargain price for the hardcover edition on Amazon.com — you can’t go wrong]. Audiobook also available).

Unless the potential fines are crippling, wrong-doing will persist*, and so will cheapening out. And this is the biggest problem. Right now, we need sustainability in supply management, but initial investment in sustainability always costs more, so not only are executives not going to green light sustainable efforts, but if the organization has to look green or socially responsible, they are going to fund the lowest-cost “accredited” third parties that they can find to be “socially responsible”, and, in particular, likely fund those that use shady practices and cut corners everywhere possible. Because when the dollar rules, as long as you can buy the image, why create the real thing?

But if we force ethics back into the corporate world, then maybe we can force sustainability in as well. And when the only choice for gains is again long-term strategy, which is precisely where the economics of sustainability really make sense, maybe we’ll see improvement in ethics and corporate responsibility across the board. Or maybe it’s a pipe-dream. Either way, heftier fines would be a great start!


After all, remember what Randall Lane discovered when he did a Trader Monthly survey in the zeroes:
  If you received an illegal insider tip, a sure thing, and had a 50% chance of getting busted, would you use it? Only 7% would. What about only a 10% chance of getting caught? The numbers spiked to 28%. And what if you had a 0% chance of getting discovered? Suddenly, the number surged to 58%! To the majority of our readers, cheating wasn’t an ethical issue, it was simply a matter of whether they’d get caught.

Can the US Post Office Be Fixed?

As chronicled in SI’s winter post that decided it was Too Bad the US Post Office Did Not Follow Royal Mail’s lead (before we got wind of the Royal Mail Fiasco), it’s old news that the US Post office is in dire straits. (No, no, not this Dire Straits. The US Post office definitely are not The Sultans of Swing.)

When you have more debt than 50+ countries have capita, that’s a bad thing, and not something a single (barrel) of sourcing projects is going to fix overnight. (Any operation hemorrhaging cash that bad should have hemorrhaged management years ago!) A drastic Supply Management-led transformation is required, but what should it look like? Obviously, Saturday service can be eliminated (as we Canucks do without it just fine), and obviously the sorting centres should be more efficient, but that’s a small drop in the labour and overhead categories relative to the 20 Billion the US Post Office needs to save (if it doesn’t want a good excuse to be shuttered).

Where should it start? Damn good question. Obviously, a technological transformation is a great place to start, but even the doctor is at a loss at how you cut 15 Billion when the bigger problem is obviously that you lost it in the first place! However, a few people are taking stabs at it, and this recent piece over in Progressive Railroading, on how Intermodal rail [is] a ‘sensible’ transportation option for U.S. Postal Service, that quoted a report recently issued by the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General‘s Risk Analysis REsearch Office, showed someone has a head on their shoulders.

In “Strategic Advantages of Moving Mail by Rail”, shifting a portion of mail volume from tuck to intermodal rail could yield $100 Million in annual cost savings without requiring changes to the postal service’s network. Wow! Imagine how much could be saved if the network was optimized. I’m guessing double that, or more. If I’m right, that could yield 1 Billion in five years. With almost no effort!

They have to do something. As CNN notes, it’s a “summer of discontent at [the] Postal Service” (CNN Money, Jul 19, 2012). But given that it’s on the verge of defaulting on a $5.5 billion payment covering retiree health care due August 1, what can we expect?

At this point, I have to agree with Bob Ferrari, who, in his recent Friday Rant*, said that solving the problems of this agency involves a number of structural changes as well as an infusion of modern supply chain management practices related to efficiency and productivity. We have been clear that the U.S. needs a vibrant and efficient postal service and that may not necessarily equate to wholesale privatization. And, most important, there is an obvious need for a non-partisan, independent commission to oversee the process of re-structuring the USPS. Instead of audit agencies reacting to the obvious and pointing to required management changes, an independent commission should be tasked with a comprehensive look at how the USPS can be transformed to a highly efficient agency that instills modernized physical distribution and information management practices. Hear, hear! Let’s face it — 3.3 Billion is an awful lot for highway transportation contracts, even if you are the USPS.

* What’s with S.M. bloggers and Friday Rants anyway? Haven’t they figured out yet that any day is a good day for a rant!

What Can be ‘Made in the USA’ – Counterpoint

Today’s guest post is from Dick Locke, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on International Sourcing and Procurement, and is a counterpoint to Derek Singleton‘s recent post on What Can be ‘Made in the USA’ over on Software Advice.

This is the kind of prediction I like to put in an envelope and promise to open in 5 years to see if it came true.

It’s great that Airbus came to the United States. There’s no doubt that many companies who tried China sourcing weren’t capable of doing it well. There was also a rush to put production in China that didn’t belong there. Those would be items that require flexible scheduling and for which air freight costs make China prohibitive for US consumption. No doubt some of that is in the $200B pie chart of products that are likely to move from China to the US. No doubt that Chinese labor costs are rising, but the 13% figure annual increase figure cited is for Chinese minimum wage, of questionable relevance to exports.

But $122B in computers and electronics? I really doubt that. That’s roughly 100% of the US imports from China of computers, phones, TVs and monitors, and parts for those items. Those aren’t being built in China for anything much to do with labor costs. It’s where the suppliers are. Foxconn has a million people assembling electronics. Why do manufacturers gravitate toward a particular location? Michael Porter, in “The Competitive Advantage of Nations” nailed it. It’s a combination of four factors.

  1. Factor conditions (this includes labor rates and a lot more)
  2. Related and supporting industries
  3. Demanding customers
  4. High degree of competition

China has three out of the four. They are especially strong in item 2. Nearly all the components are built there, except for a few high value parts.

Looking further, if companies pull out of China, where would they go? Phones, other than from Apple, largely come from Korean and Taiwanese companies.

Televisions are also largely from non-US companies. As they drop in price, shipping costs become a larger fraction of total costs, so many TVs for the North American market are being built in Mexico. (Mexican TV and monitor imports to the US passed China’s a few years ago.)

We’ll see how the prediction holds up. In the meantime, strategic sourcing professionals should make up their own minds, not just look at trends or predicted trends.

Thanks, Dick. (Global Supply Training)

Markets are Unpredictable – Is It Time For Old Fashioned Futures?

Recently, the Economist published a piece about the broken record that the markets have been following for the past five years. In particular, it has been skipping between two tracks – total chaos (as we experience one crisis after another) and a rhythmic predictability (as investors flee to the safest investment vehicles around, a sharp contrast to the early noughts when risk was everything and traders made millions on the press of a button).

According to the article, an ideal portfolio in 2007 would have been stuffed with gold, white sugar, Swiss francs and German bunds, anyone holding that mixture of assets when the crisis began would have seemed either eccentric or confused. However, over the past five years, a new kind of risk aversion has seen gold hit record values on almost 10% of trading days. So has the Swiss franc, white sugar, and government bonds.

At the same time, many other currencies and commodities have hit record lows as well as highs. Hedging, the standard trick of attempting to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by locking in a price too high (or low) for a desired commodity by also taking a position in another commodity that has traditionally followed a mathematically defined relation with the desired commodity, has become almost impossible as one crisis after another derails any and all attempts to find predictable trends.

However, before hedges, we had good old fashioned futures. Initially designed to allow a farmer to sell his crop for a fixed price before it was even planted, a future provided a farmer with an assurance that he would be able to sell his crop without losing the farm if markets went south. This not only benefited the farmer, but also benefited the buying company as they would be assured of a product at the time of harvest. Or, if they didn’t want it, the buying company could sell the contract to someone else.

In today’s volatile market, hedging is not the best idea. If you can’t lock a contract in at a fixed price, which should be your Supply Management organization’s number one goal, you should look to a futures exchange. While it won’t offer either party as much security as a good old fashioned contract, a futures contract may prevent either party from losing their shirt.

Any differing thoughts?