Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

See related case examples of

Dell Inc.

appraisal rights for intrinsic value realization

and

Walgreen Co.

stock buyback policies

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference

For graphs of specific company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

For graphs of specific company voting for the past 5 years, see

Shareholder Support Rankings

 

 

 

Forum distribution:

Explaining the requirements of a fair marketplace

 

For the columnist's past observations of her efforts to report needed corrections of marketplace practices, including her Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the previous 2001 period of bubble investing, see

Note: Ms. Morgenson will be continuing her work at the end of this month as senior special writer on the Wall Street Journal's investigative team.

 

Source: The New York Times | Fair Game, November 10, 2017 column


BUSINESS DAY

After 20 Years of Financial Turmoil, a Columnist’s Last Shot


Fair Game

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON    NOV. 10, 2017


Financial executives appearing in 2010 before a congressional panel investigating the financial crisis. From left, Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, John J. Mack of Morgan Stanley and Brian T. Moynihan of Bank of America. Doug Mills/The New York Times

For the past 20 years or so, as a business columnist for The New York Times, I’ve had a front-row seat for bull and bear markets, scandals, crises and management mischief.

But I am leaving The Times, and this is my last shot at Fair Game. So it seems a fitting moment to look back at what’s changed and what hasn’t in the financial world, for better or worse.

 

Fair Game

A column from Gretchen Morgenson examining the world of finance and its impact on investors, workers and families


Small Investors Support the Boards. But Few of Them Vote OCT 6

Consumers, but Not Executives, May Pay for Equifax Failings SEP 13

Sarbanes-Oxley, Bemoaned as a Burden, Is an Investor’s Ally SEP 8

The Accounting Tack That Makes PayPal’s Numbers Look So Good Aug 4

Big Pharma Spends on Share Buybacks, but R&D? Not So Much

Jul 14


The Trump Effect on C.E.O. Pay

May 26


Meet the Shareholders? Not at These Shareholder Meetings Mar 31

Want Change? Shareholders Have a Tool for That

Mar 24


Your Mutual Fund Has Your Proxy, Like It or Not

SEP 23 2016


EpiPen Price Increases Could Mean More Riches for Executives Sep 1

Bloated Pay Came Before Hain Celestial’s Error AUG 19

A Simple Test to Dispel the Illusion Behind Stock Buybacks Aug 12

Investors Get Stung Twice by Executives’ Lavish Pay Package

Jul 8


How to Gauge a C.E.O.’s Value? Hint: It’s Not the Share Price

Jun 17


Fantasy Math Is Helping Companies Spin Losses Into Profits

Apr 22


BlackRock Wields Its Big Stick Like a Wet Noodle on C.E.O. Pay

APR 15


In Yahoo, Another Example of the Buyback Mirage

Mar 25


Stock Buyback Plans, Seen as Shareholder Boon, Can Backfire

MAR 11


FASB Proposes to Curb What Companies Must Disclose

Jan 2

2016


Valeant Shows the Perils of Fantasy Numbers

OCT 30

2015


Safety Suffers as Stock Options Propel Executive Pay Packages

SEP 13


Why Putting a Number to C.E.O. Pay Might Bring Change

Aug 9


Tech Companies Fly High on Fantasy Accounting

Jun 21


Stock Buybacks That Hurt Shareholders

Jun 5


Shareholders’ Votes Have Done Little to Curb Lavish Executive Pay

May 16

2015


When the Stock Price Hides Trouble

Oct 12

2013


An Unstoppable Climb in C.E.O. Pay

Jun 30 2013


When Shareholders Make Their Voices Heard

Apr 8

2012


See More »

   

In addition to a string of garden-variety banking and business scandals, four seismic financial events occurred during my time as a columnist: the collapse of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund in 1998, the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, the accounting scandals of Enron in 2001 and WorldCom in 2002, and the mother of them all — the mortgage debacle — in 2008. That one brought world economies to the precipice and wiped out Lehman Brothers and a raft of troubled banks.

That many episodes of financial tumult in two decades seem like a lot.

Some of this turmoil has generated positive change. Accounting scandals, for example, have been much rarer since Enron and WorldCom shook the financial markets. One reason: a 2002 federal law, known as Sarbanes-Oxley, requiring top executives to attest to the accuracy of their companies’ financial statements.

“Sarbanes-Oxley came into effect 15 years ago, and there have been fewer accounting scandals and more accountability,” said Jack Ciesielski, founder of R. G. Associates and publisher of The Analyst’s Accounting Observer, an accounting research service. “Those accounting scandals were a crisis we should be thankful for; we got through it, a law was passed, and it works.”

It’s too bad that the mortgage crisis six years later didn’t result in heightened accountability.

Here’s another sign of progress: Believe it or not, corporate directors are more active in their oversight than they used to be. Egregious board practices and chummy appointments are less common.

Nell Minow is a corporate governance expert and vice chairwoman at ValueEdge Advisors, a firm that guides institutional shareholders on reducing risk in their portfolios. She has been rattling cages in the governance field since the mid-1980s and says she’s seen a definite improvement in boardroom makeup and practices.

“When I started in this field, O. J. Simpson was on five boards, including the audit committee of Infinity Broadcasting,” she recalled in an interview. “And at another company, the C.E.O.’s father was on the compensation committee. We’ve come a long way.”

That’s not to say that problems arising from sleepy and clubby boards have been eradicated. “Exhibit A is executive compensation,” Ms. Minow said. “The first C.E.O. pay package I ever complained about was $11 million. The very fact that that has gone completely berserk shows that boards are still a long way from where they should be.”

A case in point: Thomas M. Rutledge, the head of Charter Communications, who received $98 million in 2016, according to Equilar, a compensation analytics company. Yes, he’s an outlier, but the average chief executive compensation at 200 large public companies last year was almost $20 million, Equilar said.

Something else that hasn’t changed over the decades is analyst and investor reliance on companies’ creative earnings calculations. These figures, which do not conform to generally accepted accounting practices, typically exclude costs that companies incur in their operations. Such costs include stock awards given to executives and employees and merger expenses. Excluding them makes a company’s results look more dazzling than they otherwise would.

Inventive earnings calculations, while more prevalent today, were very popular in the lead-up to the dot-com crash. Back then, analysts valued companies based on imaginative, nonfinancial metrics like the number of page views a retail website received or the percentage of “engaged shoppers” visiting a site. That didn’t end well, even for many companies that had exhibited highly engaged shoppers and millions of views.

“I find it ironic that GAAP is much better than it has been for a long time, but analysts have more disdain for it,” Mr. Ciesielski said, referring to generally accepted accounting principles. “They blindly accept the methodology that management gives them. Folks prefer darkness, I guess.”

To be sure, embracing management’s preferred financial figures isn’t as perilous when stock prices are rocketing. Bull markets cover a multitude of sins, after all. But as the dot-com episode showed, genuine earnings growth — the kind companies can take to the bank — becomes a crucial underpinning when share prices turn down. That’s not true with financial metrics that can only be characterized as “earnings before the bad stuff.”

President George W. Bush signing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The bill aimed to improve the accuracy of companies’ financial statements. Stephen Jaffe/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

My search for truths on Wall Street and elsewhere over the years has sometimes raised hackles. That’s to the good. It wasn’t my job to be part of a company’s spin machine.

But responses from my subjects could get a little kooky. A favorite example occurred in the early 2000s, and it involved a major Wall Street firm.

I had written about an arbitration case that an investor client had brought against the firm. The firm prevailed in the matter, and the general counsel convened a dinner to celebrate.

In a phone conversation, the firm’s general counsel told me that the menu for the dinner had featured a photograph of me, placed inside a red circle with a slash though it. The general counsel told me how he had scoured the web for just the right picture. The menu garnered lots of laughs from the attendees, he added.

I never did find out what that celebration cost the firm’s shareholders.

Incidents like that, however, were relatively rare. And they were far outweighed by the appreciation that readers expressed.

“You must continue your work of skewering people and customs in our capitalist society that abuse the process,” a reader in Jackson, Miss., wrote in 2001. Others expressed thanks for my being “a good and consistent questioner,” for writing for the “financially illiterate,” for pushing to make the rules for investing fair and firm.

And I loved receiving a Christmas card from a reader in Maryland a couple of years ago that simply said: “Thank you for telling truth!”

Believe me, it has been my privilege.


 

Twitter: @gmorgenson

 

A version of this article appears in print on November 12, 2017, on Page BU1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Reflections Of a Truth Seeker.

 


© 2017 The New York Times Company

 

This Forum program is open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the Forum's purpose is to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant is expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices, rather than investor decisions relating to only a single company. The Forum may therefore invite program support of several companies that can provide both expertise and examples of leadership relating to the issues being addressed.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to access@shareholderforum.com.

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.