Immediate Vault

What’s Next for Walmart

In the wake of the massive bribery scheme that allegedly allowed one of the world’s largest companies to expand throughout Mexico and dominate its retail industry, many are left wondering what will happen next to Walmart.

The Week has a few ideas of what’s possible:

  1. U.S. authorities will go after Walmart aggressively 
The Justice Department may treat the Walmart scandal as “a prominent case to demonstrate the need for vigorous enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” which prohibits U.S. corporations from bribing foreign officials, says Peter J. Henning at The New York Times. The government encourages American companies to disclose possible violations of the law, and rewards their honesty by reducing fines and dropping criminal charges. If the Justice Department finds that Walmart did cover up the scheme, it could come down even harder on the retailer.
  2. The investigation could spread to other countries 
Walmart “faces an uphill battle to convince U.S. regulators that its problems are confined to Mexico,” say Jessica Wohl and Carlyn Kolker at Reuters. Walmart has major operations in Brazil and China, and is banking on emerging markets in India and Africa to boost its profits in the coming decades. A wide-ranging global investigation, which could last as long as four years, will likely hamper its overseas growth.
  3. Executives could face dismissal and even prison
Walmart will likely face “pressure from shareholders to take action against any executives who didn’t act on the bribery allegations sooner,” say David Welch and Thom Weidlich at Bloomberg News. Indeed, cleaning house could be a prerequisite for any out-of-court settlement with the U.S. authorities. And experts aren’t ruling out “potential jail time for Walmart executives,” says Roland Jones at MSNBC.
  4. Congress will get involved 
Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have already announced that they are launching an investigation into the scandal, requesting a face-to-face meeting with CEO Duke and other Walmart officials so that they “can respond to these allegations.”
  5. Walmart stocks are being hammered… 
Walmart’s share price fell by 5% the day after the story broke, as investors weighed the numerous factors that could hurt Walmart in the future, such as large legal fees and stunted international growth.
  6. …And so is its reputation — perhaps most damaging of all is the public relations hit the company is taking. This is a “huge black eye” for Walmart, “which prides itself on its reputation for integrity and transparency,” says Henry Blodget at Business Insider. The report undermines a years-long “campaign to improve its reputation as a good corporate citizen by changing its practices in such areas as labor relations,” says Ben W. Heneman Jr. at The Atlantic.
  7. Still, Walmart could fight back with legal technicalities 
The retail giant could argue that the bribes were “facilitating payments,” which, for example, are made to speed up the approval of permits, says Nathan Vardi at Forbes, and that such payments are technically legal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Because the alleged bribery scheme unfolded in the mid-2000s, Walmart could also foil the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute, by invoking the FCPA’s five-year statute of limitations.

That’s a pretty good summation of what’s likely to occur. But let’s not forget about the questions this event has has raised regarding Dodd Frank and the FCPA. Does the Dodd Frank act’s whistleblower provision apply to foreigners? And can foreigners qualify as eligible whistleblowers under the FCPA and, in turn, qualify for a monetary reward? There is a definite grey area in terms of both acts and it remains to be seen if this Walmart event will clear up anything.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Head Accused of Lying at House Committee Hearing

The first and second rules of Congressional Fight Club is that you don’t talk about Congressional Fight Club. The third rule is that if a new bureau head spends her time in front of a committee hearing being evasive and, allegedly, lying … she has to fight.

Or something like that.

What happened during today’s hearing was that Representative Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, accused Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head Elizabeth Warren of misleading lawmakers in earlier testimony about her role in talks between government authorities and mortgage-servicing companies. McHenry also called Warren out for, according to him, reneging on her agreement to appear before the committee this week.

After an hour in which Ms. Warren repeatedly parried efforts by Mr. McHenry and other Republicans to nail her down with “yes or no” answers to questions concerning her testimony in March and about the bureau’s powers and responsibilities, Mr. McHenry moved to temporarily recess the hearing to allow members to travel to the House floor for a vote on an unrelated matter.

Ms. Warren objected, saying that she had juggled her schedule as the committee repeatedly changed the time of the hearing in recent days and had agreed to be present for only an hour.

A vigorous back-and-forth ensued.

“Congressman, you are causing problems,” Ms. Warren said. “We had an agreement.”

“You’re making this up,” Mr. McHenry replied. “This is not the case.”

The argument, an unraveling of the decorum that usually characterizes discussions among even the most fervent opponents during Congressional hearings, demonstrated the level of frustration that some Republicans apparently feel over the consumer agency, which was established as part of the Dodd-Frank Act that followed the financial and mortgage crisis.

The hearing Tuesday was intended to address the oversight that Congress should require for the agency.

Instead? Nothing got accomplished.

So … it looks like, nearly one year later, everyone is still totally thrilled with Dodd-Frank and that its implementation will continue to go swimmingly for all involved parties.

Reform is so easy.

Rep. Patrick McHenry.

U.S. Treasury Creates Insurance Committee

The U.S. Treasury Department has announced plans to create a committee to advise regulators on insurance issues. This comes after the insurance industry complained that it was being left out on details regarding important information from the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

Industry groups, including the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, have said insurance companies need greater representation on the oversight council, a group of regulators created to prevent another financial crisis.

buy avodart online meadowcrestdental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/avodart.html no prescription pharmacy

This marks the first in a series of steps the Treasury is taking to establish the new Federal Insurance Office, created under the Dodd-Frank Act.

buy cenforce online meadowcrestdental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/cenforce.html no prescription pharmacy

The committee will be made up of insurers, regulators, public advocates and others.

The American Insurance Association (AIA) lauds the Treasury plan. Blain Rethmeier, an AIA spokesman, says, “Anything that brings more knowledge of insurance where there hasn’t been before is a good idea. While we’re still reviewing the details of the committee, we’re pleased to see they will be seeking the industry’s participation.

buy finasteride online meadowcrestdental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/finasteride.html no prescription pharmacy

Applications for committee positions must be sent to the Treasury Department within 15 days of the time the notice appears in the Federal Register.

The “Wall Street Mind” and “Too Big to Fail”

Simon Johnson is the former IMF chief economist and current professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. And to say he is skeptical about the friendly relationship between government and Wall Street — particularly Goldman Sachs — would be putting it way too lightly.

He seems to be looking around at the industry “overhaul” that has occurred since the banks tanked the economy and wondering why everything is exactly the same as it was before. Very little has changed, he asserts, and he still thinks that at least one major firm remains entirely too big too fail regardless of how much Congress members want to walk around patting themselves on the back for passing Dodd-Frank last summer.

At the Institute for New Economic Thinking conference in Bretton Woods, he asked the following. (His transcribed comments here come from the video below.)

“Who in the room thinks that if Goldman Sachs were to hit a rock, a hypothetical rock — I’m not saying they have, I’m not saying they will. If they were to hit a rock today, Saturday, who here thinks they’ll be allowed to fail like Lehman Brothers did unimpeded by any kind of government bailout starting Monday morning? Can Goldman Sachs fail?”

After this, he pauses and looks around the room from his podium. You can’t see the crowd on the video but it becomes apparent that no one spoke up or raised their hand.

“I’ve asked this question around the country [and] only one person has ever raised his hand. It was in New York. He had a big short position in Goldman stock. That’s New York. But seriously, it can’t happen. Goldman Sachs is a $900 billion bank, total balance sheet. You might want to say it’s too big to fail. You might want to use the language of [Bank of England governor] Mervyn King and say it’s ‘too important to fail.’ You wouldn’t allow it to fail. I wouldn’t allow it to fail if it was my decision. You wouldn’t either. It’s too scary today given the nature of the global economy. And from that scariness comes power — comes an enormous amount of power.”

He then asks the audience what happened to the plans to reform this? Why is “too big too fail” still allowed to persist? Why is, as he claims, “it going the other way … too big to fail firms have gotten bigger”?

In his explanation is a lot of truth and straight talk about what he believes has been a failure to reform. Watch the video below in its entirety to hear all his insight. It’s 10 minutes long but you can make the time. (via The Economist)

In somewhat related news, New York magazine has put together a multi-part feature on “The Mind of Wall Street.” At it’s core, the piece asks if, when it comes to post-financial crisis reform, Wall Street won then why is it so worried.

Combined, both go a long way to explaining the current climate in the financial sector.