Tag Archives: deregulation

Conversations With Conservatives

12 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Aging, Business, Crisis Management, Customer Service, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Taxes, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recently I have had a couple of face-to-face, civil conversations with conservatives. The conversations gave me a better understanding of how Donald Trump and the Republican party have managed to stay in power for the last 37 years.

The Issues
Among the issues we discussed:

  • Finance regulation:  Banks unethical practices
  • Housing inflation:  Housing prices increasing too fast
  • Economy:  Not growing fast enough
  • Jobs:  Not enough good paying jobs
  • Healthcare:  Taking care of people who can’t afford healthcare, keeping healthcare costs down
  • Drug pricing:  Prescription drug unfettered pricing

Government or Business Corruption?
There are many more issues; however, the ones discussed offer insight to the driving attitude of conservatives. It was not surprising that conservatives believe that the government is inherently corrupt. They also have an unshakable opinion that business and capitalism are the solution to almost every social and/or economic problem.

When asked about the above issues, conservatives will automatically assume the problem can be attributed to government corruption, interference, or mismanagement. They also believe that government is holding back, or preventing from business solving the problem.

It is admirable that most conservatives don’t need, nor care if their opinions have no proof, or facts to support their position. Even when it is apparent that business is/was the cause of the problem, conservatives have the ability to double down on the fallacy and ignore anything that contradicts their opinion.

Cause of the Housing Crisis: Business as Usual Unethical

Regulation:  The False Enemy
In one conversation I was told of how a bank sold the fixed rate housing loan of this person to another bank and the new bank raised the interest rate without the consent of the owner. Though the person kept paying on the loan, they were finally told that they were in arrears on the loan because they had failed to pay the additional interest on the new loan. Ultimately, the person was forced into either spending thousands of dollars on legal fees, or walking away from the house.

Three factors are key to this situation. First is the greed of the banks to make more money for the investors. Second is the lack of ethics by the bank. Finally, the lack of government oversight over the banks to prevent them from selling the loan, remaking the loan, and then forcing the homeowner into foreclosure.

Business was the corrupt party in this situation, and a lack of government oversight was the contributing factor; however, to the conservative, this was another example of a corrupt government.

NEXT:  The Thirty-Seven Year Lie

FINRA Clearing a Path for Investment Firms to Engage in Social Media

25 Wednesday May 2011

Posted by in Business, Customer Relations, Ethics, Government Regulation, Management Practices, Public Relations, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]

A version of this article first published as
Investment Firms Allowed to Use Social Media Under SEC/FINRA Rules
 on Technorati.com

Paul Kiser

Eighteen months ago a game launching bird heads at pig heads didn’t exist.

Eighteen months ago Tony Hayward was a star as CEO of BP.

Eighteen months ago most people thought Charlie Sheen was an actor.

Eighteen months ago most investment firms thought that financial advisors were prohibited from using Social Media in business.

Now Angry Birds is near world domination, now Tony Hayward is a footnote in public relations infamy, now we know Charlie Sheen is Charlie Harper…the possessed version of him, and now Social Media is not taboo in the investment business.

…in the world of investing, the Social Media ‘evolution’ has had to meet the compliance issues of the regulatory agencies meant to protect the investor from unethical advisors…

The world is evolving faster than most people can absorb, so it’s not surprising that some industries are adapting to new technologies faster than others, but in the world of investing, the Social Media ‘evolution’ has had to meet the compliance issues of the regulatory agencies meant to protect the investor from unethical advisors.

Social Media tools like blogs and Internet-based social networking tools have opened up a new environment for business by allowing a rapid-response connection between the customer and the seller of a product or service. In most Internet commerce it is a caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) situation, where the buyer must pursue legal remedies for a broken contract or unethical representation of a product or service after the fact. In investment advising the company or firm is expected to protect the buyer before, during, and after the fact, which requires the firm to intercede and supervise interactions that involve investment advice. That has led many firms to prohibit all Social Media involvement by its representatives.

However, seventeen months ago the largest independent financial regulator stepped forward with a road map for investment firms on how Social Media could be used by their representatives while meeting the need to protect the investor.

…the regulations only effect business communications that involve investment advising and promotion. Personal blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other Social Media tools are not a concern for the regulators…

Joseph Price, Senior Vice President of Advertising Regulation/Corporate Financing at FINRA (Financial Industry Financial Authority) discussed the issues with investment firms and Social Media with me earlier today. Price is one of the authors of Regulatory Notice 10-06 titled Social Media Web Sites – Guidance on Blogs and Social Networking Web Sites that was published in January 2010. Price said that using Social Media, “..depends on the firm’s business model,” and that it, “..has to make sense for the firm.” He confirmed that the regulations only effect business communications that involve investment advising and promotion. Personal blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other Social Media tools are not a concern for the regulators even though individual firms may have policies prohibiting personal on-line interactions.

Price said that a common question he hears from firms is from those who prohibit all Social Media involvement by their representatives. Their concern is whether a firm is meeting the regulatory requirements when they have no Social Media supervisory functions in place because they have prohibited the activity.

Another question that FINRA has had to deal with involves deleting inappropriate user comments in chat rooms and on blogs. Price asked, “..by selective deletion, has the firm adopted the posts they haven’t deleted?” His suggestion to firms is that they have a policy in place that outlines the approval/deletion of comments. As long as a firm follows the policy and doesn’t prejudice the comments to favor the firm and its products, the company will likely not be considered to have approved and adopted the user comment.

Regarding investment business blogs, Price explained that they “require prior approval” by a firm before they are published because they fall into the category of a static communication that includes any form of advertising.

The Regulatory Notice 10-06 answers ten questions for firms about guidelines for using Social Media in the industry of investment advising.  FINRA has followed up that document with webinars, podcasts, and seminars to assist their member firms in the ongoing process of adapting regulatory requirements to Social Media tools available to the rest of the business world.

Firms now the option of fully engaging in Social Media, which is rapidly becoming less an option and more a matter of survival.

Foul Play: FIFA shows what less regulation offers to business

29 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Ethics, Government Regulation, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Public Relations, Random, Rotary, Sports

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Up until today the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (better known as FIFA) believed in fate, not fair play. In FIFA soccer (better known as football) four referees are charged with monitoring non-stop activity on a ‘pitch’ that is a larger field than the USA’s National Football League (better known as the NFL) The position of FIFA has been that mistakes have been ‘part of the game,’ but today they announced that they would study the problem….which begs the question, do they know what the problem is?

Compare FIFA officiating to that of the NFL where seven referees focus on plays that take place in short time segments of action (a typical play takes 15-seconds or less.) In addition, each play is usually contained in a small area of the field. The result is that NFL referees are so reliable that they rarely make a mistake…but if they do they are backed up by instant replay.

Occasionally, the losing team will say that an NFL referee cost them the game, but in reality few have a legitimate argument to base the outcome on anything other than the players on the field and the leadership on the sideline. Officiating in the NFL creates an environment of fair play for both teams, that’s the sole reason for their existence.

FIFA's View of Sports Officiating

In South Africa the 2010 FIFA World Cup is being played and not only are the referee’s making mistakes, they are determining the outcomes. But up until today, FIFA liked it that way. Somehow the sense of fair play is optional under FIFA officiating and the skills and dedication of the players is secondary to keeping the matches subject to the whims and errors of the non-players on the field. The situation is so bad that this year’s winner of the World Cup will likely owe a debt of gratitude to some FIFA ref that helped them win a game in the ‘knockout’ rounds. No team can fully claim credit of superior gamesmanship because of the excessive, gross errors made by the referees. I do not fault the referees, because four people cannot possibly track all the action on the field for 93 continuous minutes (90 minutes? Who are they kidding?) In FIFA, foul play reigns supreme because of a lack of regulation.

A Lesson For Business
This is a good lesson for those who preach that less regulation is good for business. We have seen what happens when government is stripped back to allow business to do as they will to their customers and the market. Too little regulation leads to foul play. It always has, always does, and always will. Greed is bad, but that is what reigns supreme in unregulated business. Business ethics become an unacceptable expense in unregulated business. Good business people are forced to abandon their ethics or get out of the industry in unregulated business environment because of their competitors who sacrifice fair play in order to win at all costs. Whether it is an exploding oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, a lead-based paint on a child’s toy, or unsustainable lending practices that will eventually destroy an economy, the cause is a lack of government oversight.

Whenever I say this to one of my conservative acquaintances they immediately quote me some instance that they heard from some source of an example of government abusing power. Yes, there are bad inspectors and absurd rules and laws that increase the cost of doing business, but I’ll take an occasional problem with government oversight to the perversion that unethical business people always devolve into when government is not there to protect us from greed. Regulated business is fair play for all and that’s what has made American business great.

More Articles