Podcasts about advisory boards

Body providing strategic advice to an organisation

  • 271PODCASTS
  • 344EPISODES
  • 40mAVG DURATION
  • 5WEEKLY NEW EPISODES
  • Nov 21, 2022LATEST

POPULARITY

20152016201720182019202020212022


Best podcasts about advisory boards

Latest podcast episodes about advisory boards

Truth Tastes Funny with Hersh Rephun
Accountability, Consumer Protection Laws, & The Price of Free Stuff: Jules Polonetsky

Truth Tastes Funny with Hersh Rephun

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2022 48:12


I should start by telling you that Jules Polonetsky is an optimist. Second, in the area of privacy and consumer protection, Jules is the man. He knows as much about privacy as Facebook knows about you. Jules serves as CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization that serves as a catalyst for privacy leadership and scholarship, advancing principled data practices in support of emerging technologies. FPF is supported by the chief privacy officers of more than 200 leading companies, several foundations, as well as by an advisory board composed of the country's leading academics and advocates. FPF's current projects focus on AI and Ethics, Connected Cars, Health, Research Data, Smart Communities, Ad Tech, Youth, Ed Tech, Privacy Legislation and Enforcement, and Global Data Flows.  We've known each other for nearly 40 years, and while our mutual admiration is the foundation of this conversation, our objective is to help you thrive in today's crazy world.Key Takeaways:If an app is "free," you're the product.If we act based on democratic and social values, AND we are honest about our point of view, thing might improve dramatically. Anytime you question your self-worth, just think about the multi-million-dollar high speed auction going on for your data. More About Jules:Jules also serves as Chairman of the International Digital Accountability Council and as Co-Chairman of the Israel Tech Policy Institute. Jules is co-editor of The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy, published by Cambridge University Press (2018). More of his writing and research can be found at the www.fpf.org and on Google Scholar and SSRN.Jules's previous roles have included serving as Chief Privacy Officer at AOL and at DoubleClick, as Consumer Affairs Commissioner for New York City, as an elected New York State Legislator and as a congressional staffer, and as an attorney.Jules has served on the boards of a number of privacy and consumer protection organizations including TRUSTe, the International Association of Privacy Professionals, and the Network Advertising Initiative. From 2011-2012, Jules served on the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. Jules is a member of The George Washington University Law School Privacy and Security Advisory Council. He also currently sits on the Advisory Boards of Open DP | Harvard University Privacy Tools Project and the California Privacy Lab (University of California).More at https://www.linkedin.com/in/julespolonetsky/If you enjoyed listening to Truth Tastes Funny, please leave a 5-star rating and a 300-word review on Apple Podcasts (click Listen on Apple Podcasts to access review option)Follow us on Instagram: @truthtastesfunnyFollow Hersh on Instagram: @Hersh4allon LinkedIn: HershRephunon YouTube: HershRephunon Twitter: @TruthTstsFunnyOur Website: TruthTastesFunnyContact UsExplore Branded Ventures with Truth Tastes Funny and Hersh's YES, BRAND Podcast

Principled
S8E11 | Geopolitics are impacting workplace ethics and compliance programs

Principled

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2022 41:23


As the world emerges from a pandemic mindset, we find ourselves confronting new geopolitical realities with Putin's war in the Ukraine as well as increasingly fraught relations between the US and China. How is this geopolitical landscape changing the compliance landscape? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers is joined by Tom Fox, the founder of the Compliance Podcast Network and aptly accredited “Voice of Compliance.” Listen in as the two discuss the impact of geopolitics on ethics and compliance, and what issues should be top-of-mind for E&C leaders in the near future. To learn more, download a copy of Tom Fox's white paper Never the Same: Five Key Areas in Which Business Will Never Be the Same After the Russian Invasion.   Featured guest: Tom Fox Tom Fox is literally the guy who wrote the book on compliance with the international compliance best-seller The Compliance Handbook, 3rd edition, which was released by LexisNexis in May 2022. Tom has authored 23 other books on business leadership, compliance and ethics, and corporate governance, including the international best-sellers Lessons Learned on Compliance and Ethics and Best Practices Under the FCPA and Bribery Act, as well as his award-winning series "Fox on Compliance." Tom leads the social media discussion on compliance with his award-winning blog, and is the Voice of Compliance, having founded the award-winning Compliance Podcast Network and hosting or producing multiple award-winning podcasts. He is an executive leader at the C-Suite Network, the world's most trusted network of C-Suite leaders. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.   Featured host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.  Principled Podcast Transcript   Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers: General Pete Schoomaker made a remark some years ago that's always stayed with me. He said, "People like to think that life is an opera that unfolds over several acts, but it's really a rodeo. You never know what's coming out of the shoot." So much of the ethics and compliance sphere clearly demonstrates the truth of the general's remarks, especially recently. LRN's last two program effectiveness reports focused specifically on the impact of the pandemic on ENC programs. Now we have the war with Russia in the Ukraine and increasingly fraught relationships with China. How is the geopolitical landscape changing the compliance landscape? Hello and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices at LRN. Today, I'm joined by Tom Fox, the founder of the Compliance Podcast Network and aptly accredited Voice of Compliance. In addition to his 30 plus years of legal experience, Tom is the author of the award-winning FCPA Compliance and Ethics blog, and The Complete Compliance Handbook now in its third edition, which is by far the best source for best practices in one place about ENC programs. We're going to be talking about the impact of geopolitics on ethics and compliance and what issues should be top of mind for ENC leaders in the near future. Tom, welcome. Tom Fox: Susan, thanks. I have wanted to be on this podcast for a long time. I particularly enjoyed your reference about rodeos because in the great state of Texas, that's a college sport, rodeoing, so lots of rodeos and it's certainly an apt metaphor for what we're going to talk about today. Susan Divers: Well, great, Tom and I really appreciate the opportunity to have any conversation with you, but particularly on the podcast. So Tom, first, generally, how do you see the ongoing war in the Ukraine as disrupting trade and the rules, both formal and informal, that have governed the world for the last 20 years and is the World Economic Forum vision of trade now dead? Tom Fox: Susan, in addition to the rodeo metaphor you gave us, the most prescient comment I heard during the COVID-19 pandemic is that we've moved from disaster recovery to business interruption to, excuse me, to business resiliency, to business as usual. Literally now, we can have a weather event, we can have an economic event, we can have a geopolitical event, we can have any event and the requirement of a company is how do you respond? How do you respond tomorrow? Have you planned for this? I think the type of thing that we saw with the Russian invasion, as tragic as that was, it's one more, it's just an event and we're going to talk about that in some detail. But every company has legal, ethical and business obligations around that event. I was also particularly struck by your reference to the World Economic Forum, and when I read that, it put a frown on my face. And it put a frown on my face because the World Economic Forum, in my mind, has been one of the biggest leaders for the global economy. Since at least 1990 when I started paying attention to a global economic framework because I was in the energy industry and began to think about these issues on a global basis, the World Economic Forum and their symposiums, their position papers and really their raison d'etre was to talk about a global economy. Although I certainly thought we would have regional conflicts, as we have always had, I never thought we would, I guess my hope was that the global economy would help drive us towards a more integrated global community and that we wouldn't be put near a brink again of a global conflict. I don't pretend to say that's where we're going in Ukraine, but when you start talking about tactical nuclear weapons, that's a conversation we haven't had in this country since the '60s with seriousness. The World Economic Forum, the world they envision, the world you and I grew up in professionally, I think that world is gone. We're moving to something else. I use the Russian invasion of Ukraine really as an ending point or an exclamation mark on trends that we have seen percolating probably 10, 5, 3 years that accelerated extraordinarily greatly in the COVID-19 pandemic up to the war in Ukraine and the disruption that that has caused really impacts businesses, and this is going to be something, I think, we're going to have to deal with literally on an ongoing basis forward. Lots, really, to unpack there, but I do have to acknowledge you for pointing out it was really the World Economic Forum that has led, I thought, the charge for a global economy and globalization and unfortunately, I think that world is now dead. Susan Divers: I hear you and I feel the same way about the Forum. LRN participated in it quite actively until fairly recently, and the Forum really did an excellent job of helping global leaders cooperate, frame some of the rules and the practices. Maybe when the current situation resolves itself one way or another, there'll be an opportunity to do that again. But getting a little bit more granular at this point. You've written about the impact of the Ukrainian war on the supply chain and certainly for business that's one area where the rubber really hits the road. Can you explain that a bit to our listeners? Tom Fox: Sure. The Ukraine War, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as I said, put a exclamation point on this. One of the key disruptions from COVID-19 was indeed supply chain. Here, I think for the first time, Susan, we started to look at geography as a risk. Geopolitical risk has been known for quite some time, but with the COVID-19, we have the swaths of the world that were unavailable to us because of the pandemic. As the pandemic raged through China and moved to India and moved to Africa, large parts of the global supply chain were literally shut down completely and they couldn't get back up, couldn't get running again. We saw, from COVID-19, a geographic risk that we have perhaps not considered as much before. This is different than an island that may worry about climate risk or flooding or fires in California or something like that. We had real geographic risk. The Ukraine War really put an exclamation mark on geopolitical risk. What is the risk? What was the risk in 2019 of Russia invading Ukraine? Certainly there were discussions at the highest level of our government. Frankly, I don't think you and I, wasn't on our radar. Maybe if you read foreign policy, it was on your radar, but for the business practitioner, from the compliance professional, I don't think we were thinking about a Russian invasion and what that might do to either our supply chain or business partners or customers. Well now, if the Ukrainian grain cannot be put in the global food supply chain, that's a huge disruption. The question that I thought about is what would be the effect of the disruption of the global food chain on one of our former employers, Aecom, Halliburton, businesses that you and I have both been involved with, but we don't think of as having perhaps a food risk. Nevertheless, if grain is not available, what do those types of risks mean for employees in allegedly or apparently unrelated companies? Companies have to start thinking about these kinds of things in ways that we haven't done before. I did a podcast earlier this week where someone said, "Look, the issue now is China and Taiwan." And he was absolutely right. That could be a military issue, could be a geopolitical issue. 82% of US semiconductors are made in Taiwan. That's a huge issue. Let's go back to our former employers who are now heavily invested in tech and actually use semiconductors as part of their manufacturing process. They're going to be impacted, let alone the US semiconductor industry and the US computer industry. That is something now that we have to consider. Are there any other geopolitical conflicts that could erupt, which might negatively impact our supply chains? And when I mean negatively, I mean you can't get your supplies out of those countries, whether it's a raw mineral, whether it's a extractive mineral, whatever it may be. Those types of issues now are more front and center than they ever have been. From the business perspective, Susan, supply chains, since at least the late '70s or early '80s, the primary goal was efficiency. That was generally translated to just-in-time. It was seen because of the experience in the '60s where particularly in the auto industry, you had lengthy supply chains and actually large number of parts piling up in warehouses that was deemed to be inefficient. They wanted it just before they needed it. That led to just-in-time. That led to one or two suppliers. We found that sole suppliers or sole plus one suppliers has a risk. That risk is, if they're in a geographic area that's wiped out by COVID, if they're in a geopolitical area that is no longer available to us, then we, as a company, have a problem with our supply chain. Certainly there are many industries that have been offshored outside of the United States. From our industry and service, or rather service industry folks like us, to manufacturing, to everything in between. That is now trying to be reshored on American soil. Can we do it? Yes. Can we do it tomorrow? Probably not. Can we do it in time for Christmas? Probably not. We're going to have to retrain, we're going to have to retool. We may have to allow greater immigration to get people in to do those jobs and it brings up an entire series of questions. It brings up economic questions. How much more is it going to cost to reshore? How much more does it cost and pay an American wage as opposed to a Philippine, Bangladeshi or other wage? Or you name the country outside the United States where the wages are disparate. All of those issues are now in play in a way that certainly they were percolating around and percolating along in the second half of the last decade. COVID-19 accelerated those conversations, particularly around just-in-time and sole source suppliers. But now, I don't know how much of the globe Russia consists of. I think at one point, it was 12%. That's not available to us as a supply chain partner now and Russian partners are not available to us as supply chain partners. Now, what happens if China is not available to us as a supply chain partner or Taiwan because of an armed conflict with China. How is that going to play? Or can we even get semiconductor chips out of Taiwan if they're in an armed conflict with China? All of these issues are now front and center and I think every company has to be looking at their supply chain, who's in their supply chain. Then obviously, this ties into things that were not deemed to be connected to all of these issues before, such as conflict minerals. Conflict minerals required you as a company to determine or any of the minerals you're buying, the four Ts, I think, coming out of countries primarily in Africa under conflict. This was the first time companies had really taken a deep dive, not to their direct suppliers, but to their sub-suppliers and they found out we don't exactly know who all of our sub-suppliers are. Obviously the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act has huge impact on supply chains and hopefully, we can talk about that at some length in a little bit, but all of these issues on supply chain, it's elevated the discussion of the corporate supply chain, I hope, to where it properly belongs, in the board of directors level. But for the people that we deal with, the CCOs and compliance professionals, I think it should be a part of an equal conversation because what are the risks? I was going to say implications, but what are the risks of moving your supply chain, reshoring it? It's a change so the risks change. It may not be an FCPA risk because you may be in the United States, but almost every state in the US has an anti-corruption law and a state anti-corruption law. I had to look at it one time, 37 states do. That's not that you can't bribe our state government officials, every state says that, but 37 with regular commercial private or private anti-bribery laws. When was the last time you, as a compliance professional, had to assess that issue, that risk? Lots of new risks and you, as a compliance professional, need to be a part of those discussions so you can begin preparing your corporation for those eventualities. Susan Divers: Well, that's a perfect example, or I should say it's an example on steroids of how you have to respond to the risks that face you today and hopefully, tomorrow, try to look around corners. I remember, I think it was in the 2020 guidance that DOJ put out. They said that you can't let your program be a snapshot in time or go on cruise control. That's one of the biggest traps I see people fall into. You ask them what their risks are and it's kind of like what the risks were last year. With this environment and with what you just outlined in terms of supply chain, there's going to be a lot for compliance teams to do. How should people be addressing that right now? I know we'll talk later about sanctions and anti-money laundering being the new FCPA as Deputy Attorney General Monaco said recently, but what's your advice today in terms of how to think about those risks? Tom Fox: Susan, you hit it exactly on the head. Assess your risks when your business changed. You reference the 2020 update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. That's where the first time the Department of Justice formally said, it's not an annual risk assessment. It's not a biennial, all-encompassing $100,000 risk assessment. It's an assessment when your business changed. The beauty of the timing of that statement, it was June, 2020, everyone's risk had changed because we were working from home. It didn't mean your risk increased or decreased, they changed. How do you assess working from home or how did you assess working from home from a compliance perspective? Once you made that assessment and then you found there were actually new risks, then you had to put a risk mitigation strategy in place, then you monitored that strategy to determine its effectiveness and then you used that information to upgrade your compliance program. The formula is in place for all of these things, but it starts with exactly what you said, Susan, assess your risks if your business has changed and everyone's business has changed literally, particularly in the supply chain. You've got to know who your suppliers are. From the business perspective, who can supply us is paramount. Pricing is going to be paramount. But from the compliance perspective, where are they getting those? If you're a clothing manufacturer, how many of your suppliers are coming out of Bangladesh and how many of those suppliers are violating any sort of fair trade or human rights laws? Even what's the safety, as we know from the Plaza collapse a few years back in Bangladesh. You have to know who's in your supply chain to a level and degree that you didn't previously think about unless you were in conflict minerals. But the beauty of that is that if you make that assessment down into your sub-suppliers from your supply chain, you as a business will be stronger. You will see, number one, if there are inefficiencies in our supply chain, but two, if there's a disruption, you'll be able to mitigate that if a disruption occurs because you can move to another supplier because you know where the parts are coming in from and hopefully, you'll be able to have prior knowledge or planning around that. But think of a weather event. In 2021, I was living in Houston. It hit seven degrees. That was the first time we'd had single-digit weather in Texas since 1890. Well, we can't prepare for that, yeah! This is a town that had gone through two 500-year floods and 1,000-year flood over the past 18 months. We had a wildfire north of Houston. We'd never had a wildfire in Houston, Texas in my lifetime. All of that's to say is that things have changed. I don't pretend to say I know which way it's going, I just know that you have to be there. You have to have assessed those risks and have a plan in place if you can't utilize all the way down in your supply chain, but that gives you the opportunity to be more business efficient and if a catastrophe does occur, you're more quickly able to respond. Starts with a risk assessment, put a risk management strategy in place, monitor that strategy, and then improve your compliance program as information becomes available to you. Susan Divers:I totally agree with that, Tom and I want to relate it back a little bit to a point you raised earlier too, which is this gives you an opportunity to make sure that you're dealing with ethical sub-suppliers and that your whole supply chain meets spec. I think I've seen in the past, in my long years as an ethics and compliance lawyer, and before that as more of a specialist on FCPA that a lot of times, people don't know who their sub-suppliers are and the first they find out is when there's fraud or potential bribery issue or diversion or a theft of intellectual property. It does give you an opportunity to get a more solid grip on your suppliers and make sure that they are the right people that you're dealing with. Let's turn from that, which is I think a very good segue to the issue of economic sanctions. There's really been a quantum leap in that area, even it was starting before Russia, I think, with the sanctions on Huawei and the heating up of tension in the US-China relationship, but now it's on a completely different level and that really, I think, has to be top of list for companies when they review their ENC programs. Can you talk about that and give us some guidance? Tom Fox: Sure. Once again, Susan, let me use the Russian invasion as the exclamation mark because under the Trump administration, we saw an exponential increase in the use of trade and economic sanctions. I had several friends in that space and every once in a while, I'd email them, "Well, we had three changes today. What do you expect this afternoon?" The point being that the prior administration saw those as legitimate and important tools for US national security. That has only increased now on steroids because of the Russian invasion. What the Trump administration's use of those tools did was it elevated the discussion of the trade compliance director in a corporation to the board of director level. It may have elevated them within the compliance function or generally within the C-suite because people now had to call trade compliance and say, "Anything new today?" Well, the sanctions that have come out after the Russian invasion have been all encompassing. Now, I looked before this podcast, I think we're on our seventh round of sanctions and more to come. That's seven rounds from the United States. That doesn't even count the UK and Western Europe who have equally sanctioned Russia. Many US multinational companies are also subject to UK or EU trade sanction directives. You need to be cognizant of those. But the current trade sanctions that have been levied, and when I say there's still more to come, we haven't gotten to the nuclear option, which is secondary sanctions. If we get to secondary sanctions, that's an entire level of trade and economic sanctions literally that we have not seen since World War II. Discussion though, around trade sanctions, and once again, I've talked to several of our colleagues who have that as their specific compliance remit and their specialization is they now feel elevated within the corporation. They feel that the issues they've been dealing with, their professional careers are now being discussed literally at the board of directors level because of these huge potential fines and penalties, the huge visibility. As important as these legal restrictions are, Susan, it's actually the reputational damage. Just think about the companies that either drag their feet about leaving Russia or were slow or less than somebody's idea of we need to be out of there. They were excoriated in the press for doing business in Russia after this invasion. Those conversations have largely on by the wayside because I think most US companies are out of Russia now, but the reputational damage for the violation of trade sanctions or even some sort of norm or standard now costs more than perhaps even the finer penalty would've cost. It's really a huge change for our colleagues. It's an important change because now, those issues are being evaluated together with supply chain at the board level in a way they have not been previously evaluated. You may now need to look, you need to call your trade director of trade compliance about issues in your supply chain. You need to call your director of trade compliance about where are we doing business? How are we doing business? Who are we doing business with? Who's our customer base? Are we selling with commission sales agents, company employees or distributors? If we're using distributors, are they reselling our products into Iran? Are they reselling our products into a country that's exporting to Russia? All of those issues now, I think, are being discussed at the highest level of a company. But for me, Susan, the real beauty of this discussion is finally, I think, the silos are coming down within a corporation and you're seeing a much more holistic approach to many of these issues that we'd not seen previously. Once again, if I could go back to the DOJ's June, 2020 update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs as presaging all of this, they said in that document compliance must have access to all data silos within a company because compliance needs to know what everyone's doing so compliance can do its job. Well, that turned out to be true, but it turned out to be true much broader. I think the DOJ was onto something when they said that, and I think now, companies are realizing you have to have this holistic approach. Trade sanctions and export control sanctions are here to stay. The other insight from the Trump administration use of them and the Biden administration use of them is they're administration agnostic. They're not going to go away and if 2024, we have a Republican administration, they are probably going to continue those and they're not going away. If there's a Democratic administration, they're not going away. They're probably going to continue those. Sanctions, trade sanctions, export control sanctions are here to stay. They're probably going to get more robust. And until Russia pulls out of Ukraine, I think companies have to take these very, very seriously, both for a potential legal finer penalty, but even more important is in the commerce or the business place of public opinion. Susan Divers: I totally agree with everything you've said and you've made a very articulate vision of what a major challenge is for compliance teams. The only thing I would add is, it's interesting to me, that this can affect small and medium-sized companies that don't think in these terms and may not even really be very sophisticated. When I was looking a couple of months ago, I came across a case involving a false eyelash manufacturer who was importing what turned out to be false eyelashes that sourced in North Korea. I mean, it was a Chinese supplier, but the sub-supplier was North Korean and they got in trouble. As you know, it doesn't really matter if you don't know. That's no defense and they paid a fine for that. It was a good reminder that trade sanctions can affect everyone and that you really, hopefully, have to have that on your radar. Let's take an interesting topic off of this, which is have the enhanced sanctions started to really impact whistleblowers? I mean, we know that FCPA enforcement has certainly inspired a lot of whistleblowers, as well as SOX and other areas such as that. But what about trade sanctions and what about AML and what we're seeing? Tom Fox: That's been, I don't want to say it was an unintended consequence, but one of the most interesting outcomes or aspects of the Russian invasion. For the first probably 30 days, the most ubiquitous picture of the Russian invasion was a yacht steaming away because it was a Russian oligarch's yacht and they were trying to steam to a port where the US couldn't come in and forfeit them because of trade sanctions and sanctions put on the Russian oligarchs. But here's what happened. On January 1st of 2021, US Congress overrode President Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act. In that bill, there was something called the AML law of 2020. The AML law of 2020 was the first update to our anti-money laundering laws and trade sanctions laws since the Patriot Act passed in the wake of 911. As part of that change, a bounty program for whistleblowers was put in place similar to the SEC bounty program put in place in Dodd-Frank. That Department of Treasury money laundering or anti-money laundering bounty program applies to those Russian yachts because if a yacht is seized and sold, the person who reported it can be eligible for up to 30% of the proceeds of that sale. This created an entire cottage industry of marine yacht hunters who knew and they are working with law firms to actively, and when they find one in a port that the US can get jurisdiction over, these law firms notify the DOJ and then the DOJ does whatever they need to do to try to get seizure of that yacht in a foreign country. That was viewed as hugely popular and the American public is cheering them on in a way whistleblowers have never been cheered on in our lifetimes. I remember I interviewed a woman whose law firm specializes in whistleblowing and I said sort of in an offhand manner, "Are you telling me that whistleblowing is sexy?" Her response is, "You mean, it hasn't always been that way?" No, it hadn't. But now, it was seen as directly in the interest of the United States, particularly our national security for these whistleblowers to come forward. As important as whistleblowing is to the SEC, I don't think it had ever been considered a national security issue. That ties to what the Department of Treasury has announced publicly that they expect US corporations to be in on the fight of trade and economic sanctions and money laundering by self-reporting. I had had a little trouble tying self-reporting of your own violation to the fight against national security. But what the Treasury Department argued was, come to us, tell us if you find people within your organization violating trade sanctions or economic sanctions and we'll give you credit for that, that may be a declination up to it, including a declination. The DOT has truly tried to incentivize companies to be a part of this fight and that is now the same for whistleblowing. Whistleblowers are now seen. There's one other document called US Strategy on Combating Corruption, which came out in December, 2021. In that document, the Biden administration pointed to whistleblowers as a component of the fight against bribery and corruption, which that document elevated to national security status. Now, we have whistleblowers who before the Russian invasion, certainly were a part of the legal landscape and part of the compliance landscape, but now they're being told, you are a part of our national security interest and you are a part of our national security fight and if you bring us this information in the form of blowing the whistle, you will be rewarded. The US public is saying, you go. You go find those yachts. You go find those people who are doing business with those that are not in the national security interest of the United States and we'll support that. That's, in my mind, just a huge psychological change. Susan, I know you have written and said more about whistleblowing and how to treat whistleblowers than about anybody and I know this is something that you've been talking about for a long, long time, but I really see this as a true shift in the way whistleblowers are thought of in the United States. Susan Divers: Well, I'm glad you brought that point out because I think that's true. Tying it furthermore to the impact of corruption on national security, I think is an idea whose time has come and we're going to do a whole other podcast on that as part of this series so I won't get into it a lot. But the concept of corruption as a victimless crime has been around as long as I've been practicing, which is a long time. It's not a victimless crime. I don't need to convince you. But it basically corrodes good governance, it corrodes social structures, it makes it harder for the poor. I mean, if I can go bribe my way, get a MRI ahead of everybody else in some less developed country, I'm jeopardizing the other people who can't afford that in that country and I'm also corroding ethics and good governance, but it hasn't been seen that way in the past, either by the government really or in the corporate community, and so we'll get into that more in the next podcast. But that's fascinating to tie the whistleblowing into that and it has the additional benefit of being true, if you will. I have to say, I love the image of the yacht hunters. It's one of the first things I read when I open The Wall Street Journal in the morning to see if there's some oligarch's yacht that's being towed away or whatever, but it's definitely an idea whose time has come. Tom Fox: For those of you who think our ever new ideas, I think if you look back in history, that was called piracy and or rading by English- Susan Divers: Letters of marque. Tom Fox: Yes, exactly. Letters of marque. It's an old concept, but it's equally valid today. Susan Divers: Well, let's close off this session because we're going to do another podcast and talk more about anti-corruption and sustainability. But one of the things I was curious about is how does all of this tie in to the level of transparency that we're seeing in international trade, in commerce? Our chairman of the board, Dov Seidman, whom I know you know of and know has written a lot in the past about radical transparency and how does that tie in to what we've been talking about? Tom Fox: Susan, let me go back to 2015 and the Volkswagen emission testing scandal. I read a speech by the head of the German Manufacturer's Council, so the German trade group for manufacturers. In that speech he said, "The answer is compliance and transparency." One, be in compliance, but two, be transparent about it. That is how we, as a German industry, will get through this. Volkswagen has done what they've done. We can't stop that or do anything about that, but we, the rest of German manufacturing, can be in compliance and can be transparent about that compliance. That really struck me at the time and it stuck with me since then. The transparency, the radical transparency that Dov talks about is even more important in 2022 because of things like the Business Roundtable Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation. How many stakeholders are there now? Previously, there have been only shareholders, but now you have multiple stakeholders. It can be your employees, it can be your third parties. It can be those localities where you do business and that's where that radical transparency is so critical because they may not own shares and they may not be able to vote, but they can vote with their pocketbook. The radical transparency allows you to demonstrate to stakeholders who are going to vote with their pocketbook that we do business ethically and we are in compliance, and that you can and should do business with us because our values are what your values are. That's, to me, the power of radical transparency and it's the ability to demonstrate to those who are not regulators. Because remember, if you're fined for a regulatory violation, that's seen as a below the line sunk cost. Just the cost of doing business. Tell me how much my fine is and I can reserve for it, whatever it is. What I cannot reserve for is if 5, 10, 25 or 50% of my customer base chooses not to buy my products because I've been found to have violated sanctions or I've been found to have used Uyghur labor in product site sourced out of China, or you name the issue. That's not a bottom line cost. That's a top of the line cost. That's a cost you can never get back because you can't reserve for non-sales. It's a cost you can't anticipate, you can't reserve for, you can't mitigate the risk because once you don't have sales, you don't have sales. To me, that concept of transparency, that concept of doing business ethically, in compliance and that concept of radical transparency all really protects you and allows you as a corporation to say, "This is what we stand for. This is why we're proud to sell a product to you and hopefully, you're proud to buy a product from us." Susan Divers: Well, you're right and that really tees up the heart of sustainability. Sustainability isn't one giant checklist after another. It's what are we really doing and how are we doing it? What you're also saying too is, and it ties with things Dov said in the past, that we live in an age of radical transparency where anyone can go on Twitter, I guess, if they pay the $8 now or post on Facebook or Instagram or wherever and expose concerns. And with the incredible increase in sanctions and money laundering controls, it's just a further reason, if anyone needed one, why you have to get your house in order and you have to make sure that you are dealing with those risks effectively and of course, walk the walk as well as talk the talk. We are running out of time, unfortunately, but I'm excited to mention again that we're going to continue this conversation in an upcoming podcast. It's been such a pleasure having you today, and I know we could keep talking for another couple of hours, but we'll have further opportunities in the future. Tom Fox: I always have way too much fun when you and I sit and chit chat, whether it's over a lunch, a coffee, or a podcast, so thank you, Susan. Susan Divers: Oh, I feel the same way, Tom. My name is Susan Divers and I want to thank you all for tuning into the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro:  We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance and global organizations by helping them foster winning, ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.  

Data And Analytics in Business
E125 - Dr. Ramendra Singh - The Role of Data Analytics in Performance Media and Marketing

Data And Analytics in Business

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 13, 2022 55:42


Did your latest advertisement reach 100k views and get 10k clicks? Or do you have no idea how many people actually saw it or had enough interest in it to try and learn more? If the advertising, marketing, and media you produce is created with the goal of reaching a measurable outcome - whether it's views or clicks or subscribers or sales… …you might just be interested in learning more about Performance Media and the data analytics that goes into it. Catch the latest TAS episode to hear it from Dr. Ramendra Singh. Meet Dr. Ramendra Singh Ramendra's Role as a Media Leader as Crossmedia Ramendra Singh is the Chief Performance Media Officer at Crossmedia USA. Crossmedia is an independent channel-driven agency delivering communications planning, media services and international account management. Crossmedia was born out of a passion to establish an agency model that focuses on what media agencies should do: create innovative, participatory connections between brands and people regardless of channel or budget. Since being founded in 2000, they have seen a paradigm shift in how media agencies are structured, mirroring the Crossmedia approach. Ramendra's Other Work in Marketing Ramendra received the Data Culture Leader Award as part of the BoD Awards from Corinium in 2022. He has served as Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Analytics Officer, and Chief Product Officer at Fortune 500 firms throughout his career. His C-Suite experience spans leading functional areas of Marketing, Product Development, Data Science & Analytics, Technology, and Operations and his global experience spans across multiple industry verticals. To name a few, previously, Ramendra has been Chief Analytics Officer of Performics and Chief Marketing Officer at Brandman University. He is also a senior member on Industry Councils and Advisory Boards. Besides that, Ramendra shares his insights by speaking and publishing on topics such as Performance Marketing, Measurement, Digital Transformation, Advanced Analytics, Decisioning Solutions, Application of AI/ML, and Organisational Improvement. Performance Media, Data Analytics, Marketing In this exclusive analytics podcast episode, Ramendra shares: The story behind his win of the Performance Pioneer award with PMW US His current role as the Chief Performance Media Officer at Crossmedia USA What exactly Performance Media is Combining demand generation and demand capture Using advanced analytics solutions in Performance Media Where we're at in Performance Media regarding advanced analytics The future of plug-and-play with data analytics How the role of a marketer has become broader and how universities should adapt A use case of a Performance Media has benefitted an organisation using data analytics Calculating the KPI for these Performance Media benefits How much mathematicians are involved in creating these media solutions The challenges that come with using data analytics in Performance Media How small businesses can also benefit from Performance Media Services side vs clients side If you are a marketing professional looking to start implementing Performance Media in your organisations through the use of data analytics, this is the episode you do not want to miss. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/analyticsshow/message

Principled
S8E9 | Making performance management meaningful and aligned with DOJ policy

Principled

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 4, 2022 31:12


In September, the Department of Justice Fraud Section announced a new policy direction on corporate misconduct, clearly stating that personal accountability for employees, executives, and directors was their number one priority. The revised DOJ policy clearly states that an organization's compensation and benefits program must be aligned to its values and ethical culture. So, what does this mean for compliance? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers discusses how to implement a meaningful performance management system that meets DOJ objectives with Stephanie Ragan, a Certified Compliance and Ethics Professional (recently of SOFEC) and now solo practitioner after 14 years as a compliance specialist and manager in the oil and gas industry.    Featured guest: Stephanie Ragan As an experienced, well-rounded compliance and ethics specialist, Stephanie has recently struck out on her own by launching Ragan Export Compliance, a consulting company focused on providing services and guidance for regulatory compliance. A subject matter expert in trade compliance for the past 10 years, she holds both a Masters of Science in Regulatory Trade Compliance and a degree in International Trade Management. Her credentials include special certifications as a Certified United States Export Compliance Officer (CUSECO), a Certified Compliance & Ethics Professional (CCEP) and an FCPA Expert (FCPA Blog).With a passion for developing efficient, integrated and automated compliance systems and programs, Stephanie's philosophy is that the intentional integration of compliance and ethics elements within an organization is at the core of every successful business model; and through making compliance accessible and approachable to all stakeholders, the value of a company's culture is significantly increased.   Featured host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.    Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers: Last September, the Department of Justice Fraud Section announced a new policy direction on corporate misconduct. And they clearly stated that personal accountability for employees, executives, and directors was the department's number one priority. And as part of that, the revised policy that DAG, Lisa Monaco put out that day makes clear that an organization's compensation and benefits program must be aligned to its values and ethical culture. That means that positive behavior, for example, turning down a tainted business opportunity should be an essential factor in evaluating performance. And that there should be financial penalties, real financial penalties for misconduct. So what does that mean for compliance professionals? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's DAG, Lisa Monaco. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices at LRN. Today I'm joined by Stephanie Ragan, a certified compliance and ethics professional, and most recently of Sofec, an oil and gas provider that's global in its operations. Stephanie has just left Sofec and is now consulting on her own after 14 years of a compliance specialist and a manager in the oil and gas industry. We're going to be talking about implementing a meaningful performance management system that meets DOJ objectives and how you go about that. Stephanie, thanks for joining me on Principled Podcast. Stephanie Ragan: Thanks for having me, Susan. Susan Divers: It's my pleasure. Interestingly, one of the questions we ask in LRN's annual program effectiveness survey is about organizations using ethical behavior as a significant factor in compensation, bonuses, hiring and promotion. And last year 69% of the over, I think it was about 1200 ENC programs that we surveyed, indicated that they required that an employee's ethical behavior be evaluated as part of their annual performance review. And we found that top rated programs were much more likely with 88% including such criteria. But Stephanie, as you know, with all things compliance, the devil is in the details. So I'd really like to hear about how you implemented your program that does just that at Sofec. And I'm sure our listeners would love to profit from your experience and your wisdom on this subject. So let's start at the beginning, how did you start this initiative or how did it start and how did you get support for it? Stephanie Ragan: Well, sure. So coming from a company like Sofec, we just celebrated our 50th year and we have a lot of mature programs and some that are still coming along. And our compliance program was one of our newer initiatives. We started it in about 2011. And it was interesting to see that when we formalized that department and all of our programs, policies, everything that helped sustain it, there was a need to measure it against other overhead type departments like HR, HSE and quality. So looking toward those types of departments for direction to see how we could measure effectiveness of programs and tie that back to our professional performance goal setting efforts that we do on an annual basis was a challenge for us. And we decided that as the new kid on the block, we could look at what worked for everybody and what didn't. And we decided that it would be necessary to look at what weight we needed to hold within the organization for each of our compliance initiatives. So for a starting point for our listeners, I would suggest that you look at the way your organizations measure performance. And if there is already an existing HSSEQ component or HR component, that you should also be including a compliance and ethics representation. And that should be a key area of focus for your personnel to align with your company culture and your company code and business operations. Susan Divers: That makes a great deal of sense. And I want to pick up on one thing you said in particular, which is that the ENC program needs to have equal status and weight with other similar programs, whether it's HR or audit or security or health and safety. And that's actually in the 2020 guidance from the Department of Justice as well. Because one of the questions prosecutors will ask or are told to ask companies accused of misconduct is, "Does your ENC program have equal status and resources?" So the approach you took fits very nicely with that. Let's talk about how you actually went about it. How did you enlist support? How long did it take? And what did you do in the end to get it up and running? Stephanie Ragan: Well, you know it takes a village to have any kind of success. And our compliance and ethics global team really took on this call to bring compliance and ethics to the forefront, it having an equal say in the performance measurements that we do in the company. And we were able to within the last few years, convince our management that along with performance measurement, which was a key area of concern, we needed to have regular meetings, at least an annual meeting, to be able to confer as a team globally and to discuss ideas, work on program development and get training initiatives ironed out. Kind of plan out our year as a whole so that globally we could have a cohesive plan that aligned everyone, didn't leave anyone behind from a planning standpoint for all of our entities, and made sure all personnel were covered by local compliance and ethics designees that could administrate and cover those programs as we rolled them out. So this was very well taken on. And again, we leaned back into HR and HSE were having these types of annual meetings and conferences internally in the company. So we wanted to say, again, we need to make sure compliance and ethics is represented. It was well received and management was very supportive. So in 2019, we had our first global gathering. And at that point, we all discussed how we measured and where we had gaps in measuring those compliance and ethics performance areas. And we figured that the global initiative of tying it into your bonus, your compensation that's measured annually by HR, that we needed to partner with them as well. So we were able to utilize the great guidelines that were out by the Department of Justice that came out in 2018, 2020. And then similarly, we had more guidelines come out again this September. These types of guidelines were helpful in getting the highest levels of buy-in. So using that as leverage, we were able to place value on measuring those individual participation to show evidence of a effective compliance program. And we were able to also work with legal. And I think that that's something that anyone who's struggling with finding a way to tie their individual performance metrics for users to compliance and ethics, that having your legal team work with you, if that's not already part of your compliance and ethics team and working with HR to jointly explain to senior management why the Department of Justice guidelines are so helpful and necessary to pay attention to. No one wants to have those types of individual penalties pointed back toward them. And letting them know what the enforcement and penalty details could entail, it can be a little scary and overwhelming for them, but it lets them know the weight of importance. So moving on, our CNE team wanted to then, after we had our senior buy-in, determine specific ways to quantify a compliance and ethics participation that was acceptable. So we developed a way to be able to measure and do a cumulative total for each employee throughout the year. And with the help and guidance of our compliance council, our general compliance council, which oversees all of our compliance and ethics initiatives from a senior level, and our chief compliance officer who's over our entire group, performance matrix was developed. So we determined what KPIs and metrics were most valuable to our company and also how participating in training and completing mandatory training assigned on time or early would be a key indicator that our personnel were engaged in in meeting their CNE goals. Now that was our initial concern that the training and focusing on training, on time training completion wouldn't be enough, but that's a great baseline. So if you are not measuring that, start there. And we also decided though that's a minimum expectation, that other avenues of participation engagement could then be easily added. This was a chance also for our CNE team to promote all of the tools and the outreach that we had been developing to engage individuals in our annual Compliance Week program, our local newsletters, which we could insert quizzes and different activities for them to complete, optional live and virtual training sessions, surveys, quizzes, and use of compliance videos and slides in their operational meetings and team meetings. And then it gave us an opportunity also for people that really went above and beyond to be recognized and have that tied back into their performance goals as a metric to, so our compliance champions who always went above and beyond, or personnel who brought forward potential compliance and ethics issues that were helping make formative changes to our program could also be recognized. That sounds like a lot to keep track of and could be really overwhelming for our listeners that have a new compliance program, limited resources, budget constraints, but there are a lot of great tools and support out there like LRN that is a great content provider and provides support with measuring that on time participation and a lot of other value that you can add into your program. Let's face it, at a minimum, any functioning compliance program is at least checking the box with mandatory compliance and ethics training like anti-corruption or your company code training, general CNE program awareness. So if you start with training as your first building block to measurement, it'll be less of a shock and easily accepted because your population and your personnel are already participating in those training initiatives. Susan Divers: That's a great story. And the way that you worked with other people in the company to identify where you were going to start with the criteria I think is very powerful for people who are grappling with this subject. And I know it's not just companies that are new or small, it's an area that I think a lot of people are still trying to chart their way. And also using the Department of Justice guidance strategically to help management understand why this is a risk that really needs to be managed. I think there is emphasis when you look at the guidance, it's important to realize that it's out there in part to help people like you and your team actually implement it by putting it under an official seal, if you will. So well done. Hey, tell us now, how is it working and are there any tweaks that you would make at this stage? Stephanie Ragan: Well, the great news is we've certainly seen improvement. So we've seen results of greater participation across the board in all of our areas. So whether it's people participating in Compliance Week because they know it ties back to their performance or they attend training that they would've otherwise blown off or not considered taking because it wasn't mandatory. And that is really energizing us to continue to grow the program and continue to find ways to reach people. And we've seen a lot of participation because of this initiative of tying it to performance goals in areas and regions where maybe culturally it wasn't important before to participate in compliance and ethics initiatives. But now they understand because they have something that's tangible material that ties back to their actual individual performance and they want to succeed in that area. So in general, it's helped us create different types of communications. We've been able to go and create management reports to provide managers live specific data on how each of their team members are performing throughout the year. Some managers reach out for that quarterly or semi-annually, but everyone reaches out for it toward the end of the year when they're wrapping up their performance evaluations. And it's great to have that kind of tool. So I do recommend that you work on creating something as simple as an Excel spreadsheet that can start capturing data to keep good records regarding the performance of your personnel. And also, if ever you are audited by a government authority, it's a great tool to provide your training records and say, "We're not just checking the box, we are going above and beyond by tracking every engagement with compliance and ethics." So also following that, we're able to use those participation records to quantify a score for each person. Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be a numeric score. Some companies may want to do it that way. We aligned with what our HR teams were already using, which is kind of a scale one to five, either unsatisfactory and then failed to meet expectations. You either met expectations, exceeded expectations, or you did outstanding work. So because that was already in use in our system, it was a language everybody understood and we created what fell into each category for our measurements on the compliance and ethics side. And again, we don't have to reinvent the wheel, you can use what you have and work smarter, not harder. But tracking the progress is really important. So if you can assign something that you can put a value against, then you can develop statistics over time and track trends within the organization. We did have a lot of discussion across the board about how much weight should be given to compliance and ethics performance compared to HSE or HR. So again, we fought to have equal footing because we preach in our company code of, we have a culture of compliance, we have our compliance code that gives guidelines on how to operate in every aspect and provides best business practices for everyone. So there was no reason to sell ourselves short or give ourselves a discount and say, "We don't want to be considered equally." Even though some companies may need to tweak that based on what their own business practices are, it should have some alignment with your culture and your code. And that way people understand it and can buy into it on an individual basis and an organizational basis. So looking forward in 2023, and this is largely in response to the new DOJ guidelines that you mentioned earlier, which came out September 15th, that does focus a lot on enforcement. So again, we have that leverage to push and say, "This is important. You don't want to be in trouble because this is how it can affect you as an individual." And that does garner a lot of attention and response from senior management, which is great. We don't want to scare anyone, but we want to make sure they understand the weight of their actions or inactions. But our tweaks moving forward would include tiered measurements, and that aligns with the Department of Justice newest guidelines so that you have different measurements and expectations for managers and supervisors and executives. And I think you should really look at that as three different categories, general personnel, people who have an influence over them, managers and supervisors, and then the people at the top. So your executives are going to be viewed differently if enforcement actions are ever taken. So you might as well prepare and have your program mirror that type of focus internally. We also have a lot of questions that come up then from managers that say, "What are my roles? What do I need to do to earn my points or to get a good rating?" And we always encourage them to infuse and integrate compliance and ethics into their team talks, their safety minutes that they have at a beginning of a meeting, replace some of those with compliance moments. And we make those tools available easily so that they can download it from our [inaudible 00:19:23] and they have full access to short videos, to content that we can pull from different training providers or that we've developed internally. That just makes it easier if they have one stop shopping, they can go to your compliance site. And if you don't have that type of setup, don't worry. Companies can always make it available by emailing that out to managers and just having kind of the library available to them. And as you develop and tweak your offerings, let people know. It's good to self-advertise within the organization so that send an email out to all of your managers and say, "Hey, we have a new video available if you want to share it with your teams." And let those managers come back to you and let you know how they used them and what the feedback is, because that's just going to help build the program and continue your process improvement. As the DOJ recommendations indicate, effective compliance program always points to individual emphasis for that compliance and ethics participation and compensation. And I think we can agree that those personnel who embrace and make an effort to incorporate compliance and ethics into their work are more likely to report potential issues, be less likely to become bad actors by breaking rules intentionally or unintentionally. And generally, they're going to support the best practices and the compliance and ethics program in the organization. Susan Divers: Well, we would certainly agree with that. And our research at LRN shows overwhelmingly over the years that I've been here, which are now six, that a culture of compliance that involves employees at as many levels as possible and helps them by giving them materials, you mentioned making it easy for managers to talk about ENC, that that is the best defense to misconduct and it's not how many times you reinvent in your code of conduct. But I do want to mention one other thing that you talked about early on, which is data points and having something that shows exactly where a particular individual is in their ENC journey, whether it's training or touchpoints. We've actually just redone major parts of our platform and we're very excited about it because there's a part that we're rolling out this month called Reveal, which is advanced data metrics from the training experience. And it shows what courses, what subjects people struggle with the most, how much time employees spend on a given subject and a lot of other very relevant data. It's very powerful and it allows you to benchmark against yourself and against other companies in your area. That's something everybody is very focused on. And using that in conjunction with your performance review system can really drive change. And then I'd also mention managing that data is important. We also are including a tool that we've had for some time called Disclosures where we're asking people to tell us when they attest to the code of conduct or when they roll out. You can use it to track how many times they roll out an ethical moment or other times when they talk about ethics and compliance. So the idea is to make it as easy as possible for the compliance team to track that. But we're starting to run out of time, so I want to talk quickly about what are the pitfalls. Because obviously this is a terrific program that has gained traction and is broadening and improving as you go along. But what are the pitfalls to avoid? And then I want to talk about your new company and your new initiative too. Stephanie Ragan: Well, first of all, the biggest pitfall that you can have is to not do anything or to be stymied and overwhelmed. So don't overthink or over design any initial measuring system. Remember that look to the offerings and tools that are made available to your personnel already. So start with finding the easiest way to measure what you're already doing. And you can always scale up as part of your continuous process improvement efforts. And then again, as you saw for development of our program, we could not have done this if we had worked in a silo. You have to engage and partner with HR and other stakeholders in the organization to find a way to infuse that measurement of your ethics and compliance participation. And be sure to include that there is a way to acknowledge excellent contributors. Because that drives people and excites them to participate more. So it can be an incentive for good behavior and make it specific to a task or event that's not evergreen. You can change this around and continue to improve it as years go on and set goals for your compliance and ethics team to be able to continue to develop every year something different to bring more users on board. Susan Divers: That makes a great deal of sense. And again, congratulations. That's a major accomplishment. And it sounds like the program was very well designed for your business and your particular culture and your risks. So let's turn to the future now with your own business, Ragan Export Compliance. What kinds of clients will you be aiding in the development of their ENC programs? I know you have deep experience in the oil and gas industry and are a certified FCPA expert and have the export control function as well. What are you going be focusing on and what risks do you see developing for exporters in particular as they seek to adhere to the DOJ guidance? Stephanie Ragan: Well, thank you for asking about that, Susan. At Ragan Export Compliance, I'll be providing trade compliance support and guidance focused on export or import compliance plans. And large focus now is technology. So we'll be helping develop technology control plans. And also because I do have a background coming from the last five years of doing the certified compliance and ethics professional from SCCE, I also can help develop the corporate compliance program enhancements for any industry, which can include developing training programs, conducting training, auditing, risk manages, strategies, due diligence and screening ,vendor management systems. And if a system needs overhaul, that's something that people sometimes forget. They develop a compliance program and then put it on the shelf, but it really does need continuous review, especially in the light of recent and constant regulatory changes and updates. To get back to your question about what risks do I see developing from an export angle, I do see two areas where exporters can pay additional attention, especially considering the current international policies and issues that are going on in the world. The enhanced due diligence is needed now as part of your program to identify military end users or MEUs. And this is primarily in China, Russia, Venezuela, and Burma. But it's a good habit to get into looking at that and incorporating, identifying military end users and uses as part of your, know your customer and screening system for your full supply chain. And then the second area where there can be some additional attention paid would be that your program includes a really strong level of control for not just your physical shipments, but technology. That's a blindside for a lot of exporters, importers, and just USPPIs in general because they don't realize how wide the definition for technology is when you look at the regulations. So for example, the EAR definition of technology for Department of Commerce for controlled technology is any specific information that relates to development, use or production of controlled items, those technologies would also be controlled. So pretty much any information that relates to those items, because the development use or production is so broad. And the ownness of that comes back to the exporter. Whenever regulations are vague, it puts more pressure on the exporter to understand and have systems in place to be able to address potential violations. And then because of regulatory changes, a lot of stagnant compliance programs can be a real risk for companies because they may not realize it's something that they have always been able to export. For example, certain valves or stainless steel items, things that were pretty innocuous for a large part, didn't need licenses up until recently when regulations changed. And now they fall into this large basket categories like 2B999 ECCN numbers, which I know might sound scary and very technical to people listening that don't have a real firm grasp on the ECCN, but there's a lot of guidance out there, and that's what we hope to provide and be able to help navigate at Ragan Export Compliance. So finally, just in general, I would say that my advice to our listeners today is just to continually evaluate your compliance program and make sure that your CNE engagement measurement that we've discussed today become truly effective ways to ensure that your organization is on the path to executing best practices and avoiding any regulatory infractions. If you follow the guidelines and reach out for help when needed, you won't go wrong. Susan Divers: Well, thanks Stephanie. I certainly agree with everything you've said and want to emphasize your point about don't fall into the trap of stagnant compliance. A lot of times I think it's easy to rely on backward looking metrics and saying, "Well, last year we trained 340 people, and this year we hope to do more." It's important to really keep evaluating what are the new risks that we're facing, and are the procedures that we have in place adequate for those new risks? And certainly that's consistent with the guidance too. So unfortunately, we've run out of time, but I want to thank you very much for spending these minutes with us and giving us the benefit of your insights. I hope you'll come back and speak to us again soon. Maybe we can do a session on export control. And we wish you all the best in your new venture. Stephanie Ragan: Thank you, Susan. Susan Divers: My name is Susan Divers and I want to thank you all for tuning in to the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning, ethical cultures, rooted and sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.  

Back in Control Radio
The Perils of Sugar for Health

Back in Control Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 2, 2022 38:00


In this episode, Dr. David Hanscom continues his discussion with neuroendocrinologist and bestselling author Rob Lustig.  He explains the different types of sugar we consume in our diet and how the body metabolizes each type. In particular, he focuses on the dangers of the sweetener fructose and discusses how it results in fatty liver disease and diabetes. The problem with fructose is that it is both toxic and addictive. Our liver has a limited capacity to metabolize fructose. However, it stimulates the production of dopamine which makes us want it more and is why food manufacturers put it into so much of our processed foods. Robert H. Lustig, M.D., M.S.L. is Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, and Member of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF. Dr. Lustig is a neuroendocrinologist, with expertise in metabolism, obesity, and nutrition. He is one of the leaders of the current “anti[1]sugar” movement that is changing the food industry. Dr. Lustig graduated from MIT in 1976, and received his M.D. from Cornell University Medical College in 1980. He also received his Masters of Studies in Law (MSL) degree at University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 2013. He is the author of the popular books Fat Chance (2012), The Hacking of the American Mind (2017), and Metabolical: The Lure and the Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine (2021). He is the Chief Science Officer of the non-profit Eat REAL, he is on the Advisory Boards of the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health, the Center for Humane Technology, Simplex Health, Levels Health, and ReadOut Health, and he is the Chief Medical Officer of BioLumen Technologies, Foogal, Perfact, and Kalin Health.   

Principled
S8E8 | Compliance benchmarking: Benefits, limitations, and best practices

Principled

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 28, 2022 31:13


What you'll learn in this podcast episode Guidance from the US Department of Justice, particularly the recent 2020 memorandum, stresses that a company's compliance program must reflect and evolve with its risks—and should not be a snapshot or on cruise control. But in assessing those risks, it's helpful to see what other companies in the same area or circumstances have done to meet them. Collective action and coordination can be very useful in dealing with common risks. So, when is benchmarking and a collective approach to risk helpful? And when can it backfire? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Advisory Services Emily Miner continues the conversation from Episode 6 about benchmarking with her colleague Susan Divers. Listen in as the two discuss the benefits and limitations of benchmarking, and how organizations can ensure they benchmark their E&C programs effectively.    Featured guest: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.  Featured Host: Emily Miner Emily Miner is a director of LRN's Ethics & Compliance Advisory services. She counsels executive leadership teams on how to actively shape and manage their ethical culture through deep quantitative and qualitative understanding and engagement. A skilled facilitator, Emily emphasizes co-creative, bottom-up, and data-driven approaches to foster ethical behavior and inform program strategy. Emily has led engagements with organizations in the healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, professional services, and education industries. Emily co-leads LRN's ongoing flagship research on E&C program effectiveness and is a thought leader in the areas of organizational culture, leadership, and E&C program impact. Prior to joining LRN, Emily applied her behavioral science expertise in the environmental sustainability sector, working with non-profits and several New England municipalities; facilitated earth science research in academia; and contributed to drafting and advancing international climate policy goals. Emily has a Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Florida with a degree in Anthropology.   Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Emily Miner: Guidance from the US Department of Justice, particularly the recent 2020 memorandum, stresses that a company's compliance program must reflect and evolve with its risks and should not be a snapshot or on cruise control. But in assessing those risks, it's helpful to see what other companies in the same area or circumstances have done to meet them. Collective action and coordination can be very useful in dealing with common risks. So when is benchmarking and a collective approach to risk helpful, and when can it backfire? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled podcast. I'm your host, Emily Miner, director of Advisory Services at LRN. Today I'm continuing my conversation from episode six about benchmarking with my colleague Susan Divers, our director of Thought Leadership and Best practices. We're going to be talking about the benefits and the limitations of benchmarking and how organizations can ensure they benchmark their E&C programs effectively. Susan brings more than 30 years experience in both the legal and E&C spaces to this topic area with subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Susan, thanks for coming on the Principled podcast. Susan Divers: Oh, Emily, it's always nice to talk with you. Emily Miner: So Susan, before we get started, let's kind of define benchmarking and summarize the conversation that I had in our last podcast with our colleague Derek. So benchmarking means comparing what you do as an organization in this case to a usually large number of comparable organizations or individuals. And most often, this is done in a quantitative way, although there are also opportunities to benchmark qualitatively. And at LRN, we've been using benchmarks for a number of years now through our research reports. We've conducted major panel research on the role of ethical culture in an organization and in organization's risk of misconduct. So looking at how that varies across countries, across industries. We conduct every year research into ethics and compliance program effectiveness research that you lead and that you and I collaborate on. And we've been doing that for, oh gosh, coming up on, I don't know, maybe eight years now. That's been given us a insightful look into Ethics & Compliance Program best practices, and how they've evolved over time. We've also conducted research on codes of conduct, analyzing nearly 150 publicly listed codes of conduct from the top listed companies around the world and looking at similarities and differences and best practices in that space. But we have a brand new product at LRN that we're launching later this month that I know we're all really excited about called Catalyst Reveal, which is a platform that will, as it's name suggests, reveal insights to our clients about their ethics and compliance program, things like course level data training, data, employee sentiment, ethical culture. It will also give our clients the ability to see how their results along these metrics compare with other organizations in the LRN client universe. So looking at by industry, by company size, and a few other comparable filters. So with that exciting launch as our backdrop, I wanted to talk to you as an expert and a thought leader in this space about benchmarking compliance programs, when to do it, when not to do it, et cetera. So let me turn it over to you, Susan, and let's start with the benefits. What are the benefits of benchmarking in ethics and compliance program? Susan Divers: Sure, Emily, I'd be happy to talk about that. In thinking about this topic, there are really three really good functions that benchmarking is appropriate for. And then there are some where it's not so appropriate and we can talk about all of that. But starting with what it's very appropriate for, the first is if you're setting up a program, you need to figure out kind of what are the basics that you need to do at the outset. And it can be very helpful particularly if it's a new program, and it usually is if it's setting it up to be able to say your management, "We have to have a code. We have to have policies. We have to have audit. And we have to have training" and those are kind of the four basic pillars and being able to make that case. That's very basic, but it can be very helpful in terms of people who are struggling to get started in what we all know is a really complicated area. So that's kind of the first setting where benchmarking I think can be very helpful. And then the second is you've got your program and you're up and going. Now, no two companies are alike, no two industries are alike, and I can get into that a little bit later, but it's helpful to know if you're mainstream or not. Like for example, our Ethical Pulse Culture check lets you sort of get an idea from a short questionnaire embedded in our platform in Reveal whether your culture is really out of whack or pretty much along the same lines as mainstream. And again, that's really helpful because it can show you an area where you're maybe excelling and it's good to take credit for that and scale it, or it can show you an area where you're deficient and it's good to know about that too. And then the last is, and this is where for example Ethisphere has done a lot of really good work, best practices. People are constantly innovating. I'm always amazed at how ethics and compliance programs are changing and getting better. And we can talk about that a little bit, and Reveal's going to be very helpful there. But benchmarking can give you ideas that can be very valuable for enhancing your program. So those are sort of the three big areas where I think benchmarking can be extremely helpful. Emily Miner: Yeah, thanks Susan. And on that last point that you shared, that's really resonating because if nothing else, benchmarking or surveying what other companies are doing out there with respect to ethics and compliance and different facets of that, it gives you as an ethics and compliance professional just an idea of what's possible. Maybe there's a new approach to communicating with your employees that you haven't thought of that might work for your organization. I'm at the SCCE's Compliance & Ethics Institute right now, and there was a session yesterday about one particular organization's sort of their evolution of their compliance program following some significant trust that was lost in the organization to senior leader misconduct. One of the things that they talked about was having employees around the globe put on skits that they turned into videos that dealt with ethics moments and how the actors, which were the employees of the organizations, would kind of get famous around the world for their skits. It was a very lighthearted way of communicating very serious topics that resonated for this particular organization. But a lot of people in the room were asking questions, "Oh, well, how could I put together a skit like that? Did you write the script or did the employees come up with it and this and that?" Just that it's a way of sharing ideas and fostering innovation across the industry that can be really exciting and powerful. Susan Divers:    Yeah, that's a great example, but maybe it's time to talk a little bit about the limits of benchmarking too because that's a good illustration of the point that benchmarking's good for the three things we just talked about. Setting up, making sure that you're in the mainstream and not at either end, or maybe you want to be excelling and then getting ideas and best practices. What it's not good for is saying, "Hey, we met the criteria." And the reason is there isn't a criteria. In fact, there was a quote two days ago or so from the CEO of Advanced Micro Devices, and she said, I quote, "It's like running a different company every two years." So the point I'm trying to make here is that your program has to be based on your risks, and those risks can change dramatically, I mean, certainly in the semiconductor area, and that's what she was talking about. The risks have changed, they basically changed radically with all the changes with China and the export sanctions and the war in the Ukraine. So it's not enough to say, "Hey, I'm doing what everybody else is doing in that area." And secondly, the other big problem is comparing apples to apples. I picked three consumer companies to sort of illustrate this. One is Walmart, which obviously is a big consumer company. Another is PepsiCo, another is Mondelez. And if you look at all three, they all have really different risk profiles. They may be in the same area generally, but Walmart's much bigger than the other two. Walmart had a major scandal a number of years ago where they wound up paying, I think it was 137 million in 2019 because in order to get permits for their stores in Latin America, particularly Mexico, their lawyers were actually paying bribes. When you think about it, that should have been something that they were sensitive to on their risk profile and both training and auditing the local lawyers. Also, there was some lawyers on their teams internally. That was a risk and they failed to mitigate it. PepsiCo is bottling, and so do Mondelez has plants, but it's not quite the same level of regulatory intensity as setting up a store, hiring people, environmental health. So I use that example because I'm trying to pick an industry and say, "Well, if you compared yourself to one, you might miss some of the particular risks that you have." One of the also things to bear in mind, and you alluded to it when we started, is that DOJ has never recommended benchmarking in all of the guidance. In fact, they've said things that kind of contradict benchmarking if you were using it to say, "Hey, we met the norm." They've said, "You don't want to be on cruise control," and that's because things change. And they've also said, "You don't want to just take a snapshot of your program at a given time." And that's kind of what the CEO of Advanced Micro Devices was saying too. And that's because any time you're looking backwards rather than forwards, you could miss the iceberg that's looming up ahead and going to sink the Titanic. So at any rate, I think benchmarking can be very useful, but you have to use it for the right purposes and you have to bear in mind the limitations. Emily Miner: Right. Absolutely. It's never the be all end all. It's one data point that we should be collecting and looking at in some situations and not others. And in those situations, it's one of many that we should be considering when we're thinking about program effectiveness. Susan Divers: Yeah, it's an element. Yep, absolutely. Emily Miner: So let's kind of tease this out a little bit more. Where do you see benchmarking being helpful? I know that you gave those three scenarios, but maybe if you could pick out a concrete example to share against any of those three scenarios to illustrate how it can be helpful or when it can backfire. Susan Divers: Sure. Well, let's pick another consumer company, Anheuser-Busch. This is a great example because it illustrates how benchmarking can be used very effectively to drive a best practice. Anheuser-Busch had a very prominent CECO who has very recently left to go to the Department of Justice in the last couple of months. When he was there, he set up an internal data analytics program that was able to pull data from their own systems, payments, SAP of course, onboarding and pick out red flags without, if you will, human intervention. In other words, he was able to take a number of data streams from various parts of the company and meld them together. And because he was very good CECO, he was able to figure out what some of the risk signs were or the red flags. What it did is it enabled Anheuser to manage its third parties, which if you think about it, beer distribute, beer companies have a lot of third parties. And then they could focus in on those companies, those third parties where there were red flags. They didn't have to audit everybody to the same degree of intensity. And that approach of internal data analytics was a best practice that was gathering steam, sorry. But once Matt really took it to the next level and showed how it could be done, then it really became mainstream in the E&C area. And Matt's now at DOJ. So if you're going to go in and have tense talks with regulators, being able to talk about what you're doing in benchmarking is important. And it takes us back to Reveal where Reveal is a really powerful tool that we've developed that will enable you to see red flags or predictive factors. And again, remember looking backwards doesn't really help you because it doesn't tell you if there's a big iceberg about to sink the Titanic. But looking forward and saying, gosh, the data that's coming in from Asia on attempts to pass courses or on our Ethical Pulse Culture check or other features is worrying. It's nothing specific that we know about at this point, but it indicates that, I'm just picking on Asia randomly, it indicates that we need to spend some time in Asia figuring out what's going on. So that's really an excellent use of benchmarking and that's a good story as to how understanding what best practices are emerging and adapting them then for you, because nobody could simply take Matt's system of third party analytics and plug it into their company and come up with the same results. It has to be tailored and it has to be specific. But that's a really good example of what DOJ is talking about in this area where they say you have to tailor it to your risks. So does that make sense? Emily Miner: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great example with Anheuser-Busch and the system that they set up. I want to kind of talk about specific types of data that we collect in ethics and compliance or can collect, because I feel like the kind of two most common ones that organizations want to benchmark are training completion rates, that's a metric that is easy to collect and is often one that is shared, and hotline. "Oh, my hotline reports. How does this compare?" And the hotline providers will publish annual benchmarking reports on hotline. So we've got course completions, we've got hotline data, but we also collect other data points, or there are other places where we could to think about program effectiveness. I'd love to hear from you, as you think about the universe of ethics and compliance data, where do you think kind of benchmarking holds water and where does it not? Susan Divers: That's a great question, Emily, and I'm glad you asked it. Let's start with the hotline because that's a really good example in a lot of ways of two of the pitfalls. One of the major pitfalls that we touched on is are you comparing apples to apples or apples to potatoes? A company, let's take Starbucks for example, they have 300,000, relatively young, many of them first job employees. And are they going to call the hotline if they see something or worried about something? The odds are probably no even though they've got a big kind of young and engaged workforce because they're inexperienced. Most of their employees, I was talking to their CECO last week, and most of their employees really haven't worked extensively in the workplace. So Starbucks might have really low hotline numbers. Another company that's largely unionized, on the other hand, because unionized workers generally know about the hotline and they know about formal complaint processes, they'll have high hotline usage compared to other companies. Let's just pick a slightly ridiculous example, but a big manufacturer of clothing like the Gap or something. You'll have unionized workers in the plants, but Booz Allen is a consulting company. Are you going to compare hotlines between Booz Allen and the Gap? That really is an apples to potatoes comparison. So I think hotline benchmarking, and I know most of my colleagues in the E&C area would agree is very, very difficult because you'd have to really know what the workforces are to try to get an idea. And then secondly, it can be driven by other factors such as when I was at AECOM, we deployed a lot of people in the Middle East and the conditions were harsh. So our hotline complaints would go up when people were under stress, but another company might not have that circumstance. Emily Miner: Yeah, that's such a great point about when you're using benchmarking and you're considering using benchmarking, you have to be really thoughtful about what that benchmark pool is made up of. The union example is such a great one because even within the same industry, you compared the Gap to Booz Allen, but even within the manufacturing industry, for example, not all manufacturing company has a unionized workforce. So you can think, "Oh, well it's manufacturing, so it's comparable," but it might not be depending on the workforce dynamics. That level of insight isn't always available when we're benchmark data sources. Susan Divers: We forgot one thing that both of us know, which is I think the last stat I saw was more than 90% of meaningful issues are not raised through the hotline, they're raised in conversations with managers. So I've never been a fan of hotline benchmarking. Emily Miner: Yes, absolutely. Susan Divers: But to turn to training completions, that's an interesting one too. Again, it really depends. If you're using an old fashioned training provider whose library consists of 45 minute or even longer lectures, sort of Soviet style on the evils of sexual harassment, first, it's probably not very effective. And secondly, a lot of people won't complete a 45 minute course just because it's long. If the training is repetitive and hectoring, they'll drop out. Whereas the kinds of courses that we have and that we emphasize are very engaging, they tend to be shorter, they tend to be more microburst learning. So again, what are you comparing? Do you have a lot of employees on the shop floor? Well, it's hard for them. They can't really just take a break, sit down at their laptop and open up a course on antitrust. So again, I think training completions can be tricky. It doesn't mean it isn't interesting to see that data, but figuring out, again, whether you're making an apples to apples or an apples to potato comparison, I think is really important. And then secondly, remember, it's retrospective looking. It's not telling you anything about what's coming around the corner. Emily Miner: Mm-hmm. One thing that we've focused on in this discussion is comparing ourselves to other organizations. I mean, that was how I even defined benchmarking at the outset, but there's also internal benchmarking, comparing your own performance year over year or whatever the period of time is. When you were just talking about training completion, it made me think about that internal comparison, less so with training completion because I think it tends to be high, a lot of companies mandate it so there can be penalties for not completing training. So if it's high for that reason alone whether or not it's good or relevant to employees or they liked it or whatever. But thinking about metrics like pass/fail rates or number of attempts or test outs or some of those more nuanced training related data points and comparing against yourself year over year and seeing what has changed and what might be the result of that. I mean, maybe you noticed in year one that it was taking the majority of your employees or a significant minority of your employees more attempts than you wanted to answer certain questions correctly related to a certain risk topic. And so then as a result, you rolled out some focused communication and maybe you targeted specific groups of people where you noticed were particularly struggling for additional manager led conversations or whatever. And then in year two, does that pass rate or attempt rate improve? That's a helpful metric because you're comparing apples to apples, you're comparing yourself and you're able to connect it back directly to specific interventions that you may have need to make improvements in that area. So I just wanted to point out that benchmarking can be done internally as well. It's not always an external exercise even though that does tend to be how we talk about it. Susan Divers: Well, and you're exactly right, and that's where it gets really valuable because first you can make sure that you're comparing apples to apples. For example, if you've just done a merger and suddenly your population of employees has doubled, well obviously then you know that you've got a much different comparison year over year, but you can break that down and you can make those comparisons by manipulating the data. Secondly, your Ethical Culture pulse survey is a really good tool year over year adjusted for employee population size. And if we've got new people coming in the company, a merger for example. And it can be proactive. It can, again, spot trends as you were just saying that indicate that you may need to spend more time with people. But the beauty of internal benchmarking, particularly the way Reveal has set that up for our clients and made it easy is that you can get genuine insights looking at what happened last year, what happened this year and you know some of the reasons why there may have been a change. Whereas if you're comparing yourself to, I don't know, Ernst & Young, you don't. You don't have visibility in terms of their numbers. So internal benchmarking, I think you're right to stress that. And it's a very, very valuable tool. Emily Miner: I've done, as you know, a lot of work with organizations evaluating and assessing their ethical culture. The trend that I've noticed with those clients that we've done this type of work year over year over year is that the benchmark, the external benchmark just grows. It's important kind of in year one and maybe year two, but after that it ceases to be relevant and the companies don't really care what it is anymore because it's also they're not shooting for the benchmark. The benchmark is often the average and they want to be above average. And so it's more about competing with yourselves and how did we improve against our own performance last year? And so that's just been interesting to observe. I think as companies get more robust in their use of data and their tools and how it informs their strategy in some areas like ethical culture for example, that external comparison just becomes less relevant over time. Susan Divers: That's a really good point too. And that gets back to the Department of Justice saying, "Don't put your program on cruise control." And I do remember, I think it was 15 years ago when benchmarking was much more trendy and before people really thought through the limitations, someone was bragging that they had benchmarked their program against Boeing. Boeing then subsequently had major meltdowns left, right, and center most specifically and tragically the 737 MAX where people died. And so running around saying, "Hey, my program benchmarks well against Boeing" may not have been really a compliment to the program in the end. But it also misses the point which you're making, which is you have to look at your program and what's gaining traction with your people and where the proactive red flags are emerging because that's what enables you not to be Boeing, not to pick on Boeing, but it's a good example. Emily Miner: So Susan, let's wrap up by offering some recommendations to organizations that are thinking about program effectiveness, how they measure that. They want to have those benchmarks. Maybe they fall into those three scenarios that you outlined at the beginning. What recommendations or best practices would you offer to those organizations, to your peers? Susan Divers: Well, the first one is be really smart about it and avoid comparing apples to potatoes. And to do that, you have to really think it through. What are we comparing to whom and how similar are they? I really, again, think that's most useful for kind of like, "Are we in the mainstream? Or is there something maybe we forgot?" If it turns out that everybody in your industry has suddenly amended their training curriculum to train about trade controls in the wake of the Ukraine war and you haven't, well, that's a helpful benchmark. But I think the main ones that are valuable are what we were talking about with best practices and data analytics and the creative use of data analytics that are tailored to that particular company is a great example of that. And then the second one as you pointed out which I think is equally valuable and really essential too, is internal benchmarking up to a point where you're able to see what direction things are going in. And again, it's more in the nature of red flags rather than a way of saying, "Hey, we met the requirement, we're good." It's, "How are people doing this year compared to last? What does that tell me about where I need to focus my resources?" Emily Miner: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah, Susan, thank you so much. And thank you for joining me on this episode. We are out of time for today. So to everyone out there listening, thank you for listening to the Principled Podcast by LRN. It was a pleasure to talk with you, Susan. Susan Divers: Oh, it's always a pleasure to talk to you, Emily. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen and don't forget to leave us a review.        

Back in Control Radio
How Fiber Keeps Us Healthy

Back in Control Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2022 32:00


In this episode, Dr. David Hanscom talks with neuroendocrinologist and bestselling author Rob Lustig. He shares how he first got interested in nutrition when he studied the role of the hypothalamus in driving obesity in pediatric patients with brain cancer. He discusses the symbiotic role of gut bacteria in our digestion, immune response and even the experience of pain. He explains six importance benefits of fiber in keeping the gut microbiome healthy, regulating appetite and protecting the gut. Robert H. Lustig, M.D., M.S.L. is Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, and Member of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF. Dr. Lustig is a neuroendocrinologist, with expertise in metabolism, obesity, and nutrition. He is one of the leaders of the current “anti[1]sugar” movement that is changing the food industry. Dr. Lustig graduated from MIT in 1976, and received his M.D. from Cornell University Medical College in 1980. He also received his Masters of Studies in Law (MSL) degree at University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 2013. He is the author of the popular books Fat Chance (2012), The Hacking of the American Mind (2017), and Metabolical: The Lure and the Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine (2021). He is the Chief Science Officer of the non-profit Eat REAL, he is on the Advisory Boards of the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health, the Center for Humane Technology, Simplex Health, Levels Health, and ReadOut Health, and he is the Chief Medical Officer of BioLumen Technologies, Foogal, Perfact, and Kalin Health.Pain, Chronic Pain, Healing,

The Leading Voices in Food
E184: Carolina Farm Stewardship Association - Connecting Farmers and Communities

The Leading Voices in Food

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2022 12:52


Today we're speaking with Roland McReynolds, Executive Director of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association which is a member-based farmer-driven, non-profit organization based in Pittsboro, North Carolina, that helps farmers and consumers in both North and South Carolina grow and eat local organic food. Interview Summary   So why don't we begin with this. Can you help listeners understand what the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association does?   So our vision is a sustainable regional food system that is good for all consumers, good for farmers, good for farmworkers, and good for our ecosystems. So to achieve that vision, we work with farmers and with communities to advocate, educate, and build connections that support sustainable food systems in the Carolinas, centered on local foods and organic agriculture. We do that by working and consulting directly with farmers to help them implement organic practices in their operations and to help them expand their market opportunities. We work with food hubs and other sorts of food businesses to strengthen their operations so that they can become reliable market outlets for small farms and improve their competitiveness and ability to connect with values-driven buyers. We provide education and training both for farmers and the public. For instance, we host the largest organic farming and food system conference in the Southeast which this year is actually taking place in downtown Durham, November 6 through 8, 2022. We also run a farm incubator facility in Concord, North Carolina to help new organic farmers learn the trade and become successful in moving into organic farming as a career. We do consumer outreach, such as our Piedmont Farm Tour event here in the Piedmont Triangle area in North Carolina and K-12 agriculture education. We do a lot of advocacy educating state and federal policy makers on the needs and concerns of sustainable farmers. And, training people at the local level on how they can be effective advocates for healthy and just food systems.   Thank you for that description in this sort of remarkably broad portfolio you have. I can imagine how busy you folks are! But let me ask a question of kind of a national scope. Are there other organizations like this around the country, and is there a coalition of such groups?   Absolutely. Many states have sister organizations, like Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, serving their communities and their regions. One national umbrella group that we're a part of is the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which acts as a lobbying voice for our sector in Washington DC. Their members span all the way across the country. So similar types of organizations that we work with are in states everywhere, like the Northeast Organic Farmers Association in New England, Community Alliance for Family Farms in California, and everywhere in between.   So let's go back in time and speak about how the association got started. So what were its origins, why did people think there was a need for this, and who are the members?   Essentially, it was a group of organic farmers and gardeners who got together back in 1979 seeking to practice organic farming, and to gain opportunities to learn about how to grow organically. And who wanted to see a food system that was re-centered on communities and relationships and shifted away from a commodity mindset of the cheapest food grown using practices that were focused on extraction from the natural world. These were farmers and gardeners who wanted to work with the natural world and work with their neighbors to create a different vision for a food system. This is the late 1970s, and this was during the "Get Big or Get Out" mindset in agriculture. In fact, existing agricultural institutions, universities, companies, were really actively hostile to organic. It was really to create that peer-to-peer learning opportunity for farmers across North and South Carolina that CFSA originally began. Over the years, the initial project of the organization actually came to be an organic certification agency. Back before there was the green organic seal that we have in the grocery stores today, the organic label was something that was locally defined. There wasn't a national program. So these farmers got together and decided and collectively created organic standards for helping them to manage their farms in a way that was beneficial to the environment that promoted healthy living soils. And over time, as we've expanded, and as the movement has expanded, those farmers recognized the need for policy advocacy and policy change to promote more sustainable food and farming systems, and to expand our services so that we can encourage and promote new farmers to get into organic agriculture and local food.   Now that you explained the origins of the organization, I was first going to say it was the beginnings of a trend for people and farmers to become more in touch with one another through things like farmer's markets and local produce programs and farm-to-school programs, things like that. But it wasn't a new trend. It was sort of the restoration of what existed before when people were more in touch with the farmers who grew their foods, and that connection between farmers and their communities is a really interesting one. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on the role that farmers can play in addressing economic and social justice issues in their communities.   Absolutely. A really great example of how the sustainable agriculture and sustainable farming community in the Carolinas is doing just that today is our FarmsSHARE Program which was developed as a COVID response by Carolina Farm Stewardship Association back in 2020. Initially, we saw with the pandemic and the public health controls that were being put in place, saw restaurants closing and especially those farm-to-table restaurants that were buying food from small local farms in our region and across the country. So those farmers all of the sudden lost a market, and they already had crops in the ground ready to sell, and the restaurants were laying off their workers. And, you know, this predominantly is people working in the kitchens and in the service industry who tend to more likely come from oppressed backgrounds, and they didn't have money because their jobs were getting cut off. So our FarmsSHARE program initially was created to provide CSA-style boxes from those small farms to those restaurant workers who were unemployed, or underemployed, as a result of the pandemic. Thanks to some very generous funding from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of North Carolina, CFSA was able to buy that food from those small farms. They then worked with local food hubs to have it packed, and then the food hubs delivered the food to the restaurants that they used to sell to so that the workers could have this free, fresh, healthy food. As the pandemic has evolved and revealed to a wider population, the realities of food insecurity in our communities across North and South Carolina, FarmsSHARE evolved to address people throughout society who are in need of fresh, healthy food. So the way FarmsSHARE works right now is that we provide funding to food hubs for them to purchase food directly from small farms, package that up, again, into CSA-style, (Community Supported Agriculture) boxes. And then take that to food pantries in their own communities and senior centers in their own communities so that small farms are, through this program, feeding people in need in their backyards. This is a great example of what happens when we marshal many small farms to work together to address the injustices in the food system in their own communities, and bring healthy food made in harmony with nature to the people that deserve it.   Well, it's a great example of ingenuity. It's a great example of the resilience of a local food system and how people can come together in times of crisis, and the FarmsSHARE program you talked about is really interesting. Do you think that the lessons have been learned about how these food systems can be resilient so if something like this happens again, let's hope it doesn't, but if it does, that we'll be able to respond even more quickly and effectively?   I think we have an opportunity to help people learn that lesson. I mean, there's no doubt we have seen examples of fragility of the national and international food systems as a result of COVID, and we've seen examples of local food systems being resilient. As a professor and instructor, you probably appreciate that learning doesn't just happen from experiencing it once. We have to keep pushing and keep sharing those examples. This is really where the role of policy becomes vital in terms of ensuring that our society learns these lessons. The Farm Bill is coming up, which is the massive five-year legislation that Congress brings about every few years that guides food and agriculture policy in this country. That is a crucial opportunity for advocates of resiliency in our food system to make sure that these lessons actually get ensconced in policy. That policies that direct and incense the production and distribution of food in this country are built to be resilient instead of to be commodified.   Well, so let's talk about the Farm Bill. We'll turn our attention a little bit from the local picture to the national one. So this is an enormous and enormously complex piece of legislation and, as you said, it's coming up for renewal. So what do you think the legislation can do to help support local and regional food systems, and what do you think the policy reforms might be for the 2023 Farm Bill?   It really is a crucial opportunity, and one of the places that can start is in food procurement policies within USDA programs. So when it comes to food purchasing that the government does for relief to address food insecurity, the primary metric for making those purchases, is how cheap is the food? We need to change that mindset. We need to change policy to allow for these systems to prioritize community development and supporting farmers as well as supporting communities. So, for instance, there is a proposed bill that's out there in Congress right now, the Fresh Produce Procurement Reform Act, that is an example of policy that we'd like to see incorporated into the next Farm Bill that would lower the barriers for small farms to participate in these feeding programs. And would allow the agencies that run these programs to make decisions based, not just on getting the cheapest possible food and calories for people who need it, but to actually allow them to get fresh and healthy food and do it in a way that builds community instead of extracts from communities. That's a crucial area of reform. Incenting, agroecological and conservation practices, and promoting more research on organic practices is also something that is a critical opportunity in this upcoming farm bill. There is so much that farmers do that is shaped by the policies that the farm bill puts out. The Farm Bill, as it exists right now, eliminates most of the risk for very large farms to just grow corn and soybeans, and to not worry about the environments. Changing those incentive structures, making it possible, and in fact, desirable for farmers to work in harmony with nature as a primary focus and as a primary benefit of their operations has to be a part of the kind of reform that's needed.   Bio   Roland McReynolds has served since 2007 as the Executive Director of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association (CFSA), a member-based, farmer-driven non-profit organization based in Pittsboro, NC that helps farmers and consumers in the North and South Carolina grow and eat local organic food.  He is an attorney, receiving BA and BS degrees from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and his JD from the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Law.  Roland directs CFSA's programs and policy advocacy work at the state and federal level, and has served on the USDA's Fruit & Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee; the Policy Committee of the Organic Farmers Association; the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's Organizational Council; and the Advisory Boards for the North Carolina A&T State University College of Agriculture and Environmental Science and the North Carolina State University Department of Crop and Soil Science; among other boards and committees.  Carolina Farm Stewardship Association is the oldest and largest organic farmers organization in the Southeast. CFSA hosts educational conferences and events on sustainable agriculture and local food systems; provides training and direct technical assistance to local organic farmers; runs a training farm for new organic growers in Concord, NC; coaches food councils on effective policy advocacy; and represents organic and local food systems stakeholders with state and federal legislators and agencies. In response to COVID, CFSA has been operating a program called FarmsSHARE, a CSA-style food box program that addresses food insecurity in the Carolinas by purchasing food from small farms at a fair price and distributing that food to people in need through a statewide network of community-based food hubs. For more information about CFSA, visit www.carolinafarmstewards.org.  

Principled
S8E7 | How does DOJ policy and guidance affect E&C programs?

Principled

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2022 33:54


What you'll learn in this podcast episode Over the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in E&C programs when it comes to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do these recent reports, policies, and guidance mean for compliance professionals? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices Susan Divers is joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the law firm Paul Hastings. Listen in as the two discuss the recent guidance from the US Department of Justice as well as DOJ policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture.      Featured guest: Jon Drimmer Jonathan C. Drimmer is a partner in the Investigations and White Collar Defense practice and is based in the Washington, D.C. office of Paul Hastings. He resolves complex cross-border problems with the benefit of having sat in every chair at the table: senior legal officer for a global 500 company, federal prosecutor, and seasoned advocate. He is a recognized international expert on anti­corruption and business and human rights, and is a frequent speaker, author, and commentator on issues related to both topics. Before joining Paul Hastings, he was Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Barrick Gold, one of the world's largest mining companies, with operations on five continents. The compliance program he built at Barrick has served as an industry standard, and elements of it have largely been duplicated by numerous other companies inside and outside of the extractive sector. Mr. Drimmer has directed hundreds of investigations around the world related to anti-corruption, human rights, AML and export controls, tax controversies, environmental incidents, public disclosures, fatalities and health and safety injuries, sexual harassment and discrimination, and other areas. He has represented companies and individuals in numerous government enforcement proceedings in the U.S. and overseas, in relation to FCPA and bribery claims, human rights issues, and a wide array of other matters. He has participated in dozens of major disputes in the U.S., Canada, and abroad, including transnational torts, anti-corruption claims, environmental cases, international arbitrations, tax disputes, construction claims, and land controversies. He previously served in the Justice Department as Deputy Director of the Criminal Division's Office of Special Investigations, where he led cross-border investigations, first-chaired numerous prosecutions, and argued federal appeals. He was a partner at an Am Law 100 law firm in Washington, D.C., a former Bristow Fellow in the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General, and a judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Drimmer served on the board of directors of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative from 2012-2014, and again from 2015-2017. He served on the board of TRACE International from 2012 until 2018, and currently sits on the board of the TRACE Foundation. He has also taught international law courses at Georgetown University Law Center for nearly 20 years.   Featured Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.    Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers:  Good afternoon. From time to time, but particularly in the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in ethics and compliance programs when companies present them as a defense to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do the recent flurry of reports, policies and guidance mean for compliance professionals? How should they be applied to improve E and C programs? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices at LRN. And today, I'm joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the international law firm of Paul Hastings. We're going to talk about the recent DOJ guidance and policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture, and hopefully help everyone understand what it is and how they should apply it to their programs. Jon is a real expert, as well as a friend in this space. He has the unusual distinction of serving in three of the principal seats that affect ethics and compliance, once as a federal prosecutor at DOJ, another time as a chief ethics and compliance officer and deputy general council for a large mining company, and now as an ethics and compliance advocate with a leading law firm. Jon, thanks so much for joining me at Principled Podcast. Jon Drimmer: Thanks, Susan. It's great to be with you. Susan Divers: Super. Well, let's jump right in. Last week, we saw a new policy come out of the Department of Justice that both Lisa Monaco and also Ken Polite have talked about with great emphasis. We've also seen the report come out of the sentencing commission about their 30 years of accomplishments. And we've also seen some major guidance in the last two years. Can you put it in perspective for us and talk about how it fits together, and how they interplay. And then we can jump in and start figuring out what they mean. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. No, happy to do it. So let me take each one in sequence. So what we saw come down from the deputy attorney general was a new policy memo. And in essence, what that means is policies are, they are the rules that apply to federal prosecutors and prosecuting entities around the country. They are the standards that are going to be applied. Guidance, which is something that we see come out in a number of different ways through formal guidance as well as through statements and speeches and other informal approaches, this is basically how those rules are interpreted, how prosecutors should be thinking about the application of those policies as they're applied to any given circumstance. And then finally, reports, and you mentioned the sentencing commission's 30 year look back, those are more general. And they do tend to come out for transparency purpose, they're often retrospective, like the sentencing commission report. But they generally talk about how these rules have been applied. So policies are the rules, the guidance effectively aids in their interpretation, and the reports generally are a bit of a look back as to how they have been applied to date. Susan Divers: That's really helpful. It really helps me put all of those in perspective. Talk a little bit more than about the policies and the guidance. Are they mandatory? Are they voluntary? Jon Drimmer: Well, for prosecutors, they're mandatory. So when you look at the policies, this is effectively how prosecutors are to approach any given situation. It is a directive to them in terms of how it is they should go about doing their jobs. And I'll tell you it's critical. It's critical for chief compliance officers to understand those types of initiatives, those types of emphases. It's critical to prosecutors as well, as they get that direction in terms of what they should be focusing on. So really, it's a very important part of the process and helping to shape how investigations are run and scoped from the government's end, and what can be expected on the company side as well for chief compliance officers. Susan Divers: But it's not technically a rule, if I'm correct. But it sounds like you strongly recommend that ethics and compliance professionals pay great attention to it. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah. No, that's fair. It's not a regulation. It isn't something that goes through a formal regulatory process. It's not the equivalent of a law. It's a direction. It's a directive that's basically given. And so it doesn't have the force of law, but it is a very important set of instruments to understand the relevant DOJ policies, the justice manual. So yeah, that's a fair assessment. I do strongly recommend understanding it in detail, but it isn't technically a law or regulation. Susan Divers: And if I understand correctly, and I've been in this situation myself too as a chief ethics compliance officer, if there's a misconduct inquiry or investigation, and 95% of those are resolved without prosecution or probably more, basically, you'll be asked to come in and meet with the Department of Justice prosecutors, possibly the SEC too, and part of that is talking about your ethics and compliance program. Can you put that in context and explain why they want you to do that, and how you should do it? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, absolutely. So what they're really looking for is a discussion of A, what the compliance program was at the time of the incident in question, and where it is today at the time of charging. It's really both time periods are really quite important to them. And they want to understand how with a compliance program the issue or event might have occurred. But they also want to understand what changes have been made to improve its effectiveness since that time period. And often, given the way that investigations go and timelines, there may be a good bit of time between the original incident and the time a formal compliance program presentation is ultimately made. And in making that presentation, the guidance, the policies, these are incredibly important in shaping the factors that you're ultimately going to present on. But the real tip is not just presenting on the formal approach, the formal program, the policies, procedures. But how do you know they are working in practice? And that has been a huge emphasis from the government in the last couple of years, and one that ethics and compliance professionals should take heed of. It's not just a matter of rolling out the program, but with the rollout, including those steps to validate its effectiveness in mitigating the relevant risks it's designed to address. Susan Divers: I want to get into that in more depth in just a second. But before we leave sort of setting the scene for why this is so important. So if you go in and you meet with the Department of Justice and its prosecutors, and you do a good job, a credible job, of presenting your ethics and compliance program, and it's clear that it's a strong program, and you've got hopefully evidence of effectiveness, what's the consequence of that? Jon Drimmer: Well, at the end of the day, I mean, the most significant issue is monitors. And if you've been involved in an issue that violates a federal law, federal criminal law, and the question is: Are you sufficiently capable of addressing your compliance issues going forward without day to day regular oversight from a monitor? That is a critical inquiry, and so number one, an effective compliance program and design and implementation is really important for a monitor. It's also important in charging decisions. It can be important in terms of disgorgement and fines and penalties as well. It's taken into account in the federal sentencing guidelines. So in the end, an effective compliance program really is a critically important part of a resolution process for a DOJ investigation. Susan Divers: So that's basically why ethics and compliance programs, if I understand correctly, came into being. It's really to mitigate the impact of misconduct investigations, and hopefully allow the company to go forward with it's E and C program. We won't talk about monitors today. That can be another podcast. But that's something that you want to avoid, generally. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. You generally want to avoid that, yeah. I mean, look, there's another element we probably won't get into today as well, that you and I have talked about extensively, and that is how programs ultimately help shape the values and culture of a company, so aside entirely from proactively mitigating relevant risks, affirmatively driving a culture that does increase productivity, increase retention, increase morale, that's a critical component of a compliance, an ethics and compliance program as well. It does dovetail a bit with culture of compliance, which is something that is important to demonstrate when you're in front of the government. It's something the government is increasingly emphasizing. There's a positive aspect that isn't just preventing potential problems from happening that are associated with ethics and compliance programs, as you've written about quite persuasively. Susan Divers: Well, you too. And I'm glad you reminded everybody of that because that is a critical reason for having an effective ethics and compliance programs. So let's leave the sort of rewards and penalties side and start talking about: What are the prosecutors and the Department of Justice leadership really saying in this plethora of policies, guidance that's come out in the last couple of years? What are the key messages? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. I would say in reading through the recent speeches, the policies, coupled with the guidance, I think we can take away several messages. And two of them are, number one, there is this enormous focus on program effectiveness, and I can't say that enough. And as I read the memo from the deputy attorney general colloquially calling the Monaco memo, I see as a major sub theme, and as a former chief compliance officer, this absolute drive towards the effectiveness of programs. And just to take a step back for a minute, in some ways, this is how the sentencing commission's report actually becomes relevant in this discussion, and the 30 year look back report was issued roughly at the same time as the DAG memo. And if you look at the report, a few interesting statistics jump out. And these again, this is focusing on companies that actually went through a court sentencing, so it isn't settlements, which is typically how corporate resolutions are resolved. But 2021 was the first year that more than half of the companies sentenced under the guidelines had a compliance and ethics program. And the previous high was 2018, when it was about 28%. But in 30 years, since 1992, only 11 companies have had a reduction by a court because their compliance program was effective. That's .5% of all of the companies sentenced, and most of those are actually small companies. So most of the time, for those companies that are going through the process, they aren't getting credit for having an effective program. And with the Monaco Memo, if you actually look at a lot of what policies are ultimately looking to drive, it does center around effectiveness, driving performance, driving commitment through a focus on individuals. And so it talks about producing information in a timely way, focusing on individuals because that is what incentivizes effective performance. For chief compliance officers, it might mean if you're going to do an investigation, a thorough investigation, you do have to include that within your scope, the focus on individual culpability to a degree that you might not have before. The same is true with ephemeral messaging, which is a big emphasis in the recent memo. Ephemeral messaging has been part of their calculus for several years now. But here, they do want to focus on whether the company policies regarding ephemeral messaging are effective. Is the company capturing messaging that's occurring on company related devices? Are we allowing personal devices? If so, are they limited to certain apps that are capturing company business related discussions? Is there training? Is there auditing? Are there other steps on ephemeral messaging? So they really want to see not just: Are there policies? But are they effective? And those are just two examples. But if you do dig into what's behind a lot of these policy announcements in the memo, it really is looking to drive effective programs. Susan Divers: Well, I want to dig in a little bit. And just to clarify by ephemeral messaging, you mean that if we have senior execs using What's App to communicate, rather than company systems that are subject to discovery, then we might have a problem. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. It can be company, it can be teams messaging, it can be What's App on company issued devices or personal devices. It's any of the messaging systems that are used to communicate that ultimately may not ordinarily be retained by the company in the way that email is. Susan Divers: So that's an area that the policy makes clear, compliance officers ought to really take a hard look at and may need to make some changes, or at least provide some clarity. I want to get information effectiveness more in a minute too. But just to deal with the other very specific granular recommendation that I saw in the Monaco Memo, it was that you really have to have an incentive system that's aligned to ethics and compliance. And by that, it's both positive and negative. In other words, you have to reward ethical behavior as part of your system of incentives, whether it's bonuses, compensation, promotions. And you have to penalize misbehavior, whether it's bonuses, compensation, promotions, but also claw backs. Can you talk about that a little bit? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah. It really was fairly prescriptive, as you say, in terms of, in ways that I think should make chief compliance officers happy. That's the stuff that we always advocate for with human resources and with executives. Hey, we want ethics. We want ethics and compliance included in hiring decisions and promotions and bonus frameworks and performance commitments. And that's really what helps integrate ethics and compliance into business operations and prioritize it along with operational considerations, so that should be welcome news for chief compliance officers. The claw back aspect, which is the stick, that's the carrot, this is the stick, it's interesting. They really emphasize it's not good enough just to have claw back provisions that are theoretically applicable, that are present in policies and are never applied. They want to see them applied in cases where there is appropriate individual culpability. And that may mean applied in different ways. They're clearer that there is no uniform approach to a claw back provision, but it isn't good enough just to have it as a policy. You need to talk about it. You need to train on it. And you need to actually implement it in appropriate situations, which is part of the focus on the individual responsibility and again, driving effectiveness. Susan Divers: That's a very good segue into effectiveness. I do want to emphasize what you said, which is this is something that ethics and compliance professionals need to pay attention to. And it should be a welcome development to have that kind of accountability and importance placed on ethics and compliance considerations. But it's: What do you do about it, as you said, if you've got claw back? I think the SEC says that about 50% of publicly traded companies have claw back, but you have to use it. Otherwise, you're probably worse off if you have it as a tool and then you don't use it if you've got senior level misconduct. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, I think that's right. But better to have it than not have it, and if you've got it, you've actually got to apply it, is kind of what they're signaling. But look, this is hard. I mean, it is really hard when you are doing investigations of your own people. As a chief compliance officer, this was the least favorite part of my job is doing investigations into people I work with, people I knew, people who in other aspects of my job, I had to trust. I had to trust them in terms of implementing or overseeing certain aspects of the program. And when you have to do an investigation into them, it feels lousy. It screams out for why independence is important. And those particular instances is just a matter of investigative integrity, but it's a lousy part of the job. And applying a claw back provision to senior executives who you have worked with, who you have traveled with, whatever it is, it's a lousy part of the job, but they are saying it is an important part and a part that has to be applied in practice. Susan Divers: Yeah. I agree with you. That is really the worst part of being a chief ethics and compliance officer, for sure. Let's dive deeper into effectiveness. As I've gotten to know you and worked with you on thought leadership, I've always been extremely impressed with you focus when you're a chief ethics and compliance officer on effectiveness. And I remember some of the things you did, even including short pulse surveys in your investigations to get feedback from employees, so that's just one example. But can you talk about what do we really mean by effectiveness in terms of ethics and compliance programs? What should we be measuring? What should we be looking at? And where should the focus be? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. I mean, really what effectiveness means is: Are the goals of any particular element of your program being achieved? Are you meeting the goals that you have set out for that particular element of the program? So for instance, your goal might be to roll out a new training, and to roll it out to 90% of everybody on a mapped basis. That isn't going to get into effectiveness. Effectiveness is: How well do they retain the critical aspects of the content that is being conveyed? And that can be done through surveys, that can be done through tests, et cetera. But when we're talking about effectiveness here, again, it isn't just about roll out, it isn't just about robustness and good faith commitment to implementing a program. But is it working in practice? How do you know it? How do you test it? How do you validate it? Often, that's done through KPIs and through metrics. I personally like surveys, sentiment survey, I've always liked surveys as a way of getting information. And beyond that, it brings employees into the program when they are talking to you, providing information about their own experiences. I think that's a very effective way to do it. I think 360s in terms of reviews that include ethics compliance is another important part, so you do again get perspectives of employees on individual performance, particularly for supervisors, from an ethics and compliance standpoint. I think you need to look at audit results. I think you need to look at investigations. I think you need to look at a number of different factors that all indicate on a lag indicating basis, what is working and what isn't working. But I think that should be a relentless focus, personally. And I think for every element of your program, you should be looking at multiple ways to try to assess. Is what I'm doing actually working to the degree that I want it to, and in the way that I want it to? And if not, you have to make an adjustment. That's what effectiveness is about. Susan Divers: That's a really good definition. I think one of the traps people can fall into easily is to focus on activities rather than impact. And I like your phrasing of it as a relentless focus on effectiveness. I mean, one of the things we're just doing is rolling out a short, I think it's 10 question ethical culture pulse survey that comes up at the end of a code of conduct course. And it asks questions about respect and trust and organizational justice, which as you know are key elements of an ethical culture. So always trying to get at perceptions and concerns and to the degree that you can measure how that's playing out, I think is really essential to effectiveness. I want to talk about in a minute how non US companies are affected by all this, and also the most common mistakes you've seen people make in your long and in depth, varied career. But before we get there, I was just looking at some of the DOJ material, and I see that Matt Galvin has joined the team. And now I think there's at least three or four former chief ethics and compliance officers. And Matt came for Anheuser, and he has a particular focus on data analytics. What are you seeing in terms of using data analytics for effectiveness? And what do you recommend in that area? Jon Drimmer: I think that's a great hire. I think it'll be great for Matt, and I think that's a great hire for the government, really bringing in somebody who ran a compliance program and who has had a very substantial focus on data analytics. And at AB InBev, the Brew Right program that he put together is one that's usually been held up as an industry leader. I mean, I do think data analytics is critically important. One of the challenges with data analytics that you have to always get around is making sure that your data is good, that things are being recorded and described in like manners that allows for apples to apples comparison. And you have to understand what to do with that information. And so it's not enough to run the analytics, but when you get the analytics back, you have to have a program in place, resources in place, to act on it. And so thinking through holistically what the data is, where it's coming from, how you're going to act on it, depending on what you get is all a really important part of the equation to think about ahead of time before you just start collecting and running. Look, it's critically important. It's been something that's been emphasized for years as a key way of identifying effectiveness, as well as potential risks that you might not otherwise see, and trends, and patterns. So it really is a very important part of a program with the caveat that you've got to make sure that your data is really good and that you know what you're going to do with it on the back end. But that's a great hire, and I'm sure it's really going to advance compliance thinking in the government around the use of data. Susan Divers: I think that's a good way to characterize the importance of data metrics and particularly stressing that it's not enough to have them and get the insights, you have to act on them. It's similar to risk analysis and risk assessment. It's great that you're running a yearly risk assessment, but are you factoring those results into your training or your policies? So that's part of that focus on effectiveness. Talk to me a little bit, Jon, if you would, about we've been talking about the Department of Justice. It does seem to me that what DOJ does in areas like this has a lot of impact on international companies. It's not limited to the US. And you're in a great position to discuss that a bit, if you would. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, sure. Of course. No, absolutely. Look, and to be clear, when the government emphasizes things like data and benchmarking and metrics and KPIs, I can't applaud them enough for bringing in someone like Matt, who has seen it on the ground, has put into place a great program to really help educate. And that's going to be true for US and non US companies. The government focuses on violations of the law, where there is jurisdiction, where there's something that will touch the US, or you have US companies or US issuers. But if you're a foreign company and you're doing business in the United States, or you're listed on a US exchange, the US laws very well may apply to you. The FCPA certainly very well may apply to you. And some of the biggest settlements, again just sticking with the FCPA, have been with non US companies in the last two years. And I don't want to limit this to the FCPA because the memo from Lisa Monaco, it's not limited to the FCPA, but it will extend to throughout the criminal division. And so whether it's antitrust, or healthcare fraud, or other areas that the criminal division might oversee, this is going to apply to companies regardless of whether they're US or non US, depending on the jurisdictional components, so it's a very important part for all companies doing business in the United States, not just US companies. Susan Divers: And I think sometimes people forget how broad that actually is. People sort of think, "Okay, there's US companies, there's French companies, there's Indian companies," but if you're doing business here, or you're using the banking system, then you are basically within the ambit of US jurisdiction if you commit bribery violations, or antitrust, or sanctions violations, or whatever they happen to be. So it really is a very broad net. And I think for that reason, I think the guidance has driven the evolution of ethics and compliance programs globally, not just in the US. Is that your sense too? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. Yeah. No question about it. I think if you look around the world, whether it's the UK, or France, or throughout Latin America, for those governments that have formally put out either guidances, or they've integrated into their laws what compliance programs ought to look like, I mean, it really looks a lot like what the Department of Justice and the SEC have put out, which of course is premised on a sentencing guidelines foundation. But really, it is driving global compliance processes and programs around the world, even for those companies that don't touch the US, even in their home jurisdictions. It's driving very similar approaches and ways of thinking about compliance. Susan Divers: Yes. And I think if anybody needs proof of that, they should read the Glencore CPA settlement, which I was just looking at, which is a huge fine for anti bribery for basically a non US company. But we're starting to run out of time. I could do this all day, as you know. But let's wrap up with: Given your unique perspective, having sat in all of the key positions, what are the most common mistakes you see people make in ethics and compliance programs? And if you can relate some of those to the guidance, that would be great. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, sure. Look, I mean,  I think first and foremost, it isn't really understanding and looking to integrate into programs what drives an ethical culture. And we talked before about the absolute importance of organizational justice as one of the key drivers in thinking about how that should get integrated into your program. And another is managerial modeling. And truthfully, what people seem to often forget is that most employees look at their supervisors, and maybe their supervisors' supervisors as the company. They look at them as management. And so focusing on, quote, unquote, tone from the top, and the most senior leaders of a company, to the exclusion of direct supervisors, middle managers, I think is often a mistake. And so driving behaviors expected of managers is critically important. I think people also ignore the absolute singular importance of confidence in internal reporting mechanisms and hotlines, which is often a proxy for whether your culture of compliance is strong, and whether organizational justice exists, whether managerial modeling is occurring. But I think beyond that, we've talked about the focus on effectiveness. And I think too often, you do see compliance programs that really are driving towards activities and robustness and metrics and numbers that don't take into account. Is it really working in practice? And I do think that has to be, especially in light of the guidance, which talks about culture, it talks about effectiveness, it focuses on effectiveness, I think that's got to be a critical emphasis for any program. And I think a lot of programs aren't sufficiently mature in that particular aspect, which may be why this guidance or this policy is coming out now. Susan Divers: So it sounds like if you were advising let's say a startup, or a relatively small company that's program is just getting underway, you would advise them to focus very much on the value side on getting organizational justice right, on getting speak up culture going and creating that atmosphere of trust, and also on making sure that managers know what the ethical and compliance considerations that affect them are, and what that means in practice. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right. And look, that relates directly to the guidance as we look at rewards, in terms of pay, of performance commitments, presumably of bonuses, of promotions. So setting those expectations for management, along with organizational justice and speak up, I think are really vital components. And so if you are just starting out, the sooner you look to embed that within the company, the more effective it's going to be hopefully as the company grows. Susan Divers: Wow, this has been such a terrific, insightful conversation. And I really feel like I've benefited a lot personally just from hearing the way you've wove together the policy, the guidance. And just for one point of clarification before we sign off, I've been looking at the guidance since I think 2013. I've seen an evolution, actually. It's gotten stronger and it's gotten smarter in focusing on the right things like culture. I don't see it really weakening or changing, even during the Trump administration, interestingly. Is that your perception as well? Is that your expectation for the future? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Look, they are clearly sharpening the guidance. They are sharpening their policies in a way that is actually quite healthy. And I completely applaud the degree of transparency that we've seen in terms of talking about how these are applied, in terms of talking about how these are to be interpreted. So I applaud the transparency and I completely agree. It is getting much sharper, particularly around those aspects that really impact compliance professionals, like culture, like incentivization, like trying to establish commitments, like integrating compliance into employment processes. So I think it is getting smarter. And again, I think the transparency is really helpful, and particularly for chief ethics and compliance officers. Susan Divers: Great. And I agree. I mean, it's actually making people's jobs easier if they take the key messages in the guidance and are able to use the guidance to drive change in their organizations. So Jon, thanks so much for joining me on this episode. Just to wrap up, I'm Susan Frank Divers, and I want to thank everyone for listening to Principled Podcast by LRN. Jon Drimmer: Thank you. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.  

Americana Partners
Stay Invested - September 2022 Market Commentary

Americana Partners

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 28, 2022 45:45


Melissa Giles, Director of Portfolio Management with Americana Partners presents the Monthly Market Commentary as written by, David M Darst, Chief Investment Officer with Americana Partners.  Any charts/graphs referenced are available in print format and may be provided at your request. David is currently the Chief Investment Officer for Americana Partners. David served for 17 years as a Managing Director and Chief Investment Strategist of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, with responsibility for Asset Allocation and Investment Strategy; was the founding President of the Morgan Stanley Investment Group; and was founding Chairman of the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Asset Allocation Committee. After 2014, he served for several years as Senior Advisor to and a member of the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Global Investment Committee. He joined Morgan Stanley in 1996 from Goldman Sachs, where he held Senior Management posts within the Equities Division and earlier, for six years as Resident Manager of their Private Bank in Zurich. David is the Author of twelve books: (i) The Complete Bond Book (McGraw-Hill); (ii) The Handbook of the Bond and Money Markets (McGraw-Hill); (iii) The Art of Asset Allocation, Second Edition (McGraw-Hill); (iv) Mastering the Art of Asset Allocation (McGraw-Hill); (v) Benjamin Graham on Investing (McGraw-Hill); (vi) The Little Book that Saves Your Assets (John Wiley & Sons), which was ranked on the bestseller lists of The New York Times and Business Week; (vii) Portfolio Investment Opportunities in China (John Wiley & Sons); and (x) Portfolio Investment Opportunities in Precious Metals (John Wiley & Sons). His works have been translated into Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, Korean, Italian, Indonesian, Norwegian, Romanian, and Vietnamese. Seapoint Books published David's eleventh book in 2012 , Voyager 3, containing his creative writing, and in 2016, his twelfth book, Flim-Flam Flora, a children's book coauthored with his daughter. David appears as a frequent guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, FOX, PBS, and other television channels, and has contributed numerous articles to Barron's Euromoney, The Money Manager, Forbes.com, The Yale Economic Review, and other publications. He has broadcast and written extensively on asset allocation in the Morgan Stanley biweekly Investment Strategy and Asset Allocation Commentary and in the Firm's Wealth Management monthly publication, Asset Allocation and Investment Strategy Digest, the predecessors of which he launched in 1997. David attended Father Ryan High School in Nashville, Tennessee, graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, was awarded a BA degree in Economics from Yale University, and earned his MBA from Harvard Business School. David serves on the Investment Committee of the Phi Beta Kappa Foundation and the Advisory Boards of the George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom and the Black Rock Arts Foundation. David has lectured extensively at Wharton, Columbia, INSEAD, and New York University Business Schools, and for nine years, David served as a visiting faculty member at Yale College, Yale School of Management, and Harvard Business School. In November 2011, David was inducted by Quinnipiac University in their Business Leaders Hall of Fame. David is a CFA Charterholder and a member of the New York Society of Security Analysts and the CFA Institute. Join Our Distribution List – For a full copy of our report. Americana Partners - https://www.americanapartners.com/contact/ Americana Partners Website - https://www.americanapartners.com/ Linked In - https://www.linkedin.com/company/americana-partners/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/3rX19ND89pwEob9efsFNNF iTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americana-partners/id1496186853 Google Podcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2FtZXJpY2FuYXBhcnRuZXJzL2ZlZWQueG1s?sa=X&ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwj4gZrR_OnwAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg   Disclosures Americana Partners, LLC is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. The firm only transacts business in states where it is properly registered, or is excluded or exempted from registration requirements. Registration as an investment adviser does not constitute an endorsement of the firm by securities regulators nor does it indicate that the adviser has attained a particular level of skill or ability. A copy of Americana Partners' current written disclosure brochure filed with the SEC which discusses among other things, Americana Partners' business practices, services and fees, is available through the SEC's website at: www.adviserinfo.sec.gov. The tax and legal information contained in this newsletter is general in nature. It should not be construed as legal or tax advice. Always consult an attorney or tax professional regarding your specific legal or tax situation. Foreign securities, foreign currencies, and securities issued by U.S. entities with substantial foreign operations can involve additional risks relating to political, economic, or regulatory conditions in foreign countries. These risks include fluctuations in foreign currencies; withholding or other taxes; trading, settlement, custodial, and other operational risks; and less stringent investor protection and disclosure standards in some foreign markets. All of these factors can make foreign investments, especially those in emerging markets, more volatile and potentially less liquid than U.S. investments. In addition, foreign markets can perform differently from the U.S. market. Investing involves certain risks, including possible loss of principal. You should understand and carefully consider a strategy's objectives, risks, fees, expenses and other information before investing. The views expressed in this commentary are subject to change and are not intended to be a recommendation or investment advice. Such views do not take into account the individual financial circumstances or objectives of any investor that receives them. The strategies described herein may not be suitable for all investors. There is no guarantee that the adviser will meet any of its investment objectives. All indices are unmanaged and are not available for direct investment. Indices do not incur costs including the payment of transaction costs, fees and other expenses. This information should not be considered a solicitation or an offer to provide any service in any jurisdiction where it would be unlawful to do so under the laws of that jurisdiction. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Exposure to an asset class represented by an index is available through investable instruments based on that index. The S&P 500® Index is a widely recognized, unmanaged index of 500 common stocks which are generally representative of the U.S. stock market as a whole. The Nasdaq Composite® Index is the market capitalization-weighted index of over 2,500 common equities listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. The types of securities in the index include American depositary receipts, common stocks, real estate investment trusts (REITs) and tracking stocks, as well as limited partnership interests. The EAFE® Index is a stock index offered by MSCI that covers non-U.S. and Canadian equity markets. It serves as a performance benchmark for the major international equity markets as represented by 21 major MSCI indices from Europe, Australasia, and the Middle East. The EAFE® Index is the oldest international stock index and is commonly called the MSCI EAFE Index. The Russell 2500® is a market-cap-weighted index that includes the smallest 2,500 companies covered in the broad-based Russell 3000 sphere of United States-based listed equities. All 2,500 of the companies included in the Index cover the small- and mid-cap market capitalizations. The Russell 1000® Growth Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of the large-cap growth segment of the U.S. equity universe. It includes those Russell 1000® Index companies with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is a measure of expected price fluctuations in the S&P 500 Index options over the next 30 days. The VIX is calculated in real time by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). P/E or Price to Earnings ratio is indicates the dollar amount an investor can expect to invest in a company in order to receive one dollar of that company's earnings. The Consumer Confidence Survey® reflects prevailing business conditions and likely developments for the months ahead. The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in the Third Federal Reserve District; Participants indicate the direction of change in overall business activity and in the various measures of activity at their plants: employment, working hours, new and unfilled orders, shipments, inventories, delivery times, prices paid, and prices received. The ISM manufacturing index, also known as the purchasing managers' index (PMI), is a monthly indicator of U.S. economic activity based on a survey of purchasing managers at more than 300 manufacturing firms. The Composite Index of Leading Indicators, otherwise known as the Leading Economic Index (LEI), is an index published monthly by The Conference Board. It is used to predict the direction of global economic movements in future months. A bond rating is a letter-based credit scoring scheme used to judge the quality and creditworthiness of a bond. The option adjusted spread (OAS) measures the difference in yield between a bond with an embedded option, such as an MBS or callables, with the yield on Treasuries. Mean reversion, in finance, suggests that various phenomena of interest such as asset prices and volatility of returns eventually revert to their long-term average levels. A meme stock is a security that has seen an increase in trading volume after going viral on social media or an online forum. This document may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,”“anticipate,”“should,”“planned,”“estimated,”“potential”and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio' operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward looking statements or examples. This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, modified or distributed in any form without prior written permission from Americana Partners. Americana Partners reserves the right, at any time and without notice, to amend, or cease publication of the information contained herein. Certain of the information contained herein has been obtained from third-party sources and has not been independently verified. It is made available on an "as is" basis without warranty. Any strategies or investment programs described in this presentation are provided for educational purposes only and are not necessarily indicative of securities offered for sale or private placement offerings available to any investor. The mention of any individual security should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell that security.

Progressive Dairy Podcast
Davon Cook: Advisory boards and peer groups take farm management to the next level

Progressive Dairy Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 27, 2022 58:51


In this episode of the Progressive Dairy Podcast, host Kimmi Devaney talks with Davon Cook about how peer groups and advisory boards can improve your farm by bringing additional perspective to your management decisions. Here's a breakdown of the episode: Davon tells us how she helps dairy producers with their businesses. [~1:08]What trends have you seen with the farms you've worked with regarding team development and leadership? [~3:56]Definition of peer groups and advisory boards in a farm context [~8:37]Some frequent challenges she sees on farms related to leadership, business and human resources [~12:55]Recommendations for setting up an advisory board [~16:55]Benefits of including someone outside of agriculture in your advisory board [~24:15]How to vet potential advisory board candidates [~27:20]Recommendations for setting up a peer group [~30:15]Are there existing peer groups that dairy producers can join or do they need to create their own? [~36:35]Success stories [~40:40]Qualities and actions that increase success [~48:00]First steps for setting up an advisory board or peer group [~50:35]Rapid-fire questions [~52:50] Davon's contact information: Email her at Davon.Cook@pinionglobal.com

Beyond 7 Figures: Build, Scale, Profit
How Businesses Should Think About Cryptocurrency With Finance Blogger, Chris Skinner...

Beyond 7 Figures: Build, Scale, Profit

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2022 44:01


Ep #145 - In today's podcast episode, I'm joined by author, speaker and finance blogger, Chris Skinner, who is known as one of the most influential people in technology and finance. Chris is an independent commentator on the financial markets and fintech through his blog, the Finanser.com, and through his 17 best-selling books. His latest book, "Digital for Good," focuses on how technology and finance can work together to address the environmental and social issues we face today and make a better world. In his day job, Chris is the CEO of the Finanser Ltd, a research and media firm focused upon FinTech and the future of finance. He is a Non-Executive Director of the FinTech consultancy firm 11:FS and on the advisory boards of many FinTech and financial firms. Chris is a regular commentator on BBC News, Sky News, CNBC and Bloomberg about banking. He is on the Advisory Boards of companies that include B-Hive, Bankex, empowr, IoV42 and Innovate Finance. He's also worked closely with leading banks such as HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Citibank and Société Générale, as well as the World Economic Forum.   Learn More About Chris Skinner and The Finanser: Visit Chris Skinner's website: https://chrisskinner.global/ Visit The Finanser Blog: https://thefinanser.com/ Visit the Captain Cake (Chris Skinner's Children Books) website: https://captaincake.com/ Connect with Chris Skinner on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cmskinner/ Follow Chris Skinner on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Chris_Skinner   Also, please remember to subscribe, rate, and leave a written review for the show if you find value in it. Your reviews help this show to reach a wider audience and I appreciate everyone that has been leaving them.   FOLLOW CHARLES GAUDET ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Follow Charles Gaudet on LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/charlesgaudet Follow Charles Gaudet on Facebook: https://facebook.com/charlesgaudet Follow Charles Gaudet on Twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesgaudet   VISIT THE PREDICTABLE PROFITS WEBSITE: https://PredictableProfits.com  

Best Practice in Accounting
Harnessing Client Advisory Boards in Accounting

Best Practice in Accounting

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 14, 2022 12:07


***APOLOGIES*** For introducing this show as our 'Success in Accounting' podcast on the audio. On behalf of the Accounting Influencers Broadcast Network, this is the "Best Practice in Accounting" show, going live every Thursday. For our regular listeners, the original name Accounting Influencers has now moved from 'one show with 6 episodes a week' to 'five shows a week, 1 episode a day'. In this show, we focus on upskilling the accountants, bookkeepers, CPAs and commercially focused fintech vendors to better handle key challenges in their professional role like client service, closing deals, negotiating, pricing, hiring, reputation and differentiation. It's all about developing yourself and your practice with real life examples, stories and case studies of what really works. Episode 11. In today's interview, "Harnessing Client Advisory Boards in Accounting." Key takeaways from this episode include: Episode 11. In this episode, Rob Brown and Martin Bissett reveal how one progressive accounting firm has introduced client advisory boards to differentiate themselves and get closer to their clients. Key takeaways from this episode include: ⫸ what success in accounting might look like and how it might be measured ⫸ how the most successful people are generally not bragging about it on social media ⫸ case study of a cutting edge accounting firm in Scotland who decided to adopt a traditional client experience idea and give it a twist ⫸ what a client advisory board actually means for an accounting practice ⫸ how accountants can choose about who to invite to their client advisory boards ⫸ the rules for running a premier client advisory board meeting in accounting firms ⫸ choosing the optimum agenda for client advisory board meetings and what clients really need to spend time on ⫸ how client advisory boards can lead to additional service lines and advisory opportunities for accountants ⫸ the two bonus outcomes for accountants who introduce client advisory boards ⫸ a three step plan for accountancy firms to get started with their first client advisory board Key action - explore how your firm might start a client advisory board to give your clients something better/different and bring them closer to what you're doing. ◣━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━◢ In this show we cover topics like leadership, trust, performance, differentiation, employer brand, values, vision, strategy, talent, skills development, industry trends, growth, marketing, communication, succession, recruitment, retention, culture, M&A, business models, pricing, digitisation, winning clients, advisory, career development, gen z/millennials, ESG, DEI, CSR, CPE/CPD, professionalism and future proofing. It's important that you stay ahead of the game by knowing the drivers of change and disruption in accounting, the behaviours/demands of businesses requiring pivots/services from accountants, the strategies of tech/software vendors in serving CPAs and accountants, the directives, thoughts and influence of regulatory bodies, professional associations and accounting institutes, and the themes, agendas and topics being talked about at accounting and fintech events all over the world. Two caveats for listeners: First, what we're giving you in this podcast are suggestions, hints, tips and strategies. Not necessarily recommendations, not legally binding, not mandated by regulatory bodies. just the thoughts, opinions and interpretations of a couple of guys with a collective 45 years of experience working with, speaking to and and training many accounting practices, vendors, networks, associations, alliances and event audiences. Second, we're not getting too technical or technological with these best practice tips. We're not qualified accountants and there are plenty of sources for technical knowledge. We're also not geeky, nerdy or product focused with the bewildering array of apps, platforms and technological solutions. We're more soft skills, personal development,

To The Point - Cybersecurity
Demystifying Security's Wizards With Tony Sager

To The Point - Cybersecurity

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 6, 2022 61:50


Joining the podcast this week is Tony Sager, Senior Vice President and Chief Evangelist for the Center of Internet Security and shares insights from his 45+ years on the security front lines, including 34 years at the NSA. Risk was a big theme of the discussion particularly looking at risk through a similar lens as we view other risky domains, such as the great work being done with the Cyber Safety Review Board. (And he shares color on the power of being okay with the risk of being wrong sometimes.) He also shares perspective on moving to incentive-based cyber models (such as what's been done in Ohio and Connecticut), and the criticality of translating technology, attacks & attackers into public policy and market incentives. And it can't be a great cyber discussion without addressing the growing sophistication of cyber criminals and their organizations – really becoming the defacto organized crime success path today. Tony Sager, Senior Vice President and Chief Evangelist for the Center for Internet Security Sager is a SVP and Chief Evangelist for CIS. He leads the development of the CIS Critical Security Controls™, a worldwide consensus project to find and support technical best practices in cybersecurity. Sager champions of use of CIS Controls and other solutions gleaned from previous cyber-attacks to improve global cyber defense. He also nurtures CIS's independent worldwide community of volunteers, encouraging them to make their enterprise, and the connected world, a safer place. In November 2018, he added strategy development and outreach for CIS to his responsibilities. In addition to his duties for CIS, he is an active volunteer in numerous community service activities: the Board of Directors for the Cybercrime Support Network; and a member of the National Academy of Sciences Cyber Resilience Forum; Advisory Boards for several local schools and colleges; and service on numerous national-level study groups and advisory panels. Sager retired from the National Security Agency (NSA) after 34 years as an Information Assurance professional. He started his career there in the Communications Security (COMSEC) Intern Program, and worked as a mathematical cryptographer and a software vulnerability analyst. In 2001, Sager led the release of NSA security guidance to the public. He also expanded the NSA's role in the development of open standards for security. Sager's awards and commendations at NSA include the Presidential Rank Award at the Meritorious Level, twice, and the NSA Exceptional Civilian Service Award. The groups he led at NSA were also widely recognized for technical and mission excellence with awards from numerous industry sources, including the SANS Institute, SC Magazine, and Government Executive Magazine. For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e197

Americana Partners
Stay Invested - August 2022 Market Commentary

Americana Partners

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 4, 2022 45:57


Melissa Giles, Director of Portfolio Management with Americana Partners presents the Monthly Market Commentary as written by, David M Darst, Chief Investment Officer with Americana Partners.  Any charts/graphs referenced are available in print format and may be provided at your request. David is currently the Chief Investment Officer for Americana Partners. David served for 17 years as a Managing Director and Chief Investment Strategist of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, with responsibility for Asset Allocation and Investment Strategy; was the founding President of the Morgan Stanley Investment Group; and was founding Chairman of the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Asset Allocation Committee. After 2014, he served for several years as Senior Advisor to and a member of the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Global Investment Committee. He joined Morgan Stanley in 1996 from Goldman Sachs, where he held Senior Management posts within the Equities Division and earlier, for six years as Resident Manager of their Private Bank in Zurich. David is the Author of twelve books: (i) The Complete Bond Book (McGraw-Hill); (ii) The Handbook of the Bond and Money Markets (McGraw-Hill); (iii) The Art of Asset Allocation, Second Edition (McGraw-Hill); (iv) Mastering the Art of Asset Allocation (McGraw-Hill); (v) Benjamin Graham on Investing (McGraw-Hill); (vi) The Little Book that Saves Your Assets (John Wiley & Sons), which was ranked on the bestseller lists of The New York Times and Business Week; (vii) Portfolio Investment Opportunities in China (John Wiley & Sons); and (x) Portfolio Investment Opportunities in Precious Metals (John Wiley & Sons). His works have been translated into Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, Korean, Italian, Indonesian, Norwegian, Romanian, and Vietnamese. Seapoint Books published David's eleventh book in 2012 , Voyager 3, containing his creative writing, and in 2016, his twelfth book, Flim-Flam Flora, a children's book coauthored with his daughter. David appears as a frequent guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, FOX, PBS, and other television channels, and has contributed numerous articles to Barron's Euromoney, The Money Manager, Forbes.com, The Yale Economic Review, and other publications. He has broadcast and written extensively on asset allocation in the Morgan Stanley biweekly Investment Strategy and Asset Allocation Commentary and in the Firm's Wealth Management monthly publication, Asset Allocation and Investment Strategy Digest, the predecessors of which he launched in 1997. David attended Father Ryan High School in Nashville, Tennessee, graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, was awarded a BA degree in Economics from Yale University, and earned his MBA from Harvard Business School. David serves on the Investment Committee of the Phi Beta Kappa Foundation and the Advisory Boards of the George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom and the Black Rock Arts Foundation. David has lectured extensively at Wharton, Columbia, INSEAD, and New York University Business Schools, and for nine years, David served as a visiting faculty member at Yale College, Yale School of Management, and Harvard Business School. In November 2011, David was inducted by Quinnipiac University in their Business Leaders Hall of Fame. David is a CFA Charterholder and a member of the New York Society of Security Analysts and the CFA Institute. Join Our Distribution List – For a full copy of our report. Americana Partners - https://www.americanapartners.com/contact/ Americana Partners Website - https://www.americanapartners.com/ Linked In - https://www.linkedin.com/company/americana-partners/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/3rX19ND89pwEob9efsFNNF iTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americana-partners/id1496186853 Google Podcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2FtZXJpY2FuYXBhcnRuZXJzL2ZlZWQueG1s?sa=X&ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwj4gZrR_OnwAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg   Disclosures Americana Partners, LLC is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. The firm only transacts business in states where it is properly registered, or is excluded or exempted from registration requirements. Registration as an investment adviser does not constitute an endorsement of the firm by securities regulators nor does it indicate that the adviser has attained a particular level of skill or ability. A copy of Americana Partners' current written disclosure brochure filed with the SEC which discusses among other things, Americana Partners' business practices, services and fees, is available through the SEC's website at: www.adviserinfo.sec.gov. The tax and legal information contained in this newsletter is general in nature. It should not be construed as legal or tax advice. Always consult an attorney or tax professional regarding your specific legal or tax situation. Foreign securities, foreign currencies, and securities issued by U.S. entities with substantial foreign operations can involve additional risks relating to political, economic, or regulatory conditions in foreign countries. These risks include fluctuations in foreign currencies; withholding or other taxes; trading, settlement, custodial, and other operational risks; and less stringent investor protection and disclosure standards in some foreign markets. All of these factors can make foreign investments, especially those in emerging markets, more volatile and potentially less liquid than U.S. investments. In addition, foreign markets can perform differently from the U.S. market. Investing involves certain risks, including possible loss of principal. You should understand and carefully consider a strategy's objectives, risks, fees, expenses and other information before investing. The views expressed in this commentary are subject to change and are not intended to be a recommendation or investment advice. Such views do not take into account the individual financial circumstances or objectives of any investor that receives them. The strategies described herein may not be suitable for all investors. There is no guarantee that the adviser will meet any of its investment objectives. All indices are unmanaged and are not available for direct investment. Indices do not incur costs including the payment of transaction costs, fees and other expenses. This information should not be considered a solicitation or an offer to provide any service in any jurisdiction where it would be unlawful to do so under the laws of that jurisdiction. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Exposure to an asset class represented by an index is available through investable instruments based on that index. The S&P 500® Index is a widely recognized, unmanaged index of 500 common stocks which are generally representative of the U.S. stock market as a whole. The Nasdaq Composite® Index is the market capitalization-weighted index of over 2,500 common equities listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. The types of securities in the index include American depositary receipts, common stocks, real estate investment trusts (REITs) and tracking stocks, as well as limited partnership interests. The EAFE® Index is a stock index offered by MSCI that covers non-U.S. and Canadian equity markets. It serves as a performance benchmark for the major international equity markets as represented by 21 major MSCI indices from Europe, Australasia, and the Middle East. The EAFE® Index is the oldest international stock index and is commonly called the MSCI EAFE Index. The Russell 2500® is a market-cap-weighted index that includes the smallest 2,500 companies covered in the broad-based Russell 3000 sphere of United States-based listed equities. All 2,500 of the companies included in the Index cover the small- and mid-cap market capitalizations. The Russell 1000® Growth Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of the large-cap growth segment of the U.S. equity universe. It includes those Russell 1000® Index companies with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is a measure of expected price fluctuations in the S&P 500 Index options over the next 30 days. The VIX is calculated in real time by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). P/E or Price to Earnings ratio is indicates the dollar amount an investor can expect to invest in a company in order to receive one dollar of that company's earnings. The Consumer Confidence Survey® reflects prevailing business conditions and likely developments for the months ahead. The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in the Third Federal Reserve District; Participants indicate the direction of change in overall business activity and in the various measures of activity at their plants: employment, working hours, new and unfilled orders, shipments, inventories, delivery times, prices paid, and prices received. The ISM manufacturing index, also known as the purchasing managers' index (PMI), is a monthly indicator of U.S. economic activity based on a survey of purchasing managers at more than 300 manufacturing firms. The Composite Index of Leading Indicators, otherwise known as the Leading Economic Index (LEI), is an index published monthly by The Conference Board. It is used to predict the direction of global economic movements in future months. A bond rating is a letter-based credit scoring scheme used to judge the quality and creditworthiness of a bond. The option adjusted spread (OAS) measures the difference in yield between a bond with an embedded option, such as an MBS or callables, with the yield on Treasuries. Mean reversion, in finance, suggests that various phenomena of interest such as asset prices and volatility of returns eventually revert to their long-term average levels. A meme stock is a security that has seen an increase in trading volume after going viral on social media or an online forum. This document may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,”“anticipate,”“should,”“planned,”“estimated,”“potential”and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio' operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward looking statements or examples. This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, modified or distributed in any form without prior written permission from Americana Partners. Americana Partners reserves the right, at any time and without notice, to amend, or cease publication of the information contained herein. Certain of the information contained herein has been obtained from third-party sources and has not been independently verified. It is made available on an "as is" basis without warranty. Any strategies or investment programs described in this presentation are provided for educational purposes only and are not necessarily indicative of securities offered for sale or private placement offerings available to any investor. The mention of any individual security should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell that security.

Beating The Drum
Lessons Learned From Launching Multiple Customer Advisory Boards with Amy Pang

Beating The Drum

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 30, 2022 36:32


Amy Pang is the Director of Customer Marketing at Fortinet. She's helped launch customer advisory boards at several companies and has also been on the other side as a CAB member herself. We talk about why you have to have a strong point of view during the planning process, why it's best to start CABs...

The Validation of Art and How Not to Tokenise Collectible Art Due to the Lack of Representation Amongst Your Networks

"Raising the BAAR" in Art, Culture, and Society - Diversity Edit

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2022 67:37


During this episode Jewell Sparks, Paul Henderson, and Ashara Ekundayo discuss the state of art and inclusion across the globe. They discuss Black artists, youth, the White gaze, it's limitations and more. By discussing trends in the art industry, they address various issues and identify solutions which gallerists, curators, and cultural strategists can take in order to impact the future of art and society. This episode is quite relevant as the BAAR Art Journey and Residency program announces participants throughout the upcoming week who will live and work in Berlin, Germany from October 2 - November 12, 2022. The goal of the program is to enable Black artist equity and generational wealth. This particular episode explores Black culture, the definition of mainstream art, how the art world can become more inclusive, the presentation of Black art, and how it can be packaged, purchased, and collected. They discuss the Influence and power of Black culture and its impacts across the globe. Cover Art: Christopher Burch, Place is the Space, 2022, Oil enamel paint, 20ft x 40ft Jewell Sparks: Jewell studied art foundation sculpture and painting simultaneously during her pursuit of a BS degree in molecular biology at Haverford, College. She is currently obtaining her Christie's Art Business Masterclass Certificate, and is the founder and visionary behind the BAAR Art Journey and Residency program. As a venture capitalist, global innovation strategist, media professional, and diversity, equity and inclusion expert, she has always had a passion for the arts and sciences. Jewell has served on boards for public/private arts, media and community redevelopment initiatives focused on maintaining culture and uplifting communities throughout her entire career. As one of the original Board members of the Museum of the African Diaspora's (MoAD) Vanguard Leadership Council, she was responsible for engaging mainstream networks to artworks of the African Diaspora. While living in SF, sh served as the membership and events chair for the young professional boards of the San Francisco Ballet and San Francisco Symphony. Jewell was the acting VP of Strategic Development for The Jazz Heritage Center (JHC), which was a museum, cultural center, and jazz art gallery (Lush Life Gallery). Paul Henderson: Paul is the innovative leader of the San Francisco Department of Police Accountability (DPA). Paul contributes weekly as a legal expert and political analyst on television, appearing in more than 500 televised programs on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and more. As a collector Paul is focused on art that is intentional about reflecting communities of color with an advocacy lens of social justice. His collection includes works from both emerging artists and notable blue chip luminaries. Henderson has contributed at numerous events addressing both collectors and important art institutions (MoAD 2021, Artbasel 2021, FOG Design = Art2022, Frieze 2022, Christie's 2022). Ashara Ekundayo: Ashara is an independent curator, artist, cultural theologian, creative industries entrepreneur and organizer working internationally across cultural, spiritual, civic, and social innovation spaces. Her intersectional worldview offers both an Afrofuturist and radical Black feminist framework to the public sector by centering the lives, traditions, and expertise of Black womxn of the African Diaspora. She sits on the Advisory Boards of the Global Fund for Women “Artist Changemaker Program,” San Francisco MoMA SECA Committee, and the Oakland Public Conservatory of Music. In 2019 she founded and currently stewards Artist As First Responder, an organization and 6-point philanthropic, interactive arts platform that reifies artists whose practices heal communities and save lives.

Americana Partners
Stay Invested - August 2022 (Summary) Market Commentary

Americana Partners

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 26, 2022 6:44


Melissa Giles, Director of Portfolio Management with Americana Partners presents the Monthly Market Commentary as written by, David M Darst, Chief Investment Officer with Americana Partners.  Any charts/graphs referenced are available in print format and may be provided at your request. David is currently the Chief Investment Officer for Americana Partners. David served for 17 years as a Managing Director and Chief Investment Strategist of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, with responsibility for Asset Allocation and Investment Strategy; was the founding President of the Morgan Stanley Investment Group; and was founding Chairman of the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Asset Allocation Committee. After 2014, he served for several years as Senior Advisor to and a member of the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Global Investment Committee. He joined Morgan Stanley in 1996 from Goldman Sachs, where he held Senior Management posts within the Equities Division and earlier, for six years as Resident Manager of their Private Bank in Zurich. David is the Author of twelve books: (i) The Complete Bond Book (McGraw-Hill); (ii) The Handbook of the Bond and Money Markets (McGraw-Hill); (iii) The Art of Asset Allocation, Second Edition (McGraw-Hill); (iv) Mastering the Art of Asset Allocation (McGraw-Hill); (v) Benjamin Graham on Investing (McGraw-Hill); (vi) The Little Book that Saves Your Assets (John Wiley & Sons), which was ranked on the bestseller lists of The New York Times and Business Week; (vii) Portfolio Investment Opportunities in China (John Wiley & Sons); and (x) Portfolio Investment Opportunities in Precious Metals (John Wiley & Sons). His works have been translated into Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, Korean, Italian, Indonesian, Norwegian, Romanian, and Vietnamese. Seapoint Books published David's eleventh book in 2012 , Voyager 3, containing his creative writing, and in 2016, his twelfth book, Flim-Flam Flora, a children's book coauthored with his daughter. David appears as a frequent guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, FOX, PBS, and other television channels, and has contributed numerous articles to Barron's Euromoney, The Money Manager, Forbes.com, The Yale Economic Review, and other publications. He has broadcast and written extensively on asset allocation in the Morgan Stanley biweekly Investment Strategy and Asset Allocation Commentary and in the Firm's Wealth Management monthly publication, Asset Allocation and Investment Strategy Digest, the predecessors of which he launched in 1997. David attended Father Ryan High School in Nashville, Tennessee, graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, was awarded a BA degree in Economics from Yale University, and earned his MBA from Harvard Business School. David serves on the Investment Committee of the Phi Beta Kappa Foundation and the Advisory Boards of the George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom and the Black Rock Arts Foundation. David has lectured extensively at Wharton, Columbia, INSEAD, and New York University Business Schools, and for nine years, David served as a visiting faculty member at Yale College, Yale School of Management, and Harvard Business School. In November 2011, David was inducted by Quinnipiac University in their Business Leaders Hall of Fame. David is a CFA Charterholder and a member of the New York Society of Security Analysts and the CFA Institute. Join Our Distribution List – For a full copy of our report. Americana Partners - https://www.americanapartners.com/contact/ Americana Partners Website - https://www.americanapartners.com/ Linked In - https://www.linkedin.com/company/americana-partners/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/3rX19ND89pwEob9efsFNNF iTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americana-partners/id1496186853 Google Podcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2FtZXJpY2FuYXBhcnRuZXJzL2ZlZWQueG1s?sa=X&ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwj4gZrR_OnwAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg   Disclosures Americana Partners, LLC is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. The firm only transacts business in states where it is properly registered, or is excluded or exempted from registration requirements. Registration as an investment adviser does not constitute an endorsement of the firm by securities regulators nor does it indicate that the adviser has attained a particular level of skill or ability. A copy of Americana Partners' current written disclosure brochure filed with the SEC which discusses among other things, Americana Partners' business practices, services and fees, is available through the SEC's website at: www.adviserinfo.sec.gov. The tax and legal information contained in this newsletter is general in nature. It should not be construed as legal or tax advice. Always consult an attorney or tax professional regarding your specific legal or tax situation. Foreign securities, foreign currencies, and securities issued by U.S. entities with substantial foreign operations can involve additional risks relating to political, economic, or regulatory conditions in foreign countries. These risks include fluctuations in foreign currencies; withholding or other taxes; trading, settlement, custodial, and other operational risks; and less stringent investor protection and disclosure standards in some foreign markets. All of these factors can make foreign investments, especially those in emerging markets, more volatile and potentially less liquid than U.S. investments. In addition, foreign markets can perform differently from the U.S. market. Investing involves certain risks, including possible loss of principal. You should understand and carefully consider a strategy's objectives, risks, fees, expenses and other information before investing. The views expressed in this commentary are subject to change and are not intended to be a recommendation or investment advice. Such views do not take into account the individual financial circumstances or objectives of any investor that receives them. The strategies described herein may not be suitable for all investors. There is no guarantee that the adviser will meet any of its investment objectives. All indices are unmanaged and are not available for direct investment. Indices do not incur costs including the payment of transaction costs, fees and other expenses. This information should not be considered a solicitation or an offer to provide any service in any jurisdiction where it would be unlawful to do so under the laws of that jurisdiction. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Exposure to an asset class represented by an index is available through investable instruments based on that index. The S&P 500® Index is a widely recognized, unmanaged index of 500 common stocks which are generally representative of the U.S. stock market as a whole. The Nasdaq Composite® Index is the market capitalization-weighted index of over 2,500 common equities listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. The types of securities in the index include American depositary receipts, common stocks, real estate investment trusts (REITs) and tracking stocks, as well as limited partnership interests. The EAFE® Index is a stock index offered by MSCI that covers non-U.S. and Canadian equity markets. It serves as a performance benchmark for the major international equity markets as represented by 21 major MSCI indices from Europe, Australasia, and the Middle East. The EAFE® Index is the oldest international stock index and is commonly called the MSCI EAFE Index. The Russell 2500® is a market-cap-weighted index that includes the smallest 2,500 companies covered in the broad-based Russell 3000 sphere of United States-based listed equities. All 2,500 of the companies included in the Index cover the small- and mid-cap market capitalizations. The Russell 1000® Growth Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of the large-cap growth segment of the U.S. equity universe. It includes those Russell 1000® Index companies with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is a measure of expected price fluctuations in the S&P 500 Index options over the next 30 days. The VIX is calculated in real time by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). P/E or Price to Earnings ratio is indicates the dollar amount an investor can expect to invest in a company in order to receive one dollar of that company's earnings. The Consumer Confidence Survey® reflects prevailing business conditions and likely developments for the months ahead. The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in the Third Federal Reserve District; Participants indicate the direction of change in overall business activity and in the various measures of activity at their plants: employment, working hours, new and unfilled orders, shipments, inventories, delivery times, prices paid, and prices received. The ISM manufacturing index, also known as the purchasing managers' index (PMI), is a monthly indicator of U.S. economic activity based on a survey of purchasing managers at more than 300 manufacturing firms. The Composite Index of Leading Indicators, otherwise known as the Leading Economic Index (LEI), is an index published monthly by The Conference Board. It is used to predict the direction of global economic movements in future months. A bond rating is a letter-based credit scoring scheme used to judge the quality and creditworthiness of a bond. The option adjusted spread (OAS) measures the difference in yield between a bond with an embedded option, such as an MBS or callables, with the yield on Treasuries. Mean reversion, in finance, suggests that various phenomena of interest such as asset prices and volatility of returns eventually revert to their long-term average levels. A meme stock is a security that has seen an increase in trading volume after going viral on social media or an online forum. This document may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,”“anticipate,”“should,”“planned,”“estimated,”“potential”and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio' operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward looking statements or examples. This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, modified or distributed in any form without prior written permission from Americana Partners. Americana Partners reserves the right, at any time and without notice, to amend, or cease publication of the information contained herein. Certain of the information contained herein has been obtained from third-party sources and has not been independently verified. It is made available on an "as is" basis without warranty. Any strategies or investment programs described in this presentation are provided for educational purposes only and are not necessarily indicative of securities offered for sale or private placement offerings available to any investor. The mention of any individual security should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell that security.