Wal-mart former executive Caughlin admitted to embezzling money from Wal-Mart for his hunting hobby -- some for the lodge, some for his dogs and a bit for liquor and beer. He did this while still in the role of protege to the iconic Sam Walton. Wal-Mart tried to deny him his $17m retirement package but Caughlin sued in Bentonville -- AND WON!!!
Coughlin then counter-sued for emotional distress. (Yes, really. You can't make up this stuff.)
Finally, the Arkansas Supreme Court said that Wal-Mart need only pay a meager $6.75m to Coughlin. Meanwhile, Coughlin is staying home on prolonged house arrest.
I am SO glad I don't own Wal-Mart stock. As ludicrous litigation and upside-down executive pay goes, this deserves an award.
More ranting about this on todays's AmieDeveroLive show. Use the widget at the left to find the show and listen!
Friday, August 22, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Radio Show Starts Wednesday August 13th, 10:00 AM EDT
Tune into Amie Devero Live on www.nowlive.com to hear the first live broadcast of the Internet radio show. If you can't make the live time, download the podcast available one hour after air time!
The guest for this show will be Francis Wade, President of Framework Consulting and Amie's former business partner. We'll be talking about the impetus for the Powered by Principle approach and about Francis' work in corporate culture.
The guest for this show will be Francis Wade, President of Framework Consulting and Amie's former business partner. We'll be talking about the impetus for the Powered by Principle approach and about Francis' work in corporate culture.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Sub-Prime Securitization Hits Main Street
Up to this point the victims of the sub-prime fiasco have been somewhat culpable in their own destiny. For example, there are those who borrowed money with terms that would ultimately come back to haunt them -- and who did so to get funds they otherwise couldn't have borrowed. While its impact is horrific, there is a tiny iota of justice in the scenario. After all, if it looks too good to be true....
Another set of victims were big funds and their investors, those that have primarily institutional backing. Investors like those should have done proper due diligence and learned how risky a foundation the funds were built upon. Again, the victims are not blameless.
But a new set of victims is emerging, and these are truly without blame or responsibility. Elderly people, hoping to preserve or modestly grow their nest eggs were counseled by their advisers to invest in "conservative" funds. The advisers in question? Morgan Keegan, the Memphis brokers.
Now, those funds have lost up to 86% of value, depleting nest eggs and the life savings of those who can never recover because they simply won't live that long. Sadly, many of the victims reside in my own state, Florida, and some live within miles of my own mother. Who should have protected these people? Their adviser for a start; that is, the very people who led them to this financial slaughter. Have we come to the point where we need to hire forensic accountants to second guess the recommendations of our financial planners? Who can we trust both to have done his homework, and to tell us the truth about what they found out? Perhaps we have entered the age of Caveat Emptor run amok -- a scenario in which no one can be trusted -- not even those who's very job description is "trustworthy and wise adviser". In a world like this, one would not entrust a confession to a priest.
Another set of victims were big funds and their investors, those that have primarily institutional backing. Investors like those should have done proper due diligence and learned how risky a foundation the funds were built upon. Again, the victims are not blameless.
But a new set of victims is emerging, and these are truly without blame or responsibility. Elderly people, hoping to preserve or modestly grow their nest eggs were counseled by their advisers to invest in "conservative" funds. The advisers in question? Morgan Keegan, the Memphis brokers.
Now, those funds have lost up to 86% of value, depleting nest eggs and the life savings of those who can never recover because they simply won't live that long. Sadly, many of the victims reside in my own state, Florida, and some live within miles of my own mother. Who should have protected these people? Their adviser for a start; that is, the very people who led them to this financial slaughter. Have we come to the point where we need to hire forensic accountants to second guess the recommendations of our financial planners? Who can we trust both to have done his homework, and to tell us the truth about what they found out? Perhaps we have entered the age of Caveat Emptor run amok -- a scenario in which no one can be trusted -- not even those who's very job description is "trustworthy and wise adviser". In a world like this, one would not entrust a confession to a priest.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Nursing Homes Apply Profit-Over-Patients Principle
Remember the dumping of mental patients? Well, the new trend is nursing homes dumping long-term or difficult patients. This trend is a function of several conditions unique to the nursing home/medical industry. Apparently, when patients come out of a 3 or more day hospital stay into a nursing home, their stay is financed by Medicare or private insurance. Medicare pays the nursing home fairly well, as does private insurance. Fast-forward 6 weeks or 6 months and the landscape has changed. The patient has now exceeded the coverage of Medicare or has used up his insurance coverage and so now must be paid for through Medicaid. Medicaid pays about half of the daily rate that Medicare pays.
There are a lot of ways that nursing homes could address this. And there are lots of better ways that nursing homes (the guilty ones) could deal with this. They could lobby for changes in their States. They could establish special wards for Medicaid patients that generate unusual savings through economies of scale. They could create a mass PR campaign to expose the inequity and heartlessness of this system. But what some of them are doing is finding sneaky, marginally legal ways to oust their burdensome patients.
Their methods are clever. The law prohibits simply dumping the patient on the sidewalk (as does basic humanity), and it also precludes evicting patients except under certain circumstances. But, as i said, they're clever. Since they are allowed to evict patients if they close down (as in, go out of business), they have been known to stage a "closing" by locking up for refurbishment or something else. Once a patient is out, there is no penalty against refusal to readmit. (Well, the courts might not allow it, if only more cases were brought to court).
Another insidious way to exile the elderly pests is to admit them to a hospital for a real or exaggerated illness. Once there, again, readmittance is denied.
Money isn't the only rationale for this deplorable behavior. Patients can become difficult, less cooperative, messier or more care-consuming. That's the nature of aging. None of us is going to escape this problem without dying early. So since you too will one day be a victim, shouldn't you care about this? Ironically, of course the same holds true for nursing home administrators. What principles are at play for those administrators as they make these choices? That's clear: The quest for profit and sometimes, pure laziness.
If you have a parent, an aging friend or are approaching your own geriatric years, this is something to note. Start considering how you will deal with efforts of a nursing home to displace your loved one or yourself. How will you argue for your right to care? Without a government that is more invested in compassion that tax-cuts, and without a change in the health insurance system or the way that nursing homes are compensated, you will likely face this dilemma. It would be useful to consider, from the standpoint of a nursing home that is genuinely committed to the principle of patient care, how they can transcend these conditions. How can a nursing home strategize to be profitable, but also maintain patients who may be a financial losing propositions or who make a massive demand of resources?
Whoever solves this problem will be making a difference for millions of people, including you and me.
There are a lot of ways that nursing homes could address this. And there are lots of better ways that nursing homes (the guilty ones) could deal with this. They could lobby for changes in their States. They could establish special wards for Medicaid patients that generate unusual savings through economies of scale. They could create a mass PR campaign to expose the inequity and heartlessness of this system. But what some of them are doing is finding sneaky, marginally legal ways to oust their burdensome patients.
Their methods are clever. The law prohibits simply dumping the patient on the sidewalk (as does basic humanity), and it also precludes evicting patients except under certain circumstances. But, as i said, they're clever. Since they are allowed to evict patients if they close down (as in, go out of business), they have been known to stage a "closing" by locking up for refurbishment or something else. Once a patient is out, there is no penalty against refusal to readmit. (Well, the courts might not allow it, if only more cases were brought to court).
Another insidious way to exile the elderly pests is to admit them to a hospital for a real or exaggerated illness. Once there, again, readmittance is denied.
Money isn't the only rationale for this deplorable behavior. Patients can become difficult, less cooperative, messier or more care-consuming. That's the nature of aging. None of us is going to escape this problem without dying early. So since you too will one day be a victim, shouldn't you care about this? Ironically, of course the same holds true for nursing home administrators. What principles are at play for those administrators as they make these choices? That's clear: The quest for profit and sometimes, pure laziness.
If you have a parent, an aging friend or are approaching your own geriatric years, this is something to note. Start considering how you will deal with efforts of a nursing home to displace your loved one or yourself. How will you argue for your right to care? Without a government that is more invested in compassion that tax-cuts, and without a change in the health insurance system or the way that nursing homes are compensated, you will likely face this dilemma. It would be useful to consider, from the standpoint of a nursing home that is genuinely committed to the principle of patient care, how they can transcend these conditions. How can a nursing home strategize to be profitable, but also maintain patients who may be a financial losing propositions or who make a massive demand of resources?
Whoever solves this problem will be making a difference for millions of people, including you and me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
