December 9, 2017

No Image

What About Sexual Harassment On Wall Street?

Many of the recent sexual assault allegations have surfaced in industries dominated by men. NPR’s Michel Martin talks to Wall Street executive Sallie Krawcheck about sexual harassment in finance.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

We’re going back now to a subject that has rattled Hollywood and newsrooms and now Congress. Three members of Congress resigned this past week over allegations of sexual misconduct – Representative John Conyers of Michigan, Senator Al Franken from Minnesota, both Democrats, and Congressman Trent Franks from Arizona, a Republican. Many people who’ve been writing and talking about this have pointed out that these are all industries where men overwhelmingly hold the positions of power.

So that invites the question, what about Wall Street? Sallie Krawcheck has been writing about this topic. She’s the CEO and founder of Ellevest. That’s an investment company aimed at women. But she’s long been on every list of most-influential women in finance, having been CEO at Merrill Lynch Wealth Management and CFO at Citigroup. In a recent op-ed in The New York Times titled “The Cost Of Devaluing Women,” she talks about how she’s navigated through years of lewd behavior and come-ons from supervisors, peers and clients. She’s with us now from NPR in New York.

Sallie Krawcheck, thanks so much for speaking with us once again.

SALLIE KRAWCHECK: Oh, thank you for having me. Pleasure to be here.

MARTIN: Now, you actually said me too back in 2016 when you wrote about male co-workers putting photocopies of their genitals on your desk, you know, a colleague pretending to perform a sex act on you when your back was turned, I mean, even clients thinking that they could proposition you in really crude ways. And I was wondering, what was the reaction when you first started talking about this? Did anybody care?

KRAWCHECK: Yeah, that – you know, it was, yeah, that happens. Yeah, that happens. Wall Street – male-dominated, no female CEOs. Trading floors are 90 percent male. Financial advisers – 86 percent male. There were huge settlements on Wall Street in the ’80s. And so in a way, you almost feel like the rest of government, media, et cetera are catching up because Smith Barney had the boom-boom room and a $150 million settlement. So it had been going on for a while. And when I spoke about it a couple of years ago, it was sort of, yeah, that’s what happens.

MARTIN: But why do you think we’re not hearing more about CEOs and other top executives losing their jobs over this?

KRAWCHECK: Well, it’s interesting. We did have one, you know – over the past couple of days, a gentleman – or maybe not a gentleman (laughter) from Morgan Stanley – who lost his job. But I’ve had a lot of journalists call me and say, where’s the Harvey Weinstein of Wall Street? And he hasn’t shown up yet. And it may be because we still have to wait for him to be revealed.

It may be also, as noted, this has been going on on Wall Street and much money has been paid out for decades, that maybe there isn’t one. Maybe this has been happening all along, so there’s not that one guy. Or maybe it’s not conducive to it. You know, a Hollywood agent can promise a young lady the moon and the stars. I can make you a star. That’s pretty compelling. A Wall Street CEO, I’m going to send you the best trades? Not quite as compelling.

MARTIN: Well, one of the things you’re trying to get at in your piece is not just the tangible and visible costs of, say, lawsuits but also what I think economists would call the opportunity cost, like what are we losing by driving women and people of color out of fields when their ideas and talent are ignored or worse because they just can’t work in an environment that’s so thoroughly demeaning? I mean, is there some way to quantify that?

KRAWCHECK: Yes.

MARTIN: And how would that be?

KRAWCHECK: When you have diversity in these companies, you have higher returns on capital, lower risk, greater innovation. Take a step back. Wall Street, again, our mantocracy (ph) – 90 percent of traders are male. There is research out there that draws a correlation between levels of testosterone and poor risk-taking. When groups are homogenous, they tend to over-trust each other.

MARTIN: Before we let you go, wondering what reaction you got to the Times op-ed. And was there a different reaction when you wrote your most recent piece than when you first started talking about this?

KRAWCHECK: Do you know what I got the most reaction to?

MARTIN: What?

KRAWCHECK: It wasn’t the stuff that I talked about the beginning of my career, the disgusting stuff. It’s actually the story I told at the end, the more recent thing. And that story is that when I was pitching for money out in Silicon Valley this summer, and the venture capitalist – the guy who was making the decisions about money as I was talking through Ellevest – and I mentioned that I plan to hire financial advisers began to give me chapter and verse on how, you know, boy, financial advisers are tough. They’re difficult to manage, the economics. They’re this, this and this.

And I sat there. And for your listeners who don’t know, I ran Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, and I ran Smith Barney. So I’m pretty sure I’ve managed more financial advisers than anybody on the planet, maybe in the universe. And this guy was, as we – as women say, mansplaining to me how to run this business. And the reactions I got from so many women were, well, we’ve been hearing about, you know, this stuff, the chasing around the desk. But my gosh, if you’re getting mansplained by one of those guys, it just shows that even after we name these harassers, how much very further we have to go before we reach a point in which all of us recognize our equality.

MARTIN: That’s Sallie Krawcheck. She’s the CEO and founder of Ellevest. That’s an investment platform aimed at women. Sallie Krawcheck, thanks so much for speaking with us once again.

KRAWCHECK: Thank you so much for having me here.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Barbershop: Russia Olympic Ban, NFL Hitting And More

On this week’s Barbershop, NPR’s Michel Martin talks sports and culture with journalism professor and sports commentator Kevin Blackistone, CNN’s AJ Willingham, and documentarian Bryan Fogel.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

Now we’re going to head into the Barbershop. That’s where we gather interesting folks to talk about what’s in the news and what’s on our minds. Sitting in the chairs for a shape up today are Kevin Blackistone. He’s a professor of journalism at the University of Maryland and a frequent ESPN commentator. He’s here with us in our studios in Washington, D.C. Kevin, welcome back.

KEVIN BLACKISTONE: Thank you.

MARTIN: Also with us, CNN writer AJ Willingham. She joins us from Atlanta, Ga. AJ, welcome back to you, as well.

AJ WILLINGHAM: Hey, there.

MARTIN: And finally, film director Bryan Fogle. His documentary, “Icarus,” revealed the extent of Russia’s state-run doping program at the 2014 Sochi Olympics. Bryan’s with us from his home in Malibu, Calif. And he’s back with us, as well. Bryan, thank you so much for joining us once again.

BRYAN FOGEL: It’s a pleasure.

MARTIN: So let’s start with this huge story in the world of international sports – the decision by the International Olympic Committee, or the IOC, earlier this week, to bar the Russian Olympic team from the upcoming Winter Games in South Korea. That means the Russian flag won’t be seen at the opening ceremony, the anthem won’t be played.

Russian athletes who do want to compete can do so by proving that they haven’t been cheating by being cleared by an independent panel in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Agency. But even then, the athletes who do compete have to wear neutral uniforms. And the official record books will show that Russia did not win any medals in this upcoming Olympics. Now, this comes after the IOC finished its own investigation and concluded that Russia was guilty of executing an extensive state-run or state-backed doping program.

Now, Bryan, this is your subject. This is a subject of your film. And folks who want to hear, like, the whole story, Bryan was actually on this program earlier this summer where he talked about this in detail. But if you just briefly tell us, for those who didn’t hear that conversation – and I do recommend it – how did they do it?

FOGEL: I got into this story as, essentially, wanting to prove that the anti-doping system in sport was a fraud. And that journey led me to Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov who was running Russia’s World Anti-Doping Agency laboratory at the time. And over about two and a half years of working with Dr. Rodchenkov, a chain of events happened that led him to flee Russia under duress and threat of his life.

He came to Los Angeles and, essentially, blew the whistle and told me and my film team, over seven month’s time, the extent of what is this 40-year operation that cheated every single clean athlete on planet Earth, robbed thousands and thousands and thousands of Olympic medals under the hands of the Russian ministry to which Grigory was in charge of this program.

MARTIN: So let me hear from everybody on this. And, Bryan, I’ll ask you to start. Now, some people are saying, wow, it’s about time. Other people are saying, you know, who gave Russia the 2014 Sochi Olympics to begin with? It’s – this has gone on for so long. You know, how is it possible that, you know, all of a sudden now, these particular athletes are going to pay the price for this? And, Bryan, I just want to hear your thoughts on this.

FOGEL: Well, I think that this is not a question of clean athletes or doped athletes or question of doping. This is a question of a criminal conspiracy to cheat an international sport. And what they did in the Sochi Games was literally break into these untamperable collection bottles and swap out the dirty steroid urine of Russian national team athletes and substitute it with clean urine of that same athlete.

So this isn’t a – what we want to call a Lance Armstrong of it, meaning, hey, everybody’s doing it; and if you can get away with it, then, you know, then is it really cheating because you’re doing essentially what your other opponents might be doing? This is pure outright criminal fraud. And the Olympics finally said, we are not tolerating this and banned Russia because they sent a statement to the rest of the world that this sort of behavior is no longer acceptable. I don’t think that it ever was acceptable.

BLACKISTONE: Kevin, what do you think about this?

BLACKISTONE: Well, first of all, let me congratulate Bryan on his film, the findings of which were actually cited by the IOC in making their decision. But it is farcical in a lot of ways, and it is very problematic. And the interesting thing to me about this is that, for one, we’ve been here before.

We made half a step in the last summer games because the Russian track and field athletes were banned. And the question then was, well, do we not think that the other Russian athletes in other sports were not also part of this state-run program? And, clearly, now we’re arguing that they all are, and they’re going to have to prove their innocence on their own.

MARTIN: AJ, what do you think?

WILLINGHAM: There are two things about this that really intrigue me, Michel. One of the first things is, of course, there are echoes of what’s happening in the global-political climate. You have people all the way from the top down denying that this even is happening. You have Putin denying this is happening. You have a large section of the Russian populace not really believing this is happening. You have calls for, it’s a conspiracy from the West against Russia to try and demean Russia’s power, which is, of course, this rhetoric that we also see in the political sphere.

But the other thing that’s really intriguing about it is that what else is coming in 2018? The World Cup is coming to Russia. And that is a huge sort of referendum, I think, not only on the IOC and just the Olympic sort of community in general, but FIFA. And what are they going to do about the fact that, you know, obviously, it’s being hosted by Russia, and it features Russian players? And this really couldn’t have come at a worse time for anybody involved.

MARTIN: So let me turn a corner now. And I want to bring up another topic that involves sports and, you know, possibly politics. This week, there were several hard hits that were very hard to watch in the NFL. First, the New England Patriots’ tight end, Rob Gronkowski, give a nasty helmet hit to a player who was lying face down on the ground who was defenseless.

Then, on Monday night’s game, between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Cincinnati Bengals, the Steelers’ linebacker, Ryan Shazier, made a legal tackle and injured his back. Immediately after the hit, it appeared that he couldn’t move his legs. He was taken to the hospital. Apparently, he’s either had or is going to have surgery to stabilize his spine. But that was a very hard thing to watch. And then two players who were involved in these hits – the Bengals’ safety, George Iloka, was fined, and the Steelers’ receiver, JuJu Smith-Schuster, was suspended for a game.

So, AJ, I want to start with you on this one. You know, is this the right response? I mean, people are still talking about that. In fact, I read one column from a columnist in Pittsburgh – said, you know, the reason I’m – you know, forget Colin Kaepernick; the reason I’m not watching football is I don’t want to watch somebody die. And so do you feel that the league is responding appropriately? And what do you think about what just happened last week?

WILLINGHAM: I think, first of all, it’s important to establish that this is the absolute worst of football. You know, a lot of players – there have been a couple Steelers players who have come to Smith-Schuster’s defense and said, you know, this – you know, what are you expecting from this sport? You know, be a man and sort of just go in there. And there’s no doubt that this was an AFC grudge match – that this was a particularly sort of difficult, you know, very heated game. But it’s just – it’s absolutely unacceptable. And I think the league has an opportunity here to create better sort of rules to deal with this.

Look at college football. A lot of people are calling for the NFL to look to college football and say they have a targeting rule that – you know, it’s not perfect. Of course, it’s not perfect. Sometimes it’s enforced unduly. But the targeting rule would – for instance, Smith-Schuster and Iloka would both be punished under that targeting rule. They would be taken out of the game and suspended the first half of the next game.

And so I think that the NFL needs to look at putting in place more consistent rules so that you don’t have things like this happening where, for instance, Iloka was suspended, and then he wasn’t. He was fined, which was bringing that punishment down. And so now you have these Steelers coming in and speaking out against that. And it’s just really inconsistent. And I think the more consistency that the league can get with it, the better we can deal with this overall problem.

MARTIN: Kevin, what about – what do you think? I mean, is this a flare up of some kind? Or is there a bigger problem here that needs to be addressed? I mean, for example…

BLACKISTONE: Right.

MARTIN: …Just to AJ’s point, Ben Roethlisberger, the Steelers’ quarterback, was asked about the game after the Monday game. And he said, well, that’s just AFC football. I don’t know whether he saw what everybody else saw or…

BLACKISTONE: Right.

MARTIN: …What He. Was defending his player but…

BLACKISTONE: You know, he’s expressing the masculinity that’s in the game. You know, I’ll say a couple things. One thing that’s kind of disingenuous on the media’s part is we hype these games as great grudge matches. And we bring up what’s happened in the past between these particular teams. And then we have this shock and awe after something horrible happens.

You know, I went back to look at the statistics over the last few years in terms of penalties for unnecessary roughness, personal fouls and ejections. And, actually, they’ve been down over the last three years, which is a good sign, which means that some of the rules and some of the emphasis on not having egregious violence in the game may be getting through. And so I think that these particular incidents were more anomalies than anything else. But we all see them, and we all focus on them.

The thing that I thought that was really bad was the Gronkowski play because that was – after a play is over, one player is in a vulnerable position and not expecting to be hit. And he gets hit in maybe the most vulnerable spot on the body, which is the back of his head, the back of his neck. The other plays happen within the context of the game. And so I don’t think that they should necessarily be penalized as heavily as Gronkowski. In fact, I – you know, the more and more I thought about it, Gronkowski should have received an even heavier penalty.

MARTIN: Bryan, before we let you go, do – I know this isn’t particularly your expertise. I know that you’re into cycling and other stuff, but do you have any final thoughts about this? I don’t know if you’re a football fan, but do you have any thoughts about this?

FOGEL: You know, I am a football fan. And I think that, you know, it’s all part of the greater sporting thing, which is, you know, sport is essentially gladiator games, and it’s war without the weapons. And so, you know, we can’t have it both ways. I mean, we want these guys to go out there and essentially beat each other up and prove that, you know, New England is stronger than Denver, et cetera. And that is also the risk of sports.

MARTIN: Well, that was Bryan Fogle. He directed the documentary “Icarus” that exposed Russia’s state-sponsored doping program. He was with us from Malibu, Calif. Also with us, sportswriter and journalism professor Kevin Blackistone with us from our studios here in Washington, D.C., and CNN writer AJ Willingham with us from Atlanta. Thank you all so much for speaking with us.

BLACKISTONE: Thank you.

WILLINGHAM: Thank you.

FOGEL: Thank you.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Doubts Rise About Sen. Collins' Strategy To Shore Up Insurance Market

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, walks through the Capitol with colleagues in early December.

Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican whose vote was pivotal in pushing the GOP tax bill forward last week, thought she had a deal to bolster health care protections in exchange for her support.

But it’s now unclear wether her strategy to shore up part of the Affordable Care Act will prevail or that it would produce the results she anticipates.

The tax bill repeals the ACA’s fines for the individual mandate, which requires most people to have health insurance or pay a fine. Collins says she would vote for it if Senate Republicans promised to allow a vote on two other health bills.

One would reinstate payments to insurers in order to cover discounts that the ACA requires those insurers to provide to their lowest-income enrollees for out-of-pocket costs. President Trump ended those “cost-sharing reduction” payments in October. The bill that Collins supports would extend the payments for two years.

The other bill she supports would provide temporary funding for reinsurance pools, which help insurers pay claims for the sickest — and most expensive — customers. Reinsurance would help bring down premium costs for everyone else.

Before the tax vote, Collins said in a statement she was “deeply concerned that the repeal of the individual mandate would almost certainly lead to further increases in the cost of health insurance premiums – premiums that are already too expensive under the ACA.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the floor that he would support Collins’ demands.

McConnell added that he would seek to restore the cost-sharing subsidies, “ideally prior to the adoption of any final tax reform conference agreement and certainly before the end of the year.” He also said he would “support passage of your bill” to create the reinsurance program, with the same timing.

But it’s nowhere near that easy.

The tax bill is now the subject of final negotiations between the House and the Senate. First, even if the bills pass the Senate, there is little to suggest that the House Republicans would go along. On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., reportedly told other House leaders he was not a party to Collins’ health care deal with McConnell. Ryan had previously expressed opposition to restoring the cost-sharing payments.

In response to Ryan, Collins on Thursday signaled that she might not vote for the tax bill’s final passage.

But would Collins’ changes offset the elimination of the mandate? Some analysts question whether the bill restoring the federal cost-sharing subsidy payments could actually do more harm than good.

“It’s a mess,” says insurance industry consultant Robert Laszewski. Many states allowed insurers to raise premiums to make up for the loss of the federal cost-sharing reduction payments. So passing the law now, at least for 2018, would require insurers to make refunds to individuals and the federal government for those overpayments.

“It’s certainly too late to affect premiums for 2018,” agreed Aviva Aron-Dine, a former Obama administration health official at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank. “It’s also too late to help with market disruption for 2018.”

Open enrollment for 2018 coverage on the federal marketplace ends Dec. 15, although some state-run exchanges have later deadlines.

One irony, Aron-Dine noted, is that state regulators have dealt with the loss of the federal payments in such a way that many customers can get unexpectedly large discounts on premiums, including bronze-level plans for no monthly premium or gold-level plans cheaper than the mid-level silver ones.

Going back to the original payment system, she says, would result in “a whole group of people who would actually see higher premiums.”

In addition, the tax bill’s elimination of the federal health law’s individual mandate penalty would also raise premium costs – beyond the expected yearly increases – by an average of 10 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s because the CBO estimates that about 13 million people would give up their coverage by 2027. Fewer people buying insurance means that the insurance pools would have larger numbers of sicker enrollees and would be more expensive for insurers, who would likely raise premiums.

Industry analysts also predict that the loss of the mandate could disrupt the marketplace enough to drive out some insurers.

The elimination of the mandate penalties is permanent, but Collins’ bill would fund the cost-sharing and reinsurance programs for only two years. Because of that, says Timothy Jost, a former law professor and expert on the health law, “I don’t think it’s going to be much of a carrot” to encourage insurers to stay in the individual market.

Analysts were more upbeat about the potential impact of the reinsurance program. The program would be similar to one that existed in the first years of the health law, “and it did in fact reduce premiums by about 10 percent,” Jost says.

But in order to set up such reinsurance programs and be eligible for funding, states would have to apply for special waivers under the health law. Federal officials have been slow about approving those. “States would have to get their act together politically,” says Jost. “And the money might run out before [the federal government] gets to your state.”

At least one organization thinks Collins is onto something.

The consulting firm Avalere Health estimated this week that the combination of funding the cost-sharing reductions and funding a new reinsurance program would offset the impact of the mandate repeal – at least temporarily.

“Funding CSRs and funding reinsurance is expected to decrease average premiums in the market by more than the 10 percent [increase] CBO is projecting” for getting rid of the mandate fines, says Chris Sloan, a co-author of the study.

But he warned that when the funding runs out, “we’re back where we started.”

Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)