I've never been a fan of companies taking public positions on highly charged issues. I don't think it's good business. Clearly we've seen more large company leader's be outspoken than in the past. I'm a skeptic more times than not when I hear it because it either seems "forced" in order to satisfy a small number of politicians or activists or it proves to be hypocritical. I know in many places it's beneficial for businesses to take public stances on issues. And perhaps their workforce expect or even demand it. I don't live in one of those areas and I'm grateful. Privately, I have enjoyed many of the comments from the world's richest man...
------------------------------
John Tyson
CFO;Chief Financial Officer
Altamaha Bank & Trust Company
Vidalia, GA
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2022 16:20
From: Barb Rehm
Subject: Tuesday Topic: Weighing In On Roe?
Debate over high-profile cultural questions – gun control, abortion rights – is making it harder than ever to be a banker. Companies that remain quiet are subject to public pressure and criticism of complacency while ones that speak out risk angering customers, suppliers, and employees.
Following the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland High School in Florida, Citigroup told retailers it wouldn't do business with them if they sold guns to people under the age of 21. The bank's execs hoped competitors would follow suit. None did, and Citi ended up losing significant state business in Louisiana and Texas, and it lost Bass Pro Shops as a client.
Warren Buffett, who took a $3 billion stake in Citi earlier this year, recently said the best approach is to "basically shut up." "You can make a whole lot more people sustainably mad than you can make temporarily happy by speaking on any subject," he said at Berkshire Hathaway's most recent annual shareholders meeting. "And on certain subjects, they will take it out on our companies."
After the Supreme Court's decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade, Citi and JPMorgan told workers the banks would cover their travel to states where they could have legal abortions. Goldman Sachs and Bank of America followed suit, as did Starbucks, Tesla, Microsoft, Mastercard, and Amazon.
Of course, offering to cover travel costs for abortions isn't quite the same as, say, refusing to do business in states that prohibit abortions. Nor did the large national banks make bold public statements against the ruling; they simply said their decisions were about ensuring equal access to health care.
Some community bank execs reacted much more strongly- particularly those located in blue states. "I stand in disbelief," said Laurie Stewart, President and CEO of Sound Community Bank in Seattle. The ruling will create a "workplace equity issue" that ultimately harms companies and workers alike, added Maura Keaney, first Vice President of Amalgamated Bank in New York City.
Is your board and/or senior team discussing the pros and cons of speaking out one way or the other on Roe? What factors do you weigh: public opinion polling, your personal beliefs, the demographics of your customer base? Do you have any policies in place to deal with these questions? What role, if any, do you think banks have in these sorts of societal debates? There are no easy answers here, but as always, I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts.
------------------------------
Barb Rehm
Senior Managing Director
IntraFi Network
Arlington VA
------------------------------