Capital One Handles Account Holder Death with Grace and Assurance

I know most of us think of credit card companies as awful - and I agree they often are. But today I encountered a human and surprisingly ethical side of Capital One that I had to share.

I called the bank to tell them that my mother had passed away, fully expecting them to ask me to pay the balance on her cards. Other debtors have already tried to push me into paying her debts, even though legally I'm personally not responsible for any of these financial obligations. I thought Capital One would be the worst. Obviously I was wrong or I wouldn't be writing this post.

First of all, they have a dedicated line that when you call, they know you have lost someone. Meaning - that person on the other end is prepared for what you are dealing with and knows how to handle it right away. The first thing she said to me was that she was sorry for my loss and she wanted to make the process as simple as possible - before I even told her why I was calling. They don't require a death certificate, which makes things so much easier, and the process wrapped up in about 2 minutes. The other 3-5 minutes or so were the representative expressing her condolences, and then the thing that surprised me:

Rather than trying to get me to pay, the representative firmly stated that I am not responsible for the balance. Only the estate, if there is an estate, is responsible, and I should not make any payments to any creditors holding accounts in my mother's name. She reiterated this several times.

I knew this already, but I thought I was going to have to be the one defending that. I was so surprised that someone representing a large bank would be so adamant about my rights.

So thank you, Capital One, for making this easier. And for making sure you're not exploiting grieving families.

Witty Irishmen

I had the incredible opportunity last night to hear Rory O'Driscoll of Scale Ventures speak about the venture capital industry. Phenomenal speaker. The man is effing brilliant -- he kept throwing out references to macroeconomic concepts in relation to his work and he always had a couple of answers to each question depending on how you looked at the issue.

A couple of gems stuck with me:

"Relying on people to do the right thing for other people is not a scaleable process."

"You don't need to cap your upside going in. Life will cap your upside for you."

"You know I'm not lying now because we're talking with money."

Brilliant Man.

Surgery Costs

When I was told I'd need to have surgery, the first thing I did was attempt to get an estimate of the costs. The surgeon's office told me he charges $3,500, and gave me a rough estimate that the hospital (the same one they always use) varies greatly but shouldn't be more than about $5,000. I tried again and again and again and again to contact the financial counselors at CPMC to get an estimate, and was never able to talk to one of them. There's actually a bug in their phone system that sends you back through the same cycle over and over without ever getting you to a person or even to be placed on hold. I finally just started pushing zero to wait for someone that could connect me to the right person, but after 6 days of trying at least twice a day, never actually spoke to a human.

Today I called billing and chose the option "pay my bill". I was connected right away and informed that my total comes to $19,000. Read that again. And again. Now add that to the surgeon's costs. What I thought would be around $10,000 (and thus only a few hundred for me after insurance), is $23,000. Twenty-three thousand dollars.

Not for the surgery mind you...just for the room, the anesthetics, the equipment, and the nurses who helped me for 4 hours. Oh yeah, and the morphine. Lots and lots of morphine.

I can't imagine what it would have been if I'd stayed overnight.

This is insane. Insane.

People Who Suck at Their Jobs

Dude, I would so be a better choice than this chick mentioned on wnbc:

NEW YORK -- A grants administrator for the Rockefeller Foundation was convicted Wednesday of stealing $421,000 from her employer by looting a matching gift program that triples donations made by employees to nonprofit charities.

Cheryl McEwan was found guilty of two counts of second-degree grand larceny and six counts of filing false business records after her second trial on those charges. Her first ended in a hung jury in November. McEwan, who earned $80,000 a year at the foundation, faces up to 15 years in prison on each second-degree grand larceny charge, the top counts, when Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Marcy Kahn sentences her Feb. 28.

From 1998 through 2004, McEwan, 51, falsely reported that she had written personal checks for donations to Green Sphere, an environmental charity. She then submitted the receipts for her donations to the foundation. A Green Sphere founder, Frank Melli, would cash McEwan's checks, apply to the foundation for the triple matching gift and kick back McEwan's donation and more, prosecutors said. The defendants stole $188,500, prosecutors said.

Does she know how lucky she is to work at the Rockefeller Foundation? Seriously? And she didn't think they'd find out? Blah.

Hire me. I'll take $80k to help give money away. And, I'll actually give it away.

Real Estate

I constantly complain to outsiders about the cost of living here in San Francisco. I believe, though, that my mouth has just been shut for me:

A 77 square foot (and no, I'm not forgetting a third digit) former storage room is for sale as a $335,000 apartment in London.

For comparison sake, in San Francisco, $335,000 will get you a 700-800 square foot 1br condo. In southern Missouri, that much will buy you a two story 5 bedroom house with a large yard.

Dude...if it's longer than 11 feet, I wouldn't even be able to lay width-wise in it.

So no more complaining about costs from me. For awhile. :)

Investments: Good or Profit?

In Life of Pi, a character states that "...the Greater Good and the Greater Profit are not compatible aims...". Bill Gates has seemingly found a compromise by achieving greater profit for his company and working toward greater good with his personal foundation. The recent issues regarding the foundation's investment choices, however, call into question this compromise.

An article in the Financial Times last week went so far as to say that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation "snubbed" the whole movement of socially responsible investing in their philosophical statement posted on their website.

Bill Gates, the world’s richest man, on Friday delivered a snub to the ethical investment movement by saying his foundation should concentrate on grant giving, rather than judging the social impact of businesses in which it invests.

In a statement on its website, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropic body with $35bn in assets, ruled out screening companies in which it invested based on factors such as their environmental record or lending policies.

I believe the FT article goes a bit far in its interpretation of the statement, but it does raise a major question: Can ethical investing lead to good returns, or does it intrinsically lead to lower returns than investing without consideration of ethical factors? Can the greater good and the greater profit coexist?

This is a question Pete and I have addressed several times. He owns stock in Mobil. Should we at some point get married, I would then own stock in Mobil. This is a question for me. The first part of the question is whether Mobil is even actually an ethically questionable investment. It may very well not be for me, and I would need to do a great deal of more research before determining that for myself. For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that this stock is bad. When it then becomes shared stock, do I ask Pete to sell and invest in something that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy? This stock put him through college. This stock might just sustain him (or us) in retirement. Do we give up that return to be better people? Do we have to give up a return at all? Investment experts are all over the place on this issue. The Financial Times quotes two with very different opinions:

The official [of the Gates Foundation] said: “We focus our energies on the investments we can make through our programmatic work, because that is how we can have a direct and dramatic impact that will improve people’s lives.”

Penny Shepherd, chief executive of the UK Social Investment Forum, said: “This is a rather out-dated perspective. The evidence is that you can invest responsibly without damaging your financial returns.”

However, Danny Truell, chief investment officer at the Wellcome Trust, the UK’s largest medical charity with a £14bn endowment, endorsed the Gates’ approach, arguing that focusing on ethical investment would sharply limit returns.

And even if ethical investments do limit returns, shouldn't we do it anyway? I'm not sure how I feel about the average joe's investments, but Bill Gates is THE leading examble of charitable giving in our time. I feel very strongly that Gates, as this role model to the rest of the world, SHOULD be making socially responsible investments. I think people in his position have to make a compromise. Perhaps the returns are somewhat lower, but is that really going to hurt the charities? In my January 8th post, I quoted an LA Times article that stated that Gate's giving in the Niger Delta was less than half of his investments in companies that contribute to the pollution and other problems that affect the people in the same region. So how do we solve this dilemma?

This time around, it seems we're not getting the answer from Gates.

Gates Addresses the Issue

In response to the criticisms made of the Gates Foundation investments, Many papers reported that the foundation is reassessing its investment policies. The LA Times reported:

In a significant change, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced Wednesday that it would review its investments to determine whether its holdings were socially responsible.

In addition to what it called a continuing review of "our approach to investments," the foundation said on its website, "we will review other strategies that can fulfill a social responsibility role, both in terms of their aspirations and in understanding the impact that they may have."

...In its website statement, the foundation said it would establish a procedure in which the founder and his wife would personally assess its holdings and matters of social responsibility. "We will … formalize the process," it said, "by which Bill and Melinda Gates analyze and review these issues."

Experts in socially conscious investing said the development would probably cause other foundations to rethink their endowment policies. The David & Lucille Packard Foundation and the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, both among the nation's 10 largest, said Wednesday that they too were reevaluating their investments to assess social and environmental effects.

..."They have become the face of philanthropy for the country, if not the world," Gunderson said. "The move you saw today is the kind of socially responsible reaction that the Gates Foundation will consistently engage in … because they recognize their impact on all of philanthropy."

But just a few days later, the chief executive said the foundation is NOT planning this change. Again, from the LA Times:

Despite recent statements that it planned several changes, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will keep its current approach to investing its endowment, Patty Stonesifer, its chief executive, says.

It would be naive, Stonesifer said in a letter published today on the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times, to think that changing the foundation's investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars.

Stonesifer wrote in response to an investigative series published by The Times last Sunday and Monday that showed that the Gates Foundation, founded by the chairman of Microsoft Corp., reaps vast financial gains from investments in companies that contribute to the human suffering in health, housing and social welfare that the foundation is trying to alleviate.

In a more personal article, the Gates Foundation Chief Executive speaks out:

In the recent coverage of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's investments, The Times implies that we have made secret investments. We have always been open about the investments we make. Every corporate stock and bond we invest in is listed on our public tax forms, which are posted on our website going back to 2002.

The stories you told of people who are suffering touched us all. But it is naive to suggest that an individual stockholder can stop that suffering. Changes in our investment practices would have little or no impact on these issues. While shareholder activism has worthwhile goals, we believe a much more direct way to help people is by making grants and working with other donors to improve health, reduce poverty and strengthen education.

Bill and Melinda Gates have always reviewed investments and will continue to do so. To explain our philosophy and clarify how we make decisions, we have posted a statement on our website, gatesfoundation.org.

Hrrrrrmmmmmmm. What's next?

Socially Responsible Investing

I give Pete crap about having stock in Mobil, but I have to say i don't think that's nearly as bad as huge public figures investing in hypocritical ways--like Bill Gates. Sadness.

Dark Cloud Over Good Works of Gates Foundation

An excerpt:

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

How Capitalism WILL Save the World

Bloomberg offers one example:

The Office of Economic Opportunity -- a $150 million plan to offer innovative solutions utilizing private resources to help New York's poor.

Bloomberg for President?

The Cost of a Human Life - The Philanthropic View

Peter Singer (I've always thought of him as "the ethics guy") wrote a fabulous article on the value of human life versus the way we give to charity. He makes two strong assumptions that should then lead to a pattern of giving:

1. If we were to place a number on the value of a human life, it would surely be in the millions.

2. All people are created equal.

Singer attempts to determine an appropriate amount of giving that would even out the discrepancies between intrinsic worth (which should be equal) and actual net worth in dollars (bill gates vs. you or me). He points out that Gates has given away nearly 35% of his total worth, while former partner Paul Allen, the 5th richest man in America, has given only 5% (although that 5% reaches over $800 million). Should we all strive to be like Gates? or is 5% enough? Who would tell Paul Allen that $800 million is not good enough?

Singer then goes through various income brackets and argues what they could reasonably give, pointing out that the richest of the rich (the top .01% of taxpayers) could reasonably give 1/3 of their income and still be super wealthy. The rest of the top .1% could give 1/4. The top .5% could give 1/5, and the rest of the top 1% could give 15%. If the then remaining top 10% of taxpayers paid a traditional tithe of 10%, a total of $404 billion could be given to those in need. Singer admits the scale could be steeper, so that the rich pay more and the comfortable pay less, but regardless of the scale, this is only asking the top 10% to pay a relatively small amount. But it adds up to so much!!! And this is only from America. If the rich in other countries did the same, think of what could happen to global poverty!

He says so much more, but the point is made.

I personally believe very strongly in a capitalist society, but have always felt that includes the generosity of the rich to the poor. If only the richest of the rich took heed and followed Singer's plan to share brotherly love, capitalism could still lead to the greatest cure for social problems in our times, too.

The challenge is on, rich folk.