|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Bid-rigging scandal envelops top insurance broker in US
By Jamie Chapman
29 October 2004
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed a civil suit
on October 14 against the worlds largest insurance broker,
Marsh & McLennan, charging the US firm with bid-rigging and
other practices that enhanced its income at the expense of its
clients. Marshs insurance brokerage unit has recorded annual
revenues of $6.9 billion.
The companys chairman and chief executive officer, Jeffrey
Greenberg, resigned this week after the companys stock plummeted
42 percent in the short time since Spitzer filed his lawsuit.
Share values among large brokers, and insurance stocks in general,
have declined sharply. Following Spitzers lead, Connecticut
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced an investigation
into possible bid-rigging and price-fixing by insurance companies
and brokers that provide health insurance, auto insurance and
employee benefits.
This is the latest in a series of scandals to shake the financial
services industry in the United States. Most recently, some of
the nations largest mutual fund managers were cited for
allowing large customers to trade after hours, to the detriment
of average customers.
Another unit of Marsh & McLennan, Putnam Investments, which
is one of the nations largest mutual fund providers, agreed
to pay a $110 million fine in that case. Yet another Marsh unit,
Mercer Consulting, was implicated in a Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation into a $139 million pay package awarded
to William Grasso, the former head of the supposedly non-profit
New York Stock Exchange.
Only two years ago, some of the nations largest investment
banks, including Citibank, were fined $1.4 billion to settle charges
of providing false and misleading investment advice to their customers.
The banks had been touting the stocks of companies from which
they hoped to gain additional business.
Marsh, with 63,000 employees worldwide, controls some 40 percent
of property and casualty insurance broking for large corporate
clients. Aon Corp., in second place, controls another 30 percent.
Aon is also under investigation.
The concentration of business in the hands of only two brokers
gives them enormous market clout with both insurance companies
and clients, for whom the brokers are supposed to serve as a trustworthy
go-between. The monopoly situation was ripe for abuse.
Based on e-mail evidence, Marsh is charged with submitting
fake bids to its clients. Clients were led to think they had obtained
competitive bids, when, in fact, Marsh got friendly insurance
companies to provide high bids to give the illusion of competition.
The insurers who went along were assured of their own turn at
the trough the next time around.
In addition to commissions and normal fees, Marsh received
extra payments from the insurers under incentive agreements based
on their volume of business. The broker would rig the bids or
otherwise steer client companies to insurers who paid the broker
the largest incentives.
The amount of income raked in through such incentive payments
was enormous. Marsh reported receiving $842 million in such revenues
in 2003, whereas Aon took in some $200 million. Many clients said
they were unaware of the incentives until Spitzer filed the lawsuit,
although Marsh claims that it disclosed such payments to clients,
at least in general terms.
Implicitly acknowledging the impropriety of the practice, both
Marsh and Aon agreed to stop accepting incentive payments within
days of the lawsuit. Spitzer is also investigating tying
and other pay-to-play practices that are questionable
under anti-trust laws.
In another implicit admission of wrongdoing, Marsh issued a
press release the day after naming a new president that avowed
the company would ensure that the best interests of its
clients are served and that every transaction is executed in accordance
with the highest ethical and professional standards.
With Greenbergs resignation, Spitzer has agreed to forgo
criminal charges against the company. It was widely speculated
that a criminal indictment against Marsh would lead to its demise,
as occurred with Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that had
certified Enrons financial statements.
To date, three individuals have pleaded guilty to criminal
misdemeanors in the scandaltwo executives at American International
Group (AIG), which is headed by Greenbergs father, and one
at ACE Ltd. in Bermuda, headed by Greenbergs brother Evan.
It is expected that senior executives at Marsh, five of whom have
been dismissed to date, will eventually face charges.
Greenberg himself is reportedly negotiating his severance package.
Last year, he was paid salary, bonus and other cash compensation
amounting to $5 million, plus grants of options and restricted
stock.
See Also:
US mutual fund industry
hit by fraud scandal
[10 November 2003]
NYSEs $188 million
dollar man forced out: Grasso and Wall Streets governance
crisis
[30 September 2003]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |