It’s hard to digest the Wall Street headlines of the past week:  Lehman filed for bankruptcy, AIG got a huge loan and Uncle Same as a business partner, Merrill Lynch got a new home, and other bank merger talks were in high gear.

It’s the latest after shock of the collapsed U.S. hosing (sic) market.  It’s a collapse that has led to foreclosures of brick and mortar homes and now the collapse of Wall Street’s house of cards.

Some fingers wag and point to the “Housing Bubble” as the source of all our woes, as if there is a Mr. Bubble* out there plotting and planning the demise of Western capitalism by giving us all a “bath.”  Others point to insufficient regulation.  The situation appears hopelessly tangled to Main Streeters, and to a few Wall Streeters too.  But there is probably one thing we can all agree on: we feel betrayed.

There has been a colossal breach of trust involving obscene amounts of money.  Tax payers are now being asked to foot the bill for a financial frat party while those who work at the other end of the salary/bonus food chain are losing their homes and struggling to keep gas tanks full.

Last week I found an interesting piece by Michael E. Lewitt shortly after the Bear Stearns fiasco last Spring.  As an industry insider, Mr. Lewitt provides a fascinating look behind the scenes.  He points to short sightedness, excess leverage in unregulated activities (sounds like Enron’s off the books accounting, doesn’t it?), as well as a narrowly focused notion of fiduciary duty as part of the problem.  The structural problems we’re facing, he says boil down to “bad economic policies and bad political values.”

The blame game will no doubt continue for the next 18 months or more while our policy makers in Washington, including the new administration, figure out what to do.  If Enron and Worldcom have us Sarbanes-Oxley, you can be sure that this debacle will bring additional regulation and oversight too.  It’s merely a question of when.

So what does all this stuff on Wall Street have to do with Main Street and your day-to-day business activities?  Well, it’s food for thought on several fronts:

1.  To what extent is your business turning a blind eye to the ethics of certain profitable activities?  Is overconfidence creating a business blind spot?  Relying, for example, on lax enforcement of certain regulations or the fact that there are no regulations can backfire.  Being accountable to a government regulator is no fun.  But having one look over your shoulder and help you make business decisions, as AIG is about to find out, is even less fun.  Yet, that’s exactly what happens in deferred prosecution agreements.  Big Brother won’t prosecute, but in exchange they become your business “partner” until there is sufficient confidence that you have the necessary systems in place to “do the right thing.”

2.  To what extent are lawyers giving their clients the green light on whatever they want just to keep the clients happy and make a few bucks?  Take for example the case of the alleged Ernst & Young tax shelter fraud:  Wealthy clients asked friendly law firms to write opinion letters assuring them that their tax shelters were “likely” to survive scrutiny if the IRS challenged their legality.  One big firm lawyer has already pleaded guilty to tax fraud charges, another has paid the IRS $39.4 million to avoid criminal charges and his lawyer says his client and the accounting execs were “only guilty of greed.”  He makes it sound like a temporary head cold instead of the character flaw that it is.

3.  To what extent is your business tying compensation to short-term performance and encouraging risky behaviors that jeopardize long term stability?  Take a moment to stand back and examine your business policies and the behaviors they are driving.  Could they be improved to better align company actions with sound business practices and good decision making.

Let’s keep the bubbles in the tub.

*Mr. Bubble is a registered trademark of Ascendia Brands.

By now you’ve probably heard the news that two venerable Wall Street firms hit the skids this past weekend.  Merrill Lynch has a new Daddy in Bank of America and Lehman is the kid no one picked for their team.  They’ve now filed for bankruptcy.

In an interesting OpEd article, William R. Gruver ponders the impact of the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the ensuing concentration of banking power, and how such concentration contributed to the current crisis on Wall Street.  He looks at the regulatory environment that failed to keep pace with market realities and notes: 

“We need a system that focuses on the prevention of crimes and crises . . . instead of aiming only for after-the-fact discovery and punishment.  Right now, the Securities and Exchange Commission conducts backward-looking audits, searching for past transgressions.  Instead, federal regulators should focus on guiding companies, helping them to adhere to sound principles of risk management and to avoid imprudent business practices”

Gruver’s regulatory recipe sounds like great advice for any type of self-regulation or business compliance effort.  After all, it’s always cheaper to learn from someone else’s mistakes and to anticipate problems before they occur than expect a bailout with unacceptable strings attached.  

So let the current Wall Street debacle provide some pearls of wisdom and ask yourself:  

1. What steps is my company taking to anticipate problems?
2. Could our compliance program use a little tune-up?  If yes, what are we waiting for?