Megabank JP Morgan hit the headlines over the weekend with news that it was mobilizing its senior management to defeat a shareholder vote on corporate governance. In advance of a vote at next month’s annual meeting, board members are planning to sit down with some of the bank’s biggest shareholders, encouraging them to block a motion to separate the role of CEO and Chairman.
Momentum for the proposal has gathered steam following the losses from the London Whale trading episode and JPM’s nearly $6 billion in losses. Fairly or unfairly, questions about the CEO have been raised, and whether or not it is possible to manage a firm of JP Morgan’s size. Following some recent ugly congressional hearings, the new catch cry is not only too big to fail abut also too big to manage. This recent suggestion, to split the current Chairman/CEO role into two is an attempt, so say its proponents, to get another set of eyes overseeing day-to-day management.
The Board of JP Morgan isn’t in favor of the change, while press reports have CEO Jamie Dimon being alternatively sanguine about the proposal or threatening to leave, if the motion is approved. To avoid ongoing external scrutiny and to appease fierce critics in Washington and elsewhere, this may be one battle not worth fighting.
THE PR VERDICT: “D” (PR Problematic) for JP Morgan and its decision to oppose suggested governance reforms.
THE PR TAKEAWAY: Give an inch to keep a mile. It’s not really clear what JP Morgan’s objections are to splitting the role of CEO and Chairman. It is, after all, a structure that is already in place in many companies around the world, and splitting the roles is generally perceived as a desirable safeguard. For a firm that has been dragged through acres of tough media coverage about its internal management controls, this might have been one relatively painless and not unreasonable concession to make. Another financial loss or management failure around the corner, and JP Morgan may rue the day it so vociferously opposed such a modest reform.