Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us


What’s Dan Loeb’s Plan for Disney?



Want this delivered to your inbox each day? Sign up here.

It isn’t often that an activist investor wants a company to spend more money on itself and less on shareholder payouts. But that’s precisely what the hedge fund billionaire Dan Loeb is pushing Walt Disney to do with its Disney+ streaming service.

Mr. Loeb’s Third Point wants Disney to buy more content instead of paying dividends. The hedge fund first built a stake in Disney during the second quarter, believing that streaming could eventually bring the company some $500 billion in revenue. That belief only hardened as Disney’s theme parks remain shuttered or under-attended and release dates of blockbuster movies like “Black Widow” slide because of the pandemic. Yesterday, Mr. Loeb sent a letter to Disney’s C.E.O., Bob Chapek, outlining his plan.

It’s unusual for an activist to forego short-term payouts for long-term investments. Mr. Loeb noted that big spending now would put pressure on Disney’s earnings, and eliminating the dividend would displease some investors. He believes that Disney can build a streaming business that eventually generates more revenue than cable TV and box-office releases, “but only if the company leans into this opportunity and invests more aggressively,” he wrote.

Mr. Loeb’s math: By permanently cutting its dividend — worth about $3 billion a year — the company could more than double its Disney+ content budget of about $1 billion a year. Combined with raising the service’s monthly fee, currently $6 a month, and reducing so-called churn, or subscriber defections, the hedge fund thinks that the “lifetime value” of a Disney+ customer could rise to $500, from $100 today. (Third Point says the market values Netflix customers at about $1,200 apiece.)

• Disney already suspended its dividend payout in June and is expected by many analysts to halt its next one as well.

Would that be enough to compete with Netflix? The streaming king’s content spending this year alone is expected to surpass $17 billion, according to BMO Capital, and could grow to more than $26 billion by 2028. For comparison, AT&T’s WarnerMedia plans to spend up to $2 billion on content for HBO Max, while Comcast’s NBCUniversal has allocated $2 billion over two years for Peacock.

The episode makes us wonder what Nelson Peltz’s Trian has in mind for Comcast. To date, Trian hasn’t said publicly what it wants from the cable and entertainment giant after taking a stake. What if, instead of calling for asset sales, as many analysts expect, the activist firm takes a page from Mr. Loeb’s book?


Today’s DealBook Briefing was written by Andrew Ross Sorkin and Lauren Hirsch in New York, Ephrat Livni in Washington and Michael J. de la Merced and Jason Karaian in London.


Image“Boring” only in comparison to the first presidential debate, perhaps.
Credit…Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

What you need to know about the vice-presidential debate. Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris faced off last night — from a distance, through Plexiglass — over health care, taxes, climate change and more. Here are The Times’s six big takeaways from the debate, which The Washington Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg called “boring” — and all the better for it.

JPMorgan Chase announces a $30 billion racial justice plan. The nation’s biggest bank said it would lend billions to Black and Latino home buyers and small-business owners over the next five years. “We can do more and do better to break down systems that have propagated racism and widespread economic inequality,” Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief, said.

Regeneron asks for emergency approval of its coronavirus treatment. The company’s antibody cocktail was used to treat President Trump, who praised it in a video that sounded almost like an infomercial. (Its effectiveness remains unproven.) Regeneron says it has enough doses for 50,000 people.

Facebook plans to widen a ban on political ads. The tech giant will suspend all political and issue-based advertising — not just new ads, as it announced before — after polls close on Nov. 3, and notify all users that no candidate has won until news outlets declare a winner. Critics say the plan still doesn’t go far enough.

Davos won’t be in Davos. The Swiss ski resort has become synonymous with the World Economic Forum. But the next annual gathering of the business and political elite will be moved to lower-altitude Lucerne; it will also be in May, delayed from January, and is expected to be far smaller than in years past. The theme is “The Great Reset.”

Credit…Joshua Roberts/Reuters

In a bitter election season, Democrats and Republicans have found common ground on at least one thing: saving an industry that many Americans love to hate. As stimulus talks stall, airlines are emerging as the sector most likely to get fresh aid before the election. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin twice yesterday about a stand-alone airline aid bill, and they agreed to talk again today.

What gives? Although fliers love to gripe about them, airlines employ tens of thousands and are critical to U.S. infrastructure. They also have hubs across both blue and red states; they help shuttle lawmakers to and from Washington; and the industry’s dominant players allow their unions and lobbyists to flex their muscles with concentrated might.

Here a few of the D.C. power players (and strange bedfellows) pushing for airline aid:

President Trump: “The House & Senate should IMMEDIATELY Approve 25 Billion Dollars for Airline Payroll Support,” the president tweeted just hours after he declared an end to talks on a more comprehensive stimulus.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “Tens of thousands of airline workers stand on the brink of being fired, losing their certification requirements and seeing their livelihoods and financial security ripped away,” Ms. Pelosi warned recently, after a Democrat-sponsored bill offering $25 billion in aid for the industry failed to advance in the House last week.

Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi: “Tens of thousands of airline workers have been involuntarily furloughed and some communities have lost air service because Congress did not fix this problem before Oct. 1,” Mr. Wicker said in a statement to DealBook. He and Susan Collins of Maine proposed a $25 billion bill in the Senate similar to one put forward in the House, though it repurposes some funds from the CARES Act. “I am working with my colleagues to find a path forward. A strong air transportation system is critical to our economy and recovery,” he said.

The White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows: “I never thought I’d say $25 billion was a small number, but compared to $1.5 trillion, it’s a rather small amount of additional assistance that could potentially keep 30,000 to 50,000 workers on the payroll,” Mr. Meadows said last month, after talks with airline executives.

Google and Oracle squared off in a Supreme Court copyright fight yesterday that has tech types divided on the details but agreed about the outcome: whichever way the ruling goes, it will have grave consequences for the software industry. That theme echoed throughout the phone hearing.

The fight is over elements of computer code that may or may not be copyrightable. Sun Microsystems, since acquired by Oracle, developed interfaces in the Java programming language. Google, hoping to encourage Java developers to create apps, used these for its Android mobile platform. Oracle is demanding $9 billion for copyright violations, saying Google should have licensed the interface code or come up with its own.

• If the justices side with Google, “all computer code is at risk of losing protection,” said Justice Samuel Alito.

Google says the interfaces were fair game because there was no other way. Google says that the interfaces are purely functional — not creative — and that it had to replicate them. Donning the mantle of liberator, the company argued that Oracle restricted economic opportunity by controlling code essential to a wide range of Java developers.

• “We’re told that if we agree with Oracle, we will ruin our tech industry in the United States,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

It’s all about interoperability. Many on the bench accused Google of circular thinking — if Oracle’s interfaces are so critical, that might make them highly valuable intellectual property. But the justices also pushed back on Oracle’s claim that a win for Google would stunt tech development, asking what makes its expressions unique. There are standardized organization methods, like the layout of a QWERTY keyboard, that all manufacturers rely on and aren’t copyrighted. And continually reinventing the wheel isn’t good for companies or consumers.

What, if anything, makes computer code unique? The hearing ran 90 minutes instead of the scheduled 60, in part because copyrighting code is a more complicated business than it is with books or songs. Trying to understand the distinctions between this and other copyrightable forms, the justices asked if it’s OK to, say, “recreate” essential elements of court filings, or copy safecracking secrets? What about cribbing a winning football team’s playbook, an exceptionally elegant math proof, or the layout of a restaurant’s menu?

• It’s a technically complex and potentially consequential case: If the extended hearing was any indication, an opinion won’t arrive quickly.

American officials are considering restrictions on two huge Chinese fintech businesses — the Alibaba-affiliated Ant Group and Tencent’s payments arm, WeChat Pay — over national security concerns, according to Bloomberg.

The administration is worried that Chinese companies could dominate global digital payments, giving Beijing access to the financial data of hundreds of millions of people, Bloomberg reports. The discussions follow efforts by the White House to ban TikTok and WeChat in the U.S. over national security concerns. (We’ve previously reported on increased U.S. scrutiny of Tencent.)

It’s not clear what the U.S. government would do. Possible moves reportedly range from executive orders banning the services to putting Ant and Tencent on the Treasury Department’s specially designated national list, which would make it all but impossible for U.S. companies to work with them. Any actions would be likely to face legal challenges, as they have for TikTok and others.

Any action would invite retaliation. China is protective of its tech giants, and Alibaba and Tencent are two of the biggest success stories, with a combined market cap of around $1.5 trillion.

• There’s already concern that American action might hurt Ant’s forthcoming I.P.O. in Hong Kong, which is expected to be one of the largest ever. U.S. banks, including Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, are underwriters, while the U.S. investment firms Silver Lake, Warburg Pincus and Carlyle Group are already backers.


• Regulators fined Citigroup $400 million over “unsafe and unsound banking practices,” after it mistakenly wired $900 million to lenders of Revlon. (NYT)

• Ruby Tuesday, the fast-casual restaurant chain, filed for bankruptcy protection. (Bloomberg)

Politics and policy

• A federal appeals panel ruled that Manhattan’s district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., can enforce a subpoena seeking President Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns. (NYT)


• Etsy will drop all merchandise related to the QAnon conspiracy theory. (Business Insider)

• Triller, an American rival to TikTok, is trying to poach influencers with cash, cars and more. (NYT)

Best of the rest

• The Vatican reportedly invested donations meant for the poor in financial derivatives tied to the now-bankrupt car rental company Hertz. (FT)

• “Why Conspiracy Theories Are So Addictive Right Now.” (NYT)

• A profile of Matt Levine, the Bloomberg Opinion columnist who explains high finance in surprisingly writerly fashion (with lots of footnotes). (NYT)

We’d love your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Ant Challenged Beijing and Prospered. Now It Toes the Line.



As Jack Ma of Alibaba helped turn China into the world’s biggest e-commerce market over the past two decades, he was also vowing to pull off a more audacious transformation.

“If the banks don’t change, we’ll change the banks,” he said in 2008, decrying how hard it was for small businesses in China to borrow from government-run lenders.

“The financial industry needs disrupters,” he told People’s Daily, the official Communist Party newspaper, a few years later. His goal, he said, was to make banks and other state-owned enterprises “feel unwell.”

The scope of Mr. Ma’s success is becoming clearer. The vehicle for his financial-technology ambitions, an Alibaba spinoff called Ant Group, is preparing for the largest initial public offering on record. Ant is set to raise $34 billion by selling its shares to the public in Hong Kong and Shanghai, according to stock exchange documents released on Monday. After the listing, Ant would be worth around $310 billion, much more than many global banks.

The company is going public not as a scrappy upstart, but as a leviathan deeply dependent on the good will of the government Mr. Ma once relished prodding.

More than 730 million people use Ant’s Alipay app every month to pay for lunch, invest their savings and shop on credit. Yet Alipay’s size and importance have made it an inevitable target for China’s regulators, which have already brought its business to heel in certain areas.

These days, Ant talks mostly about creating partnerships with big banks, not disrupting or supplanting them. Several government-owned funds and institutions are Ant shareholders and stand to profit handsomely from the public offering.

The question now is how much higher Ant can fly without provoking the Chinese authorities into clipping its wings further.

Excitable investors see Ant as a buzzy internet innovator. The risk is that it becomes more like a heavily regulated “financial digital utility,” said Fraser Howie, the co-author of “Red Capitalism: The Fragile Financial Foundation of China’s Extraordinary Rise.”

“Utility stocks, as far as I remember, were not the ones to be seen as the most exciting,” Mr. Howie said.

Ant declined to comment, citing the quiet period demanded by regulators before its share sale.

The company has played give-and-take with Beijing for years. As smartphone payments became ubiquitous in China, Ant found itself managing huge piles of money in Alipay users’ virtual wallets. The central bank made it park those funds in special accounts where they would earn minimal interest.

After people piled into an easy-to-use investment fund inside Alipay, the government forced the fund to shed risk and lower returns. Regulators curbed a plan to use Alipay data as the basis for a credit-scoring system akin to Americans’ FICO scores.

China’s Supreme Court this summer capped interest rates for consumer loans, though it was unclear how the ceiling would apply to Ant. The central bank is preparing a new virtual currency that could compete against Alipay and another digital wallet, the messaging app WeChat, as an everyday payment tool.

Ant has learned ways of keeping the authorities on its side. Mr. Ma once boasted at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, about never taking money from the Chinese government. Today, funds associated with China’s social security system, its sovereign wealth fund, a state-owned life insurance company and the national postal carrier hold stakes in Ant. The I.P.O. is likely to increase the value of their holdings considerably.

“That’s how the state gets its payoff,” Mr. Howie said. With Ant, he said, “the line between state-owned enterprise and private enterprise is highly, highly blurred.”

China, in less than two generations, went from having a state-planned financial system to being at the global vanguard of internet finance, with trillions of dollars in transactions being made on mobile devices each year. Alipay had a lot to do with it.

Alibaba created the service in the early 2000s to hold payments for online purchases in escrow. Its broader usefulness quickly became clear in a country that mostly missed out on the credit card era. Features were added and users piled in. It became impossible for regulators and banks not to see the app as a threat.

ImageAnt Group’s headquarters in Hangzhou, China.
Credit…Alex Plavevski/EPA, via Shutterstock

A big test came when Ant began making an offer to Alipay users: Park your money in a section of the app called Yu’ebao, which means “leftover treasure,” and we will pay you more than the low rates fixed by the government at banks.

People could invest as much or as little as they wanted, making them feel like they were putting their pocket change to use. Yu’ebao was a hit, becoming one of the world’s largest money market funds.

The banks were terrified. One commentator for a state broadcaster called the fund a “vampire” and a “parasite.”

Still, “all the main regulators remained unanimous in saying that this was a positive thing for the Chinese financial system,” said Martin Chorzempa, a research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

“If you can’t actually reform the banks,” Mr. Chorzempa said, “you can inject more competition.”

But then came worries about shadowy, unregulated corners of finance and the dangers they posed to the wider economy. Today, Chinese regulators are tightening supervision of financial holding companies, Ant included. Beijing has kept close watch on the financial instruments that small lenders create out of their consumer loans and sell to investors. Such securities help Ant fund some of its lending. But they also amplify the blowup if too many of those loans aren’t repaid.

“Those kinds of derivative products are something the government is really concerned about,” said Tian X. Hou, founder of the research firm TH Data Capital. Given Ant’s size, she said, “the government should be concerned.”

The broader worry for China is about growing levels of household debt. Beijing wants to cultivate a consumer economy, but excessive borrowing could eventually weigh on people’s spending power. The names of two of Alipay’s popular credit functions, Huabei and Jiebei, are jaunty invitations to spend and borrow.

Huang Ling, 22, started using Huabei when she was in high school. At the time, she didn’t qualify for a credit card. With Huabei’s help, she bought a drone, a scooter, a laptop and more.

The credit line made her feel rich. It also made her realize that if she actually wanted to be rich, she had to get busy.

“Living beyond my means forced me to work harder,” Ms. Huang said.

First, she opened a clothing shop in her hometown, Nanchang, in southeastern China. Then she started an advertising company in the inland metropolis of Chongqing. When the business needed cash, she borrowed from Jiebei.

Online shopping became a way to soothe daily anxieties, and Ms. Huang sometimes racked up thousands of dollars in Huabei bills, which only made her even more anxious. When the pandemic slammed her business, she started falling behind on her payments. That cast her into a deep depression.

Finally, early this month, with her parents’ help, she paid off her debts and closed her Huabei and Jiebei accounts. She felt “elated,” she said.

China’s recent troubles with freewheeling online loan platforms have put the government under pressure to protect ordinary borrowers.

Ant is helped by the fact that its business lines up with many of the Chinese leadership’s priorities: encouraging entrepreneurship and financial inclusion, and expanding the middle class. This year, the company helped the eastern city of Hangzhou, where it is based, set up an early version of the government’s app-based system for dictating coronavirus quarantines.

Such coziness is bound to raise hackles overseas. In Washington, Chinese tech companies that are seen as close to the government are radioactive.

In January 2017, Eric Jing, then Ant’s chief executive, said the company aimed to be serving two billion users worldwide within a decade. Shortly after, Ant announced that it was acquiring the money transfer company MoneyGram to increase its U.S. footprint. By the following January, the deal was dead, thwarted by data security concerns.

More recently, top officials in the Trump administration have discussed whether to place Ant Group on the so-called entity list, which prohibits foreign companies from purchasing American products. Officials from the State Department have suggested that an interagency committee, which also includes officials from the departments of defense, commerce and energy, review Ant for the potential entity listing, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Ant does not talk much anymore about expanding in the United States.

Ana Swanson contributed reporting.


Continue Reading


Good Is the New Cool When It Comes to a Successful Brand



October 27, 2020 5 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Afdhel Aziz is a thought leader, writer, speaker, consultant and board advisor with 20 years of experience working as a visionary marketer at companies like Procter & Gamble, Nokia, and Absolut Vodka. Despite creating world-class pop partnerships with everyone from Lady Gaga to the TED Conferences, he felt there was more he could be contributing to society. 

This search inspired him to co-write Good is the New Cool: Market Like You A Give a Damn. The book’s success led Aziz to quit his job and follow his own purpose. Now he is on a mission to help companies and individuals find purpose and meaning in their work and in their lives. 

An internationally acclaimed keynote speaker, Aziz is also the co-founder and Chief Purpose Officer of Conspiracy of Love. The purpose consultancy supports a long roster of clients, including iconic brands like Adidas, Red Bull, Oreo and Microsoft, to Fortune 500 companies like Unilever, AB Inbev, and .

“Goodisthenewcool.org is now a global movement of good, with events and podcasts in association with Soho House, conferences in LA, Sydney and Melbourne, and an online community of 20,000 purpose-driven leaders in and culture,” Aziz says.

Aziz spoke with Jessica Abo to discuss Conspiracy of Love, why businesses should take the “good is the new cool” approach and why it’s not too late for companies to do better. 

Jessica Abo: Tell us about your book Good is the New Cool: Market Like You A Give a Damn.

Afdhel Aziz: It’s an exploration of the whole world of purpose driven . Today, brands more than ever are asked to take stands. When you think about Nike with Colin Kaepernick, for example, consumers are asking brands to take positions in social issues. We wanted to explore that in this book that I co-wrote with Bobby Jones. The expectation for brands to help solve societal problems has never been more sky high.

In the wake of Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter, consumers are demanding that the brands in their lives stand up for their values. Consumers are voting with their wallets, we like to say, and making sure that if they’re going to invest in a ‘s products and services, that brand better be helping solve issues, whether they’re environmental issues or social issues. There is an incredibly high level of scrutiny at the moment that brands are under and expectations keep growing as well.

What are some of the biggest mistakes brands make?

Aziz: One of the biggest mistakes brands make when they venture into this territory of social impact is positioning themselves as the hero, riding in on a white horse to solve the problem. We like to preach to our clients the maxim “be the helper not the hero.” Brands who do this find a way to make the consumers the hero of the journey to give them platforms to help society at large. And this way you can avoid the trap of coming across as too egotistical when talking about how you’re going to attack this problem. 

Do brands have to be perfect to start doing good?

Aziz: Brands do not have to be perfect to do some good. In fact, I would say that no brand is perfect, just like no human being is perfect. It’s important not to be paralyzed by the lack of perfection. Every brand has its problem, has its issues. As long as they’re transparent about it and say, “Listen, here’s the plan that we’re putting into place to solve this problem, bear with us while we do it. But in the meantime, here’s another problem that we really want to solve in society, will you help us?” Taking that humble posture really helps people understand the genuineness of your intentions and that really makes a difference when asking people to participate. 

What advice do you have for brands that want to do some good in the world?

Aziz: The advice that we have for brands who want to do some good in the world is, first of all, listen. Listen to your employees, listen to your consumers, look at the culture in the world today and try and find a way of thinking of people as citizens, not just consumers. Think about the broad range of issues that they care about, and then figure out a way that you, as a brand can get involved in helping to solve some of those problems as well. We like to say brands should solve problems from the everyday to the epic. It doesn’t all have to be about climate change and racial inequality. Maybe there are everyday problems as well that you as a brand can get involved in to make people’s lives a little bit better.

Related: Fighting Zoom Fatigue? These Cards Can Help


Continue Reading


What Counts as Race Discrimination? A Suit Against JPMorgan Is a Test



Over 18 years of working as a secretary at JPMorgan Chase, Wanda Wilson had learned to brush aside remarks directed at her race.

“Wanda, do you mind if I tell a Black joke?” a colleague once asked her. Another co-worker told her that she disliked Black people in general but made an exception for Ms. Wilson.

Ms. Wilson saw no reason to complain. JPMorgan had been a good employer, giving her opportunities to rise through the secretarial ranks and providing assistance during a fraught time in her personal life. She felt proud defending her career to her family, which included several prominent civil rights activists. (Her mother is the poet Amina Baraka, and her stepfather was Amiri Baraka, the playwright and poet. Her younger brother is Ras Baraka, the mayor of Newark.)

But things soured in 2016 after a new colleague began to bully Ms. Wilson and order her around, according to a lawsuit Ms. Wilson filed against JPMorgan and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon. For the first time, Ms. Wilson felt that she was not on equal footing with her white colleagues, according to the suit. She complained to JPMorgan officials, but the bank’s response shattered her faith in her employer, she said. After she was unable to find a different job within JPMorgan, the bank fired her. She then sued, alleging race discrimination and retaliation and seeking an unspecified amount in damages.

JPMorgan said its officials had done everything in their power to make things right for Ms. Wilson. “The firm denies that it engaged in any race discrimination or harassment or retaliation with respect to Ms. Wilson’s employment,” said Joe Evangelisti, a JPMorgan spokesman.

The bank tried to have the lawsuit, filed in 2018, dismissed. This month, a judge ruled that the two sides should engage in mediation instead.

Wall Street has come under growing scrutiny for how it treats people of color, and Black employees in particular. Last year, The New York Times detailed allegations of racism at Phoenix-area branches of JPMorgan. Recently, a former head of global diversity at Morgan Stanley, a Black woman, sued the bank for discrimination.

ImageTwo Black employees at JPMorgan said race was a constant undertone in their interactions with non-Black employees.
Credit…Seth Wenig/Associated Press

But while such cases claim broad and systemic discrimination involving banks, Ms. Wilson’s lawsuit tells the complicated story of interactions between co-workers that can carry racist undertones. It shows how allegations of racism in a workplace can be difficult to verify, even when a company conducts an investigation. That’s especially so in the absence of explicit language or actions — such as a racial slur or blackface — that are easily identifiable as racist.

“This isn’t the ’60s or the ’50s,” said David Carlor, a financial adviser who is Black. “No one’s going to tell you: ‘Because you’re Black, go get us coffee.’ You’re just going to find that you’re the one that’s being treated most disrespectfully in the office.”

At JPMorgan, Ms. Wilson was often the first to arrive and the last to leave, according to three of her former colleagues, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. She got lunch and coffee for her superiors and ran errands that seemed well outside her job description, like buying a mirror for her boss’s office.

In March 2016, Ms. Wilson joined the audit department as an executive administrative assistant — a coveted position among secretaries because it involved handling duties for one senior executive in that department.

Around the same time, Janet Jarnagin was also assigned to Ms. Wilson’s boss as a team leader. A midlevel executive, Ms. Jarnagin’s duties included helping the audit department prepare presentations and reports, according to a publicly available résumé.

Over the next few months, Ms. Jarnagin began ordering Ms. Wilson to hang coats, get coffee and lunch, or carry out requests — such as making photocopies — by visitors to the department, according to the lawsuit.

Once, Ms. Jarnagin stood up from her desk and announced that she was “sending Wanda out for coffee,” asking if anyone else wanted to place an order with her. Other Black secretaries who had overheard Ms. Jarnagin later teased Ms. Wilson about being treated like Kizzy, an enslaved character in the book and television mini-series “Roots.”

Ms. Wilson said that she asked Ms. Jarnagin not to use the term “sending” any more, but that Ms. Jarnagin ignored her. Ms. Wilson described the incident in a 2017 interview with a JPMorgan official, a recording of which she provided to The Times.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Wilson described how Ms. Jarnagin had been making these demands only of her — the lone Black secretary in the vicinity. She tried to distance herself. When she rearranged her desk so that the two women no longer had an unobstructed view of each other, Ms. Jarnagin mocked her for trying to build a “Mexican wall” out of a stack of folders on her desk, according to the lawsuit.

Ms. Wilson complained about Ms. Jarnagin to their boss, who told her to work things out on her own, according to the complaint. She then told a human resources representative that Ms. Jarnagin was ordering her around and bad-mouthing her work. JPMorgan’s Mr. Evangelisti said the bank had begun investigating Ms. Wilson’s complaints immediately.

Credit…Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Henry Klingeman, a lawyer for Ms. Jarnagin, dismissed the allegations. “In the high-intensity, high-stress world of New York banking, Janet was no more rude than a male employee who is assertive,” he said in an email. “That she asked an administrative assistant to get coffee for senior management is one of the criticisms made against her. There is nothing to this, much less implied racism.”

Ms. Wilson eventually emailed Mr. Dimon: “I have followed the chain of command and have not received any assistance.” Mr. Dimon did not personally respond, but her complaint was promptly shared with senior bank officials who stepped up their investigation.

Bank officials interviewed people in the immediate vicinity of Ms. Wilson and Ms. Jarnagin, two people familiar with the investigation said. The investigators determined that Ms. Jarnagin had behaved rudely toward Ms. Wilson. However, since Ms. Jarnagin had been rude in the past to other employees who were not Black, they concluded that her behavior was not racially motivated, the people said.

Mr. Evangelisti said the officials’ conclusions had been “based on information provided by Ms. Wilson at the time.”

Ms. Jarnagin was given two “coaching” sessions, including one by her boss, the people said. She was never formally disciplined, but was advised to treat Ms. Wilson more gently, they said. Ms. Jarnagin left JPMorgan in November 2017.

JPMorgan officials also did a broader “climate study” of the area where Ms. Wilson worked, the people familiar with the matter said. The study concluded that there did not appear to be a problem with racism.

However, two Black employees interviewed for the study, who did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation, told The Times that race was a constant undertone in their interactions with non-Black employees. One said Black secretaries felt it was harder for them to get promotions, and they believed they were underpaid. But the Black employees said they downplayed the racism they witnessed to bank officials, partly because it wasn’t directed at them.

JPMorgan officials have recently acknowledged that some employees still do not feel safe speaking up. In March, the bank announced that it had reviewed its anti-discrimination practices and identified several areas for improvement.

Things didn’t improve for Ms. Wilson after her complaint.

Mr. Evangelisti said JPMorgan gave her nearly a year to search for a new job inside the bank as well as a raise and bonus during that time. Ms. Wilson said the only job the bank offered her was a role working for a man who had become enraged at her over a disagreement with her boss when she worked in the audit department.

Mr. Evangelisti said the role would have come with the same title, grade and compensation as her prior job, “but Ms. Wilson declined the role and refused to provide any context about an ‘unpleasant exchange’ she claims to have had.”


Continue Reading