Finance

The fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City is forcing companies to rethink the risks in routine aspects of executive responsibilities.
Threats against corporations have been rising for years, but Thompson’s slaying is the highest profile such incident in decades.
If Thompson had had a security detail, several key factors would have been different on his way to his company’s investor event on Wednesday.

Closed circuit screenshots of a person of interest in the UnitedHealthcare CEO killing.
Source: NYPD

UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot Wednesday doing something countless other American executives routinely do: Walking unaccompanied to an investor event held by his company.
But Thompson’s death this week in the heart of corporate America’s capital has sent shockwaves throughout the business world, forcing companies to rethink the risks in even the most routine executive responsibilities.

“Everyone’s scrambling to say, ‘Are we safe?'” said Chuck Randolph, chief security officer for Ontic, an Austin, Texas-based provider of threat management software. “This is an inflection point where the idea of executive protection is now raised to the board level. Everyone I know in the industry is feeling this.”
Threats against corporations have been rising for years, fueled in part by the echo chamber of social media and a more polarized political environment, according to security professionals. But the slaying on a Manhattan sidewalk of Thompson, head of the largest private health insurer in the U.S., is the highest profile such incident in decades.
Companies now worry their leaders face greater risk of being targets of violence, especially as they hold more public investor events in New York in the coming weeks.
The gunman is still at large, and his motivation isn’t known. Words written on the shell casings found at the scene may offer hints about what incited the shooter.
One question from security experts not involved in the case was whether the shooter demonstrated grievances against UnitedHealthcare in online forums and searched for information about the investor event. Several health-care companies have reacted by pulling photos of executives from websites, and health insurer Centene made an investor meeting virtual after the killing.

Thompson didn’t have a security detail with him on Wednesday morning, despite known threats against him, according to NYPD officials. None of the executives of UnitedHealth received personal security benefits, according to the company’s filings.

Read more on the Brian Thompson shooting

Cups mark the location of shell casings found at the scene where the CEO of United Healthcare Brian Thompson was reportedly shot and killed in Midtown Manhattan, in New York City, US, December 4, 2024.
Shannon Stapleton | Reuters

If Thompson had, several key factors would have been different. Personnel would have gone to the hotel before his arrival to detect threats; he also would have been accompanied by armed security who may have used an alternate hotel entrance, said Scott Stewart, a vice president of TorchStone Global.
“This was preventable,” said Stewart, who said he had nearly four decades in the industry.  “I’ve never seen an executive with a comprehensive security program ever be victimized like that.”
Still, before this week’s shocking events, it wasn’t unusual for executives to decline security because of the disruption to their lives, or the image it may give, several security veterans said.
“Not every CEO needs heavy duty protection,” said the security chief of a technology firm who wasn’t given permission to speak to the press. “Senior executives are subject to threats all day long, you need a platform to” examine them and determine whether they are credible and timely, he said.

‘Guns, guards and gates’

Since Thompson’s killing, a wide spectrum of companies have sought extra protection for executives, Matthew Dumpert, managing director at Kroll Enterprise Security Risk Management, told CNBC.
In the coming weeks, there are several financial conferences in New York with CEOs scheduled to attend in person. Until now, the major concern for these events has been disruption by environmental activists or other protestors, said a manager at large bank.
“Everybody is taking a look and thinking through security for their senior people,” said an executive at a major Wall Street firm who declined to be identified out of concern it would draw attention.
Some corporate security veterans vented that they are seen as a cost center whose leaders are “buried too deeply in an organization to be listened to.”
“The bias is, security is a pain in people’s butts, and not that important,” said the person, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly.
“I hope this opens their eyes,” he said. “Risk intel and assessment is important, and security is about much more than just guns, guards and gates.”
— CNBC’s Jordan Novet, Bertha Coombs and Dan Mangan contributed to this report More

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a complaint against Comerica Bank, accusing it of failing to administer a federal benefits program that uses prepaid debit cards.
The lawsuit claims Comerica Bank “intentionally terminated” more than 24 million customer service calls, charged more than 1 million cardholders ATM fees they didn’t owe and mishandled fraud complaints.
The Direct Express program is a prepaid card that beneficiaries, many of whom are older and disabled, can use to pay for expenses including groceries and gas.

A Comerica Bank sign on a building in Walnut Creek, California, March 30, 2023.
Smith Collection/gado | Archive Photos | Getty Images

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a complaint Friday against Comerica Bank, accusing the regional bank of failing to administer a federal benefits program that uses prepaid debit cards.
The lawsuit claims Comerica Bank “intentionally terminated” more than 24 million customer service calls, charged more than 1 million cardholders ATM fees they didn’t owe and mishandled fraud complaints while providing federal benefits through the Direct Express prepaid debit card program.

“By deliberately disconnecting millions of calls and harvesting illegal junk fees, Comerica boosted its bottom line at the expense of Americans living on a fixed income,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said.
The Direct Express program is a prepaid card that beneficiaries of Social Security and other federal programs can use to pay for expenses including groceries and gas. Comerica has been contracted with the Department of the Treasury since 2008 to administer the program and handle customer service for the millions of Americans using the prepaid card, many of whom are disabled and older and don’t have a bank.
While the Direct Express website advertises 24/7 customer service, the CFPB alleges that “when people had problems with their accounts, it was often impossible to talk to someone who would help.”
Comerica filed an earlier complaint against the CFPB on Nov. 8, arguing the bureau had overreached in its handling of the case and “has failed to acknowledge that, as Financial Agent of the Direct Express program, Comerica generally acted with the oversight and knowledge or approval of the federal government,” the suit reads.
“Throughout the CFPB’s investigation, we have cooperated by sharing information and data to illustrate the unique nature of this program and the fact that we operate with the oversight of the Fiscal Service,” said Louis Mora, Comerica vice president of media relations. “Despite our good faith efforts to provide this critical context, the CFPB has consistently ignored our arguments and documentation.”

“We will continue to vigorously defend our record as the financial agent for the Direct Express program and remain committed to serving our cardholders,” Mora continued.
The CFPB has taken action against banks for mishandling benefits in the past, including in 2022 when the bureau fined Bank of America $100 million for mishandling state unemployment benefits in 2020 and 2021. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency also fined the bank $125 million in a separate order.
— NBC News’ Steve Kopack contributed to this report More

Analysts say that UniCredit could sweeten its spurned all-stock proposal to acquire Italian domestic peer Banco BPM by tacking on a cash component.
UniCredit is “more exposed to changes in interest rates due to its relatively limited presence in asset management and bancassurance,” Scope Ratings’ Alessandro Boratti said. Takeover targets Commerzbank and Banco BPM could both hedge this exposure.
Orcel may need to decide between going big abroad or staying home, with analysts pointing to high integration costs and an extensive toll on management time if UniCredit attempts to absorb both of the banks it courts.

Andrea Orcel, chief executive officer of Unicredit, in London, UK, on Thursday, Nov. 23, 2023. 
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Divided between two takeover courtships, UniCredit’s Andrea Orcel still has room to sweeten his bid for Italy’s Banco BPM, analysts say, while political turmoil stalls a deal with Germany’s Commerzbank. 
Once a key architect in the controversial 2007 takeover and later break-up of Dutch bank ABN Amro, Orcel revisited his ambitions for cross-border consolidation with the September announcement of a surprise stake build in Commerzbank. Until recently, the latter had been the subject of speculation as a potential merger partner for Germany’s largest lender, Deutsche Bank.

Amid resistance from the German government — and turbulence in Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s ruling coalition — UniCredit also last month turned its eye to Banco BPM, with a 10 billion-euro ($10.5 billion) offer that the Italian peer said was delivered on “unusual terms” and does not reflect its profitability and growth potential.
Along the way, Orcel drew frowns from the Italian administration, with Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti warning that “the safest way to lose a war is engaging on two fronts,” according to Italian newswire Ansa.
Analysts say that the spurned UniCredit — whose CET1 ratio, reflecting the bank’s financial strength and resilience, stood above 16% in the first three quarters of this year — can still improve its domestic bid.  
“There is scope for increasing the [Banco BPM] offer,” Johann Scholtz, senior equity analyst and Morningstar, told CNBC.
However, he warned of “limited” room to do so. “Think more than 10% [increase], you are probably going to dilute shareholder earnings.”

UniCredit’s starting proposal was for an all-stock deal that would merge two of Italy’s largest lenders, but offered just 6.657 euros for each share.
Both Scholtz and Filippo Alloatti, senior credit analyst at Federated Hermes, said that UniCredit could sweeten the proposition by tacking on a cash component.
“Remember, that’s the second attempt from Orcel to buy [Banco] BPM … I don’t think there’ll be a third attempt. I think that either they close [the deal] now, or probably he walks. So I believe a cash component could be on the table,” Alloatti told CNBC. Orcel last month labeled Banco BPM as a “historical target” — stoking the flames of media reports that UniCredit had previously sought a domestic union back in 2022.
The Italian stage was primed for M&A activity early last month, after Banco BPM acquired a 5% holding in Monte dei Paschi —  the world’s oldest lender and another former takeover target of UniCredit, until talks collapsed in 2021 — when Rome sought to reduce its stake in the bailed-out bank.
Critically, Scholtz noted, UniCredit’s offer “puts [Banco] BPM into a difficult position,” triggering a passivity rule that impedes it from any action that might hinder the bid without shareholder approval — and could stifle Banco BPM’s own early-November ambitions to acquire control of fund manager Anima Holding, which also owns a 4% stake in Monte dei Paschi.

Offense-defense

A consolidation offensive could be UniCredit’s best defense in an environment of easing interest rates.
“Multi-year long restructuring, balance sheet de-risking and materially improved loss absorption capacity” propelled UniCredit to a BBB+ long-term debt rating from Fitch Ratings in October, above that of Italy’s own sovereign bonds.
But the lender must now contend with an environment of loosening monetary policy, where it is “more exposed to changes in interest rates due to its relatively limited presence in asset management and bancassurance,” Alessandro Boratti, analyst at Scope Ratings, wrote last month.
Both takeover prospects hedge some of that exposure. A Commerzbank union in Germany, where UniCredit operates through its HypoVereinsbank division, could create synergies in capital markets, advisors, payments and trade finance activity, JPMorgan analysts signaled in a November note. They added that such a union would produce a “limited” advantage in funding, as the two banks’ spreads already trade closely.
Closer to home, Scholtz notes, Banco BPM offers complementary strength in asset management. Alloatti said that absorbing a domestic peer is also one of the Italian lender’s only remaining options to take a leading role on the home stage.
“There really isn’t much they can buy in Italy to bridge the gap with [Italy’s largest bank] Intesa. Probably Banco BPM … that’s why they looked at it in the past,” Alloatti said. “Banco BPM is the only bank they could potentially buy to get somewhat closer to Intesa.” Intesa Sanpaolo is currently Italy’s largest bank by total assets.
Approaching Banco BPM, KBW Analyst Hugo Cruz told CNBC in emailed comments, also has the “added value” of signaling to German shareholders that UniCredit has other M&A options available to it. He nevertheless stressed that the domestic acquisition bid is likely “mainly a reaction to the acceleration of the consolidation process in the Italian banking system,” triggered by Banco BPM’s acquisition of its Monte dei Paschi interest.
Orcel may need to decide between going big abroad or staying home, with analysts pointing to high integration costs and an extensive toll on management time if UniCredit attempts to absorb both of its takeover targets.
Ultimately, KBW’s Cruz said, the Italian lender — which notched its 15th consecutive quarter of growth this fall and has seen a roughly 61% hike in its share price in the year to date — can choose to stand alone.
“I don’t think Mr. Orcel has to do a bank acquisition. He already stated that any acquisition will need to add value compared to [UniCredit]’s standalone strategy, and if no acquisition the bank will continue with the same strategy which already included a high level of capital distribution for shareholders and which targeted the usage of excess capital by end of 2027,” he said, noting that the Italian lender abstained from bids previously “because it was still under restructuring and did not have the acquisition currency.”
“We would hope that they would have the discipline to walk away from both deals” if they do not generate return to shareholders, Morningstar’s Scholtz added. More

Lending from China posed a dilemma to leaders in cash-strapped poor countries. In the 2010s, as the Belt and Road Initiative (bri) got going, China began to invest vast sums in overseas infrastructure. All told, throughout the initiative’s first decade, officials disbursed hundreds of billions of dollars to 150-odd countries. They helped build pipelines, ports, railways and much else, aiming to expand the country’s influence over trade. But emerging-market officials and Western foreign-policy hawks feared something darker was going on: that the initiative was deliberately saddling poor countries with too much debt. Once they inevitably defaulted, China would seize assets and enjoy not just influence over trade, but a chokehold. More

Lending from China posed a dilemma to leaders in cash-strapped poor countries. In the 2010s, as the Belt and Road Initiative (bri) got going, China began to invest vast sums in overseas infrastructure. All told, throughout the initiative’s first decade, officials disbursed hundreds of billions of dollars to 150-odd countries. They helped build pipelines, ports, railways and much else, aiming to expand the country’s influence over trade. But emerging-market officials and Western foreign-policy hawks feared something darker was going on: that the initiative was deliberately saddling poor countries with too much debt. Once they inevitably defaulted, China would seize assets and enjoy not just influence over trade, but a chokehold. More

Overlooking the ocean atop Singapore’s glitzy Marina Bay Sands casino, the Chinese Communist Party is out of sight but, for at least a few patrons, probably not out of mind. Earlier this year the Chinese embassy in the city-state sought to “solemnly remind” its citizens that gambling while abroad, even in lawfully operated casinos, remains illegal. “Keep yourself clean” and report fellow Chinese caught having a flutter, diplomats instructed. More

Since American states started to legalise sports betting in 2018, the industry’s explosive growth and omnipresent advertisements have drawn widespread attention. But although America was one of the last big economies to allow legal wagering, similar trends are evident elsewhere. In most markets around the world, online betting, mostly on sports, is replacing traditional “land-based” forms of gambling, of which sports are a small component. As a consequence, what was once a niche pastime is entering the global mainstream. More

When economists explain the financial crisis that hit the “tiger economies” of Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea, among others, in 1997, some reach for the term “crony capitalism”. A cosy relationship between governments and firms distorted markets. The ensuing currency crises can be blamed on close ties between businesses, banks and politicians, rather than on panicky investors. Companies took excessive risks, safe in the knowledge that economic institutions were designed for their benefit. It was because of this rot that everything came tumbling down. More