A surprise? Corporate reputations on the rise.

Corporate reputations on the riseWhat’s happening with the reputations of the leading U.S. corporations? Are we talking “bad rep” or “bum rap”?

Actually, it turns out that corporate reputations are on the rise; that’s according to findings from the 2011 Reputation Quotient® Survey conducted by market research firm Harris Interactive.

Each year since 1999, Harris has measured the reputations of the 60 “most visible” corporations in the United States. The 2011 survey, fielded in January and February, included ~30,000 Americans who are part of Harris’ online panel database. Respondents rated the companies on 20 attributes that comprise what Harris deems the overall “reputation quotient” (RQ).

The 2011 survey contained 54 “most visible” companies that were also part of the 2010 survey. Of those, 18 of the firms showed significant RQ increases compared to only two with declines.

The 20 attributes in the Harris survey are then grouped into six larger categories that are known to influence reputation and consumer behavior:

 Products and services
 Financial performance
 Emotional appeal
 Vision and leadership
 Workplace environment
 Social responsibility

Each of the ten top-rated companies in the 2011 survey achieved between an 81 and 84 RQ score in corporate reputation. (Any RQ score over 80 is considered “excellent” in the Harris study). In cescending order of score, these top-ranked corporations were:

 Google
 Johnson & Johnson
 3M Company
 Berkshire Hathaway
 Apple
 Intel Corporation
 Kraft Foods
 Amazon.com
 Disney Company
 General Mills

At the other end of the scale, the ten companies with the lowest ratings among the 60 included on the survey were:

 Delta Airlines (61 RQ score)
 JPMorgan Chase (61)
 ExxonMobil (61)
 General Motors (60)
 Bank of America (59)
 Chrysler (58)
 Citigroup (57)
 Goldman Sachs (54)
 BP (50)
 AIG (48)

Clearly, BP and AIG haven’t escaped their bottom-of-the-barrel ratings – and probably won’t anytime soon.

What about certain industries in general? The Harris research reveals that the technology segment is perceived most positively, with ~75% of respondents giving that sector a positive rating.

The next most popular segment – retail – had ~57% of respondents giving it a positive rating.

For the auto industry, the big news is not that it’s held in high regard (it’s not) … but that its ratings jumped 15 percentage points between 2010 and 2011. That’s the largest one-year jump recorded for any industry in any year since the Harris RQ Survey began.

What industries are bouncing along the bottom? Predictably, it’s financial services firms and oil companies.

But the news from this survey is, on balance, quite positive. In fact, Harris found that there were actually more individual companies rated “excellent” than has ever been recorded in the history of the survey. Considering the sorry state of the economy and how badly many brands have been battered, that result is nothing short of amazing

Mathematicians and the Meltdown

I can’t wait for the release of The Quants, a new book by Wall Street Journal reporter Scott Patterson about the role of so-called “quant funds” in the financial near-meltdown in September 2008, to be published on February 2. The weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal printed excerpts from the book, a powerful indictment of the mathematicians and computer whizzes who “nearly destroyed Wall Street.”

According to Patterson, “quants” was a name given to “traders and financial engineers who used brain-twisting math and super-powered computers to pluck billions in fleeting dollars out of the market.” In a major departure from traditional trading – evaluating individual companies’ management, performance and competitive positions – the quants used mathematical formulae to wager on which stocks will rise or fall.

Because of breakthroughs in the application of mathematics to financial markets – some of them so novel so as to have won their discoverers Nobel Prize awards — quant funds had quickly come to dominate Wall Street, with most of them piling up profits day after day. (To the senior brass at the investment houses, who likely knew little if anything about how these funds operated except that they made a lot of money, a hands-off policy seemed just the thing.)

And just as in so many other fields, technology elevated the “nerds” to the position of “stars” – with commensurately stratospheric compensation.

Unfortunately, in September 2008 the quant funds could not anticipate the effect of the collapse of the housing market bubble. In fact, this development turned the mathematical formulae of the quant funds on their head: What should have declined, rising … and what should be going up, dropping.

Patterson’s book promises to go into the details of just how things spun out of control, as seen through the eyes of key Wall Street managers such as the piano-playing, songwriting Peter Muller, founder of Morgan Stanley’s Process Driven Trading (PDT) quant fund, and Cliff Asness, formerly of Goldman Sachs and leader of the Applied Quantitative Research (AGR) quant fund.

In addition to presenting all the facts and all the drama, I’m hoping that Patterson will offer a few observations on how we can avoid a debacle like this from happening again in the future.

Another key question is whether any of the proposed regulations being debated in Congress will address the practices of quant funds – or is it all too complicated for anyone to figure out?

If that’s so, it’s pretty scary.