Should you be worried?

Last Friday it was the 13th and for a lot of people the 13th is considered to be an unlucky day.

“Friggatriskaidekaphobia” is the medical term for the fear of Friday the 13th and although it looks like the type of word that you’d get if your cat walked across your computer keyboard it affects a number of people and in extreme cases these individuals will refuse to leave their home on Friday the 13th.

Another tricky to pronounce word is “triskaidekaphobia”.

This is a fear of the number 13 and could have interesting implications for the valuation of property.

A report recently released highlights that if you’re thinking of buying a property in the UK then you may well be able to pick up a bargain if the property address has a number 13 in it.

According to a survey by property website Zoopla, the current average value of a house in the UK with the number 13 in it is £291,038.

This is nearly £9,000 less than the average property value of £300,012.

It’s also been reported that more a quarter of UK streets don’t have a number 13 address as some local authorities have banned the use of number 13 in new housing developments.

So, whilst people who currently own properties with 13 in the address may feel a bit cheated, if you don’t suffer from triskaidekaphobia and are looking for a potential bargain then the £9,000 saving could be quite attractive.

Not very ethical…

When is a bribe not a bribe?

US bank JP Morgan Chase thought they had the answer to this question. Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for all the hard-working ethical people out there..), the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department saw through their plans and found them guilty of violating the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

JP Morgan designed a scheme which they hoped would help them win lucrative contracts in China.

Their plan was to offer highly paid jobs to individuals who were not qualified for those particular jobs.

“Why would you pay excessive amounts of salary to people who weren’t capable of doing their job?” I hear you say.

Well, the answer was that those people they were going to pay the high salaries to were relatives or friends of government officials and those officials were in a position to offer lucrative contracts to JP Morgan.

So, in summary if JP Morgan had offered money directly to the state officials it would clearly have been a bribe. Instead, they thought they could get away with it by paying excess salary to family and friends of the officials. Over a period of 7 years, approximately 100 interns and full-time employees were employed who were connected to foreign government officials.

This enabled JP Morgan to win or retain $100 million in revenue.

A clever plan. Or at least they thought it was.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department thought otherwise though and started investigations back in 2013.

The Department of Justice called the scheme “bribery by any other name” and at the end of the investigation JP Morgan had to pay $264 million to settle the claims.

In the end, a highly unethical and very expensive way to try to win and retain clients.