What we’re reading (7/7)
“Big Cities Can’t Get Workers Back To The Office” (Wall Street Journal). “The problem is most pronounced in America’s biggest cities. Nationally, office use hit a pandemic-era high of 44% in early June, while cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and New York have lagged behind, according to Kastle Systems, which collects data on how many workers swipe into office buildings each day.”
“Even Bosses Are Joining The Great Resignation” (Vox). “Data shows that managers are leaving their jobs at elevated levels, and that even though resignation rates for workers overall have declined from their peak, lots of people are still quitting their jobs. The breadth of quits could exacerbate an already tight labor market as quits in one area precipitate quits in another, and this cycle could ensure that the Great Resignation — also known as the Great Reshuffling or Great Reconsideration — won’t stop anytime soon.”
“The Big 4’s Tax Problem” (New York Times). “Regulators are turning up the heat on the Big 4, the largest accounting firms in the U.S. — Deloitte, PwC, EY and KPMG. Increasingly, their size and the variety of services they offer, like tax consulting, are raising questions about the independence of their audits and landing the firms in hot water, writes The Times’s Jesse Drucker.”
“Luxury Brand Tom Ford Hires Goldman Sachs To Explore Potential Sale” (Financial Post). “A deal could value the company at several billion dollars and may include an option that would give any new owner of Tom Ford the right to work with its founder after the sale, one of the people said.”
“Guy Who Policed Insider Trading Before Claiming Insider Trading Doesn’t Exist Pleads Guilty To Insider Trading” (Dealbreaker). “You might expect that enforcing a company’s insider-trading policies would give a person a pretty good insight into how one might evade them. And, to be fair to him, Gene Levoff did a pretty decent job: He managed to get away with it for five years, possibly because he aimed fairly low—earning just $220,000 and skirting just $377,000 in losses trading on tidbits he gleaned reviewing the company’s draft results—or possibly because as the person charged with holding Apple employees to the relevant blackout periods, he chose to exempt himself from scrutiny. But unfortunately for Levoff, he didn’t do quite as good a job as he undoubtedly hoped[.]”
