Reading what banks have done about Russia is like playing a game of ‘Spot the Difference’. JPMorgan said it would be “unwinding” its Russian business, Goldman Sachs said it would be “winding down”. These two parrots said almost the same thing on the same day. Then, three others followed the parrots like sheep out of Russia, half-heartedly: Citi gave the excuse of “new business or clients”, HSBC “new business or customers” and BNP “any new business”. Either they must think the same way or be using the same PR strategist. These excuses make them all Nibblers.

JPMorgan’s statement is too vague to get many points from us. When will this famous unwinding actually start or be completed? Moreover, doing the wrong thing to help others do the right thing sounds like a moral derivative rather than the financial derivative JPMorgan invented in 1994. We also wonder how much money there is to be made by “helping” others. This and the bank’s excuse for delay also being needed to take care of employees classifies it as what we politely call a Confused Humanitarian in our lexicon. Finally, if that is not enough to be embarrassed about, the bank continued to trade Russian debt through a loophole.

Banding together with peers is worse than misbehaving on its own. This adds to the contagion effect which is why we give Leader of the Pack bonuses to discourage sheeplike behavior. Besides, safety in numbers may seem like a clever strategy until you’re exposed as being in the doghouse, which is how we rate this bunch of banks. We are calling them all out for not getting out properly.

The investment banking pioneer should show some pioneering spirit, break ranks, and get credit for launching a Domino Effect on the rest of the flock. It’s a pity when a company known for being fast and courageous for its own profit is so slow and morally uncourageous when the profit isn’t there.

The lack of Announcement on Nord Stream 1 is important because we consider it a ‘bridge asset’ – technically a non-Russia asset but one that Russia relies on for profits (even if the Western end of the bridge might feel more pain from its interruption in this case). Therefore it is considered an Activity as defined for rating purposes. On this basis, E.ON is credited for only ceasing gas imports. Since these commodities might be replaced and the NS1 stake would be a major exit commitment, E.ON received only 1 point in Degree.

Its move was timed after Fortum and Siemens Energy, earning E.ON a Chicken Penalty, leaving it with only 2 points for Speed. This was partly offset by the company’s perfect Denouncer statement against Russia and its donation to Ukraine, which together earned it a good Attitude Score. However, we call the denouncer that doesn’t put its money where its mouth is a Big Talker.

At first glance, it might look like Allianz has reduced its commitment to Russia from 100% to 49.9%. That would not satisfy us because a company should get out fully and completely. But the reality is even worse: Allianz has not reduced its involvement in Russia at all, because it is getting a smaller slice of a larger pie. It’s a very rare case of a company selling some shares but indirectly getting part ownership of another business at the same time. Of course, it does look like a reduction on the surface, but its fully diluted asset value in Russia may be exactly the same as it was before the action. It is giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Allianz admits that Russian business contributes only 0.2% of profits. This makes the ‘no real divestment’ action all the more disappointing. It justified itself by saying this plan would ensure continuity for clients and employees, the latter excuse making it a Confused Humanitarian.

Allianz has waited three months after the invasion to tell us it was reducing its shares in a Russian insurer without reducing its investment in a Russian insurer. Of course, this mechanism allows it to claim it doesn’t control the company any longer, but while this is technically true, it doesn’t change our view that merging a company to get a smaller piece of a larger pie is very different from selling out. Imagine the irony if Allianz ends up one day increasing its ownership in the merged company to 100% ownership of a company that is twice the size! This is the time to be divesting in Russia, not engage in complicated financial engineering that, to the casual observer, looks like divesting.

Reading what banks have done about Russia is like playing a game of ‘Spot the Difference’. JPMorgan said it would be “unwinding” its Russian business, Goldman Sachs said it would be “winding down”. These two parrots said almost the same thing on the same day. Then, three others followed the parrots like sheep out of Russia, half-heartedly: Citi gave the excuse of “new business or clients”, HSBC “new business or customers” and BNP “any new business”. Either they must think the same way or be using the same PR strategist. These excuses make them all Nibblers.

Similarities aside, BNP’s statement is too vague to get many points from us. Why can’t it give even a ballpark date for when its Russian operations will end? It’s not unreasonable to expect more clarity from a company that claims it’s “fully committed” to helping Ukraine, for which we must give put it in the Big Talker category.

Banding together with peers is worse than BNP misbehaving on its own. This adds to the contagion effect which is why we give Leader of the Pack bonuses to discourage sheeplike behavior. Besides, safety in numbers may seem like a clever strategy until you’re exposed as being in the doghouse, which is how we rate this bunch of banks. We are calling them all out for not getting out properly.

BNP should break ranks, and get credit for launching a Domino Effect on the rest of the flock.

Fortum’s story is like pulling teeth. Looking at Fortum’s multiple efforts to explain itself, we can feel its pain at each visit to the dentist and its attempts to avoid turning up for the appointments.

The first statement was a mixed message. It gave excuses for keeping Russian operations running as a duty to customers. Duty to Russian customers in these times is an oxymoron. That sounded to us like it didn’t want to go to the dentist at all.

At the same time, it sent an opposing message by admitting that "business as usual cannot continue”. That sounded like it was putting off a wisdom tooth extraction that it knew it would need to one day pull out.

We classified its statement that it wouldn’t engage in “new investment projects” as a Red Herring. Is a company in the West seriously ever going to make a fresh investment in Russia at this time? This statement looked like it was asking the dentist to pull out teeth that weren’t even in its mouth.

As the story went on, we found ourselves in the strange position of feeling pain for someone we don’t like.

Next, Fortum suggested that if it didn’t stay in Russia, its power plants would be expropriated, though it avoided using the E-word. This sounded like it was trying to avoid the dental appointment on the basis that the dentist was too cruel.

Four days later it said it would keep importing gas because of its responsibility to German and European people. Even German power group E.ON has stopped gas imports from Russia. According to our agency’s ‘out means out’ rules, that is like avoiding going to the dentist with the excuse that it was caring for someone else.

Then, Fortum finally bit the bullet. It said it would divest Unipro, which runs five of Fortum’s 12 Russian power plants. That sounded brave until we realized it had failed to put the dental appointment in its calendar. We accept that 12 teeth are a lot to lose, but if Fortum never turns up for the appointment they will remain in its mouth.

Pledging not to buy coal, pellets or biomass from Russia for its two power plants in Finland on 30 March was the first appointment it actually turned up for, but there isn’t much hardship in cutting these commodity imports, so we consider it the equivalent of just a dental filling.

Finally, on 12 May, it said it would make a controlled exit from the Russian market. That sounds like a promise to walk to the dentist in a very controlled and measured way, again without telling the dentist whether you will ever arrive. Indeed, by referring to a "potential" divestment of its Russian operations, it admitted that it might not even pull a tooth out at all.

This is a company that appears afraid of doing the right thing, but equally afraid of what people will think of its cowardice, hence the public statement contortions it suffered. In the end, it scored only 1.4 for Degree of withdrawal. Its rating was lowered by the moral responsibility to wield its Extreme Power over Russia (it is responsible for 7,000 Russian jobs) and its failure to implement it. The contrast between saying “there is no justification for such military aggression” and us feeling there is no justification and refusing to bite the bullet forces us to classify it as a Big Talker.

This is like the fable of the tortoise and the hare. Generali, the hare, was fast to act but didn’t win the race. It leaped ahead of peer companies Axa and Zurich, a full two months before the latter, for which it got 6 points in Speed.

However, when we look at what Generali actually did, it was almost worthless: it resigned directorships instead of making any promise to sell its stake in Ingosstrakh and made the vague statement it would ‘wind down’ its Russian insurance business instead of committing to close and sell it. Therefore, it got only 0.4 for Degree.

The hare should wake up and get to the finish line in the style of Zurich, with a real commitment to sell out completely. It is not alone in being disappointing. Generali and Axa are competitors in the market, but they are also competitors in the ‘moral market’ to such an extent that it is difficult to separate one from the other. Both curtailed their directly owned business in Russia with carve-outs (making them Nibblers in our terminology). Both failed to make any move out of their investments in minority stakes in Russian businesses. And both resigned from the boards of those companies, as though that somehow makes it okay. Both can be admonished for the same deficiencies in a single breath.