基于公司治理结构的财务控制模式选择

公司治理结构是公司制度的核心,良好的公司治理结构是提高企业经营管理效率的基本要素。科学、有效的内部控制制度,是现代企业实现其经营管理目标的有力保证。公司治理能促使财务控制有效运行,是保证财务控制功能发挥的前提和基础,是实行财务控制的制度环境。财务控制在公司治理中担当的是内部管理监控系统的角色,加强和完善企业财务控制,应从完善公司治理出发完善企业财务控制环境,财务控制作为管理当局为履行管理目标而建立的一系列规则、政策和程序,与公司治理有着密不可分的关系。     

FMA Roundtable on New Developments in European Corporate Governance

In this discussion that took place in Helsinki last June, three European financial economists and a leading authority on U.S. corporate governance consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of the world's two main corporate financing and governance systems: the Anglo‐American market‐based system, with its dispersed share ownership, lots of takeovers, and an otherwise vigorous market for corporate control; and the relationship‐based, or “main bank,” system associated with Japan, Germany, and continental Europe generally. The distinguishing features of the relationship‐based system are large controlling shareholders, including the main banks themselves, and few takeovers or other signs of a well‐functioning corporate control market. Given the steady increase in the globalization of business and international diversification by large institutional investors, the panelists were asked to address the question: can we expect one of these two systems to prevail over time, or will both systems continue to coexist, while seeking to adopt some of the most valuable aspects of the other? The consensus was that, in Germany as well as continental Europe, corporate financing and governance practices have already begun to look much like those in the U.S. and U.K., with much less reliance on bank loans and greater use of bonds and public equity. And these financing changes have resulted in major changes in ownership structures that have seen local main banks largely supplanted by foreign institutional investors—some of whom have demanded a greater voice in how companies are run. Moreover, Finnish economist Tom Berglund may well have provided a blueprint for the dominant European governance system of the future in describing the “Nordic model” as

相似文献   

GLOBALIZATION OF CAPITAL MARKETS AND THE ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS

This article has three basic aims: (1) to analyze the impact of the opening of their capital markets on the economies of host countries; (2) to investigate the causes of the Asian financial crisis; and (3) to evaluate the likely effects of the South Korean government's recent attempts to restructure its corporate sector. Although the recent Asian financial crisis has led some to question the merits of open capital markets and to call for regulatory restraints on capital flows across international borders, the scientific evidence suggests that the opening of stock markets to foreign investors has been largely beneficial for emerging economies. On average, stock market liberalization has been accompanied by increases in stock prices and reductions in stock return volatility, reductions in inflation, and reductions in the rate of currency depreciation. Much of the blame for the Asian currency crises is assigned to Asian policymakers' futile attempts to defy market forces by trying to maintain their currencies at artificially high levels. But a more fundamental cause of Asia's economic problems has been the widespread value destruction by Asian corporations, which has led to a lower value for the overall economy and weakened the banking sector. The government-directed banking systems and weak corporate governance structures (including managerial incentives to increase size and market share at the expense of shareholders) that characterize most Asian economies have resulted in systematic overinvestment, bloated payrolls, and sharp declines in corporate profitability. While applauding most of the Korean government's recent measures to reform the economy, the article expresses skepticism about the government-mandated restructuring of the chaebol known as the “big deal.” Rather than trying to direct the process of restructuring, Korean policymakers should limit their efforts to improving the market mechanism by increasing competition in the markets for capital, corporate control, and goods and services. The Korean market for corporate control transactions could be greatly improved by increasing the efficiency of bankruptcy proceedings and by allowing hostile takeovers by foreign as well as domestic investors. To increase the productivity of capital, Asian companies should seek to realign managerial with shareholder interests by tying compensation to measures of value creation like EVA.     

Family control, board independence and earnings management: Evidence based on Hong Kong firms

In this study, we document that independent corporate boards of Hong Kong firms provide effective monitoring of earnings management, which suggests that despite differences in institutional environments, corporate board independence is important to ensure high-quality financial reporting. The findings also show that the monitoring effectiveness of corporate boards is moderated in family-controlled firms, either through ownership concentration or the presence of family members on corporate boards. The results based on firms reporting small earnings increases provide additional support for our finding that the monitoring effectiveness of independent corporate boards is moderated in family-controlled firms.     

Asian Corporate Governance—and the Case of Dual‐Class Shares: CARE Conference | Hong Kong Polytechnic University | June 9, 2014

The case of the Alibaba IPO illustrates the divergence of corporate governance standards between the United States and many other markets, and reopens the debate on the one‐share one‐vote principle. Since corporate governance standards develop in ways that reflect the history and legal and political environments of different countries, we should not expect to see a global convergence of these standards—nor is it generally desirable to transplant policies from one market to another without understanding their historical backgrounds. Nevertheless, the U.S. approach to regulation raises the concern that competition among exchanges will cause issuers to “shop around” and tempt the exchanges to relax their standards in a race to the bottom. While market participants and regulators outside of the U.S. debate whether and how to modify the one‐share, one‐vote rule, they face challenges in coming up with new rules that strike the right balance between effective corporate governance and market development.     

Corporate Governance and the Cost of Capital: Evidence from Australian Companies

The authors examine a sample of large Australian companies over a 10‐year period with the aim of analyzing the role that firm‐level corporate governance mechanisms such as insider ownership and independent boards play in explaining a company's cost of capital. The Australian corporate system offers a unique environment for assessing the impact of corporate governance mechanisms. Australian companies have board structures and mechanisms that are similar in design to Anglo‐Saxon boards while offering a striking contrast to those of German and Japanese boards. At the same time, however, the Australian market for corporate control is much less active as a corrective mechanism against management entrenchment than its U.S. and U.K. counterparts, making the role of internal governance mechanisms potentially more important in Australia than elsewhere. The authors report that greater insider ownership, the presence of institutional blockholders, and independent boards are all associated with reductions in the perceived risk of a firm, thereby leading investors to demand lower rates of return on capital. In so doing, the study provides evidence of the important role of corporate governance in increasing corporate values.     

WHEN SHAREHOLDERS CHOOSE NOT TO MAXIMIZE VALUE: THE UNION BANK OF SWITZERLAND'S 1994 PROXY FIGHT

This paper examines the fight over a share reunification plan that pitted Swiss financier Martin Ebner against Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS), once the largest Swiss bank and a global leader in asset management. In the U.S. corporate governance debate, large shareholders are often held up as a possible solution to corporate governance problems. But this examination of the UBS proxy fight shows why some large shareholders can themselves be a source of governance problems. The share reunification plan was designed to combine the firm's two classes of stock: registered (voting) shares and bearer (non-voting) shares. As its motive for the plan, the UBS board cited a desire both to increase liquidity and to prevent a control change. The majority of the holders of the company's registered stock—many of whom had other financial ties to the bank—ended up voting for a proposal that caused them to lose 11% of the value of their shares during the three trading days following its announcement, and eventually almost twice as much. Moreover, even the holders of the bearer stock hurt themselves by approving the reunification plan. Although the plan clearly transferred value from the registered to the bearer shares, the redistribution benefits from the plan for the bearer shareholders were not sufficient to offset their losses from the reduced probability of a control change. Although it did not succeed in accomplishing its immediate goal, the UBS proxy fight is today recognized as a watershed event in Swiss corporate governance. Until recently, Switzerland's economy has been dominated by cartels, with closely overlapping boards of directors. Hostile takeovers were essentially unheard of, and criticism of management by shareholders was highly unusual. Ebner's activities have had the effect of stimulating public debate about shareholders' rights and shareholder activism. In so doing, they have made it more acceptable for shareholders to criticize management and established shareholder value as a “politically correct” goal for Swiss corporations.     

From Member of the Company to Registered Auditor: The Role of the External Auditor in Corporate Governance

Corporate governance has often been defined in a narrow way as comprising 'the range of control mechanisms that protect and enhance the interests of shareholders of business enterprises' ( Fama and Jensen 1983 ). In the corporate governance literature there has also been a general focus on the structure and functioning of boards of directors and the responsibilities of audit committees in relation to external auditing ( Rosenstein and Wyatt 1990 ; Shleifer and Vishny 1997 ). This article looks at the evolution of the role of external auditing in corporate governance. The role of the external auditor has changed through time, and consequently it should not be assumed that the role of external auditing is fixed or that it cannot be changed to meet societal needs and expectations. This observation leads to the primary argument of our article, which is that the role of the external auditor in corporate governance ought to be expanded in order to enhance the effectiveness of corporate governance for the benefit of a wider spectrum of stakeholders and society generally.     

对农村合作金融机构发展与改革路径的思考——以吉林省四平市为例

农村合作金融机构是发展我国县域农村经济最重要的市场主体,也是联系农民的重要金融纽带,但同时,其也是我国金融体系中极薄弱的一个环节,其发展与改革的成效直接关系到“三农”经济、县域经济发展,更关乎农村社会稳定的大局。近年,四平市农村合作金融机构加快实施各项改革措施,合理优化了股权结构,进一步健全了产权结构及法人治理结构。但随着当前外部经济环境复杂多变,农村合作金融机构显现诸多影响其改革发展的因素。     

Changes in Korean Corporate Governance: A Response to Crisis

In the last months of 1997, the value of the Korean currency lost over half its value against the dollar, and the ruling party was swept from power in presidential elections. One of the fundamental causes of this national economic crisis was the widespread failure of Korean companies to earn their cost of capital, which contributed to massive shareholder losses and calls for corporate governance reform. Among the worst performers, and hence the main targets of governance reform, were family‐controlled Korean business groups known as chaebol. Besides pursuing growth and size at the expense of value, such groups were notorious for expropriating minority shareholders through “tunneling” activities and other means. The reform measures introduced by the new administration were a mix of market‐based solutions and government intervention. The government‐engineered, large‐scale swaps of business units among the largest chaebol—the so‐called “big deals” that were designed to force each of the groups to identify and specialize in a core business—turned out to be failures, with serious unwanted side effects. At the same time, however, new laws and regulations designed to increase corporate transparency, oversight, and accountability have had clearly positive effects on Korean governance. Thanks to reductions in barriers to foreign ownership of Korean companies, such ownership had risen to about 37% at the end of 2006, up from just 13% ten years earlier. And in addition to the growing pressure for better governance from foreign investors, several newly formed Korean NGOs have pushed for increased transparency and accountability, particularly among the largest chaebol. The best governance practices in Korea today can be seen mainly in three kinds of corporations: (1) newly privatized companies; (2) large corporations run by professional management; and (3) banks with substantial equity ownership in the hands of foreign investors. The improvements in governance achieved by such companies—notably, fuller disclosure, better alignment of managerial incentives with shareholder value, and more effective oversight by boards—have enabled many of them to meet the global standard. And the governance policies and procedures of POSCO, the first Korean company to list on the New York Stock Exchange—as well as the recent recipient of a large equity investment by Warren Buffett—are held up as a model of best practice. At the other end of the Korean governance spectrum, however, there continue to be many large chaebol‐affiliated or family‐run companies that have resisted such reforms. And aided by the popular resistance to globalization, the lobbying efforts of such firms have succeeded not only in reducing the momentum of the Korean governance reform movement, but in reversing some of the previous gains. Most disturbing is the current push to allow American style anti‐takeover devices, which, if successful, would weaken the disciplinary effect of the market for corporate control.     

What Drives CEOs to Take on More Risk? Some Evidence from the Laboratory of REITs

Many have pointed to excessive risk‐taking by the CEOs of financial firms as a contributor to the recent worldwide economic crisis. The same observers often blame questionable corporate governance structures and compensation practices for that risk‐taking. But is this perception correct? And what is the relationship between CEO incentives and risk‐taking outside of the financial industry, where the government guarantees provided by deposit insurance could have distorted incentives? In an attempt to answer these questions, the authors analyze the relationship between CEO incentives and corporate risk‐taking by 101 U.S. REITs during the period 2003 to 2007. Their main finding is that corporate risk‐taking, as measured by the growth rate in corporate debt (the only measure of risk that is completely under the control of the CEO), is inversely related to CEO stock ownership—that is, the larger the CEO's equity ownership stake, the slower the growth in debt financing and financial risk‐taking. At the same time, the authors find that financial risk‐taking is positively related to large cash bonuses for the CEOs and to situations in which the CEO is also chairman of the board of directors. Finally, the authors also report that CEOs who are relatively new to the job grow more slowly and borrow less, suggesting that boards of directors can temporarily contain risky expansion plans by the CEO. These results provide support for those corporate governance reformers who wish to cut cash bonus payments for CEOs in favor of long‐term stock ownership.     

Corporate governance in South Korea: the chaebol experience

Utilizing a large sample of South Korean firms, this paper explores the impact of corporate governance in an emerging market country dominated by a few large business groups. Firms affiliated with the top five groups (chaebol) exhibit significantly lower performance and significantly higher sales growth relative to other firms. Furthermore, top executive turnover is unrelated to performance for top chaebol firms, indicating a breakdown of internal corporate governance for the largest business groups. Internal corporate governance appears much more effective for firms unrelated to the top chaebol as managers at poorly performing firms are significantly more likely to lose their job. These results imply that the lack of properly functioning internal corporate governance among the top chaebol, which dominate the Korean economy, may have increased the severity of the recent financial crisis.     

An Ohlson valuation framework for valuing corporate governance: The case of Taiwan

We examine the relation between a firm's market value, financial performance, and corporate governance as a cointegrated system in the Ohlson (1995) valuation framework. Using a comprehensive set of 29 governance measures in 4 categories for Taiwanese firms, we find that governance related to ownership structure and divergence between cash flow rights and control rights are important for a firm's market valuation. In particular, information about shareholdings of board directors and supervisors, shareholdings of controlling family, and voting rights are influential for firm value. Controlling for book value and residual incomes in the model, these governance measures track much of the remaining firm valuation that is unrelated to a firm's financial performance. Our findings provide some insight into the intrinsic value of corporate governance and the types of corporate governance mechanisms that are especially important for firms with similar ownership structure and controls.     

Materiality in Corporate Governance: The Statement of Significant Audiences and Materiality

Materiality is an elusive, but fundamentally important concept in corporate reporting of all kinds—not only in traditional financial reporting, but in sustainability and integrated reporting as well. In the end, materiality is entity‐specific and based on judgment. Moreover, it is a judgment that should ultimately be made by a company's board of directors, which makes materiality as much a governance as a reporting issue. Whether a given ESG issue is material is in large part a function of the corporate stakeholders, or “audiences,” that the company's board of directors deems to be “significant”—that is, important to the company's ability to create value over the short, medium, and long term. The identification of such audiences—together with the time frames the board uses to evaluate the impact of the company's decisions on these audiences—provides the basis for determining the sustainability issues that corporate management must focus on for performance and reporting purposes. To help ensure that decisions about materiality receive the attention they deserve, the authors propose that corporate boards articulate their views in an annual “Statement of Significant Audiences and Materiality.” Contrary to the prevailing belief that the fiduciary duty of the board is to place shareholders’ interests first, nothing precludes corporate boards from issuing such a statement. Recent research, including the compilation of legal memos on fiduciary duty and nonfinancial reporting for all G20 countries, makes it clear that the board's fiduciary duty is to “the corporation itself.” In exercising this duty, directors have full discretion, under the business judgment rule and other authorities, to decide which audiences, along with the company's shareholders, should be deemed significant.     

商业银行公司治理机制的发展趋势研究

公司治理机制是现代公司制度的基本架构。从公司制度诞生至今,良好的公司治理机制始终和公司的健康运行密切相关。由于商业银行区别于一般公司的特殊性,构建良好的公司治理机制一直是国际银行业所关注的焦点。本文从公司治理机制的理论和制度两个层面分析商业银行公司治理机制的发展趋势,并探讨这种变化趋势对中国商业银行公司治理改革的借鉴意义。作者认为商业银行应当按照国际会计准则提高信息披露的质量,利用市场竞争的力量来改善公司治理机制,注重外部审计和内部审计力量的结合,注重法律在公司治理机制中的作用,实现商业银行激励与约束机制的创新。     

国有商业银行公司治理结构的特殊性及其改革

公司治理结构的所有原则都来源于商业银行活动的基本实践.银行治理结构的缺陷最终会损害银行的竞争力,增大银行体系的风险.在当前面临外资银行激烈竞争的新形势下,建立国有商业银行良好的公司治理结构应是银行业改革的首要议题.鉴于我国国有商业银行公司治理结构的特殊性,其公司治理机制的构建应从利益相关者治理的角度出发,顺应国际公司治理的发展趋势,科学地借鉴国外公司治理的典型模式,通过有效的激励机制和内部控制体系,完善信息披露制度,以及逐步健全外部治理等措施,实现国有商业银行富有成效的改革,促进金融行业国际竞争力和资源配置效率的提高.     

Corporate governance,external market discipline and firm productivity

Using a sample of Australian companies over the 2000–2005 period, we examine the impact of internal corporate governance on firm's total factor productivity, taking into account the interaction between internal governance and external market discipline. Our empirical findings point to a substitution effect between product market competitiveness and firm-level corporate governance. Overall, internal corporate governance mechanisms – more efficient boards and greater CEO stock-based compensation – are effective instruments for improving firm productivity. However, internal governance is less effective when a firm faces a highly competitive product market. We find only weak empirical support for an association between firm's ownership structure and productivity, and no support for an association between industry takeover intensity and firm productivity.     

Extending corporate accountability: A survey and framework for analysis

This paper has three objectives: to review the state of the art with regard to the literature on corporate internal audit activities; to report on a research study of recent developments in the scope and organization of the internal audit function in major companies in U.S.A.; and to propose an analytical framework which may be used in future research to describe the scope, procedures and responsibilities of the corporate internal audit function. Although there appears to be some confusion in the extant literature regarding the definition and scope of certain internal audit efforts, this research provides new evidence that major U.S. companies are engaging in unprecedented experiments into the use of auditing as a tool for enforcing management and social accountability. This is a movement away from the traditional financial audit which is frequently assumed to fully circumscribe the internal audit function. The implications for implementing heightened standards of corporate accountability should be of interest to audit committees of boards of directors, corporate management, investors, consumers, and future researchers.     

Gaps in Guidelines on Audit Committees

Since the 1940s, advocacy of the establishment of audit committees was undertaken by regulatory agencies, and subsequently by the accounting profession, and committees representing combinations of interest groups. Over time, this advocacy literature has reflected changing views about the key responsibilities of audit committees. Initially, audit committees were primarily concerned with negotiations with (or responding to) auditors, and reviewing financial statements prior to publication. Since the 1970s, formal guidelines or requirements have suggested additional responsibilities that involve oversight of the internal management of corporations. There is a pattern of renewed enthusiasm for enhanced corporate governance and for a stronger role for audit committees following spates of corporate crashes or disasters. Nevertheless, some of the lessons from those events continue to be ignored, so that arguably there are gaps in contemporary guidelines on audit committees. These gaps concern the need for audit committees to review the structure and design of delegations, and the adequacy of financial and operational information being provided to senior management and boards (particularly concerning subsidiaries and associated entities). These gaps are also reflected in the charters of the audit committees of Australia's top 200 listed entities. However, in some respects, Australian practice has gone beyond the recommendations embodied in recent guidelines. Drawing from literature and practice, this article proposes a model charter which, if adopted, may contribute to improvements in the effectiveness of audit committees.