Advice and dissent: rating the corporate governance compact

The July-August 1991 HBR presented "A New Compact for Owners and Directors," a set of principles for reconciling differences between owners and managers. In "Advice and Dissent: Rating the Corporate Governance Compact," a panel of three experts evaluates the Compact--and takes issue with its fundamental recommendation. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., chairman and CEO of TIAA-CREF, describes how his organization brings delinquent managers and directors to task. Harvard Business School professor Jay W. Lorsch explains why strengthening the role of outside directors will develop more effective corporate control. And Lord Hanson, chairman of Hanson PLC, reaffirms the importance of maintaining a unitary board of directors and maximizing shareholder value.     

The Board's missing link

If a dam springs several leaks, there are various ways to respond. One could assiduously plug the holes, for instance. Or one could correct the underlying weaknesses, a more sensible approach. When it comes to corporate governance, for too long we have relied on the first approach. But the causes of many governance problems lie well below the surface--specifically, in critical relationships that are not structured to support the players involved. In other words, the very foundation of the system is flawed. And unless we correct the structural problems, surface changes are unlikely to have a lasting impact. When shareholders, management, and the board of directors work together as a system, they provide a powerful set of checks and balances. But the relationship between shareholders and directors is fraught with weaknesses, undermining the entire system's equilibrium. As the authors explain, the exchange of information between these two players is poor. Directors, though elected by shareholders to serve as their agents, aren't individually accountable to the investors. And shareholders--for a variety of reasons--have failed to exert much influence over boards. In the end, directors are left with the Herculean task of faithfully representing shareholders whose preferences are unclear, and shareholders have little say about who represents them and few mechanisms through which to create change. The authors suggest several ways to improve the relationship between shareholders and directors: Increase board accountability by recording individual directors' votes on key corporate resolutions; separate the positions of chairman and CEO; reinvigorate shareholders; and give boards funding to pay for outside experts who can provide perspective on crucial issues.     

The Role of Corporate Boards: A Roundtable Discussion of Where We're Going and Where We've Been

In this roundtable that took place at the 2016 Millstein Governance Forum at Columbia Law School, four directors of public companies discuss the changing role and responsibilities of corporate boards. In response to increasingly active investors who are looking to management and boards for more information and greater accountability, the four panelists describe the growing demands on boards for both competence and commitment to the job. Despite considerable improvements since the year 2000, and especially since the 2008 financial crisis, the clear consensus is that U.S. corporate directors must become more like owners of the corporation who “truly represent the long‐term interests of all of the shareholders.” But if activist investors appear to pose the most formidable new challenge for corporate directors—one that has the potential to lead to shortsighted managerial decision‐making—there has been another, less visible development that should be welcomed by wellrun companies that are investing in their future growth as well as meeting investors’ expectations for current performance. According to Raj Gupta, who serves on the boards of HewlettPackard, Delphi Automotive, Arconic, and the Vanguard Group,

相似文献   

Employee ownership, board representation, and corporate financial policies

French law mandates that employees of publicly listed companies can elect two types of directors to represent employees. Privatized companies must reserve board seats for directors elected by employees by right of employment, while employee-shareholders can elect a director whenever they hold at least 3% of outstanding shares. Using a comprehensive sample of firms in the Société des Bourses Françaises (SBF) 120 Index from 1998 to 2008, we examine the impact of employee-directors on corporate valuation, payout policy, and internal board organization and performance. We find that directors elected by employee shareholders increase firm valuation and profitability, but do not significantly impact corporate payout policy. Directors elected by employees by right significantly reduce payout ratios, but do not impact firm value or profitability. Employee representation on corporate boards thus appears to be at least value-neutral, and perhaps value-enhancing in the case of directors elected by employee shareholders.     

The Case for Activist Directors: A Conversation with Ira M. Millstein

In this conversation held at the 2016 Millstein Governance Forum at Columbia Law School, Ira Millstein, a leading authority on corporate governance and founding chair of the Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership, discusses his new book, The Activist Director, with Geoff Colvin of Fortune Magazine. In explaining why he wrote the book, Millstein said that it is important for boards of directors to understand the key role they must play to secure the future of our corporations, and for shareholders to recognize, encourage, and support this role. The role of directors has changed significantly over the years. Yet corporate performance, broadly speaking, has not lived up to expectations, and Millstein attributes this in part to the failure of directors to adapt and evolve quickly and decisively enough—which in turn has helped to fuel the rise of activist investors. Much of the problem stems from the tendency of boards to view themselves as oversight organizations that review and “challenge” management at arm's length, as opposed to truly engaging with management to make better decisions. To address this problem, Millstein makes the case for “activist” directors who will partner with management, think deliberately and critically about the company's strategy, and work for the longterm interest of the corporation. And to provide financial incentives for directors to reinforce their commitment to the corporations they serve, Millstein favors an increase in compensation for directors that is tied to long‐term performance. As an early example of what became an activist board, Millstein describes his own experience with the board of General Motors in the late 1980s and early 1990s when it confronted managerial failure and ended up replacing the CEO. In the current environment of activist investors, activist boards must give serious consideration to shareholder proposals for change, without succumbing to pressure for shortsighted cutbacks in value‐adding investment and while ensuring that management is focused on long‐term growth and innovation. Directors must have the courage and commitment to carry out the course of action they deem to be in the best longterm interests of the corporation.     

Liquidity Provision,Bank Capital,and the Macroeconomy

New bank equity must come from somewhere. In general equilibrium, raising bank capital requirements means either that banks produce less short‐term debt (as debt holders must become shareholders), or short‐term debt is not reduced and the banking system acquires nonbank equity (as the shareholders in nonbanks become shareholders in banks). The welfare effects involve a trade‐off because bank debt is special as it is used for transactions purposes, but more bank capital can reduce the chance of bank failure (producing welfare losses).     

Does Board Independence Matter in Companies with a Controlling Shareholder?

A number of studies have reported value discounts for listed companies in countries that provide weak legal protection to minority shareholders. Such studies typically attribute these discounts to the ability, and the well‐documented tendency, of controlling shareholders to extract a disproportionate share of corporate resources for “private benefits.” This tendency and the resulting discounts create a dilemma for those controlling shareholders intent on maximizing value for not just themselves, but all shareholders: How can such controlling shareholders assure their minority shareholders that they will not exploit their power to expropriate resources and so eliminate the discount from their companies' shares? This article investigates the possibility that such discounts can be reduced by appointing boards of directors made up of individuals who are independent of the controlling shareholders. Based on the systematic analysis of some 800 companies representing 22 countries, the authors' recent study reports that corporate values are consistently higher when boards are more independent of controlling shareholders—and that this relationship is especially strong in those countries that afford fewer rights to minority shareholders. What is likely to cause controlling shareholders to appoint more independent directors—a change that, after all, effectively limits the controlling shareholders' power and “degrees of freedom”? The answer provided by the authors is that board independence is most likely to be pursued by companies with controlling shareholders that also have major growth opportunities that must be funded mainly with outside equity.     

Accountability of independent directors: Evidence from firms subject to securities litigation

We examine which independent directors are held accountable when investors sue firms for financial and disclosure-related fraud. Investors can name independent directors as defendants in lawsuits, and they can vote against their reelection to express displeasure over the directors’ ineffectiveness at monitoring managers. In a sample of securities class action lawsuits from 1996 to 2010, about 11% of independent directors are named as defendants. The likelihood of being named is greater for audit committee members and directors who sell stock during the class period. Named directors receive more negative recommendations from Institutional Shareholder Services, a proxy advisory firm, and significantly more negative votes from shareholders than directors in a benchmark sample. They are also more likely than other independent directors to leave sued firms. Overall, shareholders use litigation along with director elections and director retention to hold some independent directors more accountable than others when firms experience financial fraud.     

Is there an association between director option compensation and the likelihood of misstatement?

Oversight bodies in the United States (US) have addressed the issue of director independence in recent years. Bebchuk et al. [Bebchuk, L., Grinstein, Y., Peyers, U. (2006). Lucky directors. (Working paper Harvard University Law School) SSRN # 952239.] found that director oversight may be impaired if directors receive option grants under favorable terms because these grants may create a mutuality of interest between directors and managers. We assess whether option grants to independent directors reduce oversight of financial reporting. Using a sample of 105 US firms that misstated their revenue matched with a sample of non-misstatement firms, we find that companies whose independent directors do not receive stock options are less likely to misstate revenues than companies who meet the Sarbanes-Oxley definition of independence. Our results show that compensating outside directors with stock options may weaken their independent oversight.     

控股股东股权质押与员工持股计划“工具化”——基于A股上市公司的实证研究

自2014年《关于上市公司实施员工持股计划试点的指导意见》颁布以来,受到资本市场的广泛关注和支持,实施员工持股计划的公司逐渐增加。与此同时,控股股东股权质押可能引起的控制权转移风险也成为需要重点关注的问题。那么,有质押的控股股东是否会策略性地利用员工持股计划来缓解风险？本文利用2013—2018年A股上市公司的样本,考察控股股东质押对员工持股计划的影响。研究发现:前期控股股东有股权质押、质押率越高的公司随后推行员工持股计划的可能性越大,该效应随着控制权转移风险的提高而增大;控股股东股权质押的员工持股计划进行短期市值管理是有效的,但并未显著提升公司长期价值,提示控股股东存在借其进行内部人利益绑定和市值管理的动机;进一步研究表明,公司内部治理机制对控股股东股权质押下推行员工持股计划的效果有限。     

Seven surprises for new CEOs

As a newly minted CEO, you may think you finally have the power to set strategy, the authority to make things happen, and full access to the finer points of your business. But if you expect the job to be as simple as that, you're in for an awakening. Even though you bear full responsibility for your company's well-being, you are a few steps removed from many of the factors that drive results. You have more power than anybody else in the corporation, but you need to use it with extreme caution. In their workshops for new CEOs, held at Harvard Business School in Boston, the authors have discovered that nothing--not even running a large business within the company--fully prepares a person to be the chief executive. The seven most common surprises are: You can't run the company. Giving orders is very costly. It is hard to know what is really going on. You are always sending a message. You are not the boss. Pleasing shareholders is not the goal. You are still only human. These surprises carry some important and subtle lessons. First, you must learn to manage organizational context rather than focus on daily operations. Second, you must recognize that your position does not confer the right to lead, nor does it guarantee the loyalty of the organization. Finally, you must remember that you are subject to a host of limitations, even though others might treat you as omnipotent. How well and how quickly you understand, accept, and confront the seven surprises will have a lot to do with your success or failure as a CEO.     

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.     

Risk Management,Corporate Governance,and the Search for Long-Term Investors

This discussion explores a number of ways that more effective risk management, corporate governance, and communication with investors can help companies increase their effciency and long-run value. According to one of the panelists, recent surveys of corporate directors suggest that companies should devote more time and attention to three issues—strategy, risk management, and succession planning—and that strategy and risk are the “flipsides of the same coin.” As the panelist argues, “You can't talk about strategy without talking about what risks you're going to take—and what risks you decide to take has to depend on the core competencies that drive the corporate strategy.” In addition to making risk management a critical part of corporate strategy, another notable recommendation is to communicate a company's strategy and business plan as clearly as possible to investors, with the aim of attracting more sophisticated, long-term shareholders. Contrary to popular belief, such a group may well include some hedge funds and other activist shareholders. According to a newly released report on shareholder activism (produced and cited by another panelist), corporate boards should work harder to identify and engage the “largest 10 shareholders in the organization,” with the ultimate goal of cultivating a shareholder base that buys into the company's strategy.     

独立董监之适任性、影响力与新上市柜公司初期评价之关系

台湾新上市柜(IPO)公司自2002年2月19日起须依照“上市上柜审查条例”设置二席以上独立董事和一席以上独立监察人,集团企业与总经理兼任董事长职务之公司依规定尚应聘任较多之席次。本研究探讨独立董监之适任性、影响力与IPO公司初期评价间之关系。实证结果指出,独立董事具执业会计师资格、曾担任上市柜公司的董事长、总经理或副总经理,以及相对于最终控制者之董事席次比率愈大,市场解读为适任性佳,愈具有影响力,对承销价制定、投资人初期评价有正向之作用。就独立监察人而言,并束发现独立监察人专业背景对IPO初期评价具攸关性。     

Large Shareholders and Independent Director Equity Compensation

This paper investigates the use of equity compensation for independent directors, with a focus on the impact of large shareholders on a company's tendency to use equity compensation to align independent directors’ interests with those of shareholders. Based on data from 215 large Australian listed companies from 2005–2009, our analyses show that the use of equity incentive pay for independent directors is more likely when the aggregate ownership percentage of large shareholders is moderate, when there are multiple large shareholders and when the ownership stakes of large shareholders are more comparable. This paper contributes to the literature by providing new evidence of how various aspects of ownership dispersion affect compensation design for independent directors.     

Comply or Explain: Investor Protection Through the Italian Corporate Governance Code

Nearly 86% of listed Italian companies now claim to be in formal compliance with the provisions of the Italian Corporate Governance Code, which, like many codes in EU countries, give companies the option to either comply or explain their decision not to do so. But in the wake of the recent financial crisis, the effectiveness of such self‐regulatory corporate governance codes has been subjected to increasing skepticism. In particular, critics wonder whether such governance codes actually encourage the adoption of best practices and promote better governance. This article presents a governance indicator (CoRe) devised by the authors that attempts to assess the actual, or effective, levels of compliance with the Italian Corporate Governance Code in terms of listed companies' procedures for dealing with related party transactions (RPTs). The authors report that the companies' level of effective compliance with regard to RPTs is considerably lower than their publicly reported levels of formal compliance. The authors also report that higher levels of effective compliance tend to be found in companies where (1) minority shareholders have appointed one or more directors; (2) independent directors serve on important committees; and (3) there are significant holdings by institutional investors—particularly foreign investors—who participate in general shareholder meetings.     

Unnatural selection of outside directors: Consequences of Japanese corporate governance reforms

We examine how Japanese listed companies increase the number of outside directors to comply with corporate governance reforms. We find that, after the reforms, there has been an increase in the number of cases in which former company auditors (kansayaku) become outside directors in the same company. This trend is more pronounced for hitherto noncompliant firms with insufficient outside directors before the reforms. Moreover, the firms appointing company auditors as outside directors tend to change their corporate structures to maintain existing practices and minimize compliance costs. Our findings imply that Japanese reforms have increased the unnatural selection of outside directors.     

The Effect of Shareholder Approval of Equity Issuances Around the World

Mandatory shareholder approval of equity issuances varies considerably across and within countries. In the United States and a few other countries, management typically needs the approval of only its board of directors to issue common stock. In most countries, however, by law or stock exchange rule, shareholders must vote to approve equity issuances when using certain methods or contemplating offers that exceed a specified fraction of outstanding shares. In some countries, shareholders must approve all equity issuances. Even in the United States, shareholder approval is mandatory under certain circumstances. The differences in the stock market reaction to shareholder‐approved equity issuances and to issues undertaken unilaterally by management are strikingly and consistently large. When shareholders approve stock issuances, whether public or rights offerings, or private placements, the average announcement returns are significantly positive, on the order of 2%. But when managers issue stock without shareholder approval, as in the case of U.S. public offerings, returns are significantly negative and 4% lower, on average, than for shareholder‐approved issues. What's more, the closer in time the shareholder vote is to the issue date, and the greater the required plurality (say, two‐thirds instead of half the vote required for approval), the more positive is the market reaction to the issue—and these findings hold for each of the three main kinds of offerings that take place in all 23 countries in the author's sample. Also telling, in countries where shareholder approval is required, such as Sweden and Malaysia, rights offers predominate over public issues. But in countries like the U.S. and Japan, where managers may generally issue stock without shareholder approval, public offers predominate over rights issues. These findings suggest that agency problems—the tendency of corporate managements to put their own interests before their shareholders'—play a major role in equity issuances. Such findings are also largely inconsistent with the adverse selection, market timing, and signaling explanations that currently dominate academic thinking about equity issuances by public corporations.     

Upheaval in the boardroom: Outside director public resignations,motivations, and consequences

We investigate the motives and circumstances surrounding outside directors' decisions to publicly announce their board resignations. Directors who leave “quietly” are in their mid-sixties and professional directors, i.e., retirees, who are retiring entirely from professional life. Directors who announce their resignation are in their mid-fifties and active professionals. Half the time they say they are leaving because they are “busy.” These directors leave from firms with some weakness in their performance, but with no overt manifestations of cronyism such as excessive compensation of either the CEO or directors. The other half of the time directors leave while publicly criticizing the firm. These directors are finance professionals who were members of the audit and compensation committees. They resign from firms with weak boards and financial performance with evidence that managers have manipulated earnings upwards. Public criticism appears to pressure these boards to make management changes associated with improved stock price performance. We conclude that while such public resignations are motivated by the reputational concerns of directors, they can act as a disciplining device for poor board performance.     

The Paradox of Transparency,Short‐Termism and the Institutionalisation of Australian Capital Markets

As the ultimate corporate decision‐makers, directors have an impact on the investment time horizons of the corporations they govern. How they make investment decisions has been profoundly influenced by the expansion of the investment chain and the increasing concentration of share ownership in institutional hands. By examining agency in light of legal theory, we highlight that the board is in fact sui generis and not an agent of shareholders. Consequently, transparency can lead to directors being ‘captured’ by institutional investor objectives and timeframes, potentially to the detriment of the corporation as a whole. The counter‐intuitive conclusion is that transparency may, under certain conditions, undermine good corporate governance and lead to excessive short‐termism.