Newsletter | Volume 1

Issue I
Issue II
Issue III
Issue IV
Issue V
Issue VI
Issue VII
Issue VIII
Issue IX
Issue X
Issue XI
Issue XII
Issue XIII
Issue XIV
Issue XV

click here to

Subscribe to our newsletter

To Unsubscribe click here

Riskability Governance Watch

Corporate governance issues have recently become a highly discussed and controversial management component, both at the directors and managerial level. In order for an individual company to develop its own customized framework and roadmap, each business unit must understand the political, structural and historical development in the organization.

As part of our Riskability assessment tools, we have now developed an IT tool we call the Riskability Governance Watch

The need for Framework
The company's corporate governance behavior during a recent crisis, can guide the directors and mangers of companies to conduct ethical and clear business corporate governance behavior in normal times.

However, the governance components and structures have changed since Sir Adrian Cadbury in the 1990s introduced the roots of the various components that make up the structure of good corporate governance today.

Since then there has been a continuous series of global Corporate Governance reforms. To avoid a similar crisis, companies are impaired with a mighty push of compliance and company laws and EU directives to ensure that the companies have the right checks and balances in every department.

However we feel that without a customized framework the efforts to meet the reform challenge is futile.

Companies had since also developed adequate communications platform and given the rights and power to stakeholders and shareholders to keep keeping a watchful eye on the board and CEO.

Therefore, we recommend the Riskablity Governance Watch as an annual survey to ensure that all of the components of significant Corporate Governance reinforcements in the organization still meet the principles and its objectives since implementation.

Examination of the tenets of good corporate governance
Contrary to popular belief, directors who were fit and well informed on accounting and finance performed no better than those who were on the board of directors due to their marketing or HR capabilities.

A two tier management system that have separate roles for the CEO and Chairman often do not perform better than the changing one tier system where the responsibilities of Chairman and CEO is in one person. Powerful institutional shareholders and independent directors also did not deliver shareholder value, during the crisis.

The demand for a majority of independent directors often is inversely related to the stock returns. Surprisingly the combination in businesses with more independent boards and higher institutional ownership, performed badly during the crisis. Some of the reasons could be:
  • Businesses with higher institutional ownership were taking higher risks prior to the crisis, probably due to the overheated economy. The results were larger shareholder losses during the crisis.
  • Businesses with more independent and transparent boards often raise more equity capital during a crisis. Can lead to wealth transfer from existing shareholders to debt holders.

The overall findings cast doubt on whether regulatory changes that increase shareholder activism and monitoring by outside directors will be effective in reducing the consequences of future economic crises.