Tags

  • Published on

    Apparently shareholders do not own corporations!

    Accountability Governance Management Performance
    Please excuse this rather sensationalist title—I have just picked myself up from the floor having read this clause in the recital section of a [draft] directive being prepared in the EU:
    "Although they do not own corporations, which are separate legal entities beyond their full control, shareholders play a relevant role in the governance of those corporations."
    The proposed directive, which encourages long-term engagement and gives voice to shareholders in listed companies and large companies, seems to be well intentioned. However, the statement that shareholders do not own the corporation left me flabbergasted. It raises all sorts of questions:
    • If the shareholders (collectively) do not own the corporation, who does?
    • To whom is the board accountable—the shareholders (who don't own the asset the board is charged with operating); or, the [now unknown] owners; or, some other group?
    • Who benefits from the wealth created by the corporation, the shareholder, the owner or some other party?
    Why anyone would buy an asset if they knew that a condition of purchase was that they did not own what they had just paid for is beyond me. Is this sloppy drafting, or have I missed something in the semantics? Can someone with a legal mind and expertise in this area please elucidate?
  • Published on

    Selling a major company asset to a director, and doing so properly

    Accountability Ethics Governance Leadership
    Is it ever OK to sell a major company asset to one of the company's directors? One must be careful, very careful. The safe answer is probably 'no', because the proximity of conflict is ever-present and the question of whether the transaction satisfies the director's duties provisions (to act in the best interests of the company) sets a very high bar to clear.
    However, a recent case in New Zealand suggests that such transactions can be completed, and well, if certain provisions are satisfied. In this case, Dorchester Property Trust (DPT) wanted to sell one of its properties the Goldridge Resort Queenstown (GRQ). A DPT director wanted to acquire the asset. The DPT board acted cautiously. The director took no part in determining whether the asset should be offered for sale, and was excluded from the process of assessing acquisition offers. As such the board's handling of the matter satisfied the related party transaction requirements.
    While some investors were a bit scratchy over some some matters (see the article), few if any concerns over the GRQ transaction have been raised. This suggests that the board handled the matter well, in both a legal and a moral–ethical sense. Well done to the DPT board.
  • Published on

    Executive pay: is Thodey's call a signal that enough is enough?

    Accountability Ethics Governance Performance
    David Thodey, outgoing chief executive of Telstra, has just gone on record: CEO pay is out of control. Swimming against the tide, Thodey said his remuneration was indefensible, and called for change. A cynic might suggest that it is all very well for Thodey to say these things, especially after he pocketed $27M while he was the chief executive. Nevertheless, Thodey's call is not unique. One in four chief executives think that time is more important the money.
    Is Thodey's call, and those of others, a harbinger of change to rein in executive pay? I hope so. History tells us that gross disparities between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' can lead to uprisings and, potentially, bloodshed. The French revolution, Bolshevik Revolution and the Arab Spring are notable examples, although there are many others. To make some adjustments now may be just the pressure release valve that many in society are looking for. 
  • Published on

    Boardroom authenticity: are director actions consistent with their claims?

    Accountability Governance Performance Strategy
    The NYSE has just published the results of its 12th annual director survey. The survey, conducted by Spencer Stuart, makes for interesting reading. For example, strategy and performance features as a "perennial concern" of respondents—directors claim a strong interest in strategy. However, the responses do not bear this out. When asked to identify board actions that are critical to company performance, the top six responses from directors were:
    Directors say they know strategy and performance is important. That's clear. So why, when directors are asked specifically, do 'monitor' and 'control' activities feature more highly? Ouch! Why are some director's actions inconsistent with their claims?
    Do you notice anything unusual these responses? Apart from reviewing the strategic plan (presumably developed by management), none are practices of strategic management at all! If the board is responsible for business performance, why isn't it directly involved in the development of strategy, or monitoring strategy implementation, or verification of business performance goals? Why don't these elements, which are crucial to any influence the board might exert on business performance (watch for my forthcoming research), feature at all?
    • Regular CEO evaluation 96%
    • Strategic plan review 91%
    • Review of bench strength 83%
    • Capital use review 83%
    • M&A analysis 73%
    • Meeting on-site managers 62%
  • Published on

    Directors, you are accountable—the Supreme Court says so

    Accountability Ethics Governance Performance
    Is the worm starting to turn? After many years of relative calm—save a small number of judgements including this example from the New Zealand finance sector—directors seem to be facing increased levels of scrutiny, including being held accountable for actions (or inaction).
    A new judgement, by the Supreme Court in England, places a stake in the ground for British companies. The seven judges determined (unanimously) that directors were responsible for their actions, and that where those actions were fraudulent directors should be held personally accountable. No doubt some directors will throw their arms up in horror, asking how they could possibly know everything in order to make informed decisions. Yet directors are responsible for the overall operation and performance of the business they govern. Therefore, directors have a duty of care to become informed before they make a decision. 
    The Jetivia–Bilta judgement provides a timely reminder to directors. Precedents have now been set in several countries. The buck stops with us (yes, I am a director too). Directors need to ponder the implications carefully. Thankfully, those who are not happy to carry the responsibility and accountability that goes with every appointment have an 'out'—they can (and should) resign.
  • Published on

    ICAEW posts excellent discussion on capital market changes and impact on corporate governance

    Accountability Governance Leadership Performance
    The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) has recently published an informative series of documents to help directors and executives respond to changes in capital markets and how they affect the foundations of existing corporate governance frameworks. The material is great. Here's a series of links to the source documents:
    While the intended audience is the ICAEW membership, the commentaries are useful for company leaders in other jurisdictions—if not directly then certainly as discussion starters around board and executive tables. If you are based in England or Wales and have any technical questions, please contact the ICAEW. If your business is based outside the UK and you would like to organise a facilitated discussion to explore how to take advantage of the suggestions, I'd be happy to help.