A. Introduction
To prevent an incident like the current financial crisis from happening again many experts are calling for greater participation and engagement from institutional shareholders with respect to their investee companies. However, as far as corporate governance is concerned, we could be expecting too much of institutional shareholders. To answer this question the following deliberations will first describe what is currently being debated as possible future obligations of institutional shareholders and then analyse whether these proposals are reasonable.
B. Expectations from institutional shareholders
A combination of tax and other regulatory factors has lead to the equity held by institutional investors to grow substantially over time, with institutional shareholders now constituting one of the largest groups of shareholders: in 2006 they accounted for 41.1% of the UK ordinary shares and 60% of equity ownership in the US .
The UK Combined Code on Corporate Governance (from June 2008) specifically addresses the responsibilities of institutional shareholders, but only on a superficial level, recommending e.g. a dialogue between the company’s board and institutional shareholders and considered use of votes. In the wake of the financial crisis, however, more extensive obligations for institutional shareholders have been formulated, including, inter alia, enhanced dialogue between management and investor (in “normal” and “tense” situations), close monitoring of the investee company’s performance and disclosure of voting records and the policy in respect to voting, all to be comprised in a new Stewardship Code.
In hindsight at least some of the reasons of the current financial crisis could have been averted i...
... middle of paper ...
...l shareholders do not intend them to micromanage and “second guess” the boards of investee companies these developments, if enacted, will lead to a blurred line between simple monitoring and interference with managerial functions. While passive behaviour of shareholders is undoubtedly one of the many reasons of the financial crisis, the discussed propositions would only delegate all responsibilities to a single group of shareholders that, although being arguably more suited to discharge such a function compared to individual shareholders, cannot be expected to carry this burden alone, especially since all the reservations mentioned above, but mainly the sizable costs of enlarged engagement outweighing its potential benefits and fiduciary duties as a limiting factor to engagement, make the intended guardianship role of institutional shareholders largely ineffective.
The financial crisis of 2007–2008 is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This crisis resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. The crisis led to a series of events including: the 2008–2012 global recessions and the European sovereign-debt crisis. The reasons of this financial crisis are argued by economists. The performance of the Federal Reserve becomes a focal point in this argument.
The Australian Stock Exchange’s (ASX) Corporate Governance Council (2014) defines corporate governance as “A framework of rules, relationships, systems and processes within and by which authority is exercised and controlled within corporations”. One goal of corporate governance is for the board members to increase shareholder value (Tricker 2015). In order to achieve this, it is important that the board act appropriately and justly so that the best interest of investors are protected. This report will explore the effectiveness of JB Hi-Fi’s corporate governance. JB Hi-Fi is Australia’s largest home entertainment retailer, selling a variety of products at discounted prices. Over the years, they have maintained a substantial
However prior to 2008, nearly everyone was blind to their impending doom; investors, bankers, government regulators, the general population, and even the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, a man who was considered the economic guru, was fooled into believing the prosperity America had been enjoying would last for the foreseeable future (“Rethinking” 20). By this time there had been only mild economic downturns or, at most, short periods of turmoil. Financial institutions and large corporations had grown accustomed to the decades of economic prosperity resulting from the post-war economic boom, long forgetting the lessons learned from the Great Depression (“Rethinking” 20). In fact, economists concluded that America had entered a new era of calm. After a generation of portfolio managers and investors profiting from decades of favorable returns on stocks they believed the modern economy was impervious to major calamities (“Rethinking” 20). As inflation rates fell from record highs in the late 1970s and early 1980s to the record lows that they are today, interest rates followed enabling Americans to borrow more money from
Many people today would consider the 2008, United States financial crisis a simple “malfunction” or “mistake”, but it was nothing close to that. Contrary to what many believe, renowned economists and financial advisors regarded the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 to be the most devastating crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. To make matters worse, the decline in the economy expanded nationwide, resulting in the recession of 2007 to 2009 (Brue). David Einhorn, CEO of GreenHorn Capital, even goes as far as to say "What strikes me the most about the recent credit market crisis is how fast the world is trying to go back to business as usual. In my view, the crisis wasn't an accident. We didn't get unlucky. The crisis came because there have been a lot of bad practices and a lot of bad ideas". The 2007 financial crisis was composed of the fall of many major financial institutions, an unknown increase in mortgage loan defaults, and the derived freezing up of credit availability (Brue). It was the result from risky mortgage loans and falling estate values (Brue) . Additionally, the financial crisis of 2007 was the result of underestimation of risk by faulty insurance securities made to protect holders of mortgage-back securities from risk of default and holders of mortgage-backed securities (Brue). Even to present day, America stills suffers from the aftermaths of the financial crisis.
conclude that the crash was not the sole problem of the depression. It changed the expectations of the future from once a positive view to a negative view. Many economists argued at the time that a sharp decline in international trade following 1930 helped worsen the depression. Many people have the misconception that the great depression was because of the great crash but that was only initially, many other things happe...
In short, despite other uncontrollable factors, US government could have done a better job of preventing the Great Depression from happening. The depression was not inevitable in some sense. And the effects of the New Deal is questionable. The purpose of studying the past is to learn from the mistakes and move on. Success does not consist in never making mistakes but in never making the same one a second time. -----George Bernard Shaw h
Regardless, in regards to applying Keynesian economic policies toward the Great Depression, Former Federal Reserve Governor Ben S. Bernanke said “You 're right, we did it. We 're very sorry. … we won 't do it again” (Federal Reserve Board, 2002). Other economic theory must be developed to address some of the shortcomings of the Keynesian economic
This paper will have a detailed discussion on the shareholder theory of Milton Friedman and the stakeholder theory of Edward Freeman. Friedman argued that “neo-classical economic theory suggests that the purpose of the organisations is to make profits in their accountability to themselves and their shareholders and that only by doing so can business contribute to wealth for itself and society at large”. On the other hand, the theory of stakeholder suggests that the managers of an organisation do not only have the duty towards the firm’s shareholders; rather towards the individuals and constituencies who contribute to the company’s wealth, capacity and activities. These individuals or constituencies can be the shareholders, employees, customers, local community and the suppliers (Freeman 1984 pp. 409–421).
... should device ways of eliminating the causes of global financial crisis so that the effects of this crisis may not be experienced again in the world.
D’Amato, E. (2010). Australian Shareholders’ Association: Standing Up for shareholders – The top 15 financial ratios. Australia: Lincoln Indicators Pty Ltd.
As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.
Bibliography: Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate governance: its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5 (4), pp. 180--205.
Irish people will never forget the financial crisis of 2008 in Ireland. A lax regime that let bankers be reckless, an over-dependence on the construction industry and little regulation harmed Irelands economy greatly. However, it is important that Ireland learns from its self-inflicted mistakes and re-builds its institutions. The economy has shown signs that it is improving and Ireland completed its EU-IMF bailout in December 2013.
Nottingham Trent University. (2013). Lecture 1 - An Introduction to Corporate Governance. Available: https://now.ntu.ac.uk/d2l/le/content/248250/viewContent/1053845/View. Last accessed 16th Dec 2013.
...nces discussed above. Right now, the global economic is recovering, but the study of reasons of the crisis still teaches many countries a lesson on how to build a solid financial system and how to deal with other macroeconomic problems.