We are at the point where boards are raising money and there are no clear rules to govern how they do so, a study has found.
“We need to find out if the boards are doing enough,” says Chris Jenson, a former CEO of a financial services company.
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many financial services firms set up boards that had a strict structure and set out to create a more transparent and transparent way of operating.
But the result has been a lack of transparency and governance, according to a recent report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IIID).
The report also found that while boards have made great strides in recent years, “it is unclear if they are following the rules that are required to be compliant.”
NIST’s findings include that: “In most cases, board members have little or no experience in their fields of responsibility; “the most common board positions are either executive-level positions or roles that involve administrative responsibilities; “(a) are relatively unfamiliar with financial products and/or services; and “(b) lack experience in the financial markets or finance.
“NIST’s report also concluded that the lack of oversight of boards “makes it difficult for them to assess the risk and reward of activities, which is particularly problematic given the high levels of risk and rewards associated with managing these risks.”
A recent study found that boards of the world’s top 200 companies had a total of 459 members.
Of these boards, only 36 were publicly traded.
“They’re so secretive and opaque, there’s really no way to have a say.” “
The problem is that boards are not transparent enough to have effective oversight,” says Jenson.
“They’re so secretive and opaque, there’s really no way to have a say.”
The report’s authors, James W. Smith and Robert A. LeBlanc, say there are “two major barriers to effective oversight” in the current board structure: “One is the lack or unwillingness of boards to make decisions on their own.
In fact, it is hard to imagine any board member deciding to change the policy, or even the CEO.”
Smith and LeBlan say boards must make their decisions public, but the board members themselves have the power to make those decisions.
“If you’re a board member, you have a lot of control over your fate,” Smith says.
LeBlanc says that boards need to become more transparent.
“Board members should be allowed to make their own decisions,” he says.
“When a CEO takes a position, they’re going to have to be held accountable for their actions.”
In addition, the report says, there are some significant barriers to transparency that are “often overlooked.”
“Most boards have a ‘best practice’ of how to manage risk, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into a clear policy,” Jenson says.
“Some boards have been too cautious and are just letting the risks be a reality,” he adds.
As boards are increasingly involved in business activities, they are also increasingly responsible for the costs associated with those activities, and for those costs can come at the expense of their shareholders.
The report notes that boards should consider what kind of compensation they offer their employees.
A spokesperson for the American Securities Administrators Association (ASAA) told The Huffington Post that they have no comment on the study.