A certified "public interest" nonprofit
Make a new forum entry
The Working Group believes that market efficiency can be enhanced by encouraging financial analysts to pay attention not only to conventional financial factors but also to non-financial factors such as environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria and thereby evaluating true corporate value. Thus, we conducted a statistical analysis of the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP).
As you can see from the carefully hidden little section at the lower right of the Discussion Forum page, BDTI is preparing a section on ESG and responsible investment. (Please note that his is still a work in progress; so any ideas and additional information are welcome, as longas you help do the work tosummarize, organize etc., as this is a user-generated contents site….)
As we prepare for the upcoming proxy season and the answer to the question of whether we will see many, any, or only a few targeted, proxy access shareholder proposals (see the Davis Polk memo), we look back to the last time when proponents had the opportunity to make access proposals. In 2007, two major […]
Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank requires companies to disclose the internal pay ratio between the total annual compensation of their CEO and the median total annual compensation of their employees. Effectiveness of the requirement has been delayed until the SEC promulgates implementing rules. Meanwhile, companies have complained that the calculations required to comply with the disclosure requirement are burdensome and unfeasible, and proposals for Section 953(b)’s repeal have been introduced in Congress.
As revealed in court documents filed last week, a series of lawsuits filed in New York by shareholders who claimed that bonuses paid to Goldman Sachs employees resulted in corporate waste were dismissed on September 21, 2011. Security Police & Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund and Judith A. Miller sued the investment bank in […]
Risk Assessment – And Why You Stink at It
You stink at assessing risk. There, I said it. The thing is, I stink at assessing risk, too. We all do. If you watch Shark Week, for example, you will likely be petrified of the ocean even though your pajamas are more likely to catch fire than a shark is to attack you. People are prone to (at least) six errors in judgment when appraising risk.
(Here they are –> http://bit.ly/orEgvP )
Marina Welker and David Wood have written a perceptive article in Current Anthropology, Shareholder Activism and Alienation, that analyzes some of the contradictions thatwe are now realizing our current capital market system contains. Introduction:
In multiple reportsunder the umbrella title of Capitalizing on Complexity,IBM has produced wonderful guidance for CEO and other C-level executives in thinking about how they can be more effective leaders in a fast changing world. These are very well-designed, usefulreports, available in multiple languages:
In a world fraught with uncertainty, what are today's CEOs doing to strengthen their situations against competitors?
One of the more interesting excerpts from this short report by Deloitte:
Traditionally, the nominating and corporate governance committee focused on recruiting and board composition. However, the new era of corporate governance is broadening the committee’s role in developing and applying practices such as:
Excerpts from the Deloitte report (link below): Many issues compete for a place at the top of a company’s list of governance priorities,including the potential expansion of shareholder rights, regulatory demands for enhanced disclosure, and the oversight of risk management. However, we would argue there is no higher governance priority than ensuring you have the right people on the board.