Financial Governance And Corporate Governance

Corporate governance refers to ‘the ways suppliers of finance to corporations assure themselves of getting return on their investment’ (Shleifer and Vishny, 1997: 736). Corporate governance discusses the set of systems, principles and processes by which a

The corporate governance debate has been a global phenomenon, attributed to the increasing deregulation of worldwide capital markets and the expansion of the shareholder class . Such changes have increased awareness of the importance of corporate governance practices,

The argument of Berle and Means (1932) on corporate governance formed the foundation for further studies by various researchers on the trend of corporate governance. Their study revealed the possibility of creating a separation of control between the mangers who run the large size corporations and the owners who are the provider of capital. This observation of a departure and separation of ownership and control gave rise to a situation where emphasis is now focusing on the behavioural aspect and topical theory of the firm.

Farrar, J. (2008). Corporate Governance: theories, principles and practice. 2nd ed. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press

The article is written to help readers gain a solid understanding the roles of corporate governance, both inside and outside the company. Its goal is simply to impart information, not make claims or arguments on its own. I will be judging it mainly on the sources gathered, numerous examples and explanations given and the overall effectiveness it possesses in effectively communicating its ideas.

Phenomenal growth of interest in corporate governance has emerged in recent years. The body of literature on the subject has grown markedly in response to successive waves of large corporate failures. Furthermore, there have been numerous attempts to define what constitutes ‘good corporate governance’ and to provide guidelines in order to enhance the quality of corporate governance.

In cases where management does not behave as agents of the stockholders, the equity market provides a means for outside investors to replace the existing management and possibly the controlling shareholders through a takeover.

The ASX Corporate Governance Council defines the ‘corporate governance’ as the framework of rules, relationships, systems and processes within and by which authority is exercised and controlled within corporations (Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, 2014). The term “failure” of a corporate can be described as “Insolvency” in Australia (Michaela Rankin, 2012). And the reasons for corporate failure can be grouped into six categories: 1. Poor strategic decisions. 2. Greed and the desire for power. 3. Overexpansion and ill-judged acquisitions. 4. Dominant CEOs. 5. Failure of internal controls 6. Ineffective boards(Michaela Rankin, 2012).

How the latest edition (3rd) of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles plausibly halts the failure of Dick Smith Electronics will be discussed in this essay. I argue that ASX Corporate Governance Principles is one of the corporate governance practices that many listed entities in Australia should comply with in order to achieve good corporate governance preventing the collapse of corporations and increasing investors’ confidence. Regarding Dick Smith Electronics as a listed entity, it would survive and continuously operate as a biggest Australia electronic retailer if the better application of this practice is fully adopted.

Corporate governance includes all the rules, regulations, procedures and practices that guide a company in achieving their objective. Corporate Governance(CG) creates a support platform for a company’s stakeholders; the owners, the board, employees, the community and the regulators. Corporate governance policies are instituted to protect the interest of stakeholders through monitoring and controlling all management practices. Questions arise regarding the need to regulate corporate governance; if it is widely believed that good corporate governance leads to better financial performance, then firms would not need to be reminded to adopt these practices, however various recent company failures have revealed that good corporate governance practices are still lacking in many firms. The global financial crisis coupled with the fall of Enron, WorldCom and more recently the Volkswagen AG scandal in 2015 has led to high investor and society expectations regarding CG of companies.

The rise and fall of the Royal Bank of Scotland is characterized by poor corporate governance which allowed for the complete dominance of the executive management over the board of directors and a massive principal-agent problem. Positive social dynamics and the power of weak ties allowed for compliance while intimidation and bullying tactics silenced questions, concerns and opposition. The board’s utter compliancy and borderline negligence enabled rampant, unchecked empire-building at the cost of shareholder value and led to a spiral of unaccountability and gross incompetence. Stakeholders’ loss of confidence from misinformation and misdirection was an inevitability that sealed

This paper will be a literature review that discusses the notion that, the board of directors (the collective) as a self-regulating social system. This will be achieved by a systematic review of a collection of works in the area of corporate governance spanning the birth of the industrial revolution to the modern day. The areas of emphasis will be a view to identifying the key concepts, issues and laws created to better focus the actions of boards. In addition to identifying the locations for each of these developments and how this has led to divergent practices across the globe. Following the review of the literature the author of this paper will seek to discern the current direction and nature of corporate governance in the future. The

Corporate governance in itself has no single definition but common principles which it should follow. For example in 1994 the most agreed term for corporate governance was “the process of supervision and control intended to ensure that the company’s management acts in accordance with the interest of shareholders” (Parkinson, 1994)1. Corporate governance code is not a direct set of rules but a self-regulated framework which businesses choose to follow. This code has continued to change in the past 20 years in accordance with what is happening in the business world. For example the Enron scandal caused reform in corporate governance with the Higgs Report which corrected the issues which were necessary. Although it does not quickly fix problems, it gives a better framework to

This report is considered as the Megna Carta of Corporate Governance. The Committee was set up in May 1991 by the financial reporting council of the London Stock Exchange and the accountancy profession to the address the financial aspect of corporate governance. There was unexpected failure of the major companies like world com. Xerox, Enron etc. Moreover there was heavy criticism by the investors media and the general public of the lack of effective board accountability in respect of these massive failures. Further, there was a huge demand by these agencies to take penal action against the directors and management and also to clarify the responsibilities. The Cadbury committee drew on these documents and wide range of submissions from interested parties in producing its draft report that was issued for public comments on 27 may 1992. The code recommendation consists of 19 points set out under the heading of (1) Board of Directors (2) Non-Executive Director (3) Executive Director (4) Reporting and Control. The main points are summarized as follows:

This was a very interesting article, in my opinion it brings to mind the derived phrase, which came first the chicken or the egg. Meaning, is corporate governance an attempt to control the results of unethical practices of corporations or is it meant to deter them. In reading this article, it is clear that certain corporations practiced unethical business behaviors for self-interest, but the questions this author have are: 1. Should corporate governance be regulated by the legislature as well as the organization and to what degree, 2. Is corporate governance, there to protect the shareholder or the stakeholder, 3. How effective is corporate governance on a global level. The need for a governance system is based on the assumption that the separation between the owners of a company and its management provides self-interest executives the opportunity to take actions that benefit themselves, with the cost of these actions borne by the owners (Larcker & Tayan, 2008).