The Cosmetic Corporate Governance - Will Companies Learn Lessons From the Global Financial Crisis!

The impact of the crises started to diminish. Still,the numbers. They are also responsible for
all key players, including top executives, regulatorscompliance with regulations. And they set the
and investors, have much to learn from the globalremunerations packages for the top executives.
financial failures. The Organisation for EconomicHowever the troubled firms just ticked the boxes
Co-operation and Development (OECD) Steeringfor good corporate governance in their annual
group has issued a report entitled Corporatereports. In other words, there organisations
Governance Lessons from the Financial Crisis. Thispresented an obvious example of the cosmetic
Report concludes that among major contributorscorporate governance to fool different
to the financial crisis are failures and weaknessesstockholders including investors, rating agencies
in corporate governance arrangements. Whenand regulators!
they were put to a test, corporate governanceThe current global financial crisis has shed light on
routines did not serve their purpose to safeguardhow poor risk management could lead to
against excessive risk taking in a number ofcatastrophic results. The risk management
financial services institutions.systems have failed in many cases due to
Other key contributors to the global financialcorporate governance procedures rather than the
crises include failures in transparency, failures ininadequacy of computer models alone.
lending standards; failures in prudential standards;With the advent of new products such as
failures in risk-management.sophisticated derivatives and certificate of
As to the remuneration of top executives, thedeposits, they posed unknown risks. Risk
real problem was not the amount they receive; itmanagement may not have been up to the task
is how companies pay them. The bad bonussince many of the standard quantitative models
culture encourages a short-term thinking: hit asand users of these models regularly misjudged
many deals as you can this year and get a largerthe systematic nature of risks. To some extent
bonus! That approach pushed executives to focusthis was due to product complexity and
their attention to achieving short term objectivesover-reliance on quantitative analysis. Sadly, many
at the expense of sustainable growth objectives.risk evaluations were wrong including those
Most financial institutions link compensation toprovided by rating agencies.
quarterly performance, encouraging short-termThe directors of the collapsed financial institutions
gambles. When the bets win, executives get theshould have better understanding of the risk
rewards, but when the bets sour, as they have inimplication at the time of taking decisions related
the latest financial crunch, the executives whoto sophisticated products such as derivatives. The
took the risks do not have to return their fat-catreality is many board members had inadequate
bonuses. The executives were, in most cases, noknowledge on the sophisticated new products and
longer gambling with their own net worth. It waslikely were embarrassed to show that they lack
the shareholders who took the hit. Thus thethe adequate knowledge! Here where directors'
executive greed acted as fuel thrown on the fireseducation and orientation fails as best corporate
of and contributed to the blazing global financialgovernance best practice. On going education is
crisis. The right approach if we are going to keepimportant to ensure that the directors are familiar
the financial system from being misused by topwith all aspects of the company's affairs with a
executives' greed again is to maintain aparticular focus on risks. Each director must
partnership between the top executives and havereceive customized orientation programs in areas
their net worth tied to the organisations'where he\she lack adequate knowledge in order
well-being. As a result, they would be cautiousto be able to effectively undertake the fiduciary
about taking big risks and discourage theoversight role.
malpractice of running after short terms gains.Finally, the concept that in bad times companies
Also, we need to replace bonuses with better,would be more interested in supporting their
longer-term compensation such as deferred cashprofitability and accordingly will not have time for
pay and restricted stock.corporate governance is irrational. The integrity
The directors of the troubled institutions appearcannot be compromised because corporate
to have provided only the thin-surfacedgovernance is not seasonal - it is for all times and
supervision to control the greed of topmust be embedded in senior corporate
executives. The boards of the collapsed firmsexecutives and directors. Companies must not put
carry the full responsibility. Each month they seecorporate governance on the shelf in bad times.