Comments on: Whack ’em with a board! http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/ Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:49:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: heliogobalus http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-299 Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:40:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-299 Check out how Australia does it-training, etc.

]]>
By: amateurediteur http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-298 Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:28:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-298 This novel debate has been around for 30 years. Yawn.

]]>
By: act1 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-297 Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:43:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-297 As founder of a former savings & loan company, I can vouch for the “group think” that I encountered with my fellow investor/board members who comprised a clique. Although we did well and sold the firm profitably, the group think proved costly during operation and imaginative thinking was non-existent. The sale ended my constant frustration.

]]>
By: Cybs http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-296 Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:45:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-296 What we lack in serious measure is integrity in the general populace which includes boards. The unfortunate attitude prevailing is “do it to him before he does it to you,” protect your backside,and don’t make waves or you’ll lose your favored position. It is a big boys club.

]]>
By: lensmanb http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-294 Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:42:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-294 Board members all belong to the same club. If you look around the boards of companies in your cities they all have members who sit on multiple boards. this is a protected group interested in enriching themselves at the expense of the companies they control. Kodak is the perfect example. Go back to 1988 and you will find that the board members of Kodak also were board members of Coke, Zerox, B&L, Pepsico and others. A board member of Kodak was paid $18,000.00 to attend 1 board meeting. Times 3 a year and they made more money than the majority of the 80,000 employees working for Kodak. Now where are they? Add in what they were paid to attend board meetinings of the other companies and they made quite a bit of money. They didn’t have to work very hard either while hiring inept presidents and CEO’s (who by the way got to be board members also). You can see this is when a lot of these companies began their declines. We even started calling them the “good ol’ boys clubs”.

]]>
By: SamuelReich http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-288 Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:10:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-288 The nation has an overwhelming need for good management of major corporations. Therefore, there should be laws to ensure that the board has the resources to investigate and have membership not beholden to management.

In the late 1980’s GM was in the case studies of every management text book I had as the exampled of some bad management practice. It was most likely near the same in the whole US auto industry.

]]>
By: GLK http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-253 Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:35:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-253 I swear if I could round up a cadre of motivated High School seniors and replace the entrenched executive officers of almost any major corporation with them and within six months performance would rise. The problem with the people currently running corporations is they’re not as good at their jobs as their compensation infused egos make them think they are. They might be nice, well meaning and even smart, but none of those attributes holds a candle to being hungry, daring and innovative. It’s like the (very wealthy) owner of a large consulting firm once told me, “When the economy is bad our business booms because when the board of directors grills the CEO about what he or she is doing to navigate rough waters, the easiest thing they can say is that they’ve brought in an army of expert consultants to ensure a steady course during tough times.” This lazy, unimaginative management is what masquerades these days as managerial brilliance. Unfortunately, this keeps the truly brilliant from ever having a shot at running the company.

]]>
By: Gordon2352 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-252 Fri, 06 Jul 2012 16:45:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-252 The underlying problem is that the corporate system is broken. Giving shareholders more power over the boards is akin to placing the fox in charge of the hen house.

To fix our corporate problems we need to “think outside the box” by getting rid of the laws that presently govern (and protect) corporations and their investors. We treat corporations as though there are people, which is a fiction that is destroying our economy. Quite simply, it rewards extremely bad/antisocial behavior, in both the corporate and investor sense.

There is NO way to fix a fatally flawed system with the present system of rewards.

Right now, the laws protect investors by not allowing the “corporate veil to be pierced” — i.e. investors share in the profits, but not the losses — so the ONLY way to correct the problem is to eliminate the laws protecting the investors. They MUST share in losses, as well as profits, just like partnerships or sole-proprietorships.

Right now, they have no “skin in the game”, so there is no incentive to control the BOD or the corporation.

That single change in corporate law would solve ALL of the present problems we have with corporations, especially international corporations, because if each shareholder was held responsible for losses, not just profits, in proportion to their investment — and personally legally liable the same as partnerships or sole-proprietorships, whose personal property can be attached to settle debts — there would be a sudden enormous change in the attitude of those investors, who are today totally indifferent as to what the corporation does, except in terms of profits.

Yes, it REALLY is that simple.

]]>
By: whyknot http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-251 Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:35:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-251 This is boarding

]]>
By: QuietThinker http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/2012/07/02/whack-em-with-a-board/#comment-250 Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:03:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/lucy-marcus/?p=162#comment-250 I agree with everything said in this article – and everything goes doubly for members on the compensation and audit committees. I would also add that the positions of President and Chairman of the Board always need to be split, except possibly when held by the founder of the company.

]]>