CORPORATE GOVERNANCE - GENERAL MOTORS- GM VISA- LOSS OF HARD EARNED GM POINTS- Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE and what GENERAL MOTORS PERSONNEL ARE NOT TELLING ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS AND HARASSMENT IN ATTEMPTING TO REDEEM YOUR HARD EARNED GM POINTS TO PURCHASE A GM VEHICLE.
In an article written by Drew Hasselback:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2009/06/01/text-of-gm-canada-announcement.aspx Posted: June 01, 2009, 2:01 PM
Mr. Hasselback noted “From this restructuring will emerge a new GM Canada which will be cost-competitive and innovative and will continue to put customers first.”
In this article Arturo Elias, President, GM Canada was quoted: “We appreciate the support of the Governments of Canada and Ontario that will enable us to complete our restructuring and allow for a more competitive, stronger new GM Canada," said Arturo Elias, President, GM Canada. "
Our customers can confidently continue to purchase new vehicles and obtain service and take full advantage of GM's leading warranty coverage throughout this process. The new GM Canada will be even more focused on our customers.”“-
GM plans to invest almost $1 billion over the next seven years”…
Mr. Arturo Elias, please note my comments, personnel at GM dealerships are NOT HURTING, THEY ARE MAKING PROFITS AS USUAL, YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON YOUR CUSTOMERS, WALK YOUR TALK AND PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR DEALERSHIPS WITH CARE SO THAT THEY REPRESENT WHAT GM’s MANGEMENT WOULD LIKE TO REPRESENT.
Please hire an expert to focus on your Governance issues, Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s Corporate Governance Model has worked for several organizations in Western Canada and has affected their bottom line in positive
way.
http://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/2008/02/dr-rookmin-maharaj-has-developed-unique.html
Rookmin Maharaj (Ph.D., M.Ed., B.Comm.).Corporate Governance Specialist
These are some of the issues:
At :http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/services/gm-card/overview
GM STATES:“The GM Card ® is so much more than just a no annual fee credit card; it's one of the best ways to get into the driver's seat of a new GM ® vehicle. And because The GM Card is a Visa credit card, you also get all of the convenience and purchasing power of Visa, along with a host of other benefits. ††
How it works Use The GM Card for all your eligible everyday purchases, like going to the movies or buying a new pair of jeans, and you'll earn 3% of the purchase price in GM Card Earnings † . Basically, the more you use it, the more you earn. And before you know it, you'll be behind the wheel... for a lot less than you imagined”.THIS IS INACCURATE, PLEASE NOTE SMALL PRINT/CLAUSES:
5. Life of EarningsUnless redeemed or terminated under these Program Rules, Earnings are valid for seven consecutive years from the end of the billing cycle in which they were acquired. In the eighth year, GM Card Earnings accumulated during the first year will expire and GM Card Earnings accumulated in the eighth year will be added in their place and so on. Expiration after seven years will occur month-by-month, such that seven full years of Earnings are maintained.”
WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT GM DEDUCTS A PERCENTAGE EVERY MONTH FROM YOUR HARD EARNED GM POINTS/ ACCOUNT, IF YOU DO NOT USE YOUR POINTS/ACCOUNT ON THE EIGHTH YEAR.
If your GM Card account is closed by the Bank because it is not in "Good Standing", all of your GM Card Earnings will expire immediately and will not be available for redemption (see "Good Standing"). If GMCL terminates the Program, you will have 90 days from the date the Program termination is announced to redeem accumulated GM Card Earnings. If you close your GM Card account or if the Bank closes your GM Card account due to inactivity, the accumulated GM Card Earnings must be redeemed within 90 days thereafter. GM Card Earnings not redeemed within this 90-day period expire at midnight on the last day of the 90-day period.
7. Redemption AllowanceThere is a limit ("Redemption Allowance") on the amount of GM Card Earnings that may be applied to any eligible new GM vehicle at time of redemption. The Redemption Allowance is the maximum amount of GM Card Earnings that can be applied toward the Total Purchase Price or lease down payment of any eligible new GM vehicle. The Redemption Allowance for a vehicle is established each model year at the beginning of that vehicle's model year. Redemption Allowances vary up to $3,500 depending upon the model year and brand of car or truck being purchased or leased. ……There is no minimum amount of Earnings that may be redeemed, however, all redemptions are subject to Vehicle Redemption Allowances. Partial Redemption of Earnings is permitted and there is no limit on the number of redemptions per year”.
THIS IS INACCURATE, I WENT INTO A GM DEALERSHIP TO PURCHASE A 2009 VEHICLE AND WAS TOLD I COULD ONLY REDEEM $1500 IN POINTS TOWARD MY VEHICLE!!!!.
Please read the fine print, the only vehicles one can use $3,500 point to purchase would be the Hummer or the Cadillac(SEE BELOW):
Whether your dream vehicle is a sporty car, a crossover or a Hybrid SUV, the following GM Card Vehicle Redemption Allowance chart outlines the maximum amount of GM Card Earnings† you may redeem†1 on a particular GM® vehicle. You can view the Vehicles and Allowances by Brand, Vehicle Type or Redemption Allowance. Follow the links to get more vehicle information, see photos and compare vehicles.· Vehicle Type· Vehicle Brand· Redemption AllowanceSmall CarsVisit the ShowroomMSRP*Allowance2009 Chevrolet Aveo$13,770$7002009 Chevrolet Cobalt$15,325$1,5002009 Chevrolet HHR$20,315$1,5002009 Pontiac Vibe$16,830$1,0002009 Pontiac G5$15,745$1,5002009 Pontiac Wave$13,770$7002009 Pontiac Solstice$29,055$1,0002009 Saturn SKY$33,715$1,0002009 Saturn ASTRA$21,720$750Top Of PageMid-Size CarsVisit the ShowroomMSRP*Allowance2009 Buick Allure$27,395$2,0002010 Chevrolet Camaro$26,995$1,5002009 Chevrolet Impala$26,625$2,0002009 Chevrolet Malibu$23,995$1,5002009 Pontiac G6$25,225$1,5002009 Saab 9-7X$49,295$2,5002009 Saturn AURA$25,075$1,500Top Of PageLarge/Luxury CarsVisit the ShowroomMSRP*Allowance2009 Buick Lucerne$32,820$2,5002009 Cadillac STS$60,920$3,5002009 Cadillac Escalade$78,535$3,5002009 Cadillac SRX$46,910$3,5002009 Cadillac CTS$40,485$2,5002009 Cadillac DTS$55,490$3,5002009 Cadillac XLR$103,075$3,5002009 Chevrolet Corvette$66,145$1,5002009 Saab 9-3$36,255$2,5002009 Saab 9-5$45,760$2,5002009 Pontiac G8$32,450$1,500Top Of PageVansVisit the ShowroomMSRP*Allowance2009 Chevrolet Express$31,125$2,5002009 Chevrolet Uplander$24,390$2,0002009 GMC Savana$31,125$2,5002009 Pontiac Montana SV6$25,060$2,000Top Of PageSUV/CrossoversVisit the ShowroomMSRP*Allowance2009 Buick Enclave$42,805$2,0002009 Cadillac Escalade$78,535$3,5002009 Cadillac SRX$46,910$3,5002009 Chevrolet Avalanche$41,720$2,0002009 Chevrolet Equinox$27,665$1,5002009 Chevrolet HHR$20,315$1,5002009 Chevrolet Suburban$50,795$2,0002009 Chevrolet Traverse$35,620$2,0002009 Chevrolet Tahoe$47,650$2,0002009 Chevrolet TrailBlazer$39,795$2,0002009 GMC Envoy$40,695$2,0002009 GMC Yukon/Yukon XL$48,245$2,0002009 GMC Acadia$37,800$2,0002009 HUMMER H2 SUT$63,950$3,5002009 HUMMER H2 SUV$65,250$3,5002009 HUMMER H3$35,445$2,0002009 Pontiac Torrent$28,370$1,5002009 Saab 9-7X$49,295$2,5002009 Saturn VUE$27,325$2,0002009 Saturn OUTLOOK$35,585$2,000Top Of PageTrucksVisit the ShowroomMSRP*Allowance2009 Chevrolet Avalanche$41,720$2,0002009 Chevrolet Colorado$23,505$1,5002009 Chevrolet Express$31,125$2,5002009 Chevrolet Silverado$23,990$2,0002009 GMC Canyon$23,505$1,5002009 GMC Savana$31,125$2,5002009 GMC Sierra/Sierra Denali$23,990$2,0002009 HUMMER H2 SUT$63,950$3,500
GM says the “The sky's the limit”
THE SKY'S NOT THE LIMIT SEE ABOVE!!!!
Did you know that The GM Card sets absolutely no limit on how many Earnings you can accumulate over the course of a year? Yup. That's right. Collect as many Earnings as you want, then when you're ready to buy a GM vehicle, you can apply up to $3,500 in GM Card Earnings †1” (subject to Vehicle Redemption Allowances) “towards the Total Purchase Price on any eligible new GM vehicle.
GM says, It's that easy”.
IT IS NOT EASY SEE ABOVE!!!!!!!
GM MANAGEMENT and BOARD OF DIRECTORS, please note, you need to address Governance AT GM CANADA. GM’S espoused theory is not GM’S theory in action.
GM must treat their customers fairly and with respect.
No wonder there is a GM crisis!!!
GM needs to value their customers
http://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/2008/02/dr-rookmin-maharaj-has-developed-unique.html
Rookmin Maharaj (Ph.D., M.Ed., B.Comm.).Corporate Governance Specialist“-
As you stated Mr. Elias, "GM plans to invest almost $1 billion over the next seven years”…Please take a small sum of that billion dollars and hire an expert to focus on your Governance issues.
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s Corporate Governance Model has worked for several organizations in Western Canada and has affected their bottom line in positive way.
http://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/2008/02/dr-rookmin-maharaj-has-developed-unique.html
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Corporate Governance - the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada - Brandon Huntley- Brandon Huntley, a 31-year-old South African who stayed illegall
Corporate Governance - the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada - Brandon Huntley- Brandon Huntley, a 31-year-old South African who stayed illegally in Canada in 2006, after first arriving on a work permit as a carnival attendant, was awarded refugee status after complaining that he was mugged and stabbed in seven attempted robberies in South Africa.
Who are these board members who stand on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada?
What are their qualifications?
Is this another OLD BOYS/GIRLS CLUB!!!1In an article that may be viewed at:
http://news. sympatico. ctv.ca /abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-OPSTORIES _V3&showbyline= True&date=true&newsitemid =CTVNews %2f20090902 %2frefugee_decision_090902
a white South African, Brandon Huntley claimed he was the victim of numerous attempted robberies and muggings. According to Huntley, whites in South Africa are often the target of black criminals, and the government has done nothing to intervene.
However, there is another side to this story, on that our Immigration and Refugee Board did not bother to investigate or do due diligence with regard to Brandon Huntley’s claim. According to Ishmael Mnisi, a spokesperson for the African National Congress “Canada's reasoning for granting Huntley refugee status can only serve to perpetuate racism.” Additionally, according to this article “a spokesperson for the South African immigration ministry said Huntley's claims were aimed at tarnishing the good name of black and white South Africans...and were racially motivated.”
“It would have been courteous for the Canadian government to allow the South African government to respond to these claims," said Ronnie Mamoepa (A spokesman for the country's Home Affairs department) .
A spokesperson for our Canadian immigration board refused to comment on the case Tuesday, citing privacy provisions.
South Africa's national police commissioner denied Wednesday that victims of crime in the country are targeted because of their skin colour.
The irony of this sad situation is that (in an interview published in the Johannesburg daily The Times) “Commissioner Bheki Cele, who is black, said his own home has been broken into a number of times. Criminals in South Africa... look at what you have, rather than looking at your face.” On Tuesday, The Times ran an editorial, lashing out at the decision. "News that Canada has granted a white South African refugee status because his life is in danger at the hands of his black countrymen is shocking and saddening," the editorial said. "It says more about Canadian perceptions than South African reality.”
Iin another another article:
http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20090902%2frefugee_decision_090902
it was stated that “Immigration authorities in England have warned Canada to expect a deluge of young, UNEMPLOYABLE, WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS to arrive in their country after an immigration and refugee panel, made up of white folk who had never been to Africa, bought into former Cape Town resident Brandon Huntley's paranoia and granted him refugee status. "There won't be enough pubs and restaurants in Vancouver and Toronto to employ them all," said an unnamed Home Office source.”
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada take a look at what is happening to our Canadian economy. Additionally, Canada is riding a tidal wave through the global recession, with thousands of Canadians unemployed, and looking for jobs. These Canadians have been paying taxes, working 9 to 5 jobs in Canada, with little or no help from Canadian social safety net.
What will Brandon Huntley’s future be? According to Brandon’s friend Hannibal Plettervat Brandon Huntley “would probably spend another few years in Canada, at least until he had qualified for a passport and saved some valuable foreign currency. He said that once those initial objectives had been achieved Huntley would probably return home to South Africa, buy a house or a small farm and settle down. "You know, the usual.”
The article continues, “Meanwhile members of the tribunal panel who ruled that "the claimant would stand out like a 'sore thumb' due to his colour in any part of the country,” reacted with shock on hearing that there were in fact a further five million white South Africans still suffering daily persecution. "We thought that maybe there were another hundred white people left," said tribunal spokesperson Alba Snow. "We were ready to send a helicopter to airlift them to safety," she added. Snow admitted that evacuation plans had been put on hold after video footage of Patricia Lewis live in Brakpan had been downloaded from YouTube. "The only person that stood out like a sore thumb in that video was a black sound engineer who looked like he was bleeding out of both ears". She said the tribunal realised they had it all wrong when further investigation revealed that places like Loftus Versfeld, Constantia and the opposition benches in parliament also contained, "more than their fair share of whites.”
In another article by Geoffrey York in the Johannesburg — Globe and Mail Update:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/south-africans-refugee-case-causes-backlash-against-racist-canada/article1272553/
Stated that,…… “South Africa's ruling party has denounced Canada as “racist” for granting refugee status to a man who claimed he was persecuted in South Africa because he is white.
The decision by a refugee board member in Ottawa has ignited a firestorm of controversy in South Africa, damaging relations between the two countries and denting Canada's image in a country where it was once seen as a stalwart of the anti-apartheid struggle.
The refugee board member, William Davis, ruled that South Africa had failed to protect its white citizens from robberies and muggings, which he described as the “persecution” of whites by “African South Africans.”
Brandon Huntley, a 31-year-old South African who stayed illegally in Canada in 2006, after first arriving on a work permit as a carnival attendant, was awarded refugee status after complaining that he was mugged and stabbed in seven attempted robberies in South Africa. He said he was called a “white dog” and a “settler” during these attacks, although he did not report any of the attacks to the police because he “did not trust them.”
Mr. Davis said in his ruling that Mr. Huntley would “stand out like a sore thumb” in any part of South Africa because of his colour. He said Mr. Huntley had given “convincing proof” of the government's “inability or unwillingness to protect him.” He added that Mr. Huntley would be unable to find a job in South Africa because of affirmative action in favour of blacks.
The African National Congress, the party that liberated South Africa from apartheid under Nelson Mandela's leadership in 1994, said the refugee decision was racist and alarmist. “Canada's reasoning for granting Huntley a refugee status can only serve to perpetuate racism,” the ANC said Tuesday.
……. While many agree that whites are often targeted by black criminals, others are outraged at the notion that whites are “persecuted” in South Africa, a country where they still enjoy vast privileges in an unequal economic system.
Many ridiculed the board member's claim that whites “stand out like a sore thumb” in South Africa. More than four million whites are living in South Africa, comprising almost 10 per cent of the population…..
“It says more about Canadian perceptions than South African reality. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of crime victims in this country are black and many of the perpetrators are white.”
The chief executive of South Africa's human-rights commission, Tseliso Thipanyane, told the Cape Times newspaper that the refugee ruling was “rather odd” because racist attacks happen to blacks as well as whites. He also rejected the claim that whites cannot get jobs in South Africa, citing a recent survey that found that 61 per cent of South Africa's top corporate executives are white men.
The official unemployment rate for black South Africans is 27.9 per cent, compared to 4.6 per cent for white South Africans.
….. “I will never set my foot in Canada,” commented one person on a South African website, condemning the ruling. “It's officially the most racist country in the world.”
On another website, someone said: “What a load of b.s. Are the Canadians truly this gullible?”
But others said they welcomed the ruling, predicting it would “open the flood gates” to a further exodus from South Africa. “The racism has increased tremendously and whites are not wanted or tolerated here,” one person commented on a newspaper website.
Our Canadian government deems someone a refugee, PLEASE SEE:
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/index.asp)
Refugees
Refugees and people needing protection are people in or outside Canada who fear returning to their home country. In keeping with its humanitarian tradition and international obligations, Canada provides protection to thousands of people every year.
Canada offers refugee protection to people in Canada who fear persecution or whose removal from Canada would subject them to a danger of torture, a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Groups and individuals can sponsor refugees from abroad who qualify to come to Canada.
Refugee claims in Canada—Who can apply
Canada offers refugee protection to people in Canada who fear persecution and are unwilling or unable to return to their home country. People who are subject to a removal order cannot make a refugee claim.
Eligibility
Some people are not eligible to claim refugee protection in Canada. Officers receiving your refugee claim will decide whether it is eligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), an independent administrative tribunal that makes decisions on immigration and refugee matters. The IRB decides who is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Your refugee claim may not be eligible for referral to the IRB if:
· You have been recognized as a Convention refugee by another country to which you can return;
· You have already been granted protected person status in Canada;
· You arrived via the Canada-United States border (see Safe Third Country Agreement below);
· You are not admissible to Canada on security grounds, or because of criminal activity or human rights violations;
· You made a previous refugee claim that was found to be ineligible for referral to the IRB;
· You made a previous refugee claim that was rejected by the IRB; or
· You abandoned or withdrew a previous refugee claim.
Safe Third Country Agreement
Under an agreement with the United States, refugee claimants must seek asylum (protection) in the first safe country where they arrive. For example, if you entered Canada at a land border from the United States, you will not be able to claim refugee protection in Canada. Sometimes there are exceptions (such as those who already have family in Canada).
Definitions
You may find the following definitions useful as you learn more about refugee claims in Canada.
Convention Refugee
Convention refugees are people who are outside their home country or the country where they normally live, and who are unwilling to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on:
· race
· religion
· political opinion
· nationality or
· membership in a particular social group, such as women or people of a particular sexual orientation.
Person in need of protection
A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their home country or country where they normally live would subject them personally to:
· a danger of torture;
· a risk to their life; or
· a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Was this decision made without DUE DILIGENCE (KNOWLEDGE) and under a GROUPTHINK MENTALITY?
You decide is if Brandon Huntley is a legitimate refugee of if he is using the Canadian system!!!!!
Who are these board members who stand on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada?
What are their qualifications?
Is this another OLD BOYS/GIRLS CLUB!!!1In an article that may be viewed at:
http://news. sympatico. ctv.ca /abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-OPSTORIES _V3&showbyline= True&date=true&newsitemid =CTVNews %2f20090902 %2frefugee_decision_090902
a white South African, Brandon Huntley claimed he was the victim of numerous attempted robberies and muggings. According to Huntley, whites in South Africa are often the target of black criminals, and the government has done nothing to intervene.
However, there is another side to this story, on that our Immigration and Refugee Board did not bother to investigate or do due diligence with regard to Brandon Huntley’s claim. According to Ishmael Mnisi, a spokesperson for the African National Congress “Canada's reasoning for granting Huntley refugee status can only serve to perpetuate racism.” Additionally, according to this article “a spokesperson for the South African immigration ministry said Huntley's claims were aimed at tarnishing the good name of black and white South Africans...and were racially motivated.”
“It would have been courteous for the Canadian government to allow the South African government to respond to these claims," said Ronnie Mamoepa (A spokesman for the country's Home Affairs department) .
A spokesperson for our Canadian immigration board refused to comment on the case Tuesday, citing privacy provisions.
South Africa's national police commissioner denied Wednesday that victims of crime in the country are targeted because of their skin colour.
The irony of this sad situation is that (in an interview published in the Johannesburg daily The Times) “Commissioner Bheki Cele, who is black, said his own home has been broken into a number of times. Criminals in South Africa... look at what you have, rather than looking at your face.” On Tuesday, The Times ran an editorial, lashing out at the decision. "News that Canada has granted a white South African refugee status because his life is in danger at the hands of his black countrymen is shocking and saddening," the editorial said. "It says more about Canadian perceptions than South African reality.”
Iin another another article:
http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20090902%2frefugee_decision_090902
it was stated that “Immigration authorities in England have warned Canada to expect a deluge of young, UNEMPLOYABLE, WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS to arrive in their country after an immigration and refugee panel, made up of white folk who had never been to Africa, bought into former Cape Town resident Brandon Huntley's paranoia and granted him refugee status. "There won't be enough pubs and restaurants in Vancouver and Toronto to employ them all," said an unnamed Home Office source.”
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada take a look at what is happening to our Canadian economy. Additionally, Canada is riding a tidal wave through the global recession, with thousands of Canadians unemployed, and looking for jobs. These Canadians have been paying taxes, working 9 to 5 jobs in Canada, with little or no help from Canadian social safety net.
What will Brandon Huntley’s future be? According to Brandon’s friend Hannibal Plettervat Brandon Huntley “would probably spend another few years in Canada, at least until he had qualified for a passport and saved some valuable foreign currency. He said that once those initial objectives had been achieved Huntley would probably return home to South Africa, buy a house or a small farm and settle down. "You know, the usual.”
The article continues, “Meanwhile members of the tribunal panel who ruled that "the claimant would stand out like a 'sore thumb' due to his colour in any part of the country,” reacted with shock on hearing that there were in fact a further five million white South Africans still suffering daily persecution. "We thought that maybe there were another hundred white people left," said tribunal spokesperson Alba Snow. "We were ready to send a helicopter to airlift them to safety," she added. Snow admitted that evacuation plans had been put on hold after video footage of Patricia Lewis live in Brakpan had been downloaded from YouTube. "The only person that stood out like a sore thumb in that video was a black sound engineer who looked like he was bleeding out of both ears". She said the tribunal realised they had it all wrong when further investigation revealed that places like Loftus Versfeld, Constantia and the opposition benches in parliament also contained, "more than their fair share of whites.”
In another article by Geoffrey York in the Johannesburg — Globe and Mail Update:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/south-africans-refugee-case-causes-backlash-against-racist-canada/article1272553/
Stated that,…… “South Africa's ruling party has denounced Canada as “racist” for granting refugee status to a man who claimed he was persecuted in South Africa because he is white.
The decision by a refugee board member in Ottawa has ignited a firestorm of controversy in South Africa, damaging relations between the two countries and denting Canada's image in a country where it was once seen as a stalwart of the anti-apartheid struggle.
The refugee board member, William Davis, ruled that South Africa had failed to protect its white citizens from robberies and muggings, which he described as the “persecution” of whites by “African South Africans.”
Brandon Huntley, a 31-year-old South African who stayed illegally in Canada in 2006, after first arriving on a work permit as a carnival attendant, was awarded refugee status after complaining that he was mugged and stabbed in seven attempted robberies in South Africa. He said he was called a “white dog” and a “settler” during these attacks, although he did not report any of the attacks to the police because he “did not trust them.”
Mr. Davis said in his ruling that Mr. Huntley would “stand out like a sore thumb” in any part of South Africa because of his colour. He said Mr. Huntley had given “convincing proof” of the government's “inability or unwillingness to protect him.” He added that Mr. Huntley would be unable to find a job in South Africa because of affirmative action in favour of blacks.
The African National Congress, the party that liberated South Africa from apartheid under Nelson Mandela's leadership in 1994, said the refugee decision was racist and alarmist. “Canada's reasoning for granting Huntley a refugee status can only serve to perpetuate racism,” the ANC said Tuesday.
……. While many agree that whites are often targeted by black criminals, others are outraged at the notion that whites are “persecuted” in South Africa, a country where they still enjoy vast privileges in an unequal economic system.
Many ridiculed the board member's claim that whites “stand out like a sore thumb” in South Africa. More than four million whites are living in South Africa, comprising almost 10 per cent of the population…..
“It says more about Canadian perceptions than South African reality. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of crime victims in this country are black and many of the perpetrators are white.”
The chief executive of South Africa's human-rights commission, Tseliso Thipanyane, told the Cape Times newspaper that the refugee ruling was “rather odd” because racist attacks happen to blacks as well as whites. He also rejected the claim that whites cannot get jobs in South Africa, citing a recent survey that found that 61 per cent of South Africa's top corporate executives are white men.
The official unemployment rate for black South Africans is 27.9 per cent, compared to 4.6 per cent for white South Africans.
….. “I will never set my foot in Canada,” commented one person on a South African website, condemning the ruling. “It's officially the most racist country in the world.”
On another website, someone said: “What a load of b.s. Are the Canadians truly this gullible?”
But others said they welcomed the ruling, predicting it would “open the flood gates” to a further exodus from South Africa. “The racism has increased tremendously and whites are not wanted or tolerated here,” one person commented on a newspaper website.
Our Canadian government deems someone a refugee, PLEASE SEE:
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/index.asp)
Refugees
Refugees and people needing protection are people in or outside Canada who fear returning to their home country. In keeping with its humanitarian tradition and international obligations, Canada provides protection to thousands of people every year.
Canada offers refugee protection to people in Canada who fear persecution or whose removal from Canada would subject them to a danger of torture, a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Groups and individuals can sponsor refugees from abroad who qualify to come to Canada.
Refugee claims in Canada—Who can apply
Canada offers refugee protection to people in Canada who fear persecution and are unwilling or unable to return to their home country. People who are subject to a removal order cannot make a refugee claim.
Eligibility
Some people are not eligible to claim refugee protection in Canada. Officers receiving your refugee claim will decide whether it is eligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), an independent administrative tribunal that makes decisions on immigration and refugee matters. The IRB decides who is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Your refugee claim may not be eligible for referral to the IRB if:
· You have been recognized as a Convention refugee by another country to which you can return;
· You have already been granted protected person status in Canada;
· You arrived via the Canada-United States border (see Safe Third Country Agreement below);
· You are not admissible to Canada on security grounds, or because of criminal activity or human rights violations;
· You made a previous refugee claim that was found to be ineligible for referral to the IRB;
· You made a previous refugee claim that was rejected by the IRB; or
· You abandoned or withdrew a previous refugee claim.
Safe Third Country Agreement
Under an agreement with the United States, refugee claimants must seek asylum (protection) in the first safe country where they arrive. For example, if you entered Canada at a land border from the United States, you will not be able to claim refugee protection in Canada. Sometimes there are exceptions (such as those who already have family in Canada).
Definitions
You may find the following definitions useful as you learn more about refugee claims in Canada.
Convention Refugee
Convention refugees are people who are outside their home country or the country where they normally live, and who are unwilling to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on:
· race
· religion
· political opinion
· nationality or
· membership in a particular social group, such as women or people of a particular sexual orientation.
Person in need of protection
A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their home country or country where they normally live would subject them personally to:
· a danger of torture;
· a risk to their life; or
· a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Was this decision made without DUE DILIGENCE (KNOWLEDGE) and under a GROUPTHINK MENTALITY?
You decide is if Brandon Huntley is a legitimate refugee of if he is using the Canadian system!!!!!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Alleged Quebec financial fraud - Montreal-area planner Earl Jones
Alleged Quebec financial fraud - Montreal-area planner Earl Jones
It is A CONSTANT in our global society today to read articles about FINANCIAL-PLANNERS AND FRAUD, these two seem to be somehow inseparable. In a recent investigation into one of Quebec’s investment brokerages, and the whereabouts of a broker, as much as $50 million that was entrusted to him seem to have disappeared into thin air. Peter Tzanetakis, vice-president of regulatory affairs at Advocis, the association representing financial advisers in Canada said "The financial advice industry is extremely regulated, financial advisers are typically licensed for insurance purposes and registered for securities and mutual fund purposes, but additional regulation for financial planning would not have any impact on someone who is intending to run a fraudulent scheme."
Please read my blog space:
http://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/2008/07/dr-rookmin-maharaj-corporate-governance.html
and my article written in June 2008 about this very serious epidemic that is plaguing not only Canada, but is prevalent around the globe.
The only advise our regulatory bodies can offer include unhelpful remarks as follows:
1) there are plenty of strict guidelines in place already to keep them in check
2) it's a reminder clients need to ask hard questions and avoid blind trust, especially when their life savings are involved
3) The financial advice industry is extremely regulated; financial advisers are typically licensed for insurance purposes and registered for securities and mutual fund purposes
4) additional regulation for financial planning would not have any impact on someone who is intending to run a fraudulent scheme
5) Investors have learned through authorities that Jones, a self-proclaimed financial planner operating in an office tower in a Montreal suburb, was never licensed to handle their money
6) The Financial Planners Standards Council, a not-for-profit organization that raises awareness about financial planning and enforces professional standards through certification, says it's important for consumers to do their homework because anyone can call themselves a financial planner
7) The regulatory environment allows anyone to hold themselves out as a financial planner," said Tamara Smith, vice-president marketing. So it becomes incumbent on the consumer to verify credentials and ask to see certification and references, she said. "It is so important to find a planner you can engage in conversation, that you can trust
8) Sylvain Theberge (representing Quebec's securities regulator - the Autorite des marches financiers )said more inspectors may not be a foolproof solution. "We don't have the ability to be at every door in Montreal, to look at every office," Theberge said, adding more inspectors wouldn't necessarily have led them to Jones. "It's knowing the unknown," Theberge said. "In Mr. Jones' case, he worked for years and years on the basis of a confidence link from generation to generation."
SO WHAT ARE THE ROLES OF THESE SO CALLED REGULATORY BODIES (ABOVE), IF WE, AS EVERYDAY INVESTORS HAVE TO DO THE GROUND WORK FOR THESE SO CALLED REGULATORY BODIES?
REGULATORY BODIES OFFER NO REMEDIES for the average investors, this is a crying shame!
One year ago I wrote about this epidemic. Again, one year later I say the same thing:
It is imperative to note that this fraudulent, unethical behaviour is ALLOWED TO CONTINUE in our society by the pertinent ‘powers’ that be. This fraudulent, unethical behaviour affects families, individuals, and generations to come.
This fraudulent, unethical behaviour may also establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems ARE ACTULAY allowed, if not encourage, by key individuals.
Dr. Maharaj argues that:
COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS/GIRLS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard for humanity? COULD IT BE THAT THERE IS A perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality by these crooks.
COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?
And to date we have no remedies from the so called pertinent authorities, whether these watch dog bodies are for-profit or not-for-profit. They have been established to do a job, they are being compensated with some sort of financial consideration. Yet, whenever there is an investigation these ‘so called’ competent authorities’ throw the blame elsewhere. Their only advise to investors include:
“buyer beware” , they take no responsibility!
THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THESE BLATANT INJUDICIOUSNESS include:
changing the behaviours, the regulatory bodies must take responsibility and ensure that they conduct their monitoring duties. Perhaps, the reasons that this is not being done is that the regulatory bodies are not:1) the regulatory bodies are not ‘INDEPENDENT MINDED’
2) the regulatory bodies do not have the knowledge that is required to regulate
3) the regulatory bodies do not have the skills to regulate
This can be achieved by recruiting ‘new regulatory bodies’ in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys/girls club.
Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that are hired to these regulatory bodies' What is your opinion? Does your opinion change with this update?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on: Corporate Governance on organizations and investigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations and investigates informal characteristics of regulatory bodies, their knowledge, values, and groupthink mentality.
There are three main conclusions from this research and corporate experience:
1. Proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making.
2. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when incorporating any of these so called watch dog regulatory bodies
3. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking members’ and managements’ knowledge thereby, affecting these regulators decision making process.
4. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees. Changes to these regulatory bodies, are seminal in preventing future fiascoes.
Peter Tzanetakis, Advocis, Financial Planners Standards council, Sylvain Theberge , Corporate Governance , Quebec investment broker, Montreal-area planner Earl Jones
It is A CONSTANT in our global society today to read articles about FINANCIAL-PLANNERS AND FRAUD, these two seem to be somehow inseparable. In a recent investigation into one of Quebec’s investment brokerages, and the whereabouts of a broker, as much as $50 million that was entrusted to him seem to have disappeared into thin air. Peter Tzanetakis, vice-president of regulatory affairs at Advocis, the association representing financial advisers in Canada said "The financial advice industry is extremely regulated, financial advisers are typically licensed for insurance purposes and registered for securities and mutual fund purposes, but additional regulation for financial planning would not have any impact on someone who is intending to run a fraudulent scheme."
Please read my blog space:
http://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/2008/07/dr-rookmin-maharaj-corporate-governance.html
and my article written in June 2008 about this very serious epidemic that is plaguing not only Canada, but is prevalent around the globe.
The only advise our regulatory bodies can offer include unhelpful remarks as follows:
1) there are plenty of strict guidelines in place already to keep them in check
2) it's a reminder clients need to ask hard questions and avoid blind trust, especially when their life savings are involved
3) The financial advice industry is extremely regulated; financial advisers are typically licensed for insurance purposes and registered for securities and mutual fund purposes
4) additional regulation for financial planning would not have any impact on someone who is intending to run a fraudulent scheme
5) Investors have learned through authorities that Jones, a self-proclaimed financial planner operating in an office tower in a Montreal suburb, was never licensed to handle their money
6) The Financial Planners Standards Council, a not-for-profit organization that raises awareness about financial planning and enforces professional standards through certification, says it's important for consumers to do their homework because anyone can call themselves a financial planner
7) The regulatory environment allows anyone to hold themselves out as a financial planner," said Tamara Smith, vice-president marketing. So it becomes incumbent on the consumer to verify credentials and ask to see certification and references, she said. "It is so important to find a planner you can engage in conversation, that you can trust
8) Sylvain Theberge (representing Quebec's securities regulator - the Autorite des marches financiers )said more inspectors may not be a foolproof solution. "We don't have the ability to be at every door in Montreal, to look at every office," Theberge said, adding more inspectors wouldn't necessarily have led them to Jones. "It's knowing the unknown," Theberge said. "In Mr. Jones' case, he worked for years and years on the basis of a confidence link from generation to generation."
SO WHAT ARE THE ROLES OF THESE SO CALLED REGULATORY BODIES (ABOVE), IF WE, AS EVERYDAY INVESTORS HAVE TO DO THE GROUND WORK FOR THESE SO CALLED REGULATORY BODIES?
REGULATORY BODIES OFFER NO REMEDIES for the average investors, this is a crying shame!
One year ago I wrote about this epidemic. Again, one year later I say the same thing:
It is imperative to note that this fraudulent, unethical behaviour is ALLOWED TO CONTINUE in our society by the pertinent ‘powers’ that be. This fraudulent, unethical behaviour affects families, individuals, and generations to come.
This fraudulent, unethical behaviour may also establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems ARE ACTULAY allowed, if not encourage, by key individuals.
Dr. Maharaj argues that:
COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS/GIRLS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard for humanity? COULD IT BE THAT THERE IS A perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality by these crooks.
COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?
And to date we have no remedies from the so called pertinent authorities, whether these watch dog bodies are for-profit or not-for-profit. They have been established to do a job, they are being compensated with some sort of financial consideration. Yet, whenever there is an investigation these ‘so called’ competent authorities’ throw the blame elsewhere. Their only advise to investors include:
“buyer beware” , they take no responsibility!
THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THESE BLATANT INJUDICIOUSNESS include:
changing the behaviours, the regulatory bodies must take responsibility and ensure that they conduct their monitoring duties. Perhaps, the reasons that this is not being done is that the regulatory bodies are not:1) the regulatory bodies are not ‘INDEPENDENT MINDED’
2) the regulatory bodies do not have the knowledge that is required to regulate
3) the regulatory bodies do not have the skills to regulate
This can be achieved by recruiting ‘new regulatory bodies’ in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys/girls club.
Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that are hired to these regulatory bodies' What is your opinion? Does your opinion change with this update?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on: Corporate Governance on organizations and investigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations and investigates informal characteristics of regulatory bodies, their knowledge, values, and groupthink mentality.
There are three main conclusions from this research and corporate experience:
1. Proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making.
2. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when incorporating any of these so called watch dog regulatory bodies
3. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking members’ and managements’ knowledge thereby, affecting these regulators decision making process.
4. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees. Changes to these regulatory bodies, are seminal in preventing future fiascoes.
Peter Tzanetakis, Advocis, Financial Planners Standards council, Sylvain Theberge , Corporate Governance , Quebec investment broker, Montreal-area planner Earl Jones
Friday, June 26, 2009
View from the top: what directors say about board process
View from the top: what directors say about board process
View from the top: what directors say about board process- Dr. Rookmin MaharajTitle: View from the top: what directors say about board processAuthor(s): Dr. Rookmin MaharajJournal: Corporate GovernanceYear: 2009Volume: 9 -Issue: 3 -Page: 326 - 338Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing LimitedAbstract:Purpose – This paper aims to use the argument that formal regulations alone may not be the defining factor in improving corporate governance and the decision making process of the BOD. Design/methodology/approach – Based on 20 semi-structured interviews with board chairs, members of corporate boards, CEOs, and upper/executive management at 12 Canadian companies, a bird's eye view is taken from the top. A content analysis of the interviews was performed. a clear picture about the interaction and behaviour of directors emerged. Subsequently, three objectives that are required for effective decision-making were developed: knowledge; motivation; and transmission channels/internal control. The analysis offers three critical objectives, which all boards should endeavour to accomplish. Findings – These interviews demystify board process and provide the bases for three critical objectives for effective corporate governance: ascertain and embellish the knowledge base of directors; motivate directors to share and gather information; and ensure clear and fluent transmission channels exist. Practical implications – The usual board measures such as CEO duality, insider and outsider ratio, number of board members and directors' share ownership may not be the only critical determinants of board effectiveness. Originality/value – Conventional notions of decision making have neglected key human faculties and individual characteristics that combine to determine organizational outcomes. This paper fulfils a need for research in the area of board processes and board decision making and provides a roadmap to improve corporate governance within organizations.Keywords: Corporate governance, Decision making, Senior management board decision makingArticle Type: Research paperArticle URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14720700910964370Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 7:11 AM Labels: Corporate governance; Decision making;Senior management; board decision making;
View from the top: what directors say about board process- Dr. Rookmin MaharajTitle: View from the top: what directors say about board processAuthor(s): Dr. Rookmin MaharajJournal: Corporate GovernanceYear: 2009Volume: 9 -Issue: 3 -Page: 326 - 338Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing LimitedAbstract:Purpose – This paper aims to use the argument that formal regulations alone may not be the defining factor in improving corporate governance and the decision making process of the BOD. Design/methodology/approach – Based on 20 semi-structured interviews with board chairs, members of corporate boards, CEOs, and upper/executive management at 12 Canadian companies, a bird's eye view is taken from the top. A content analysis of the interviews was performed. a clear picture about the interaction and behaviour of directors emerged. Subsequently, three objectives that are required for effective decision-making were developed: knowledge; motivation; and transmission channels/internal control. The analysis offers three critical objectives, which all boards should endeavour to accomplish. Findings – These interviews demystify board process and provide the bases for three critical objectives for effective corporate governance: ascertain and embellish the knowledge base of directors; motivate directors to share and gather information; and ensure clear and fluent transmission channels exist. Practical implications – The usual board measures such as CEO duality, insider and outsider ratio, number of board members and directors' share ownership may not be the only critical determinants of board effectiveness. Originality/value – Conventional notions of decision making have neglected key human faculties and individual characteristics that combine to determine organizational outcomes. This paper fulfils a need for research in the area of board processes and board decision making and provides a roadmap to improve corporate governance within organizations.Keywords: Corporate governance, Decision making, Senior management board decision makingArticle Type: Research paperArticle URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14720700910964370Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 7:11 AM Labels: Corporate governance; Decision making;Senior management; board decision making;
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Corporate governance decision-making model: How to nominate skilled board members, by addressing the formal and informal systems - Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
Article may be viewed in its entirety at:
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html#08012009
This research study focuses on the problems involved in nominating board members based solely on rules and regulations, which neglect the affective dynamics of board behaviour and board process. For example, choosing board candidates who are independent (not part of a company's management), a rule imposed by the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) guidelines, may ensure that an organisation remains listed on this lucrative exchange. However, it does not ensure that the candidates have the necessary knowledge or are well versed in the company's business activities to effectively serve on a particular board. Having independent board members does not ensure that they ask tough questions of themselves or of management or that they have an extensive network from which to draw for advice on strategic issues. These are equally important areas of board governance that cannot be ignored when choosing candidates for the board, and these questions should not be suppressed in favour of concentrating solely on formal concerns such as independence.
Information about board characteristics can provide management theorists with a broader range of 'informal' variables that can contribute to the decision-making process. Board characteristics assist the board in operating as a team, improving the efficiency of the board. Selecting board members with the most suitable and effective characteristics for a particular board ensures that directors are spending their limited time on the company's most important challenges. This research was carried out in several stages in order to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. In this research there was a significant relationship for values and decision-making and no relationship for TSXFormal and decision-making, which is consistent with the literature, suggesting there must be a change in executives' values to ensure changes in behaviour.
A corporate governance model was developed. This model helps in ensuring that boards populated with board members who have knowledge and values (skills matrices) are more aware of the detrimental effect that groupthink can have on the decision-making process. Several executives mentioned the ability of board members 'to apply due diligence' to strategic decision-making. This means that directors apply their experience and expertise to better understand issues and bring these to bear upon the decision-making process. Additionally, knowledge, values and groupthink (skill matrices) may be used both when nominating new board members and as an annual evaluative tool.
Businesses are continually diversifying and board members need to continuously embellish their skill set and knowledge in order to adapt. However, the finding and the development of this corporate governance model are significant as they mark the start of how board characteristics can be operationalised. What is needed is more balanced research that looks at both the formal and the informal system. In doing so, more articulate measures of board decision-making process will evolve.
The business environment is ever changing and dynamic; research in these areas will convey the interrelationship between the formal and informal system. Nevertheless, this research is unique as it has investigated the formal and informal system using both primary qualitative and quantitative data analysis and therefore provides much needed information about the characteristics requisite for nominating board members.
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's Model can help US President Barack Obama get the United States back on track!!contact Dr. Maharaj : maharajl@netzero.com
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html#08012009
This research study focuses on the problems involved in nominating board members based solely on rules and regulations, which neglect the affective dynamics of board behaviour and board process. For example, choosing board candidates who are independent (not part of a company's management), a rule imposed by the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) guidelines, may ensure that an organisation remains listed on this lucrative exchange. However, it does not ensure that the candidates have the necessary knowledge or are well versed in the company's business activities to effectively serve on a particular board. Having independent board members does not ensure that they ask tough questions of themselves or of management or that they have an extensive network from which to draw for advice on strategic issues. These are equally important areas of board governance that cannot be ignored when choosing candidates for the board, and these questions should not be suppressed in favour of concentrating solely on formal concerns such as independence.
Information about board characteristics can provide management theorists with a broader range of 'informal' variables that can contribute to the decision-making process. Board characteristics assist the board in operating as a team, improving the efficiency of the board. Selecting board members with the most suitable and effective characteristics for a particular board ensures that directors are spending their limited time on the company's most important challenges. This research was carried out in several stages in order to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. In this research there was a significant relationship for values and decision-making and no relationship for TSXFormal and decision-making, which is consistent with the literature, suggesting there must be a change in executives' values to ensure changes in behaviour.
A corporate governance model was developed. This model helps in ensuring that boards populated with board members who have knowledge and values (skills matrices) are more aware of the detrimental effect that groupthink can have on the decision-making process. Several executives mentioned the ability of board members 'to apply due diligence' to strategic decision-making. This means that directors apply their experience and expertise to better understand issues and bring these to bear upon the decision-making process. Additionally, knowledge, values and groupthink (skill matrices) may be used both when nominating new board members and as an annual evaluative tool.
Businesses are continually diversifying and board members need to continuously embellish their skill set and knowledge in order to adapt. However, the finding and the development of this corporate governance model are significant as they mark the start of how board characteristics can be operationalised. What is needed is more balanced research that looks at both the formal and the informal system. In doing so, more articulate measures of board decision-making process will evolve.
The business environment is ever changing and dynamic; research in these areas will convey the interrelationship between the formal and informal system. Nevertheless, this research is unique as it has investigated the formal and informal system using both primary qualitative and quantitative data analysis and therefore provides much needed information about the characteristics requisite for nominating board members.
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's Model can help US President Barack Obama get the United States back on track!!contact Dr. Maharaj : maharajl@netzero.com
Thursday, January 15, 2009
When Governance Bodies Choose to close their eyes!
The dictionary alternatives for the word ‘Collusion’ include:
conspiracy - Collusion
complicity - Collusion
knowledge - Collusion
consent - Collusion
approval - Collusion
involvement - Collusion
agreement - Collusion
According to Jeff Rubin and Peter Buchanan, who wrote on October 31, 2008, in their article ‘What's the Real Cause of the Global Recession?’In CIBC World Markets Inc. StrategEcon, “Certainly oil shocks are no stranger to recessions. Four of the last five global recessions were preceded by one. Yet the recent spike in oil prices doesn’t seem to get any credit for what’s happening to the world economy now……. That’s odd because it should. Curiously, an over-500% increase in the real price of oil gets virtually ignored as a culprit behind today’s economy, eclipsed by the ongoing crisis in financial markets. Yet the run-up in real oil prices this cycle is over twice the spike in oil prices that occurred during the first or second OPEC oil shock . And those oil shocks produced two of the deepest recessions in the entire post-war period, including the 1980-82 double dip……. And, of course, it hasn’t just been American consumers who have been socked with mounting fuel bills. It’s been true for households from all OECD countries. Over the last five years their annual fuel bill has grown a staggering $700 billion. Of this, $400 billion annually has gone to OPEC producers. Was just Rubin, Buchanan and myself who noticed the the 500% spike in oil prices.
Where were/are governments, directors, CEOs, managers of big business?
Where were/are the decision makers in society?
Where were/are the GOVERNANCE SYTEMS AND STRUCTURES IN OUR GLOBAL SOCIETY?
Well, it seems most have been asleep just filling their coffers. Just let us take a look at who stand to extract (thesaurus search for extract indicates that EXTORT can be used in this instance instead of extract).
1) The governments (all governments around the world) gain substantially through their tax structures.
2) Big businesses and it does not matter if they are the ones who drill the oil wells, the oil and gas boom affects all businesses in a big way, for example, restaurants, groceries, clothing stores, luxury items to name a few, all gain from exorbitant oil prices.
Who are the ones IN SOCIETY who are and will pay for this GREED?
The housing crises in the US IS THE FIRST FALL OUT BY THIS GLOBAL ABUSE OF GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS.
a) The automobile sector is now reeling
b) Obviously if large sectors of the global economy like the automobile, travel, agriculture are negatively affected by ridiculously (out of control) high oil prices the GDP of countries will be comprised. (GOVERNANCE 101; greed by governments and wonton disregard for citizens will lead to downfall of the economy)
According to: “http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=asagaXsaR72M&refer=canada”
“Canadian stocks had their worst weekly slide in a month after energy and financial companies fell today on a record drop in U.S. retail sales that fueled concern the recession will cut demand for Canada's exports. EnCana Corp., Canada's biggest energy company by market value, and Royal Bank of Canada, the biggest lender, declined after the retail report. BlackBerry e-mail phone maker Research in Motion Ltd. led the week's declines on analyst estimate cuts and a worsening outlook for mobile phones. Gold producers led weekly gains on the index. The Standard & Poor's/TSX Composite Index fell 3.2 percent to 9,055.96 today in Toronto. ……….. the worst weekly performance since Oct. 10. Retail sales in the U.S. dropped 2.8 percent ………….. pushing the world's biggest economy toward its worst slump in decades. Spending may continue to falter from job losses, plunging stocks and falling home values, the Commerce Department said today. ``This retail sales number was horrific,'' said John Stephenson, who helps to oversee about $1.5 billion at First Asset Investment Management Inc. in Toronto. ``………………..How can the U.S. have a cold and we not catch the flu?'' The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 4.2 percent to 873.29, extending a second straight weekly loss, and has lost 41 percent this year. In Canada, the S&P/TSX ……………. has fallen 35 percent this year and 40 percent from a June high. Oil Declines Crude oil for December delivery fell $1.94, or 3.3 percent, to $56.30 ………….. EnCana dropped 5.8 percent to C$54.75 today. Suncor Energy Inc. fell 3.5 percent to C$23.34. Financial institutions worldwide have posted more than $950 billion in losses and credit writedowns this year as the worst financial slump since the Great Depression worsens……….`Same Brush' //``The financials are actually being tarred with the recession brush as well,'' said John Kinsey, who helps manage about C$1 billion for Caldwell Securities Ltd. in Toronto. ``It looks like we're going to get maybe a world recession, and the next step is the big question, whether it'll turn into a depression.''
So what part does Governance play in this catastrophe?
We are all stakeholders in our communities; some of us are shareholders in these organizations. Shareholders are the owners of the corporation who are imbued with the authority to elect directors to represent their interests and govern the corporation. We need to address this situation that has gone corrupt, distorted, and awry. We can exercise our votes either through our voting power or through reducing our demand.
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT EVER HAPPEN AGAIN?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for She is currently consulting with companies in Alberta, Canada on Corporate Governance. She has worked in the energy sector in Alberta Canada for over fifteen years. She has a master’s degree in Higher Education and has taught in France, the Caribbean and in Canada at the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College on Environmental Management and Business. Contact:rmaharaj@ucalgary.ca, maharajl@netzero.net
conspiracy - Collusion
complicity - Collusion
knowledge - Collusion
consent - Collusion
approval - Collusion
involvement - Collusion
agreement - Collusion
According to Jeff Rubin and Peter Buchanan, who wrote on October 31, 2008, in their article ‘What's the Real Cause of the Global Recession?’In CIBC World Markets Inc. StrategEcon, “Certainly oil shocks are no stranger to recessions. Four of the last five global recessions were preceded by one. Yet the recent spike in oil prices doesn’t seem to get any credit for what’s happening to the world economy now……. That’s odd because it should. Curiously, an over-500% increase in the real price of oil gets virtually ignored as a culprit behind today’s economy, eclipsed by the ongoing crisis in financial markets. Yet the run-up in real oil prices this cycle is over twice the spike in oil prices that occurred during the first or second OPEC oil shock . And those oil shocks produced two of the deepest recessions in the entire post-war period, including the 1980-82 double dip……. And, of course, it hasn’t just been American consumers who have been socked with mounting fuel bills. It’s been true for households from all OECD countries. Over the last five years their annual fuel bill has grown a staggering $700 billion. Of this, $400 billion annually has gone to OPEC producers. Was just Rubin, Buchanan and myself who noticed the the 500% spike in oil prices.
Where were/are governments, directors, CEOs, managers of big business?
Where were/are the decision makers in society?
Where were/are the GOVERNANCE SYTEMS AND STRUCTURES IN OUR GLOBAL SOCIETY?
Well, it seems most have been asleep just filling their coffers. Just let us take a look at who stand to extract (thesaurus search for extract indicates that EXTORT can be used in this instance instead of extract).
1) The governments (all governments around the world) gain substantially through their tax structures.
2) Big businesses and it does not matter if they are the ones who drill the oil wells, the oil and gas boom affects all businesses in a big way, for example, restaurants, groceries, clothing stores, luxury items to name a few, all gain from exorbitant oil prices.
Who are the ones IN SOCIETY who are and will pay for this GREED?
The housing crises in the US IS THE FIRST FALL OUT BY THIS GLOBAL ABUSE OF GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS.
a) The automobile sector is now reeling
b) Obviously if large sectors of the global economy like the automobile, travel, agriculture are negatively affected by ridiculously (out of control) high oil prices the GDP of countries will be comprised. (GOVERNANCE 101; greed by governments and wonton disregard for citizens will lead to downfall of the economy)
According to: “http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=asagaXsaR72M&refer=canada”
“Canadian stocks had their worst weekly slide in a month after energy and financial companies fell today on a record drop in U.S. retail sales that fueled concern the recession will cut demand for Canada's exports. EnCana Corp., Canada's biggest energy company by market value, and Royal Bank of Canada, the biggest lender, declined after the retail report. BlackBerry e-mail phone maker Research in Motion Ltd. led the week's declines on analyst estimate cuts and a worsening outlook for mobile phones. Gold producers led weekly gains on the index. The Standard & Poor's/TSX Composite Index fell 3.2 percent to 9,055.96 today in Toronto. ……….. the worst weekly performance since Oct. 10. Retail sales in the U.S. dropped 2.8 percent ………….. pushing the world's biggest economy toward its worst slump in decades. Spending may continue to falter from job losses, plunging stocks and falling home values, the Commerce Department said today. ``This retail sales number was horrific,'' said John Stephenson, who helps to oversee about $1.5 billion at First Asset Investment Management Inc. in Toronto. ``………………..How can the U.S. have a cold and we not catch the flu?'' The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 4.2 percent to 873.29, extending a second straight weekly loss, and has lost 41 percent this year. In Canada, the S&P/TSX ……………. has fallen 35 percent this year and 40 percent from a June high. Oil Declines Crude oil for December delivery fell $1.94, or 3.3 percent, to $56.30 ………….. EnCana dropped 5.8 percent to C$54.75 today. Suncor Energy Inc. fell 3.5 percent to C$23.34. Financial institutions worldwide have posted more than $950 billion in losses and credit writedowns this year as the worst financial slump since the Great Depression worsens……….`Same Brush' //``The financials are actually being tarred with the recession brush as well,'' said John Kinsey, who helps manage about C$1 billion for Caldwell Securities Ltd. in Toronto. ``It looks like we're going to get maybe a world recession, and the next step is the big question, whether it'll turn into a depression.''
So what part does Governance play in this catastrophe?
We are all stakeholders in our communities; some of us are shareholders in these organizations. Shareholders are the owners of the corporation who are imbued with the authority to elect directors to represent their interests and govern the corporation. We need to address this situation that has gone corrupt, distorted, and awry. We can exercise our votes either through our voting power or through reducing our demand.
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT EVER HAPPEN AGAIN?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for She is currently consulting with companies in Alberta, Canada on Corporate Governance. She has worked in the energy sector in Alberta Canada for over fifteen years. She has a master’s degree in Higher Education and has taught in France, the Caribbean and in Canada at the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College on Environmental Management and Business. Contact:rmaharaj@ucalgary.ca, maharajl@netzero.net
Lack of use of Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's Corporate Governance Model
In Washington news, according to Eric Lichtblau, in an article entitled— Federal Cases of Stock Fraud Drop Sharply: Lichtblau noted that Federal officials are bringing far fewer prosecutions as a result of fraudulent stock schemes than they did eight years ago. This situation begs other questions about whether the Bush administration has been too lax in policing Wall Street. “Legal and financial experts say that a loosening of enforcement measures, cutbacks in staffing at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a shift in resources toward terrorism at the F.B.I. have combined to make the federal government something of a paper tiger in investigating securities crimes”. If Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance Model was used as a litmus test not only for federal agencies but by the average investor, the $50 billion Ponzi scheme that Bernard L. Madoff is accused of running may have been avoided altogether.
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for She is currently consulting with companies in Alberta, Canada on Corporate Governance. She has worked in the energy sector in Alberta Canada for over fifteen years. She has a master’s degree in Higher Education and has taught in France, the Caribbean and in Canada at the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College on Environmental Management and Business. Contact:rmaharaj@ucalgary.ca, maharajl@netzero.net
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for She is currently consulting with companies in Alberta, Canada on Corporate Governance. She has worked in the energy sector in Alberta Canada for over fifteen years. She has a master’s degree in Higher Education and has taught in France, the Caribbean and in Canada at the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College on Environmental Management and Business. Contact:rmaharaj@ucalgary.ca, maharajl@netzero.net
Corporate governance decision-making model: How to nominate skilled board members, by addressing the formal and informal systems
This research study focuses on the problems involved in nominating board members based solely on rules and regulations which neglect the affective dynamics of board behaviour and board process. For example, choosing board candidates who are independent (not part of a company’s management), a rule imposed by the Toronto Stock Exchange guidelines, may ensure that an organisation remains listed on this lucrative exchange. However, it does not ensure that the candidates have the necessary knowledge or are well versed in the company's business activities to effectively serve on a particular board.
Having independent board members does not ensure that they ask tough questions of themselves or of management or that they have an extensive network from which to draw on for advice on strategic issues. These are equally important areas of board governance that cannot be ignored when choosing candidates for the board, and these questions should not be suppressed in favour of concentrating solely on formal concerns such as independence.
Information about board characteristics can provide management theorists with a broader range of ‘informal’ variables that can contribute to the decision-making process. Board characteristics assist the board to operate as a team, improving the efficiency of the board. Selecting board members with the most suitable and effective characteristics for a particular board ensures that directors are spending their limited time on the company’s most important challenges.
This research was carried out in several stages in order to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. In this research there was a significant relationship for Values and Decision-making and no relationship for TSXFormal and Decision-making, which is consistent with literature suggesting there must be a change in executives’ values to ensure changes in behaviour. A Corporate Governance model was developed that demonstrates the efficacy in ensuring that boards populated with board members who have Knowledge, Values (Skills Matrices) are more aware of the detrimental effect that Groupthink can have on the Decision-making process.
Several executives mentioned the ability of board members “to apply due diligence” to strategic decision-making. This means that directors apply their experience and expertise to better understand issues and bring these to bear upon the decision-making process. Additionally, Knowledge, Values, Groupthink (Skill Matrices) may be used both when nominating new board members and as an annual evaluative tool. Businesses are continually diversifying and board members need to continuously embellish their skill set and knowledge to adapt.
However, the finding and the development of this Corporate Governance Model are significant as they mark the start of how board characteristics can be operationalized. What is needed is more balanced research that looks at both the formal and informal system. In doing so, more articulate measures of board decision-making process will evolve. The business environment is ever changing and dynamic, research in these areas will convey the interrelationship between the formal and informal system.
Nevertheless, this research is unique as it has investigated the formal and informal system using both primary qualitative and quantitative data analysis and provides much needed information about characteristics requisite for nominating board members.
Full article may be read at:
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html
Corporate governance decision-making model: How to nominate skilled board members, by addressing the formal and informal systems
Int J Discl Gov advance online publication, January 8, 2009; doi:10.1057/jdg.2008.27
Having independent board members does not ensure that they ask tough questions of themselves or of management or that they have an extensive network from which to draw on for advice on strategic issues. These are equally important areas of board governance that cannot be ignored when choosing candidates for the board, and these questions should not be suppressed in favour of concentrating solely on formal concerns such as independence.
Information about board characteristics can provide management theorists with a broader range of ‘informal’ variables that can contribute to the decision-making process. Board characteristics assist the board to operate as a team, improving the efficiency of the board. Selecting board members with the most suitable and effective characteristics for a particular board ensures that directors are spending their limited time on the company’s most important challenges.
This research was carried out in several stages in order to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. In this research there was a significant relationship for Values and Decision-making and no relationship for TSXFormal and Decision-making, which is consistent with literature suggesting there must be a change in executives’ values to ensure changes in behaviour. A Corporate Governance model was developed that demonstrates the efficacy in ensuring that boards populated with board members who have Knowledge, Values (Skills Matrices) are more aware of the detrimental effect that Groupthink can have on the Decision-making process.
Several executives mentioned the ability of board members “to apply due diligence” to strategic decision-making. This means that directors apply their experience and expertise to better understand issues and bring these to bear upon the decision-making process. Additionally, Knowledge, Values, Groupthink (Skill Matrices) may be used both when nominating new board members and as an annual evaluative tool. Businesses are continually diversifying and board members need to continuously embellish their skill set and knowledge to adapt.
However, the finding and the development of this Corporate Governance Model are significant as they mark the start of how board characteristics can be operationalized. What is needed is more balanced research that looks at both the formal and informal system. In doing so, more articulate measures of board decision-making process will evolve. The business environment is ever changing and dynamic, research in these areas will convey the interrelationship between the formal and informal system.
Nevertheless, this research is unique as it has investigated the formal and informal system using both primary qualitative and quantitative data analysis and provides much needed information about characteristics requisite for nominating board members.
Full article may be read at:
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html
Corporate governance decision-making model: How to nominate skilled board members, by addressing the formal and informal systems
Int J Discl Gov advance online publication, January 8, 2009; doi:10.1057/jdg.2008.27
Friday, September 26, 2008
Harper wants to crack down on Gas-Price Fixing in Canada!
How can Mr. Harper even attempt such an endeavour when:
The proliferation and scope of the corporation have now reached mammoth proportions, there are over 40, 000 corporations in the world, and two hundred giant corporations now control over a quarter of the world’s economic activity. Philip Morris, an American corporation which operates in 171 countries has annual revenues larger than that of New Zealand’s economy. Of the 100 largest economies, in the world, 51 are corporations, only 49 are countries. Corporations are calling the shots and in fact actively formulating policy.
Today, the public corporation itself operates as a form of representative government. In the olden days ‘the church’ called the shots today ‘BIG BUSINESS’ have taken over the power that was once held by ‘DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS’. We have a government in power who stated that they plan, “to go after gas companies with price fixing legislation that would make it easier to prove collusion”
(http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Home/ContentPosting?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080924%2felection2008_economy_worries_080925&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=TrueHarper wants to crack down on gas-price fixing).
Is it not clear that we as consumers have been and are being gouged by these oil companies?
Continuing in this same article, “Tories say they will widen the price-fixing provisions in the Competition Act and almost triple the maximum penalties to 14 years in prison and a $25-million fine”.
Certainly we can count on never witnessing One Company being fined in our lifetime. The revenue collected by our ‘DEMOCRATIC CANADIAN GOVERNMENT’ is filling the coffers, why would they enforce ‘provisions in the Competition Act’; to reduce the revenue they are collecting from these oil sands, oil and gas, and pipeline companies?
So what part does Corporate Governance play in this scenario?
We are all stakeholders in our communities, some of us are shareholders in these organizations. Shareholders are the owners of the corporation who are imbued with the authority to elect directors to represent their interests and govern the corporation. We need to address this situation that has gone corrupt, distorted, and awry. We can exercise our votes either through our voting power or through reducing our demand.
Please read my article
(http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf)
for some solutions to this crisis in our global society.
The proliferation and scope of the corporation have now reached mammoth proportions, there are over 40, 000 corporations in the world, and two hundred giant corporations now control over a quarter of the world’s economic activity. Philip Morris, an American corporation which operates in 171 countries has annual revenues larger than that of New Zealand’s economy. Of the 100 largest economies, in the world, 51 are corporations, only 49 are countries. Corporations are calling the shots and in fact actively formulating policy.
Today, the public corporation itself operates as a form of representative government. In the olden days ‘the church’ called the shots today ‘BIG BUSINESS’ have taken over the power that was once held by ‘DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS’. We have a government in power who stated that they plan, “to go after gas companies with price fixing legislation that would make it easier to prove collusion”
(http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Home/ContentPosting?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080924%2felection2008_economy_worries_080925&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=TrueHarper wants to crack down on gas-price fixing).
Is it not clear that we as consumers have been and are being gouged by these oil companies?
Continuing in this same article, “Tories say they will widen the price-fixing provisions in the Competition Act and almost triple the maximum penalties to 14 years in prison and a $25-million fine”.
Certainly we can count on never witnessing One Company being fined in our lifetime. The revenue collected by our ‘DEMOCRATIC CANADIAN GOVERNMENT’ is filling the coffers, why would they enforce ‘provisions in the Competition Act’; to reduce the revenue they are collecting from these oil sands, oil and gas, and pipeline companies?
So what part does Corporate Governance play in this scenario?
We are all stakeholders in our communities, some of us are shareholders in these organizations. Shareholders are the owners of the corporation who are imbued with the authority to elect directors to represent their interests and govern the corporation. We need to address this situation that has gone corrupt, distorted, and awry. We can exercise our votes either through our voting power or through reducing our demand.
Please read my article
(http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf)
for some solutions to this crisis in our global society.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
New Journal Article a must read on Shell Canada
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
Shell Canada: Over a Decade of
Sustainable Development Reporting Experience
Abstract
Purpose: This paper investigates what motivated Shell Canada, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, to be one of the first companies in the world to report its environmental initiatives in 1991. It explores how Shell Canada driven by a set of core values and business principles, continues to make strides in the quality of its sustainability reporting and communication.
Design/methodology/approach: Shell historical reports and documents were reviewed and interview data gathered from company personnel.
Findings: Shell Canada has gained a reputation for striving toward stakeholder engagement and transparency in its reporting as well as through its actions.
Practical Implications: This paper offers advice to other companies as to how to improve their corporate communications regarding their environmental and sustainability performance.
Originality/value: This paper demonstrates Shell Canada’s efforts to initiate transparent sustainable development reporting and stakeholder engagement, two areas in which other companies can learn from Shell Canada.
Keywords: core values; sustainability reporting; triple bottom line; stakeholder engagement; transparency; Shell Canada
Paper Type: Case study
Full PAPER MAY BE ACCESSED AT:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=228510D11AF7ED27A9029640C28B8D0B?contentType=Article&contentId=1729339
Shell Canada: Over a Decade of
Sustainable Development Reporting Experience
Abstract
Purpose: This paper investigates what motivated Shell Canada, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, to be one of the first companies in the world to report its environmental initiatives in 1991. It explores how Shell Canada driven by a set of core values and business principles, continues to make strides in the quality of its sustainability reporting and communication.
Design/methodology/approach: Shell historical reports and documents were reviewed and interview data gathered from company personnel.
Findings: Shell Canada has gained a reputation for striving toward stakeholder engagement and transparency in its reporting as well as through its actions.
Practical Implications: This paper offers advice to other companies as to how to improve their corporate communications regarding their environmental and sustainability performance.
Originality/value: This paper demonstrates Shell Canada’s efforts to initiate transparent sustainable development reporting and stakeholder engagement, two areas in which other companies can learn from Shell Canada.
Keywords: core values; sustainability reporting; triple bottom line; stakeholder engagement; transparency; Shell Canada
Paper Type: Case study
Full PAPER MAY BE ACCESSED AT:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=228510D11AF7ED27A9029640C28B8D0B?contentType=Article&contentId=1729339
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj; Corporate Governance Model; Toronto-Dominion Bank (TSX:TD) disclosed Friday a $96-million loss caused by "incorrectly priced"
........................and the life goes on........................."It's got to be disappointing for management at TD because they have prided themselves on having not had these issues, where many of their peers have had absolutely devastating related issues," said Brad Smith of Blackmont Capital. TD Bank has spent the last year gliding relatively unscathed through a period where its Canadian peers have been slammed with massive writedowns related to credit losses tied to the U.S. subprime mortgage market....................... The bank's announcement echoed similar risk management troubles faced by the Bank of Montreal (TSX:BMO) early last year when it reported $680 million of commodities-trading losses, mostly from natural gas trading. TORONTO - Toronto-Dominion Bank (TSX:TD) disclosed Friday a $96-million loss caused by "incorrectly priced" financial investments at its operations in London. Canada's second-biggest bank by assets said the employee involved at its TD Securities arm "is no longer with the company" and the Toronto bank is co-operating with Canadian and British regulators investigating the matter.( http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/news/businessnews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8438736TD).
Where were the directors?
Who are these so called FINANCIAL ANALYSTS?
For solutions to these ONGOING, NEVER ENDING, GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT (USED IN THE NEGATIVE SENSE, I.E. OMISSION; FAILURE TO NOTICE). PLEASE READ OTHER ARTICLES ON MY BLOG
It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals. COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same. COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past boards have asked: who are our board members? However, the most important question a board can ask today is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation? This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?Does your opinion change with this update?
Where were the directors?
Who are these so called FINANCIAL ANALYSTS?
For solutions to these ONGOING, NEVER ENDING, GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT (USED IN THE NEGATIVE SENSE, I.E. OMISSION; FAILURE TO NOTICE). PLEASE READ OTHER ARTICLES ON MY BLOG
It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals. COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same. COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past boards have asked: who are our board members? However, the most important question a board can ask today is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation? This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?Does your opinion change with this update?
Friday, July 4, 2008
ILLEGAL GUNS ENTER CANADA FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!
Canada is in dire need of effective leadership and Corporate Governance with regards to gun control. Perhaps we should take advice from Toronto Mayor David Miller who wants Ottawa to exert diplomatic pressure on Washington. As Mayor Miller noted if there is lack of control regarding guns in the US, THE PROBLEM will filter through Canada via loopholes like “blue-steel highway right up the U.S. from places where it's easy to get guns to the northeast U.S. and to Canada. Mayor Miller is correct in stating that Canada should make it a national security issue. As Mayor Miller noted there is a direct correlation between the weak U.S. gun laws and people dying on the streets of Canada." This seems a simple deduction and as citizens one would expect the Canadian Government to take a stand and stop dragging their feet with regard to instituting regulations AND ENFORCING THESE REGULATIONS! According to Yahoo news reporter “Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day noted that “any regulation that comes up for review, especially one that's been on the books but never implemented for a number of years, is always addressed to make sure it's current," Day says. If we were current why was a second time offender (according to Yahoo news) “Curtis Coleman caught red-handed smuggling a shipment of guns into Canada from the U.S. again?” Perhaps the slap on the wrist is not enough to curtail this sort of behavior in Canada.
“Mounties found them with backpacks carrying three dozen guns, including two machine pistols, 24 diamonds and US$100,000 cash. Coleman was convicted of smuggling and possessing prohibited or restricted firearms and deported after serving most of a two-year sentence. This time he pleaded guilty to a single count of being in a vehicle with the contraband guns. The judge condemned him for his role in trafficking guns that put the Canadian public at risk and he drew 36 months, less time served awaiting trial” (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080703/national/gun_smugglingThu Jul 3, 3:31 PM). How many lives need to be lost before ANY OR ALL OF the enforcement AGENCIES; THE JUDICAL SYSTEM AND THE Canadian Government, ACTUALLY TAKE A STAND!!!
“Mounties found them with backpacks carrying three dozen guns, including two machine pistols, 24 diamonds and US$100,000 cash. Coleman was convicted of smuggling and possessing prohibited or restricted firearms and deported after serving most of a two-year sentence. This time he pleaded guilty to a single count of being in a vehicle with the contraband guns. The judge condemned him for his role in trafficking guns that put the Canadian public at risk and he drew 36 months, less time served awaiting trial” (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080703/national/gun_smugglingThu Jul 3, 3:31 PM). How many lives need to be lost before ANY OR ALL OF the enforcement AGENCIES; THE JUDICAL SYSTEM AND THE Canadian Government, ACTUALLY TAKE A STAND!!!
Friday, May 9, 2008
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tim Hortons
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tim Hortons - just the beginning of this sort of behaviour in Canada where manager (s) are acting a bit overzealously (http://www%20.theglobe%20and%20mail/. com/servlet/ story/RTGAM. 20080507 .wt im bit0507/ CommentStory /National/home/). Perhaps there may be another side to this story, the managers side, however,
Universities, Superstore, Canadian Tire, the police force the Energy Sector are just a few sectors that are bringing foreign workers into Canada without thought about the ramifications of bringing workers (executive staff or lower rank employees) without the proper orientation into Canadian culture. 'So called' Canadian companies are now hiring (in an uncontrollable manner) mangers and senior staff from the United States.
(Calgary has 10% UK bobbys- “But now that expat officers account for roughly 10 per cent of Calgary's police service, forces in the provinces want to slow down foreign recruiting programs and instead redouble efforts to find more home-grown…………..”talent(http://www.thesudburystar/ .com/ Article Display .aspx?e=974170Alberta flooded with bobbys; Calgary, Edmonton look to England to solve police shortage)
PLEASE NOTE CEOs, BOARD MEMEBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE, THAT OUR CULTURE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE US, UK for example. PLEASE TRAIN, EDUCATE AND TAKE THE TIME TO RECRUIT WITH CARE.
Please remember that good governance can prevent ‘value’ destruction.
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj research integrates the disciplines of Political Science, Education, and Business in the area of corporate governance/Sarbanes Oxley (SOX). Dr. Maharaj has developed a unique model that can be used as a compass by corporations, educational, healthcare, and political institutions to build better boards, management and employees. Her method improves and increases the bottom line/profits of organizations. She is currently consulting with companies in Alberta, Canada on Corporate Governance. She has worked in the energy sector in Alberta Canada for over fifteen years. She has a master’s degree in Higher Education and has taught in France, the Caribbean and in Canada at the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College on Environmental Management and Business.
Visit Dr. Maharaj blog and read her research papers to review a tested Corporate Governance Model that reduces the risk of losing ‘organizational reputation.’ Contact Dr. Maharaj for advice on hiring the ‘right’ employees for the ‘right’ positionshttp://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/
Universities, Superstore, Canadian Tire, the police force the Energy Sector are just a few sectors that are bringing foreign workers into Canada without thought about the ramifications of bringing workers (executive staff or lower rank employees) without the proper orientation into Canadian culture. 'So called' Canadian companies are now hiring (in an uncontrollable manner) mangers and senior staff from the United States.
(Calgary has 10% UK bobbys- “But now that expat officers account for roughly 10 per cent of Calgary's police service, forces in the provinces want to slow down foreign recruiting programs and instead redouble efforts to find more home-grown…………..”talent(http://www.thesudburystar/ .com/ Article Display .aspx?e=974170Alberta flooded with bobbys; Calgary, Edmonton look to England to solve police shortage)
PLEASE NOTE CEOs, BOARD MEMEBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE, THAT OUR CULTURE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE US, UK for example. PLEASE TRAIN, EDUCATE AND TAKE THE TIME TO RECRUIT WITH CARE.
Please remember that good governance can prevent ‘value’ destruction.
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj research integrates the disciplines of Political Science, Education, and Business in the area of corporate governance/Sarbanes Oxley (SOX). Dr. Maharaj has developed a unique model that can be used as a compass by corporations, educational, healthcare, and political institutions to build better boards, management and employees. Her method improves and increases the bottom line/profits of organizations. She is currently consulting with companies in Alberta, Canada on Corporate Governance. She has worked in the energy sector in Alberta Canada for over fifteen years. She has a master’s degree in Higher Education and has taught in France, the Caribbean and in Canada at the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College on Environmental Management and Business.
Visit Dr. Maharaj blog and read her research papers to review a tested Corporate Governance Model that reduces the risk of losing ‘organizational reputation.’ Contact Dr. Maharaj for advice on hiring the ‘right’ employees for the ‘right’ positionshttp://corporategovernanceconcerns.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
ABCP(Asset Based Commercial Paper) FIASCO
The news media are rampant with news and unwanted/sarcastic advice about the ABCP fiasco, for example, Ms. Deirdre Mcmurdy IN HER ARTICLE:
http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/deirdremcmurdy/article.aspx?cp-documentid=6671588A $34 billion made-in-Canada mess
Stated:
“There are plenty of lessons for investors and for the investment industry from a made-in-Canada credit crisis. No one ever wants to take responsibility when things go wrong. Blaming someone else for your bad decision is Human Nature 101. But in this case, that reality pretty much guarantees that the individual ABCP investors learn yet another painful lesson from this experience: Main Street and Bay Street almost never intersect.
Ms. Mcmurdy goes on to state that allowing these people
“so much clout - this is, after all, a $34-billion mess - in the hands of people who are angry, inexperienced and, in the grander scheme of things, relatively small players….They feel their losses entitle them to special treatment. …… For investors, the lessons are basic ones: risk is as closely tied to reward as fear is to greed; you should always question your financial advisor closely and ask for explanations until you really do understand the product and its provenance; you should make sure your advisor understands your risk threshold and investment horizon instead of assuming anything; regularly review your portfolio statements and follow-up on items you don't understand; if your gut tells you an advisor or an investment is wrong for you - listen to it; if you think you want a piece of the "real action" and can handle products that have traditionally been reserved for the pros - like ABCP - be prepared to get bruised".....
To actually compare a 34 billion dollar fiasco to the sale of a washing machine says it all about the Ms Mcmurdy’s disrespect for these small investors as she continues in her article to state,
“But then, that happens to consumers all the time. Is a mutual fund really that different from a washing machine? We all buy things we need, even if we're not sure how they actually work. We then trust that warranty or the vendor, will help us out if it ceases to work in short order.”
Ms Mcmurdy goes on to reprimand the small investors by insulting their intelligence stating that it was
“Somewhat surprisingly, the 1,800 small investors who own the paper have been given equal voice and vote with the bigger fish like pensions funds and corporations. And that gives them some rare leverage in terms of upsetting the whole wobbling apple cart”.
Has Ms Mcmurdy ever heard about 1 share, 1 vote?
Is this the advice and the opinion of a “columnist for the National Post, Canadian Business magazine MSN Money and co-anchor of MoneyWise”??
So what are some solutions to the ABCP Credit Squeeze?
We need to investigate who are these financial advisors Ms. Mcmurdy is referring?
What are their qualifications?
These advisors in many instances are only concerned with their bonuses, salaries and commissions. For example, In HSBC's statement of defence HSBC stated that Aastra would not have cared even if it knew that the ABCP it bought was backed by complicated derivatives such as credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. Aastra was interested only in the credit rating on the notes and the yield (http://www.financialpost.com/creditcrunch/Story.html?id=275411).
What a statement from a Canadian Bank?
This is a prime example of governance at its worse and it starts at the top.
Who are the directors?
What are the directors doing to help these investors?
How many boards do they sit on?
Do they have the time to know what is actually going on with investors’ paltry $ 34 billion, and do they care????
Do they have the knowledge of what an ABCP is?
Do they care?
How many actually reside in Canada?
What decision – making process did they go through to formulate these ABCPs?
Or do they know that ABCP’S exist at the companies on which they sit as board members. Please note some of these directors have JOB SECURITY FOR THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS(below)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is management doing?
If an asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) program is composed of a bankruptcy-remote special purpose vehicle (SPV), or conduit, that issues commercial paper (CP) and uses the proceeds of such issuance primarily to obtain interests in various types of assets, either through asset purchase or secured lending transactions. And if an ABCP program includes key parties that perform various services for the conduit, credit enhancement that provides loss protection, and liquidity facilities that assist in the timely repayment of CP.
Then it is prudent that an ABCP seem to be fully protected or bonded, contrary to Ms Mcmurdy’s scornful remarks to investors.
(http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~igiddy/ABS/fitchabcp.pdf).
In this instance some of the “key parties” include, HSBC Securities Canada; Canaccord Capital Corp.; Scotia Capital Inc., and Scotia Capitaux Inc., National Bank of Canada . who were supposed “to provide the liquidity needed in the first place to roll over the paper”.
Read my article for solutions:
Critiquing and contrasting “moral” stakeholder theory and “strategic” stakeholder: implications for the board of directors
Findings – “Value” for shareholder and stakeholder may not be mutually exclusive in some instances. MST may hold the key to giving the board a more useful, comprehensive framework of the firm's utility and purpose to society.
Practical implications – Organizations may be selected on their ethical performance by investors. Depending on whether ethical criteria are included in the definition of “firm's value”, decisions about which stakeholder theory to use become an issue of strategic importance to all organizations.
Originality/value – The paper illustrates how the board of directors as the governing body of the organisation may find that continuous assessment of the company's stakeholders is valuable in reducing risks.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do;jsessionid=AFFFA9B264B7619EFFD296FC452108FB?containerType=Issue&containerId=6012734 Critiquing and contrasting “moral” stakeholder theory and “strategic” stakeholder: implications for the board of directors
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj (pp. 115-127) Keywords: Boards of directors, Decision making, Market value, Stakeholder analysis
Please take a look at the board members for some of these companies (HSBC Securities Canada; Canaccord Capital Corp.; Scotia Capital Inc., and Scotia Capitaux Inc., National Bank of Canada).
The role of the board of directors is a complex and challenging task that is weighed down with conceptual, methodological and practical difficulties. Corporate governance has become progressively more important in the business world and has become inextricably linked to the process of decision-making within corporations.
The BOD being the top level of any corporation is therefore, the body whose responsibility it is to rigorously examine and advise management about high risk and the adverse affects of packaging and reselling debt such as these asset-backed commercial papers.
The institutions that packed and re-sold the debt as a savings product - principally Scotiabank and Canaccord Capital - should UPHOLD their responsibilities, HONOUR THE TRUST; ACT IN A FIDUCIARYCAPACITY TO INVESTORS, and HONOUR the reputation of THEIR RESPECTIVE firms.
Dr Maharaj’s Corporate Governance Decision-Making model indicates that tools (Skills Matrices, Evaluations and Interconnections) and variables (Knowledge, Groupthink, and Values) have positive relationships with Decision-making. These findings have important implications for board formulation and corporate governance in the future AND MAY REDUCE THE PROBABILITY OF fiascos like ABCP happening in the future.
Read my article:
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ jdg/ journal/v5/n1 /abs /2050074a.html
http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/deirdremcmurdy/article.aspx?cp-documentid=6671588A $34 billion made-in-Canada mess
Stated:
“There are plenty of lessons for investors and for the investment industry from a made-in-Canada credit crisis. No one ever wants to take responsibility when things go wrong. Blaming someone else for your bad decision is Human Nature 101. But in this case, that reality pretty much guarantees that the individual ABCP investors learn yet another painful lesson from this experience: Main Street and Bay Street almost never intersect.
Ms. Mcmurdy goes on to state that allowing these people
“so much clout - this is, after all, a $34-billion mess - in the hands of people who are angry, inexperienced and, in the grander scheme of things, relatively small players….They feel their losses entitle them to special treatment. …… For investors, the lessons are basic ones: risk is as closely tied to reward as fear is to greed; you should always question your financial advisor closely and ask for explanations until you really do understand the product and its provenance; you should make sure your advisor understands your risk threshold and investment horizon instead of assuming anything; regularly review your portfolio statements and follow-up on items you don't understand; if your gut tells you an advisor or an investment is wrong for you - listen to it; if you think you want a piece of the "real action" and can handle products that have traditionally been reserved for the pros - like ABCP - be prepared to get bruised".....
To actually compare a 34 billion dollar fiasco to the sale of a washing machine says it all about the Ms Mcmurdy’s disrespect for these small investors as she continues in her article to state,
“But then, that happens to consumers all the time. Is a mutual fund really that different from a washing machine? We all buy things we need, even if we're not sure how they actually work. We then trust that warranty or the vendor, will help us out if it ceases to work in short order.”
Ms Mcmurdy goes on to reprimand the small investors by insulting their intelligence stating that it was
“Somewhat surprisingly, the 1,800 small investors who own the paper have been given equal voice and vote with the bigger fish like pensions funds and corporations. And that gives them some rare leverage in terms of upsetting the whole wobbling apple cart”.
Has Ms Mcmurdy ever heard about 1 share, 1 vote?
Is this the advice and the opinion of a “columnist for the National Post, Canadian Business magazine MSN Money and co-anchor of MoneyWise”??
So what are some solutions to the ABCP Credit Squeeze?
We need to investigate who are these financial advisors Ms. Mcmurdy is referring?
What are their qualifications?
These advisors in many instances are only concerned with their bonuses, salaries and commissions. For example, In HSBC's statement of defence HSBC stated that Aastra would not have cared even if it knew that the ABCP it bought was backed by complicated derivatives such as credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. Aastra was interested only in the credit rating on the notes and the yield (http://www.financialpost.com/creditcrunch/Story.html?id=275411).
What a statement from a Canadian Bank?
This is a prime example of governance at its worse and it starts at the top.
Who are the directors?
What are the directors doing to help these investors?
How many boards do they sit on?
Do they have the time to know what is actually going on with investors’ paltry $ 34 billion, and do they care????
Do they have the knowledge of what an ABCP is?
Do they care?
How many actually reside in Canada?
What decision – making process did they go through to formulate these ABCPs?
Or do they know that ABCP’S exist at the companies on which they sit as board members. Please note some of these directors have JOB SECURITY FOR THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS(below)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is management doing?
If an asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) program is composed of a bankruptcy-remote special purpose vehicle (SPV), or conduit, that issues commercial paper (CP) and uses the proceeds of such issuance primarily to obtain interests in various types of assets, either through asset purchase or secured lending transactions. And if an ABCP program includes key parties that perform various services for the conduit, credit enhancement that provides loss protection, and liquidity facilities that assist in the timely repayment of CP.
Then it is prudent that an ABCP seem to be fully protected or bonded, contrary to Ms Mcmurdy’s scornful remarks to investors.
(http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~igiddy/ABS/fitchabcp.pdf).
In this instance some of the “key parties” include, HSBC Securities Canada; Canaccord Capital Corp.; Scotia Capital Inc., and Scotia Capitaux Inc., National Bank of Canada . who were supposed “to provide the liquidity needed in the first place to roll over the paper”.
Read my article for solutions:
Critiquing and contrasting “moral” stakeholder theory and “strategic” stakeholder: implications for the board of directors
Findings – “Value” for shareholder and stakeholder may not be mutually exclusive in some instances. MST may hold the key to giving the board a more useful, comprehensive framework of the firm's utility and purpose to society.
Practical implications – Organizations may be selected on their ethical performance by investors. Depending on whether ethical criteria are included in the definition of “firm's value”, decisions about which stakeholder theory to use become an issue of strategic importance to all organizations.
Originality/value – The paper illustrates how the board of directors as the governing body of the organisation may find that continuous assessment of the company's stakeholders is valuable in reducing risks.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do;jsessionid=AFFFA9B264B7619EFFD296FC452108FB?containerType=Issue&containerId=6012734 Critiquing and contrasting “moral” stakeholder theory and “strategic” stakeholder: implications for the board of directors
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj (pp. 115-127) Keywords: Boards of directors, Decision making, Market value, Stakeholder analysis
Please take a look at the board members for some of these companies (HSBC Securities Canada; Canaccord Capital Corp.; Scotia Capital Inc., and Scotia Capitaux Inc., National Bank of Canada).
The role of the board of directors is a complex and challenging task that is weighed down with conceptual, methodological and practical difficulties. Corporate governance has become progressively more important in the business world and has become inextricably linked to the process of decision-making within corporations.
The BOD being the top level of any corporation is therefore, the body whose responsibility it is to rigorously examine and advise management about high risk and the adverse affects of packaging and reselling debt such as these asset-backed commercial papers.
The institutions that packed and re-sold the debt as a savings product - principally Scotiabank and Canaccord Capital - should UPHOLD their responsibilities, HONOUR THE TRUST; ACT IN A FIDUCIARYCAPACITY TO INVESTORS, and HONOUR the reputation of THEIR RESPECTIVE firms.
Dr Maharaj’s Corporate Governance Decision-Making model indicates that tools (Skills Matrices, Evaluations and Interconnections) and variables (Knowledge, Groupthink, and Values) have positive relationships with Decision-making. These findings have important implications for board formulation and corporate governance in the future AND MAY REDUCE THE PROBABILITY OF fiascos like ABCP happening in the future.
Read my article:
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ jdg/ journal/v5/n1 /abs /2050074a.html
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
US IN DEEP RECESSION!!!!
With the US IN DEEP RECESSION!!!! (http://www.financialpost.com/ story. html?id=326071)
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s Corporate Governance Model may be one of the solutions to bringing the US economy back on tract. Dr. Maharaj’s research work examines the characteristics (knowledge, groupthink, and values) and tools (interconnections, evaluations and skill matrices) can be used to select candidates to be nominated to the board to improve corporate governance Qualitative interviews with chairs, board members, CEOs in the leading energy, coal, pipeline, and chemical industries in Canada were conducted. The Quantitative phase included a survey questionnaire, which was sent to 1200 US and Canadian executives, data were collected and statistically analyzed. The findings indicated a temporal linkage between board characteristics, and tools, on decision-making, the Formal rules (SOX related rules) had no significant relationship with decision-making. Dr. Maharaj’s research is unique, as this is the first time that board characteristics have been operationalized and a model developed to test the effectiveness of directors serving on boards. “Boards and Management can no longer expected to be decorative, but are expected to exercise more influence and power and become more engaged with management, other board members and all stakeholders of the organization”(Maharaj, R., 2008).
Dr. Maharaj’s articles and blogs are a must read.
1) International Journal of Disclosure and Governance - Corporate Correspondence: ... I thank Dr James Gillies, Professor Emeritus of Policy, and founding ...www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/v5/n1/full/2050074a.html
2) http://corporategovernancesoxboards.blogspot.com/
3) Corporate Governance - Critiquing and contrasting “moral” stakeholder theory and “strategic” stakeholder: implications for the board of directors Rookmin Maharaj (pp. 115-127)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14720700810863751
Purpose – This paper aims to critique moral stakeholder theory (MST) and to contrast it to earlier strategic stakeholder approach (SSA). Design/methodology/approach – Interview data were gathered from top executives at 12 companies in the energy sector in Canada and an in-depth literature review was conducted on MST and SSA. Findings – “Value” for shareholder and stakeholder may not be mutually exclusive in some instances. MST may hold the key to giving the board a more useful, comprehensive framework of the firm's utility and purpose to society. Practical implications – Organizations may be selected on their ethical performance by investors. Depending on whether ethical criteria are included in the definition of “firm's value”, decisions about which stakeholder theory to use become an issue of strategic importance to all organizations. Originality/value – The paper illustrates how the board of directors as the governing body of the organisation may find that continuous assessment of the company's stakeholders is valuable in reducing risks.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do;jsessionid=AFFFA9B264B7619EFFD296FC452108FB?containerType=Issue&containerId=6012734
Critiquing and contrasting “moral” stakeholder theory and “strategic” stakeholder: implications for the board of directors Rookmin Maharaj (pp. 115-127) Keywords: Boards of directors, Decision making, Market value, Stakeholder analysis
There are several references to the management/boards refusal to be fair to their stakeholders, for example,
1) “Senator Obama has made frequent reference to the spread between CEO compensation and average worker pay…..We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."
2) According to David Rosenberg, “The U.S. economy has landed in recession, according to an economist at brokerage firm Merrill Lynch. David Rosenberg, Merrill Lynch's chief North American economist, said Friday’s employment report — which showed the U.S. jobless rate jumped to a two-year high of five per cent in December on weaker-than-expected job creation — "strongly suggests that an official recession has arrived." 'To say that the backdrop is "recession-like" is akin to an obstetrician telling a woman that she is "sort of pregnant."
References:
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj, 2008: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14720700810863751
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/01/08/merrilllynchrecession.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obama_ceo_pay_and_the_politics.html
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s Corporate Governance Model may be one of the solutions to bringing the US economy back on tract. Dr. Maharaj’s research work examines the characteristics (knowledge, groupthink, and values) and tools (interconnections, evaluations and skill matrices) can be used to select candidates to be nominated to the board to improve corporate governance Qualitative interviews with chairs, board members, CEOs in the leading energy, coal, pipeline, and chemical industries in Canada were conducted. The Quantitative phase included a survey questionnaire, which was sent to 1200 US and Canadian executives, data were collected and statistically analyzed. The findings indicated a temporal linkage between board characteristics, and tools, on decision-making, the Formal rules (SOX related rules) had no significant relationship with decision-making. Dr. Maharaj’s research is unique, as this is the first time that board characteristics have been operationalized and a model developed to test the effectiveness of directors serving on boards. “Boards and Management can no longer expected to be decorative, but are expected to exercise more influence and power and become more engaged with management, other board members and all stakeholders of the organization”(Maharaj, R., 2008).
Dr. Maharaj’s articles and blogs are a must read.
1) International Journal of Disclosure and Governance - Corporate Correspondence: ... I thank Dr James Gillies, Professor Emeritus of Policy, and founding ...www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/v5/n1/full/2050074a.html
2) http://corporategovernancesoxboards.blogspot.com/
3) Corporate Governance - Critiquing and contrasting “moral” stakeholder theory and “strategic” stakeholder: implications for the board of directors Rookmin Maharaj (pp. 115-127)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14720700810863751
Purpose – This paper aims to critique moral stakeholder theory (MST) and to contrast it to earlier strategic stakeholder approach (SSA). Design/methodology/approach – Interview data were gathered from top executives at 12 companies in the energy sector in Canada and an in-depth literature review was conducted on MST and SSA. Findings – “Value” for shareholder and stakeholder may not be mutually exclusive in some instances. MST may hold the key to giving the board a more useful, comprehensive framework of the firm's utility and purpose to society. Practical implications – Organizations may be selected on their ethical performance by investors. Depending on whether ethical criteria are included in the definition of “firm's value”, decisions about which stakeholder theory to use become an issue of strategic importance to all organizations. Originality/value – The paper illustrates how the board of directors as the governing body of the organisation may find that continuous assessment of the company's stakeholders is valuable in reducing risks.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do;jsessionid=AFFFA9B264B7619EFFD296FC452108FB?containerType=Issue&containerId=6012734
Critiquing and contrasting “moral” stakeholder theory and “strategic” stakeholder: implications for the board of directors Rookmin Maharaj (pp. 115-127) Keywords: Boards of directors, Decision making, Market value, Stakeholder analysis
There are several references to the management/boards refusal to be fair to their stakeholders, for example,
1) “Senator Obama has made frequent reference to the spread between CEO compensation and average worker pay…..We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."
2) According to David Rosenberg, “The U.S. economy has landed in recession, according to an economist at brokerage firm Merrill Lynch. David Rosenberg, Merrill Lynch's chief North American economist, said Friday’s employment report — which showed the U.S. jobless rate jumped to a two-year high of five per cent in December on weaker-than-expected job creation — "strongly suggests that an official recession has arrived." 'To say that the backdrop is "recession-like" is akin to an obstetrician telling a woman that she is "sort of pregnant."
References:
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj, 2008: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14720700810863751
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/01/08/merrilllynchrecession.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obama_ceo_pay_and_the_politics.html
Monday, March 24, 2008
PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING AND TEACHER ISSUES Rookmin Maharaj
Sunday, January 13, 2008 - Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING AND TEACHER ISSUES
Teaching is a profession which is so enormous and so packed with significance that the issues related to it have a consistently high ranking with members of society in virtually every public opinion poll. These issues include multicultural education, teacher training and accreditation, burn-out, teaching under conditions particular to a worldwide certain country, student behavior and preparation, computers in the classroom, parental influence on the teaching process, the changing curriculum and its meaning for teaching, budgetary problems, and a multitude of similar issues. This new book presents issues current to the field from educators and researchers from around the globe.
Table of Contents: Chapter 4.-
Developing Critical Thinking Skills through the use of Computer-Mediated Conferencing; pp. 79-99
PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING AND TEACHER ISSUES
Teaching is a profession which is so enormous and so packed with significance that the issues related to it have a consistently high ranking with members of society in virtually every public opinion poll. These issues include multicultural education, teacher training and accreditation, burn-out, teaching under conditions particular to a worldwide certain country, student behavior and preparation, computers in the classroom, parental influence on the teaching process, the changing curriculum and its meaning for teaching, budgetary problems, and a multitude of similar issues. This new book presents issues current to the field from educators and researchers from around the globe.
Table of Contents: Chapter 4.-
Developing Critical Thinking Skills through the use of Computer-Mediated Conferencing; pp. 79-99
VILLAGE SWARAJ AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mahatma Gandhi.s Ideas as Seen through the Eyes of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Today
Please visit Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's article at:
http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf
Please visit Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's article at:
http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf
SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN THE UPSTREAM PETROLEUM INDUSTRY IN CANADA
OBJECTIVES :
There are four different reporting guidelines that could be used by Canadian upstream petroleum companies in the preparation of sustainability reports.
These four guidelines are:
• Enhanced Business Reporting Framework (EBR);
• Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI);
• Sustainability Reporting Guidelines by International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association (IPIECA) and American Petroleum Institute (API); and
• Stewardship Benchmarking Guide produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).
The current research compares these guidelines and attempts to determine what obstacles they present, if any, for both preparers and users of sustainability reports. We present recommendations for streamlining the reporting process and making it easier to access sustainability information for use in decision making.Please visit the published report at:http://www.iseee.ca/iseee/files/iseee/ABEnergyFutures-09.pdf
There are four different reporting guidelines that could be used by Canadian upstream petroleum companies in the preparation of sustainability reports.
These four guidelines are:
• Enhanced Business Reporting Framework (EBR);
• Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI);
• Sustainability Reporting Guidelines by International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association (IPIECA) and American Petroleum Institute (API); and
• Stewardship Benchmarking Guide produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).
The current research compares these guidelines and attempts to determine what obstacles they present, if any, for both preparers and users of sustainability reports. We present recommendations for streamlining the reporting process and making it easier to access sustainability information for use in decision making.Please visit the published report at:http://www.iseee.ca/iseee/files/iseee/ABEnergyFutures-09.pdf
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, GROUPTHINK AND BULLIES IN THE BOARDROOM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This research study discusses corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values and groupthink.
There are three main conclusions:
1) This research clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in board governance.
2) Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to board members' decision making. There is, however, a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members' knowledge.
3) Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink and three behavioural characteristics should be considered by boards to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascos.
It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past, boards have asked: who are our board members?
The most important question a board can ask today, however, is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members who fill the needs of an organisation, in contrast to nominating 'friends' and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
It should be noted that out of the 100 of the largest economies in the world, 57 of these are corporations and 49 are countries. Corporations are powerful entities in our society, operating in a manner similar to representative governments.
Like heads of government, at the top echelon of each corporation is the board of directors; their decisions have enormous ramifications for everyone. Although most citizens have a limited or a passive interest in corporate governance, we each depend on these corporations for jobs, salaries and as investors.
Governance of these gargantuan corporations, which wield considerable economic power in the world, concerns each and every citizen.
This study draws novel conclusions about the state of governance today, and presents practical solutions for corporations to consider when selecting board members. The detailed discussion about what happens in the boardroom demystifies board process and provides the bases for three critical objectives when selecting new board members or evaluating current board members performance:
1) ascertain and embellish the knowledge base of directors;
2) motivate directors to share and gather information to ensure personal values are congruent with organisational values; and
3) ensure clear and fluent transmission channels exist to reduce the potential of having groupthink on board.view
Dr.Rookmin Maharaj's full journal article at:http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/2050074a.html
This research study discusses corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values and groupthink.
There are three main conclusions:
1) This research clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in board governance.
2) Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to board members' decision making. There is, however, a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members' knowledge.
3) Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink and three behavioural characteristics should be considered by boards to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascos.
It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past, boards have asked: who are our board members?
The most important question a board can ask today, however, is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members who fill the needs of an organisation, in contrast to nominating 'friends' and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
It should be noted that out of the 100 of the largest economies in the world, 57 of these are corporations and 49 are countries. Corporations are powerful entities in our society, operating in a manner similar to representative governments.
Like heads of government, at the top echelon of each corporation is the board of directors; their decisions have enormous ramifications for everyone. Although most citizens have a limited or a passive interest in corporate governance, we each depend on these corporations for jobs, salaries and as investors.
Governance of these gargantuan corporations, which wield considerable economic power in the world, concerns each and every citizen.
This study draws novel conclusions about the state of governance today, and presents practical solutions for corporations to consider when selecting board members. The detailed discussion about what happens in the boardroom demystifies board process and provides the bases for three critical objectives when selecting new board members or evaluating current board members performance:
1) ascertain and embellish the knowledge base of directors;
2) motivate directors to share and gather information to ensure personal values are congruent with organisational values; and
3) ensure clear and fluent transmission channels exist to reduce the potential of having groupthink on board.view
Dr.Rookmin Maharaj's full journal article at:http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/2050074a.html
PRE- EMPTIVE FORENSIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE - Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
While corporate failures, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International Ltd, Peregrine Systems, iVillage, Adelphia Communications Corp, Hollinger International , Barings Bank and the recent Societe Generale bank have focused attention on issues of accounting and financial indiscretion, there is nothing inherently new in the reasons behind these corporate collapses.
Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit.
Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).
SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).
It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals.
COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same.
COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:
1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.
2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.
3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur.
In the past boards have asked: who are our board members?
However, the most important question a board can ask today is:
how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?
Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrX AnqyB9avT4zvg 1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of couse it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. The model essentially pre screens nominees to the board, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization.
However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider.
In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider. In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him.
In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders). According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’
As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
While corporate failures, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International Ltd, Peregrine Systems, iVillage, Adelphia Communications Corp, Hollinger International , Barings Bank and the recent Societe Generale bank have focused attention on issues of accounting and financial indiscretion, there is nothing inherently new in the reasons behind these corporate collapses. Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit. Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals. COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same. COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past boards have asked: who are our board members? However, the most important question a board can ask today is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation? This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrXAnqyB9avT4zvg1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of couse it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. The model essentially pre screens nominees to the board, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization. However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider. In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider. In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him. In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders). According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’ As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
Anonymous said.... With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
Dr. Maharaj said..... This question of more rules and regulations!!!, rules and regulations can only act as a guide. An important issue is who are these people who are chosen as board members?
We NEED TO wake up to reality. If board members are handpicked by management there must be a reason, for example, in a recent high profile fraud case, an experienced, well respected audit chair ‘under oath’ stated that ‘the documents he SKIMMED were prepared by management and counsel, and if anything was INCORRECT he RELIED ON MANAGEMENT TO DRAW HIS ATTENTION TO THE non-compete agreements’.
THIS, MAY I REMIND YOU was A WELL RESPECTED AUDIT CHAIR! The fact is that he left due diligence to management, in other words he left his job to management, and rubber stamped their decision. The questions remain, was this audit chair unaware that his job involved investigating whether non-compete payments are legal in the pertinent jurisdiction or he was aware of this and instead of ‘causing waves’ or being a ‘trouble maker’ he succumbed to a groupthink mentality?
“Groupthink occurs when a person’s thought process and decision-making capabilities become marred by peer pressure. This may cause the group to overestimate their power and morality, causing the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. This behaviour can encourage an illusion of invulnerability, creating excessive optimism and encourage the group to take extreme risks” (Maharaj, 2007).
The probability of nominating board members with a groupthink mentality can be reduced by using Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model.
Dr. Maharaj’s research is based on both qualitative and quantitative research conducted over a period of two years on over 1,200 executives in both Canada and the united States.
Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model suggests that there is a temporal linkage between board characteristics which are Values, Groupthink and Knowledge and the three tools Evaluations, Skills Matrices, Interconnections on Decision-making (Maharaj, thesis, 2007).
Therefore, corporations, Universities, health care organizations, and political institutions, (to name a few) should use Dr. Maharaj’s model to nominate board members who are not afraid to question the status quo or encourage creative tension in the board room instead of being merely parsley on fish.
References:
Maharaj, R., (2008). International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 5, 68–92 "Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom. "Maharaj, 2007, Thesis Dissertation.
Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit.
Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).
SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).
It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals.
COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same.
COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:
1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.
2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.
3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur.
In the past boards have asked: who are our board members?
However, the most important question a board can ask today is:
how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?
Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrX AnqyB9avT4zvg 1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of couse it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. The model essentially pre screens nominees to the board, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization.
However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider.
In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider. In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him.
In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders). According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’
As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
While corporate failures, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International Ltd, Peregrine Systems, iVillage, Adelphia Communications Corp, Hollinger International , Barings Bank and the recent Societe Generale bank have focused attention on issues of accounting and financial indiscretion, there is nothing inherently new in the reasons behind these corporate collapses. Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit. Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future. However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals. COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same. COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal SystemsInvestigates corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur. In the past boards have asked: who are our board members? However, the most important question a board can ask today is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation? This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrXAnqyB9avT4zvg1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of couse it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. The model essentially pre screens nominees to the board, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization. However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider. In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider. In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him. In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders). According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’ As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
Anonymous said.... With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
Dr. Maharaj said..... This question of more rules and regulations!!!, rules and regulations can only act as a guide. An important issue is who are these people who are chosen as board members?
We NEED TO wake up to reality. If board members are handpicked by management there must be a reason, for example, in a recent high profile fraud case, an experienced, well respected audit chair ‘under oath’ stated that ‘the documents he SKIMMED were prepared by management and counsel, and if anything was INCORRECT he RELIED ON MANAGEMENT TO DRAW HIS ATTENTION TO THE non-compete agreements’.
THIS, MAY I REMIND YOU was A WELL RESPECTED AUDIT CHAIR! The fact is that he left due diligence to management, in other words he left his job to management, and rubber stamped their decision. The questions remain, was this audit chair unaware that his job involved investigating whether non-compete payments are legal in the pertinent jurisdiction or he was aware of this and instead of ‘causing waves’ or being a ‘trouble maker’ he succumbed to a groupthink mentality?
“Groupthink occurs when a person’s thought process and decision-making capabilities become marred by peer pressure. This may cause the group to overestimate their power and morality, causing the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. This behaviour can encourage an illusion of invulnerability, creating excessive optimism and encourage the group to take extreme risks” (Maharaj, 2007).
The probability of nominating board members with a groupthink mentality can be reduced by using Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model.
Dr. Maharaj’s research is based on both qualitative and quantitative research conducted over a period of two years on over 1,200 executives in both Canada and the united States.
Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model suggests that there is a temporal linkage between board characteristics which are Values, Groupthink and Knowledge and the three tools Evaluations, Skills Matrices, Interconnections on Decision-making (Maharaj, thesis, 2007).
Therefore, corporations, Universities, health care organizations, and political institutions, (to name a few) should use Dr. Maharaj’s model to nominate board members who are not afraid to question the status quo or encourage creative tension in the board room instead of being merely parsley on fish.
References:
Maharaj, R., (2008). International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 5, 68–92 "Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom. "Maharaj, 2007, Thesis Dissertation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)