« Loza on Entrepreneurship | Main | MoveOn.org's "Top 10 Corporate Outrages" »
June 30, 2010
Rose on Risk Regulation
Paul Rose has posted Regulating Risk by 'Strengthening Corporate Governance' on SSRN with the following abstract:
This
paper, presented at the “Regulating Risk” symposium at the University of
Connecticut School of Law, April 16, 2010,
briefly reviews the connection between risk and corporate governance,
then examines the “strengthening corporate governance” provisions of
Subtitle G of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010
(also known as the “Dodd Bill”). The corporate governance provisions,
covering majority voting for director elections, proxy access, and the
separation of the roles of CEO and chairman of the board, seem likely to
have one of two possible effects. On the one hand, the provisions may
be pernicious, in that they further enhance shareholder power without a
clear justification for increased shareholder power, and more
particularly without a justification for shareholder power as a risk
management device. Indeed, the Dodd Bill’s corporate governance
provisions may work at cross-purposes to the risk management intent of
the remainder of the Dodd Bill: the corporate governance provisions
operate under the assumption that enhanced shareholder power will result
in better monitoring of managerial behavior, which presumably will help
to prevent future crisis, but both theory and evidence suggests that
diversified shareholders generally prefer companies to take risks that
other constituencies (including taxpayers) would not prefer.
On
the other hand, the Dodd Bill may have very little effect on investor
behavior or risk management. Increases in shareholder power over the
past years (fundamentally the result of increased federal regulation)
have made management more responsive to - and in some cases probably
overly responsive to - shareholder concerns over agency costs. Indeed,
some of the proposed reforms already have been or were likely to have
been put in place at most public companies. If private ordering is
already working, what is the point of imposing strict governance
constructs across the market as a whole, especially when most of the
affected firms are victims of, rather than contributors to, the
Financial Crisis?
ECC
June 30, 2010 | Permalink
