4 ms·

The Most Elite, Stagnant Club for Old People: Corporate Boards

37 points by adenadel 11y ago

pc86 11y ago
One of the more light on content articles I've seen from Bloomberg. One chart and seven paragraphs that say the same 2 things over and over. > [Calpers] issued a set of principles last fall stating that directors' independence can be compromised after 10 years Based on what evidence? > Thirty-four percent of boards do set a mandatory retirement age of 75 or older for directors, according to Spencer Stuart. Mandatory may be a misnomer:. "One of the phenomenon we found with mandatory retirement ages is that boards have a tendency to waive them or raise them when necessary," said Bowie. This is the same problem you have with legislatures - they are self-governing so even when they impose rules or regulations meant to curtail their own power, they can just suspend/waive/revoke/adjust as desired. No solution is proposed but I'm not sure there is one (at least an easy one). I'm not even going to touch the throw-away line about diversity.
- tanker 11y ago
  I've started checking the comments on HN before clicking on Bloomberg articles due to the low content value.
lotsoflumens 11y ago
This so true. At BBRY for example, directors make 300k to 400k per year. That's for having a few nice lunches, shaking a few hands, and meeting with the management a couple of times per year - at the same time that the company flounders without any direction, fires hundreds of people and the stock takes a long multi-year dive into the dumpster.
makmanalp 11y ago
Previously: https://hbr.org/2015/01/where-boards-fall-short https://hbr.org/2015/01/where-boards-fall-short
chollida1 11y ago
I think it's almost time to revamp boards but for different reasons. Now a days boards rarely function well. They are usually a first step for "corporate raiders" or "shareholder activists" depending on what sude you are on, to leverage a company To force it down whatever path they want. I don't see long board terms as a problem for someone like summer assuming he still has his mental faculties. He helped build Viacom and cbs. He presumably knows more about those companies than any other person on the earth. Why would you force him off the board? Just ensure that the board only has one master to serve. They can't simultaneously serve employees, shareholders and the ceo.

37 points by adenadel 11y ago

pc86 11y ago

One of the more light on content articles I've seen from Bloomberg. One chart and seven paragraphs that say the same 2 things over and over. > [Calpers] issued a set of principles last fall stating that directors' independence can be compromised after 10 years Based on what evidence? > Thirty-four percent of boards do set a mandatory retirement age of 75 or older for directors, according to Spencer Stuart. Mandatory may be a misnomer:. "One of the phenomenon we found with mandatory retirement ages is that boards have a tendency to waive them or raise them when necessary," said Bowie. This is the same problem you have with legislatures - they are self-governing so even when they impose rules or regulations meant to curtail their own power, they can just suspend/waive/revoke/adjust as desired. No solution is proposed but I'm not sure there is one (at least an easy one). I'm not even going to touch the throw-away line about diversity.

tanker 11y ago
I've started checking the comments on HN before clicking on Bloomberg articles due to the low content value.

lotsoflumens 11y ago

This so true. At BBRY for example, directors make 300k to 400k per year. That's for having a few nice lunches, shaking a few hands, and meeting with the management a couple of times per year - at the same time that the company flounders without any direction, fires hundreds of people and the stock takes a long multi-year dive into the dumpster.

makmanalp 11y ago

Previously: https://hbr.org/2015/01/where-boards-fall-short https://hbr.org/2015/01/where-boards-fall-short

chollida1 11y ago

I think it's almost time to revamp boards but for different reasons. Now a days boards rarely function well. They are usually a first step for "corporate raiders" or "shareholder activists" depending on what sude you are on, to leverage a company To force it down whatever path they want. I don't see long board terms as a problem for someone like summer assuming he still has his mental faculties. He helped build Viacom and cbs. He presumably knows more about those companies than any other person on the earth. Why would you force him off the board? Just ensure that the board only has one master to serve. They can't simultaneously serve employees, shareholders and the ceo.