Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Government involvement in business
Corporate governance weaknesses
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Government involvement in business
At the beginning of the 20th century, the rise of monopolies forced governments to enact anti-trust legislations in order to maintain a free market. Since then, the amount of government intervention in business has grown exponentially. In recent times, fraud and moral hazard have caused a focus on corporate governance legislation. Regrettably, ethics cannot be legislated, and government intervention only hurts businesses which conduct themselves properly while doing nothing to mitigate new forms of unethically-designed financial engineering.
As new financial instruments are developed, globalization increases, and unprecedented macroeconomic environments are encountered (e.g. extremely low interest rates), opportunities for unethical behavior can arise. But when investors take losses because of poor corporate governance, their collective demand forces companies to make a change or perish, and therefore, corporations design effective controls to avoid issues in the future. Government regulations are reactive – they attempt to fix problems that have already occurred. However, market forces create solutions to problems long before government regulations are put in place. After banking stocks fell due to the 2007/2008 financial crisis, risk management committees were set up and boards were reorganized to include directors with “finance and investment” experience. Because self-regulation focuses on maximizing shareholder value, it tends to be financially efficient. To say nothing of simple bureaucratic bloat, government regulations take a public opinion/stakeholder-focused approach, and therefore costs to businesses are far higher than what they would be under self-regulation. For example, General Motors recently announced t...
... middle of paper ...
...tates today - 12.2 percent of the $25.2 trillion in total assets under management tracked by Thomson Reuters Nelson - is involved in some strategy of socially responsible and sustainable investing.”
Although the transgressions of a tiny percentage of corporate managers have hurt investors and the economy, market forces have mostly been able to direct proper corporate governance. When our markets first formed, certain regulations were needed to create their basic framework of functionality – but in today’s age when government uses its own methods to control corporate governance, it is to both corporations’ and investors’ detriment.
Works Cited
Bruno, V., & Claessens, S. (2010). Corporate governance and regulation: Can there be too much. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 461-482.
McKinsey & Company. (2002). Global Investor Opinion Survery: Key Findings.
A possible flaw of Sarbanes-Oxley is it failed to put up any resistance in thwarting the financial crisis. While the degree to which fraudulent behavior can be traced to the roots of the Great Panic of 2007 will likely be up for eternal debate, it might be telling that Sarbanes-Oxley effectively did nothing. It seems this could indicate that stronger incentives for whistleblowers (such as Dodd-Frank and perhaps other whistleblower protection regimes) are very necessary given the extreme social costs. This conclusion may be hasty, however, given the short time period between the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley and the crash. Not only is the status of Sarbanes-Oxley still in flux over a decade later, but one has to consider the substantial learning and switching costs associated with a regime with such a substantial ruach. Certainly, this is not to say that additional protections may in fact be necessary given the putative reluctance of lawyers to report fraud, but Sarbanes-Oxley likely needed more time to really crystalize and provide some level of predictability before it can be declared a bust.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s policies haven’t really been implemented to the extent that regulators would have liked. Although the legislation takes many steps in addressing systematic risks in the United States financial system and improving coordination among regulators, some critics believe that alternative options might have been more effective. The coming years will give us a better understanding of how well the Dodd-Frank Act addressed these concerns.
Throughout the past several years major corporate scandals have rocked the economy and hurt investor confidence. The largest bankruptcies in history have resulted from greedy executives that “cook the books” to gain the numbers they want. These scandals typically involve complex methods for misusing or misdirecting funds, overstating revenues, understating expenses, overstating the value of assets or underreporting of liabilities, sometimes with the cooperation of officials in other corporations (Medura 1-3). In response to the increasing number of scandals the US government amended the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 to mitigate these problems. Sarbanes Oxley has extensive regulations that hold the CEO and top executives responsible for the numbers they report but problems still occur. To ensure proper accounting standards have been used Sarbanes Oxley also requires that public companies be audited by accounting firms (Livingstone). The problem is that the accounting firms are also public companies that also have to look after their bottom line while still remaining objective with the corporations they audit. When an accounting firm is hired the company that hired them has the power in the relationship. When the company has the power they can bully the firm into doing what they tell them to do. The accounting firm then loses its objectivity and independence making their job ineffective and not accomplishing their goal of honest accounting (Gerard). Their have been 379 convictions of fraud to date, and 3 to 6 new cases opening per month. The problem has clearly not been solved (Ulinski).
Are businesses in corporate America making it harder for the American public to trust them with all the recent scandals going on? Corruptions are everywhere and especially in businesses, but are these legal or are they ethical problems corporate America has? Bruce Frohnen, Leo Clarke, and Jeffrey L. Seglin believe it may just be a little bit of both. Frohnen and Clarke represent their belief that the scandals in corporate America are ethical problems. On the other hand, Jeffrey L. Seglin argues that the problems in American businesses are a combination of ethical and legal problems. The ideas of ethical problems in corporate America are illustrated differently in both Frohnen and Clarke’s essay and Seglin’s essay.
Huy, D. T. N., 2012. The Backbone of International Corporate Governance Standards : Case Studies and Analysis. s.l.:Lulu.com.
The term “ethical business” is seen, by many people, as an oxymoron. This is because a business’s main objective is to make as much money as possible. Making the most money possible, however, can often lead to unethical actions. Companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Satyam have been the posterchildren for how corporations’ greed lead to unethical practices. In recent times however, companies have been accused of being unethical based on, not how they manage their finances, but on how they treat the society that they operate in. People have started to realize that the damage companies have been doing to the world around them is more impactful and far worse than any financial fraud that these companies might be engaging in. Events like the BP oil
In previous years the big financial institutions that are “too big to fail” have come to realize that they can “cheat” the system and make big money on it by making poor decisions and knowing that they will be bailed out without having any responsibly for their actions. And when they do it they also escape jail time for such action because of the fear that if a criminal case was filed against any one of the so called “too big to fail” financial institutions it...
Bibliography: Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate governance: its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5 (4), pp. 180--205.
The end of 2001 and the start of 2002 saw the end of a period of magnified share prices and booming businesses. All speculations of misrepresentation came to light and those firms which once seem unconquerable were now filing for bankruptcy. Within this essay, I shall discuss the corporate governance mechanisms and failures which led to the Enron scandal resulting in global corporate governance reforms being encouraged.
Organizations that only have top management as the board members are more susceptible to accounting malpractices. Members of the board should preferably own shares in the company to ensure diligence when it comes to the interests of the company. Apart from the Board of Governors, there should also be an audit committee in place to oversee the financial dealings of the bank. Members of the board and the audit committee should have basic financial knowledge. Some of the members should also be experts in finances so that they can detect any anomaly that may take place in terms of financial reporting. An overhaul of the regulatory framework is required to empower authorities to intervene immediately, and make improvements. New technology is required. Manual antiquated processes should be eliminated because this causes greater human error and poor
Tsui, J., & Gul, F. A. (2002). Consultancy on a Survey on the Corporate Governance Regimes in Other Jurisdictions in Connection with the Corporate Governance Review. Hong Kong: CityU Professional Services Ltd.
Nottingham Trent University. (2013). Lecture 1 - An Introduction to Corporate Governance. Available: https://now.ntu.ac.uk/d2l/le/content/248250/viewContent/1053845/View. Last accessed 16th Dec 2013.
Angola is one of those countries that is full of such examples. It is also full of contradictions and inefficiencies that dictate that more than often these interventions are only temporary on not fully abided by.
..., S. A., & MEERA, A. K. (2013). Let's Move to "Universal Corporate Governance Theory".. Journal of Internet Banking & Commerce, 18(2), 1-11.
The failure of adequate board accountability has indicated strong adverse effects on corporate performance including, the bankruptcy of various public companies, thereby casting serious doubt on the credibility and efficacy of board accountability. For example, Lehman Brothers scandal, the largest bankruptcy in U.S history, Northern Rock was a large failure of a financial institution in the United Kingdom (Hull 2015:16). In Ireland, the Anglo-Irish Bank created a huge bubble that plunged the state into economic recession. In September 28, 2008, the Irish Government signed into law, the “bank guarantee” which provided with immediate effect a guarantee arrangement to safeguard all deposits in retail, commercial, institutional and interbank transactions, covered bonds, senior debt and dated subordinated debt (Lenihan 2008). Banks in Ireland clearly needed yet more capital from the State (Irish Times 19 November 2011) and this underscores the need for the government’s bailout