Just because a Board does not have female directors does not mean it is discriminating against females becoming directors.
State Street Global Advisors takes the view that an all-male roster of directors — a bizarre circumstance found in none of the 505 U.S. S&P 500 Index companies — is presumptive evidence of discrimination, or more importantly for its investors presumptive evidence of cronyism and possible corruption. SSGA applies this particular, simple filter as one important way to determine whether corporate boards are at least decently functioning, or whether there might be larger issues involving lack of independent oversight and poor governance. Every rational retail shareholder ought to want good corporate governance, and that’s SSGA’s goal here. They’ve picked one “sanity check” reasonable measurement to achieve their goal of strengthening independent corporate governance. It’s not their only metric.
Good corporate governance does not mean reserving a seat for a woman on the Board; it means giving equal consideration to any person, regardless of gender, evaluated solely based on their merits and potential contribution to the company.
Yes, and with all the talented female director candidates, and more every year, if you have an all-male board in 2020 in Singapore as a 30 STI company then presumptively the company has failed to form and maintain a functioning, strong, competent board exercising independent oversight. SSGA wants to discuss what’s going on and won’t unreservedly support an incumbent board until SSGA is satisfied with the answers.
As it happens, the government is well aligned with this approach and tacitly endorses it, as I read the press reports. What’s wrong with shareholders demanding stronger governance and less (preferably zero) cronyism? Nothing!
A tokenistic approach to putting a woman on the Board (who could, for example, be the sister of one of the directors) does nothing for corporate governance, though it may help the share price of the company as evidence of "inclusivity".
Correct, and that’s not SSGA’s view. An all-male board is
evidence of weak governance, a simple assessment metric. It’s not the only metric.
I prefer to fight for the rights of left-handers (such an amazing pun) instead as their brains are wired differently from most of us and could have much to contribute.
That’s not currently one of SSGA’s board assessment metrics, but broadly speaking shareholders should be controlling. They’re the owners, after all — that’s how capitalism works.
Although I think reserving a director seat for C++ programmers is also a wise proposition. It is after all one of the most difficult languages to code in and requires some level of intellect to pick-up. There are simply too many Python coders these days.
That’s not one of SSGA’s filters either, but if some other shareholder(s) want a director who knows how to program in C++, that’s fine. They own the company, and that’s capitalism.
crazy affirmative action going on nowadays
if women are good they will rise up, no this kind of forced bullshiet
SSGA would like to know whether 6 STI companies have boards that are cesspools of cronyism, because that’s what an all-male board in 2020 in Singapore at one of the 30 largest companies may indicate. As a shareholding owner of these companies, they’d like reasonable answers from the board about what’s going on, or they will withhold their support starting with directors who should have long ago realized “Something is not right here.” Assuming the director isn’t corrupt or incompetent, of course, in which case SSGA won’t be supporting that director regardless, and assuming SSGA figures that out.
people who buy SG stocks are idiots.
that's all.
They’re idiots if they don’t press for strong, effective, independent corporate governance — unless they are parties benefitting from cronyism. SSGA is not run by idiots, thank goodness.
But OK, no problem, if you disagree with SSGA’s modest efforts to improve corporate governance (or its “tripwire” governance metric), pick another fund manager with weaker corporate governance objectives. Or invest in these stocks directly and vote opposite SSGA. Capitalism and free markets are fully functioning here, and you get to decide.
