Views on improving the integrity of global capital markets
24 February 2014

Corp Gov OECD Principles Prompt Question: What Information Do Investors Really Want?

I recently attended a roundtable series held in Mumbai on 11–12 February on corporate governance issues. The event was organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) with support from the government of Japan. In one of the sessions, I had the privilege of chairing a small group discussion reviewing one of the six principles of the 2004 OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Participants in the group included corporate governance experts representing various areas across the region such as the Asian Development Bank, International Finance Cooperation, World Bank, market regulators, stock exchanges, government ministries, as well as associations of company directors, corporate secretaries, and minority shareholders.

The group’s discussion centered on disclosure and transparency enumerated in Principle V, which states that a company’s corporate governance framework should ensure that timely and accurate disclosure is made on all material matters regarding the corporation, including its financial situation, performance, ownership, and governance. After more than three hours of debate, the group recommended that the OECD include in the revised version a simple-to-understand summary statement that would disclose useful information and transparently report potential conflicts that could affect the investment decision-making process.

To reach this conclusion, we started by addressing a fundamental question. Why disclose? We concluded that disclosure provides information that is factual, accurate, timely, understandable, and material for investment decision-making purposes. This ultimately builds a more efficient financial marketplace.

In terms of what to disclose, the answer centered on four key areas that the group felt were relevant for any investor:

  1. What are the prospects of the company? Important issues to be addressed include, which markets are important to the company, its key business focus areas, its resource allocation criteria, and how it develops and monitors its strategy.
  2. What can go wrong and where are the risks? The group felt that although this was discussed in some detail in annual reports, most discussions were boilerplate-driven. We surmised that the important information that investors would want to know relate to endogenous (or internal) risks, particularly those arising from operations and staffing. The process of risk assessment and management was also highlighted as an important aspect missing from most annual reports. Finally, with technology being an integral part of any organisation’s ecosystem these days, most felt that technological risk is not sufficiently understood and addressed.
  3. Who are the people running the company? A participant lamented that not enough information is provided on the human aspect of the organisation. As a director of many companies, he had seen enough to prompt him to express concern that the election of board directors in many companies is a shameful exercise of simply going through the motions. A number of issues not sufficiently addressed includes why a board’s composition is the way it is, how a director has contributed to the firm, what role he is expected to play when he is re-elected, and why a new director is recommended to the board. The group contended that the chair of the nomination committee must play a bigger role in explaining and disclosing the process, reasons, and rationale for nominating each director on the board. Lastly, the group felt that not enough information is provided on the performance of the executive management, particularly the CEO.
  4. What could affect investors’ judgment of directors who are supposed to act in their best interests? Although related-party transactions were featured as a main reason, most felt that regulations protecting minority shareholders were sufficiently developed in most countries in the region. The real bugbear was in not knowing the real owner of a corporation, as companies in Asia tend to have very opaque structures, particularly through pyramiding. Two other disclosures relating to directors were suggested. The first relates to side agreements a director may have with a shareholder to vote in the same manner. The second relates to share pledging by directors who are also substantial shareholders in the company — a development that is becoming more prevalent in a number of countries and posing an increasing problem when the stock prices start to fall, triggering margin calls.

As the OECD reviews its 2004 Corporate Governance Principles, we hope that it recommends clarity and simplicity of language in the area of disclosure and transparency. As explained above, investors really want to know four things:

  1. Where is the company heading?
  2. What can go wrong?
  3. How capable are the people running the company?
  4. Are they doing it fully in the interest of shareowners?

Photo credit:

About the Author(s)
Tony Tan, DBA, CFA

Tony Tan, DBA, CFA, is co-head of the CFA Institute Ethics, Standards, and Professional Conduct division. He is particularly responsible for ethics education offerings and the professional standards of CFA Institute. He is also a member of CFA Society Singapore.

4 thoughts on “Corp Gov OECD Principles Prompt Question: What Information Do Investors Really Want?”

  1. I would say most of the questions posed in this article should be answered in the CG Report providing sufficient detail. I think this is where a lot of organizations may fail or are weak in the non financial reporting part of the annual report. I also would say most organizations may not go into much detail regarding Q.2 above since they don’t have to. For example, the HK Code on Corporate Governance does not require Listed Issuers to disclose risk management processes or the risks identified as part of the process.

    Ultimately most organizations may not have the inclination to include everything they should in the annual report because actually, writing this stuff is quite hard! Take your boiler plate annual report and repeat! The other factor is time. The lack thereof.

  2. José Díaz Morales says:

    Very interesting note. I´m fully agree that risk information should be adressed and improved both internally and externally.

  3. Derek Jackson says:

    I think transparency could be improved with more concise CG reports per my earlier note, but clearly to address both points 1 and 2 of the article, investors/stakeholders really need to take note of the forward looking statements by the CEO or Chairman disclosed in the annual report. Of course, we all strive for real-time data but its never going to happen unless we change point-in-time reporting from once or twice a year to something more regular and more focused perhaps on risk.

    The simple answer to the question ‘What information do investors really want’ could be: ‘The same timely information that drives stock markets up and down’

  4. Tony Tan, DBA, CFA says:

    Thank you all for your comments. At the discussion, the main discussion on risk issues was related to internal risk. Most members agreed that external risk is pretty well covered, but very little information is available on internal risk. Questions like, “were there any fraud cases in the company,” “are operations able to cope with the changing business model and environment,” etc. all came up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.